Pine Bluff Mayor Vivian Flowers cast the deciding vote during Monday’s City Council meeting to reject a resolution expanding Urban Renewal boundaries, halting a proposal that supporters said could unlock grant funding but critics argued lacked data, clarity, and public confidence.
Council Members Glen Brown Jr., Lloyd Holcomb Jr., Lanette Frazier, and Bruce Lockett voted in favor. Yvonne Denton, Steven Mays, and William Fells opposed the measure, while council LaTisha Brunson was not present for the vote, resulting in a “no” count.
The resolution sought to amend existing Urban Renewal plans by designating additional areas as “blighted,” a classification city officials said would allow the Pine Bluff Urban Renewal Agency to pursue redevelopment efforts and compete for outside funding.
The areas are characterized by dilapidated and aging buildings that do not meet current codes, high demolition activity, environmental contamination and inadequate infrastructure:
— Area 1: Bounded by U.S. 65, 34th Avenue, Ohio Street and Hazel Street.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1881.
— Area 2: Bounded by Watson Boulevard to Civitan Drive, U.S. 65, Arkansas River and University Drive/North Birch Street.
— Area 3: Bounded by East 16th Avenue, East 17th Avenue to Frontage Road, Ohio Street and Interstate 530.
— Area 4: Bounded by Sixth Avenue, 28th Avenue, Hazel Street and Oakwood Road.
Flowers raised concerns about the broader implications of the designation, including its impact on residents. During the discussion, she questioned how the city would justify the move to constituents, noting the absence of both data and immediate funding.
Others pointed to community feedback opposing further expansion of the Urban Renewal Agency’s footprint.
“Based on a lot of the feedback that I am getting, I don’t believe that most of my constituents are comfortable with allocating new funds to jumpstart new Urban Renewal programs,” Fells said.
He warned even if the resolution did not directly allocate money, it could lead to future financial commitments.
“I do believe that the ultimate objective of expanding these boundaries is so that in the future the city would have an opportunity to commit matching dollars,” he said.
Another major concern was whether Urban Renewal’s efforts would duplicate work already being handled by the city’s code enforcement department.
“I think that those funds should go to our code enforcement department,” Fells said. “I think that this would just be duplicating what the department is already doing.”
Supporters of the resolution argued it was a necessary step to position Pine Bluff for future investment, particularly through grants and redevelopment opportunities.
Lockett, who sponsored the legislation, emphasized that the measure itself did not commit funding but instead created eligibility.
“This legislation does not force us to actually do anything physically,” he said. “It’s for us to be able to identify the areas and to be able to apply for grants.”
Urban Renewal Executive Director Chandra Griffin stressed the importance of expanding efforts to all wards of the city, noting previous criticism that some areas had been excluded.
“If there is any grant funding that’s available, all the wards can be distributed equally and actually utilize it,” she said.
Lockett framed the resolution as a low-risk step to increase capacity for redevelopment.
“It doesn’t create any policy other than saying that they can seek grants that might be able to expand the footprint,” he said.
Despite those arguments, frustration grew over what some described as incomplete information and rushed consideration.
Mays openly questioned moving forward without clearer answers.
“We’re looking for answers that we should already have,” he said, referring to confusion over whether a specific street listed within one of the proposed areas was actually located in Pine Bluff.
Frazier questioned the accuracy of the map and boundaries, saying she could not identify a referenced street and wanted to ensure it wasn’t an error.
The concern raised the possibility that the resolution may have included incorrect or unclear geographic references, which added to broader hesitation about approving the measure without verified details.
That uncertainty fed into larger concerns expressed throughout the meeting that council members were being asked to designate areas as “blighted” without fully vetted maps, supporting data, or clear documentation.
Lockett noted during the debate that although blight is present throughout Pine Bluff, state regulations prohibit a citywide designation. While he favored labeling the entire city as blighted, he clarified legal requirements necessitate a block-by-block approach for Urban Renewal areas.
“Most of our communities have some blight, but I was told that one couldn’t declare a whole city as an Urban Renewal area, because the law specified that you had to carve out parcels block by block,” he said.
Flowers also pressed Lockett about the basis for bringing the measure forward and whether he had access to supporting data. She asked directly what information guided his decision.
“Is there any such information made available to you that served as a basis for you doing this at this time?” she asked.
Lockett responded that his reasoning was largely centered on creating opportunities for outside funding and development.
“Every meeting that Urban Renewal has, they send me an email. … It’s not like they don’t invite [us],” Lockett said while acknowledging that he doesn’t attend those meetings.