Jonesboro committee hears debate over proposed sports advisory board; no vote taken

The Jonesboro Public Services Committee on a special-called meeting Tuesday reviewed a tabled ordinance (No. 26,013) to create a sports advisory board and heard extensive public comment and staff testimony but took no vote; the committee chair said the matter will go back to City Council the following night.

The hearing opened with LJ Bryant reading an email from AMP commissioner Jerry Morgan that urged the committee to add oversight rather than view the proposal as a "hostile takeover." The email, read into the record, said AMP grants to Jonesboro parks and recreation over the past eight years total "almost $2,500,000" and estimated recreational league sports received about 80% of the benefit while outside-team weekend tournaments received less than 20%.

Why it matters: speakers said the ordinance could change who reviews or approves use of AMP hotel-tax funds tied to sports facilities and events. Residents and advisory members argued the change could protect city youth programs from decisions made without committee input; others warned it might create redundant committees and governance confusion.

Resident and coach David Daniel said the situation was "a mess" and urged cooperation: "we gotta take all egos away," he said, arguing volunteers on the parks committee "want what's best for our kids." Jay Clevenger, a former committee member, urged inviting AMP and facilities-board representatives into existing committees rather than creating an adversarial structure, calling for collaboration "to do what's best for Jonesboro."

Parks leadership emphasized priorities and capacity limits. Parks Director Jim Stearns told the committee the department had focused on youth programs and facility maintenance while an investigation is underway and said the parks operation had supported more than 200 partnered events in the prior year. Stearns estimated a dedicated sports-tourism effort would require a coordinator and roughly 10 additional staff and warned that most current sports programs operate with minimal staffing (he said softball had four staff, while basketball, volleyball, soccer and football generally had one coordinator each).

Several residents raised access and equity concerns. Sarah Cook, a parent, said another committee could "get a little convoluted" and make it hard for parents to know which body controls different decisions; Dr. Anne McGee, a professor and parent, cautioned that an emphasis on tourism should not crowd out recreational programs for children with limited means or special needs, saying such children could be "left behind" if priorities were shifted toward outside events. McGee cited discussion of a roughly $70,000,000 facility project as an example of large capital investments that prompt concerns about long-term access and affordability.

Contractor Brandon, representing the private sports-facility operator working on the Sportsplex, said his company runs events and leagues under agreements with parks departments but deferred on whether marketing and sports-tourism functions would be handled by vendors or by AMP-style commissions.

No formal action was taken on the ordinance at the meeting. The chair reiterated the committee would not vote and that the ordinance will return to the full City Council for consideration the next day. The committee adjourned after a voice motion.

What to watch next: the City Council session when Ordinance 26,013 is formally considered; committee members and public speakers said they expect questions about AMP fund oversight, staffing needs for sports tourism, and measures to guarantee continued access for local youth.