ISSUE 3: What are your thoughts and questions?

The Sherwood Chamber of Commerce is YES on 3. We want you to know everything you can to stay informed.

Supporters of Issue 3 believe Arkansas communities need additional economic development tools to compete for businesses, jobs, and investment. They argue that local leaders should have greater flexibility to pursue opportunities that might otherwise go to neighboring states.

Opponents raise a different concern. They argue that these tools could allow government to pick winners and losers, providing financial incentives to selected businesses while existing businesses and taxpayers shoulder the potential costs. Some describe this as corporate welfare. Both perspectives raise questions worth considering. Where do you stand?

What does Issue 3 actually do?

Issue 3 is a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution. If approved by voters on November 3, it would authorize the General Assembly to establish economic development districts and provide new economic development financing powers.

In 2025, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 647, which proposed an initial framework for establishing these districts. That bill was referred for further study and was not enacted.

This November's vote is therefore about more than expressing an opinion to legislators.

A YES vote would amend the Arkansas Constitution and authorize the Legislature to develop the laws governing these new powers. A NO vote would leave the proposed constitutional changes unadopted.

If the amendment passes, lawmakers would still need to address important questions about district governance, taxation, financing, accountability, and protections for taxpayers. For a nonpartisan explanation of the amendment, I encourage you to review the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service's Issue 3 fact sheet below.

Doesn't Arkansas already have business incentives?

Yes, and this is an important part of the discussion. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration lists 41 business incentive and tax credit categories. Some are no longer available for new projects, and many have specific industry, investment, or employment requirements.

Supporters of Issue 3 argue that, despite these existing programs, Arkansas cities and counties lack some of the local financing tools available in other states, particularly for retail and commercial development.

Opponents question whether additional incentive authority is necessary and whether those new powers would benefit established businesses as much as new developments.

Arkansas already has certain local incentive mechanisms, but Issue 3 would expand the constitutional authority available for economic development.

The question is not simply whether Arkansas offers incentives. It's whether the additional powers proposed under Issue 3 are needed, how they would be used, and who would benefit. Consider Texarkana, a community divided by the Arkansas–Texas state line. Supporters point to differences in development activity across the border as an example of why local financing flexibility matters.

Where does this leave Sherwood?

Ask yourself this: are we building a community where our children can receive a quality education, graduate, find meaningful employment, and build their own futures without having to leave the place they call home? That question goes well beyond one election.

It speaks to workforce development, education, infrastructure, business recruitment, and the long-term strength of our community.

Sherwood has opportunities for growth, but we also have families with different incomes, needs, and priorities. Consider an entertainment business such as Slick City. For some families, an outing there may be a regular activity. For others, it may be an occasional luxury. Yet a business can contribute to a community in ways beyond its direct customers. It may create jobs, generate sales tax revenue, attract visitors, and help support other businesses.

On the other hand, bringing in new businesses can involve infrastructure expenses, public incentives, and competition with established local businesses.

So, here's the question: when a community uses its resources to attract a business that not every resident may directly use, can the broader economic benefits justify the investment? And equally important: how do we ensure that businesses already investing in Sherwood have opportunities to grow and succeed alongside the businesses we recruit? These are the kinds of decisions local leaders must confront.

Where does your Chamber fit into this?

Your Chamber exists to advocate for a strong business environment, provide information, create opportunities, and ensure our members have a voice in decisions affecting our local economy.

We work with the Arkansas State Chamber, our elected officials, and local government to communicate the needs and concerns of Sherwood businesses.

Our Board of Directors has a responsibility to determine when and how the Chamber should engage in advocacy, including whether to formally support or oppose an issue and how to responsibly use member resources.

But that process should begin with understanding the issue and hearing from you.

Economic growth matters. So do fairness, accountability, local control, and protecting the businesses that have already invested in our community. Issue 3 raises questions about all of them. Would greater local economic development authority help Sherwood shape its own future? What safeguards would you want in place? And what should the Chamber be communicating to our legislators on your behalf? I want to hear from you. Your voice matters. Your investment in this community matters. And your Chamber should reflect the priorities of the businesses it represents. Let's have the conversation. Your Chamber. Your Voice. Your Community.

Many if not all Chambers support Issue 3 on the basis that a rising tide lifts all ships. The push is to amend the constitution so lawmakers can build a framework that puts localities in control. Your Chamber's top five questions we will focus on when this passes are:

1. Will existing Sherwood businesses qualify for economic development district assistance on comparable terms to new businesses?
2. Can the legislature guarantee that district-created taxes and assessments will not increase the total tax burden on existing property owners?
3. How will school districts and county governments be compensated if property within a development district becomes exempt from their ordinary property taxes?
4. Will every district issuance of property-tax-backed debt require voter approval, or can district authorities borrow independently?
5. What financial reporting, public hearings, conflict-of-interest restrictions, and independent feasibility studies will be mandatory before incentives are awarded?

And if Sherwood NEVER uses the tools being fought for, a rural community can. Then those in the rural community can come visit Slick City in Sherwood. Rising tides!

University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service

Let us hear your thoughts @ Feedback Form

March 2, 2027

Voters within the proposed district boundaries will decide whether to establish the Sherwood School District. A simple majority is required.

• September 8: The PCSSD Board voted 6–1 to advance the detachment process.

Voters keep asking the same question:

Can Sherwood establish an independent school district that improves educational outcomes without creating an unsustainable financial burden on residents and businesses?

$64.3 million in projected annual revenue. The below data has been shared by the foundation.

PCSSD currently carries approximately $304 million in outstanding debt across eight loans, with roughly $17 million paid annually toward principal and interest.

While the exact amount of debt a newly established Sherwood School District would assume has not been determined, we can use existing financial data to better understand the potential challenges.

According to the most recent financial reports submitted to the state, PCSSD reported total expenditures of $224,487,557, with a net expenditure figure of $173,148,491 after adjustments. Revenue from all sources, excluding special financing, totaled $199,081,296.

The proposed Sherwood School District is expected to serve approximately 40% of PCSSD's current student population. If we apply that same percentage to PCSSD's reported net expenditures, Sherwood's proportional share would be approximately $69.3 million annually.

That figure exceeds the proposed district's projected annual revenue of $64.3 million by approximately $5 million.

Of course, this is a simplified comparison. Operating costs do not necessarily transfer proportionally with student enrollment. Administrative expenses, transportation, staffing, facilities, debt obligations, and other factors could significantly change the financial picture.

It is reasonable to expect that, if voters approve the new district, its school board will work to establish a responsible budget and operate within available resources. However, the financial comparison raises an important question worth answering before the election:

How will the proposed Sherwood School District provide the necessary educational services, manage its share of existing debt, and maintain financial stability within its projected $64.3 million annual revenue?

These are not necessarily arguments for or against an independent district. They are just conversations to be aware of and work through for the future success of the district. If 69 million is the highest ball park figure, how great of an accomplishment would it be for the new board to make education fall below that for Sherwood?