2026-09-09 · Arkansas · Courts

Two improvement districts in Horseshoe Bend filed annual reports that left out some commissioners' email and postal addresses and named the wrong tax collector. The mayor replaced both elected boards with appointed administrators, and in December 2025 the Arkansas Court of Appeals held he was entitled to.¹

For anyone who runs, or lives in, an Arkansas community governed by an improvement district rather than a property owners association, this is the sharpest reminder available that the district's paperwork is not administrative housekeeping. It is the condition of the board's continued existence.

The districts and the reports

Chevallier v. DeLair concerns Horseshoe Bend's Municipal Recreational Facilities Improvement District — which runs lakes, an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and a pool — and its Municipal Street Improvement District. Both are funded by assessments on the property owners inside them.

The Improvement District Transparency Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-86-2101 to -2105, was enacted in 2011 and amended in 2021. It requires a district that uses the county collector to file an annual report with the county clerk, and provides that the report is “available for inspection and copying by assessed landowners.”

The statute says the report “shall contain” an enumerated list — twelve items, including the total existing delinquent assessments and who is responsible for collecting them; identification of the district's directors, commissioners and officers with “names, phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses”; the date, time and location of scheduled meetings; the assessor's contact details; who the county treasurer pays; an explanation of statutory penalties, interest and costs; the method used to compute assessments; and a statement itemising income, expenditures and fund balances for the most recent fiscal year.

Both districts filed for fiscal year 2021 in March 2022. In January 2023 a newly elected mayor, Duane DeLair, took office, identified deficiencies, and appointed administrators to act in place of the commissioners.

What the court held

The circuit court found the reports substantially complied with most of the list. Omitting commissioners' email and postal addresses, and identifying the previous tax collector by name, “are not material to the essence of the transparency act's reporting requirements” where personal phone numbers and the collector's office were disclosed. But it found the street district's report fell short on the contracts item, and it upheld the appointments.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the supreme court's rule that “substantial compliance with a statute is not shown unless it is made to appear that the purpose of the statute is shown to have been served,” it held: “The circuit court correctly found that the districts' incomplete annual reports frustrate the clear purpose of the Improvement District Transparency Act. Here, the information omitted from the annual reports was necessary for taxpayers to fully understand the … operations and finances.”

1. Chevallier v. DeLair, 2025 Ark. App. 602 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2025) (No. CV-24-65) — slip opinion, full text ↩
2. Act 422 of 2025 (SB424), adding Ark. Code Ann. § 14-88-506 and amending § 14-89-1501(a) — enrolled text ↩
3. Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2026-062 (July 29, 2026) — declining to approve the Holiday Island interlocal agreement ↩
4. Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2026-080 (Aug. 21, 2026) — approving the revised Holiday Island interlocal agreement ↩