Representative Ed Garner

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (1:23:42)

recognized. Same song, second verse. All parties agree. Thank

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (1:22:55)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is clarifying language. All parties agree. Thank you. I appreciate a good vote. According

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (40:15)

I think I've, whew, discussed it. I think we've debated well. I would

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (40:07)

be willing to let people raise taxes on themselves to make that liability go away.

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (39:45)

But the trend is ever-growing, and I can issue tax-free bonds at a flat rate, low rate, and make that liability go away on a closed pension fund. If that deal works and ends up saving my municipality money, and five years down the road, that's gone away, and I've saved that money, that's a good deal. And I would

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (39:24)

you. And again, if I'm presented with an ever-growing liability and an undetermined bill that I have to pay lot fee that calls up my city and says, this year you're going to pay $100,000, this year you're going to pay $200,000, next year you're going to pay $175,000,

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (39:03)

is true, but let me clarify, it is voted on by the electorate. It is not just the city board.

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (38:02)

and I can see that by voting a tax increase and that unfunded liability that no longer raises or goes away, he's not paying attention. Representative Woods,

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (37:29)

And it is a beneficial thing because it ends up saving money as that liability goes away. But, yes, sir, there is the possibility that they could vote. They could vote. So you are for raising taxes? I did not. No, I'm not for that. I am for saving the

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (37:56)

to clarify that. If I can look at the liability of the municipality

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (37:04)

believe that I'm correct on this. That is not possible. My last question is this. On the taxes, yes. If the people voted to, and it's my understanding of this, and it may be for the development project, but it is certainly possible in language

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (37:20)

in the bill for the retirement of debt that the city and the

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (36:54)

I do not think eminent domain for that purpose – for the purpose of a commercial private development of someone else. No, sir, I strongly

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (37:26)

municipality owes to the closed pension fund.

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (36:37)

it's possible? I do not. I mean, according to – we've had other issues come up with respect to the rights of private property. Other people in here have pointed out the fact that we do have the most stringent private property rights maybe in the nation.

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (36:26)

raised? Yes. Well, number one, I don't have any fear of the use of eminent domain to take private property. Possible. I don't think it's possible, sir. You don't think

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (35:50)

and I don't think this does anything to change that, and I don't think

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (35:15)

I haven't seen it done. When those issues were raised in other states, Arkansas's Constitution was brought up as an example of how that could, even though the debate was in Maryland or whatever, Arkansas was brought up as an example that that could not happen. In my research on this, it doesn't change

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (35:37)

that. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I know that that issue is solid in Arkansas,

Meeting — April 1, 2011 (34:41)

nowhere in the bill. We have one of the strongest property rights