City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1773
Act 973
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1773 Dismang AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID LEAVE FOR 1…”
|
CRUMP'S LAW. | Clowney | Notification that HB1773 is now Act 973 |
|
HB1896
Act 1025
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…tive Gates. You're going to be presenting which bill? 1896? House Bill 1896. Representative Gage, you're recognized.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. | Gates | Notification that HB1896 is now Act 1025 |
|
HB1385
Act 983
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1385 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1385 is now Act 983 |
|
HB1554
Act 838
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1554 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXATION INTO AN ADJOINING MUNICIPALITY. | Penzo | Notification that HB1554 is now Act 838 |
|
HB1820
Act 1051
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1820 Gonzales CONCERNING FIREARMS; CONCERNING FIREARM NOISE SUPP…”
|
CONCERNING FIREARMS; CONCERNING FIREARM NOISE SUPPRESSORS AND MACHINE GUNS; AND CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL … | Gonzales | Notification that HB1820 is now Act 1051 |
|
SB179
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB179 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. | M. Johnson | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB223
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB223 T. Garner PERMITTING A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE TO APPLY FO…”
|
PERMITTING A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE AN EXPEDITED AND TEMPORARY … | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB461
Act 1077
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB461 Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION 16 OF AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION OF AND TIMING OF TAX COLLECTION IN CERTAIN … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB461 is now Act 1077 |
|
SB660
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB660 T. Garner TO MODERNIZE THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING FRAM…”
|
TO MODERNIZE THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING FRAMEWORK; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN. | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Speaker 2
1:00
We're waiting on an amendment for dismounts, Bill. John, are
Speaker 4
1:06
we waiting on an amendment for you? I can, I mean, this is the amendment. I don't know what you're going to get over here. I thought it would be here right now. Okay, that is the amendment. Yeah, so I mean, I can. Spend a bill? Yeah, we can do it a couple different ways if y'all want. We can wait and just put it on the floor. Okay. Or if she gets it in here, we can adopt it. Or we all can adopt a burgle and then it's up to y'all. I can call Carrie real fast.
Speaker 15
2:01
her. Oh, okay. Do you have an extra copy of that movie? Yes,
Speaker 21
2:15
here. I'll put it down. Thank you.
And Gates is ready to roll. Okay. That is amendment. Chair sees
a quorum. I'm going to call this meeting
of city, county, local to order. The first item of business today will be Representative Gates. You're going to be presenting which bill? 1896? House Bill 1896. Representative Gage, you're recognized.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
2:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee. Out in the rural areas in Arkansas to create a water or sewer improvement district, landowners get together and they get somebody, an engineer, an attorney, to do the specs and the engineering aspect of it. People go out and get signatures, and at the top of the petition, it just says petition. They tell people they want to get a petition to create a water district or sewer district, not realizing that that's not a petition for an election.
It's when 51% of the landowners signed the petition, the district is created, and along with that comes all the liabilities incurred at that time. I had a district that was created. When they found out about it, it was too late. The district had already been created. The landowners had inherited $200,000 worth of attorney and engineering fees, and to date, not one inch of pipe was ever put in, and the landowners had to pay for it. So the main thing this bill does says at the top of every petition, in big letters, it says that a signature on this petition is a vote to create the district.
It doesn't mean they're going to be informed and know everything about it, but at least it gives them a vote or a notice that this is not just a regular petition, that this is actually a vote to create the district. Is he explaining the amendment? With that, I'll entertain any questions. Would you explain the amendment? I'm sorry, I forgot. There is an amendment. The original bill had in there that it would be posted in the paper of local distribution or a county website or the Secretary of State's website
and agreed upon amendment that we would change that to the and if available so it requires as much disclosure as possible. Okay. All right. So that's the amendment. Right. Committee, you've heard
an explanation of the amendment and the bill. Any questions?
Speaker 42
5:22
Any questions from committee members? Senator
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
5:29
Flowers? So this is a municipal improvement district. Well,
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
5:37
of municipalities because the municipalities already have those rights granted to them. This is generally outside, out
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
5:45
in the county, for instance. But
it says this is concerning a petition and notice to create a municipal improvement district.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
5:55
A water or, yes, predominantly a water or sewer district, but outside the meets and bounds
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
6:04
of a city. So I'm just trying to figure out what's the difference between all these different improvement districts. We've heard of now a suburban improvement district, a fire improvement district, and now what's the difference between a municipal improvement district and a municipal corporation?
I mean, one is a city, I guess, but what is a municipal improvement district? Is City Council, I mean, Municipal League
here to say, to tell us what these states mean? We have someone from the Municipal League here. This, I am,
Speaker 51
6:40
go ahead. That's okay. John Wilkerson with the
Speaker 54
6:46
Municipal League. I'm not sure I can offer much help on this one. Can I see the,
Speaker 10
6:54
sure. It's not a Municipal League. Yeah. Maybe outside the city.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
6:58
Right. Outside the City Council. Yes. Because this morning we had this bill that would allow a community or an area that has 1,500 people or more within three miles of a municipal corporation to petition a court to hold a vote to become a city.
So what is the difference? What does this do, a municipal improvement district? Charging people fees
and stuff? What's going on here? It has no effect on municipalities, so I'm afraid
Speaker 62
7:41
I can't offer much help on this one. Senator, if I can't address that,
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
7:46
for instance, most of my district lives outside cities, so in order to get water districts or sewer districts, they can't do that themselves. They have to create a district and to put in the infrastructure.
And so if they want to tie on to municipality, for instance, in Garland County, I think 65% of the water customers of the city of Hot Springs live outside the city of Hot Springs. So in order to get that water, they have to go out, create a district, and they do that by petition. Once that petition is granted, they put in a sewer district that the sewer provider requires them to put in. but it can't happen until that district is created, paid for, put in the pipe and all that stuff and then deed it over to the water provider or the sewer provider.
This just gives notice that when people sign their name, they're signing their name to a legal document that could obligate them to tens and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
8:39
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yeah,
and this bill looks like it deals with almost every kind of improvement district because on the second page it refers to the suburban improvement district. So you're changing the notice to at least 30 days after the filing of the petition.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
9:00
To do what, I don't know. If I may, it doesn't change the ability for districts to be created. It just creates the main thing it does. It creates notice that when somebody's putting their signature to something. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Second of all, right now, notice is given within 10 days. And this just says, it's
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:23
got to be at least 30. Notice of
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
9:26
what? Giving notice of the filing? That the water district is created for them to be able to appeal that district.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:35
At the county court? Yes, ma'am. And the notice has to be given 30 days, and it's in a newspaper once a
week for two weeks, and then these websites. Why are you doing the website at the
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
9:55
Secretary of State's office? If available, they're considering looking at a statewide website so that mandated people can be able to put their notices on the state website. It's not available at the moment.
But when it becomes available, that will be one of the ways they're able to publish. So this comes to transparency, and it just keeps people from giving the ability to be indebted because of enough people signed a signature, they become indebted simply because 51% of landowners signed a petition. It indebts their neighbor, and it gives them an appeal process to be able to make sure that was done legally and right. So
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
10:33
it takes 51% of the residents of that area?
That is the law. To get the petition before the
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
10:41
county? Once the petitions are signed, that district is created, And along with that, all indebtedness, all the attorney bills and all the engineering bills now become the debt of that district, whether they signed off on it or not. And that's one of the main reasons a lot of people, when you put a petition, would you sign my petition, they think that means, yeah, I want to vote on it. That's not what this petition is. A petition to create an improvement district is a signature only, and 51% landowners signed that petition.
The district is created and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:14
the debt. It's presented to the judge, the petition, to the county judge. The judge shall thereupon set a date. On page 3 you have, this is with a property owner's improvement district, line 10, section 5. And then 13, the judge shall thereupon set, and this is after the petition is done and it's filed with the county judge's office.
And then after that, the judge should set a date and time for the presentation of the petition to the judge. Yes, Senator.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
12:03
What that does is that keeps this from being rushed through within 10 days to say it because if you've got to notify the people. I'm
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
12:12
just trying to understand what you just said. You said that the mere fact that 51 percent of
the voters signed the petition automatically creates the improvement district. It has to be approved by the county judge, does it not?
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
12:26
After hearing. Unless there are unless there are people that show up to court to contest it, it is created. I've never seen, I've seen a lot of these districts in 20 years of sitting in the quorum court. I never saw a single district that once they got 51 percent, not one of them was ever denied, even though there were protesters, because
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
12:46
the legal definition was 51. The process requires an approval by the county judge.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
12:50
You have a right to appeal to
the county judge. Okay, Senator Flowers. Senator Gates, I mean Representative Gates, the whole crux of this is if the signature on the petition creates a district.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
13:01
It does already in law. This just notifies people when you sign a piece of paper, you're signing an indebtedness to be part of a district. Exactly. Okay. Any other questions from committee members? Anyone in the audience
signed up to speak for or against? All right. Is there a motion?
We have a motion? We have a motion? Senator Flippo, do pass.
I have a second from Senator Clark. Do pass as amended. As amended. We never did adopt the amendment, did we? We had you explain the amendment. Do you have competency of the amendment? Okay. We need to
adopt it. Yeah, we need to adopt the amendment. I need a motion to adopt the amendment first. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, now we have a motion. Do pass as amended. A due pass is amended. We have a due pass and a second.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
14:03
All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Representative Gage. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. A dismay. 1778. Senator Dismayne. You're going to have to suspend the report to say without objection. Yes, sir. I think you all understand some of the issues you have with calendaring. We had Thursday. We left early.
They voted bills out Thursday and Friday. We didn't mean on Friday. And so technically this bill is not on our agenda, even though it's been out there for quite a while. I do think all interested parties that had concerns for or against the bill have been notified. And what I'd like to do is ask the committee to add this bill to the calendar, House Bill 1773, to the calendar for consideration today. In order to do that, we are going to have to suspend
the rules. That's right. So I need to... I'm going to suspend the rules and place it. All right.
We have a motion to suspend the rules and place it on the calendar, and we
have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:14
Aye. All opposed? All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And members, so I've spent quite a bit of time even today thinking about how I want to
Speaker 82
15:22
present this bill. Pardon me, Senator Dismay. We do
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:24
have an amendment. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We'll go ahead and hand that out. House
Bill 1773. All right, Senator Dismayne, you want to explain the amendment?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:55
So there were some concerns in the discussions we've had with the league and some mayors that there was nothing that really required or a date certain that the relief network be established. And so that's what this amendment here actually accomplishes. My big hope is, and I know this does not get the league neutral, but I think it does ease some concerns. If I am successful here today and then on the floor, hopefully we'll be able to, with your willing and hopefully your blessing, go ahead and
get this amendment adopted and still be able to hear the bill tomorrow on the floor.
All right, we've had an accumulation of the amendment.
We have a motion to adopt the amendment. We have a second with Senator Filippo. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The amendment has been adopted. You're recognized to explain the bill.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
16:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like I said, so I've went back and forth on, you know, how you want to really present this. Do you want to go to the aspect of what it really amounts to, which is, in my opinion, we don't need firemen, firefighters having to fight fires to be able to keep their job, to be able to afford to pay their bills while they're fighting cancer.
I mean, if you just boil it down to its simplest form, I think that's what this bill does. I will say, however, there's been some pretty extensive conversation with the folks that are supportive of this bill and also the league. I think there has been some clarification. I'm going to try to go through some of that today just because I think you guys have heard a lot of different things from all sides. I don't think anything I'm about to say does anything but provide that clarification. I'm not going to try to misrepresent what the bill does or does not do, but, again, just some clarification, I think,
of what some issues were perceived to be, and I think, you know, there's a lot of wonders that can come from just having a conversation. So first, you know, this bill establishes for six months of sick leave if a firefighter has served for five years, and these are paid firefighters. These are not part-time firefighters. These are not volunteer firefighters. Additionally, Secondly, and that leave is allowed to occur if they contract or have formed a cancer, an occupational cause cancer.
That cancer is something that we've already defined in our code, and so you'll see a reference to that. That's something that we already acknowledge, that there are these certain sets of cancers that are scientifically thought of to be caused, and attributed to those in that line of work. Second, there's a creation of a relief network. One thing we didn't want to do when we were drafting this bill was just have six months of paid leave without any ability to financially help and support the cities.
And so this establishing this relief network will allow firemen from other cities, other jurisdictions to volunteer their time for the city being impacted. That will do a number of things. that will prevent that city from having to pay the overtime for the extra help that may be needed because of the situation that a firefighter is in. Second, it allows the use of catastrophic care to fill that six-month there. Again, the goal there is to help alleviate any potential costs that the city may incur.
Also in the bill, you'll see that there is a presumption that the cancer is caused from the work of the firefighter. However, it does, and I think this is important to note because it was a part of what was contested, it does allow the city with evidence to say that the cancer was not caused by the line of work of the firefighter. This can be achieved for a number of ways. It is intentionally left open-ended for the municipalities to be able to develop their own rules. So, for instance, every year when they sign up, they can have those in that line of service sign an affidavit
that they do not smoke, use tobacco products, have no pre-existing conditions, and that sort of thing. There's some discussion about should they be able to review the medical records. Again, that municipality could adopt those rules and regs to allow that to happen if someone were going to try to utilize the six months' worth of leave. And then ultimately what you see after that, so let's just say that the presumption is there, city decides that they're going to do a rebuttal, they submit their letter, whatever their process is that they have in place for that,
Ultimately, then, if it is contested, it will go to workman's comp. So that is kind of the last line, which I don't think any city or firefighter would want to have to go to that situation, but it is there as a possible remedy, and that would be up for the firefighter then to prove that the cancer was actually caused by the occupation. So that is what the bill actually does. So one thing that has been brought up a lot, and I do think we have an agreement on this, and I'm sure you'll hear from the league, for this, I'm not going to represent that it doesn't cost a city money
or have the potential to cost cities money. However, three things have to exist, and all three things have to exist for it to cost a city money. Number one, they have to be short-staffed. That's one. Number two, they do not have a catastrophic leave bank. Number two. Number three, we do not have this relief network. All three of those things have to be in place for a city. So we heard from a mayor earlier today that is short-staffed and
has no catastrophic leave bank established. And if we don't have this relief fund, then yes, he will be paying overtime if the volunteers don't exist. And that is part of the reason that you see that September 1st date in the amendment
is to ensure that that relief network is going to be established, the rules established by September 1st of this year. With that, I'll be happy to take any
questions, and we do have some folks that are signed up for testimony. All
right. Committee, you've heard an explanation. Any questions from committee members?
Jessica Crump
Unverified
22:00
If not, we have to speak for the bill. Jessica Crump.
Speaker 102
22:26
Hi, everyone. Thank you for being here. My name is Jessica Crump. I am the widow of Nathaniel Crump in the heads of Crump's laws.
I'm here today to testify for our bill, and I just kind of wanted to tell everyone the story Nathaniel and I had to go through. On June 21st, 2017, I crawled into my husband's lap as he laid in a hospital bed, unable to respond to me. I had my head on his chest when the doctor came in and touched my arm and told me it was time. Nathaniel's body couldn't fight the cancer anymore I vaguely remember people coming in to say their goodbyes but all I remember was hearing his heartbeat
I sang to him one of our favorite songs We Were Karaoke Superstars, that was just our thing The lyrics from the song was perfect to our relationship From the moment you wake me up till you kiss me goodnight Everything you do makes me want more of you When Nathaniel was first diagnosed with cancer, it was a huge slap in the face. How in the world could this happen to 20-something-year-olds? Once we got our minds right, all Nathaniel was determined to do was to get back to work
to figure out how we could prevent this from happening to other firefighters. We spent countless nights doing research and learning about the huge link between cancer and firefighters. We had no idea, but it all made perfect sense. Firefighters are exposed every day to deadly carcinogens. There was no doubt in our minds and his doctors' minds, Nathaniel, at the age of 28, developed stage four colon cancer from being a firefighter. As Nathaniel continued his fight, he eventually ran out of sick time, forcing us to have conversations
during his chemotherapy treatments. In between him puking his guts up and sitting in the hospital about what we were going to do next. Time that we'll never get back. Time that we could have spent laughing with each other. Time that we could have spent focusing on him getting better. But instead with the fear of him having to retire early and only receiving a very small percent of his check, we were forced to have this discussion. We had to begin preparing financially. I had to sell my car and was working extra shifts at work just to make ends meet.
Two days before my husband passed, we were forced to begin filling out retirement papers. Nathaniel was so frustrated with the thought of having to retire early because there was no law that could help us. How could firefighters not be given extra time for a disease they contracted from the workplace? Being a firefighter was what he was meant to do, and even though he knew his career gave him cancer, that's all he wanted to continue to do. His passion and courage was unbelievable.
If House Bill 1773 would have been in place, we wouldn't have had to have those discussions with all the feelings of anxiety and frustration. It would have allowed Nathaniel to focus on getting better. It would allow firefighters the extra time that they deserve to fight for their life, just like they fight for ours every day. Firefighters are heroes, and they should be treated that way. They put their life on their line every day with a huge chance of them not returning home. Unfortunately, firefighters are going to continue to get cancer, and this is exactly why this
House bill is so important. We can't change what happened in my husband's situations, but we can fight like crazy to help other firefighters and have time with their families
Speaker 104
25:59
when they develop these things. They deserve that time. Thank
Speaker 107
26:08
you. Thank you, Mr. Crump. Speak against Gretchen Hall.
We can have a Michael Marion, if there's a Michael Marion. I apologize. That's a
Speaker 82
26:40
different bill. Matthew Stillings. Mr. Stallings, are you recognized? Speak
Matthew Stallings
Unverified
26:55
for the bill. my name is matthew stallings i'm with the arkansas professional firefighters
and the reason i'm here is because nathaniel crump was uh my junior hoseman um what that means is on a on a on a fire engine you have the the captain and the engineer the driver those are the company officers and you know they're first and second in command and his captain is actually Joe Cuffell who's right there and then Nathaniel and I were the two firefighters in the back so that means we were the two young guys who fight over who gets to take the nozzle into the house fire and all that stuff. When Nathaniel got cancer the first thing we did was we sent out word to all
the stations and we covered his shifts for about six months. When Gavin Wright got cancer the first thing we did was we covered his shifts for about six months. This is what we already do. With the fire service, we pride ourselves on taking care of each other. And we want the opportunity to do that. So should the opportunity to arrive, and this is sort of to that relief network. So should the opportunity arise for us to work for other firefighters and other places, we want to be able to do that.
I mean, like I said, this is already something we do. We're just asking to be able to do it for someone in some other place.
Speaker 78
28:17
All right. Thank you, Mr. Tallings. Any members have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Tallings. With no one
else left to speak for against the bill, Senator Tismayne, you want to close? Yes, sir. And
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:34
one thing I just want to say, and I do appreciate the league taking the time to work through
and have a good discussion, I think, on the bill today. And one of the commitments that I made to this committee, I don't think I have to worry about, is there's concern about the relief network not being able to be up in place because that is a very important component when you look at the cost for the cities. And just like I've told these guys, if we are not able to get that up and running, I'll be the first one to sign up to repeal this bill. That's not the goal. I mean, the goal is, again, to utilize the resources that they're able to put forward
and make sure that these men and women, you know, are not having to fight two battles at once. And with that, I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass as amended. All right. We have a motion to Senator Ingram. Do
pass as amended. Second. Senator Letting. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee members. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Committee members. We're here to amend this bill from the smoke.
Speaker 118
29:46
Just amend it? Yeah. Just amend it and get it out to
Speaker 117
29:53
pass as amended. You can ask him how fast it is. Kim? You're just here to amend the bill?
Yeah. That's it? That's it. Okay. We'll go ahead and do that. Your name. Just an amendment. We have an amendment, Senator Garner, from Senator Hammer. Just to do a quick amendment.
Senate Bill 461. Senate Tammer, you recognize the explained amendment? Thank you,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:27
Mr. Chair. Having heard a couple of the comments on the floor, I opted to send it back to committee just to address those concerns. so what the amendment does is it improved the language as far as the review process by the quorum court where it now would read shall review and approve or disapprove and I don't have the rest of the bill but Senator Hickey brought up a point about the way it was crafted that it kind
of left thank you that it kind of left the quorum court in a little bit of a what I would interpret awkward position. So this grants them a little bit more latitude to review and to approve. The second thing it does, and this is to Senator Flowers' point, which I thought was a good point, it clarifies that a collection after, I'm sorry, a delinquent assessment that exists before January 1st, 2020 is deemed uncollectible. So what that would do, Senator Flowers, is that just clarifies
that this bill gets enacted, then they couldn't go back for one, two, five, ten years, whatever, and back sweep all those unpaid dues, and it's a fresh start going forward, which just clarifies the intent of the bill. I'd be glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chair. Any questions from committee members? We have a motion to adopt the amendment of Senator Flowers and
a second from Senator Letting. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Amendment's been adopted. Thank
you, and I appreciate it, members of the committee.
We have a motion. Motion to pass as amended. From Senator Flowers and a second from Senator Letty. All those, any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All opposed?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:12
Congratulations. Once again, thank you, members of the committee. Senator Garner. Sorry we put
you off so long. We knew you were a patient man.
Are we looking at Senate Bill 660? No, sir. We'll
Speaker 132
32:49
start with Senate Bill 223. 223. Senate Bill 223. All right,
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
32:52
Senator Garney, everyone have it? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a bill we heard before to give temporary license to domestic abuse survivors. I think we've had that discussion before. I know there were some members there who didn't get the chance to vote on it, and I didn't run it at that time.
And so I wanted to vote on it again. The Arkansas State Police are still strongly against it. I told them I would say that. I think it's a great bill, and I'd ask
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:25
for a good vote. All right. Any questions from committee? Do you have a question, Senator Flowers?
Senator Garner, have you ever been to the courthouse on a day when there are orders of protection and petitions for orders of protection heard?
Ma'am, I'm not taking questions on this bill. You're not taking any questions on the bill? No, ma'am. Okay. All right,
Speaker 139
33:56
no questions for the committee. We have state police. Mayor Clare? You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. Mary Claire McLaurin with the Arkansas State Police. I know that
Speaker 140
34:03
y'all already heard from Major Williams the other day. I'm not going to belabor the points that he made. I just do want to reiterate the bill has not been amended. It would still
permit a petitioner for an order of protection to get this temporary license. A petitioner has not even been had a judge enter an ex parte order of protection. I practiced family law for five years before I started at the state police, and I can tell you that filing a petition for an order of protection means nothing. It is only once that judge enters an ex parte order, and really that
ex parte order only extends for 30 days, really only once the judge has a hearing on the ex parte order and then enters a permanent order of protection that there's been a true fact finding of domestic abuse. And so that's our primary issue with the bill is that it would allow somebody to just go file a petition for an order of protection and then come and get a temporary concealed carry license. The other issue that we have with it is just that it requires us to issue the license within one business day. We don't have the capability
to do that. The background check takes up to two weeks and processing and going through the application and making sure that everything is in order.
Speaker 139
35:25
We can't do it in a day. And that's all I have. We'll take questions if there are any.
Questions from the committee? No questions. Thank you. Make clear.
We have, no one else has signed up to
speak for or against Senate Bill 223? All right. If not, committee, what's the will of
the committee? I have a motion to do pass from Senator Filippo and a second from Senator Clark. Any discussion?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:16
You're recognized, Senator Flowersman. Okay. I practice family law, and I've been practicing for 37 years, and this is not something to take lightly. People that come to the court after filing in the clerk's office a petition alleging some reason for a court to hear a petition for a order of protection.
protection, that's based on family relationships or, let's say, familial relationships, intimate relationships. Since I've been in the legislature, we've even expanded the statute to include dating, among teenagers, dating. And when they get into a domestic situation,
altercation with each other, one or the other can go down to the courthouse, and it's pretty much a form that you fill out. You fill in the blanks alleging some type of abuse or assault was either threatened or perpetrated upon the person. And a lot of times, I won't say most of the times, but often I have seen where it's a situation, one party got mad at the other.
By the time the hearing is set and called before the court, they don't even show up. Some of them don't show up. A petitioner does not show up. I've seen people who file these petitions do it for the purpose of manipulating that person that they call themselves in love with or whatever. You've got all kinds of drama. and this is not something to be taken lightly you got emotions involved and senator garner
is an attorney as far as i can tell i mean that's what he was on the website but uh to do something like this i i just don't think we we need to do this and i'd ask for no okay thank you senator flowers any other any other comments from me
if not we have a motion uh do pass and a second all those in favor say aye aye all opposed no the no's have it
senator garner your bill failed you run 660. yes
Speaker 146
39:04
sir i have bill 660. we have an amendment it's very
Speaker 35
39:16
short. All right. Everyone has the amendment? 660.
All right, Senator Garney, you're recognized to explain the amendment?
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
39:45
Yeah, it changes one word, changes an and to an or, and I think the Arkansas State Police actually point
this out. With an and in there, it's a little bit more complicated. With the or, it's a lot simpler. Just that's
what the amendment does. All right. All right. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. And a second. Senator Flippin. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?
the amendment's been adopted you're recognized to explain the
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
40:19
great bill for modernizing our enhanced concealed carry permit system after the roaring success after the enhanced carry last time which has allowed thousands of Arkansans to carry in places like colleges carry in other buildings carrying the capital every single day with absolutely zero problems.
It allows Expand to kind of follow the original tent of the law and to make some clarifications on what we're going to do. First thing, after we passed this, apparently some people didn't understand what the idea of what a publicly owned building was. It was the understanding of my intent when I did that bill that this would place the ability for enhanced carry permit carriers to carry at places like local government buildings, city buildings, things like that. But based on a terrible old attorney general's opinion, there's been an opinion that they
can actually exclude that. And even though the intent of the law, and I've brought this up many times to different people, they're still using that to prohibit people who go through this training to be able to actually carry in those facilities. So that's the first thing this bill does. Secondly, I listened to my colleagues who are left the center, and they had a big problem with this dorm room storage and I agreed with them. I mean I think we initially put that in the enhanced carry to make sure that you know it was a good middle ground and apparently that middle ground is now being used as a reason not to undo the enhanced carry. So what we're doing is
if you are at a dorm room you'll have the ability to store your weapon. You don't always have to have it with an arm's length. So through storage through a secure area you can now go take a shower and do other things. So if you're a 21 or plus year old person and you have an enhanced carry and you have a right to protect yourself with that weapon, you can store that in certain capacities. Next, it allows boards and commission members to be able to carry inside of their commission meetings. There was an issue whether that was actually going to be allowed or not and I think that this will allow it to do it. Finally, it will. Right now there's a quirk in how it was
written and the ABC is saying that if a place serves alcohol, then the whole entire area is prohibited from carrying with the enhanced carry. And what we did is say, no, that actually has to be the place where the alcohol is being served at. And so we cleared that language up as well. I think this is a good common sense bill. These people have gone through multiple hours of training. They've gone through additional background checks. They've done all this training and we're trying to clear it up. Oh, final point. Last time through a quirk through
the process, we took it out and we accidentally put it back in and that was my fault. I should have called it. So every instructor in the state of Arkansas has to offer enhanced carry underneath the current law. But we were able through the rules process to extend that deadline out. This will change it back to make it optional. There's been hundreds of instructors decide to do this. It's been overwhelmingly successful. But if that instructor doesn't want to do it, let's make sure we give them the right not to. With that, I'll take any questions from committee. All right. Any questions from committee?
All right. We have a number signed up. And listen, we've got several signed up to speak against the bill. So we're not going to try not to languish this out any longer than you have to. So we don't have to. All right, we have a motion for immediate consideration. Senator Flowers? Cannot do that. We can limit debate in a minute of public, and when we have a public hearing, we cannot.
Speaker 157
43:58
You have to have a motion to do immediate consideration. Okay, we have
to have a motion to limit debate. Do you want to limit debate? Second, Senator Flippo? I
Speaker 12
44:08
want. Yeah, you need to. Just a second. We have five signed up. That would be 25 minutes. It's limited to three minutes.
Are you okay with three minutes? All right. Motion
to limit debate to three minutes. We have a second.
Speaker 161
44:35
All those in favor say aye. All opposed. And you can exempt out of that. He has closed him if
Speaker 162
44:42
you want. You can ask him back. I'll give him a couple minutes. I
don't think he'll take any time. All right. First one, Eve Jorgensen. Okay. Okay. Rosa Ville. I
apologize if I don't pronounce his names right.
With the Markets All United. It is a different bill. Lon?
Speaker 142
45:12
Lori Comperes. Is that where you are? Lori Comperes. Lori Comperes? Comperes.
Speaker 41
45:16
Comperes? I think that the amendment, the prosecutors are, they're concerned towards their end.
Speaker 126
45:25
Okay. Okay. Mary Claire? You okay? Gretchen Hall?
okay you have three minutes if you'll identify yourself both of you yes
Speaker 166
45:54
sir record i'm gretchen hall i'm the president ceo of the little rock convention and visitors bureau i'm michael mary and i'm
Speaker 169
46:00
general manager or the Michael Marion, general manager of the Verizon Arena in North Little Rock. All right, you're identified.
Speaker 166
46:06
All right, so we've got just a couple of concerns against this bill, and I've got just a couple of informational pieces. So Statehouse Convention Center, the Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau manages the Statehouse Convention Center, the Robinson Center, and several facilities at the River Market. And our real concern with this is Section 9, which currently under subdivision 18 we are allowed to post signage that prohibits firearms inside our facilities and we feel that signage has provided a comfort level and security for the leaseholders of our buildings. We also
routinely book groups events into the public facilities and they request that we restrict access of firearms and other weapons in our building and section 9 of this would remove that ability and could greatly affect our ability to attract meetings, conventions, and special events to the city, which would then in turn reduce the overall impact of tourism in our state. And I've got several numbers as far as the impact of tourism if anyone needs that information. Thank you. All right. Mr. Marion, you have
Speaker 126
47:06
something to add? Yes, sir. I just want
Speaker 169
47:09
to say to go along with what Gretchen said, so many shows now are concerned
about security. We bought 29 walk-through magnetometers at the arena two years ago at the request of the artists that rent our building and they request this and if we tell them no I'm sorry we're not serving alcohol therefore we cannot use our walkthrough magnetometers we will lose those shows the arena is not funded by the taxpayers we're self-supporting but if we get into a situation where shows start not coming to our building then we will have to turn to the taxpayers to help fund our operation
all right thank you any questions from committee members
Speaker 174
47:46
we appreciate thank you for coming thank you all right close
for your bill I'm closed all right we have a chair will entertain a motion we have a motion do pass by Senator Filippo as amended and a second Senator Rice any discussion all those in favor say aye aye All opposed?
No. Sorry, Senator Garner. All right. Representative Mayberry, sorry you had to wait. Okay, Mayberry. I don't think I have her amendment
Speaker 178
48:36
yet. Do we have your amendment, Representative
Speaker 35
48:39
Mayberry? Clark had it. Oh. Maybe we do have it.
Is this House Bill 1385? This is the same
Speaker 82
49:08
bill we ran this morning? You might want to
hold it. We do have a loss of committee members right now.
That would be fine. We're going to meet. We'll be meeting one more time. Anyone else in here has a bill? I'm sorry,
Speaker 184
49:39
Senator Johnson. I didn't see you. Senator Ballinger. what the heck I didn't even see Senator Johnson
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
49:51
you're recognized Senate Bill 636 no sir this is Senate Bill 179
Senate Bill 179 and there's
Chair
Unverified
50:06
has the amendment alright 179 Senate Bill 179.
All right. Senator Johnson, you're recognized to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
50:36
explain the amendment? The amendment fleshes out the bill. The bill has to do with transition of a city. It's in the city manager form of government if they choose to change to a mayor council form of government. It sets up a smoother procedure. The amendment fleshes it out and talks about the designation of wards and also how the wards are created.
And then it does require, it is limited to a city with a population of more than 100,000 persons according to the most recent decennial census. I can let everybody figure out who that is. But it would allow a transitional period. So the amendment cleans up the language that allows this transitional period to be complete. And I would appreciate adopting the amendment and then we'll be glad to present the bill. We have a motion to adopt the amendment and a second.
All those in discussions? All those in favor? Say aye. All opposed? The amendment's been adopted.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
51:41
You're ready to have to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the future, this might apply to someone else. Today, it applies to the city of Little Rock. Last year, Little Rock held an election and elected a new mayor. and there are some folks within the city that would contemplate the possibility, and again, this is totally permissive, there's nothing mandated,
but the possibility that the city might wish to change to the mayor, council, form of government. If they did that under current law, they would be required to, in effect, abolish existing city government, hold new elections. Everyone, city council members, mayor, clerk, and city attorney would all have to file, and you'd have an election. You would totally reconstitute the city government. This would allow the voters of Little Rock to make a change to a mayor council form of government
in a simpler, smoother manner. It would, since the mayor was elected in the last two years, in this case Mayor Scott, but whoever it would apply to, they would be able to. He would remain as mayor. The existing city board members would become city council members under the new situation. It would allow them, those that are elected at large, to remain temporarily as at-large council members.
And then after the census, there would be an election. The city would be divided up into, I believe it's six wards and be two city council members from each ward. And they would have the election in 2022, and they would draw for who got a four-year term and who got a two-year term, much as we as senators do. And from that point on, it would operate as any other city in the state that is operating under the mayor council form of government.
But it would keep the city from having to have two elections, one to change the form of government and then the second to reconstitute it under the new form if they chose it. It would also allow the city board by ordinance to refer this choice to the voters. The voters would still vote, but it would not require, it wouldn't abolish the petition process, but would add a second method by which this could be referred to the voters for their consideration.
Once again, this is totally local option. It would facilitate this, but not mandate it. And I would be happy to answer any questions. How many mayor, board of directors are there in the state, cities that have mayor? Not very few. I think there's four, and if there's anyone from the Municipal League, I can clear. I believe there are four that have the city manager form of government, and none of them are except the only one of them is over 100,000 people. Fort Smith?
Memphis. Okay, Senator Ingram, you recognize.
Senator Keith Ingram
Unverified
54:55
Senator, any specific reason on page 2, line 21, it says served less than two years into the term of office. Any reason that's limited instead of saying at any time during the term
Speaker 194
55:06
of office? Well, the thought process was that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
55:10
in Little Rock we just had an election, Senator, and we didn't want it to be where you could change the form of government and that person would get an extended term.
But by doing it within, it's been done within the last two years, then the mayor would continue for the remainder of the four-year term. Now, to me, it's implicit that he still just has a four-year term. You may have pointed out something that might need to be clarified later, but I would think if someone were at the – remember, this is permissive and would be available at any point in time. We're talking about Little Rock in 2019, but in the future, you know,
it might be that someone wouldn't want – you know, I've had situations where I remember people telling me that they wanted to get rid of a mayor and so they changed the form of government or they wanted to get rid of a city manager. I remember this happened in Dequeen 30-something years ago. They wanted to get rid of the city manager, so they just changed the form of government. They really didn't want to change the form. They just wanted to get rid of one person. So this would keep it to where it would just apply. In effect, a recent election was held, then that mayor could continue.
All right, any other questions from committee members? No one signed up to speak for or against the bill? Senator Johnson, did you close for
Speaker 197
56:40
your bill? Yes, sir, I'm closed. All right. Chair, we'll
entertain a motion. Motion. We have a motion from Senator Ingram and a second from Senator Flippa. As amended. As amended. Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Bill's
Speaker 200
57:14
passed. Congratulations, Senator Johnson. Representative Mayberry, are we
Speaker 201
57:19
still? Ballinger's here. Pardon me. Senator Ballinger. You don't move up. You need to move up.
Speaker 205
57:36
Thank you, committee. I will be as short
Chair
Unverified
57:48
as you want me to be. Arm, nose, pressures, machine guns. There's
Speaker 205
57:55
no time in this test. No. It is very similar to it. Senator Bauer, you recognize your presence. Okay, so House Bill 1820 is very similar to what we did with suppressors. On the list of suppressors, it also includes sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.
Obviously, we're not going to legalize either one of those things. What we're doing is just relying on, currently those are all regulated. You can get those if you go through the process with the federal government to get the permits. What this says right here, it seems to indicate as if they're prohibited altogether. And so there are individuals who do have, you know, these firearms now that went through the permitting process. And so all we're doing is just taking these off this list so it won't look like they're in violation of state law when they went through all the requirements of federal law.
Okay. All right. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions? No one in the
audience signed up to speak for or against the bill? Close for your bill? I'm closed. I would appreciate a good vote. All right.
We have a motion. Senator Filippo do pass. Second for Senator Rice. Any discussion? All
those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Your bill passes.
Speaker 216
59:14
Thank you. We'll call. Call the roll. Clerk. Senator Flowers. No. Senator Clark. Senator Clark. Senator Ingram. No. Senator Hendren. Senator Hendren. Senator Flippo. Aye. Senator Rice. Aye.
Speaker 117
59:44
Senator Letting. Mr. Chair votes aye. So that's 3-3. Your bill fails. Thank you. Mr. Senator Bouncer. Representative Mayberry. What
Speaker 35
59:52
we have one... Penzo's here. Penzo's here, too. Are we still waiting on an amendment? Yes.
Okay. Representative Penzo, if you want to go ahead and... We have the amendment. Clark's not here to sign it.
Speaker 224
1:00:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's House Bill 1554. Do you need
Speaker 223
1:00:38
me to slow down? Okay. You're recognized. Explain.
Speaker 224
1:00:43
Thank you. 1554. Yeah. House Bill 1554 just pretty much shortens the time frames on the annexation process.
Just from experience I've seen where cities have six months to commit to make improvements before they'll release a property owner to the adjoining municipality. And keep in mind, this is voluntary annexations. This has nothing to do with forced annexations. so that was one question people had so right now you have six months uh the city has six months to commit to make improvements it cuts the term back to three months i've seen a lot of times cities
will uh keep people strung out for six months before they'll tell them they can't make the improvements before they're allowed to annex into the adjoining city so and then on the improvements part for the city they're moving into it cuts the time frame from 12 months to six months As long as continued progress is still being made, there's no issues with cutting that timeframe back. If I need to explain anything in more detail, I'd be happy to.
Speaker 227
1:01:59
And all the other strikes and stuff are just changes BLR made to must to shall and
Speaker 229
1:02:09
things like that including the 180 days to 90 days do
Speaker 197
1:02:15
what now on the line 28 page 2 they lowered the uh oh that's
Speaker 227
1:02:22
that's what i'm saying uh that was the time yeah all the time frames like i said were cut from six months to three months or 12 months back to six months
Speaker 224
1:02:31
but as long as the whole intent is during the first period they've got six months to commit to make the changes, and the city doesn't need six months. They already know if they can provide the services or not. It's just a matter of, you know, if they choose to have the three meetings. All right. Senator Rice?
discussion, my committee? No one in the audience wants to speak for or against? We have a second?
Second. We have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All
opposed? Congratulations. Thank you, committee. Representative Mayberry.
Speaker 118
1:03:23
The problem is that we can't get her bill out when he passes amended until Clark is here to sign the amendment.
We cannot get your bill out until Senator Clark is here to sign the amendment. By the way, let me make a retraction. We will meet next
Tuesday. We will meet Thursday and next Tuesday will be the last meeting of city, county, local. So if you want to wait till Thursday, that way it will give us time for Senator Clark to sign the amendment. All right, sorry
Speaker 127
1:03:57
to keep you waiting. All right, with that being said, we're adjourned.
Agenda
Call To Order
HB1554 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXATION INTO AN ADJOINING MUNICIPALITY.
HB1385 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED BY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD.
SB223 T. Garner PERMITTING A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE AN EXPEDITED AND TEMPORARY LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN.
SB660 T. Garner TO MODERNIZE THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING FRAMEWORK; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN.
HB1820 Gonzales CONCERNING FIREARMS; CONCERNING FIREARM NOISE SUPPRESSORS AND MACHINE GUNS; AND CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.
HB1896 Gates TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
SB179 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
HB1773 Dismang AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID LEAVE FOR 10 FIREFIGHTERS WITH OCCUPATIONALLY CAUSED CANCER; AND 11 FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
SB461 Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION 16 OF AND TIMING OF TAX COLLECTION IN 17 CERTAIN FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENT 18 DISTRICTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Adjourned
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Speaker 4
Speaker 12
Speaker 15
Speaker 19
Speaker 21
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
Speaker 42
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 51
Speaker 54
Speaker 10
Speaker 62
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 82
Jessica Crump
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Matthew Stallings
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 118
Speaker 117
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 132
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Speaker 146
Speaker 35
Speaker 157
Speaker 161
Speaker 162
Speaker 142
Speaker 41
Speaker 126
Speaker 166
Speaker 169
Speaker 174
Speaker 178
Speaker 184
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 186
Chair
Unverified
Senator Keith Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 194
Speaker 197
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 205
Speaker 216
Speaker 224
Speaker 223
Speaker 227
Speaker 229
Speaker 127