City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1980
Act 1071
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1980 A. Davis TO AMEND THE UNFAIR CIGARETTE SALES ACT; TO AMEND…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNFAIR CIGARETTE SALES ACT; TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT … | A. Davis | Notification that HB1980 is now Act 1071 |
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 8, 2026
It'd be a quorum of one, I guess. We only, members, we only have one item on the agenda. Before we start, though, let me just say how much I want to thank our staff. Without them, we could not. It's the first time of chairing this committee. We couldn't have made it without them. They've been the best staff.
So anyway, first item of business today is House Bill 1980. Is that correct? Senator Rapert, you are
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
0:37
recognized to present House Bill 1980. Thank you for having me, and thanks
for calling this meeting so that we can handle this business. If the chair wouldn't
mind, I'd like to ask Representative Davis and Steve Good, who is the director of ATC, if they could join us here at the
table. Absolutely. If you'll come and recognize yourself for the record.
Speaker 12
1:09
Good morning. Steve Good, Director of Tobacco
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
1:17
Control. Representative Andy Davis. All right, Senator Rapp, you're recognized. Yes, and I want to thank you, all members, for calling the meeting so that we could handle this issue and air some of the concerns that were brought, because up until yesterday, I had not heard many concerns about it. But obviously, when you start getting information by text with no opportunity for discussion, that makes it really complicated. So it's good that we've taken the time to be able to look at the bill.
This is an agency bill brought by the Tobacco Control Board, period. Steve Good is the only person outside of one entity that has appeared to make objection. And I think that maybe when they speak here in a moment, you'll find that some of their objections are no longer objections. I think the biggest thing is that it was a large bill dealing with tobacco. It got late. There were various reasons for that. I can let Representative Davis and Steve speak to that in just a moment. But the bottom line, everything that I've looked through,
including the DF&A fiscal impact, which I hope you have something in there, that probably is the best explanation of the bill that could be done as that two-pager. If you don't have something on that. We do not have a fiscal impact. You do not?
All right, well, I've got it here if the staff wants to make the copy. I've got one. It is
Speaker 19
2:36
online? Okay. Thank you, Senator. Okay. Maybe I can pass
Speaker 21
2:42
it right here. really i was just getting
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
2:50
lonesome to see all of you on city county and local thought i'd jump in
on this deal have a little fun but i'm waiting mr chairman so
you if you want to take a look at that Do you, does there, yeah,
if you want to, while we're waiting on those copies, if you want to go ahead and
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
3:20
continue, Mr. Ray. Sure, and, and that'll give me some time. I'm going to hit some high points for you. Basically hit some of the major things in the bill.
The vast majority of the bill is cleanup. It's removal of old, outdated, and repetitive language. And I'll just tell members I voted on the original bill in 2015 that put all of this in place and was supportive of that. Simplification is being made in the bill in places where they thought the wording was unnecessarily complicated. Addition of language accidentally left out of the 2015 amendment they put in there. Transfer of certain provisions to different sections for a more cohesive read. The removal of the 30-day transition period that is in the bill was a necessary change for several reasons.
It prevents retailers from unknowingly buying a store that they may not be able to operate if they must apply for their permit beforehand. The agency can then give them a heads-up about any background check issues or unpaid penalties or unserved suspensions, which in turn allows them to make a smarter decision whether to proceed with the contract for sale. What I'm told is that sometimes people make a contract on an entity that has tobacco products in that. And apparently there may have been issues, I'll let the director speak to that,
where somebody bought one of those not knowing that there was penalties outstanding that would jeopardize probably the license for that particular business. It also, in the bill, tries to remove ambiguity of who owns the store and when. Restructuring of permits, this was done to better fit the needs of the industry. It allows those doing business in tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or e-liquid products to really pick the permit that fits the structure of their operations and not pay for unnecessary branches, if you will, of the industry in which they do not participate at all.
It also allows the Tobacco Control Board agency to keep track of who's dealing with which products, which in turn allows them to better serve those specific needs. i'm going to yield here and let the house sponsors say a few words they want to and steve but having gone through some of the objections that were thrown out yesterday to us that caused us to want to stop the process and come and hear it in committee many of them absolutely have been handled look i don't smoke i don't chew i don't use tobacco products but many people do this bill
is not about encouraging people to use tobacco products or not. It's simply about the duty of the state to regulate them. And so that's really what it is. I view this just like any other agency bill that I'd run, whether it's the insurance department or the bank or the securities commission. This is simply allowing them to do their business and do it fairly and take care of the responsibilities they have. The one section that has caused the most consternation from one entity that may speak here today is the removal of some language which absolutely has never even been
enforced and has never been, no rules have been promulgated for it. That section seriously needs to be at the health department. It more is in line with their functions. This is an enforcement agency. They're not the health department. And so I'll let the director speak to that as well, if you will, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Good, if you
want to go, or Representative Davis, do you want to go ahead and make a few comments? Thank
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
6:50
you, Mr. Chairman, committee. I just want to comment, Director, to the lateness of this
bill in session relative to the size, the director gave us this bill probably six weeks ago, and it took the Bureau some time to go through it and get it drafted and get it reviewed, as well as I asked them out of my own hesitation just to really comb through it well. We were waiting on several other issues to work out through session, whether or not we're going to have a new vape tax, whether or not transformation was going to affect them in some other way. So we kind of had to wait and see how those things got flushed out
and then remove parts of the bill that may have addressed those things that didn't come to fruition in session. So I apologize for lateness of the bill, but partly we just had to wait on other issues. But I will say, like Senator Raper said, it's just an agency bill. I agreed to carry it because Mr. Good was very helpful when we were working on the NCI funding. He was very helpful in identifying dollar amounts for funding sources and whatnot, and I felt like I'd kind of held him up, so I agreed to run his agency cleanup bill for him.
We just want to put the agency in the best position possible to carry out
their duties. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Davis. Mr. Good, if you want
Steve Good
Unverified
8:11
to make a comment. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, again, I also apologize. As an agency director, this is my second opportunity to have to run a bill. We ran the original vapor bill in 2015, and then now this one. That bill was also at the end, and I think there's a common theme here.
Anytime you have the word tobacco in a bill, it becomes controversial. I assured Senator Raper and Representative Davis that there was nothing controversial about this cleanup bill because it is simply that. But I do apologize to y'all because of the tardiness of the bill. Again, BLR has had two different versions of this bill since early March. They did do a a thorough check of it. They had two versions, one in case the tax passed on vapor products
and one in case it didn't. When we finally realized that probably a tax on vapor products was not going to pass, then we pushed forward with that version. They pushed it out to us last week, April the 2nd, and on that day, I immediately started calling stakeholders. stakeholders. Stakeholders had not seen this. The health department had not seen this. Manufacturers had not seen this. Wholesalers had not seen this. Retailers had not seen this
simply because it is an agency bill. I did omit to call one stakeholder. I will apologize to the committee and members of the committee for that. I've already apologized to them. I did not have their contact information. And that has led, I think, to some concern on their part and why maybe part of the objection is there. That mistake will not happen again on my part. This bill came about simply to clean up bad language in the bill. There are a few policy
changes. Senator Rayford has addressed those. I can answer questions of those. But primarily this bill came about because about a year ago I hired a new staff attorney. She is a rock star and she went through, and as she was learning our language of our bill, of our statute, she realized there were problems, and so
Speaker 12
10:21
she has gone in and made some changes along with other members of senior staff, and that's what
you have here today. Mr. Good, what is
the most fundamental shift in the tobacco governing policy in this piece
Steve Good
Unverified
10:38
of legislation? Okay, there are two. Primarily,
there's some permit structure changes. Currently, if you're a vapor product seller only, you pay a $100 permit. But if you have every tobacco product, tobacco, cigarettes, and vapor product, you pay a $50 permit. We're just swapping those. We feel like that that's more industry correct, that the more products you have, the higher permit fee you pay. No members of the industry have given any objection. The Retail Grocers Association did not object. The Arkansas Oil marketers did not object uh the tobacco store industry did not object and the vapor industry
did not object so no no objections from the industry there uh the second one is uh senator rapert alluded to it uh currently let's say that i own a convenience store and maybe i owe fines and suspensions and i try to sell my
convenience store to senator rapert and i don't disclose that to him he has by current law 30 days to come to our agency and get a permit well in that 30 days I've taken his money, I've left, I've gone on, he's signed a lease, he's signed a contract, and he shows up at our agency
to get a tobacco permit, and our agency says you may not have
a tobacco permit because there are fines and fees and suspensions associated with that location, and by statute they cannot have a permit. So a retailer, and it's happened some 20-odd times in the last three years alone, 27 times since 2012. It's getting worse, and so a new retailer starts off more in the hole than they thought they were going to be. They owe additional money to
the state that they didn't know about, and they have to serve suspension, and typically in that industry, convenience store, tobacco store industry,
if you're not able to sell cigarettes and tobacco, it harms you, and so that's why we felt like that was a needed change to protect the retail industry. Mr.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
12:32
Chairman, I was just going to make reference that now that she's passed this out, this impact statement absolutely has discussion of the fees on there. So you've got it in writing what he just stated there. So it's back up for what the director stated. The other thing is that on the legal analysis on the page 2 side at the very bottom,
you'll state there it says the bill does not conflict with any provision of existing law or create constitutional concerns. concerns. The changes do not affect the master settlement agreement regarding the sale and use of cigarette and tobacco products.
All right. Senator Flowers, you recognize for questions? Thank you. So what was
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
13:14
the fix on the penalties and fees on a new owner? Well, Senator
Speaker 12
13:21
Flowers, what we would like to do is change it.
Steve Good
Unverified
13:24
What's in this bill? Yes, ma'am. What's in this bill is that the new retailer will actually have to get their permit before they can complete the transaction. So they will know ahead of time when they come and get their permit, instead of having a 30-day wait, they'll get
it at the beginning, just like they do their sales tax permit currently. They'll come to our office and we'll say, okay, we cannot give you that permit because the retailer that you're trying to buy it from has a $5,000 fine and 10 days of suspension. Then that gives that retailer the opportunity to go back to the retailer he's trying to buy it from and say,
hey, wait a minute, you need to knock $5,000 off my bill or off the
sale price or whatever. It just gives them the heads up to know what they're getting
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:05
into. Why doesn't the tobacco board have a lien for the penalty and fines of whatever has been assessed against the business? Well, many times we've already got a consent order
Steve Good
Unverified
14:16
against them and an offer of a settlement, But sometimes in the middle of the night, they will try to sell a store knowing that they owe a fine and suspension.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:26
So we have— But doesn't that still—do they—are they released from liability once they're
Steve Good
Unverified
14:31
sold? No, ma'am. They will not be released from liability. Unfortunately, the new owner assumes a liability. And so that's why we're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:39
trying— But the old owner does not lose liability. So both of them owe. Well, they don't both owe. That location owes, and so— Why wouldn't it attach to whoever got the permit? It does. It
Steve Good
Unverified
14:51
stays with the permit. So that's why we're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:53
giving them... So can that be an individual? And if it's a company, certainly the company,
but the new owner, they wouldn't be buying the
Steve Good
Unverified
15:04
company, would they? They're buying the location, and by statute, the permit goes to location. So our permit numbers, let's just say start with
Speaker 54
15:14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the first owner is dash 0, 1.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
15:20
If it changes hands and it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, dash 0, 2, Speaking of location, on page six to seven, this B part has the definition of an invoice,
but it doesn't require the address of the location of the sale. I don't understand
that because I am a tobacco product user, and I purchased cigarettes once from the store, and I questioned the amount, the payment
for it, and asked the guy for a receipt, and the receipt had a business in another city.
why wouldn't the invoice have to include the location? And I called DF&A about it. I don't understand why that shouldn't be a part
of the invoice since everything what you said prior to is based on location, the permit on the location. Yes, ma'am. Senator Flowers, I
Steve Good
Unverified
16:29
think what you're talking about at retail level is a
receipt versus the invoice definition here is typically when it changes hands from the wholesaler to the
retailer. So what you're talking about is a receipt,
and while that is something that we would encourage retailers to have the proper information on their receipt, if we're made
aware of it, we would go in and have a chat with them, but I don't think that's anywhere
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:54
in statute currently, to my knowledge. So the Tobacco Board
Steve Good
Unverified
16:57
doesn't deal with retail? Yes, ma'am, absolutely we deal with retailers. That's what I said, but I don't think that's in statute anywhere, anything about
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
17:06
tobacco retailers' receipts. And so this invoice definition only refers to the wholesaler?
Steve Good
Unverified
17:10
Yes, ma'am. And to the retailer? Retailer would issue a receipt to the customer. A wholesaler would issue an invoice to their customer, which is the
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
17:21
retailer. It sounds like that business, Senator Flowers, absolutely did not have their business set up the
way they should. They probably should have had everything like you said. there's no question about it. It sounds to me like they were just using materials from, I guess, their network and didn't have their own information. I can see your point.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
17:40
Well, and the other thing is that I had a question about, you said that you're trying to get the most from the most business. The permit is based on, permit fee is based on where the most business is. So if somebody is selling everything, tobacco, vapor, and alternative nicotine, as well as cigarette,
why is the permit fee a 50, and then just for
Speaker 54
18:15
vapor, it's 100? That's what we're swapping, those two, Senator Flowers. That's
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
18:20
the two that this bill will swap. So a business
Speaker 54
18:24
that sells everything is going to pay 100? Yes,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
18:30
ma'am. Yes, ma'am. That's the change that we're making in this bill. All right. Okay. I mean, I didn't understand that here on this thing. And then you get the combination of the current, okay, $1,000 for everything and $500 for just
Steve Good
Unverified
18:47
vapor. Okay. So on that one, if a, if a vapor store owner today, he may be a vapor store retailer. He may also sell to other places because he's also a manufacturer. Currently, that's three different permits. He has a $500 manufacturer permit, a $500 wholesale permit, and a $100 retail permit. Just for simplification purposes, if that person is going to do all three, we're combining them to one $1,000 permit. And if it's just Vapor, $500?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
19:20
Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Senator Raj, do you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Good, in the discussion that I've heard and in the information sheet here, I don't see what's on page 39 in new language that says the board may levy a civil penalty in the amount not to exceed $5,000 for each violation. Would you address that?
Steve Good
Unverified
19:55
Page 39, line 33. That's no change there. It's just been moved from one section of code to that section, Senator Rice. It's the same language. We just cleaned it up about where it is located. Thank you. Yes, sir. Senator. Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
20:20
Yeah, I appreciate it. It does look like a typical agency cleanup bill. I think, as you said, the one that's gotten some questions is on page 49.
And as I look at that, it looks like their language was always permissive anyway. It just said the agency may do something. And what you're saying is it's never been done because it's really outside the scope of what you all do, which I would
agree workplace safety and use of gloves and so on is not in your
Steve Good
Unverified
20:47
typical role. Senator Henner, we're a law enforcement agency. We do an outstanding job of keeping tobacco products, vapor products, cigarette products out of the hands of minors. We do an outstanding job of making sure that retailers don't smuggle in tobacco that's untaxed from out of state.
We had a big bust on Monday in Fourth City, but we are not equipped to be the clean police. Yeah, so again,
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
21:07
what we're doing is removing something that's not happening and never has happened, but I guess what I'm asking, and I don't know whether you're representing Davis or somebody can comment on this. Many of these things, some of us might agree, should be happening. Is there, is the health department or anybody doing any of these things, Or do we need to look at some future point requiring it to
Steve Good
Unverified
21:28
be done by the health department? And again, Senator, I'll take responsibility from that as agency director.
When we thought, hey, it doesn't belong here, I probably should have reached out to the health department and said, would you like to have it? That's my fault. I did not do that. While I certainly think that they are better equipped because they currently have health standards in restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores, I think that would fall more in line. And it just certainly shouldn't be tobacco control, we don't think.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
21:54
Yes, sir. Senator Hendren, in conversation with the Cancer Society, which is the only person that's spoken up on the bill, there's two things. Number one, why are we just hearing from them that this is a problem for
them at this point rather than shortly after the bill was put in force in 15 and we've had several years? Only now is it a problem when they're actually going in and taking out the language that's not being utilized anyway. I stated to them this morning, and this is my opinion, I'd be happy to run language for them at some point. I wish that I had known about it earlier, too, in this situation, but it absolutely should be. The Department of Health already has the authority in these convenience stores where they have any food products or anything like that
to go in and take a look at the cleanliness and make sure that things are being done in order. And at any time, somebody can make a complaint that any of these agencies has to look into. But I would be happy and told them I wish we had the time to do it because the fact of the matter is those rules were never promulgated, never put in force. And so they're removing a section that has not even been applied. And so what we should do is get it back over to the Department of Health at some point in the future. If we happen to have for some reason in the future a special session, I would ask leadership to help us take a look at that if we need to, if we need to put that back in.
And I think what you may find is that there is enough other statutory enforcement language there that they probably could take action on a situation that's unclean anyway. But if you want to get specific about it, I've never been on the other side of a cancer center or, excuse me, the Cancer Society's position on these issues. I've been at this table many times trying to get the body to adopt what the Cancer Society wants to do. And that's what I say. There's been some things thrown out here that are red herrings. They're great points, but they have nothing to do with an agency cleanup bill.
If we want to make points that are substantive about how we handle things, then let's do that in a piece of legislation. And I do have answers if anybody has questions to this one pager that was sent out to a lot of members. I do have answers for all those questions. No, I appreciate that. And as you know, I got a little tobacco bill that
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
24:03
I'm going to send to interim study because of things like this. It's clear we've got a lot of work to do, but it's also clear that this probably is not the place for it to be done. Thank you. All right. Mr. Goode, let me ask you one more question.
In regard to the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, those fees, you said those
were $300, $300, $100? For if you're a vapor? If you're a vapor? No,
Steve Good
Unverified
24:28
sir. Currently, they're $500, $500, and $100. We're just going to change it. There are three separate permit fees today. We're just going to change it if you
do all three to one permit. Just that's really to streamline it for us so that we know who's doing all three. And it's one application for a person that's going to do all three instead of three applications. OK. Yes,
sir. Are any other questions since Clark?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:54
Yes. Representative Davis. This is not normally your style to have such a large bill at the end of session. Is there a particular reason why? Yeah. Senator Clark. Excuse me.
Speaker 81
25:07
If you've already answered that, excuse me.
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
25:12
brought us this bill probably six weeks ago, and there were several other issues going through the session at
the time that we needed to wait and see how they panned out as far as, you know,
in particular, vape taxes and whether or not transformation was going to affect their agency any more different than it was originally proposed. So Director Good explained earlier the Bureau actually drafted two versions, one if we did have a vape tax, one without it, which is this version. Secondly, I just, out of my own concern, had the Bureau really come through it several times. He stated earlier that they just hired legal counsel a year ago, a year ago. So they've not had in-house legal counsel to really go through their statutes in the past.
This is the first time this has been done for them in a while, which is another reason why it's as large as it is. So those are kind of the reasons why all those things added up to you getting a 50-page bill this late in session. We did hear that concern when it was originally proposed in House rules. We delayed and waited another day to run the bill in the House to try to give people additional time to hear it, but that's the reason why it ended up being
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
26:25
this large that late. Senator Clark and also our good friend, Senator Linda Chesterfield, often says in our committee,
it's tough when she gets a bill that's got one paragraph and no context. this bill absolutely you've got a large section of the statute that's readable for it because they're renumbering a lot of things I think that has added a lot to it as well it would have been a lot more difficult to digest if they had just taken certain small portions of this and put that in here without the full context but this absolutely you're looking at a large portion of that statute And so I think that adds to the volume of it as well.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
27:02
And Mr. Good. Yes, sir. Why is it so urgent that a section that says may already, that doesn't say shall, that says come out? Senator Clark, I think the best thing I can say is that
Steve Good
Unverified
27:16
as a law enforcement agency, we feel like
it's our duty to uphold all the laws. And this is just one that we don't feel like that we're equipped to uphold. so we would just like it removed so that we're not challenged to uphold something that we're just we do an excellent
job at what we do. I just don't feel like that we're the people to enforce
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
27:36
that particular law. But as you pointed out earlier, I mean, if I had come up with this idea or if Representative Davis or Senator Rayford had come up with this idea, we wouldn't have been able to move forward without coming up
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:52
with who was going to uh, take care of this, uh, how, and to that, I would just say
Steve Good
Unverified
27:59
this went into effect in 2015. We've never done anything with it. Uh, Senator Clark, I was a new director in 2015. Uh, Senator
Raper asked me this morning how it got in the original bill. And I can't honestly tell you, I remember, I just think that as, as we've looked at it with senior staff, with our council is something that we feel like does
Speaker 54
28:18
not belong under our purview. And so that's why we're requesting that we take it out thank you yes sir senator clark
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
28:24
if i could chime in there if he hadn't taken that out of his language none of us would know that it was in there but not being done
now we know so it can be addressed and i agree with senator rapert my guess would be that the
health department already has broad enough language that probably could promulgate a rule and
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
28:42
take this over i don't know if you were here senator clark when i was responding to senator hendron i've already talked with the cancer society which is the entity that actually was concerned about that section and i've told them i commit to work with language if the health department does not have some authority in that space that already covers it if you would say generally then i definitely will work with them do that you know my thoughts on these issues i've lost family to lung cancer and i don't people have a decision they can smoke
that's their business. But I definitely want us doing everything that we can. I was a co-sponsor of Senator Hendricks' bill, which was very, very clear about those positions. So I'm committed to work with them, even if it means that I ask if we do have a special session in the future, if we could do that, I'm
happy to do that. All right. Any other questions, Senator
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:41
Flowers? so i'm trying to understand this this language about the the fine and the fees going to whoever
buys a business and you say that's based on location but can a retailer or wholesaler at a location move sell the business and get another permit
at a new location without responsibility for those fines and fees? Senator Flowers,
Steve Good
Unverified
30:06
that is something else that as an agency, we have a new record management system in place that we're able to track people much better and
entities much better than we used to. Also, our staff attorney is on to that. I would tell you that today we do a much better job of making sure that does not happen, that it has happened in
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:31
the past. Um, I can't imagine how, how, how that could happen. A location is, is not making the application. It's a person that makes
Steve Good
Unverified
30:41
the application. That, that is correct. And with about 4,000 retail permit, local retail permitted locations in the past, um, our old record
management system, let's just say that John Smith came in and was the permit holder and he left a location and owed fines and fees and he went down the road and he changed and he applied under the new name of John W. Smith. Unless we had somebody that was doing
that manually pick that up we would have probably in the past issued him a permit. Don't you think that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
31:13
that needs to be adjusted in the law so that I mean that doesn't this doesn't make good sense here. If you go and
Steve Good
Unverified
31:24
And Senator Flowers, I'm not sure where it is,
but if you'll go, this cleanup bill, that is one thing that it does that no one has questioned. But it does give us the ability to, what's the word I'm looking for, claimant agency, to become a claimant agency so that we can go after those individuals. So this bill
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
31:46
does do that as well. and and even just saying you go after the location i don't understand why a lien isn't
filed at the courthouse just like any kind of tax lien filed by dfna okay on
that location yes ma'am so to answer that
Steve Good
Unverified
32:02
question what we've been able to do since i've been here we've actually put individuals on payment plans we
don't like to be in the utoat the note business but but if it gets the state the money that's owed to them. We've actually put corporations, individuals on payment plans. But what about a lien? We've not had to get that far
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:22
yet, Senator Flowers. Well, if your basis is location, that's property. Yes, ma'am. Many times, though,
Steve Good
Unverified
32:28
the property owner is not the seller or the buyer. They're just
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:33
the landlord. And that makes even more of a point that location should not be the dispositive term when you're
talking about owing fees. Location doesn't have any money. That's exactly right. And again, this helps
Speaker 12
32:47
us fix that. All right, we have someone signed.
Is there any more discussion from the committee? If not, we have someone signed up to speak against the bill.
Speaker 101
33:02
Michael, if you would identify yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Keck. I'm Government Relations Director for the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. Sensing the love within this committee, I'm glad to provide an opportunity for fellowship amongst you one last time before you all adjourn today at noon. I find myself in a, this is a very unique position. I don't like to get involved in agency-type bills.
I also do not like to be on opposing side or viewed to be on an opposing side of those that have been so good in helping us improve our state's fight against cancer from the public policy perspective. And each one of you, I want to express my appreciation to you for what you've done, and again, for Senator Rayford, for what you've done in the past, as well as for Representative Davis. There are a few key policy perspectives that I want to bring to mind that Senator Rayford has brought forward.
There is a section that has to do with changing the power of the board to strictly being only adjudicatory. No longer will they be involved in rulemaking, the promulgation of rules. That will lie strictly with the director and staff. In addition, yes, we have expressed concern about workplace safety, childproofing, child tampering resistant packaging and appropriately appropriate labeling.
There is also a concern there is there is a new entry into this market that is beginning to take place with e-cig and vaping machine vaping vending machines. that are beginning to be popular throughout the country and i would imagine they would soon be made available here and i'm not sure how forward-looking these regs are or this proposed legislation is those are our concerns uh to have uh and again my my comment is about the position
and not the person i am not being critical about the current board i'm not being critical of the current director so please take my comments from that perspective but to remove power from a board in regards to making rules and putting them in specifically with the director is something that i think should be discussed by this committee and by and considered by the senate Senator, you are correct, this was passed in 2015, and a rules process began in 2016
and have been posted for some time in regards to workplace safety and childproofing. Like you, sir, I don't smoke, I don't vape, I don't chew, so I haven't had the opportunity to go and see and find out. I hear of places that are very well run, that have clean rooms, that are that are some of the epitome of workplace safety and hygiene. It's good to have a standard that's there to find out that it's something that has not been pursued and something that hasn't been enforced is disappointing.
But also to have this legislation brought forward without having that another agency readily identified to take on that responsibility. It could be done by the Health Department. Maybe it's done by ADEQ. I don't know. I do know that it is something that is a policy nature that I felt compelled that our organization needed to bring forward because of this being subsequent change. Yes, there is a lot of cleanup that certainly is not problematic.
You know, there's a lot of times when the word shell has changed to May and May has changed to shell. I'll let the director and others decide if those are the right words to use. But it's concerning to me that we have a policy decisions and implications that are being made when we end this session and we still have opportunities that were unfulfilled to address some of the issues that are present throughout our state that we've heard so much about, about e-cigs and vapes.
That being the case, I am most appreciative of the time and the opportunity to present our concerns. Again, I'm very appreciative of the support that the legislation we've advocated for has come from, not just from the senators here in this room, but from the Senate as a whole and members of the House and the governor's office. Any questions? Any questions, and I'll be happy to try and answer them for you. Senator Tamron, you have a question? Yeah, Michael.
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
38:10
I mean, what we're doing, though, is taking language out that's doing nothing and bringing attention to the fact that we need
Speaker 101
38:21
something. And that's a good thing, except for the fact that there's something that needs to be done is not addressed. Not just here.
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
38:28
That's right. And again, There's no way that that's going to be addressed today before we adjourn. But again, I think there's a service being done here to let us know, as Senator Raper said,
Speaker 101
38:38
that we've got something we need to fix. I appreciate that. And one of the things I would offer, and I'm not sure how this would work, but maybe in the interim until legislation can be done or if it's part of a special session, maybe through the governor's office and through the heads of the Department of Health and ATC or other agencies that may need to be involved, maybe there could be a memorandum of understanding and interagency agreement that would allow them to be able to take this on.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from members? If not, thank
you, Michael. All right. Seeing no one else has signed up to speak for or against the bill,
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
39:20
Senator Raper, are you close with your bill? I just want to commend the committee and thank
you. I think it actually was good that we had an opportunity to hear out any issues that we have. The bottom line is this is an agency bill. It is a cleanup bill. And a lot of the issues that have been brought forward are great points
if we were making substantive changes to address other things in the future. And I'm all for that. It just happens to be not this bill. So I appreciate a
good vote. Okay. All right, committee, you've heard the bill. We have a motion. Do
pass. And a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The bill passes. Congratulations,
Speaker 108
40:01
Senator Raper. Committee, any other business? We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1980 A. Davis TO AMEND THE UNFAIR CIGARETTE SALES ACT; TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Adjourned
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 10, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 19
Speaker 21
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
Steve Good
Unverified
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 54
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 81
Speaker 82
Speaker 101
Speaker 106
Speaker 108