House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1130
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “Lampkin you're recognized for House bill 1130 Committee members you'll notice there's a fiscal”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB133
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB133”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB200
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB200”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1009
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1009”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 3, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
thank you manager which which bill have you got first on the agenda 133 133 okay this is a Senate bill 133 was a bill was a piece of legislation that was passed back in 2011 by representative slinker it deals with a voting grant money this this is money
that will go to your county clerk to help them put on election I got the appropriation for it during the last fiscal session the money comes from the universal code I'm sure all of you are aware of that there's no there's no revenue impact with this bill this is simply going to give each of your county clerks ten or twelve thousand dollars to help them put on election and basically that's that's the crux of the bill do you
Speaker 3
1:03
know the balance of that fund currently I do
Speaker 4
1:06
not know the exact balance I think they're going to start
Speaker 6
1:11
allocating the money this year though committee do we have any questions seeing
Speaker 9
1:22
none what is the wish of the committee representative over be suggests do pass all those in favor aye all those opposed congratulations as long as you're at the end of the table would
Speaker 4
1:33
you like to run your other one yes ma'am thank you madam chair Senate bill 200 sorry about the house I keep thinking Senate bill 200 is a bill that will double the amount of flags that
Speaker 1
1:47
each of you receive most of you know you get 15 flags 15 Arkansas flags 15 American flags that's that's dictated by law Secretary of State cannot give out any morning this bill will double the amount of flags that you get let me tell you I drove around at course a house seat is about a third the size of a Senate seat and when you drive around and you see a lot of flags that are wore out and tattered and the one that really got me was I drove up one day to an old
man's house and his flag was almost gone and he was a veteran of World War two and I asked him I said how would you like a flag and he said well I can't
Speaker 4
2:29
afford one I said no I'm gonna give you one and he couldn't believe
Speaker 12
2:37
it but most of us have enough municipalities
Speaker 4
2:40
most of us have enough controls up here most of
Speaker 1
2:43
us have enough municipalities and you know in in our townships to take up the 15 flags let alone the the people out in the community the veterans so this this
bill will will double the number of flags the governor will it will double the number of flags a governor guess it will double the number of flags the Secretary of State yes in case you happen to run out he may have some extra the there was ample money that was
Speaker 4
3:09
appropriated a hundred and eighty thousand dollars these flags we're only going to be using about
Speaker 9
3:17
seventy something Seventy-nine thousand so did senator stuff filled did I hear you start off your testimony kind of making a suggestion that senators had a little
Speaker 4
3:25
bit harder because their districts were bigger no no madam chair I
Speaker 9
3:30
didn't say that at all I thought you were going in that direction and I I was just gonna stop you as you walk out of the room with your nice iPad but anyway I'm sure we like the same
Speaker 4
3:38
amount of money as you but we have a lot more area to cover thank you to
Speaker 17
3:43
the does the committee have any questions representative Kerr motion to the
Speaker 18
3:48
proper time excuse me are there any comments from the public and thank
Speaker 9
3:56
you representative Kerr I'll recognize your motion motion do pass all those in favor all those opposed congratulations senator you've passed both your bills I Thank you madam chair. Thank you committee appreciate thank you Representative
Speaker 22
4:20
Lampkin you're recognized for House bill 1130 Committee members you'll notice there's a fiscal
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
4:25
impact statement Thank You madam chair, I'm here to introduce House bill 1130 and this is a
a bill that I ran for my constituency it's an act to amend the Arkansas procurement law to regulate the procurement of passenger motor vehicles and trucks to allow a state agency to purchase passenger motor vehicles and trucks from a source outside of a state contract and for other purposes and what it really does it allows state agencies in particular our college and universities to purchase their vehicles locally if they can get them at the same price to help the local economies and and and show appreciation for the
support that the local communities give to the universities and vice versa and that's where the bill came from I don't think it's I think that well that's where it came from but that's basically what it does it allows a state agency which includes the college universities to buy their vehicles locally if they can get them at the same price that's basically the law
Speaker 6
5:27
committee any questions representative Hutchison I'm in total agreeance with
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
5:31
you but out of curiosity since I guess you look at the end of this
I wonder how many places the state contracts with 15 thank you thank you representative Hutchison
Speaker 9
5:44
thank you for having a tie on in committee today any other questions representative Altus representative Nichols oh yes what
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:55
does the state procurement office have to say they would I invite them to speak
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
6:01
on that matter if it's a bit okay with the chairperson
Speaker 37
6:18
you're recognized madam chairman I'm Richard weiss of the Department of Finance Administration and let me say that that I
Speaker 38
6:33
do have folks here from the procurement office I believe there I know there's one car dealer here that would like to testify against this bill as well but I'd like to give the committee just a little bit of history back in the 70s I guess there was no real estate contract on cars and people could just buy them wherever they wanted to do it
from their friends or neighbors or what have you. It was very, very costly. There was no uniformity in vehicles and the General Assembly in 1979 passed a law that had the state come out and provide for uniform purchasing of all vehicles, of all sorts of vehicles everything from small compact cars up through pickups and buses and virtually everything else that's lastable for the road the system has
been very successful we get cars at a very reasonable price compared to what you buy locally the car dealers because they are because they're a shirt of a volume can work to cut special deals with the manufacturers and it's because it's been very beneficial right in the current year I know that 442 have been bought by your local subdivisions this your county sheriff most all of them
will buy cars off the state contract because they are so much cheaper than they get anywhere else cities and counties use them for all sorts of reasons against very successful and all state agencies are mandated to use it so they are saving money they're saving a bunch of money and there is some good control over the whole over the whole system obviously I'm speaking against the bill and if folks have questions I do have people here from the State
Procurement Office and again a car dealer here that's
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
8:34
why I have one question up it was hard for me to determine at first of all you're speaking for against the bill but I think I think I was generally I'm pretty good at letting you know what I think yeah maybe I was weak on that unfortunately I was around when we were
buying them under a different system and I remember that but do you think we were saving money as we're doing it now by
Speaker 38
8:58
buying them from absolutely absolutely and I think you could talk to any of your county sheriff's county judges at home and I can from at least the comments I've heard I'll promise you they would rather buy them through the state contract because they are so much better you know right now you can get a I've got a few few instances here you can get a Chevy Impala for under $18,000 Ford F-150 two-wheel drive for under $15,000 Chevy Tahoe with police package
for $25,000 I mean it is it is substantially below anything that people can get and our concern is if you let folks start going out and let me say several things any any car dealer in the state can respond to bids and get on get get to be a vendor for whatever they have a little bid on so it's so we're not cutting out anybody's opportunity to bid on the fleet.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
10:06
And I forgot what I was going to say. That was actually my next question. They are bid out and rewarded on the lowest bid.
Speaker 38
10:15
Absolutely. And again, the dealers work with the manufacturers, and that's why they can cut the prices to where they do. And it has saved a bunch of money for the state. It saved a bunch of money for all of your local governments out there, and we would hate for the system to be turned aside, as this bill would do, in all deference to my good friend, Ms. Lamkin.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
10:41
Thank you. Representative Hutchison. Okay. I guess maybe I'll rephrase that question a while ago. How many of these procurements are out-of-state contract? Zero.
Speaker 38
10:56
Right now, I know it. one year one year we had some out-of-state folks come in with with police cars that had special police packages out of out of Texas or someplace and and they they got it that year under the current contract they don't have it
again we can't we cannot say you can't sell to us from out-of-state if you're the ones giving the state the best deal again this is saving public funds and saving money in your cities and counties as well as for the state
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
11:27
does that happen very often though that out-of-state people come in and do it get it
Speaker 38
11:32
receive the contract let me I'm getting some assistance here okay by law they have to be sold by a licensed Arkansas car dealer and I
presume that year that some of them came in from out-of-state it was a licensed Arkansas dealer that wouldn't pay you back done that but that's that's the law that is the best we can do to try
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
11:57
to limit that is that the way most procurements work and in our state
Speaker 38
12:02
we have a we have a rigid system for all procurements that they go through where we're
Speaker 37
12:08
trying to get the state the best deal for the best price thank you sir representative Richie
Speaker 59
12:20
thank you madam chair now in the in the bill I think if
I read it correctly it's they can go outside a state contract if they can get it for the same price is that is that my understanding that correctly yeah it's so is part of the concern that I guess if people start going outside of the state contract then that lowers the volume of cars on the state contract within increases the amount you have to pay per car yes sir and
Speaker 38
12:47
it it makes it very difficult for whoever's bidding on them to get the volume discount from manufacturer I mean that's the key that's driving this so in the so in the
Speaker 59
12:59
long term it's you feel like it's going to drive up the price that
Speaker 38
13:03
we have to pay for yes that is our large concern and again any of your local dealers can bid every year because this contract goes out every year and we take bids each year for all the various specified types of vehicles so these bids are each year I mean yes annually okay sir representative
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
13:28
Hobbs thank you madam chair when you said that they kind of threw me off so so you put out your
proposals I guess and request for bid yes okay I and then any dealer can bid on
Speaker 37
13:42
those any licensed registered Arkansas dealer that's
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
13:45
correct okay and are there a certain number of cars they we
Speaker 38
13:50
will we will how does that work we will say well it's specified types you know it's going to list a compact car with whatever whatever is supposed to be you know whether standard or additions to that car. It will be several different kinds of compact cars, then sedans, then vans, then
pickups. You bid on the type of vehicle rather than make or model. Okay, so the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
14:16
type, but you don't have to
Speaker 38
14:19
bid on a number. No, that's correct, but we have the number we think will be pretty usual for that
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
14:28
type of vehicle. Okay. And you said even cities participate in this. So what we
have in the books currently precludes cities from buying from their local dealerships.
Speaker 38
14:41
I think they can buy from their local dealership, but they have the option of going to the state contract, and most of them find that going to the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
14:51
state contract saves them money. Okay. But I thought that was the purpose of the bill
Speaker 38
14:56
was to permit them. No, I believe the purpose of the bill is to let a state agency go outside of the state contract. Again, and the effect of that would be that you would have, if a lot of folks did that, then you would have a smaller number of cars that would be going, that dealers could be
assured that they were going to get the business for, and the manufacturers then might well decide they can't give that special pricing.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
15:23
Okay. okay so you said cities can I thought you said I'll go to you I thought you mentioned police cars
Speaker 38
15:32
and local governments both cities and counties anything that's publicly funded can buy off that contract okay but
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
15:39
they can also buy locally now local governments
Speaker 38
15:44
can state government cannot okay and so the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
15:49
purpose of the building is to allow this state to not okay helps a lot and do you know about how many cars per year are purchased through the last
Speaker 37
16:01
numbers I have or they have 794 so far in fiscal year 13 so it's a little
Speaker 38
16:06
under a thousand per year all right and are those evenly
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
16:12
distributed among those 15 dealers or I don't have any
Speaker 38
16:16
idea because it's gonna be again it's gonna go on
vehicle type I don't know if you have more pickups bought this year well whoever doesn't have the pickup
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
16:26
contract isn't selling okay and do you have a list of those dealers that are currently participating we can furnish the committee that okay I mean I would I'm just interested to know okay thank
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
16:45
you thank you man chair representative Altus thank you madam chair I have several questions representative Lamkin on line
29 it talks about the state procurement director has the exclusive jurisdiction in line 31 says printing stationery and supplies does he not have the exclusive jurisdiction over printing stationery supplies now is this
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
17:08
is this a big change it's not
Speaker 9
17:21
if you notice on line 31 representative Altus that's underlined the exclusive jurisdiction over the procurement is not underlined so the underlying language is what's being added the others
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
17:40
been here a while thank you so we're adding printing stationary and supplies correct
Speaker 37
17:53
madam chairman if we could recognize Jane Benton who is the head
Speaker 89
18:06
of the state procurement office yes thank you madam chairman representative Altus or the senator I'm sorry currently there are about 10 items under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state procurement director that is not an addition this bill is proposing that they remove
vehicles from that exclusive jurisdiction so printing stationery
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
18:30
and supplies you have the exclusive jurisdiction over those now yes that is correct okay I'm just wondering why this language was being added also online representative Lampkin online 15 it talks about the director so there we're probably talking about the director of procurement okay and then it says that if the state agency line 17 on the second page if the
state agency can demonstrate that it can procure passenger vehicles and trucks from another source at the same price so who are they
going to demonstrate that to the purchasing procurement director I would assume to them to the purchaser
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
19:12
to the to the UAM or U of A or whoever and I'm sure it would have to
go through their office would it not I think so does that need to be clarified it may
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
19:27
need to be so do we need to add they will demonstrate on line 17 to the
Speaker 89
19:35
procurement director may I respond to that place yes that is one of our concerns as well about the because it does not say who would be approving that and I can only imagine a thousand of those requests coming to our office and our biggest concern is the vehicle contract that we have today with about seven seventy different types of vehicles has very detailed basic specifications for that base vehicle
with options those are very limited to try to make the vehicles more uniform and not more than a state agency would require if allowed to do that the question is how do you know you're comparing one vehicle to the other without looking at every specific detail inside that specification and who out in the field is qualified to do that because for the last almost 40 years they have not bid these types of vehicles we've been doing that and that
is one of our concerns that a dealer might can say they would meet that prize but in the end as you add options and other things to it such as we may expect a full-size tire in a vehicle in a car particularly when that agency purchases that vehicle they were not aware of that and they might get a donut tire instead of the full-size tire which there is a price difference on that tire so there are a lot of different specifications we are concerned about meeting exactly the other issue is it's not like going to
pick out a car as an individual you got me the state agencies don't go to a lot and pick and see a car that they like and say you know how much would that be on the state contract these contracts are worked through those manufacturers for specific vehicles and they are produced specifically for fleet they They are not the typical vehicle that you would find on a vehicle
Speaker 100
21:44
dealer's lot. Okay. I'm sorry, I missed your name. Jane?
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
21:47
Jane Benton, yes. Benton. Okay. Have you discussed all these issues with Representative Lamkin before this committee? Yes,
Speaker 91
21:56
sir. We have discussed those. Okay. Representative Lamkin,
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
21:59
do you think that you need to amend your bills to address some of her concerns? I would be willing
Speaker 82
22:09
to if the community if the committee so chooses
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
22:12
well I like your bill representative Lampkin but it looks like there's a little vague
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
22:18
language in here well it could be my experience with this has been through the cities and counties and they may do this and as I said before my constituent would like the opportunity to try to to match the price almost specified vehicle with the state agencies that's the whole purpose sounds good
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
22:39
to me mrs. Benton do you think that you could work with representative Blankin and come up with some more clarified language we are opposed to
Speaker 89
22:52
this bill totally you're not willing to compromise I'm always willing to compromise because everything in life is a compromise our concern some other concerns that we have in regard to this is that the dealers that spend several months preparing their pricing structure their bid prices that work with their manufacturers the work that they have put in then another local dealer in this case could take the fruits of their efforts and cherry-pick which vehicles
they would like to sell off of that contract and one of our other concerns is that since the dealers that are working with their manufacturers to get those prices they have a very deep concession price special discount price from that manufacturer we're unsure how a another dealer would be able to sell at that price knowing that they didn't purchase it from the manufacturer for that price
Speaker 106
23:56
okay I understand motion at the proper
Chair
Unverified
24:01
time representative Altus I think you have a new career ahead of you as a mediator representative Dotson thank you
Speaker 107
24:13
madam chair I have a few questions here first of all I'm assuming that all all the dealers for all the different vehicle types are chosen by low bid only is that
Speaker 89
24:27
correct those that respond to the solicitation and meet the minimum specifications that we have specified or awarded per line item so per make by low price that is correct okay and those are very competitive sometimes we see only a few dollars even between the dealers that are
Speaker 111
24:47
responding I understand that okay so this
Speaker 107
24:51
is another question that was brought up is the state exempt from sales tax on these vehicles no sir we pay sales tax okay would this would
this bill in any way change the requirement for the state purchase of vehicles to be licensed Arkansas dealers only this doesn't change that language at all does it
Speaker 89
25:18
no we actually have an Attorney General's opinion dated probably back in oh nine that says they will be Arkansas licensed dealers only okay
Speaker 107
25:29
and would this this bill as it's written currently anyway if it's not amended would this allow for state agencies to purchase vehicles for less
than the bid amount or does it have to does it require them to purchase
Speaker 89
25:47
it for the state bid amount for less just procurement policy in business practice would tell me you can always buy
Speaker 107
25:58
guess I guess if we amend this representative Lamkin I would ask that you make sure that you put the specs in there I think representative Altus was was a
I basically just ask that that make sure that the minimum state contract bid specs be a minimum requirement for anybody bidding on another state agency's purchase so that's all I have thank you thank you representative dots
Speaker 120
26:36
a motion I'd like to make a motion to table this
Speaker 9
27:03
those in favor aye all those opposed nay the ayes have it representative Lampkin your bill has been tabled we'll talk about that later okay thank you represent Westerman are you running your bill today no madam chair okay
representative Dale has contacted me he will not be running his either there is an impact statement for represent dales 1259 representative Stephen Meeks you're in the room you're up next recognized to run house resolution 1009 and I'm assuming you have a PowerPoint I do thank you madam chair good morning committee I'm
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:59
hoping this will be a fairly non-controversial bill
as I guess all sponsors do, but this morning I'm bringing you House Resolution 1009, which is an opportunity for our state to support our western states, our sisters in the union, if you will. How I got involved in this is at one of our legislative conferences, I heard a representative from the state of Utah giving a talk on federal lands within their states and just how little of their state they actually control because the vast majority of it belongs to the federal
government. And believing that a picture is worth a thousand words, I've brought you some slides here just to show you how much federal lands are controlled in the western states. This PowerPoint presentation was put together by one of Utah's congressmen, so I'm kind of stealing some of his thunder. But just to give you a comparison, this is pictures of obviously Ohio, Virginia, and the state of Utah. The area in blue is the area that is controlled by the state. The area that is in white is the area that is controlled
by the federal government. And you can see in Utah, the overwhelming majority of that state is controlled by the Fed. This is actually a breakdown by counties in Utah. Some of their counties, they have as little as 5 to 10 percent of the land in that county is actually state-owned land and as you know as legislators most of your educational funding comes from the collection of property taxes so you can imagine if you're a school district and one of those counties and you have less than 5 to 10 percent of
the land to collect property taxes on you're going to be in a world of hurt trying to collect those this is a map that shows how many states have national parks and this is a map that shows how many states have the Bureau of Land management as you can see that we all have national parks but only the western states have to deal with the Bureau of Land Management let's get past this the states here in red are the states that have the hardest time-growing educational funding the ones that are in red I'm gonna switch to the next slide here you
can see the change in expenditure pupil in the last 20 years the West they've We've only been able to increase 35%, and in the east, obviously, 68%, we've had a lot more. And we in the east pay for it. If you take a look at it, the United States government spends $8.6 billion on administering these lands, but they only receive $.85 billion. So we're talking almost $8 billion the federal government spends on administering public lands.
Now, what this resolution calls for, and here's a map, and you can see there are some federally controlled lands in Arkansas, Ozarks, the Oshawa's, and so forth. These are wildlife areas, but you can see in the western states just how much of that land is controlled by the federal government, overwhelming majority of it. And there's a move out west to try to get the federal government to relinquish that land to control the states. Imagine here in the last five years or so, we've enjoyed the prosperity or the benefits that have come from the Fayetteville Shale.
One of the largest and richest oil reserves in the country is located under those federal lands. So imagine being a state legislature and knowing you've got that rich resource there that can provide jobs and opportunities for your citizens, like we've had with the Fayetteville shale, but you can't get to it because that's federal land and not your land, and that's one of the situations. North Dakota, which is close there, they have a 3% unemployment rate. They have, you know, they've actually built cities to be able to support these industries,
but in the western lands they can't because the federal government controls it, and the federal government is not letting them get at those resources. So what this resolution does is this resolution calls for the federal government to cede all of their lands back to these states as has been done to the eastern states with the agreement that the states will then cede back to the federal government the national parks, the national wildlife areas, and military reservations that are located within those borders,
and that the federal government will maintain those parks and those military reservations And at such a point, as they decide to dispose of those, they would dispose of them back to the states. Once that property is given to the states, any bit of that property that is sold to private interests, the money that is raised would be dedicated to the national debt, which is what the, there's actually, in the bill, it looks at some parts of the Constitution.
It looks at prior court cases where the sale of public lands, that money was supposed to be dedicated to relieving the public debt. Now, Arkansas is not the only state that is involved in this. I got an update this morning. Utah, obviously, they passed a resolution on this last year. Idaho is preparing a bill along the same lines. Nevada is also preparing a bill. Last year, Wyoming passed a bill. Colorado passed a bill. New Mexico is looking at passing a bill.
So when these transfers take place, these states will be prepared. As far as eastern states that are concerned, I'm asking Arkansas to join in the support of this, and also South Carolina also has a resolution in support of this bill so why in Arkansas should we be concerned about this first off it's an opportunity for us to support our western states uh... secondly this creates a public awareness and lastly there's the economic incentive one of the largest and richest oil reserves in the nation is located under
those lands and uh... if that reserve is tapped uh... natural gas has been we've seen what happened with natural gas prices We could see the same thing happen with oil prices. I've gotten the support, like I said, of the representative and the congressman in Utah. I have the support of our own land commissioner's office here in the state. And with that, I'll entertain any questions from the committee. Thank you, Representative Meeks. You've referred to it as
Speaker 128
34:32
a bill a couple times. I'm sorry, it's a House resolution.
Speaker 9
34:37
I'm sorry, yes. No problem, it is a resolution. Any questions from committee members?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:48
all right pardon me representative Walker I'm sorry
thank you madam chair mr. Meeks how does support of this resolution benefit the people of Arkansas other than to transfer some public lands to some possible purchases who may hold it
at their will as long as they wish and develop it at their will if they choose. I mean, what's the
benefit to the public? Well, the first part of that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
35:17
is the lands will be transferred to the states, and it would be up to the states whether they want to sell them to public interest or not or whether they want to keep them as parks or wildlife areas or so forth. As far as what the benefit to Arkansas would be, first off, of course, as I said, it would be the support of our western states. The other benefit would be the potential economic benefits to our state.
Ten years ago, natural gas was selling at about $8 per gallon of gas equivalent. Now it's about $3 per gallon gas equivalent. I've seen some sources that have said that the amount of recoverable oil in that section of our country is equivalent to all the other reserves in the world combined. And whether that's true or not, there is a large, large deposit of oil out there. And if that is allowed to be gotten at and is allowed to be produced to the benefit of those states,
not only do we see those states benefiting from lower unemployment rates, they get tax revenues. But also, as that oil goes onto the market, it lowers the energy costs for everybody else, including us here in Arkansas. do
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
36:37
we have any evidence from any of these states that leads to the conclusion you have just stated in other words is there any demonstration in any of the Western states that what you predict has in fact occurred in any of
those states and if so where can we
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
36:55
see it well the only state it's really occurred in is North Dakota because the feds have been somewhat reluctant to allow drilling on their lands as a matter of fact I heard a statistic this morning that 85% of the wells that currently exist on federal lands are not in production and all
due respect North Dakota is not in that Western group right right thank you but yeah but the reason why the other states that they can't North
Dakota is the closest Western state that is allowed to get at that
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
37:25
resource that's why I use them I have one question mr. Meeks are the western states not benefit now from a massive amount of hunters that go out in that area and they they support the local economies it's a huge influx of people that hunt on federal lands and in the whole United States are they not benefit economically already in the states and the local economies from that
I'm sure they are yeah it's I think it's a huge economic impact on just a number of people from Arkansas sure that I know personally that go out there and I know that's that's you know that's United States wide and I just wonder what the if that land becomes under individual control or even state control is that no longer available to us because that
land was bought for a purpose in the first place by the federal government I think right well
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
38:27
part of the that land of course belong to
some of the states that were to the east of there and they were given that land on the condition that they would be new states and that those new states would have similar rights to what the current the earlier states would have and to your point I would think that you You know, those local legislators, when they decide how they're going to best utilize that land, that they will definitely take into account the economic impacts of the hunting and the fishing. And it's, you know, if we were in their shoes, how would we feel as a legislative body knowing that we only have say-so over, you know, 20 percent of our lands?
And that's what we're saying is we want to give these states the right to choose their destiny based on
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
39:18
what's right for their state. Representative Hutchison is this is it are you saying that this is the states are thinking that they are they're gonna be able to just get this
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
39:28
back from the feds yes that's the idea and and they're setting up committees and
legislation to that effect now whether the federal do it or not that's a whole
other story but this is a move by the states to encourage the federal government to relinquish that land because there's nothing in the Constitution that says that you know
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
39:50
this land is to be held in perpetuity okay you know like we're Arkansans here and but you know we're United States too and that's right that's right we're Americans and you know it's half it's almost a shame that that that you know there are countries and so far in debt
that we're not utilizing some of these resources anyway but you know for instance like this this this federal land in Arkansas would you would you say other than than like the up in the Ozarks that most of this is through conservation easements probably you're talking about the lands here in Arkansas yes
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
40:33
sir I would believe so probably so right right yeah I think the lands all in Arkansas that are controlled by
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
40:41
the federal government or wildlife areas or National Park. And maybe Representative Wilkins can, you know, the Game and Fish, for instance,
they own some of this land in the Fayetteville Shale, correct? Yes, they do. And they get resources from it, supposedly, right? Yes, they do. And I just, I see the states may be taking it over, which would, you know, we're Americans, we're our states too, but I sure don't see them selling the individuals do you know that that would be up to them
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:12
that would be you know that it's their state their land I believe they should have the right to
decide what they see best to do with it now will the federal government benefit from this sure if those lands are sold to public or to private interest then that money is supposed to be earmarked for the federal debt and if that those resources are allowed to be developed of course if that those oil and gas fields are allowed to come online, then obviously the federal government is going to receive tax revenue from that as well. You
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
41:44
know, most of the eminent domain that happens, they don't really never hardly take
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:50
federal ground, do they? No, no, not that I would. No, I don't think that would be contrary to, you know, the federal
Speaker 52
42:01
government won't take land that it already owns, so.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
42:05
Yeah, I hear you. All right, thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Nichols? Thank you, Madam Chairman. right now doesn't the federal when the federal government owns a lot of land in a in an area that may include a local school district aren't your federal funds that actually flow to these school districts based upon the ownership of the
federal government and that land like I think of the air base here I think there's some additional funds that go to school districts in that area what's what's your approach to to that issue I assume in Western Arkansas we have a number a lot of federal land I'm sure there's some type of accommodations for our local school districts how are you going to make up that money if if if the
state receives title to to these lands right now if you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
43:00
look on this chart and I don't know how well y'all can see it from way back here
but the secure rural schools the federal government spends over 400 million dollars a year doing just what you're what just what you're saying and what will have to happen and this is part of that transfer process that these states will have to look at is as to how they're going to handle this
how they're going to absorb that particular cost
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
43:26
representative Hickerson thank you madam chair representative makes what about lands that are set aside for mitigation purposes you have a lot of wetlands I mean what if they excluded from
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
43:46
this if they are designated as wildlife areas and in the bill it actually gives a title and code it's on on page 3 if the area is
currently designated as part of the national park system under 16 u.s. code the national wildlife preservation system under u.s. code 1131 or for a military park that the western states would agree to transfer it back to the federal government for protection. And then any other lands beyond that, if they're wetlands or something that needs to be preserving, that would be up to the local state government whether they would want to preserve that or not. Similar to what, you know, we've done that here in Arkansas.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
44:31
Correct, correct. But there are lands that are set aside by the federal government for mitigation, for instance, if they're building a highway. Right. You know, and they keep this and this is set aside and can't be used for anything else. So normally it's wetlands or something like that. So they're not wildlife preserves. They're just sometimes just wetlands, swarms or whatever. So that would be excluded, I'm sure. Right, and that would be in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
44:57
the agreement that that particular state would have to make with the federal government when this is all transferred.
Speaker 22
45:02
They would have to keep that. Right. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
45:14
Any other questions from committee? Do you
have a question? Representative Nichols. So is what you're saying, Representative Meeks, is that Arkansas would take title to the Little Rock Air Force Base and then the state would decide whether to give it back or not?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:27
Well, in this case, we would take title to the land, but before we took title to the land, we would agree to cede it back to the federal government under the agreement
that if they ever sold the air base and that property became available, that instead of the federal government either keeping it and letting it go to waste or ruin or selling it to somebody else, that they would give it back to the state first. So the answer to my
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
45:52
question is yes, the state would take title to that land? Correct. They would take title,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:57
and then they would cede that title back to the federal government under the agreement that they would keep the land up, they would take care
of it, and if us they decided to ever close the base and not utilize it anymore that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
46:10
would come back to the state I guess I have some problems with this
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
46:27
far-reaching resolution thank you madam chairman representative Wilkins one more question all right this this land is It's currently being used, for the most part, by local ranchers, farmers, and the estates
are using it. I mean, the citizens of the state are using it quite a bit. I mean, they're renting it out for grazing and for other purposes. Is that not true? Yes. How does this affect that? I mean, how do you envision this effect in that? Because I know probably a lot of local citizens in that area, particularly farmers and ranchers, would probably not really be in favor of giving up the rental rights that they have on this property.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
47:17
Well, that would be the transfer committees of these states set
up. That's something they would have to look at. But the one thing that would happen is with these ranchers and farmers, instead of them just renting that land, this may give them the opportunity to actually claim and be owners of that land. And if you own the land, you're a lot better or a lot more motivated to take better care of the land and to develop and so forth. Are there any further questions? representative
Speaker 128
47:49
Meeks do you want to move ahead with this at this time with all
these questions or are you you want to go ahead with the motion represent of
Speaker 9
47:57
altus pardon me is there anyone in the public here to speak for against this representative Altus I'll recognize
Chair
Unverified
48:07
you for a motion thank you madam chair I move do pass all those in favor I all those opposed nay the nays have it all right thank
Speaker 9
48:23
you committee and I would just remind the committee that that was
a resolution and we just need to remember that in the future representative McGill you have been sitting back there patiently please come up to
Representative George B. McGill
Unverified
48:39
the table thank you thank you madam chair and committee interesting
Speaker 160
48:46
conversations here today I'm going to be brief I've got this bill back before you to
Representative George B. McGill
Unverified
48:53
add a couple more elections again this bill has to deal with a city
administrative forms of government currently there's three cities in the state that that that have that that's Fort Smith Asylum Springs and Barling Arkansas and again what we're wanting to do is is add some language that the states that a person design to become a candidate for mayor or a directorship file this with the city clerk not less than 75 days the current language is 70 days and our clerk also heard date for certifying this information is also 70
days so on occasion if someone files at the last minute our city clerk may not have more than three or four hours to certify her information so what we want to do is create a situation where she'll have at least five days and the amendment takes in special elections and and the general election so we want to special elections general elections
Speaker 9
50:04
as well representative McGill basically all
you're needing is to do pass this is basically okay are there any questions from the committee I think all of you were in here when we went over this bill last time all right I'll accept a motion pardon me is a public here anyone from the public here to speak for or against. Please excuse me. I will get this down eventually. If not, then I hear a due pass from Representative Kerr. All those in favor, aye. All those opposed, nay.
Congratulations, Representative McGill. You've passed it a second time. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. Representative House, is he in the room? And Senator Irvin. All right, seeing no further business, I'll accept a motion to adjourn, so move.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 3
Speaker 4
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Speaker 12
Speaker 17
Speaker 18
Speaker 22
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 38
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 59
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 83
Speaker 85
Speaker 89
Speaker 100
Speaker 91
Speaker 82
Speaker 106
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 111
Speaker 120
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 128
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 52
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Representative George B. McGill
Unverified
Speaker 160