April 1, 2011
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (12)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SJR5
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SJR5”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1295
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1295”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1859
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1859”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2045
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “In House Bill 2045, beg me to report we have the same under consideration and…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB886
· 2 mentions in chapter
Matched: “SB886”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1994
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1994”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB516
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB516”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB679
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB679”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB707
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB707”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB835
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB835”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB838
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB838”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB862
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB862”
|
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 5, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
We've been standing along with our staff and press and those of you who are visiting with us in the gallery today. We're going to be led in prayer by Brother Freeman Henderson from Murfreesboro, who's here today as guest of Representative Randy Stewart. And Brother Henderson's grandfather, J.T. Pollard, served in the House in 1913 through 1917, which means that, Brother Henderson, your grandfather served in the house
along with my grandfather in 1913, so a kind of special day. So we'll be led in prayer, and then Representative Billy Gaskell will lead us in the Pledge of
Speaker 4
0:49
Allegiance. Brother Henderson. Good morning, honored Arkansas legislators. Ladies and gentlemen. Let
Speaker 4
1:02
bowed. May every eye, Father, be closed. And may every thought or encumbrance that would be said of us be placed aside.
Father that we might come into thy presence and we might invoke your blessings upon that which we do Father for our great state let us pray our gracious heavenly Father we acknowledge this day and every day hour and every hour in all that we do or say that Thou art our God.
And Father, that in Thee we may safely trust. Trust our life. Trust our worth as a government. Trust Thee as individuals. And Father, most of all, we may trust Thee with the final destiny
Speaker 10
2:11
of our very being. We affirm, Heavenly Father, on this occasion
Speaker 4
2:18
In Thee we live, in Thee we move And in Thee we have our very being
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:28
Thou art our God And we come
Speaker 4
2:34
before Thee Today, Heavenly Father We are privileged in this great nation To mark our time and place as we seek to fulfill the responsibilities conferred upon us by the free people and the free voters of our home precincts.
Today we mark the end of our legislative session. Yet our duty is to our great state and to the state of Arkansas and to the people within its borders continue. For, Father, we pray that we may be immersed under thy guiding hand and thy watchful eye, that our people in this great state may prosper under thy will. Forgive us, Father, we pray, when we err.
Strengthen us when we are weak. Lift us when we fail. Inspire us when we falter. Let our works, our decisions, our commitments give glory to thy name. and hope to thy people. And now, Holy Father, we stand thankful for our legislators and patriots, those of this great state who lay aside all things, that they may pay heed and attention to the needs of our homeland. We are thankful, Father, for the care and nurture
in which they come together to arrange the affairs of our state. Blessing guide them, Father, in their ever decision that our great state may continue to prosper in sound and fiscal responsibility, bedrocked in the biblical principles, Father, that your word sets forth. Thank you now, Father, for these citizens who dedicate their life to God and provide for thy people,
that they too may prosper, and that we all give glory to thy name. Hallelujah Father Hallelujah We pray this in the name of Jesus our Lord Because he asked us to Thank you in Christ's name Amen, Amen, Amen
Chair
Unverified
5:02
Members, please indicate your presence by pressing the yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
5:24
Clerk. The yellow present button. Representative Hutchinson.
Speaker 21
5:32
All right. Thank you, members. By indication of 99 members present, we're
Chair
Unverified
5:39
all here today. Representative Eddie Cheatham moves that we dispense with a reading of the previous day's journal without objection, so ordered. Are there reports from
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
5:49
select committees? Reports from standing committees. Yes, sir. Read the report, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Speaker, we are a committee
on city, county, local, to whom is referred to House Bill 1295,
In House Bill 2045, beg me to report we have the same under consideration and heareth return the same with the recommendation that they do pass as amended. Respectfully submitted, Charlotte Wagner, Chair. Mr. Speaker, we are committing on Judiciary to whom is referred to House Bill 1859. Beg me to report we have the same under consideration and heareth return the same with the recommendation that it do pass as amended. Respectfully submitted, Darren Williams,
Chair
Unverified
6:31
Chair. All right, members, we'll go to the red calendar.
Representative Garner moves that we expunge the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 5 fail. It's a proper motion. Representative Garner, you are recognized to come down and explain the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
6:54
Members, in the final days, we get in a hurry. From the time this bill was first presented, there have been changes made, and we need
to go about the deliberation of this opportunity or to put this on the ballot for the voters to look at. We need to have a debate. We need to talk about it, and we need to hash it out. And to do that, I need you to expunge this vote so we can present the pros and cons of this in a more open manner and not move so quickly. And if after the end of that debate you want to vote no, then vote no.
But this bill needs to be heard in a more deliberative process, and we need to be deliberative on this such an important, we need to be more deliberative than we were. So I ask you to vote, to expunge the
vote by which this failed so we can, so we can
have that deliberation. Thank you. Members, you've heard the explanation of the motion, anyone wishing to speak against the motion? Representative Nichols,
Chair
Unverified
8:10
you're, no, Representative Garner, you're not recognized and well right
now. you are recognized, come down and speak against the motion.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:22
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, we did
take this vote yesterday, and it was an overwhelming vote, and now we're being asked to expunge it so we can vote again. But what we will be voting on is allowing local governments to transfer taxes that people vote on.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
9:00
look at Section 1, the purpose of not reconsidering or expunging this vote would go against, I think, our values as a state
in taking the right of the people to vote on tax increases. I think it was debated yesterday. It was a bipartisan vote, which
is unusual in this environment, and so I just hope that we do expunge
Chair
Unverified
9:37
the vote. Representative Walker, what purpose? You're recognized.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
9:43
Mr. Chair, does this motion, in order to be considered, require a two-thirds vote?
Chair
Unverified
9:50
Yes, sir, it does. Thank you. Two-thirds of the membership, not two-thirds of the
quorum, to expunge two-thirds of the membership. Representative Alphys, what purpose?
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
10:04
You're recognized. It was my understanding that once we expunge the vote, there would be no debate on the bill. It would
Chair
Unverified
10:12
immediately be reconsidered. That's not correct. That's on a motion to
reconsider. Okay. Thank you. If we expunge, it revives the bill. It's alive again.
Speaker 52
10:21
So we can debate the bill? If you expunge the vote, the bill is up to be debated. Okay.
Speaker 54
10:28
Thank you, Mr. Preaker. Appreciate it. No
Chair
Unverified
10:34
vote. Representative Nichols has spoken against the motion. Anyone wish to speak for the motion? Representative Burris, you are recognized to
come and speak for the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In
Representative John Burris
Unverified
10:49
keeping with the great tradition we've had this session of working with the Senate,
I think it would be very nice to pass this motion and have a little bit more debate as Representative Garner highlighted. Debate never hurts. This motion allows it. And I think as a good courtesy, it would be nice to have that debate and then everybody vote the way they want
Chair
Unverified
11:12
to vote after some more facts. Thank you. Representative Burroughs, spoken for the motion. Anyone wish to speak against the motion?
Speaker 57
11:18
Representative Lee, you are recognized to come
Chair
Unverified
11:25
and speak against the motion. this bill had an opportunity to be debated heavily in a joint state agencies meeting
and was not i hardly encourage you not to expunge this vote
Speaker 37
11:38
representative lee has spoken against the motion anyone wishes to
Chair
Unverified
11:41
speak for the motion against the motion representative garner you want
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
11:49
We'll close for your motion. You're recognized. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. And I, too, serve on joint state agencies. This bill has changed dramatically, dramatically, from the point that it was there. That means the debate has changed dramatically.
It is a debate we did not have. I'm not saying that your minds will be changed by the expungement of this vote. What I am saying is that this deserves deliberation that we did not give it, and so I ask that you expunge this vote so that we can be deliberative about the merits and demerits, if there are any, if you cannot change your mind, of this bill.
That is what we're called here to do. Let's not get in such a rush that the misinformation that is out there stands, and that's the basis of the vote that was
Speaker 61
12:45
made yesterday. So I ask that you expunge the
vote. Thank you. Representative Garner has closed with a
Chair
Unverified
12:54
motion. The question for the House is a motion to expunge the vote by which Senate Joint
Resolution 5 fail. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Chair
Unverified
13:04
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. Mr. Clerk, by a vote of 69, yay, 20, nay,
you have expunged the vote. Mr. Clerk, read SJR 5. Senate Joint
Speaker 66
13:34
Resolution 5 by Senator Files proposing an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution
concerning financial reform for counties and municipalities. Representative Garner,
Chair
Unverified
13:42
you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you,
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
13:52
Mr. Speaker. Resolution, excuse me. All right, let's have a debate. What Senate Joint Resolution 5 does is allow
two things. It allows local municipalities to devote part of their sales tax revenue to bonds that would fund economic development within development districts.
It also allows municipalities to look at their unfunded police and fire obligations that are going forward that Lofty calls up every year and duns them in ever-increasing amounts. It allows them to either devote part of their local sales tax revenue to fund bonds to eliminate that at tax-free rates or to raise a tax to eliminate that at tax-free rates so that that municipality can plan and fund and not have that.
Those liabilities are like adjustable-rate mortgages. lot because them every year hits that municipality with with the done and those those unfunded liabilities of those pensions just go on and on and on it's like paying the interest on that debt if you've got some other way of fixing that this is on a closed retirement fund if you've got some other way of fixing that i don't know it hasn't been it hasn't been offered but that's what this bill does two things it promotes economic development i'm i don't know how many of you
you have heard from your local chambers of commerce who
want to be able to use this vehicle. It provides for elections. If a tax is to be raised, the local people have to vote it on themselves. I spoke with the governor on the way out of the Capitol a minute ago. He
is neutral on this. This is a local issue. It is permissive. It allows these vehicles to go forward. This is, on the economic development side, is an economic development tool that has been very successful, Star Bonds. It's called Star Bonds. More successful this program
than TIF bonds in the past. I will try and answer any questions. Again, this is permissive. This helps your local municipality develop within the community, or it helps them levelize and fix their ongoing and rising cost of paying off their local police and fire pensions. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 21
16:22
Representative Collins, what purpose? Question. You're recognized.
Speaker 74
16:30
Representative Garner, with regard to pension plans, I understand
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
16:35
that closed plans would be able to tax and bond. What restrictions would there be on municipalities from increasing pensions at their pleasure and then simply closing the plans, bonding and taxing out into the future?
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
16:56
Thank you. Well, thank you for your question. Again, these
are closed pension plans, and this legislation does not cover any police officers or
firefighters that were hired on or after July 1 of 1983. So,
no more plans. I mean, these are closed plans that have these persons in it. They must have been
hired prior to January 1, 1983.
This allows your city to eliminate an ongoing and rising liability by level debt payments at tax-free rates.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:38
Representative Walker, what purpose? Thank you. A question, Mr. Speaker. You're recognized. Mr. Garneau, you've mentioned TIF funds. Would you explain to the Chamber what TIF funds are and how they differ from what you are proposing? And my second question, which I may not get a chance to ask, I'll answer it also.
Can you tell me any place where these funds have been sought in such a way as not to compete with school districts for bonding capacity authority? Well, I'm not going to go into
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
18:13
a lengthy description of TIF bonds because, although I did mention it, And this is not about TIF bonds, and I don't want to confuse the issue. So, respectfully, I'm
not going to go into a dissertation on that, and I haven't studied TIF bonds.
To answer your question, these development bonds come from local sales tax, not property tax, and that is a dramatic difference. So this will not affect school districts. These bonds come from sales tax of your city, of your local municipality, not the property taxes that involve
Speaker 80
18:50
school districts. Representative English, what
Speaker 23
18:54
purpose? Question. You're recognized. I'm confused here.
Representative Jane English
Unverified
18:59
Are we trying to do an economic development thing to help the city of North Little Rock set up a redevelopment, or any city? to set up a redevelopment area, and the citizens of the city would vote to increase the sales tax to pay off these revenue bonds. And then, why is the police, I mean, the fire department in here? Okay. What does that got to do with the redevelopment and economic development thing in a city?
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
19:34
Right. Let me try to fix your confusion. It is permissive.
It is not necessary on the development side. Again, these type bonds, this permission is to do two things. One is on the economic development side, that municipality would be allowed to
use the existing sales tax revenue, or if they voted on it, to raise the tax.
But by using existing sales tax revenue, they can bond a larger sum for economic development within the district that the municipality forms. So it would be similar to the development that you mentioned in North Little Rock with the exception that was a property tax diversion. This is sales tax diversion, and the sales tax of the growth of the industry would rise, and that growth is above and beyond what is necessary to service those bonds
and creates jobs, creates increases in property values. It is an economic development issue. The other part of those, the city could also and might not have a development district. Separate from the development district, they could fund a retirement of their liability for LATV, for their police and fire closed fund. This is not the development of a district. This is the retirement of an ongoing pension debt that hits that municipality every year in varying and growing amounts over the years.
And this would allow them to either divert existing revenue or to raise a tax, if they voted on it, to fully fund and wipe out that liability of that unfunded lot fee fire and police pension plan. It's a closed plan. Those plans would have to be in existence for people who were hired before 1983. This is an ongoing liability for a municipality, and this would allow them to fund that and that liability go away at tax-free rates and would save over time, because that hit every year is growing and growing, over time it would save that municipality money.
So you have two issues, the economic development and the formation of an economic development district, the use of sales tax funds to fund those bonds, to grow businesses, to build a hotel or whatever. You have that issue. You have also the issue of bonds to fund the pension liabilities that are existing and the annual cost
Representative Jane English
Unverified
22:27
that is growing. Two issues. I thought that constitutional amendments could only cover one subject.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
22:34
It does. It covers the ability of the municipality to issue bonds. But
Representative Jane English
Unverified
22:40
redevelopment and paying off fireman's funds are two different things. Yes, but you need
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
22:45
to have the authority for the municipality issue bonds, and that's a single thing. Representative Woods, what
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
22:57
purpose? Question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quickly, and then I'll get to my question. I wanted to thank you and Senator Fowles for filing this bill because star bonds have been around for about five or six years. When I first came in as a freshman, I drafted legislation regarding star bonds. And anyone outside or from Kansas, I believe is where it came from, knows how well it works.
If you're in the Delta or if you're in a town or an area that you want economic development, a super project, something that'll draw more jobs or create more jobs or revamp a side of town that's falling apart, this is what you want. Am
Speaker 88
23:37
I correct or incorrect on that? Absolutely. Essentially, on the
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
23:42
development side, this is a great economic development engine for blighted areas, for municipalities, for downtowns, etc. or they can form a district, they can use their own, they can opt to use their own sales tax to develop it.
And I thank you for giving me credit for filing it. I did not file it. It was Senator Files. And I have to tell you, when I was considering the original bill in
joint state agencies, I thought, although I voted for it, I vowed to kill it on the floor. Because that was a different bill. That involved using general revenue of the state, and that was a whole other ball of wax. That was bad.
I mean, we could have caused great havoc on that. So Senator Files amended the bill so that it is
local option, permissive, and development. And so that's why I said I would come and speak on it today. And
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
24:40
this is without a doubt an economic development bill. Without a doubt. In Kansas it works, and we want to try it here in
Speaker 59
24:48
Arkansas. Highly successful. Thank you. Representative Mayberry, what purpose?
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
24:53
You recognize? Actually, I have two questions. One is with regard to the development and redevelopment side of this.
You had mentioned a couple of times, Representative Garner, that for the raising of taxes with regards to paying off the bond, that that could only be done if they voted on it. And could you clarify who they is? Is that a vote of the people or is that
Speaker 93
25:16
a vote of the local elected representatives? Who are they? Yes,
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
25:24
it is the electorate. The electorate would be with the consent of a majority of the qualified electors
voting on the question in an election for that purpose.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
25:35
Okay, and my second question, my follow-up to that is, again, with regards to this development issue, In terms of specific projects that a bond might be issued for, is there – how will the criteria be established as to what qualifies – how will we know X number of jobs, minimum amount of investment in the state, and so forth? How is that established?
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
25:59
Thank you. Actually, that could vary dramatically. I couldn't go into all the scenarios,
But the bill says that they have to come before the appropriate agency of the General Assembly. They can't just go out there and wing it. They have to bring it before this body to get approval to do any of these. Any of the economic development issues have to come before this body. I don't know that it's required on the—I'd have to read it again. I'm not sure that that's required to fund and do away with the retirement liability, But I know that these improvement districts and the issuance, you
know, the plan to do this by each city
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
26:41
has to come before this body to be approved. Representative Rogers, what purpose? Question? You're recognized. Thank you, sir. And with all due respect to Representative Woods and Representative Garner, Dorothy Toto and the Tin Man ended up in Kansas in the Wizard of Oz, so it leaves me with a little doubt. One of the things, one of my questions is about on the local tax, the local sales tax revenue, the bonds that you're talking about, is that off of money that is currently, like, for instance, if a county or a city has designated funds specifically for a project right now from their own local sales tax revenue,
Will that money still continue to go to that specific project, and will it, or will it, if they in essence enact a new project, will then the funds be diverted or redistributed in some respect? That's a good question.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
27:46
Those revenues go specifically to the bond
indebtedness, and when the bond is paid off, those funds are freed.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
27:56
Thank you. Representative Hobbs, what purpose? Peace. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Garner, first of all, thank you for clarifying that there are two issues represented here, but I also see a third section. So are there actually three issues or two issues on this amendment? Can
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
28:20
you clarify what your question is? is what on the the section 3 has to do with the section 3 has to do with
clarification of section 2 so what is your questions? Well that's that's what I want to
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:37
know. You said there were, you clarified there were two issues
Speaker 110
28:40
but I didn't think there were indeed two or
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:44
three. Gotcha. Yes. So there are. There are two issues. Okay
Speaker 111
28:47
even though there's three sections. Okay and then the other question. You see section
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:51
3 where it says section 2 of the amendment.
Thank you. Thank you very Okay, and then the other question I have is, are we talking about using bonds, and
then of course replacing that with tax sales dollars, and then are we financing private development with those bonds?
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
29:10
Yes. Thank you very much. Yes, we are. We are taking, we are saying that a city may decide to have a development district and devote its sales tax revenues to fund the debt service of a bond used to create infrastructure to attract private development. In that private, that private development raises property taxes, creates jobs, improve. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 37
29:38
Speaker. Representative Meeks, what purpose? Question, please.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:41
Recognized. Representative Garner, on this, do cities not already have the authority to issue bonds? And
if so, how does this bond initiative differ from the bonds that cities are already able to issue? That's a
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
29:56
great question. And yes, they do. But they don't have the authority to create these types of development districts. So it is the permission to issue the bonds to fund the development districts.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
30:11
private private versus public is the difference here or would
Speaker 100
30:19
that be too broad a generalization okay private versus right
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
30:24
we're currently they can bond public entities but they can't bond private development districts I mean do they already have the authority in their bonding powers to be able to bond these development districts that we're trying to through
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
30:37
this amendment I do not believe so sir and
what we're allowing them to do is fund those with sales tax revenue.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Existing sales tax revenue, if there is, on the economic development side, if there is taxes to be raised, I believe it's permissive, and they already have the ability to do that. I don't find that language in here. The language I have in here about elections would be if they opt to completely fund and do away with their old closed pension fund liability. So they already have the ability to raise taxes. Anyone can do that. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 120
31:16
Representative Murdoch, what purpose? Question. Recognized? Has the Municipal League weighed in on this in
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
31:25
any kind of way, any opinion, or anything? My understanding late was that they were in support
of this, and it just had not been worked. Don't take that as a strong statement. It was a comment as I came in the door. And so that's my understanding. If someone has other information about that, I would welcome it to the floor in the interest of open debate.
But my understanding is that they were for that. Since I was not
the author of the bill, I didn't work that. I know that local chambers may have called you and said, please
Speaker 122
32:06
let us do this. Thank you. Representative Hutchinson, what purpose? Recognized?
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
32:12
usually when a private developer goes in and he wants to start a new economic inspiration he takes the risk
if his idea doesn't work out then he has to absorb the loss if the cities enter into these bonds and their vision does not work out and they don't get the sales tax to pay off the bonds I mean, the public is taking the risk. The private developer is not. What happens if this vision doesn't come true and they don't get the money to pay off
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
32:46
the bonds? They would be, number one, the devotion of revenue in sales tax anticipation is never funded in pie in the sky
because you can't get a rating, you can't get anyone to buy it. It's not just on the increased property value that would occur, although that would occur, And this is not money that is handed over directly to any private entity. It is for the redevelopment of the infrastructure in blighted, essentially, downtown areas. And so there is an incremental increase in value, and that's what the sales tax revenue would be devoted towards. The increased risk, the company still has a risk.
If they come in, they set up a company, the company goes down, the company goes down. This is to rebuild the infrastructure of the city, and that added value would still be there if the project failed. And they don't, they don't, you can't even begin to sell a bond on the basis of increased sales tax revenue. They don't do pie-in-the-sky projections on that. It just, no one will buy it.
And we will have the authority to look at that plan.
and the General Assembly will have the
Speaker 33
34:03
authority to look at that plan. Representative Smith, what
purpose? Motion. What? Media consideration. Representative Garner still has floor. I'm not going to take that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:18
motion. Representative Walker, what purpose? You recognized? Will, if you are successful, will this allow acquisition of private property by use of eminent domain and then allow the use of the same funds for private purposes,
ensuring that private development cannot fail? Representative Walker, that's
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
34:41
nowhere in the bill. We have one of the strongest property rights
articles in our Constitution in the entire United States. I have not addressed that issue. I have to go out on a limb to answer no. The use of eminent domain for a commercial enterprise I do not think is possible in the state of Arkansas because we have a great constitutional provision.
I haven't seen it done. When those issues were raised in other states, Arkansas's Constitution was brought up as an example of how that could, even though the debate was in Maryland or whatever, Arkansas was brought up as an example that that could not happen. In my research on this, it doesn't change
that. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I know that that issue is solid in Arkansas,
and I don't think this does anything to change that, and I don't think
Chair
Unverified
35:56
I would have a fear of that. Representative Elliott, what
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
36:00
purpose? Question. Recognized. Representative Goddard, I've heard you say that the question that Representative Walker said, that you don't think that it will happen. Is it possible that it could happen? That's my first question. And the second question, as you were speaking in reference to this bill, I've heard raising taxes on this a couple times.
Does this bill, will this bill allow for taxes to be
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
36:26
raised? Yes. Well, number one, I don't have any fear of the use of eminent domain to take private property. Possible. I don't think it's possible, sir. You don't think
it's possible? I do not. I mean, according to – we've had other issues come up with respect to the rights of private property. Other people in here have pointed out the fact that we do have the most stringent private property rights maybe in the nation.
I do not think eminent domain for that purpose – for the purpose of a commercial private development of someone else. No, sir, I strongly
believe that I'm correct on this. That is not possible. My last question is this. On the taxes, yes. If the people voted to, and it's my understanding of this, and it may be for the development project, but it is certainly possible in language
in the bill for the retirement of debt that the city and the
municipality owes to the closed pension fund.
And it is a beneficial thing because it ends up saving money as that liability goes away. But, yes, sir, there is the possibility that they could vote. They could vote. So you are for raising taxes? I did not. No, I'm not for that. I am for saving the
Speaker 96
37:48
municipality money. You're not for it. I'm
Chair
Unverified
37:51
not for raising taxes. Representative Elliott, if you have a question on the resolution. I need
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
37:56
to clarify that. If I can look at the liability of the municipality
and I can see that by voting a tax increase and that unfunded liability that no longer raises or goes away, he's not paying attention. Representative Woods,
Speaker 37
38:13
what purpose? What's your point? Well, Representative Murdoch had a
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
38:20
question, I have an answer, and then I'm hearing immediate considerations, and I don't know if Representative Smith's for or against the bill, so I just want to make a statement real quick before the debate's cut off.
Chair
Unverified
38:33
You're not recognized to make statements, and let me get to questions here. Representative Hammer, what purpose? And please do. You're recognized for a
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
38:42
question. A little trouble hearing you, so I want to make sure I heard you right
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:47
a second ago. If there are any taxes that could be raised by this bill, will that decision to raise those taxes be determined at the local level, whether that's by a city board or by the vote of the people, and not us, the legislators? That
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
39:03
is true, but let me clarify, it is voted on by the electorate. It is not just the city board.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:09
But my point, I want to be clear on this. Any decision to raise any taxes associated with this bill is determined at the local level, not this body. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
39:24
you. And again, if I'm presented with an ever-growing liability and an undetermined bill that I have to pay lot fee that calls up my city and says, this year you're going to pay $100,000, this year you're going to pay $200,000, next year you're going to pay $175,000,
But the trend is ever-growing, and I can issue tax-free bonds at a flat rate, low rate, and make that liability go away on a closed pension fund. If that deal works and ends up saving my municipality money, and five years down the road, that's gone away, and I've saved that money, that's a good deal. And I would
be willing to let people raise taxes on themselves to make that liability go away.
I think I've, whew, discussed it. I think we've debated well. I would
Speaker 139
40:21
appreciate a great vote. Thank you. All right, members, you've heard an exclamation of the resolution.
Speaker 37
40:28
Anyone wish to speak against the resolution? Representative Nichols, you're
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
40:35
recognized to speak against the resolution. You know, we've talked a lot about this bill, but I'd
like to read you on page 4, lines 12 and 13. The General Assembly, which is us, or the legislative body, which would be a city council, forum court, may authorize other taxes to retire the bonds.
It says nothing about a vote of the people. The people may have voted a particular one-cent sales tax to do a certain thing. Now by this constitutional amendment, we're giving that city board the authority to divert that sales tax revenue to retire the bonds. So I think we need to look at the language of the amendment. And I also agree with the fear of eminent domain being expanded, because if you look on page 2, line 28 through 34, it's talking about economic development.
And for my friends who are concerned about overreaching a government and taking private property, when you go back to the Keogh v. City of New London case, the Supreme Court case, that said that if the legislative body had defined economic development as a public purpose, then they had the right to take that property or they had the power to take that property. I think we have done that. Arguably, I'll at least give you that, but I think we have done that when you look at lines 28 through 36 of this resolution.
So, you know, it's just a chip in that strong Constitution that we have on eminent domain, but now we are looking at it with this as a constitutional amendment, which seems to say the public policy of this state is to support economic development. Therefore, the government can take your property because it is for a public purpose. I do agree that we've got two issues in this one constitutional amendment.
We've got city and police and fire retirement programs, which they inadequately funded. And now they're asking us to bail them out. Why don't they use their state turn-back funds that we give them to bail their own pension obligations out? Now, the Section 3 that Representative Hobbs mentioned, it is amending another constitutional provision that we have dealing with bonds,
and it's dealing with removing caps on interest rates that are there. This particular constitutional amendment, you know, we had joint meetings, and at our joint meeting, I don't recall this being part of it. If you notice, it's been engrossed several times with amendments to it. I think this is an attempt to take the role of the people out of tax policies to allow
cities and counties to issue bonds without a vote of people and using the sales tax revenue to pay these bonds off. I can understand why certain segments of our society would be in agreement with this, but I think for the people and the working families of the state of Arkansas, this is a bad bill. I wish it had been debated in our joint meeting of the state agencies committees.
It was not to this extent. I was off running bills and other committees when apparently an amendment came through. Now, Representative Walker talked about the TIFs and the school. The STAR program and TIF programs are very similar. They segregate money to subsidize private industry and the developers. I think that's the purpose behind this.
But I do think where you have a community college in your area and they have a local sales tax like I think Fort Smith does to support University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. This legislation does not do anything to keep the city directors over there from declaring the entire city an improvement district. They have that authority to do that. So that means any increase in sales tax revenue will go to what they consider economic development,
but it won't go to Westark, or excuse me, University of Arkansas at Fort
Smith. That could happen anywhere where schools, especially community colleges, rely upon sales tax revenue. If it is such
a good economic development project that needs to occur, where is the private sector. The private sector evaluates the worth of these projects. Why do they have to come to the public cross to get their money if it is that worthy and it will improve the
conditions and it will be profitable instead of putting the burden of these economic development projects on the backs of the people who pay sales tax, the working families of the state. is a bad bill. It had a strange route to get to us. And I would urge you to send a strong message that we're not going to be taking the money out of our community colleges, out
of our other city services that we may have voted for. Maybe we wanted to get rid of our sanitation fee that we were paying every month, and so we voted a sales tax increase to do away with that. This
would change the dynamics, and I would urge you to vote against this. Thank
Chair
Unverified
47:35
you. Representative Nichols, spoken against the bill. Representative Carnine,
you're recognized to come and speak for the bill.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
47:57
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Assembly. I just want to speak for the bill on a number of occasions. We discussed in retirement the issues about many of the local plans, some of the issues and problems of financing.
And I also want to say to you on this, I'm going to trust the people. All this does is give the people the opportunity to make the decision on whether their local communities will make this decision. I do understand Mr. Nichols, some of his concerns. I understand that. But the local directors, the local counties, are still the ones that make the decision.
If the people are not supportive of it, they can do just like all of us, run for election again. And if they're that disappointed in the decisions that they make, then guess what? They can hit the highway or the sidewalks, whatever, and go home. I really do think we ought to trust the people of our state to make the decision. All of this will be vetted in the newspapers and concerns by every editorial writer of every newspaper in this state.
Again, I ask you to vote yes. Give the people the opportunity to take their destiny in their hands. Thank you. Representative Carnine
Speaker 37
49:29
has spoken for the bill. Anyone wish to speak against the bill?
For the bill? Representative Cowling, what purpose? Motion. What's your motion? Immediate consideration, please, sir.
Chair
Unverified
49:57
Okay, I'm going to accept the motion. All in favor of the motion, not debatable. All in favor of immediate consideration
of the motion I'm going to put on the machine. The motion is immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 5. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Chair
Unverified
50:33
vote of 77, yea, 15, nay. You pass the motion. Question for the House is passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Is
everyone voting? Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 53 yea, 39 nay. You have passed the resolution.
Representative Garner moves the clincher. Five hands down the ballot. Okay. Mr. Clerk, start reading off the eyes.
Speaker 154
51:31
Altus Baker Barnett Viviano Bradford
Branscom Brown Carnine Catlett Cheatham Cowling I represent her Cowling Cozart
Dale Dethembaugh Edwards Eubanks Fielding Garner Gaskell Gillum Hall Hammer
Hickerson Ingram, Lampkin, Wenderman, Lindsay,
Lovell, Malone, McCrary, McLean, Murdoch
Speaker 155
53:16
Overby Patterson Pennarts Perry Ratliff Rice Shepard Slinkard All right, Representative Schlenkert.
Speaker 154
53:47
Steele. Summers. Thompson. Tyler. Vines. Wagner. Wardlaw. Westerman, Williams, Woods, Wren, Wright.
Chair
Unverified
54:27
Mr. Speaker. By a vote of 51 ayes, 39 nays, you have passed the resolution. Representative Garner moves to
the clincher. proper motion not debatable let's put it on
the machine question for the house is adoption of the clincher on senate joint resolution 5 prepare the machine Mr. Clerk everyone voting
everyone voting cast up the ballot by a vote of 47, yea, 39, nay. The clincher motion fails. All right, Mr. Clerk, read the letter from the Senate.
Speaker 66
55:26
April 1st, 2011, to the Honorable Sherry Stacks. Dear Mrs. Stacks, the Senate respectfully
requests the return to the Senate of House Bill 2029. Respectfully submitted, Ann Cornwell, Secretary of the Senate.
Chair
Unverified
55:37
Without objection, send the bill back to the Senate, Mr. Clerk. Let's see. Members, I want to take a moment and recognize some special guests. First of all, I'd like
to welcome our doctor of the day, Dr. Jim English from Little Rock. Dr. English, thank you for being with us today. Over in the West Gallery, your guest still here, Representative Altus?
Okay. In the West Gallery, we have a very special guest, Representative Wren today. We have the Calico Rock Lady Pirates and Coach Josh
Speaker 161
56:25
Wright. The Calico Rock Lady Pirates are the Class 2A state basketball champions, so welcome.
Chair
Unverified
56:43
Great job. At my own peril here, I was handed a note that my very lovely wife is in the gallery
and that we have a special guest here.
Speaker 145
57:24
Oh, boy. Oh, boy. What a deal. Thank goodness for April
Speaker 161
57:47
Foo's Day. Thank goodness for April Foo's Day.
Speaker 166
57:54
All right, members. It is that special
Chair
Unverified
58:11
day. Mr. Clerk. Okay. Let's see. Representative McLean moves that we recall from the Senate, House Bill 1994. It's a debatable motion. Representative McLean, if you want to explain your motion.
Representative James McLean
Unverified
58:26
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ran out of time in the Senate. I'd appreciate a favorable
Chair
Unverified
58:33
recall vote. Thank you. Heard an explanation of the motion. Anyone wishing
to speak against the motion? For the motion. Question for the House is motion to recall Senate House Bill 1994 from the Senate. On paper, say aye. Aye. Those no, ayes have it. Representative McLean moves that we expunge a vote by which House Bill 1994
passed. Debatable motion. You're recognized to explain
the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just
Representative James McLean
Unverified
59:04
expunging a vote to place a bill in the interim study. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
59:10
All right. Members, you heard an explanation of the motion.
Anyone wishing to speak against the motion for the motion? If not, the question for the House is a motion to expunge the vote by which House Bill 1994 passed. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 37
59:34
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted cast
Chair
Unverified
59:40
out the ballot by a vote of 82 yea, 0 nays, 0 present. The motion passes. Representative Wilkins, move as we pass over Senate Bill 886 and leave it on the calendar without objection, so ordered. Representative Rice.
Mr. Clark, read Senate Bill 707. Senate
Speaker 66
1:00:12
Bill 707 by Senator Pritchard to amend Arkansas law concerning involuntary commitments of persons addicted to alcohol and drugs.
Chair
Unverified
1:00:21
Representative Ross, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:00:27
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for my voice. Members, this went through just for a two-word change, recall, expunge, re-refer, amend, and now a vote for final time on SB 707.
It is a courtesy that you have given Senator Pritchard and me, and I thank you for that, and I'd appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
1:00:48
good vote. Members heard an explanation of the bill. Anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Not the question for the House, passage of Senate Bill 707, President Sheen. Mr. Clerk? Everyone voted? Everyone voted. cast up the ballot by a vote of 79 yeas, 0 nay, 0 present. You have passed the bill.
Mr. Clerk, read Senate Bill 838. Senate
Speaker 66
1:01:18
Bill 838 by Senator Hutchinson to amend the Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act to encourage and assist the recovery of monies fraudulently received from the state
Chair
Unverified
1:01:28
Medicaid program and to declare an
emergency. Representative Shepard, you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 838 by Senator Hutchinson eliminates the cap on the reward that can be paid for, that's paid based on information regarding Medicaid fraud.
It's my understanding that all the interested parties are agreeable to this bill.
Speaker 171
1:01:51
I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, I'd like to
start an explanation of the bill. Anyone wishing to speak against the bill? I'm sorry, Representative Hobbs That's
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:02:04
okay, there are a lot of people standing up back
here Thank you, Mr. Speaker Representative Shepard is this just removing the cap on how much someone can collect for reporting Medicaid fraud? At this point, after the amendments
yes, that's all it does Okay, and what is the purpose for lifting the cap? Seems
like $100,000 is a pretty good reward Well Well, I haven't talked to Senator Hutchinson about all the ins and outs, but I would think that with regard to Medicaid fraud, that there is a potential, it's basically 10% of the recovery. And so if we were going to make a reward in excess of $100,000, that would be a very significant amount of fraud.
And so I think that it's to encourage people to report that. And I understand the concern that a $100,000 reward is very significant. But by the same token, I think Medicaid fraud is a very significant issue and problem. And certainly, it's in the state's best interest to encourage people to come forward and report that. Well,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:03:10
again, I think, I mean, it seems like $100,000 is a significant amount. And currently, anything above that
$100,000 will be returned to the state, which was defraud of the money.
Is that correct? I believe that's correct. That could decrease
how much is returned to the state or the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:39
federal government. I think, well, I guess it would necessarily. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Walker, what purpose? Question. Yeah, I can ask. Representative Steele, I mean, I'm sorry. Jeopard. It's a long session. Does this take out the civil remedy that a person may have who is a whistleblower for securing his or her job once he or she has whistleblown?
In other words, must the whistleblower, in effect, give up his job or her job in this case and not have a civil remedy? Well, I think
that issue came up in House Judiciary, and I believe Representative Nichols asked about that because at one point I think there was some retaliation protection in the bill, but the parties involved in this came together and agreed to take that out. As I recall Senator Hutchinson's testimony in judiciary, there was the belief that there are other laws, federal or state, that would provide protection regardless of what we're doing here.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:04:48
But the point was that basically a person who whistleblows in Arkansas is, in effect, encouraged to do so for public policy reasons. And at the same time, when that person does so, he or she may give up his rights on the Arkansas law to get some additional job satisfaction or security. So in that sense, it's a good bill. I agree it's a good bill.
Speaker 171
1:05:12
I don't know all the ins and outs of the laws to which you refer,
but I would point out that this would provide the whistleblower in those cases where it's very significant fraud, allow them to recover an amount in excess of what would have been the case under present law.
Speaker 178
1:05:31
Representative Hammer, what purpose? Question, please. Representative Shepard, would
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:36
it be fair to say that when somebody, the term whistleblower, exercises that and turns their employee in, a lot of times it's going to be in a medical field that's going to impact other people's lives by their decision. Would it be safe to say that the potential for that person's career is over and that this money could help them transition into another career? Would you say that would be a fair statement?
Speaker 171
1:06:02
You know, I guess that's a possibility.
I mean, obviously I think we would
hope that if someone reports fraud that their job wouldn't be in jeopardy or that they could continue to work in whatever their chosen field is. But the fact of the matter is, when you're talking about, in this case, removing the cap, that would be, we're talking about fraud in excess of a million dollars, that may not go over too well when that person blows the whistle. So I think it's in our state's best interest to encourage people to report that. And if we're compensating them at 10%, which is already what's in the law, we're just removing the cap,
I think that's in recognition of the fact that they're reporting a significant
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:47
crime. So there has been a case cited where the amount would have exceeded the $100,000, but the person couldn't get it because that was the cap. I don't know if that's happened in the past or
Speaker 89
1:07:00
not. Okay. Thank you. Members, there's an explanation
of the bill. Anyone wish to speak against the bill or the bill? Not
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:07:12
the question for the House is passing Senate Bill 838.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:15
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted? Everyone voted. You're voting on the bill and the emergency clause. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 75 yea, 9 nays, 0 present. You have passed the bill and the emergency clause. Let's see. We'll go to the...
Chair
Unverified
1:07:57
right, let's, Mr. Clark, read Senate Bill 862. Senate Bill 862
by Senator Harrelson to regulate the electronic recording law. Representative Perry,
Chair
Unverified
1:08:07
you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:08:10
you, Mr. Speaker. One of the last bills, this is an easy bill. Senate Bill 862 changes the electronic recording commission.
It changes the members from 9 to 11 and authorizes one of the members to be a legislator and includes VLR to assist in the administrative of the commission. Pass through the House and the Senate without any objection. I appreciate a good vote. Members, for an explanation
Chair
Unverified
1:08:39
of the bill, anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill? If not, the question for the House passage of Senate Bill 862. Repair the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot by a vote of 73, yea, 12, nay, 0, present. You have passed the bill. All right, members, we're going to go to the yellow budget calendar. Representative Webb, you are recognized to come
to the well and explain how you want to proceed on the matters on the budget calendar today.
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we could, on the
bills that are introduced by joint budget, starting with Senate Bill 28 through
Speaker 21
1:09:47
Senate Bill 626, All right, anybody want to
do anything? Senate Bill 28 through Senate Bill 626.
Chair
Unverified
1:09:59
Bill 667. 620, sorry. Okay. All right. We're going to bat Senate
Bill 28 through Senate Bill 620.
Okay. Mr. Clerk, read the bills. Senate Bill 28 Senate Bill 104 Senate Bill 211 Senate Bill 283
Chair
Unverified
1:10:30
Senate Bill 620 Representative Webb, do you want to
explain the bills? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are just final appropriations bills for departments and for claims. All right, members,
Chair
Unverified
1:10:48
I'm sure the explanation of the bills. Anyone wish to speak against the bill or the bill? If not, the question for the
House is passage of the bills enumerated in the batch. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
You're voting on the bills and the emergency
Chair
Unverified
1:11:07
clause. Everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 89 yeas, 0 nay, 1 present. You have passed the
bills. Representative Webb, you're recognized. Further explanation? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if we
could take the next two bills one at a time.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:26
Okay, Mr. Clerk, read Senate Bill 732. Senate
Speaker 66
1:11:30
Bill 732 by Joint Budget Committee, an act to amend the Arkansas Revenue Stabilization Law of Arkansas.
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Typically, we have a revenue stabilization bill coming from the House and one coming from the Senate. They're the same bills, and I would appreciate a good vote. Heard an explanation of
Speaker 139
1:11:48
the bill. Anyone who wishes to speak against the bill, for the bill, not the question for the House, passage of Senate
Chair
Unverified
1:11:54
Bill 732. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. You're voting on the bill and the emergency clause.
I cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. I vote of 74, yay, 13, nay, 3, present. You have passed the bill. Mr. Clerk reads Senate
Bill 752. Senate Bill 752 by Joint Budget Committee, the distribution of the 88th Session Project's account of the General Improvement Fund
Speaker 159
1:12:41
to provide additional funds for the state budget.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:44
Representative Webb, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, and like that, thanks for that last bill. This is the same bill that we passed yesterday, just coming from the Senate. For
Chair
Unverified
1:12:56
an explanation of the bill, anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill, not the question for the House, pass it to Senate Bill 752. Grab the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted.
You're voting on the bill and the emergency clause. Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 86 yay, 1 nay, 3 present. You have passed the bill and the emergency clause. Representative Webb,
tell us how to proceed on the last two. We can batch the last two.
Speaker 68
1:13:34
Batch the last two? All right, Mr. Clerk, read the bill. Senate Bill 641. Senate Bill 667.
Chair
Unverified
1:13:53
Okay, Representative Webb, do you recognize to explain the bills? Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. These are the last two GIF bills. Appreciate a good vote. Members,
Chair
Unverified
1:14:01
heard an explanation of the bill. Anyone who wishes to speak
against the bill? For the bill, if not the question, for the House. Passage of the bill is enumerated in the batch. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Voting on the bills and the emergency clause. Everyone voted? Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 89, yea, 0, nay, 3, present.
You have passed the bills and the emergency clause. Members, supplemental calendar. It's not April Fool's. The supplemental calendar is getting passed around to your desk.
Chair
Unverified
1:16:31
Representative Burroughs, what purpose? Request? What's your request, Representative Burroughs? You got the mic on Representative Burroughs? request request
Speaker 112
1:17:02
what all right there were hey uh well some of us are curious could
i'd like to request for the clerk to read your card
Speaker 161
1:17:47
in its entirety for the entire membership Thank you.
Read the card in its
Speaker 201
1:18:01
entirety. Is that entirety with every name on there, too? Okay, y'all
do want to go home, don't you? Thanks. $10,981.63. That's thanks a million after taxes and inflation.
Chair
Unverified
1:18:50
We're getting the supplemental calendar into the computer, and then it'll be my turn.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:21:20
Okay, members, we're getting back to the calendar here. If you
Chair
Unverified
1:21:36
want to take your place at your desk, we're getting ready to go. Representative Steele recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1859. Read the amendment, Mr. Clerk.
Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1859.
Chair
Unverified
1:21:52
Representative Steele. Representative Steele. You're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:22:05
This is a good bill that Representative Slinkard sponsored. We passed it out here and went over to the Senate, and they made it a little bit better. Appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
1:22:14
good vote. Members, there's an explanation to the amendment. Anyone wishing to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? If not,
the question for the House, concurrence in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1859.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by
a vote of 86, yes, 0, nays, 0, present. You have concurred in the amendment. but Representative Garner recommends that we concur in Senate
Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 2045. Read an amendment, Mr. Clerk. Senate Amendment No. 1 to
Speaker 66
1:22:50
House Bill 2045. Representative Garner, you're recognized.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:22:55
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is clarifying language. All parties agree. Thank you. I appreciate a good vote. According
Speaker 139
1:23:03
to the explanation of the amendment, anyone
Chair
Unverified
1:23:05
wishing to speak against the amendment for the
amendment? If not, the question for the House is concurrence in Senate Amendment No. 1, House Bill 2045. Read the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 87 gays, 0 nays, 0 present. You have concurred in the amendment.
Representative Garner recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 2045. Read the amendment, Mr. Clerk. Senate Amendment
Speaker 66
1:23:34
No. 2 to House Bill 2045. Representative Garner, you're
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:23:42
recognized. Same song, second verse. All parties agree. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:23:46
you. Heard an explanation of the amendment. Anyone wishing to speak against the amendment? For the amendment. If not, question for the
House concurrent Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 2045. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Everyone voted. Everyone voted. cast up the ballot by a vote of 84 yay zero nay zero present you have concurred in the amendment representative baker recommends that we concur in senate amendment number one house bill 1295 read the amendment mr clark senate amendment number one to
house bill 1295 representative baker you're recognized to
Speaker 139
1:24:25
explain the amendment amendment put on by the
senate and ask for your concurrence back on this end thank you
Speaker 139
1:24:35
Members heard an explanation of the amendment. Anyone wishing to speak against the
Chair
Unverified
1:24:42
amendment, for the amendment? Representative Altus, you're recognized to come and speak against the amendment. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
1:24:52
Speaker. The way I understand it, this would allow somebody to be elected that 60% of the people
Speaker 37
1:25:00
voted against. Representative Altus has spoken against
Chair
Unverified
1:25:03
the amendment. One wish to speak for the amendment.
Representative Thompson, you're recognized to come and speak for
the amendment. I've already recognized the motion. Thank you,
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
1:25:21
Mr. Speaker. Members, we vetted this fully in city, county, local. the explanation is very simple when you put the pencil to it if you have someone
load a race up with four or five people in it one person gets at least 40% of the vote and no one else gets within 20% of that there's no need to have a runoff it's a simple bill and I would appreciate
Speaker 37
1:26:02
your support All right, Representative Thompson has spoken for the amendment. Anyone
Chair
Unverified
1:26:06
wish to speak against the amendment? All right, Representative Bell, you're recognized.
Come and speak. On your way down, I'm not going to recognize
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:26:14
you to speak yet because I would have a question. What is Representative Meeks? What purpose? Since this bill, this amendment seems to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:26:20
have a little controversy to it. What purpose are you standing on? Oh, a question for the
parliamentarian. Okay. What's your question? Since this bill seems to have a little bit of controversy to it, I would like to read the amendment. Is it possible to either have the amendment read or us get a copy of it so we know what we're voting on?
Speaker 196
1:26:46
A copy of the amendment on your desk? No,
Speaker 52
1:26:49
sir. All right, Mr. Clerk, read the amendment. It's
Chair
Unverified
1:26:54
an entire amendment, Mr. Clerk. It's an entire amendment. Mr.
Bell, I'll recognize you in a minute. amendment number one to house bill 1295 amend
house bill number 1295 as engrossed page two
delete line eight and substitute the following percent 40 percent of the votes cast must obtain at least 20% more of the votes cast, and page 2, line 31, delete and 20 and substitute at least 20, and page 2, line 32, delete more votes than and substitute more of the votes cast than. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:27:44
Bell, you're recognized to speak against the amendment.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:27:49
Members, plainly and simply, Representative Altus had it correct. We don't need to
have people elected in our state with less than a majority of the votes cast. It defies the will of the voter to determine who their leaders are by the majority. Please vote
Speaker 139
1:28:08
no. Representative Bell, spoken against the amendment. Anyone
Chair
Unverified
1:28:11
wishing to speak for the amendment? Against the amendment? Representative Baker, you want to close for your amendment?
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a good bill. Would not have made it this far if it wasn't a good bill, and I'd appreciate
Chair
Unverified
1:28:37
a good vote. All right, members. Representative Baker is closed for the bill. Question for the House is concurrence in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1295. Grab the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Everyone voted. Everyone voted, cast up the ballot by a vote of 52, yay, 26, nays, zero, present. You have passed the bill. Representative Baker moves for the clincher. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Ayes have it. Clincher adopted. Mr. Clerk reads Senate Bill 679.
Speaker 66
1:29:23
Senate Bill 679 by Senator Luker to allow a district court to administer a drug court program, preside over a probation supervision program, or preside over a parole
Speaker 153
1:29:31
supervision program in certain circumstances. Senator Sanders, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill
Chair
Unverified
1:29:37
comes to you from Senator Luker. It passed the Judiciary
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:29:40
Committee of the Senate and of the House. It's a good bill. It spans the drug courts. We need them. It's a good program. Appreciate a good vote. Members who heard an explanation of the bill, anyone wish to speak against the bill, for
Chair
Unverified
1:29:57
the bill, not the question for the House, passage of Senate Bill 679, prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted? Everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk, by a vote of 86 ayes, 0 nays, 0 present. and you have passed the bill.
Speaker 161
1:30:31
Kathy's been shy. Mr. Clark, read Senate Bill
Speaker 66
1:30:41
835. Senate Bill 835 by Senator Burnett, an act to amend the Solid Waste Management Act and to regulate household hazardous waste storage and processing
Chair
Unverified
1:30:52
centers. Representative Wilkins, you are recognized to explain the
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:30:56
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill by Senator Burnett.
It's an ADEQ bill. It apparently passed the Senate back some time ago and stayed down there. He didn't know he had to put it on the calendar down here, so it's been out there some time. It was very good by our public health committee yesterday. I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 139
1:31:22
Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Anyone wishing
Chair
Unverified
1:31:26
to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is passage of Senate Bill 835.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Everyone voted? Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot by a vote of 91 yeas, 0 nays, 0 present. And you have passed the bill.
Representative Dickinson moves that we reconsider Senate Bill
516. Ms. Dickinson, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:32:28
motion. Representative Dickinson, you're recognized. Thank you. Representatives, I voted no on this bill yesterday. I had no input from my constituents since then.
I've had input and encouraged to try to get another vote on this. I appreciate your consideration to reconsider Senate Bill 516. Thank you. Representative Dickinson has spoken in favor
of the motion. Would someone like to speak against the motion? Yes. Representative Barnett, you are recognized to speak for the motion.
Yes. I apologize. Representative Barnett, you're recognized to speak
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
1:33:20
against the motion. Okay, thank you, Madam Chairperson, Madam
Speaker. Here again today, same bill. A lot of you all have had some phone calls since yesterday. 90% of this bill is good. It's about energy.
We're all for energy. Representative Barnett, please speak
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
1:33:44
to the motion. this bill combines the loan payments with the assessment billing representative barnett
to the motion please i'm speaking against the bill what do you want me to do can on the motion we're speaking on the motion to reconsider please vote no Anyone want to speak for the motion? Representative Collins, you're
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
1:34:25
recognized to speak for the motion. I'd ask you to reconsider because I didn't know what this bill does is allow poor folks
who cannot qualify to buy energy improvements to use their own property taxes as a way to pay off the debt at the individual level. I urge us to reconsider this bill. Representative
Collins has spoken for the motion. Anyone to speak against the motion?
For the motion. Representative Edwards, you're recognized to speak for the motion.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:34:59
Representative Edwards, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm speaking for the motion that allows local voters to control their own affairs.
Thank you. Representative Edwards has spoken for the motion. Anyone want to speak against the motion? For the motion? Representative Dickinson, would you like to close for the motion?
Representative Dickinson, you're recognized to close for the motion. Representative Dickinson has closed. The question
for the House is the motion to reconsider Senate Bill 516. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 51 yea, 39. Majority of a quorum.
Speaker 230
1:36:22
Majority of a quorum. If you still want
Speaker 231
1:36:30
to sound the ballots, the majority of a quorum is a vote.
The motion's passed. The motion's passed. Question before the House is
passage of Senate Bill 516. Read the caption of the bill, Mr. Clerk.
Senate Bill 516 by Senator Johnson to grant the authority for the establishment of energy improvement districts that will fund loans for energy efficiency improvements and clean renewable energy projects. The
question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 516.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted has everyone voted cast up the ballot Mr. Clerk
By a vote of 48 yays, 44 nays, 0 present, you have failed to pass the bill. That
Speaker 147
1:37:57
is a clincher. Second vote is a clincher.
Speaker 68
1:38:13
Ms. Farley, read the Senate Bill 886. Senate
Speaker 66
1:38:31
Bill 886 by Senator Elliott concerning the hiring practices of contractors for
Chair
Unverified
1:38:36
the state. Nobody here to present the bill for... We'll pass over.
The following members move that their bills be withdrawn from further consideration. House Bill 1994, Representative McLean, recommended to interim study in the Judiciary Committee. No objection, so ordered. House Bill 2169 by Representative Mayberry, recommended to interim study in Judiciary, without objection, so ordered.
Speaker 21
1:39:29
All right, we're going to—the House is going to stand in recess for Representative Barnett. Is the Transportation Committee going to meet? Yes. What do you need, 10 minutes?
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
1:39:47
We can meet immediately, but it would probably take us 5 or 10 minutes to get set up. But transportation
does need to meet, and we're going to meet in 1-51. Is that correct? 1-51.
Chair
Unverified
1:40:00
Okay. We're going to stand and recess until 12-15. Members, you'll be back here in 12.15 because we are going to conclude it when you get back. So we'll stand in recess. 12.15, Transportation Committee meets right now in 1.51.
Agenda
Call to Order
Invocation
Roll Call
SJR5
HB1994
SB886
SB707
SB838
SB862
Budget Calendar
HB1859
HB2045
HB1295
SB679
SB835
SB516
SB886
Recess
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 3
Speaker 10
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Tommy Lee Baker Chair
Unverified
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Representative Matthew Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 39
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 54
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 37
Speaker 61
Speaker 66
Speaker 74
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 80
Speaker 23
Representative Jane English
Unverified
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 59
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 93
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 111
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 120
Speaker 122
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 96
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 139
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 155
Speaker 161
Speaker 145
Speaker 166
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 171
Speaker 178
Speaker 89
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Representative Kathy Webb Chair
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 68
Speaker 196
Speaker 112
Speaker 201
Speaker 198
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
Speaker 153
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 231
Speaker 147