House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee Part 2
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1988
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…be before this committee I'm gonna be brief in my remarks, House Bill 1988 was created with input and guidance from the Arkansas Econo…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2001
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2001”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1611
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1611”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1870
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “we defer put on the defer list his house bill 1870 representative Patterson likewise on 1884 will be deferred”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1913
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Now we'll go to House Bill 1913. Speaker Moore. Aye, Mr.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1998
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…re has been a mistake on the next item of business. It says House Bill 1998. That was a misprint, so by it being a misprint, it picked…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2184
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…h had to go home on an emergency. She is not in attendance. House Bill 2184, Representative Eubanks. Representative Jean has asked me t…”
|
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
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
0:00
Or match your rhetoric with what we're saying. Is this an expansion of government if we do this project? I mean, it's more, you know, explain to me that. Sure. Please. Expansion of
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
0:11
government means increasing the sizes of agencies and the amount of money that government is, we'll say, spending. Okay. Okay. We're not creating any more government with this. We're giving a hand up to a community to create better economic development and do what most of us campaigned on and most of us believe we've got to do in the state,
which is create jobs and better places for jobs. We're not increasing the size of any agency. We're not increasing – I don't believe we're increasing the size of government. We're only giving an avenue for government to do a better job of giving a hand up to communities that can do a better job of economic development. Mr. Link, I like your
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
0:52
project, and I will vote for it. Thank you.
Speaker 6
0:57
I believe the last on our list is Representative McQuarrie.
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
1:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I think this is a good bill. I appreciate you bringing it. I think everyone in this room has an opportunity to benefit from it. I hope you'll be able to find the funding, but we need to get this law passed so we can get it on the books and get moving. I agree that all aspects are important, but, you know, there's more and more historical tourism going on and more and more people interested in great places to go and enjoy Arkansas.
We enjoy our lakes and streams, but there's so much else out there. So at the proper time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Any
other questions? If not, we'll go to the audience. Does anybody in the
audience want to speak against this bill? or for the bill? Seeing none, Representative McQuarrie, do you have a motion? Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like. Congratulations, Representative Link. You have passed your bill. Thank you very much, Chairman and Committee.
Now we'll go to House Bill 1913. Speaker Moore. Aye, Mr.
Chairman. All right, sir. we'll wait will that be here
shortly sir as we speak alright moving down representative Wright has asked that
we defer put on the defer list his house bill 1870 representative Patterson likewise on 1884 will be deferred
we'll skip over McQuarrie representative Gillum has withdrawn his bill I understand that Ms. Colleen Smith had to go home on an emergency. She is not in attendance. House Bill 2184, Representative Eubanks. Representative Jean has asked me that we pass over his temporarily. Representative Patterson has asked that we skip over his until Wednesday.
The next is House Bill 2001, Ms. Hickerson, Representative Hickerson. She is here. If you'll go to the end of the table and recognize yourself, Representative, you may begin. This is House
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
3:27
Bill 2001. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I would like to ask if someone from Arkansas, domestic violence prevention is here.
There she is. Thank you. This is Angelina Gilliam, would you like to introduce yourself? Angelina Gilliam,
Speaker 22
3:52
Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Welcome. You may begin.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
3:57
Thank you. I'm very pleased to present HB 2001. It's a bill that will make the decision to leave a dangerous situation a little bit easier for victims of domestic violence.
This bill simply adds the care and custody of household pets to the protection orders that courts may provide in domestic violence cases. Studies have shown that up to 48 percent of domestic violence victims report that they delayed leaving an abusive spouse or partner because they feared for their pet's safety. This inability to leave places women, children, and pets at greater risk of exposure to emotional and physical trauma. Multiple studies have found that as many as 71 percent of battered women reported that their pets had been threatened, harmed, or killed by their abusers.
There are many documented cases of an abuser telling his spouse and children that he will maim or kill the family pets if they leave. This places the women and children in a precarious position and makes the decision to leave very difficult. Sixteen states have enacted laws, including pets, in protective orders. I hope that today we can advance this bill and maybe add Arkansas to that list. Thank you so much for your consideration, and I would appreciate a good vote. And we'll be happy to take questions.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
5:19
Do we have questions by committee? Reverend D. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hickerson. Does this act include primates
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
5:31
included in the household pets? Well, you know, that is a very good question. I don't really know. It just says pets residing in the household. If they reside there, I bet they're covered then. I bet they are. I bet they are. If you have a monkey
or a chimpanzee or, you know, whatever, I suppose they'll be included in there.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I see other
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
6:01
questions? Representative Linderman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Hickerson, two years ago we passed a rather extensive bill, or it was passed, regarding the safety and abuse of animals. I'm a little bit confused here. I really don't see, and I have no time, use, or patience for anyone that would abuse a family member. But I really question we as an agricultural committee need to be looking at this bill.
I think that this thing may be covered in other places and
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
6:33
other ways. Yes, sir, and I feel like you're probably right about that, but the inclusion of it in the code that talks about what the courts may order under a protective order, just putting it in there gives the abused woman or man, if it's a man, whatever,
just the idea that they can take their pets with them. And then it also allows the judge to see that they can order that. And it just says may order. It does not say that they have to do that, that the court has to do that. If you'll notice, there are probably other things that are in here that the judge, that the court may order that may be covered under other areas, too.
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
7:26
My understanding is the judicial system that they would have, they still, even
without this, that they do have the right because those animals are considered property.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
7:35
That is my understanding, too. And the judge does have that. That is my understanding, too. But it just makes it a little bit clearer and adds a
Speaker 25
7:50
little incentive by putting it into the law. Thank you. Sorry. If I may, just putting it in there, I mean, the judges do now. I mean, they obviously have it at their discretion, but putting it in this bill does help in just the victim, just the safety planning. We know that it is a tactic that batterers use.
It's just a form of power that they use over the victims. I was executive director in Camden for six years, and I cannot tell you how many victims did not want to come into the shelter. I had to go through great lengths, just great lengths to try to figure out what to do with their pets. Many of us have pets, and they're just, I mean, they're part of our family. We, I mean, just in the economy, there's clothing for pets. There's, I mean, so much money that are spent on pets.
So, I mean, it's obvious how much people love their pets nowadays, and it's not any different for a victim. And, I mean, batters know that. Batters use that over the victims. They use that as control. It's really sad. And so I think this is, I mean, I don't think I know this is a way to take that power from the batter This is a way to add just safety planning for the victim
and remove that barrier from the victim. So this is definitely going to help them in safety planning and help them to
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
9:23
make that decision to leave. Thank you. Go back to questions.
Representative Letty. I just have a motion at the proper
Speaker 28
9:37
time. All right, sir. Representative Love.
Are you all tag-teaming over there? Okay. And Representative Collins. Thank you,
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
9:51
Mr. Chairman. I think in Neely Jones' book, she's a TV personality in northwest Arkansas. She talks about this and the effect in her own relationship. I just want to confirm for the record, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with abusive animals and the definitions of abusive animals or anything that changed those laws. This bill is 100 percent about what happens in an abused domestic human relationship
and the judge's authority there, correct? That is correct.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
10:21
And if you read it, all it states is direct the care, custody. I like having
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
10:25
it on a video. That's perfect. I did read it. I'm with you. I just like having it
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
10:30
on the video. Yes, sir. It certainly is. It is not. It does not define, does not make a pet a member of the household or anything like that. Thank you, Representative Hickerson. Domestic Violence Prevention Bill. Seeing no
other questions from the committee, I'll go to the audience.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak against this bill or for the bill? Seeing none, Representative Lading, I believe you have a motion. Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like. Congratulations. Representative, you have passed your bill. Thank you so much. Thank you, members.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
11:09
Thank you so much. Thank you, members. Thank you.
...to you. There has been a mistake on the next item of business. It says House Bill 1998. That was a misprint, so by it being a misprint, it picked up the wrong bill. Representative Pierce's bill is already left, doesn't in the Senate, under another committee. That House bill should have been 1988. Our sincere apologies to Representative Penartz, but Representative Penartz, if you are ready, you may present your bill.
you should have that bill committee in your packet 1988 representative if you have a seat and recognize
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
12:11
yourself you may begin thank you I'm representative Penn arts from district 65 and Fort
Smith thank you mr. chairman and committee members I'm glad to be before this committee I'm gonna be brief in my remarks, House Bill 1988 was created with input and guidance from the Arkansas Economic
Development Commission and other individuals across the state. In short, House Bill 1988 would allow multi-county regions to create what is called a Regional Economic Development Partnership, which will work to proactively market and brand each region in an effort to attract new industry and businesses. This partnership would be a standalone entity. As you can see from the bill on page two, a regional economic development partnership
means an organization whose mission is to promote specific regions within the state for business, retail, nonprofit, industrial location, relocation, and expansion. The economy, of course, of the state varies significantly. Effective policies and programs must be customized to take advantage of the resources and strengths within each region. Our REDPs can do this. They can take advantage of the extraordinary assets of the particular regions of the state
instead of relying upon a single approach by a single city or town. The RADP would be governed by a regional board of directors that will operate, manage and control the RADP in all aspects. There is no funding connected with this bill. In the future, there may be, as things rotate within the Arkansas Economic Development Commission budget, we may be able to rotate this program on.
But in the meantime, what's important, I think, is that you have heard – this is not the first time that you've heard about regions trying to band together to market their assets to other – within the – to other businesses and industries to attract them to their area, but also we mustn't forget tourism is an industry in Arkansas. So there are some assets that maybe we don't always think of being the traditional ones that we can attract through development of this partnership.
Let me just say that one of the key things that this bill does is it really relies upon the collaboration of cities and counties to come together to explore mutually beneficial linkages. And quite frankly, unless this regionalism occurs in some areas where we are in more in our rural areas, I think we can strengthen the attractiveness of some of those by coming together and saying, let's get together.
Let's say that our area can be an area where we can attract business and industry. And with those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to respond to any questions that the committee have about the
Speaker 51
15:29
bill. Thank you, Representative. Representative Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Representative John Burris
Unverified
15:34
Representative Pinnartz. How is this – let me – this is just authorizing the creation of these partnerships. That's correct.
How is it – how is it worded now – what's the deal up in northwest Arkansas? I always get the names confused – the partnership up there that exists between Benton and
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
15:55
Washington County. Well, there's no official partnership up there. Okay. Now, of course, you're from
that area, Mr. Burris, and probably could speak to it better than I. But I have worked with the individuals from Northwest Arkansas as well as other places. They're trying to create this type of partnership.
We at Fort Smith have created one around intermodal, but it's really broader than just intermodal. There's some other places in Arkansas like MENA and other places across the state that especially for our rural areas where two counties or three counties could bind together and say, hey, we've got this park up here. We've got this great place where an industry can come in. We've got workers here. We want your 50 jobs.
So this is a bill that would allow these partnerships, once they band together, to say these are our assets and we're proud of them and we want you to come
Representative John Burris
Unverified
16:57
here and live and work and play. Okay. And thank you. And one final
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
17:03
question. No ability to levy a tax? No, this – no, in no way.
We're not creating any new state agency or anything or any ability to tax. No, the money in the future, if it's there, would come through the Arkansas Economic Development Commission.
And if you wanted to be this partnership, there are specific criteria in the bill that you have to meet. And the technical assistance that can come from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to try to help these counties or these areas have this partnership, I think, is available and can be available now. Okay. So, no, there is not any ability of these partnerships. There is no ability given to these partnerships to levy any taxes.
Representative John Burris
Unverified
17:53
MR. Or refer anything out was just my
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
17:56
second question, so. MS. That's correct. MR. Okay. All right. MS. I mean, it's more in coming together. These are our assets. We want
to market them. Come live with us.
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
18:10
MR. Okay. Thank you. On our list, Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And related to Representative Burris's question, on page 3, lines 13 and 14, to generate the matching funds that are required under the bill, it says generate adequate regional
resources to provide matching funds. And what you're saying, Representative Penartz, is that in no way gives them the authority to impose taxes from a regional level upon municipalities beneath them. That's
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:36
correct, sir, and thank you for asking that question because, you know, we're not – it's my intent, nor the people who have worked with me to create any additional burden on our people in our cities and towns across this great state. That does not. What that means, Mr. Collins, is that if two counties come together and you've got a couple
of cities there and a private entity that wants to belong to partnership, they have to show their good intent by providing matching funds, and the matching funds, 40 percent of them, can be in kind. In other words, let's say a private entity say, well, hey, you can use this office in downtown Searcy for your office. Another entity could say, well, we'll give your supplies. And then in order to even qualify for whatever state money that AEDC might have for this,
they would have to have – if they wanted $50,000, they'd have to show 40 percent of which would be, if my math is correct this early on Friday morning, $20,000. So they have to show their good intent to AEDC that they are collaborating and have a plan, a strategic plan and a business plan, to market their area to businesses and industry. Thank you.
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
20:06
And thank you, Mr. Chair. MS. Thank you, sir, for your question. Representative McQuarrie, you're next. Representative, to clarify, the 40 percent is part of the $2 for every dollar that – Yes, sir. In other words – So $1.60 plus 40 percent in kind would make the $2. Yes, sir. So we're getting a two-for-one match with the regional coming up with the $2
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:35
for every dollar. Yes, sir. We didn't want to disinclude that was put in there specifically.
I was very adamant about that because sometimes our cities and smaller cities and towns in our counties don't have the cash match. But they could provide you with the in-kind, what is in more nonprofit circles called in-kind match or non-cash match. And the example I gave, Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. Thank you for asking that question. I think it's a good bill, and, Mr.
Speaker 72
21:09
Chairman, I'd like to make a motion at the proper time.
That's appropriate. First, let's go to
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
21:20
Representative Blink. Representative Penardson, I possibly missed it, but do we have a maximum number of regional associations
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
21:28
that could be created under this bill? Not. That will
be left to the AEDC. I will tell you, sir, that no, you can't have overlapping RADPs. If a two-county went together and formed this, they're not going to approve another one in those same two counties.
My concern. That meet the criteria specifically in here. Now, that does not disallow another kind of partnership that may form in that area that may be part of a greater partnership of some kind. So it does not infringe upon the right of those counties and their localities to determine what is in their own best interest by entertaining or engaging in other contracts or partnerships.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
22:20
Right. I guess my concern is we all, most of us have a lot of churches in our town where someone got mad at a church the reason they created another church and I'd hate to see that happen with
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:37
these organizations, someone gets aggravated and well
we'll have our own economic development group. Well I really think that in this case the criteria are laid out and if they want to apply for these designation as a regional economic development partnership, that the
criteria is there. I don't think, in other words, you're going to find – if that were to happen, I think we could correct that, but I don't really see that as
Speaker 51
23:14
a probable scenario. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 82
23:21
Chair. Go now to Representative Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
23:26
the difference between this and the intermodial group? Well, an intermodal group
is more concerned with transportation priorities and, in our
case, waterways, dealing with that infrastructure, and I think those needs are very focused, and I've been involved in the intermodal in our area. But this has a broader overlay. It's dealing with whatever those assets, which may include assets with rail or highways or otherwise, this is more
inclusive and not exclusive.
Speaker 82
24:08
MR. So they could be involved in the intermodial
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:12
group and another group of these? The intermodal group, if you had one, whatever stage of formation they were, could enter as a partner, as a member of this group. So this group is much more inclusive. The other is exclusive. Okay. Thank you.
To that extent. I believe our last question from the
Speaker 84
24:32
committee is from Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
24:38
I actually have three, if that's okay. The first question I have, is there anything in the legislation that sets minimum or maximum amounts that can be paid with the matching funds? How many of these projects are ongoing concurrently? Any of that type of stipulation in the legislation? No. Okay, so that's entirely up to the funding that's available? Yeah, and if there's
Speaker 70
24:58
no funding, then there's no funding. Okay. But there's a benefit beyond
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:03
just the funding, Mr. Meigs. And I think I mentioned that in reference to TA and guidance from ADC.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:10
MR. Sure. Sure. The other question I have or the
next question I have is the legislation we just saw from Representative Link said that this money has to be divided equally among the congressional districts. Anything in this legislation
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:24
that allows for that or is it entirely at the discretion? MS. Well, sir, we do not restrict these partnerships because we have so many cities and towns that are under 5,000 and counties that I'm trying to look
to our rural areas because that's where collaboration and cooperation can most greatly benefit our beloved communities
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:45
in our rural areas. MR. Sure, sure. And then the last question I have is the commission would retain oversight of the funds to make sure that they're being used properly and for the purposes
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:55
that they were intended and so on. MS. Absolutely,
sir. And I really appreciate your questions. As you know, I'm a joint budget member, and I'm always looking at the numbers, and I appreciate your concern for that also, sir. MR. bringing this bill
before us do we have other questions about committee seeing none is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak against this bill or
for the bill seeing none revenue McQuarrie you had a motion do pass we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye opposed like sign
congratulations revenue You've passed your bill, and I do apologize
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
26:36
for any inconvenience. No apology needed, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and committee members. My
appreciation. Members, it's now about 10 minutes until 10, and Representative Pierce was here.
Is Representative Pierce out by the door, anybody? See if he still wants to run his bill. He promised me it was short. You never know about these things. while we're waiting on him to see. I want to thank everybody that's coming today. Yes,
sir, can you run your bill in five minutes?
Okay, then. I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, this is going to be House Bill 1611.
Can I borrow yours? If you will recognize yourself, sir, you may begin.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
27:30
Representative Pierce, Mr. Chair. Thank you You are recognized I'd like to run 1611 today Mr. Chair if it's possible Yes sir It's a little bill that doesn't do a whole lot but it kind of helps the landowners on what we're doing getting in trouble with people coming across our land and trespassing when they don't have the right and I'll take any questions
Boy he wasn't joking was he Do we have any questions by committee? Representative Meeks. Just a quick
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:07
one, and I think it's pretty straightforward. Basically, all you're doing is reducing the age from 18 to 16. Is that all we're doing here? If they can read, they should get a
Speaker 72
28:13
car license. They should be able to read and know what they're doing. I've got a motion at the
Speaker 89
28:18
proper time, then. Any other discussion? Anyone in the audience want to speak against this bill or for the bill?
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. We have a motion due pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Congratulations on that well explanation, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. I appreciate it. Y'all have a
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:45
rest of a good day. We were scheduled to hear Representative, excuse me, Speaker Moore's bill, but he was trying to arrange another amendment. We
are not going to have time to hear that today. Members, our next meeting will be at 10 o'clock next Wednesday.
I am scheduling lunch for us to be
brought in we have got to work the rest of these bills out hopefully by Wednesday so they've got they've got to go to the Senate in yet if we don't get our enough work done by 1 1 30 then we will also have an after adjournment meeting Wednesday Wednesday will be a very long day for us okay now
for the members and all people in the the audience we appreciate you coming again tell you your issues that you're
here for will be heard Wednesday I can't tell you whether it'll be Wednesday morning or after adjournment Wednesday but we will hear those issues Wednesday fair enough fair enough this meeting is adjourned
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
Representative Jerry R. Brown Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 22
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 28
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 51
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 82
Speaker 84
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 70
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 89