City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (2)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1183
Act 258
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1183 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN COUNTY ELECTRONIC PAYME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN COUNTY ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND FILE MAINTENANCE. | Underwood | Notification that HB1183 is now Act 258 |
|
SB59
Act 872
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND FILE MAINTENANCE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB59 B. Ballinger THE ARKANSAS SECOND AMENDMENT LIBERTIES SAFEGU…”
|
TO BE KNOWN AS THE "INTRASTATE FIREARMS PROTECTION ACT"; AND TO PREVENT THE UNITED STATES … | B. Ballinger | Notification that SB59 is now Act 872 |
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 6, 2026
order. Senator Flowers, are you with us this morning? I am with you this morning. Thank
Speaker 4
0:17
you for being here. Good morning. Committee, before we begin on the agenda, we've only got
one bill on the agenda today. Let me, we've had a question about a committee photograph, and I know most of you will be
available to do that. We're thinking about doing it on the Capitol steps up front, so we would have the social distancing and all that in place. Senator Flowers, have you got any suggestions, or how could we better accommodate you on this, on a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
0:50
committee photograph? Well, I guess if you have a wireless computer, Senator, you might have me zoom in and then just put the
little laptop up. We could get
a cardboard cutout like they do at the NFL games. You could do that.
And set you up there between Senator Flippo and Senator Johnson. Can you, there's no way, no, seriously, there's no way, is there no way you could make
Speaker 4
1:13
it by Thursday? thursday of this week yes ma'am about what
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:19
time would you want to do this do they have a time well
we would hey listen we're gonna have to
check with the photographer and make sure that you know work it out with them and their schedule and we would let you know plenty of time in
Speaker 14
1:36
advance so you could be there okay because today is tuesday yeah i'll tell you
Well, we'll just plan on it next week and let
you know ahead of time if we can work it in fine. If not, we'll just go ahead with the
Speaker 16
1:49
cardboard cutout. That sounds good. All right. Just, you know, Photoshop me in there.
We'll do it. Okay. All right, committee. We have
one bill to be heard today. Senator Ballinger, you're recognized to present. Is this House Bill 1183? Yes, sir. All right. You're recognized.
Speaker 23
2:11
you have someone to testify i do if it pleases the committee i have one of my favorite circuit clerks miss baker i'll
Speaker 25
2:31
let her introduce herself all right if you will introduce yourself for
Speaker 27
2:35
the record my name is sharon blatt baker and i'm from crawford county and i am also the second vice President and Legislative Chair of the Arkansas Circuit
Clerks Association. Well, thank you for being here from Western Arkansas. Senator
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
2:50
Ballinger, you are recognized to present House Bill 1183. You guys think that I can't bring controversial bills.
Speaker 33
2:57
You should wait until you see what the clerks bring you. Now,
Speaker 23
3:02
this is really, really simple bill that is primarily clean up but clean up in the sense that it helps them modernize and be probably a little better service to our constituents. So first page basically is cleanup. If you look at the second
page, it's the substance of the bill. And it basically says that they now will have the ability to take a debit card or credit card and then be able to pass on the fees that they pay for the debit card or credit card to the individual. So if they want to buy records using a debit card, they can. But they'll just have to pay whatever their credit card processing fee is on top of that and it just provides a cleaner easier mechanism for them to be able to do that if you go down then the rest of the language in the bill is pretty much clean up
there's one section at the bottom that where it deals with the filing of liens well there's another another section out there that deals with the the fees that you collected on that and it just points to that so just takes out the old language and points to the new code section and well I'll let let Ms.
Speaker 36
4:04
Baker Bluntbanker add anything she wants to add. All right. Committee, you've heard an explanation
of the bill. Are there any questions? I do have a question. All right. Senator Flowers,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:18
you're wrecking us. Okay. Did the witness, the circuit clerk from Crawford County want to add to it? I'd like to hear what she might. I think she
Speaker 40
4:27
probably would, if that's okay with the committee. Yes.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:31
That would be fine with me, Senator Stoutable, Phil. You're recognized. All right. Thank
Speaker 27
4:35
you, Senator Flowers. There's not much for me to add. I'm here for questions
Speaker 29
4:38
and all that stuff, but I just want to remind y'all as we automate our offices, this is something that would make things easier for us. And as Senator Ballinger spoke about, it's also for if you need to record deeds or mortgages or anything like that, we'd like
to be able to take a debit and credit card for
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:57
that so that we don't have to have cash only. That's it. All right. Well, I do have a question. Okay. Go ahead, Senator Flowers. Okay. So I'm curious about on page two, line 26, where you're dealing with the court, circuit court fines. It says circuit court fines, and then it just, it adds on district courts and a circuit court.
But the other distinction is it says a district court shall, so that's mandatory, and it says a circuit court may accept personal checks from individuals. So I want to know, is there some problem, first of all, with line 25 as it just applies to the payment of circuit court fines, but then you include district courts?
And why is it mandatory for checks to be accepted by the district court and only permissible for fines and fees that are owed to the circuit court? with that language made. I'll let Ms. Blount-Baker
Speaker 23
6:21
answer that if she has an answer. Okay. Okay, Senator Flowers.
Speaker 27
6:28
District court is a separate entity than
Speaker 29
6:32
circuit court so they would have to change their own language in this and also if somebody was to write a hot check or something like that district court has the capability of issuing a warrant or whatever
Speaker 27
6:44
for that particular particular situation. On the circuit side, however, we do not. And not all circuit clerks collect fines, costs, and or restitution. Sometimes prosecutors do, sheriffs do, or another entity can do that. Therefore, if a check was written and it was hot or bounces, whatever we need to call it, we would have to then turn around and do something else. And when that check is paid,
their fine is marked paid at that point. So if the check
Speaker 29
7:10
bounces, then there's other repercussions to that. So they would like to change that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
7:17
to may accept it depending on the circumstances. But what
would they, then they would elect whether to allow it or not in the event that some other entity like the Sheriff's Department is collecting the fines and the fees
or the prosecutor's office maybe in a county that's collecting fines and fees? Correct. That
Speaker 27
7:38
is set by the quorum court
on who determines, the quorum court determines who collects the fines,
Speaker 29
7:44
cost, and restitution in a particular judicial
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
7:47
district or county. So what you're saying is that there are some other statutes in the code that allow for that? That's correct, yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so, but is it problematic because the section starts off on line 22 concerning the payment of circuit court fines? and and then it goes and see the language that exists now simply says i think uh it just refers
to a court um that's in 1613 705 and what that says right now it says the court shall
accept but so i'm just wondering am i missing something because it's preceded by circuit court fines. So,
I mean, the district court wouldn't be accepting
Speaker 50
8:49
circuit court fines, would they? No, ma'am. They are not. That's why they need to that's why they're staying
Speaker 52
8:58
shall. And I'm under the impression that we've reached out to district court on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:04
that and they want to leave that the shall. Yeah, but what about the provision right above that that says on line 25 concerning the payment of circuit court fines if circuit court fines are not paid to district court i mean this is not making sense to me and i just want your language to be clear
about your language if it's something else that i'm not seeing that's maybe in another section or something but seems like we're talking about circuit court fines to begin with and how does that go to a district court? Yeah, I would agree.
Speaker 23
9:39
I'd say the title of the section could be better if it included the fact that the district courts. But I think the main point, the reason why district courts were even included in here was to make it clear that their law is not changing. So when the circuit clerks were working on this, they reached out to the district courts
and they preferred to leave it as is. And so I think that they did that, added their language in there just to make it clear that they are not getting changed to making it, giving them that flexibility. So, but I wouldn't disagree that it would be better if we're going to include district courts
Speaker 53
10:19
to have that up there, but I don't know that that's a substantive
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
10:26
problem. I think it is because it seems to limit the district court to collecting payments for circuit court fines.
So I would ask, if you would, to hold the bill and check with the bureau or maybe your association to see if there needs to be some other language in there included so that it's clear that the district court is accepting payment of district court fines. Do you see what I'm
Speaker 55
10:58
saying? I do. I understand where you're coming from.
Speaker 23
11:03
I think that's going to be a problem. Well, so I'm perfectly okay as long as committee is and everybody else to hold this in order to see if we need to make an amendment. That's fine. I don't think that it would end up being, as I said, a substantive problem.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:26
But at the same time, I also will give deference to the committee. There needs to be some clarity on that point, and that's what I would ask you to do, because otherwise, I understand what you're attempting to do, but you might defeat what your intention is by not putting language in there that clearly says the district court is accepting district court fines.
Okay, Senator Flowers, are you finished? Yes, I am. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
12:02
Senator Johnson, do you have a question? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Ballinger, on page 2, kind of from 6 through 22 or whatever, it talks about the fees for credit card, debit card. And I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. In B1, you can contract with a third-party company
and you can pass those fees through to the payor, but I want to make sure only those fees. You can't jack them up and turn it into a profit center.
Speaker 23
12:35
I think that's a wonderful question because I had that exact question when they brought me to the bill. But if you look down on line
Speaker 59
12:43
14, it makes it clear that it can't be any more than that fee. Okay, now going
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
12:49
a little further on 16 through 19, it says you can enroll but I guess what that means is
if the county is not involved in the transaction financially then whatever, if the third party entity charges $7.50 then that's paid directly from the payor to the third party it covers the same thing but it limits it to whatever that payor is charging. And then I assume 2322 basically says that if you're doing those third-party things, the county or the state or somebody
can't tack on yet another fee. So I'm real, always leery when I see, and we know we see this happening, we see this with these jail phone systems where somebody just wants to talk to their loved one that's incarcerated and they charge these ridiculous fees and it's a profit center for the jail. I'm not saying the jail doesn't need money in some cases, but it seems like a shakedown to me. This avoids that. Is that correct?
Speaker 23
13:56
That's correct. We've done that in a couple different ways here, but it made
it real clear that there is no additional fees that they're able to charge on top of that. Truly, it's just a matter of providing this service to be able to take the debit card and then whatever it costs, the taxpayers pass it on to the person. It's like a good bill and
Speaker 56
14:15
brings us into the 21st century. Thank you for bringing it. Thank you,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
14:24
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back, Madam Clerk, to the Capitol during session.
Senator Johnson touched on my question, but clarify for me on line 19, where it says the third party may charge the payor a transaction fee. Where is the limitation to that as there is on line 19 that says third party, no, it's 19, where's the one that talks about, okay, line 14, transaction fee equal
to the amount of the credit card or net card company. Yeah, so
Speaker 23
15:15
the top part, what you see on line 14, deals with, like, let's say they're coming in the office and they're asking for records or they're recording some documents, right? It's something they're handling there, and then they're going to pass on whatever costs associated with that transaction to the person who actually does the credit card. When you come down to starting in line 16, what we're talking about is when you record something online or you pay a fee online or you do something online, well, a lot of times you actually contract with an outside provider that will do that.
And instead of it being 2% or 3% like the credit card transaction doing when you're there, they're likely to charge a flat transaction fee of $7, $8, whatever. There is no limitation in here as to what that third-party provider can do outside of the fact that if they're gouging them, these elected officials are going to then, I mean, they are responsive to their constituents. So if they contract with a provider who's going to charge a $100 fee every time that they process a debit card, then their people are going to show up with pitchforks and torches, right?
So, but what it says down here, starting on line 20, is that the state, no agency, including the certain clerks, can charge any kind of fees. So they can't profit off from it. They can contract with somebody who's gouging the taxpayers, but then again, they won't remain elected very long
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
16:52
if they do that. And therein is my question. It's not because I understand the elected officials are subject to citizenry that can change things.
My question is, and we have this other places and I've asked you before, is it's not a $100 fee I'm worried about. If they're charging a $10 fee when it shouldn't be over $4 or $5, and you mentioned $7, that's getting on up there. And are you able to break that contract? If not, that would be the only concern I'd have is be sure you have in your initial contract that you don't get stung getting out of a contract because those companies will raise those things
if it's advantageous to them. If they can make money, of course, they'll make money at a lower figure. But that's my concern is out of the hands of our elected officials. I sure don't have a problem with this bill at all.
Speaker 23
17:48
Thank you. And honestly, I think that that's a legitimate concern. I'm happy to have Ms. Plunk-Baker respond to that. But I think that's the thing is that we're going to have to entrust them to be smart enough to enter into contracts that are not going to require them to have their constituency get gouged.
But if you're okay, that's fine. All right. Thank you, Senator Russ. Senator Hammer, you
Speaker 68
18:17
have a question? thank you Mr. Chair on the on the back page can you just talk
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:23
about that why the 50 cents is stricken out and collect the fee is prescribed in 21-6-101 which I was having trouble finding it in the bill or can you just expand on what that's about please yeah so that
Speaker 23
18:35
code section is not in the bill it's a code section that deals with how how feeds are collected so if you go to
that code section there's actually it references three other code sections where fees are collected and so what there are is already a code section that deals with what you pay for for filing these liens so essentially this language and and I'll let let a circuit clerk elaborate on this if they want but this language has been superseded by other language out there so they're not really just collecting 50 cents now so what this does is this takes this out it's basically a cleanup
takes this out and points it to the other code section that is where the fees are actually laid out is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:22
that that's correct okay okay and those fees are regulated and maintained or determined by who and how are they adjusted over time by
Speaker 23
19:31
us they're set forth actually in the code okay so so for instance if you file something circuit clerk it's $15 first page $5 each additional page that's actually, like, you know, if that needs to go up, then they actually have to come back to us and pass the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:44
law. All right. And then the other question was on page two, lines 20 through 22.
But the state of Arkansas political subdivision shall not charge a transaction fee for electronic payments of records, recorders fee paid through a third party entry. Why is that? Why is that statement
Speaker 23
20:02
in there? Because one of the things that I was concerned about is that somebody who's not quite as responsive as Ms. Blunt-Banker may actually use that as an opportunity to make a little money for the office. So what this makes it as real clear is that you cannot pay a transaction. They can't collect a transaction fee for anything that's paid out by a third party.
So they already have a contract with them. That third party is going to charge whatever their transaction fee. Then the state is not going to tack it. And by state, I mean government, in this case counties, are
Speaker 33
20:34
not going to attack anything on top of that to try to collect money out of
it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Any other questions about members? Senator Ballinger, are you proposing to
Speaker 23
20:52
pull this down? I'm going to say the will of the committee. Like I said, my concern is not as much as Senator Flowers' concerns about this.
What we're talking about is the title of the bill or the title of that section. doesn't match as perfectly as it should the language of the section. However, the language of the section here really is only about circuit clerk's fees. So that's what the bill is about. That language was only put in there in order to try to clarify that the district courts have their own thing. And they're governed by a completely different code section. So the reason why it creates some confusion is you have a code section that is about circuit court fees, and then you have included in there the district court language, and that was done basically in an effort to try to keep them out of that altogether.
What I'm saying is there's probably a better way to draft it than what we've done here, but this is not. It isn't going to change how the law is interpreted. Yes, it will. Senator Flowers, Senator Flowers. But this is the thing, I'm willing, I mean, essentially, what is the will of the committee if they would prefer us? I mean, I feel like I've fairly addressed how it would be done, but I'm also happy to pull this down and have it
taken up later. Okay. Senator Flowers, wait a minute, Senator Flowers, you're recognized.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
22:18
uh i'm just saying to to make the bill do
what you want it to do it should be clear and a district court does not accept payments of circuit court fines so you have to be some language in there uh on line 25 to um show that we're not expecting district courts to collect are given authority to district courts to collect circuit court fines,
but there should be some language there included on in that 20 line 25 that the fines that are expected to be collected by the district court or district court fines. That's all I'm saying. And I'm saying what I looked at the original section of the code, this 1613705. And it starts off with A, the court shall accept. So as far as I can tell,
chapter 13 deals with circuit courts. And this subchapter 7 deals with the enforcement of fines that are assessed in order to be paid in circuit courts. And now you've added in district courts, but it should be some connection that what you want is the district courts to be able to accept payments of these district court ordered fines by personal checks. And so there has to be a
distinction of what they're collecting. They can't collect circuit court fines because it's not a circuit court.
A district court is not. That's all I'm saying. I think it would behoove I would say I
Speaker 23
24:13
don't disagree that there is a more clear way to do this. And we're earlier in the session. And, you know, as long as the folks who brought it are okay, what we'll do is we'll make Senator Flippo carry it later and just get it out of committee once we amend it. And, you know, if you guys – I mean, I'm okay with pulling it down, putting in that cleanup language.
I think that it's probably not – we're not in a position where we've got to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:41
get this done today. Okay. All right. And I would suggest to the circuit clerk that you all probably have an attorney connected with your association, and they should be able to look at that language and make sure that it does what you want to accomplish. I think
Speaker 40
25:02
we'll have language that will probably make everybody happy.
Okay. Senator Ballinger, you agreed to pull this down? We'll pull
Speaker 23
25:11
it down and we'll get that language back and have it
Speaker 59
25:13
a little more clear and get it amended and get it ran later. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Any other questions? Any other comments from the committee? If not, we're adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1183 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN COUNTY ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND FILE MAINTENANCE.
SB59 B. Ballinger THE ARKANSAS SECOND AMENDMENT LIBERTIES SAFEGUARDS ACT.
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Feb 2, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 2
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Speaker 23
Speaker 25
Speaker 27
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 36
Speaker 40
Speaker 29
Speaker 50
Speaker 52
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 56
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 68
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified