City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (19)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1995
Act 985
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1995 Bentley TO SEPARATE THE OFFICES OF SHERIFF AND TAX COLLECTO…”
|
TO SEPARATE THE OFFICES OF SHERIFF AND TAX COLLECTOR IN PERRY COUNTY. | Bentley | Notification that HB1995 is now Act 985 |
|
SB520
Act 747
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB520 D. Sullivan TO PROHIBIT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OF…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OFFICES, OFFICERS, POLICIES, OR PRACTICES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. | D. Sullivan | Notification that SB520 is now Act 747 |
|
SB571
Act 1002
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…your bill okay all right committee next we're going to hear Senate bill 571 representative”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT A MUNICIPALITY … | J. Petty | Notification that SB571 is now Act 1002 |
|
HB1130
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1130 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITTING FOR RESID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITTING FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; TO AMEND THE FAST-TRACK PERMITS ACT; … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1331
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1331 Barnes TO REQUIRE A COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE … | Barnes | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1436
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1436 Steele TO PLACE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD PROCE…”
|
TO PLACE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS OPERATING A SLAUGHTERHOUSE ON THE SAME … | Steele | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1448
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1448 Puryear TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS; AND TO REQUIRE NOTICE AND COMPENSATION TO … | Puryear | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1565
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TERHOUSE ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS THE FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS. HB1565 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF A COUNT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF A COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSOR; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Burkes | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1567
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1567 McClure TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FA…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY" RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY … | McClure | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1660
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1660 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT; TO REGULATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT; TO REGULATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS; AND TO REQUIRE AN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1911
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REQUIRE AN AUDIT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. HB1911 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF PRO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTY TAX; … | Lundstrum | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1912
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION TO CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES. HB1912 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ASSESSED VALUE" FOR P…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ASSESSED VALUE" FOR PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY; AND … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1936
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CT TO TAXATION BE LISTED OR REPORTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. HB1936 R. Burkes AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION TO CE…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION TO CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES. | R. Burkes | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1991
Act 1020
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO TRANSFER INCORPORATION DUTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. HB1991 Childress TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO A RE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE ARKANSAS FIRE PREVENTION … | Childress | Notification that HB1991 is now Act 1020 |
|
HB1992
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE ARKANSAS FIRE PREVENTION CODE. HB1992 McAlindon TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANG…”
|
TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANGEROUS DOGS AND VICIOUS DOGS; AND FOR OTHER … | McAlindon | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB406
Act 752
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E THE OFFICES OF SHERIFF AND TAX COLLECTOR IN PERRY COUNTY. SB406 A. Clark TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INF…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL … | A. Clark | Notification that SB406 is now Act 752 |
|
SB525
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORCING BUILDINGS AND ZONING REGULATIONS ON COUNTY PROPERTY. SB525 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INCORPORATION AND OR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPALITIES; AND TO TRANSFER INCORPORATION DUTIES … | M. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB574
Act 742
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB574 J. Petty TO REQUIRE A MUNICIPALITY THAT OPERATES A WATERWOR…”
|
TO REQUIRE A MUNICIPALITY THAT OPERATES A WATERWORKS SYSTEM OR SEWAGE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE SERVICE … | J. Petty | Notification that SB574 is now Act 742 |
|
SB580
Act 767
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL ESTATE. SB580 K. Hammer TO EXTEND FINANCING FOR PURCHASES OF VEHICLES AND…”
|
TO EXTEND FINANCING FOR PURCHASES OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FOR A RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB580 is now Act 767 |
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
Speaker 1
0:00
out of order we're gonna let's take up House Bill 1995 first or do you want to do well we've got is Senator Sullivan still sitting in here don't see him all right let's do let's go ahead and do 1995 first
Chair
Unverified
0:21
and then Sullivan gets back in here we'll take up Senate bill 520
Speaker 6
0:28
Thank You mr. chair Thank You committee HB 1995
is just separating the tax collector and the sheriff office
Speaker 9
0:34
in Perry County like we've already passed before running this for representative Mary Bentley right any questions from committee members seeing none we have
Speaker 1
0:43
nobody to sign up speak for or against or would you like to close for your bill I'm closed I'm make a motion
Chair
Unverified
0:55
do pass all right have a motion do pass any discussion on that motion seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed no eyes have it congratulations you have passed
Speaker 1
1:05
that bill would you like to start on Senate
bill 520 while we're waiting on Sullivan okay you thank you will introduce suffer the record representative
Speaker 9
1:15
Alyssa Brown district 41 thank you mr. chair thank you committee this Senate bill is just aligning some of our DEI policies that we've already passed on a state level with local municipalities represent
Chair
Unverified
1:33
McCullough you're recognized for questions thank you
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:35
mr. chair representative Brown can you tell me why why is it not okay for you miss
municipalities who are really different all over the state why is it not okay for them to make their
Speaker 9
1:48
own decisions about these matters yeah so we want to keep this consistent with our other state laws to make sure that people are not discriminated against and have equal opportunity this bill is about fairness the municipalities do not have a problem with this bill so far
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:07
follow up please yeah thank you I don't I mean
Speaker 22
2:11
you when you say the municipalities who do you
Speaker 9
2:15
you mean per senator sullivan the municipality league and other local leaders have not expressed any problem with this bill okay
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:25
so you you don't haven't talked to every local municipality or city in in arkansas no i don't know
Speaker 10
2:32
if any bill they've talked to every municipality in arkansas i
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:36
understand thank you um because i don't from my perspective don't believe that every municipality agrees with this even if the association does um do we have other matters in government um in state and local
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
2:51
government where we're not in alignment i'm sure there are okay thank you thank you okay seeing no further questions from committee members we do have people signed up to speak on this bill uh first we have bill
Chair
Unverified
3:15
kepske to speak against if you'll take a seat and introduce yourself for the record you may
Speaker 31
3:27
begin sorry thought it was still on thank you my name is bill kopsky i'm the director of the arkansas
public policy panel our organization was actually founded in 1963 by moms of school-aged kids working on diversity, equity, and inclusion and desegregation of public schools across the state of Arkansas. Our organization has literally been involved in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion for over 60 years. This bill's egregious for a number of reasons. First, the notion that we don't need
to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion is something that I find morally offensive. It is a fact in Arkansas and not an opinion that we have massive gaps around race and gender on income, on health, on jobs. You name the segment of public life, and there are significant gaps between African Americans and whites, for example, or Latinos and whites, or women and men.
The wage gap is two to one in Arkansas. The education gap is nearly 2 to 1. The wealth gap is 10 to 1. The life expectancy for African Americans and Latinos is lower than it is for whites. These are facts, and they are facts driven by historical policies, such as redlining of people of color from owning homes. And again, you might not feel comfortable with those facts. They should make you feel uncomfortable.
But we can't just wish them away. I think we have a moral obligation to face them head on and come up with solutions to those gaps. Now, I have no problem with the conservative saying, I don't like the solutions we use to address racial disparities in health, education, you name the system. That's a completely fair argument to make. I don't like the solutions. What is unfair is to say, so therefore we're not going to consider any solutions and we're going to whitewash the problem away by not allowing discussion of it.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion committees are simply meant to identify gaps in opportunity and to come up with solutions to how to close those gaps in opportunity and in outcomes. If you do not like the solutions, then propose something different. But it is morally reprehensible, frankly, to say we're not going to consider it at all When we know for a fact that African Americans earn half of what white people do in Arkansas, that they perform half as well in our public school system, that they are underrepresented in our colleges and universities, that I can go on and on and on.
So that is the biggest problem with this bill, is that it morally completely abdicates our responsibility to find solutions to these gaps that are facts. These are not my opinions. The second biggest problem with this bill is it removes local control. I hear conservatives all the time say local control, local control, local control. Here you are blatantly saying we don't care what the people in the community want. We don't care if their local elected representatives think this is a priority for us.
We know better, and we're not going to let you do it. If there's a city or a county or a school district that thinks this is a problem in their community, you know and I we work with a lot of communities where the community is 50 percent 60 percent black and their teaching force is nearly all white or their city staff are nearly all white and there's absolutely no reason why those cities or schools should not be able to have a diversity equity inclusion committee to say that's a problem and we're going to find some solutions to that problem
And again, those solutions could take all kinds of flavors. But to say that you do not have a right to recognize that this discrepancy is in your community and you do not have a right to have a discussion about those discrepancies is a complete moral abdication of our responsibility. Finally, I will say that diversity, equity, and inclusion means a lot more than just race, gender, and ethnicity. I have a friend who is on a diversity equity inclusion committee in Arkansas right now, and they pointed out to me that their definition of diversity equity inclusion includes military service, includes rural, includes all this other broad expanse of experiences in Arkansas, and their goal is to make sure that their institution has equal representation of all of those.
But the legislature's banning, reprehensible banning of even considering diversity, equity, and inclusions means they're shutting all of that down. So now veterans are going to be underserved. Rural folks are going to be underserved. So you're hurting a lot more folks than who you might think you're just targeting with legislation like this. With that, I conclude my remarks and appreciate you listening. Seeing
Speaker 1
8:44
no questions from committee members, thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have Darlene Wiley speaking against.
Chair
Unverified
8:55
If you'll introduce yourself for the record, you may begin. Could you turn your mic on and do that in the mic, please? It's still not on. Well, hang on. All right, don't touch it. All right, no. Sorry. Didn't mean for that
Darlene Wiley
Unverified
9:18
to come out like that. But, yeah, you may begin. My name is Darlene Wiley, and I am a concerned citizen from my town. And I do not feel that this bill is fair.
I am concerned because I am the product of discrimination, DEI, on the job, during a hiring process and I feel that the cities that want this that want DEI should be able to you know have a say-so in this I think it is very important and I think that it is not fair
especially for people of color for women to be removed and overlooked for positions I think this opened up a leeway to put people who you want favoritism in place and remove people that are qualified there are people that are qualified for jobs that are doing a good job an excellent job, being removed from their jobs and their positions for favoritism
and to put people in place that are not qualified, who don't even have the credentials. And I think that if this bill passed, that it could be detrimental for a lot of people. I just don't think that this is fair. I don't think that this is right. And the gentleman before me has spoken on a lot of things already, and I agree. I concur with everything that he had said, that he has said,
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
11:15
Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Catherine Scott Wiley.
Speaker 44
11:31
If you'll introduce yourself for the record after you get seated,
Speaker 46
11:38
you may begin. Good morning. I'm Catherine Scott Wiley. I am a resident of Nevada County and a member of the
Concerned Citizens of Prescott. And I'm here to speak against this bill because, first of all, I am a woman of color, and if you've never been a woman, and if you've never been a person of color, you may not understand from whence I come. DEI is important because it gives people like me an opportunity to prove what I can do.
If you take that away, then a lot of people will be disenfranchised. I was in a position a few years ago, I'm now retired. I was in a position a few years ago to apply for an administrative position in a school district. Qualifications, I had them.
Classroom management, I had it. Rapport with students and other teachers, I had it. But because I was up against the superintendent's relative, the relative received it because he was a relative. And because I don't have anything against coaches.
But because he won the state championship, I am not anti-sports, but I actually, truly, from the marrow of my bones, I believe that academics is more important than athletics. And because they knew that, and they knew that's what I stood for, I did not get the position.
Now, I'm asking you to consider and reconsider whatever your position presently is. But I'm asking you to think about the number of people who would be disenfranchised if this bill passes. We need to give people an opportunity to prove what they can do and also to give local municipalities the opportunity to do what they choose is best for their county.
Chair
Unverified
14:44
and their city governments. Thank you. See no questions. Thank you for your testimony. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against this bill. Anyone in the audience like
to speak for or against? Representative Brown, would you like to close for your bill? Senator Sullivan, would you like to come for closing?
Speaker 9
15:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. In closing, I will just say this bill ensures fairness by preventing government programs from treating people differently because of their race, sex, or ethnicity. Actual discrimination is still illegal under federal and state civil rights law. This bill just aligns our local government with what we've already passed for our state government, our state universities and what the federal government has ruled so with that I would
Chair
Unverified
15:44
appreciate a good vote I assume you make a motion do pass and I make a motion do pass we'll have a motion do pass on the table any
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
16:02
discussion on that motion yes representative McCullough you recognize for discussion on the motion thank you mr. chair and I won't I won't take long won't belabor this I do just want to say that I I'm going to continue to be on record against this because i believe that um we're we have a fundamental disagreement with the way that
we're going about all of this and about who we're discriminating discriminating or not discriminating against who we're hurting or not hurting and just want to continue to be on the record that i'll be voting against
Chair
Unverified
16:27
this thank you all right representative shepherd
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:29
you're recognized for discussion and mr chair i'll piggyback with what uh representative mccullum has said i want to be on record as well as going against this. I think some of the testimony we've heard this morning in regards to this need to be a local control issue. We continuously say that when we're in
this committee on the House floor, so this does not need to be handled at this level. So I just want to
Chair
Unverified
16:53
be on record as against this. Representative Brown, you are
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
16:57
recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We cannot get rid of discrimination with more discrimination. and in regards to um our boards and commissions we currently have two of our commissions that are under federal um there's federal case against both of them for their dei uh specifications of according to their board members for board membership so i am opposed to this i mean i
Chair
Unverified
17:20
am in support of your bill all right so you know for the discussion we have a motion to pass all in favor say aye aye all opposed no ayes have
Speaker 54
17:53
it congratulations you have passed your bill okay all right committee next we're going to hear Senate bill 571 representative
Chair
Unverified
17:57
prayer you present that if you'll introduce yourself for the record you well hold on do we have an amendment we've got an amendment on that let's get get
Speaker 54
18:13
that passed out and then we'll let you present your amendment
Chair
Unverified
19:27
okay sorry about that little delay uh representative perrier i think this amendment's passed out you're recognized to present your amendment
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
19:37
this amendment simply clears up some language brought to us by the municipal league make sure it says for public purposes and located within the corporate limits of the municipality okay we have a motion
Speaker 1
19:50
to adopt the amendment any discussion on that motion seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed no ayes have it
Speaker 54
19:58
your amendment has been adopted you may present the bill as
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
20:00
amended okay thank you committee this bill is basically adding some clarity clarity to an area that is already in practice but there's been some subject to some discrepancies so basically um you know if you're in a city owned if you're county owned in municipality in a county built the county building codes apply so just simply put counties are in control of their property even if they're in a city and then this amendment kind of addresses some of those other things to keep that clear and then you know they're still going to be responsible to all the other stuff probably going to be a
Speaker 75
20:34
question or two I'll do my best representative Richardson you're recognized for a question
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
20:44
thank you mr. chair so so if I read this bill correctly it's stating that if the county decides to build a new building in the city limits that new building does not have to adhere to the current building requirements the codes that exist in the
municipality yes and then the amendment unless it's for public service public
purposes unless it's for public service so
Speaker 78
21:11
if it's obviously it's for public purposes so yes so
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
21:14
they do not have to adhere to current building requirements current city building of the city that is my understanding does the state have to adhere to building requirements of a city when they take on a new project in the city i do not know okay
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
21:33
that's the beauty of having a senate bill at the last minute
Mr. Wilkerson's not here to bring him to the
table so I don't even have that so I'll just do my best here we
Speaker 84
21:47
go I think it's yeah okay well I appreciate you your answers so thank you
Speaker 85
21:52
for that Mr. Whitmore do you have anything to add to that there's
Speaker 88
22:05
Wilkerson yeah pull up a chair all right now we got some people in the room take a seat we'll get this worked out
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
22:18
uh introduce yourselves for the record yeah mark whitmore association arkansas counties john wilkerson
Speaker 93
22:23
general counsel of the municipal league if i can't i think i did talk with senator
Speaker 95
22:29
petty maybe three weeks ago and i think the intent is is that uh when a county owns property and a building that's over $50,000, which you have to have an engineer, and over $200,000, you have to have an architect. So architects and engineers will have to decide which building code do I comply with.
And what would happen if this bill passes is that you would comply with the county building code, not the city. Now, keep in mind the state building code, the fire code, the plumbing code, the electrical code are state laws. So every engineer and every architect is going to comply with the state law. From time to time, a county or a city will adopt the fire code or the electrical code or the plumbing code or something of that nature
and enhance it. It will be over and above what the state fire code, building code, electrical plumbing code are and what this would do is the engineer architect would use the county one instead
Speaker 96
23:39
of the city one so that's i'm just explaining the law i'm not doing anything
Speaker 85
23:49
other than that if that if that helps yeah move okay you should be
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
23:54
back on okay thank you thank you very much so so the idea here is that we would the county could just use the county so let me
just kind of change the question just a little bit and since we obviously I didn't get it really an answer to you that whether or not the state has to adhere to city I don't work for the state And so I do think it's interesting. I know that they do have to go through process of fire code inspections and things of that nature from the local municipality. So that would be a city inspecting state-owned buildings. So I think that's interesting.
Generally speaking, and maybe not in all cases, but generally speaking, is the county or the city code more restricted? city code would be more
Speaker 101
24:48
restrictive generally speaking okay that's true all right thank you for
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
24:51
that all right represent mckenzie you recognize for questions got
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
25:00
anyone tell me what a um county building can can someone describe to me a county building that doesn't
Speaker 101
25:08
have a public purpose so no I think the if I made the issue was county property leasing it to a private private private company or private developer whatever that became the issue and so if the county building county property is being used for public use we think that there's a good argument already in state law that city code doesn't wouldn't apply and so this I'm sorry I was on a call earlier but that it doesn't even apply anyway but that only applies that that law would only be if the county land is being used for public use when it goes into a private use
then we then the city code would be applicable and so this clarifies that a county property being used for a public purpose would not be subject to the city zoning code okay we're late enough in session i feel like
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
25:52
i can just ask like what is that conflict what what specific county versus city spat are we trying to solve for here like we just thought of this idea in a laboratory and thought it was good i didn't come up with
Speaker 107
26:05
the bill so i don't know what the exact
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
26:08
issue is i did not as well but when you look at how restrictive some of the city codes can be versus counties trying to build something to you know the most fiscally responsible way i'd say that probably
is where the headache came um regionally you know i'm not sure senator petty's in the river valley covers all the way up northwest arkansas but as this committee is well heard we do have some issues in the northwest arkansas area at times yeah and i get that i'm gonna i'm
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
26:33
gonna jump in here for just a second mr wilkins did did you say that this is all you believe this is already law and it's clarifying that if if it's for public use that this is more just a clarification than it is
Speaker 101
26:46
something completely new yes we think under common law not not code but under case law the
argument is and we think it's a fair argument although i don't think it's been litigated all the way to the extent to make it certain certain but the idea is that um yes it's already law that we can't we believe that a good argument is it's already law under case law that the city can't impose city zoning restrictions
Speaker 111
27:07
on county owned land that's being used for a public purpose okay
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
27:13
yes i'm yeah sorry to interrupt you i just wanted to clarify that yes you're
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
27:17
back in uh i'm generally okay because i understand county codes to be you know more passive for those who you know
whatever its ended purpose is outside of a city. I just, I'm just like struggling with, we got the representative from the Municipal League here and the representative from the counties here. If this is specific to a purpose, can't y'all go advise your members to figure it out and we don't have to figure out here the waning hours
Speaker 101
27:44
of session? Just to be clear, I'm only here, I was only brought in, I asked to make an amendment, the amendment that I assume was passed. That was it. i don't know what what precipitated this exactly i just saw i thought and then i heard uh senator
petty mentioned that it was really clarify the law and i thought well that that okay then this amendment would help clarify the clarification of the law so i don't know what precipitated the drafting
Chair
Unverified
28:10
of the bill okay i guess i'm done
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
28:13
representative kavanaugh you recognize the questions okay thank you i guess where i have a little heartburn with this is if i'm a resident I have to all my property has to follow the city guidelines and the zoning but just because I'm
the county I don't have to I mean for me that's kind of a double standard against the citizens and I don't really be honest with you don't really like that and my understanding that's exactly what this bill is going to do it's basically going to say a county-owned property doesn't have to
follow a city's guidelines because they're the county yes or no yes ma'am okay thank you I
Speaker 118
28:58
know that's not helping my cause but yes ma'am that's what it all right
Chair
Unverified
29:05
representative Carolyn Brown you're recognized for a question thank you
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
29:13
mr. chair um so cities and counties they all have to apply comply with state code for plumbing electrical and I forgot what the other one was fire so so so we don't we don't know that there's some existing conflicts right now between a city and a county we just don't know the answer to that I'm going to
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
29:38
speculate um i think there is an issue going on with washington county and the city of fedville that's speculation i don't know which particular instance i apologize for not you know i didn't write this bill i wasn't i just kind of caught it on the tail end and here we are but that is my understanding and as you know we've kind of went through this committee and talked about some stuff on the floor and even some you know legislation chairman gonzalez has ran we do know that there is a big difference between how restrictive city codes can be versus county codes
can be and I think what we're trying to do is we're just trying I mean I don't think anybody's trying to be a bad player but some of these you know very restrictive city codes that are driving up the cost of a building I think they're just trying to do it at the you know most fiscally responsible way of the taxpayer and I think this has kind of always been in practice to allow something kind of like this the way i'm understanding it you know so i think it's kind of you know it's it's been going on without a hiccup so far but apparently we've had a hiccup
in washington county and we're trying to you know add clarity to you know the practice we were doing into law i think that's the simplest way to explain that to the committee well
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
30:58
i know we've had a lot of property rights bills this session, and I understand what Representative Kavanaugh is saying, but, you know, if it's county property, then it seems like county codes ought to prevail for county property.
I don't know. I never had to deal with
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
31:19
this one before. I mean, I guess you could make the – sorry, Mr. Chair, may I respond to
that? I guess you could argue that the city is in a county. I mean, you know, it's kind of, I do see Representative Kavanaugh's point as well with the citizens doing that. But I think in this situation, you know, like I said, it's kind of always been in practice. Everybody has kind of worked together to make this work. And then I think we probably had some issues in Washington County or maybe in the River Valley area where we, mostly Washington County, where we see the restrictive building codes.
And I think this law is just trying to clarify what's in practice so we can move forward and not have these discussions
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
31:57
in the future. thank you representative all right representative andrews you're recognized for questions thank you mr.
chair i'm generally not opposed to this bill but i can see where it could cause some problems you know maybe this instance wouldn't happen in a larger city or larger urban area but maybe more rural area a county judge and a mayor get into a spat and you know say one of the county
property's fire alarm goes off at 2 a.m. and it's in the within that city and the mayor tells fire chief y'all ain't going or if y'all do go surround and drown let it burn don't make interior attack you know i i could see something like that occurring because you know the city inspector isn't or fire department isn't allowed to go make a inspection and tell them to you know pick up their extension cords or or cover their outlet sockets or something like that i could see some
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
32:52
kind of crazy scenario happening like that i don't think this would apply they would still be allowed to inspect for fire
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
33:01
codes and all that that absolutely would not be this is just the building code process just getting the building built once it's built they can
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
33:08
still i mean fire department still has a process and a part that plays when you're building something well they they would they
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
33:16
would still be allowed to to do that if i'm not mistaken i think this is just whether which
Speaker 95
33:23
code applies gotcha when you're the architect engineer or as you're saying during construction or even post-construction seven years from now or whatever which code applied not whether or not they didn't expect or enforce
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
33:39
it it's just a matter of kind of piggybacking off represent brown and mckenzie's comments questions i can still see there could be a potential issue between municipality and county governments and could cause a lot of chaos and headaches for the
Speaker 95
33:53
citizens i and i'll say it this way i've seen issues in the past but i'm unfamiliar with what caused this issue in
Chair
Unverified
34:03
northwest arkansas okay thank you i want to jump back in here so to clarify the municipal league and association of counties aren't necessarily against this because it is whether this bill passes or not it's still the practice that county codes are enforced on a county building whether it's in city limits or not according to some court ruling is that what i
what i heard you say is that what we're going off of now and this is just
Speaker 101
34:30
putting that in statute yeah if not a clear it wasn't a clear court ruling and i haven't researched to the ends of earth but it wasn't a clear court ruling but it seemed to intimate at least that this is kind of how it applies the state would apply to counties as well as far as not enforcing zoning codes I'll also add this that from my understanding and I'm not because I don't know what the issue is here exactly but Whitmore here Mr. Whitmore can can tell me if I'm wrong but typically cities and counties do work together on these issues and from what I understand a lot of counties will just
say yeah okay you can we'll adopt your building codes or zoning codes for this property and have a good partnership i'm not aware of any issue mr whitmore course may but i don't i don't know of any issue usually they work together in conjunction with one
Chair
Unverified
35:13
another we do all do things all the time to clarify court rulings and put them in statute so you know my opinion that seems to be what we're what's happening here i think y'all are agreeing
Speaker 95
35:24
with that i think so i think what happens is if you're building a jail or a courthouse
since it is county owned property much as if it's the state then I don't know if it's the engineers, architects in a quandary or what but if you picked a code then nobody would have to get a lawyer and try to read the cases and try to ascertain. It would tell the architect and engineer this is the code that applies and so there's an issue and I can't enter the state when I I just said in our bill, wasn't that familiar with it, but if the state is building a state building on state property,
I don't know what the answer is whether or not the city building code would apply or not and whether or not the state would exert its sovereignty on whether or not. So I'm just telling you that the building codes are state laws. So if the county code applies, which is almost always the state law, because we rarely enhance the fire code, the building code, electric code, plumbing code. So that would tell the architect
Speaker 97
36:32
and engineer which code applies. That's what I think this bill does. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
36:37
Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized for questions. Okay. I just want
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
36:40
to make sure. So the ruling you're talking about had nothing to do with counties. It has something to do with state. Is that correct, John? Well,
Speaker 101
36:49
to the extent that I can be, a city attorney drafted a memo that I was able to peruse. and um and i emphasize peruse i wasn't able to dive into it um for obvious reasons but um the the the idea was that the state we're not sure that we can even do it for the state either and so the kind of the idea is that we couldn't couldn't impose zoning restrictions or building
code restrictions different than the state restrictions on the county property as well if it's being used for a public use so again it's not crystal clear i won't i'm not suggesting that but it is in line with the practice of the cities that i know about that have had this issue and then really what it does is it just forces the cities and counties to work together that's been my the experience that i know about at least okay so we
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
37:30
don't really have a court ruling this is it hasn't made it up the system and the process not to the extent that it's
Speaker 111
37:36
clear no this so there's no case law not that makes this abundantly clear no okay all right thank you
Chair
Unverified
37:45
all right representative mckenzie you're recognized for questions okay seeing no more questions we have no one else signed up to speak for against representative prairie would you like to close for
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
37:57
your bill yes sir so so basically i i think i'll just be brief we're trying to you know add clarity to what's in practice and make it law um i don't think there's anything nefarious a whole lot of issues going on but i apparently we had an issue to prompt the senate to run this i apologize this committee for not having a lot of your answers
because when I watched the committee on the Senate side, there was pretty well no questions. It ran pretty smooth. There wasn't anybody speaking for or against the bill. There's really nothing to go off of just to guess where the, you know, shots would come from, so to speak. And then on the House floor, it got 27 votes without much debate as well. So I'll just, again, say basically we're just trying to add some clarity, and I appreciate a good vote. All right. Representative
Chair
Unverified
38:40
Perkins, close for the bill. What's the will of the committee? I have a motion due pass as amended. any discussion on that motion represent McKenzie you're recognized for discussion
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
38:51
on a motion I'm glad that you said what you did because I think for us that are up there we understand the conflict and it's apparent I'm for this I think more aptly because of the supremacy of the state chartering counties and counties chartering cities that's that's their purview it's their property within a city limit it's still within the boundary of their county um you have a yes vote but wouldn't it be nice if the associations could help advise the cities and the counties to do what's best for
the citizens so we don't have to come up come around here in the waning hours of session and clean
Chair
Unverified
39:33
this up no i think okay seeing no further discussion on the motion the motion is do pass as amended all in favor say aye aye all opposed no no
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
39:44
eyes have it congratulations you passed your bill thank you thank you committee while we're still on this topic would it be all
Chair
Unverified
39:50
right if i went to sb 274 yes and i just saw uh senator um petty walk in the room so senator petty would
Speaker 54
39:56
you like to come present with with him on uh senate bill
Chair
Unverified
40:06
both introduce yourselves for the record y'all may begin uh chad
Speaker 149
40:11
perry state representative district 25 jim petty state senator district 29 go ahead so again sb 574 you
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:21
can look at this as a i hate to say this but a companion bill to the
last one very similar to 571 and it's adding clarity to that is already in practice but is again been subject to probably the same discrepancy as we mentioned in the last bill basically the counties will be granted access to municipality services you know your water hookups and all that and then just to get ahead of Mr. Representative Richardson's questions all health department codes and costs will apply and be to the county
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
40:58
representative andrews you're recognized for questions
thank you mr chair so i guess going
back to your comments from the previous bill is Fayetteville saying washington county can't have water
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
41:08
and sewer i am i am not aware of a specific situation but i just use that example because
that's some of the most restrictive building codes we deal with and and i would imagine that
would be where we would have the conflict and i will if representative
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
41:25
petty has a specific that there is there is not a specific there's just been enough conversations around what is actual practice uh and and to clarify i know the municipal league uh had some questions uh this
is only for county it's not for private uh that same applies to 571 that just passed it is not applied to private that happens to be on county owned land this is the practice uh i think Municipal League I don't know if they testified to that but that is the practice and we're
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
41:55
just clarifying it there's just been enough questions so we're just codifying some handshake agreements in essence that's what that's how I would
Speaker 159
42:02
describe it yes sir thank you representative Kevin are you
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
42:07
recognized for questions thank you mr. chair so if you don't have any instance sense of why we need this why do we need this specific
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
42:18
instances we There's been enough discussion around whether it really is the statute or the law in practice or not. There's been enough questions to add the clarity. And where have those questions been asked? When were they asked? Yeah, you're saying
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
42:35
that there's questions being asked around it, so I'm asking is where are those questions occurring?
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
42:40
The questions are occurring in various counties and cities. uh specifically uh there were conversations that i'm aware of in in the northwest arkansas area but but you don't have an is fayetteville having trouble with washington
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
42:54
county i guess i'm just going to
ask my i mean i don't have to ask i'm trying to find out why we brought a bill and you're saying there's instances but you can't tell me the instances but you've had
them conversations that's all i'm trying to find out is why we brought a bill if we're not having a problem why are we bringing a
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
43:19
bill to prevent a potential problem in the future okay so i
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
43:25
think i think we're seeing some kind of off the record conversations that are putting some
discrepancies on what is being used as the practice and we're trying to get ahead of that so you know what is practice becomes law and we stay ahead so we don't have to come back down here in two years
and pass a law to clear up those
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
43:44
discrepancies. So I guess what I'm trying to find out is do we have a city-owned municipality a city-owned that is actually saying that a county can't connect to their water or do we do we actually have cities doing that
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
43:59
that's what I'm trying to find out. We do not as of yet that I'm aware of but there's been enough conversations around potential strong-arm situations to justify bringing the bill. How would a city strong-arm someone?
I mean, you're asking for specific situations, and hypothetical is all I'm going to be able to give you. But, for example, if you're not going to comply with our building requirements, then maybe we don't have the mandate to allow you to access our utilities. But again, it's hypothetical. This is meant to head off any. Right now, we've got the county-represented citizens, the city-represented citizens.
We don't need this discussion. that we don't need the citizens to be held responsible for a county, city, municipality debate. Okay, thank you. Okay, Representative Richardson,
Chair
Unverified
45:02
you were recognized for questions. I
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
45:06
think you kind of, Senator Petty, I think you kind of touched on what I was going to ask. Obviously, our cities enhance their codes to ensure that their infrastructure can sustain whatever it is that is coming out of,
whether it be sewer, electric, whatever. They enhance those codes to ensure that they have stability in those services. And so the previous bill said we just have to adhere to the county requirements from a building perspective. We don't have to adhere to our city requirements, the city requirements, which are enhanced specifically to address potential challenges or problems for those services that the city is required to provide.
So now in this bill, we're saying that we really don't care about your enhancements, essentially, because the previous bill. We're going to force you to go ahead and connect those services no matter what. It seems that the heavy handedness, from my perspective, is coming from the county instead of from the city. and it seems like the city should have some protections in this regard associated with it's their services that they have to maintain and so they should have some requirements
associated with compliance to those codes. So I'm just curious why we would feel that not adhering to their codes and then requiring or forcing those cities
Speaker 81
46:45
to provide those services is not a heavy-handed move. Do you want me to answer that? So to
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
46:56
be clear, the building codes that we were talking about or that you all
talked about on 571 are totally different from this.
If the city determines that they have to upgrade a pipe to service that facility, specifically to service that facility, then that cost would be borne, as it's stated in the bill, by the county. if the if the uh health department uh and and and that's who the the design standards as far as the utilities go uh are met if they require you know ductile iron then that's what's going to be there
but if the city requires ductile iron but the the health department doesn't require ductile iron and they're okay with PVC pipe, that's where a discrepancy would be. But they're both allowed. They're both – their health and safety standards are not a problem. And, again, we're talking about on-site, which is a building, a courthouse, a crisis intervention center, whatever, on-site. And they're going to be responsible just like a private developer would for those services on-site.
It's just the ability to connect that site to the city services. Thank you for
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
48:24
just a real-world kind of situation that's going on in Centerton, which is in northwest Arkansas. I know that they have a lot of concerns around sewer, and as a matter of fact, expansion is just not possible. But if I read this, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, if I read this, there's no latitude.
If there's no sewer capabilities left, it doesn't really matter. This says, okay, we're building a county building. You will provide services. So
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
48:56
let me respond to that, if you don't mind. That's where the health department would come in. That is who, and Northwest Arkansas does have a problem, and you're exactly right. uh health department would not approve it because they don't have the capacity it's not up to the city it's not up to the county the health department at that point which again they're complying with would not allow that uh because whether it's private or public whether it's city
county or otherwise the health department would not allow it yeah you know this would
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
49:28
be no different than a city building a new school i mean the health department can still go in and you know set their parameters for that so this this would apply the same as all those okay seeing no further questions we don't
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
49:43
have anybody to sign up speak for or against would y'all like to close for your bill you know i feel i feel
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
49:50
like we're closed for the bill i appreciate all the discussion i'm glad senator i wish senator petty had been here earlier to
get you know learn more about this process um but basically you know again we're just trying to add clarity to what's already in current practice we don't have a specific issue as representative kavanaugh mentioned but we have had several of those off the record conversations i'm assuming so we're just trying to get ahead of that
and make sure everything stays like it is so with that i would appreciate a good vote all right representative prayers close
Chair
Unverified
50:19
for the bill what's will of the committee having motion do pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor
say aye aye all opposed no no eyes have it congratulations you
Speaker 54
50:38
passed your bill all right committee uh just a little bit of housekeeping uh house bill 1992 is going to interim
Chair
Unverified
50:45
study um that we will not be hearing that one today um so i think i see senator mark johnson in the room so we'll take up senate bill 525 next
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
50:59
did he leave okay he has stepped out so let's
Chair
Unverified
51:02
uh we'll take up senate bill 580 representative schultz you ready
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
51:07
to run 580 you'll introduce yourself with a record you may begin good morning committee state representative bart schultz sharp independence lawrence and stone counties. Members, I know we're all tired, wore out with long debates, so in the
interest of that I've got a really simple straightforward bill. Act 36 in 1979 established the Arkansas Rural Fire Protection Program. This program aids communities and fire departments with the establishment, development, and operation of rural fire districts. There's currently a program where volunteer fire departments if they meet specific criteria can do an interest free loan for up to $15,000 the length of that loan is now three years all this
bill proposes is bumping the length of that loan up to five years if they
meet certain criteria as specified by forestry and with that I'd
Speaker 75
52:28
take any questions representative Richardson you recognize the questions thank you mr. chair
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:34
hello Scott I appreciate the bill I just curious why we picked five years and not ten years I mean most farm equipment most large equipment can be amortized for a lot longer than just
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
52:45
a time thing this came from the fire folks this was
Chair
Unverified
52:49
their recommendation okay I hear you say the maximum loan is $15,000 yes sir and that's with a down
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
53:00
payment also okay all right thank you thank you seeing no further questions no one signed up speak for against would you like to close for your bill
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
53:06
I'm closed for my bill and I make a motion do
Chair
Unverified
53:08
pass I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say I all opposed no congratulations you passed your bill
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
53:16
thank you committee all right I see senator Johnson has came back into the room oh hang on I'm
all right we're gonna have to find representative Brooks to sign the amendment before okay she has an amendment here if he
Chair
Unverified
53:43
can she has yeah we just need him here to sign the amendment and
then then we can hear that one okay representative Childress are you ready to for House Bill 1991 if you'll
Speaker 1
54:01
introduce yourself you may begin your presentation Paul Childress State Representative district 83
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
54:09
and with permission from the chair I have two witnesses I'd like to bring forward yes that's fine and we We also have a
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
54:14
handout that we're getting passed out, so while they're introducing themselves, we'll get that
Chair
Unverified
54:17
passed out, give people a chance to look at that. I'll just state your name for the record and what you do is who
Speaker 191
54:29
you're with. My name is Lane Penfield. I'm with Baxley Penfield, Mighty Realtors.
We have a real estate company in
Randy Ives
Unverified
54:35
Saline County. My name is Randy Ives. I'm with Ives and Associates Inc. I'm a real
Chair
Unverified
54:47
estate developer and a home builder in Saline County. Okay. Looks
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
54:50
like everything's passed out, so you all begin when ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee
members. House Bill 1991 is a bill that amends the current state fire code to add a section that deals with large acreage subdivisions outside of city limits.
The current fire code says when you have up to 30 houses, anything more than 30 houses, you have to have another entrance, and if you do not have that you have to have all the houses in that subdivision sprinkler and if anybody's ever built a house adding sprinkler systems to a house is very very expensive the maintenance on it and the inspections on it are very expensive so what we're proposing to do with this bill is to pretty much just in our county we have we have a big growth area and a lot of it
is rural acreage with like paper company well the road frontage has already been sold off and there's been houses there forever but there might be a hundred acre track behind that with a 40 foot easement going into it and then on the back side of that is more private land back side of that's more private land and more private land so you might have to go several miles before you ever get to another road to get access so pretty much on this bill it is a property owner's rights bill you have somebody that inherited some land from their parents and if it's a hundred acre track
and you have a developer go in and he can only put because he only has one entrance there's no other way to get another entrance he might instead of being able to give for example a million dollars for that hundred acres he's only going to be able to give 300,000 because he can only get 30 houses so it really affects property owners and what the value of their property is and I'm let Randy Ives talk a little bit about what he's seeing on the development side how it how it affects him and we have some handouts that he can go over and just show you just a few examples
of some some tracks in in our county that this this current state law on the fire code affects so Randy I'll let you talk on the very
Chair
Unverified
56:54
first picture of what you have in your handouts it says summit properties this is a prime example it's over 400 acres it would make a excellent development for at least 200 lots as you can see it's over a mile deep but they only have less than a thousand feet of road frontage in this scenario that land is the value of it's
severely diminished if if the developers are looking at it i mean i couldn't pay near what market value is in this situation and i can't put another road outside of it because there's no roads it's all farmland so it's not really fair to property owners in this scenario if the guy across the street had the same 450 acres with the same terrain set up but he happened to have a gravel road that come into the back corner his may be worth 10,000 an acre but you're saying that this person right here their property is worth 2,500 an acre it's not even across the
board local planning commissions are not enforcing the law anyway they see that this is a flawed law or at least in the county so it's not being enforced which is which is good because it's not hurting property values but what's come about lately is certain people oppose everything i mean that's just the world we live in and they might show up at local planning board meetings and they they start learning laws and they find these laws that's been on the books for 20 years
nobody else even knows about it and they're they're trying to stop a development it's not that they're trying to promote safety or anything else they just don't want development and then that triggers the state fire marshal's office can come in and and shut the whole development down cost the developer millions of dollars like i said it boils back down to property values what's fair for one person ought to be fair for the next it's not i understand we're not here against safety we're not here against the fire departments we're not here against fire marshals but in this scenario this should we feel like this should be excluded
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
58:58
and i'll comment to that there's there's a several other we won't go through all of them but you can just see some examples that we just pulled just i'm a visual person just for y'all to look at just some things that are going on that we see in our county that this current state fire code law affects and with permission from the chair unless there's a question for randy i'd let mr penfield kind of see what talk about what he is seeing in the real estate market in our county well
Speaker 191
59:27
i mean we're a major growth county and real estate's booming you know there's a lot of houses the
unfortunate thing affordable housing is becoming less and less in your average i don't have the exact number but it's around 400,000 give or take a few thousand dollars and if a developer tries to develop something and they have to put in sprinkler systems then now all of a sudden you got the maintenance of that the cost of that and the cost of construction just keeps going up along with the yield of the lots you know if you can get 30 lots and what's the difference in 30 or 32 lots I mean I understand the reason it's there is because if a tree falls they won't be
able to get in well is the first 30 people not affected just as much as 50 people and so i don't understand the rationale behind that but land values if you've got a track right across from this that has a lot of road frontage i mean they're going to get 20 25 000 an acre for it you start you know diminishing that and you start doing asphalt and road as far as his development i mean you can't afford to do it which affects the property owner and
Chair
Unverified
1:00:36
all right before we get into questions i made a mistake got a little bit of a hurry and had
y'all introduce yourselves while i had staff passing out uh stuff so they didn't get your names recorded if y'all could
Speaker 208
1:00:53
just restate your names for the record i'm randy ives ives with Ives and
Speaker 190
1:00:59
Associates. Lane Penfield with Baxley Penfield Mountie Realtors. All right.
Chair
Unverified
1:01:03
Thank you for that. Sorry about that. That was my fault. Representative Andrews, you're recognized for
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:01:07
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Childress, I know you and I have children, excuse me. We've talked about this bill a little bit, I know. And just looking at these maps here, first off, I do want to say this looks like you're giving up good cattle ground to build some houses. You can throw 100 head of cows on there, and it hurts my soul to see some houses thrown up on there, but that's a whole other issue we can talk about later. But to me, and I know we probably don't have time for this, to work on the bill and maybe amend it,
but maybe I would suggest amend some language to say let it be a county decision, case-by-case basis. If you can't put in two accesses, just make sure you have a wide enough road and a fire hydrant on either side type deal to kind of fix and to satisfy some other fire requirements to make sure if you go in with a fire truck and you lay five-inch LDH to a hydrant, make sure you've got enough room for another vehicle to pass by it.
or if this house over here is burning, you're not blocking the road, or some kind of language like that, that might be a happy compromise medium. Representative Andrews,
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:02:25
and we are late in the game. We understand that. And we have talked to the fire marshal and several fire chiefs across the state, and I think there's a process through there. They have to go through committee meetings and council meetings and all this stuff, and we're not opposed to that. I just didn't want to, you know, pull this down and wait two years before we're able to come back and make any changes.
So that's why we have kind of proceeded forward. And we're willing to work. We're all for public safety. We want to protect the second 30 houses just like we do the first 30 and the life. So we're not against that. And I'll just tell you, I just drove in West Little Rock, you know, out in Chennault. And, again, we took cities out of it. But I saw seven subdivisions down one road that had about 75 houses in them, and there was one entrance and one exit, just one. And I'm not opposed – I mean, we're not picking on them, but I'm just saying the law is being violated across the board.
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:03:17
No, I mean, I get that. And, you know, there's plenty of times when I drive a fire truck
down a one-lane street several times in a week. And so – and I get the law is being violated and all that. I don't know who you go to force rules and all that after someone's already built a property. But I'm just thinking maybe this is more of a local control issue than a state issue. And maybe we give that
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:03:43
authority to the counties to make that decision. Yeah, and we talked about it.
We're not opposed to it referring back to the county judge or his designee to say, hey, you know, my planning board or I'm going to do it or somebody. We're not opposed to that. We just don't know that we have that much time to do it this late in the game.
Speaker 216
1:04:03
So that's right. That's where we are. Okay.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:04:12
Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. And I understand the problems with the development. We have land we try to develop.
But if you have land that has highway frontage, it is more valuable than land that doesn't have it. It's unfortunate. That's just how it works. and because we heard about the values being different well it is different because it already has the access to stuff built in that's just part of having real estate but my concern is much like representative andrews if we only have one access and that's blocked not only do we worry about the
first 30 we worry about the last 30 it's all of it so my concern there is that we're going to put some public safety and I know that's not what your intent is and I understand that but I guess I have that concern that that's what we're going to end up doing unintentionally is that we're going to create a problem where we say people aren't following the law now but the law is going to be that we're going to allow them to do that and I'm not sure that fixes the problem that we really have I the idea about letting the the counties make the exception if they need to I
think is a good compromise is a good way to go because sometimes that might be the only option you have when you're trying to develop it but just saying that doesn't matter where you're developing you can only you know these guidelines you can only have one access if somebody's on footage on the highway footage and they have plenty of ways to have access they're still only going to have one because it saves them money so I'm a little concerned about that I'm And I know that's not your intent of that, but have you thought about that part of it?
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:05:55
Yeah, and I've talked to several fire chiefs in my district, and I just threw that scenario out. And they explained to me on a rural subdivision, we have the ability, if, say, a tree's down on the road, we can go, hopefully, we can go around it through a yard or through another piece of property to get there, or we could have chainsaws or a winch, we could pull it out of the way. So, yeah, there are safety concerns. We
Speaker 161
1:06:19
get it. We understand. But in those instances when
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:06:23
there's a fire, time is of the essence. From someone who's lost buildings to fires,
waiting for you to pull a tree out of a road lost my house. It could have lost lives. And so that's my concern. That's the real concern I have. Thank you. Representative McKenzie, you were recognized. This
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:06:45
one's interesting. I'm trying to find the source code. I'm guessing there's no strikethrough because we're adding language to code or it doesn't otherwise exist because the rules are coming from the state fire prevention, correct? Correct.
Okay. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. My question was about that, then I quickly found out that it doesn't exist. We're not striking through anything, therefore there's nothing to reference. um you've made some pretty good comments about you know additional ways to you know peel the banana on this one but um can you help me maybe one of you two who do this as a day-to-day what does it specifically say in the state fire prevention code relevant to this entry egress
problem or at least best paraphrased is it in the handout yeah well hot because if you look on like page two three two
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:07:35
number two and then three and four is basically the same thing it just added on to the next page it just basically deals with
the number of units if it's 30 or less you can have one entrance if it's 31 you got to have a second entrance or you have to add sprinkler system to all the houses in in the whole entire subdivision yeah and again it we
and i know for a fact randy has developed four and five hundred acre he's got a 500 acre subdivision in west little rock out in the county that's
got one entrance but nobody opposed it yeah their fear is if i invest in this and somebody does call the state fire marshal and all of a sudden they come out and they shut me down so that's what we're trying we're trying to get ahead of that to be a good actor and to do things right and not and not not violate the law and just protect our citizens
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:08:29
Yeah, I mean, I tend to like the idea of the bill. I'm just trying to find where the bogey exists because I don't think it's the role of –
this whole committee is about local control, or at least we say it a lot. And if we say it enough, maybe it comes true. But the state fire prevention code seems to be creating bogeys for your planning and zoning commissions and your judges to either obfuscate the law. So I'm for the bill, I guess. I'm just trying to – where the bogey exists. And I think it's
Chair
Unverified
1:09:02
a good cause. thank you representative richardson you recognize for questions thank you mr chair um
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:09:13
i uh i'm just curious about the the one entrance obviously if you're if you've got fire equipment um you're bringing in you're trying to access you know water and whatever else and blocking roads and now you've got the rest of those people that are behind that existing one entrance location that obviously have access issues or potential other problems or if there's another fire that's on past or whatever or any other emergency that happens. Obviously, that creates all kinds of challenges.
But I heard you say a number of times that there are existing subdivisions that have only one entrance. um i i'm curious how how old those are and when this rule was enacted on the subdivisions i was referring to when
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:10:02
i just started driving looking uh there's still some of them are under construction now you know there there's
some out way out highway 10 by walmart which is in the county outside the city but they're under construction now and uh and i don't think anybody's intentionally
doing anything wrong they're just they're just developing and a lot of people don't know
this this fire code a lot of people don't know and and I talked to the state fire marshal he was very helpful and I said tell me your process do you look for these he said no sir we don't I mean they're big they got the whole state to cover the their
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:10:41
territories big he said when we get a complaint is when we investigate that seems to be a process issue associated with the the either the county planning or um uh the municipal zoning responsibilities whatever uh and not necessarily
uh i mean if the rules are there and promulgated properly appropriately then then they exist for a good reason so um but uh anyway i appreciate your answer in the form of a question would you agree that's a planning uh related issue not a uh not a uh um necessarily a uh a failure of the law correct all right
Chair
Unverified
1:11:19
representative walmart you're recognized for questions thank
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:11:21
you mr chair to to the developer i'm sorry i forgot your name is anybody forcing you to uh to go out here and
look at these developments are you trying to do this for your own good
Chair
Unverified
1:11:34
and the public good i mean i'm here representing all developments but yes i mean it affects me directly yeah and so
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:11:39
if this were to pass would you be able to to do more yeah well so and or i think those go hand in hand do more and lower the price of homes that were available yes definitely okay is anybody forcing anybody to buy these homes that are out in the county that may not have two roads are they doing it because they choose to do that for their family
or they're doing it at their choice okay this seems like a good way to get rid of some overly burdensome regulation and allow cheap housing and people to turn a profit and i am i am i understanding yes that means that would that be your yes sir read
Chair
Unverified
1:12:17
of the situation thank you and i'd like to comment this is rural only um we're not this isn't a high density situation where people are parked on the streets could be blocking the streets and everything like a city subdivision i just feel like this law is more geared towards the city
instead of the county um and i know one size doesn't fit all but it's not you're not high density if you're not worried if your house is on fire it's going to set your neighbor's house i'm talking about out in the county when you live on acreage i mean we're not trying to change stuff in the cities and
Speaker 29
1:12:50
in that scenario all right representative burks you recognize
Speaker 241
1:12:52
for questions just a quick follow-up on that and and these we're talking in this bill only about lots that are one acre or larger is that right yes ma'am okay got it thank you
Chair
Unverified
1:13:05
seeing no further questions from committee members we do have a couple people signed up to speak against and I don't know if do y'all want to come together or y'all want to want to do this separately Ben Hammond and Brad more you're you're welcome to come to the table together if you'd like okay y'all just have a seat turn your mics on introduce yourselves for the record y'all been here long enough you know the drill so you sat through a lot of it
Speaker 244
1:13:38
already so good morning and thank you all mr. chairman committee members first like to say to um you just introduce yourself for the record please my name is ben hammond i am a fire chief and i'm here on behalf larksaw association of fire chiefs um i'd like to say to representative childress appreciate the work so far that's gone back and forth into this um i thought maybe we were actually going to come to a conclusion that would help maybe separate this uh from the work you are having to do here today we just haven't reached that point
yet so a couple of concerns from a fire chief's perspective and uh let me say this as well that i've been involved in the fire marshals and was a fire marshal for over 10 years so bringing that perspective as well along with someone who uh has sat on boards and committees to develop uh some of the fire codes you all have referenced today um if you don't know this already and i'm sure that you do the arkansas fire prevention code is a very cumbersome code it's well over 2 000 pages of code and it's uh three volumes and there's a huge process to go through to get that fire code
where it is and we pull that from the international fire code then arkansas adopts it as its own so two things i just want to mention so number one obviously the safety concerns from a firefighting perspective um or as you all have already heard one entrance does provide limited access now 30 homes uh is the number that the international fire code and arkansas fire code references for there to be one entrance versus two um when you're talking about a 400 acre track as was mentioned
earlier in homes that sit on one acre tracks that's 400 homes if you really think about that that have one entrance to service those and so it provides a logistic concern for how do we respond to these homes in the event of an emergency that's the intent of the code all right now we obviously understood and I say we fire chiefs and fire marshals through the code adoption process that there would be some situations where this is not uh something that can apply to
everybody we understand that the code is very black and white in some areas and then it allows for some gray in some areas as well i say that because the very specific um reference to the fire code that is being uh discussed here today is the second uh access for developments over 30 homes. That is in an appendix in the Arkansas State Fire Code. We recognized that there could be some challenges in that appendix and some problems that would come up related to that.
So the rule of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code actually specifically calls that appendix out and says if there are any questions about this appendix or any appeals for this appendix, apply those directly to the state fire marshal. Go to the state fire marshal and present your case and present your local authorities opinions on that and there can be some alterations made to that so i feel like there are already provisions to where we could probably as a state you know work through some of these issues so we don't put the burden on
builders now i will say this there are obviously some other options when you're building a subdivision of this magnitude, like residential fire sprinklers. I think Representative Childress and I may disagree on how important those are. I firmly believe in those. They save lives. They cost about anywhere from $1.35 to $2 a square foot to put in. I feel like that is not out of the realm of too expensive, but I understand there's a difference of opinion there.
My point is this. Safety is a concern, but the process is a concern as well. This law, as Representative McKenzie said, there's not something that we're striking through, but what we are doing is we're creating a law over here in this section that contradicts a law that's already been accepted under the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. When there are processes in place that could help us amend this code or processes in place where we can solve this problem. anytime someone calls me or sits down with me dealing with the fire code issue it is a process
what type of occupancies are we talking about what building code volume are we talking about what's the local county state jurisdiction all of these things what would present a burden to an already cumbersome process is if we have to go to other sections of the law to find contradicted language that goes against what's already written so the safety of this is a concern but the process of this is a concern as well we think there's probably provisions in place that can work through this problem already but if not adding a law that goes against what's already in
law is a problem that i don't know how to handle as a fire official all right
Speaker 247
1:18:58
you have anything you want to add to that yeah i'm by the way i'm brad moore i'm the legislative chair of the state firefighter association in the state of Arkansas and my current full-time position is a fire marshal for the city of forest city however i'm speaking on behalf of the board ditto everything chief's already said i will make a comment on the process we did have a process some years ago appeals process to the board on the deal with fire codes the fire protecting services board is now the
board that oversees the fire marshal's office and the fire code so we are in process now to form that appeals process again first for processes like this that can be brought toward to the board appeals board to make variances on things of this nature so what we would ask is we pull this bill back and and allow the processes that's already in place to go forward to make these simple changes on certain areas if we pass this law it's going to affect the whole state not just one certain area that's trying to cause a huge safety issue in our eyes
Chair
Unverified
1:19:57
i'm trying to think practically how that process would work if you're talking about a developer who is looking at a piece of property to purchase for for development you know they haven't bought it yet they're interested in in developing it but could they come to y'all beforehand what what type of plan would they have to present to you for you to
Speaker 244
1:20:19
be able to say yay or nay on that yeah so that process happens all the time so I'll give you a real specific example I know some of the committee
members have asked for specific examples I'll give you one I live in Sheridan just outside of Sheridan in Grant County just outside of the city limits of Sheridan there was a subdivision that was being built well there were plans to buy this and build this subdivision it was 100 acres the original plan was to build 33 houses on three acre lots well as you can imagine that when they submitted the plans to me and they submitted them to me as a fire official of the city simply for review because the same state fire code and building codes apply we talked about things like here's
what your hydrant spacing needs to be and here's how your turnarounds need to be but also because we have 33 houses we have a decision to make we either have to add a second entrance to this subdivision or we have to sprinkle the homes that are there or we have to reduce the amount of homes that are in there and we work through that process with the buyers and the builders long before they ever establish really establish a plan now i will say this the what we ended up coming up with was a completely different plan for this builder that you know where he had some houses that are built
on six acre lots etc but there were several different options there that we could have worked from it sounds like in the case that the gentleman presented earlier there may be very very limited options and i can understand the restraints that are put in there but i do believe the fire code is set up in such a way where that can happen and say here we have a 400 acre tract and we want to sell it but our property values are this how can we change our land with developers to ensure that
we can get the most out of this and maintain all the fire and building codes or work around some of those provisions so we can increase this value that can be done now part of part of the problem is as was mentioned earlier is our state fire marshal's office is very limited in their staffing and resources i would be uh doing the fire service a disservice if i didn't say that to you all i'm sure some of you are made aware of that um i would love for the fire marshal's office to have unlimited staffing and unlimited funding so they can uh work towards fire prevention instead of
working on some of these things from the back side but as of now because they are so limited in their resources in their fundings they simply can't enforce the fire code in every situation in this state and every place in this state without a lot of help
Speaker 1
1:22:59
representative carolyn brown you recognized for questions thank
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:23:02
you mr. chair I apologize I didn't write your name down my name is Ben Hammond
nice thank you mr. him yes ma'am in the
configuration of the subdivision could it could the entrance the road the one road that goes in could it be at a certain designated width and then could the layout of the streets and the width of the streets and the placement of the fire hydrants could not some of that ameliorate the dangers that you're concerned about um i
Speaker 252
1:23:38
excuse me i do believe there are some
Speaker 244
1:23:43
uh with requirements already in the fire code but that is certainly
an option that you could take to the state fire marshal and say we feel like with this entrance in the width being this and our local authorities agreed those are the things that you would take to the state fire marshal's office and say how can we work around this where as a you know a entrance of a subdivision is 24 feet let's just say we're going to make it 50 feet i don't know how practical that is but let's say we're going to make it 50 feet and that is certainly a provision that can help work around some of those areas in the code that's why this particular piece of the
fire code as it relates to entrances in 30 homes is in that appendix so there is some room to deal with the state fire marshal's office and come to some
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:24:29
sort of agreement on that well and i don't know how this would impact the developer but i'm just thinking that you know in a subdivision generally you're going to have like a main like a main street through and uh if if some of those interior streets were a little bit wider or or whatever it needs to be done or if there were
more fire hydrants i'm just thinking there needs to be a way
Speaker 244
1:24:58
to right resolve the concerns oh i certainly understand that and there are all of the things that you just mentioned are all addressed in the fire code um this one this one particular area of interest where it talks about the entrance to the subdivision though that's why it's in that appendix is because it's not necessarily as simple as that and i say that because you could put a fire hydrant in front of every home in the subdivision
and the streets could be 50 feet wide in the subdivision but if there's limited access in and out of it some sometimes that won't matter thank you and in the events we've just gone through in this state uh access into some of those places is a you know
Chair
Unverified
1:25:37
is an extremely important issue thank you representative walmack
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:25:44
you're recognized for questions thank you mr chair uh in that example you gave mr hammond right outside of sheridan how do you remember how
Speaker 244
1:25:51
many homes were ultimately built in that subdivision ultimately the plans allowed
for 30 homes after it was reduced from 30 to 33 to 30 uh since then because of some drainage issues and all of this uh i think there's a couple less homes built in there but And I can tell you one of the person who was largely going to invest in this property financially, one of his concerns was he could have actually put a second entrance in. But in order to do that, he would have had to eliminate one, if not two, of the lots to build homes on.
And, you know, I completely understood that eliminating six acres and two homes that you could potentially, you know, provide for this subdivision is a huge problem. So that's why we just kind of had to sit down and work through all the things to get it right. Follow-up, Mr.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:26:42
Chair. All right. Do you have any, well, really any examples of where there's been loss of life that was because we didn't have a second access in some of these places? You know, right offhand, I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 244
1:26:57
um i could i can tell you a situation i was personally involved in that there wasn't a loss of life but there was very very heavy financial damage because of a fire because the weather was an option was an issue excuse me that prohibited access to the subdivision but the one entrance that we had because of of icy conditions and a fire truck that was wedged in this entrance and we were unable to get it out we went from a car fire in front of the carport to a house that
pretty much burned completely down because there was one fire truck working on the accident and because the weather and the accident with the fire truck pulling into this subdivision it was completely shut off so not a loss of life huge loss of property you recognize but but to
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:27:51
be clear that had nothing to do with a second entrance. I mean, in theory, it could have made a difference. But, I mean, if we've got ice on the road, there's no guarantee no one's going to be accessible either.
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:28:04
You're absolutely correct. Yep. Thank you. Okay, seeing
Chair
Unverified
1:28:14
no further questions, thank you for your testimony. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against. Representative Childress, would you like
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:28:31
to close for your bill? Yes, sir. thank you mr. chair and i'm all for fire departments and ems and first responders i was
one for you know 10 years of my life and i firmly believe in it and i don't want to do anything to hurt that but this bill just kind of goes back to protecting property owners rights and the county judge association i've talked to them about it they're okay with this bill um i just i just feel like it's a good bill it's a start and um maybe next session if i get to come back we can work on it and make some amendments to it if we need to at that time change it but i feel like it's a good bill going forward at this point in time with that i am closed all right representative children's
Chair
Unverified
1:29:13
closed for his bill what's will the committee i have a motion do pass any discussion on that motion seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed no eyes have it congratulations you passed your bill thank you mr. chairman and committee all right we're
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:29:32
getting down to the last couple bills Representative Hudson, are you going to run Senate
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:29:38
Bill 406? Apparently I am. I think Mark was on his way.
And if I have to make this amendment, I've got to go to rules right. You don't have to make the amendment. I don't want to see you. Okay. If you want to do 406, you're up. I won't do that. I said I'm here. I did that. If you will introduce yourself for the record,
Chair
Unverified
1:30:36
You may begin your testimony or your presentation of Senator Clark's bill. We have some people that are
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:30:48
signed up to speak for, and it's my understanding that they may have helped present this bill in the Senate. Would you like to have them come to the
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:30:56
table? Yes, I was about to ask if I could have some people come join me at the desk. Yes. But Ashley Hudson District 75 doing the duo that everyone's been waiting for with Senator Alan Clark.
Chair
Unverified
1:31:06
all right you guys will just turn the mics on introduce yourselves for the record
Speaker 277
1:31:18
y'all may begin your presentation Kyle Sylvester Washington County Circuit Clerk representing the Arkansas Circuit Clerks Association
Speaker 278
1:31:25
West La Sane with the Arkansas Land Title Association
Speaker 279
1:31:29
Billy Rowan Beck Arkansas Land Title Association. Mr.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:31:36
Chair this bill is a result of a joint effort with the
circuit clerks and the Arkansas Land Title Association in an effort to counter the effects of property fraud in Arkansas and requires the owner of record to present a valid ID to record a deed. I will let my guests up here at the table explain some of the ins and
Speaker 283
1:32:06
the bill. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee. We are experiencing a rash of seller impersonation or deed fraud across the country. This is not just limited to
Arkansas and as a result of that Senator Clark had a constituent that reached out to him, that resulted in Senate Bill 69. Senate Bill 69 has not been run. We worked with Senator Clark both the Arkansas Land Title Association and the Arkansas Circuit Clerks with concerns that we had with that bill. The Circuit Clerks and the Land Title Association met jointly and worked on some language which you
have before you in Senate Bill 406. And I'll let Mr. Sylvester speak from the clerk's perspective, but essentially what has happened or what they believe to happen is that most of the fraudulent deeds that are presented for recording are either walked through the office, presented in person, or come through the mail title professionals such as ourselves attorneys mortgage bankers
the majority of those electronically record documents where they can some if they're close to the courthouse will still send those by courier or one of their employees to actually record those so what we've done is essentially created a known filer or trusted filer system with this bill. So you'll see exceptions to presenting identification for licensed attorneys,
licensed title agents, licensed realtors, mortgage brokers, commissioner state lands, and various and sundry state agencies, municipal agencies, county agencies that deal in real property those would be exempt from having to present their id but if john doe citizen comes in to record a deed they would have to present their valid photo identification uh we're and
what we're trying to prevent with that is someone uh the the perpetrator the person who forged a deed from being able to come in and record that and essentially realizing on the value of your property they're acting and presenting themselves as you executing a deed forging your signature and then going to record it and by presenting identification to show that they are in fact the grantor that will help prevent that this is not a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination
um it's a roadblock uh the the fraudsters out there are are very smart um i wish they would put their their knowledge and skills to productive use but this is unfortunately what we're facing um in our industry and so you know this is something that will be coming back again and again uh as fraudsters create new tricks new schemes those will have to be addressed uh but this this at least will be a hurdle that they will have to clear and help slow
down and prevent some fraud from occurring from a from a national perspective I would say that you know the Uniform Law Committee has created a study group with respect to deed fraud I'm participating in that as an observer and hopefully with the recommendations of that study group the Uniform Law Committee will draft law that states such as Arkansas can adopt and deal with
Chair
Unverified
1:36:03
this in a broader manner all right I appreciate y'all trying to find a solution to this problem it seems like something needs to be done but I'm I'm looking on page, I guess it's page two, the last page of the bill. So the list of people who are exempt from having to present ID, how is a recorder supposed to know that those people are legitimate? How do they know if it's an attorney, a real estate broker, a real estate agent,
any of those things if that person doesn't identify themselves? I
Speaker 283
1:36:38
think the circuit clerk will have the ability to ask them to identify themselves. I think those local professionals, the title agent who's closing transactions in a particular county, is sending documents for recording, they know the clerks. So you're just basically assuming that
Speaker 7
1:36:56
they already have that relationship and they know
Speaker 283
1:36:59
who they are. You know, as far as, say, the Arkansas Department of Transportation or the Commissioner of State Lands,
you know, it's going to be submitted with documentation on their letterhead. And it will be, again, somebody that the—
Speaker 286
1:37:13
like a clerk or their employees would
Chair
Unverified
1:37:18
faking all these other things so they'll fake that as well without it's certainly
Speaker 277
1:37:24
possible some type of ID so and and again echoing what mr. Lesane said 99% of the time those
Speaker 288
1:37:30
identified entities that are exempt are going to be using an electronic recording system and not even walking those documents into
Chair
Unverified
1:37:37
the office to present to the recorder okay
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:37:43
thank you represent a painter you're recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad this bill's out there. Just I have a question. Probably the this is the second highest complaint I hear from veterans about what's going on. Can you talk into detail about, you know, is this going to give us the teeth to tackle on that this fraudulent deed and title theft that's going on? Or is this a small step to hopefully to get
us a bigger step in the future and it's a small step to hopefully get
Speaker 290
1:38:15
us a bigger step in the future you know we recognize that it's we've been calling it a speed bump um that we're putting in place there is a this is going on across the united states in various forms so we're trying to tackle each one this seems to be the the best we can do at this point in time we recognize that the fraudsters could come in with a fake ID as an example so hopefully by the time the next session
comes around as a result of the committee that Wes talked about we'll have a possibly a better way to go about it
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:38:53
but at least for now we've we slowed the process and second question too is you know Baxter County they've signed up for a platform that kind of allows the citizens the county pays for it but allows the citizens to be notified that possibly something fraudulent is happening happening this does not contradict or interfere with that correct no not at all
Speaker 290
1:39:15
that that's a good service that's provided 100 agree with you but it's but the damage has already been done it's like hey just a heads up your property title has been compromised so it's a good heads up but we're trying to stop it before it gets to that point well i appreciate at least
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:39:32
slow it down right now i appreciate it i appreciate the bill and in the future count me in on helping to stop this happening because again i just
today i've had one veteran call me about this issue alone and so i get i appreciate it thank
Speaker 277
1:39:47
you and just to add to what this does is for for those
folks bringing in bringing a document to present to
Speaker 288
1:39:53
the recorder and presenting an id that is to be recorded with the document what that does is that's just going to give us a starting point on identifying the the potential uh fraudster that has come in otherwise you wouldn't really know who that is you couldn't identify them unless you know the the clerk's office is fortunate enough to have a camera system that you know records and might be able to identify via a face or whatever um and again you know like we said it's not a perfect bill
it's going to be a road in a speed bump and you know we will be returning as you know property fraud morphs into different various forms all right
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:40:34
representative Womack you're recognized for questions thank you mr. chair on line 30 it
says and and i may have missed this i stepped out for just a second a valid photo id who who makes that determination of what is a valid photo id because i could see a scenario where somebody walks in and says you know made their own little
photo id with their picture on it and goes here it's valid it's got my picture on it i
mean who's responsible for making that determination just out
Speaker 288
1:41:05
of curiosity yeah you bring up a very very valid point there there's so much it's not only property fraud but you have identity fraud and things like that um really the the only thing from a recorder standpoint that we can do making a photocopy of that identification, you know, seeing that it resembles a current Arkansas driver's license
or, you know, a government-issued identification. Beyond that, you know, again, we're kind of trusting the person presenting the document that they are who they say they are. Representative Womack also, if you look down in
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:41:39
line 35, it does define the photo ID as something that's issued by a state agency or the U.S. government. So this wouldn't, you know, we had some discussion earlier about county-issued IDs. This wouldn't be that. It would have to be a state-issued driver's license. Perfect. Thank you for that.
Speaker 299
1:41:57
One thing I'd also like to add about the identification is, you'll notice the very last
Speaker 283
1:42:03
line of the bill, is that the identification is being filed under seal with the circuit clerk, so it's not going to be publicly viewable. all
Speaker 29
1:42:14
right representative andrews you recognize for
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:42:16
questions thank you mr chair i like the bill i think they're you
know this this is a big issue um just one quick question of what happens when the property is transferred into a corporation's name like who i mean xyz bank doesn't have its
own driver's license do we go with board directors or ceo or what's going
Speaker 283
1:42:38
on there it would it would be the person who's signing on behalf of that entity you'll notice where it says the grant or party representing the grant or that was language that was added to to account for entities trust even if a deed was executed by an attorney in fact pursuant to a power of attorney then the person executing
that deed on behalf of that entity other individual or trust would be the one who's presenting their ID okay thank you okay seeing
Speaker 1
1:43:13
no further questions we do have one person signed up to speak against Russell Thomas if you'll have a
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:43:32
seat turn your mic on introduce yourself for the record may
Russell Thomas
Unverified
1:43:36
again. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Russell Thomas from High Springs. I share the
feelings of everyone who spoke before you and the sponsors in wanting to stop what we're talking about. I know that their well-intentioned sponsors have known Alan Clark and Les Warren for decades
sat down for an hour over spring break with Les and went through these issues specifically about how this bill handles them there are two major concerns I have with this bill the first one relates to the protection of the identity that is recorded with the deed. And the second one relates to the exemptions which allow someone, as you have addressed,
to fake a letterhead and not have to provide an ID. So on page two of this bill, line three is the most concerning part of the entire bill. And, by the way, I did email everyone on this committee a letter in the last day or two that was prepared before the most recent amendment to this. And at the time that letter was written to you, there were certain items being redacted from the photo ID that's attached to the deed.
Those lines have been taken out of this final amendment. Currently, this states on line three of page two, a recorder shall record a copy of all valid photo identification cards or driver's license presented under the subdivision F1A, which is the previous area of this section by attaching photocopies to the deed. You're attaching the driver's license photocopy to the deed,
and it's being recorded in accordance with the requirements under 21-6-306. 21-6-306 basically defines the fees that are paid when you file a deed. This statute or this bill says you attach a photocopy of your driver's license to the deed and that is filed in the records. Now, there's another paragraph, subtitle 3 at the bottom of the page, line 20,
that says an unredacted copy of the valid photo identification card or driver's license shall be filed by the recorder under seal. There's nothing relating these two lines. There's nothing saying these two lines are covering one copy. We're referring to two different copies. We're referring to one copy attached to the driver's license, I mean to the deed, and another copy that is unredacted and saved by the recorder.
Now, had we intended for those to be the same copy, we would have referred in section C up above, down to subsection 3 below, or vice versa in subsection three down below we would have referred to uh subsection c up above and saying that this is the same copy but we're not we're talking about two different copies the way this bill is written we have 75 independent constitutional officers that are circuit clerks
around the state they answer to no one but the voters when they have a statute that says i attach you a copy of this to the deed, that's what I do. And it doesn't say that that's the same one as below. And no matter how much they want to train or try to get agreement among the circuit clerks, any circuit clerk can handle that any way they want to. And the vast majority of deeds that are filed in the state go on to be published on the internet. Almost every county is now publishing
deeds on the internet. So the way I read this bill, and I know that the title people and the folks that spoke to you before want to interpret it differently than what the actual law says. They want to believe that it protects us from releasing copies of these IDs. But I think the clear wording of the bill does not. And that's my major concern with this. I have a secondary very concerned with this bill, and that is, even if you were to correct that issue, if
you were to tie these two paragraphs together and correct it, we're talking about scammers who are able to find legal descriptions, find owners, and make very technical documents, which deeds are if they can do that they can easily uh make a letterhead for an out of state out of county whatever surveyor or title company or anything and as the world moves more to a
nationwide environment where we end up with title companies from the far coast doing business in here in Arkansas. We end up with appraisal firms doing it. Everybody is moving towards a nationwide system. They'll get a lot more of this stuff through the mail. Now, I agree that the electronic systems are a bit safer. There's some signing up for them, but I went on the Pulaski County website this morning. You put your name and a password in, and it looks like you're able to file
these electronically at that point I didn't get any any further than that but when you get to the page where it asks you to sign up it doesn't have any requirements of what type of business you need to be or you know any kind of licenses you have to have for that how this affects me is that I have several hundred pieces of property that are in trust companies scattered around the country California, Chicago, Texas, and this law requires that the person signing for that trust out
in California or Texas or wherever, if they're going to send that deed in for filing, they have to attach their personal ID to it, and I'm not sure that they really want to do that under the current identification theft. And so if I send them a copy of the law, I can see where they're going to say, look, I'm not doing this. Your law says we're attaching my driver's license to your deed and filing it at public records to go on to be published online.
So there should clearly be a link between these two. I think we've made a toolbox for scammers to identify what kind of letterheads you can use to get a little bit better recognition by having a law or a bill that does not tie these two photocopies of IDs together. If it tied those two together, it would be much better. But it would still be abused by the best of the scammers
who are going to fake it, whatever. Common citizens are going to follow the law. They'll send in their ID, and it may get published on the web. But I do think that we've got a deeply flawed situation here. I think we have a lot of well-intentioned people trying to do the right thing. And I'm one of them. I want to see this be an honest system. But I think that this bill doesn't accomplish that. Thank you. seeing no questions thank you for your
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:51:58
testimony we have nobody else signed up
Chair
Unverified
1:52:04
to speak for or against this bill represent Hudson would you like to close
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:52:16
for your bill and the closing is by members only so Thank
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:52:25
you committee and thank you for your time this morning
I am I just wanted to address one thing just I don't do real estate law but I am a licensed attorney and I use the online systems
frequently for filing other documents there is a verification system I am required to put in the information that that I'm required to maintain as an attorney and I have to change that information periodically in order to maintain the security of the system so there there are processes in place for the online part that also apply to the online users of those electronic recording systems with that I'm closed for my bill and make a motion
do pass all right we have a motion do pass any
Speaker 1
1:53:06
discussion on the motion seeing that all
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:53:08
the favors oh I'm sorry we do have discussion on the motion represent a
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:53:13
woman you were recognized I'm not sure is it appropriate to talk to Ms. Hudson now that we're in discussion phase and ask
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:53:21
a question or not? She is a member of the committee
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:53:24
so yes you can discuss I know this isn't your bill and I'm sorry we're so late would you be willing to or whoever you need to ask maybe amend this bill to include a sunset clause since a lot of presenters said
we know this isn't perfect and I think Mr. Thomas may have hit on a real danger uh do you think that's possible or would i am i'm in no position
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:53:49
to make decisions on this bill i'm i'm sorry but i'm sorry you know it's not my i'm not even a co-sponsor i understand i've been
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:53:56
there uh okay thank you well then in a so i'm going to move from my question to the discussion i'm not comfortable passing this bill out as it is not that i'm opposed to the idea and the intent i just think there's you know some serious danger out there and when we know it's not sewing up all
the holes we need to I hate to write it into law without a sunset clause which would give time for more so that's just my discussion
Chair
Unverified
1:54:28
on it thank you representative Pilkington you recognize for
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:54:30
discussion on motion yeah I just um just kind of adding to what representative Womack said but in a different, different vein of thinking. I mean, they said this moves the ball down the field. This isn't perfect. Um, you know, and, and I'm fine with that. I mean, we, we're going to have another session, uh, unless, you know, the state government of Arkansas is overthrown or
something, uh, in two years. And I think if there are issues there, we can, we can address them. I mean, this is a pretty non, in my opinion, non-controversial bill. And, and like I said, I think there's, there's security as concerns that were addressed by representative Hudson that I think make me feel good about it and like I said I mean I get what they're saying it's not perfect but for a complex issue like this I do understand sometimes you just have to get some things rolling and get the ball moving down the field so that you can improve it later on so I'm comfortable with that because I just don't think I'm not seeing any sort of like put it this way I'm not
seeing any sort of catastrophic issues that is going to cause by us passing this bill so I'm comfortable and I'm
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:55:31
going to be a yes vote on this all right seeing no further discussion
Chair
Unverified
1:55:36
have a motion of due pass all in favor say aye aye all opposed no no ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill senator clark's bill all right i think we have one bill left um senate bill 525
senator johnson we have an amendment on
this that's getting passed out i think the
amendment basically rewrites the whole bill we weren't
Speaker 44
1:56:09
at the end of session i'd make you wait till
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:56:19
another day i'm grateful mr chairman i appreciate representative mckenzie being willing to sign this
i'm about as close ready as i'll ever be mr chairman
Chair
Unverified
1:56:46
whenever you want to recognize me all right if you want to
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:56:50
present your amendment uh we'll do our best to listen this is is my amendment it does make significant changes uh i appreciate uh representative mckenzie and representing Brooks working together on this and it it it in some ways strengthens
bill some ways it weakens it it does where the original bill would transfer this authority to the Secretary of State exclusively this will transfer that authority only in cases where a proposed new municipality is located in two counties it straddles a county line and this specific case that I'm concerned with is Little Italy which is in northwest Pulaski County and I'll talk
about that when we pass the amendment I'll get into more details the other thing it does is it but it does limit it to that type of situation it also includes protections that were requested by Central Arkansas Water because some of this proposed municipality could be, not necessarily all of it, but part of it would be in the area that's in the Lake Maumelle watershed protection zone, which is not just Little Rock's municipal water source but for the region.
So at their request, what the amendment does, it's basically the new community could put stronger protections in that area but they couldn't weaken the existing protections that are in place in that area so it they still would have the normal municipal planning authority but they could not in effect the the restrictions on development in the watershed for the water supply would be grandfathered in even though it is a new
community so with that I would appreciate if we get a motion and pass this amendment all
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
1:58:53
right I don't see any questions oh yeah I don't see any questions from committee members so what's will the committee I
Chair
Unverified
1:59:04
have a motion to adopt the amendment all right we have a motion to adopt the amendment so um i guess you're you're i'm close
Speaker 326
1:59:12
on the amendment mr chairman you can present the bill
Chair
Unverified
1:59:14
uh let me let me i'm sorry we need to take a vote yeah let me let me back up uh all in favor of that of adopting this amendment say aye all right that was weak um all opposed no all right we had no no's so i guess congratulations you passed your amendment
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
1:59:34
thank you you may now present the bill as amended. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill addresses a situation in a community in my district called Little Italy. As you might guess from its name it was founded by immigrants from
Italy. It has a very strong sense of community and not saying that others don't but it definitely does uh uh it is a predominantly catholic community and it's uh the hub of that activity is the saint francis church which is i've been privileged to attend church there many times it's a wonderful place and just a really great part of pulaski county and and perry county as i said it
straddles a line between Perry and Pulaski so normally these types of issues would apply where the only the county court which in our archaic system is the county judge and I like county judges almost all of them but it is a lot of power to be vested in one individual it seems to me in many ways to be kind of a vestige of our old way of county government y'all are all too young to
remember before amendment 55 but i do and we we now have a more robust and and democratic system with three branches of government in the county just like we do at other levels of government the bill is simple now that it's amended it does as i said in in describing the amendment it would maintain an existing watershed protection which is probably exclusive to this area and
maybe theoretically although I don't know of any incorporation plans in the in the Buffalo River area but it would it would maintain that without question if Little Italy becomes a town it could perhaps even issue some stronger ones but but they would have the same municipal powers that others do
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:01:50
the the compromise that I
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
2:01:53
just tried to do with
the Association of counties and with all the county judges is limited to this specific situation where you've got a proposed community in two counties and they want they want to come together and they want to operate under the former rule where you only needed 75 petition signatures to incorporate and that's because of the size of it and again it's it's straddling a line it would be citizens of both counties that would be able to do that so while the county
clerks would verify the Perry and Pulaski County clerks would verify the signatures uh the incorporation would be handled by the secretary of state's office uh i've talked to uh uh secretary jester uh his office they're neutral on the bill but he's he did said that he didn't have any problem with with doing that should we enact this bill so so yes this is an unusual case and uh i won't call it a jurisdictional dispute it's a jurisdictional anomaly
is probably a better thing i don't think there's necessarily a dispute i recognize the reticence on some people to change anything in the way county judges and counties have operated for years but i think this is a situation that might call for that and i ask my house colleagues to do what i asked my house colleagues our senate colleagues to do which is think outside the box a little bit and let's give these people an opportunity to to make the effort to incorporate and that I'll be
happy to answer any questions all right representative Andrews you're recognized for questions thank you mr. chair certain
Johnson I understand what you're trying to do and I understand you're trying to help your community constituents which what we're all sent here to do but I don't like how this bill lowers the signature requirement um I think there's there was conversation in this committee i think it was last week that there's 500 some odd towns and cities in this state which is comparatively higher than say like mississippi but um and you can argue
that a lot of them probably neither charters or vote because they're you know you were subcommittee chair of audit miss you know towns and cities and how many of them were brought in because they couldn't you know balance their books i know you're trying to help your town but wouldn't you agree with me in saying that this is going to open up loopholes to allow some other trying to use what adjective is good here um other scenarios where they probably don't need
to be incorporating um and wouldn't you agree on that well in part i
would agree in part i would disagree representative andrews first of all you're right you sit in those hearings with me when we have uh these these cities that have come in and they've let's let's just say it they violated our counting laws and uh our job when i was chair and you're on my committee our job was to hold them accountable but we also had bigger cities and counties that did the same thing so
to say well you're small so you're going to make these mistakes i think it might be painting with a little bit broader brush than i would want to but uh i feel comfortable and i'm going to come back to the to the uh revoking the charter thing in a moment but i feel comfortable with this because i know the i should say the city fathers and mothers in that part of my my district that being extremely civic-minded and responsible people uh i wish we could say that about every
small town in the state but we probably can't but back on the the uh let's
Chair
Unverified
2:05:44
let's not get into revoking charters that's not part of
Ben Hammond
Unverified
2:05:47
this bill so he brought that up i understand well let's just leave that i got i got one more just leave that alone yeah you're recognized for a follow-up as long as
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
2:05:56
we're not getting into that yeah it's thank you so you're giving secretary of state office some more responsibilities right in this narrow
Speaker 329
2:06:04
instance yes what's the fiscal cost on that the the secretary of
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
2:06:08
state's office did not indicate there would be any any has blr done
for that i'm sorry has blr done a fiscal impact no you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:06:17
know we don't require those in the senate and that my my observation is that all this would
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
2:06:24
be accomplished by existing staff both of a county clerk and the secretary of state okay but now again such a study has not been made in full disclosure representative Andrews but it was this will be a very narrow application and it's not like the secretary would be required to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:06:43
create a new department within his office and come to us
Speaker 1
2:06:48
and ask for an appropriation okay all right thank you for your questions all
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:06:57
right representative Carolyn Brown you're recognized for questions thank you mr. chair um senator
um johnson um it's their opposition well let me start does this bill you say it's very narrow does it only affect the literally is that the only community it's going to affect let me answer that question this
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:07:20
way i'm not aware of another community in this similar situation representative brown I did at one time have a town in my district before it was redrawn that straddled a county line. That was Damascus. It's part in Van Buren County and part in Faulkner County. And then nearby to that, although it was not in my district, is Quitman. Quitman is part in Cleburne County and part in Faulkner County. So I know these exist. But they've been in existence.
Yes, ma'am. They've been around a long time. But I don't know of another one seeking this at this time. But in the event that such a community were trying to incorporate, the law would apply. Now, let me mention that the bill specifically prohibits an incorporation of a new municipality that is within three miles of an existing municipality. So it's not in a lot of these counties that are becoming more densely populated there, you know, might have some concerns about this.
But but this is going to apply to places that are a little more isolated and away from the existing municipalities. And I think Little Italy is it's almost 10 miles from Little Rock. I don't know how many miles it is from Bigelow, but it's it's it's quite a distance by itself. So what two, so we've got
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:08:47
Pulaski County, was the other county Perry? Perry, yes ma'am. Have you talked to the Perry County judge? I've talked to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:08:55
him in general about it before this bill came up.
We didn't, I didn't see any problem. I know I've talked to Representative Bentley and this is, that part is in her district and she's okay with it. And we're just, again, we just let the process play out. But certainly when the hearing is held by the Secretary of State in this case, as opposed to a county court, then, you know, everyone would be able to give testimony. And a lot of times, as you know, that has to do with being able to do services and things like that.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:09:33
So how's the Pulaski County judge with this? Have you asked? I haven't talked to Judge Hyde
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:09:37
about it. he was at one point had uh opposed it and i'm gonna candidly say he probably would still oppose it but uh that's not the first time that judge hyde and i have been on opposite
sides of issues as you well know representative hang on i think your mic went off yeah
i'm sorry your question again was are they are they it are
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:10:08
the people in that community wanting to incorporate yes ma'am thank you
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
2:10:12
thank you okay seeing no further questions we do have two people signed up to speak against this uh we'll do it's mark whitmore uh daryl mahoney y'all come up together thank you y'all over
Chair
Unverified
2:10:20
here okay i'm sorry mark whitmore associates knoxow
Speaker 94
2:10:32
counties daryl mahoney garland county judge Okay, we'll be brief.
Speaker 95
2:10:39
I just want to point out that the Little Italy filed an incorporation, and it failed in the court system. So that has happened already with Little Italy. They filed an incorporation that was denied. I want to quickly point out that the way county court works is that you file EQ board appeals on tax appeals, these type cases. Hang on. Guys, could you all tone it down just a
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
2:11:05
little bit over there? We're having a hard time hearing up here.
Speaker 95
2:11:09
We are talking about the president. Okay. We're just trying to understand the questions, but we'll stop. Okay, thank you. So in essence, what happens is the local citizens go to their local county court and have the county court hear their tax appeals, their road cases, and these type of incorporation cases literally filed an incorporation case, and it failed. So the courts have decided this case. If you don't succeed, like in a tax appeal or a road case or anything, you appeal to the county court and you start afresh a new case in circuit court.
So this would actually have the citizens, like in Southside, Independence County had an incorporation or something. If there was a city that straddled the county line, they wouldn't go to their local court system like it's been done for the 150 years. They'd come to the Secretary of State. so they'd have to come to Little Rock and for those I'm going to go real quick here but when you appeal a state agency you don't start in circuit court fresh you don't get a new trial
you are under the Administrative Procedures Act and you have to show that the state the Secretary of State acted arbitrarily capricious so these particular cases would go a totally different route than the court system they wouldn't have access like the other cases do on
Speaker 96
2:12:31
the courts is what senator johnson's suggesting if i may judge mahoney had a case diamond head that's garland county and hot spring county he's the garland county judge and he can just briefly tell you about that
Speaker 344
2:12:44
so i appreciate your time and i'll be as quick as i can uh we have from garland county we have five incorporated areas one of them is the city of hot springs so we will take them out of the equation for now, but out of the other four, one of them is providing part-time law enforcement, and that is all they're providing. There's no fire. People are, the constituents are still having to pay for their fire dues to volunteer fire districts, and there's no law enforcement in those cities and towns now as they should have. As Mark said, Diamondhead was the one that we
heard in our county court. They came to county court the first time, and they had all of their signatures in order. The county clerk confirmed them, gave us an affidavit. All that was met, but they were denied the first time because of other issues they had, and it was stated in our first order they did not have their GIS done correctly. It requires go through Arkansas GIS to have the boundary formed. It did not do that. They had issued an incorporation in Hotspreen County, and they had issued an incorporation in Garland County, and so that we could not affirm because there was two diamond heads out there
trying to be incorporated at the same time. They went away. We advised them what they needed. They came back met all the statutory requirements had 75 people in the room Every one of them spoke for the incorporation we granted incorporation in 2024 to date They still do not have any law enforcement or fire protection or working on any roads All right, thank you for that seeing
Chair
Unverified
2:14:09
no questions from committee members. I appreciate y'all's testimony Senator would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
2:14:19
I'd be happy to. A few points to make, and I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:14:24
appreciate Mark and the judge sharing that with us. When someone starts a new community, a new municipality, they're not, unless you're Bella Vista or something, you don't have all these things in place that most municipalities have. they're small and they're working up to them for example I live just outside the
corporate limits of Little Rock and thanks to you Mr. Chairman I don't have to worry about Little Rock telling us what to do anymore but even though I'm going to the grocery and paying taxes to Little Rock but in in in dealing with we have a volunteer fire department my next door neighbor's house burned to the ground and i'm not blaming our volunteer fire department for that but uh i would have been thrilled if that iso class one little rock
fire department had come out and put our fire out uh but they don't and they didn't and that's the way the law is and probably for now the way it should be but uh to say we don't have the services provided we have we have services available and i'm comfortable with with the protection situation as a matter of fact the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department has created a new substation that would be it would either be in the proposed corporate limits of the new municipality or it would be just outside I think it would actually
be in what would be Little Italy and it would be a replacement Pulaski County Sheriff's substation to the is is to the one that was about a mile down the road from my house in Ferndale so we're you know we you know communities like people are not hatched full grown these are legitimate points that everyone's made but these people ought to have the opportunity to do this now let me let me touch on the the process as as mark described
he said we've been doing this for 150 years well we did a lot of things for 150 years with county court county court in my opinion is an anachronism that probably should be abolished For years, county judges who are not judges and not lawyers had several powers that would be considered judicial powers. For example, one of the more famous ones is determining the paternity of illegitimate children.
and the famous Pulaski County judge, Arch Campbell, he had a theory that the baby always had its father's ears. And so if you were a man who had been accused of being the father of a particular child, even though you may have ever seen the mother, if your ears looked like the baby's ears, you were the daddy, according to Judge Campbell. So now DNA tests, we don't have that kind of anachronistic thing anymore.
Also, after the passage of Amendment 55, which in retrospect probably should have included some phase out of this archaic system, it did not include that. But subsequent to Amendment 55, which I think was in the mid-'80s, and I remember that Governor Clinton was the governor at the time, we did create a new judicial system for juvenile justice instead of a county judge who was not a lawyer and not trained and not even required to be learned in the law dealt with juveniles that had committed offenses.
So these are things that I think should be cleaned up, but again, the bill is aimed at a very narrow part of that. It creates a fairness to this community and maybe elsewhere someone similarly situated, and once again, I'll reiterate, that's outside three miles of another existing municipality. So, you know, that's part of the deal. They'll be more isolated. And in the cases of the things that the judge was talking about in Garland County, it would not be, it would be, that wouldn't have applied because of the three-mile limitation.
So if you give us a chance to do this, we've narrowed it down. I've appreciated Representative McKenzie being able to get the amendment. It's in Representative Brooks' district. He couldn't be here right now, but I'm grateful to everyone that understands and understands how small communities can be so valuable, and this would give them the authority to do that. So I would be grateful to your consideration.
Obviously, we may be back in two years to clean it up a little bit more, but if we could do this, I'd appreciate a good vote. All right.
Chair
Unverified
2:19:41
I believe he is closed for the bill now. That's the bill of the committee. Sorry, your bill has failed for
Speaker 1
2:19:54
lack of a motion. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, I think that clears up our agenda, but I believe we will have some more bills coming, maybe concurring some Senate amendments and things.
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
2:20:03
So y'all just, yeah, I understand. We're getting to that time in the
Chair
Unverified
2:20:06
session. But if y'all will, just kind of watch the calendar. Next meeting will be at the call of the chair. With that, we're adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB571 J. Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT A MUNICIPALITY FROM ENFORCING BUILDINGS AND ZONING REGULATIONS ON COUNTY PROPERTY.
Puryear
SB525 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPALITIES; AND TO TRANSFER INCORPORATION DUTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
Johnson
HB1991 Childress TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE ARKANSAS FIRE PREVENTION CODE.
Childress
HB1992 McAlindon TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANGEROUS DOGS AND VICIOUS DOGS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
HB1995 Bentley TO SEPARATE THE OFFICES OF SHERIFF AND TAX COLLECTOR IN PERRY COUNTY.
Brown
SB406 A. Clark TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL ESTATE.
Hudson
SB580 K. Hammer TO EXTEND FINANCING FOR PURCHASES OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FOR A RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.
Schulz
SB520 D. Sullivan TO PROHIBIT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OFFICES, OFFICERS, POLICIES, OR PRACTICES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Brown
SB574 J. Petty TO REQUIRE A MUNICIPALITY THAT OPERATES A WATERWORKS SYSTEM OR SEWAGE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO COUNTY PROPERTY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
Puryear
Petty
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1331 Barnes TO REQUIRE A COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE PRIOR YEAR IF A NEW ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE IS NOT ADOPTED; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1130 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITTING FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; TO AMEND THE FAST-TRACK PERMITS ACT; AND TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ZONE.
HB1436 Steele TO PLACE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS OPERATING A SLAUGHTERHOUSE ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS THE FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS.
HB1565 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF A COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSOR; AND TO PERMIT A PROPERTY OWNER TO OPT OUT OF HAVING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION POSTED ON AN ONLINE DATABASE.
HB1448 Puryear TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS; AND TO REQUIRE NOTICE AND COMPENSATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS.
HB1567 McClure TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY" RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY PERMITS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.
HB1660 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT; TO REGULATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS; AND TO REQUIRE AN AUDIT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS.
HB1911 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTY TAX; AND TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION BE LISTED OR REPORTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
HB1936 R. Burkes AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION TO CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES.
HB1912 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ASSESSED VALUE" FOR PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY; AND TO ESTABLISH A METHOD OR PROCEDURE FOR THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY FOR TAXATION PURPOSES UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § 5.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 10
Bill Kopsky
Unverified
Speaker 31
Darlene Wiley
Unverified
Speaker 41
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 63
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 78
Speaker 84
Speaker 85
Speaker 88
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
Speaker 93
Speaker 95
Speaker 96
Speaker 101
Speaker 102
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 111
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 118
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 146
Speaker 149
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 81
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
Speaker 191
Randy Ives
Unverified
Speaker 208
Speaker 190
Speaker 216
Speaker 161
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 241
Speaker 244
Speaker 247
Speaker 252
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 277
Speaker 278
Speaker 279
Speaker 282
Speaker 283
Speaker 7
Speaker 286
Speaker 288
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 290
Speaker 299
Russell Thomas
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 326
Ben Hammond
Unverified
Speaker 329
Speaker 94
Speaker 344