City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (16)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1872
Act 693
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO A CITY OF THE SECOND CLASS. HB1872 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES THAT MAY BE CO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES THAT MAY BE COLLECTED BY A COUNTY SHERIFF; … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1872 is now Act 693 |
|
HB1783
Act 834
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…resentative District 21 in Fayetteville. All right, this is House Bill 1783, um, currently in the state of Arkansas, when you, when you…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO … | Clowney | Notification that HB1783 is now Act 834 |
|
HB1416
Act 673
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT SHIPPER LICENSE. HB1416 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AND TO ALLOW A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICING … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1416 is now Act 673 |
|
HB1476
Act 675
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…. SB588 C. Penzo TO ESTABLISH A WINERY PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT. HB1476 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR A…”
|
TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT … | B. McKenzie | Notification that HB1476 is now Act 675 |
|
HB1686
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CON…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. | Childress | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1730
Act 830
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1730 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRANS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRANSFER OF WHOLESALE PERMITS. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1730 is now Act 830 |
|
HB1901
Act 844
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OLLECT FEES FOR ATTEMPTED SERVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1901 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PASSPORT FEES COLLECTE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PASSPORT FEES COLLECTED BY COUNTY PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITIES. | Milligan | Notification that HB1901 is now Act 844 |
|
HB1902
Act 845
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1902 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A CERTIFICATE OF MARRI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE AND BOND; AND TO AMEND THE … | Milligan | Notification that HB1902 is now Act 845 |
|
SB10
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RADIUS OF A MILITARY FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB10 B. King TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB399
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. SB399 G. TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB518
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB518 Hester TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM ENACTING REGULAT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM ENACTING REGULATIONS IN A FLOOD-PRONE AREA THAT ARE MORE … | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB520
Act 747
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…hua Bryant RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle 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 |
|
SB531
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. SB531 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; AND TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO CONTRACT WITH … | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB588
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CIPAL BOUNDARY FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. SB588 C. Penzo TO ESTABLISH A WINERY PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT. HB1476…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A WINERY PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT. | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB60
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY. SB60 Hill TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING LOCATED WITHIN A THIRTY-MILE RADIUS OF … | Hill | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB69
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB69 A. Clark CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR…”
|
CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY … | A. Clark | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
0:00
I'm going to call this meeting of city council order. First one on the agenda is Senator Sullivan. Senator
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
0:19
Dan Sullivan, District 20, Jonesboro. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to run first. Pardon me? I have an amendment to... Okay. Run first.
Do you all have a copy of the amendment? Give us a few minutes to pass it out. Folks, what the amendment does, this is 520. It just is, DEI applies to counties and cities similar to what's happening federally to prevent that. And also, we had an amendment to change the bill to make sure funding wasn't impacted. So that's what the amendment does, both of those things.
So I appreciate a good vote. Any
Speaker 8
1:08
questions? Committee, you've had an explanation. Senator Rush,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:11
you have a question? Move adoption. We have a motion to move adoption to the amendment in discussion. We have a second. All those
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:24
in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, your bill, your amendment's been adopted. So, members, as the title says, an act to prohibit diversity, equity, inclusion, offices, officers' policies, and practices in local government.
So this is pretty much the same bill you saw in the higher ed bill, access. It pretty much follows in line with Act 116. I've worked with the governor's office, cities and counties, and municipal league,
Speaker 9
1:47
and there is no opposition known on this bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. All right. Committee, you've
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:54
heard an explanation. Bill, any questions? Anyone that we'd
like to speak for? We have Dr. Arisa Bennett.
Speaker 20
2:15
Ma'am? Arisa Bennett? Yes. Yeah, you're going to come to the other
Speaker 22
2:24
table and recognize yourself. Tell us who you're with, for the record.
Speaker 23
2:39
You will be recognized. I'm with the city
Speaker 25
2:42
of North Little Rock, and we really do not agree with this.
we're totally against it. As far as our DEI policy, I know that the federal government is doing away with a lot of the DEI, but as far as our city, we're just not in agreeance with this. And we wanted to make it known. And far as our, we feel like you're violating our First Amendment rights and telling us that we cannot say anything about DEI and
it even goes to the point where if it's any violations that there would be a possibility of attorney fees and I mean it's just really getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to say anything when it has to do with any programs that they do in the community because a lot of times we go out into the community and do different events.
We partner with other organizations that have DEI programs, and it's almost like they're being censored. And I just wanted to make that known. Any
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
4:11
questions from Mr. Spinnett, would you mind entertain a question if there's any questions from committee? Okay. I see none.
You're dismissed. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Anyone else in the audience that we should speak
for against? I have none. Seeing none, Senator Soutman, you are recognized closed. Yeah, thank
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
4:45
you, Mr. Chair. The only thing I'll say is, if you'll notice in the penalties, it allows 30 days to cure the thing. So if people are doing things that are wrong, you report it, and the city and county governments have 30 days to cure it.
Again, I appreciate your consideration. We appreciate a good vote, and I'm closed.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
5:03
All right. Sure, give a motion, have a motion to pass in a second, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. All opposed?
Speaker 37
5:15
Will Bill pass the Senator Sullivan? Thank you, committee, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmore, you're up next.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
5:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Gilmore, District 1, here for House Bill 1872. Okay, you're recognized. Thank you. Members, this is a bill from the Sheriff's Association, and as you know, they spend a lot of time and effort and money trying to serve warrants and other writs associated with the legal process. And so what this does, this does not increase any fees, but this allows them to get paid
for every attempt of service that they attempt. So in some cases, when they're trying to serve somebody, they're maybe doing it three, four, or five times. That's fuel costs, that's man hours, that's a lot of things associated with that. So this bill, quite simply, just allows them to basically recoup any charges and expenses they incur in that, in the attempt to serve us, happy to take questions. All right,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
6:32
you've heard, committee, you've heard an accumulation of the bill. Any questions?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
6:38
Senator Bryant? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you identify what would be qualifying as an attempt
to serve? Yeah, I mean, that would be... By serving is, I physically handed you, and I could document that, but by attempt to serve, what keeps law enforcement from leaving for that intended purpose but then getting called away and then coming back and just documenting they left and then some transcriber transcribing that that was an attempt
and it really wasn't going to the... No, that's
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
7:11
a great point, and I'm happy to let any of the sheriffs that are here speak to this, but, I mean, any time an attempt is made, that has to be documented in such a way that it can stand up in court should that arise. And so I trust them to do the due diligence that they are obligated to do to make sure that it is properly served. All right. Senator Ashton, make you nice.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
7:39
Could we have the Director of the Sheriff's Association come up?
Speaker 59
7:55
Sure. Mr. Bradley's here. Scott Bradley, the
Speaker 58
7:59
director of the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. Scott, you're recognized? Yes, sir.
Speaker 61
8:05
Do you have anything you want to say, Kerry? No, I just...obviously, there was no need for increase of fees.
No one was wanting to do that. We don't get near as much money as the private servers do. It's our obligation to serve papers, not the city or the state. It's our obligation to serve papers. We haven't asked for an increase in quite some time, so we're just trying to keep up with inflation. And if
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
8:33
I may, really quick to that, Senator, one of the things that I would point out, too, is there was a conversation about maybe trying to increase the fees, and we decided not to
go that route for several reasons, but one in particular. With this, again, there's a lot of money expended in them trying to make multiple attempts to serve. And so, I think this is
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
8:58
a fair way to do that. Okay. And I don't oppose the bill, I do want to make a point, in a previous committee, you realize when you're sitting in that chair, you're on live stream video. Yes, sir. And I had a report that after people testified that you were taking pictures of witnesses.
You don't remember taking, you're taking pictures in this committee. It's not, it's not anything wrong with it. No, sir. I don't know what I would do with the photograph. You haven't taken any pictures in this committee? No. This was on the day the ATF bill was presented? No, sir. Okay. No, I don't know what I'd do in the program. I may have been given wrong information. I just wanted for the audience and the live stream to know that when people sit at the table and give their name and they have a picture, it's out there for the world to see.
And there was somebody taking pictures of two ladies who were witnesses that day. Yes, sir. And that was a kind of contentious hearing anyway. Yes, sir. And I just want people to know, while you can take pictures in here, I wouldn't want anybody to do anything that might be concerning to a witness. So I appreciate finding out that wasn't you. I've been given the wrong information. I
Speaker 67
10:22
mean, I don't oppose this bill. So thank you for your testimony.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
10:27
Yes, sir. Senator Bryant, do you have a question? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And just so I'm clear, functionally on the process, when I need something served, order, notice, notice a vacate, and I go ask for that service, usually that's charged up front. Yes, sir. I charge that. So I guess if I go write a check for $30 to the sheriffs, and then here's my information, here's all the items you need, a week goes by, I really don't hear anything. Is that when you say, hey, well, we attempted it and they weren't home, so come pay us another $30?
or how will this functionally work on the attempts to serve versus I know it was accomplished? Because eventually after $150, five attempts at $30, it's not working. Yes, sir. And so I'm going to have to go somewhere else. I agree. I could see
Speaker 61
11:16
a form that you would fill out upon attempts to serve us. Every time you go out and try to serve the paper, you'd fill out the form, the date and time you went and tried to serve the paper. You know, anytime someone wants to come back and get their paper and take it to a private
server or do something different, they're certainly could do that. We're just trying to find a way to, you know, to offset a cost. I think it's probably our fault. We should have been here a lot sooner asking to try to keep up with inflation, and we haven't done so. We just kind of fell through the cracks, so I think it's up to us to keep up, keep a good record. I also had the question of how are we gonna make sure everybody pays, and we really don't have a mechanism for that either.
We just count on mostly who we work for, the attorneys, the people, different people in the community. So, I mean, I think the sheriffs are good to work with everyone, and it depends on the situation though, so. Any other question from
Speaker 32
12:24
committee? Seeing none, we don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against it in the audience.
Chair
Unverified
12:33
All right, Senator Gilmore, you were recognized closely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to belabor the point. I think it's very,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
12:40
very apparent that with the rising cost of fuel and man hours associated with this, I think it's fair that they receive payment for every attempt of service because they spend a lot of time doing this. And so with that, I'm closed for the bill, and I appreciate a good vote. All right,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:58
chair will entertain a motion. We have a motion to pass and a second in discussion.
Speaker 80
13:04
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, congratulations, your bill passes. We're going
Speaker 81
13:19
to go down. Oh, you've got one more, Senator Hester. Wait a minute, what are you running? Let me see.
Speaker 8
13:36
We've got a house bill, 1470, 1470. Yeah,
Speaker 88
14:02
Chairman. Barthester, State Senator, District 33. Britt McKenzie,
Speaker 89
14:05
State Representative, District 7, Reuters, Arkansas.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
14:08
Members, I'll tell you, we had some discussion on this last week. I think that Senator Stubblefield had some constituents that wanted to come, have some concerns about it, that wanted to speak on it. But I will let Britt give a 60-second overview of how we got
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
14:22
here. Yeah, so this is a bill of compromise, worked hand-in-hand over the House side before running
it to ensure that industry stakeholders had a seat at the table and that when we talk about expanding options or consumer choice for any type of spirits, be it liquor or wine or beer, that we work with the entities that are here first to ensure that it's going to be a soft landing.
What this bill does, and I know that Senator Hester talked about this last week, It opens the door for out-of-state wineries, suppliers to ship wine at a very limited amount. It's one case of wine per quarter to wet territories in the state of Arkansas, not dry territories. What this essentially does is it creates a new license structure. That license structure will replace an old license structure. There will be no change to that license structure. It is the same that our small wine farmeries currently use in the state.
for those out-of-state entities. ABC has confirmed to me that this is going to be a very nominal change at all, just going to be opening up for other people outside of the state. This is a good consumer choice bill. It allows people that have an appreciation of specific wines. This isn't going to be mass retail wines, so you go to your Walmart, your Kroger, and you see the Mayomis or the Kim Crawfords. It's not those wines. This would be, you know, kind of refined to fine wines, so wines from small production wineries across the country.
Niche wines, so things like organic or natural wines. And it's really going to be going to the hobbyists, those who enjoy this product the most, those who have appreciation for the craft of the beverage, as opposed to, I made the comment in the well over in the house, this is not Mad Dog 2020. We're not going to see alcohol or wine, in air quotes, run amok in the state of Arkansas. This is for those who truly appreciate the craft of good winemaking. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:12
All right. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, we have one signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Dennis Whittaker.
Speaker 99
16:33
I'm Dennis Whittaker, I'm the fourth generation president and chairman of Whittaker Wine Cellars Incorporated, Wiedecker Village. I also am the chair for the Arkansas Wine Producers Council, who I speak for today, and I'm the vice chair for the Arkansas Association of Grape Growers. There's a lot of people that this affects besides those shipping in. Our grape growers, it'll have some, it'll have some
effect on them. Our liquor stores that we have in the state, they'll have some effect on them. The biggest thing that we want to do, we're fighting for our lives and fighting for our existence. There's been a lot of changes that have happened over the last seven or eight years. The last shipping bill that came through that is now the small farm winery bill, that was not for that. We were not for that because it was something that could hurt our Liquor stores, package stores, our biggest customers, four or five hundred different permits out there.
And these are families and lives, just like the grape growers, just like the vineyards and wineries that we have. When I first came to Whittaker Wine Cellars in 2001, there were four wineries in Arkansas. There was Whittaker Wine Cellars, Post Family Winery, Mount Bethel, Chateau Ozark, actually there was five, and Chateau Ozark. Chateau Ozark is currently allowed in production. What happened to them? Well, COVID and other things that happened. We were all shut down like a lot of other people that may have been in the service industry.
Well, I don't think that the intention is to hurt our business. I don't think that is your intention. I think
Speaker 100
18:20
that the people that are our friends in this industry could stand
Speaker 99
18:30
leaving the small farm wine permit alone. Currently, our permit is $25 a year. This one is, I think, going to $100. Is that correct? Yes, sir.
And the permit and the bill for the small farm winery limits it to a certain size of winery. I think that the new permit that is coming in, there is no size of winery. If I pay $100 and I'm Gallo Winery, I can ship my wine in here. Now, is that smart for the consumer to do? I don't think so. I wouldn't necessarily do that. Because you're paying for not only the shipping, you're paying for the packaging material that that comes in.
So, you know, it is an investment for the consumer that really wants that. I think, Senator Hester, if we were to come to an agreement to leave the small farm wine permit in Long Island, we can ship any, right now we can ship anywhere in Arkansas. And that works for our smaller wineries. It helped us grow from 4 to 25. If you look south of Texas, they've got 500-plus, 800 wineries in Texas that have grown over the last 20-something years.
Look at Missouri. They've got full support of their state all the way up. There are 150 wineries. And, you know, it's a strong, it could be a strong business. It's good for tourism. It's good for taxes for the state. But if we keep getting hurt, there's more of us that are going to go to the side. And the new wineries that want to come in, this shipping bill that we currently have, the small farm shipping bill, it is a good thing for them because they have a way to get their wine out to the public.
And right now, if you're a new winery coming in, it's hard to get in the door to a liquor store. It's even hard for us that have been here for a long time because of the different things that have happened in the industry over the years. So, you know, I just, I would just ask you to, it does not, this bill does not eliminate those big wineries in size. Like, it's not just the small boutique wineries that you can get up front.
I love wine. I like picking it up where I can. There's different ways to go about it. And I think if you consider the people involved, look at northwest Arkansas. You still have some grape growers that have survived their land being bought up. But we depend on those people, too. So I just ask you for the rest of our contingent and our industry to consider making a modification to this bill. It would mean a lot.
This is 145 years that my family's been in business in Arkansas. and this is also 58 years since the wine killer restaurant this month 58 years since the wine killer restaurant opened if we weren't diversified with a liquor store vineyard retail operation and a restaurant we would have been out of business before coping so i just ask for your help and consideration to make a modification of this bill for all
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:56
of our industry all right any questions from committee to mr whittaker
anyone in the audience that wants to speak for against the
bill Seeing none, Senator Hester, you're recognized close to you, Bill. Britt, I'll let
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
22:24
you close. I appreciate Mr. Whitaker. I'm sorry, is that your last
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
22:28
name? Mr. Whitaker for coming down. Whitaker, as well as Post, mean a lot sentimentally to me. I went to school in River Valley, went to school with Post's children, had my senior prom in your cellar.
So I understand it. We've worked very diligently to ensure that there is no disruption from the current small farm winery license to what this new direct shipper license will be. It'll still allow in-state wineries to ship where they'd like, as well as now it allows for out-of-state wineries to ship to wet areas. So that protection of their product is still in place. The other part that, and I appreciate someone who spends so much time in the industry and advocates so diligently, we have a brand registration as a part of this bill.
So that's what's going to keep the Gallo Farms or the larger big manufacturers that have been absorbed into conglomerates away from shipping the wine that we buy in our convenience stations or in our grocery stores or even liquor stores from getting that same product shipped. So that's why I say it will be down further down the funnel of the products that are going to be available to our consumers. To that end, again, I think this is those who appreciate Arkansas wines will still have the ability to appreciate Arkansas wines.
Those that have an appreciation for Napa Valley wines or Stag's Leap or whatever that case may be, wherever it is in the country that they have managed to go to and enjoy that product, now they'll have the ability to enjoy that same wine. So I understand that maybe on this side of the building we have less of the objections about what alcohol means and the role of our society. But what this bill does, it unlocks what our consumers have decided for themselves. It allows them to make choices that fit their preferences. So, with that, I would appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 99
24:35
question? Some test. Yeah. My question is from the bill that we had, that we got last week. It appeared that the small farm winery
Speaker 105
24:43
was stricken from this bill and would drown.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
24:46
That is correct. So you would be going and getting the same license. And to your comment about the fee structure, we got that flagged initially. So it's $50 to start, $25 a year to renew. That stays the same. So you will be taking the same license application and filling it out like everybody else. It just takes the name off of the license of small wine farmery and changed it to direct shipper. And that doesn't affect
Speaker 117
25:10
anywhere that we can ship in Arkansas? No, sir. Any of the wineries in Arkansas? No, sir.
Speaker 3
25:18
That's something for us to consider. Thank
Speaker 36
25:24
you. All right. Any other discussion from the committee?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
25:31
Central rise? Yeah, he's closed. Yeah, we
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:41
can discuss a discussion between members. Senator Hester, with what he's asking there, was there not a
reach out to the Arkansas line people to discuss this?
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
25:54
Do you know? You know, I can't say that someone reached out to them or not. I know that their representatives were very informed who have a close relationship with them. So Eubanks was the House chair that this committee went through. We had lots of discussions, in fact, waited weeks after weeks upon the chairman's time so the chairman could visit with them. So I guess not directly, but indirectly, we put off this vote in the House week after week so that chairman Eubanks could have time to visit with them about concerns.
Again, last week we did on this. I held off a week, again, to be able
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
26:33
to hear concerns. I appreciate that. And to the chair, are you familiar? Was there discussions? Representative Eubanks, who is a close friend, was out with open heart surgery and down some during that time. So do you know if he was able to talk to the appropriate people so there was conversation?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
26:56
Not unless he talked to him over the phone, because he was hospitalized for a number of days with triple bypass
Speaker 36
27:04
surgery, so I'm not aware of any communication he had.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
27:09
I will say we delayed the vote until Chairman Eubanks was back, full in action, and could chair that committee. We'd had the discussions about running it wide out, and we knew that wouldn't be fair. This was important to him and his district, so we waited until he was back and chairing the committee and had ample time. Again, this bill was filed months ago, and we've really taken a lot of time. I understand Mr. Whitaker's concerns, but as you heard, his fee structure wasn't changing. Only nothing that they have to do changes.
Still the $25, still the same application. There's just a different title across the top. All
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:49
right. We have a motion to pass. We have a second. We have
a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Bill passes.
Speaker 130
28:14
Anyone else in the room have a bill? Who
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
28:21
does? Representative Clowney, you've been waiting. yeah
Speaker 81
28:36
if you've got the other type and recognize
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
28:42
yourself thank you mr chair nicole clowney representative district 21 in fayetteville
all right this is house bill 1783 currently in the state of arkansas when you when your city reaches a population of 2,500 you become a city of the first class however cities with a population under 5,000 are able to opt into being a city of the second class all this bill does is it raises that opt-in threshold to 7,500. So under this bill, if it were to pass, cities with a population of 7,500 or less
would be able to opt-in to being a city of the second class. The vast majority of cities choose to remain classified as a city of the first class, but there are some additional costs imposed on those cities. If you're a city of the first class, for instance, you have to have a city attorney. We've got some cities that want to, you know, that don't quite have the money to make those hires yet. And so this bill is just an attempt to kind of continue to encourage growth of our small cities, give them a little bit more time before they've got to make that
jump to a city of the first class.
That's all it does. I'd be happy to answer any questions. There's
Speaker 138
29:55
an explanation of the bill. Any questions? Anyone in the
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
30:02
audience wishes to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Clowney, you're recognized to close. Close. I'd
appreciate a good vote. All right. We have a motion to pass and a second in discussion.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. Representative Clowney. You're next. Senator Crowell, you are... Senator Crowell, District 3. Are you going to be doing 1901?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
30:57
Yes, sir. Okay. If you want to go ahead and introduce your
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
31:03
guests. Lindsay French, Association of
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
31:07
Arkansas Counties. Okay. 1901, it does not raise any fees. The federal government sets fees that can be collected by a passport-accepting facility. All this bill does is allow county offices that are acting as passport-accepted fees, typically county clerks, to keep the fees in their operation
and defray the cost for providing this service. There is no opposition. Okay. Would
Speaker 148
31:35
you like to add anything? I'll just say
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
31:39
that there are currently several county clerks and circuit clerks across state who are doing this, and they feel that the fees that they collect should be used in their office to defray the cost. There's no opposition from county judges or quorum courts on this bill. Okay. All right. Senator Petty, you have a question?
Speaker 70
31:58
Where do the fees currently go to that are collected?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
32:02
That's a great question, Senator. If there is not a
specific direction in law, then all fees, all revenues collected at the county level go to county general.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:14
Correct. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience that wish to speak for or against the bill?
Chair
Unverified
32:26
Seeing none, Representative Crow, you're recognized to close.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:29
I'm close, and I ask for a very good vote. All right. The chair will entertain a motion. We have a motion to pass in discussion. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
32:53
All opposed. The bill passes. Senator Steve Kroll, District 3. And 1902 is the bill we're going to run now.
No, too, creates a process for a couple, a surviving spouse, or their heirs to get a replacement marriage license if the license was lost or destroyed
before it could be returned to the clerk. Rather than having to pay a $100 bond, it would allow them to get a replacement marriage license for $10 fee, and the $100 bond would be nullified. Senator
Chair
Unverified
33:27
Ross, you recognize? Do you have a short story you can give us for going on with that?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
33:33
She does. Senator Rice, if you will look at page four, it is
repealing the current provision that is in law about how to have your marriage license restored, and it involves having the person who solemnized the marriage come to the clerk's office, typically a pastor or a JP. Sometimes these marriages happened long ago, and that person can no longer be located or is deceased.
So there's really not a workable way for a person who has lost their license and didn't return it to do this. So we're putting an easy, workable process for people to get this
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
34:15
done. I really want a good story about real people. Well, believe it or
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
34:20
not, on their honeymoons, people do get in fights. and they tear up their license because they get in their first fight ever, and then they wake up the next morning and go, oh, that was dumb. Okay, we'll end it there.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
34:35
True story. Any other questions from the
committee? Seeing none, the chair would entertain a motion. We have a motion to do pass. Have a second
in discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All
Speaker 12
34:53
opposed? Bill passes, Senator Grohl. Senator Bryant.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
35:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1730, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. Aren't you recognized?
Michael Langley
Unverified
35:24
morning senator my name is michael langley i'm an attorney here in little rock and uh represent some
Speaker 166
35:29
entrepreneurs who are uh encouraging this bill or have the background on this bill okay
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
35:35
thank you mr chair committee what this bill does is is it repeals the prohibition
from issuing new wholesaler permits in the state from 2013 so progress has been made 12 years to readdress this issue. We've got industry trends towards the consolidation of wholesalers, so it limits market availability. Proper products are coming online and looking for a place to distribute, and a lot of our existing wholesalers have limitations on what products can compete with the ones they have exclusive agreements with. What this bill would do is allow smaller
producers to access the markets, and then economic opportunities for, as the gentleman mentioned, for local entrepreneurs that want to basically get into some of these markets where the existing wholesalers don't mind it, don't oppose it, but there's a prohibition on new permits. So what this bill would do is allow alcohol beverage control to start to re-engage the process to see what the market trends will allow and allow some of these
smaller products into our markets. So with that, I will let Mr. Langley.
Michael Langley
Unverified
36:47
Thank you, Senator. I think you did a great job of it. This has been vetted. It's non-controversial. Ran it through the ABC. Ran it through the wholesalers. It just allows the ABC to start issuing permits for wholesalerships. Again, start at the effective date with the small wholesaler. And then on July 1st, 2026, the large wholesalers were able to do that. That's to provide a runway for the folks that need to get caught up.
This is supported by the wholesalers. One of them spoke in favor of
Speaker 171
37:44
that, Mr. Chair, we'd like to take any questions. Any questions? It's okay.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
38:07
Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And committee, House Bill 1416, so we have a process in place currently for volunteer
fire departments in the county to collect their fire dues with property taxes. They have to petition the quorum court to get that done. Again, that's a process we've had in statute for a while to try to help our rural fire departments that are volunteer better collect their fire dues. When we created that process, one of the things we didn't consider was our small rural city fire departments. I have several in my district who have their fire districts extend outside the city limits into the county. So they're technically classified as city volunteer fire departments, but they cover parts of the county.
They came to me asking to have that same process in place for them so that they could go to the quorum court, petition the quorum court to collect fire dues with the property taxes just for the members of their fire district that are in the county. So in the unincorporated parts of the county, not for the people in the city. the city, it's an essential service. And so I'm trying to close that loophole for them and extend them the same service that we do the other volunteer fire departments in the county. I'd be happy to answer any questions on the bill. The dues remain the same?
It is the same. Yeah, no increase in dues. It's just the process. And they have to go through the same process any county fire department would. They have to get the signatures, go to the quorum court, get the permission for the quorum court to add the fire dues just for those residents that are in the county, but in this group's fire district. Yes, sir. Any question from committee or Senator Rice? I'm going to need a little education,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
40:17
because I had a contact from a constituent just recently,
and I haven't had time to
research it. And we had, Senator Hammer had some excessive, had a fire department, that rural fire department that did what was considered excessive fees, and we did something to correct that. What is in place right now that assures that a fire department that you're talking about
It doesn't just come up with $750. Whatever's in statute right now is going to be currently applying to this. We're not changing that in any way. We're
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
41:04
just changing it. Do we have a maximum they can charge? These are questions that I don't know the answer to because I don't know what the current statute is around fire dues, but we're not
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
41:16
doing anything to change whatever current statute is for limitations on fire dues. Where
I think this might apply is a small town that has a mayor and a council that is charging, I'm trying to think, it's so much per acre.
Part of it's in the city and part of it's out of the city. The constituent contacted me on, and they've kind of got a dysfunctional governmental system right now. And he was asking, can they do that? So this will allow that. This will allow a small town. Whatever
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
42:00
their fire dues are and whatever limitations are currently in statute around what people can charge for fire dues,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
42:06
they would still apply to these fire services. It wouldn't be any different than a county. And his case was he had land in the city, he had land out of the city. For the portion of land that was out of the city? And evidently they've got an agreement to go out there because they weren't charging it. Yes, sir. Yeah, my understanding would be that they can charge it right
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
42:26
now. That's not changed. The only change is how we collect it. So they can charge a fire due to anybody outside the county. I'm trying to get... Yes, sir. I wanted your help. No, yes, sir.
I had a captive audience there. Sure, sure. So my understanding is they can charge the fire due right now. That's not changed. This
would just help them how it's collected. Correct. And it doesn't do it automatically. They still have to go through all the same checks and balances any fire department does. They still have to go to the quorum court, collect the signatures, get the quorum court to agree to add it on to the collection process for the property taxes. But the fire dues that they're asking for, they're already out there. They're just wanting some help trying to collect them. Yeah, just way to collect it.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:07
Thank you. Yes, sir. Appreciate the information. Senator
Bryant. And just to follow on Senator Rice's concerns, because I had a significant issue in a rural district in the eastern part of the county. They still have to go through a vote. Like, this is just the ability for them to go to the quorum court to ask them to put it on a ballot so the voters of their geographical district, that fire district, can approve. Yes. The rate being imposed, and just for comment more than anything is they also had the ability with majority of signatures to bypass the special election to put it on there, because I think that's where the issue came, where the volunteer fire departments who have time were going door to door during the day and collecting signatures at an unreasonable rate to cover expenses that the locals really didn't know they were trying to provide for.
So it really became a backlash, and they asked me to change statute. I don't think this interferes with that, because I think the process worked. But to your knowledge, this doesn't change any of that. It still goes to the vote of the people or a majority of signatures collected and given to the county
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
44:19
clerk. That's my understanding of the process. This does not change that process. It just changes to say that this particular group, if you have an area outside the county incorporated, you qualify to try to do the process, right? You know, there may be some room to improve the process. And, in fact, I've heard some things, feedback on that as well.
I will say this bill originally was drafted a different way, and I amended it because we had potentially inadvertently opened a loophole to allow municipalities to come in and charge. We closed that. So the current form of this bill
is pretty clean and neat. We're just changing the words from volunteer fire department to fire department that has unincorporated areas of
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
45:05
the county. Just, again, just for clarity, it talks about a fire protection district, and then I know there's two areas of the code, one for volunteers and one for districts.
So it looks like we're amending the volunteers to add in the districts. Do they have to identify a district before,
since we're striking volunteer, do they have to identify the district? I think
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
45:29
their districts are already defined based on the service, which is one of the issues that's brought
this forward. So their district is defined geographically for them, and it just so happens that some of these small city departments have their district extend out beyond the city. Do
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
45:45
you think that district is official, or do you think that's more of a, this is our turf?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
45:51
I don't know. I don't know that I know the real answer to that question. I think that's something I have to research. My understanding is those are defined. I think you have a defined area, and that's why they call for support. Like, if it's outside your defined area, I think it's the same way with EMS services. You know, you have a defined district that you cover, and you're responsible for that district. I believe that's defined, but I don't know for
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
46:14
sure. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against?
And then, Senator Johnson, you're recognized to close. I'm close for my bill. Thank you. I appreciate your vote. All right. Chairman, entertain a motion. We have a motion. Mr. Petty, do pass. I have a second. Senator Bryant,
any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Bill passes. Senator Johnson.
Anyone else has a bill? We're pretty cleaned up. We just about cleaned out the docket, so you can take the rest of the week off until next Wednesday. I wish. I wish. All right, we're going to adjourn. We'll let you know if we meet Thursday if any bills pile up, which I'm sure they will.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
SB520 D. Sullivan TO PROHIBIT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OFFICES, OFFICERS, POLICIES, OR PRACTICES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB518 Hester TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM ENACTING REGULATIONS IN A FLOOD-PRONE AREA THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
SB531 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; AND TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO CONTRACT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
SB588 C. Penzo TO ESTABLISH A WINERY PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT.
HB1476 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT SHIPPER LICENSE.
HB1416 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AND TO ALLOW A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICING UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO LEVY DUES.
HB1730 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRANSFER OF WHOLESALE PERMITS.
HB1783 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO A CITY OF THE SECOND CLASS.
HB1872 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES THAT MAY BE COLLECTED BY A COUNTY SHERIFF; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY SHERIFF TO COLLECT FEES FOR ATTEMPTED SERVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1901 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PASSPORT FEES COLLECTED BY COUNTY PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITIES.
HB1902 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE AND BOND; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A LOST, BURNED, OR DESTROYED CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB69 A. Clark CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY.
SB60 Hill TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING LOCATED WITHIN A THIRTY-MILE RADIUS OF A MILITARY FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB10 B. King TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON WATER USAGE AND THE ELECTRIC GRID BY BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS AND DIGITAL ASSET MINING.
HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
SB399 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
ADJOURNED
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 8, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 9
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Speaker 25
Speaker 37
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 58
Speaker 61
Speaker 67
Speaker 32
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 80
Speaker 81
Speaker 85
Speaker 88
Speaker 89
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 100
Speaker 115
Speaker 105
Speaker 117
Speaker 3
Speaker 36
Speaker 130
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 138
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 70
Speaker 12
Michael Langley
Unverified
Speaker 166
Speaker 39
Speaker 171
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified