Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1606
Act 922
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUNDED CYBER RESPONSE PROGRAM. HB1606 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERAT…”
|
TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON … | Steimel | Notification that HB1606 is now Act 922 |
|
HB1666
Act 656
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…E USE OF AN EXPIRED TEMPORARY PREPRINTED PAPER BUYER'S TAG. HB1666 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUNDED CYBER RESPONSE PROGRAM. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1666 is now Act 656 |
|
HB1796
Act 711
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…S LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEALER'S EXTRA LICENSE PLATE. HB1796 Beaty Jr. TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF GENDER INFORMATION ON A…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF GENDER INFORMATION ON AN ARKANSAS DRIVER’S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1796 is now Act 711 |
|
SB478
Act 738
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB478 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDOM ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE ENFORCEMENT … | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB478 is now Act 738 |
|
SB561
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ING THE RELEASE OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN TOWED OR STORED. SB561 M. Johnson TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL TEMPO…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY PREPRINTED PAPER BUYER'S TAG IN CERTAIN … | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1688
Act 710
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1688 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEA…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEALER'S EXTRA LICENSE PLATE. | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1688 is now Act 710 |
|
HB1834
Act 816
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1834 Holcomb TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES. | Holcomb | Notification that HB1834 is now Act 816 |
|
HB1845
Act 926
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ION ON AN ARKANSAS DRIVER’S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD. HB1845 Holcomb TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS…”
|
TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF MOTOR VEHICLES; TO … | Holcomb | Notification that HB1845 is now Act 926 |
|
SB330
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…rs and Staff Only'. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB330 J. Scott TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL; … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB541
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF DIESEL ENGINES. SB541 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE OF A VEHICLE, IMPLEMENT, OR PIECE … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB96
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB96 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL REGIONAL … | C. Penzo | 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 7, 2026
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
0:00
Let's call the meeting to order. We're going to get started. Senator Wallace, you're going to present SB 478 for Senator Stubblefield, correct? Yes,
sir. Please introduce yourself and for the record and present your bill, sir. Yes, sir. Senator
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
0:20
Dave Wallace, District 19. I'm running this bill for Gary Stubblefield. It is a good bill. There's a piece of equipment and we call it the DEF.
It fits on large trucks, 18-wheelers, other trucks, in some cases different pieces of farm equipment. It is supposed to be a green energy bill, but it does not work. And the farmers, businesses that have 18-wheelers have massive issues with this piece of equipment.
We're hoping that the federal government does away with it nationwide, but what this bill does is as long as these vehicles are within the state of Arkansas, they're not required to have this piece of equipment on their vehicles, on their trucks. With that, I'll stand by for your questions. Any questions for Senator Wallace? Johnson. Thank
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:41
you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wallace, this bill does nothing one way or the other on
diesel engines that don't have a DEF filter system, correct? Not at all. Okay, thank you. Any
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:57
other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, what's the will of the committee? I have a motion due passed by Senator Stone and a Second with Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Senator, your bill passed. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 22
2:16
Thank you, committee. Senator Hammer. Okay, committee, we're going to
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:47
be looking at HB 1666.
Senator, you do have an amendment for this bill, correct? Yes, sir. I am added as
the Senate co-sponsor. Motion to adopt the amendment. Second. All in favor say aye.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
3:11
Senator, please present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kim Hammer, State Senator, District 16. Mr. Chairman, can I have Chris Falines introduce himself who will help
Speaker 28
3:21
explain the bill? Chris Falines, Director at the Association of Arkansas Counties. This bill is largely a cleanup bill.
If you will remember two years ago in the 23 session, the state adopted a cyber response board, which was really similar to what we do with the Fidelity Bond Board. But basically, this board applies to cyber attacks and helps the counties and cities and K-12, should they have a cyber attack. It helps to both fund money to help pay for those cyber attacks, but it also sets in place some rules and guidelines.
Sorry about that. Rules and guidelines to help all cities, counties, and K-12. I don't know why this won't work for me. Cities, counties, and K-12. Thank you, sir. Where was I? Develop plan strategies and have certain guidelines that they can adhere to to help them become more cyber aware and better protected against these attacks. Well, anytime you put together a new program like we did, you're going to have some cleanup that you need to do.
And so this bill is simply a cleanup from that program that was started two years ago. We've learned that instead of having a pre-selected cyber response panel, it's actually better for us to let whichever entity is the subject of the attack use a company, a technology company that they're familiar with to help recover from those attacks. Also there was a drafting error in the 2023 legislation that gave one of the
votes on that board to legislative audit which was intended to go to the Arkansas Insurance Department. A couple of other small changes in there. One was that language which was copied from the fidelity bond program could give the impression that the member entities were waiving immunity so that language has been struck but it's simply a cleanup bill to cover the program as it's matriculated over the last couple years and I'm happy to answer any questions I
Speaker 31
5:42
will say the Arkansas Insurance Department is here they are for the bill and
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
5:51
have worked with us on it.
Speaker 34
5:56
Thank you sir. Any questions from the Committee?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
5:58
Senator Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you, can you, so as far as
Speaker 28
6:06
insurance supporting that, so really what does it do? So the Fidelity Bond works in a unique way. The cities and the
counties, K-12 state, all contribute money into this pool that's governed by the Fidelity Bond board. And if you have a theft within one of those entities, the Fidelity bond board will meet and determine whether you do get coverage for that theft. It's like a captive. Right, exactly. It is like a captive. So what we did was we basically took that same idea, that same concept, and created a new board that would do the same things, very specific to cyber attacks. And unfortunately,
we've already had three or four attacks, three that have already been talked through the cyber board about where we've had to give money back to the member entity to help pay for the resources to help come in and clean up after the attacks. So as much as I hate to say that it's working and
Speaker 31
7:03
being utilized, it is. We knew that this was something that was needed. Does something like this have
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
7:11
to have a claim schedule? Or if you had zero claims, could it just keep piling up?
Speaker 42
7:19
If we had zero claims, it could keep piling up.
Speaker 28
7:22
Because we're in the infancy, we knew that it would take a couple years, three or four years probably, to build up enough in that pool to be at a point where we could reduce premiums. That's the way the fidelity bond works. Once you've got enough money, then that board can vote to reduce the premiums and still have the coverage available. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the committee?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
7:52
Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one. Senator, you're pretty
close. I think it's been well explained. I'd appreciate a good vote. A motion do pass by Senator Johnson, seconded by Senator, as amended by Senator Bryant. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, the same sign. Senator, good work.
Thank you. Worked hard. Thank you. Just in time. Well,
Senator Dismay, I guess you're going next. We're going to be looking at HB 1796,
Speaker 53
8:43
and Senator Dismay is going to be presenting for Blake Johnson. Senator Blake Johnson, Corning.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
8:54
Go ahead, sir. All right, members, I think there's already a rule, so DFA may be able to address this a
little bit better than me, but this is male or female under driver's license. That information would come from the original birth certificate, amended birth certificate, a passport, or identification document issued by the U.S. Department
Speaker 59
9:16
of Homeland Security. Any questions? Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
9:19
Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Dismanck, didn't
we have a, I'm going to call it a problem, that someone at DF&A without legislative authority had authorized the X gender
on driver's licenses a few years ago? I'm very vague on the, I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
9:34
somewhat remember the news stories, but I don't remember what it was all about exactly. But it was
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
9:40
neither prohibited nor authorized before, but I heard they understood they were doing that, and this legislation makes sure that it says
what's on the birth certificate. Is that correct? Yeah, that's what the legislation does, yes. Okay, all
Speaker 67
9:56
right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
10:01
Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, let's
will the committee. Motion do pass. Got a second. Motion by Senator Johnson, second by Senator Stone. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. No. Ayes have it. Senator Mark Johnson.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
10:34
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please introduce yourself to the record. Mark Johnson, Senate District
17. Mr. Chairman, this is Senate Bill 561. We brought it up last week. It was kind of sparse on attendance and people got a little confused. I'll be glad to answer any questions. I'm going to do a real quick outline again. Our current practice is we now, someone buys a new vehicle, they get a temporary tag.
It's good for 60 days until they do all the paperwork and everything to buy their permanent license tag. We've had a, shall we say, an epidemic of some people that overstay their limit. They go over the 60 days. I think the longest one I saw was 16 months that had been expired, and I hear from people all the time. As a matter of fact, Frank Fallone and his column in the Democrat Gazette Saturday mentioned this issue and mentioned my bill as well.
But here's what the bill changes. In addition to that initial 60 days, if someone's getting near the end of the 60 days, hasn't been able to finish their paperwork, buy their permanent tags, they will be able to go into DF&A and get an additional 30-day tag. So we're giving them a little more leeway. But to get the 60-day tag, they have to show proof of assessment on that vehicle and proof of their previous year's personal property tax paid,
which is what you have to have to get your tags anyway. So it basically gives them an extra 30 days, but it also stipulates that they've assessed and paid their personal property taxes. And it also, if anyone is stopped for violating this, if they have an expired tag, either the expired paper tag, the original 60-day tag, or eventually the 30-day tag, they would be subject to $100 fine for the first offense
and a $250 fine for any subsequent offense. So this is an incentive to get people to do what they're supposed to do anyway. There's no fiscal impact listed by DF&A, but let me say that I think this might see some cash flow because it would encourage people to get in and pay what they're supposed to pay and get their car registered with a permanent Arkansas tag. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Senator Johnson? Senator Bryant?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
13:14
Thank you. Just going on, members, from last week, you presented this last
Speaker 75
13:19
week. I believe it seems like longer, but
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
13:23
yes. So it was, prior to 2023, it was 30 days, and we extended it to 60. Yes, sir. Because the complaints were you could not get your documentation from the dealership or from, you know, manufacturer's original. Yes, sir. Certificate. So we moved it to 60 days. Yes, sir. And so what you're saying this will do is now we can't,
we may not be able to get it for 90 days, But as long as within that 60 days, we had the intent of getting, going to the DMV, waiting in line, pulling the ticket, waiting, assessing. Actually, you don't have to go to the state. You just go to the county's windows to get your assessment and pay your treasurer. Make sure you get your stamp on your collector. You can then go to the DMV, show them that, and get another 30 days. If you haven't gotten all the other stuff.
Because as of now, at day 61, you can't drive the vehicle and then you've got to go back and sign an affidavit saying, I didn't drive that vehicle in the last X amount of days, assuming that you're telling the truth. If you're not telling the truth, then you get a penalty. Is that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
14:36
accurate? Well, only if you drive on the expired temporary tag. This gives you an opportunity to come in if you think, I don't have quite enough time. And Senator Bryant, my understanding is most of the problem with this on used cars but it applies to everything but if you can't do your business within the 60 days
we give you a little bit more extension but you've still got to come in and get that second tech and also show that yes I did assess with the county
and I did pay last year's property taxes where I guess where is the area for abuse
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:10
where's the area for abuse well the biggest areas
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
15:13
it seems to be people that just drive on, just keep driving on it. And as I tried to point out, probably not very well last week, if you do this long enough, you've kicked the can down the road
into another tax year, you might not pay. If it was, say, today and you'd been driving 16 months on a paper tax, then you really would not be assessing or paying 2024 property taxes. You've been able to skip a full year and the amount of whatever the personal property tax on that vehicle would have been during that time. So it's to discourage tax
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:52
evasion. And so the benefit to the purchaser would
be either I don't have my documents or I cannot afford to pay the sales
tax due when I do have my documents.
Because at that window at that time, you give them that manufacturers we're giving a little
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:11
more leverage but we're making sure that they've signed up for the assessed it with the county and paid the whatever year previous was due on their personal property tax which is something that that stamp you're talking about so i guess when you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:25
go to the dmv with just that one document that has your assessed that you've listed the vehicle for assessment you've paid last year's taxes and you go to the window to the DMV you don't have to have
your sales receipt because a typical once your sales receipt I mean isn't that the process the sales receipt they don't necessarily have to have the title or do they always have to have the original manufacturer's title? MSO you're talking about. Yeah
do they have to have the MSO or can And they just, I think I've gone
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:59
to just the receipt. On a new car, yes, sir. I have to have the MS. But again, we're giving them an extra 30 days to get all this stuff together. And then we're saying if you don't get it in that period of time, there is a penalty.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:12
Okay, so we're delaying the collection of sales tax up to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
17:15
30 days. Well, they owe it earlier than that. But that came up in the last discussion. The sales tax that is due, and people from DF&A could maybe clear that, but that is in a different section of the code. And I didn't put that in the bill. It would probably--
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:35
- Is sales tax still due within 60 days?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
17:38
- Sales tax is due when it's due. I believe now that's 60 days,
and they're over there nodding. The DF&A people are nodding. It's still due. - Nodding yes it is due. - So they would probably, if they wanted to take this, shall we say, a little further, they'd end up paying that penalty for paying the sales tax late. So
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:55
we're not waiving that. And then they could no longer sign an affidavit saying, I never drove it, so don't assess me a penalty because now I'm asking for a temporary
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:03
tax to drive it. An additional, yes, sir. This is the alternative. Okay.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
18:07
All right. So essentially this has allowed them another 30 days to pay their taxes.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:13
No, to a set, it gives you an extra 30 days to buy your tax, your permanent tax. But
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
18:19
you can't get your permanent tags until you pay your sales tax.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:27
That's right, Senator. So essentially, that's the whole... But it doesn't give you... It keeps you from getting stopped for driving on an expired tag, but it would not waive the fact that when you do pay that sales tax, you're going to be charged, I
believe it's 10%. They're not a penalty for late payment
of the Arkansas and local sales tax. I guess just
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:50
to follow, do you know about how many purchasers fall into this window of they can't get their documents within 60 days of the purchase of that used or new vehicle? Senator,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
19:04
my understanding is, and this is from talking to a lot of people, that there's a bigger problem with used cars. And I'm going to cite an example I was given.
An outfit like Carvana, one of the big chain used car places. That car may have come from another state or something and there might be a delay in obtaining that title. On new cars, the dealer has, the Arkansas dealer has the MSO, the Manufacturer's Statement Award. It shouldn't be. In the case of buying a new car, this is just procrastination and not, and let's face it, Some people don't have the tax. They don't have it in their pocket. They say, well, I'll have it next month or whatever,
and they are willing to pay the penalty to do it. Yes, we're giving them a little bit of a break because they would not be driving around on an expired tag, but today, if you're driving on an expired tag, I have a friend, this happened to him. A police officer can have your car impounded if he stops you from driving on an expired tag. They probably don't do it very much, and of
course, if you're in Little Rock, they don't probably enforce any traffic laws at all,
but that's where we are right now. I hope that answers your question. - Senator
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
20:26
Love. - So I need to know, currently, because we're putting a penalty in here, currently, what is the penalty on driving
on expired tags? So if you get pulled over, what's the current penalty? Senator Love, I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:41
don't know what the district court judge would assess as a penalty for driving on expired tag.
There probably is one in the statute. I can't tell you
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
20:51
what that is. Okay, but now, though, with this bill being passed, it would be $100. First offense from driving with expired temporary tag. Yeah, and
what I'm saying is it would be $100 and it would be $250 for a second offense. Second
offense, yes. - Okay, all right, and subsequent offenses. I hope people learn by
Speaker 113
21:15
then, but it's 250 for second and subsequent offenses.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
21:23
- Any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or
against the bill? Seeing no one, what's the bill of the committee? - Motion do pass.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
21:45
- Got a motion by Senator Johnson. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Senator Dees, any discussion? Senator Love. I would just say, well, I think I understand where Senator Johnson is trying to get to.
I don't know if this is just not piling on, because if it was to, by renewing the tag, moved the the date for the penalty for the um for the sales tax i could then understand like hey you do need to go in if you don't want this penalty to be assessed but we're not stopping that penalty the penalty still goes on this still goes on and then it could be a penalty of a hundred
dollars or 250 i think we just kind of pile along people that to be honest If you don't renew your tax in 60 days, more than likely you just don't have the money. And I just don't see where this is going to benefit the average Arkansan in saying, hey, we're just going to pile on another fee, another, you know. So, I mean, I do understand the importance of actually, you know, making sure that you get assessed so that we won't miss the school revenue
and different things like that for personal property tax. But the penalties and everything, I think this is just kind of piling on. So I would encourage you no vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, since we're in discussion, may
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
23:14
I respond to Senator? You can discuss. I'm discussing. This thing, this bill came up. Over here. Okay, I will.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill came about because I've had many, many constituents come to me and say, "Why do you let these people drive around on these expired tags and these temporary tags?" I mean, you'll see them driving down the freeway, the wind will blow it up, you can't even read it because it's just attached at the top. I was knocking doors in the last campaign, I had a lot of people bring this up to me because while you can say, yeah, we're piling on, but the people that follow the law and buy their tags
and pay their taxes resent the fact that we're not enforcing anybody that's basically flouting the law and flouting the opportunity to use a temporary tag. So this does two things. It gives those that are trying to get their act together, get their paperwork together, a little leeway. And I don't think that's piling on, Senator Love. I think that's just showing a little bit more grace, but not unlimited grace. They can't drive 16 months, you know, on something that they were supposed to drive for 60 days on.
And so this is why I brought the bill. I think it puts some teeth on the back end. If you just are flouting the law, there is a fine. It doesn't waive or do anything to extend the sales tax penalty that has to be paid. That's done by DF&A through the tax laws and not through the license procedures on that. So I think it's a fair way to deal with it, to give some incentives for people to do the right thing and some disincentives if they're trying to stretch this out
over a really too long a period of time. - Senator Stone.
Speaker 126
25:31
I'll just say don't you get a pass out of two days. No, okay. Yes, sir. Okay, John, Senator Dismayne.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:36
And I've been trying to really just understand what we're trying to accomplish, because I don't know that we're going to help eliminate paper tags, and we even may build a pride, more confusion with what we're looking to do. I mean, for instance, and I've been trying to understand the assessed.
Like, I understand that you would get it assessed, But the odds that taxes are due on that, personal property taxes, would be only because you happened to hit a small window and had purchased, I don't even know how you would actually pay. There's not property taxes due for the first year. So that piece of the bill doesn't really accomplish anything, unless you were to have the property, the car, for a year, from the way that I understand it. Or it might have to hit a certain window. The one thing that I, so then I was like, well, maybe I just missed it.
And looking in the bill, it's like, well, if you were requiring insurance to be present whenever you picked up your paper tag, your second round of paper tag, now that would be helpful. Because when I hear people complain about paper tags because they're unlicensed, they're uninsured vehicles that people are just driving around with expired or these fake paper tags on, essentially. But there's not a requirement to get this second one to prove that you have insurance. And so I just don't know, I just don't, I don't see what we're accomplishing for the people that are concerned about the paper tax being driven around in.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
26:59
You can discuss. Senator Disman, you make
a valid point on the insurance, but I believe that's, again, a separate requirement in the law that you have the insurance. The second thing about the assessment, yes, we didn't pay tax on that car, but you had to show that you paid the tax on your previous car. Now, if you were a new driver, you bought your first car, and we all were there at one time, you definitely would not have to pay that until the next year.
but for now that you want to buy, you want to license a tax, you want to say, well, did you pay your personal property tax? Whatever that might be in the previous year, and that's what the stamp that Senator Bryant was talking about from the collector and the assessor, that you're good with the county, and it would be on the previous vehicles or vehicles that you had on your personal property tax statement. Any other discussion?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
28:03
Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or
against the bill? We do, okay. That's right, we are. Got behind, but I was trying to get ahead. We have a motion to do pass by Senator Johnson. Do we have a second? Senator Deese. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, same sign. Senator, your bill failed. Did not get five votes.
Speaker 136
28:33
Senator Mark Johnson. Aye. Senator Mark Johnson votes yes. Senator Bryant. No. Senator Bryant votes no. Senator Stone. Aye. Senator Stone votes yes. Senator Deese. Aye. Senator Deese votes yes.
Senator Love? No. Senator Love votes no. Senator Scott? Senator Scott? Senator Dismang? No. Senator Dismang votes no. Senator, your bill failed. Senator Deese? 1606.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
29:40
Please introduce yourself to the record
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
29:46
and you're good to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tyler D., State Senator, District 35. This
is House Bill 1606 that Representative Steinemann has worked on and I'm honored to bring. So what this bill does is it's a really kind of a local control bill that allows permissive the local entities to be able to allow UTVs, utility task vehicles, on their public streets, highways.
And so if you look at the bill, all of the requirements are still there for UTVs. they've gotta have the right lights, the seat belts, all the road-worthy requirements that any other vehicle would have to have, has to be operated by a license, a driver's license operator. And so this just gives the ability to, for local governments to authorize the operation of these vehicles. And a governing body of a city may adopt an ordinance
designating that a street or highway as being open to
Speaker 148
30:51
the operation of these vehicles. With that, take any
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
31:07
questions. - Any questions for the committee? Senator Bryant? We can do that. Senator
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
31:10
Deasy, if you just want to talk about the bill. - Sure, well, let me send you
another comment from Representative Steimel that may help as you're reading that as well. So Mark Whitmore from AAC
and the Sheriff Association helped with the language on this bill. It requires registration and insurance, and it gives law enforcement the ability to pull over these vehicles as well. So I hope all that puts a piece. I believe there's no known opposition that I'm aware of, and we're a separate body, but I think it was about 80 something votes on the House. So happy to stall longer if you need longer.
Speaker 152
31:49
How did the state police fall in on this? I do not
Speaker 154
31:57
know, sir. Senator Love. All right, I'm
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
32:00
trying to quickly read through this a bit. So if, like, say, for instance, on the
Little Rock City Board, if they say, hey, we don't want UTVs on our streets, then is
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
32:14
this permissive? That's my understanding, Senator Love, is that this is just the ability for a city ordinance to be adopted.
So it would have the oversight, the permissive oversight of the local government. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
32:35
Go ahead, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing, I mean, I don't have any issue with the bill whatsoever. I did notice that it only relates back to gas engines, which I wish we would expand that. My understanding is maybe we don't know how to define that. So that's the reason rather than trying to complicate something that's not in there,
but I do hope that at some future point, we
revisit that. I mean, we have lots of makers of UTVs here in the state that make electric powered UTVs that are just as fast, strong, whatever, as the gas powered ones. So I think it makes sense that we would include them for our own industry, fair enough, yeah. - It's a great point. I'm happy to share
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
33:17
done that too, but I don't know how you say it. I don't know what language you put in, but I sure wish it were there.
I wouldn't even mind just striking that 900 cc provision out. That way we just didn't, it didn't limit anything. But again, where we are in session, I completely understand. - Senator Johnson. - Thank
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
33:46
you, Mr. Chairman. You may not know this, Senator Dees. I know you're kind of new to this particular thing. I agree with Senator Dismang that we shouldn't not allow an electric or even a hybrid drive,
the UTV, if there is such a thing. But I'm not quite sure I understand why it came up with 900 cc's, Because that's a pretty powerful engine for, I mean, I've seen cars with smaller engines before. So I just, I didn't, it's, I think it's maybe a little bit too restrictive in that. And I agree that it shouldn't make, you know, I'm sure there's an electric UTV that would work just as well out there.
But I guess it's too late to change that. but I just want to clarify that that is what I'm reading. That's helpful. Thank
Speaker 67
34:40
you, Senator. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Senator Gizmoor.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
34:49
I mean, would he be willing for an amendment just to strike lines 31 through 33? I
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
34:54
think that's worthy of a conversation, and with the Chair's permission, we can pull this down and have him revisit that.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
35:01
Yeah, that's fine, because we're going to meet one more time, because they've got to be able to come up the house down here to us, and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
35:11
you can do that, or if you want to do a verbal amendment right now. I mean, I'm assuming
the goal is what we're seeing in some other cities. So if you go to Tulsa, it's in a neighborhood setting. They are predominantly used. I mean, I was kind
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
35:22
of surprised. Could we verbal, is that considered substantive, or how would that work on a verbal amendment? On a verbal amendment, we just. We can allow it here.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
35:34
So basically what we'd have to do, Senator Deeds, is we have to suspend the rules, wait on the drafter, and since we're going to meet again, if you want to do that, it would
be a lot easier just to take comments and pull it down and
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
35:59
run it tomorrow. Let's do that, but before we do, is there any other comments or any other questions that we can address as well.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
36:08
- Senator Bryan. - I guess you know what the penalty is for a class C misdemeanor off top of your head. I believe it's a $500 fine
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
36:16
and 30 days, up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine. - I can't remember I heard someone say this morning, but I can't remember what it was. - I don't know. - Okay, I think that's
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
36:32
probably appropriate. - All right, members, we will pull this down and work on that verbiage and bring it back for our last
Speaker 115
36:37
meeting. - So this means you get everything said that you wanted to.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
36:41
- Yeah, I mean, if you can just make sure, I mean, if the whole thing is we're just worried about how to word for
the electric UTVs and then striking that out would kind of satisfy. - If you
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
36:56
strike that out, though, are you gonna have some of the electric golf carts that go 15 miles an hour down the road? I think some of that's already legal, but someone else would have to -- Okay, let's say an electric pull, whether it doesn't go very fast.
Speaker 24
37:12
You can't travel, they're out. All right, thank you members, appreciate it. Okay, thank you,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
37:23
sir. That one is pulled down. Senator Stone, if you'll let me go real fast, then we'll let you
do your two right in the row. Mr. Chair, with your permission,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
38:04
down here with us. Mr. Chairman, please recognize yourself for the
Speaker 197
38:07
committee. ricky hill district 11. All right and if you could just recognize
Speaker 198
38:12
yourself and you're welcome. Craig Kirkpatrick
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
38:18
Arkansas Auto Dealer Association. Senator this deal is pretty simple makes it possible for the department of finance and administration to implement a system for electronic lien and titling if they're ever to decide to make it decide to digital titles let's just give dfna a choice to do that and with that
That being said, I'm gonna let Mr. Kirkpatrick go through
Speaker 200
38:39
the bill with you. - Members of the committee, I will defer on time and go through this certainly as much
Speaker 202
38:45
or as little as we need to. The general goal of this bill, it's a permissive bill to allow the department to start to implement an electronic registration system. Senator Bryant, you kind of teed it up actually on the pace of paperwork. That's the goal of this entire system. So if anyone who's bought a car lately at a dealership, the whole process is basically digital
until you get to the state part. At that point, it becomes very paper intensive. This language will allow the state to start to develop a system so that dealerships can upload their paperwork, the customer's paperwork digitally. Each dealership has an agreement with a DMS system and that DMS system can interconnect with the state of Arkansas once this system's in place. Arkansas is one of about four states that kind of limits, has limited services, so this
is really going to start putting us in line with where the direction the rest of the country is going. So it's called electronic registration and titling because the registration piece is the paperwork. That's step one. That one's fairly simple. As of right now, if a dealership wants to upload the customer data, it essentially has to be keyed in manually by either a dealership employee or a citizen. who wants to go online and register themselves, this will create a portal for that registration paperwork
to be uploaded to DF&A. Then once you get into the electronic title piece, now you can get into some of the lien releases and you can get into the application of the lien. The lien release and the lien process through the banking system has been a huge hindrance on getting paperwork. That's certainly not a criticism of the lenders. They want to take their time to make sure that everything's in place before releasing that lien. But when you're seeing the delay, often it's in that period of time.
And it varies lender to lender. So this system, completely permissive, will allow the state to start implementing this. There is a component within the bill that talks about digital titles. That is not on the docket at this point. It's more of a, I hate to use the phrase placeholder, but it's an ambition that eventually the state, what we're going to eventually see across the country, digital titles, that's years down the road. We just wanted to have it there kind of in place
when the state's ready to do that. But again, there's nothing in here to require the state to do it. It's permissive to allow them to do it. There were two components that still required paper in Arkansas, a power of attorney form called a TEMA II form. That's a Truth and Mileage Act form. It's a federal-based form. That has been, we have required that to have a wet signature and an odometer statement. Those two documents under this law will now be allowed to be digital, digitized.
Once those are allowed to be digital, now it's going to be a lot easier for dealerships to upload the paperwork directly to DF&A. should speed up the entire registration process and hopefully we'll address some of the expired temp tags and the pace and speed at which customers are getting their paperwork. - Thank you, with that all
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
42:10
being said, I couldn't have said that any better myself. We'll let it take any questions.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
42:24
- Well, I was texting Stymel, so I apologize.
I was trying to say sorry. Any questions? Senator Johnson, you're recognized for a question. - Thank you,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:35
Mr. Chairman. Greg, this is not a destination, it's a journey. This is the kind of beginning of this journey, I guess, is a way to look at this. - Yes, sir. - And we may be back in two years to finalize a digital title or some other thing,
but this allows DF&A to start the process. Am I reading it correctly?
Speaker 202
42:54
- Absolutely, that's why I kind of focused on the registration part, that's really been the holdup for consumers, has been getting their paperwork. Right now, it's literally certified mail or being mailed, or they're having to go to the dealership and pick it up. You're having to drive to DF&A in a lot of cases. This will allow that documentation to be transmitted electronically. -
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:15
Okay, thank you. - Senator Bryan, recognized for a question. - Thank you, so I'm viewing this as
registration is post DMV, and so you get the registration,
It's got the sticker attached to it that you take off and
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:33
registration? No, we're actually talking, no, that's the temp tag. So is that what you're referring to? No, I mean actual registration,
Speaker 212
43:39
like every year you go to AR Star, you fill in your paperwork. So that's for your license plate. This would actually be the paperwork that you're uploading that will allow you to register the car to initiate getting that. This
Speaker 202
43:51
is from the moment of purchase. It will initiate you being able to get that piece of renewal paperwork, eventually renewal
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:58
paperwork in the mail. Because right now you purchase a car, you get your invoice, you get your odometer statement, you get all the things, they fold all the legal documents into a wad, they stuff in an envelope, you stick it in your glove box with your temp tag, and then you wait. That's correct. And then one day in the mailbox, you open it up, and there's your MSO, or your title from the previous, if you didn't get one, or however the lien holder releases it. And then you take that to the DMV. So I'm just trying to picture with this process, where is that in the loop?
Speaker 212
44:30
The stuffing of the paperwork into the envelope that you're waiting on should go away. That would be the goal long term. The paperwork would be digitally uploaded directly to DF&A. They would then be able to review
Speaker 202
44:45
that paperwork. Lien holders would eventually be able to release the lien on that once they know that paperwork's been uploaded. So all of the processes that are holding things up, certified mail has been a huge one. I mean, literally just mail getting lost, people not at their destination when they need to sign for it.
This will prevent that from being the impediment. So I guess not to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
45:08
get into the weeds, even though it's going to appear in the weeds a little bit on this, when you show up and you don't longer have an envelope at all, do you still have to have your title when you show up and hand that to them and they pull the title and they can kind of cross-reference to thousands of different buyers now in the system where they've got to locate by name or by purchase to be able to generate those documents that weren't traditionally in an envelope?
Speaker 202
45:35
So it'll all be, the process, it'll all be VIN-based, obviously. The process would be you go to buy the car, you sign all that paperwork digitally. For the most part, you're signing it on some sort of pad device. That is then within the dealer's system digitally. Dealerships are now printing that out and having been sending it to you because you're still having to sign a couple of documents with a pen.
Once that signature with a pen goes away, now it can all stay digital. Then you have to have a secure portal between the dealership and the state of Arkansas. And right now, we don't have that. That's the missing component. So this bill will allow the wet signature requirement to go away. It will allow the state to start working towards developing that portal, which will then link directly with the dealership's DMS system, which is where all the paperwork you're referring to is housed.
If there's a title along the way, it has probably been, if I traded in, I have a title. At that point, that's where it kind of will get in the weeds depending on transact. It's less important maybe what happens with that title as much as if there's a lien on the title, now the lien holder can release that lien a lot faster. And you're no longer having to rely on getting that envelope of paperwork to take with you. So honestly, I mean, there would be a moment,
to Senator Johnson's point on the temper tag piece, there's going to be a lot more information available to DF&A to know who's driving the vehicle, you know, what's the status of that vehicle. It really is kind of the next iteration in registration. Hopefully to a point, and there is some language, this was at the Secretary's request, there is language regarding assessment that has always been a hurdle in Arkansas, making sure that assessment process is included. So there is some language in the bill to allow for that as well, to make that a digitized process.
So the hope is, I will tell you, I mean, the goal would be that people don't have to go to the revenue office. That would be the goal. And that seems to
Speaker 210
47:50
be what a lot of consumers are kind of ambitioning towards. Okay. And
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
47:54
I guess just to finalize, my question is, will it work interstate? Like consumers, you know, I live up in the northwest corner. I can consume in Oklahoma and Missouri just as quick as I can consume in Arkansas. -
Speaker 202
48:08
Yes, and I wish I had a better, this is a system that is being a bit cobbled together state by state.
States are working together on it. But it has been, it's an interesting situation where, you know, states have individual DMV laws, so they've all kind of progressed this direction on their own. You're starting to see some consolidation of processes through the National Association that DFNA is a part of, AMVA. There's a lot of uniformity. yes, there is interstate connectivity, but it's not, but it's, it really is an Arkansas
Speaker 210
48:44
state by state sort of system implementation. I don't know if that makes, if that's a very good
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
48:53
answer. All right, Senator Love. I just have one quick question. So what are we going to do with the county information? Because we have to take it to the county to get assessed. So I know you're talking about between the dealerships and the dealerships in the state, And I'm supportive of that, but what about that piece between the
Speaker 220
49:14
counties to where we have to assess? So we wanted to make sure that there was the
Speaker 202
49:21
ability within this legislation for the department to implement the digital system to get the county information back.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
49:27
So they'll probably still have to print out something for the person to take it to the county. I mean, I hate
Speaker 220
49:35
to give an answer that I mean, I hate to
Speaker 202
49:39
give an answer if the goal would be no, but I can't confirm that because the counties, sometimes they might be hesitant initially. I think some of this is gonna be department counties working together to determine how comfortable they are with. It's my understanding that, I mean, there is county data being uploaded routinely
between all 75 counties and DFNA for lots of tax purposes. So this would just become a part of that data that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
50:08
would be uploaded digitally. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Seeing no other questions, we have anyone signed up to speak for or against? All right. Seeing none, Senator,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
50:17
would you like to close for your bill? I'd appreciate a good vote. Bring Arkansas into the 21st century with digitalization. All
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
50:23
right. We've got a motion to pass by Senator Hill. We've got a second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. - Aye. - All those opposed? Motion carries. - One
Speaker 63
50:46
sec. - Oh, you're about to present. - Okay.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
51:01
Go ahead, Senator Stone, I'm sorry. We have an amendment on 1688.
Center Stone, this is HB 1688, the amendment, so if you'd like to, all this does
just add you to the, as a co-sponsor, we need a motion. Senator Bryant. Second by Senator Scott. To
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
52:06
approve the amendment, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Senator, present your
bill as amended. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to ask Mr. Kirkpatrick to come to the table also. Members, I have House Bill 1688, and I also have House Bill 1834. Of course, obviously, I'm going to run them independently of each other, but they're also companion bills, and I'd like
Mr. Kirkpatrick to speak to them. I think he's intimately familiar with them
and make sure we can get everything straight. Members
Speaker 200
52:41
of the committee, Greg Kirkpatrick, Arkansas Auto Dealers. Thank you, Senator Stone. And Mr. Chair, if I can kind
Speaker 202
52:48
of run through very quickly. So House Bill 1688 is a bill that addresses dealer extra license plates. This section of code has not been altered in about 25 years. That's relevant because one of the key pieces it does is redefine who is an allowed user of these tags, of these plates.
For example, the current law, there's some singular and plural uses of the word manager. Dealership operations have expanded pretty dramatically, so you generally have two sides to a dealership where you'll actually have two managers. The days of sort of the top-down singular manager are gone. So this clarifies who exactly is allowed to utilize these plates. The other thing it does, and this came out of a Supreme Court decision based on a use tax issue.
The DF&A, through some tax audits, made the determination that a use of a dealer extra tag was a taxable use under sales tax law. And when I say the use of it, I mean the misuse of it is actually the better description. There was a penalty schedule within the law. That penalty schedule was not, that penalty schedule, it was a little bit unclear exactly who could enforce that penalty schedule.
So then the department, through some sales tax audits, decided, let's look at this as a taxable use, that led to dealerships that were found to have had employees misusing the dealer extra plates. DF&A was then assessing sales tax on these vehicles. The important part to know is these vehicles remained in inventory. They were for sale. In every case, these vehicles had been sold once the audit occurred, and more importantly, sales tax has been paid on every vehicle, so it's effectively a double collection of sales tax.
I will note there is no fiscal impact on this bill, so DF&A did a fiscal impact statement, there is no fiscal impact, so that's important, the state's not losing revenue here, it was just sort of an interpretation. Supreme Court agreed in a split decision, so we made the decision to bring it, to bring this bill forward to clarify, one, who is an allowable user for these extra plates. And to clarify kind of what we're talking about with the dealer extra plate, when a dealership gets licensed, they get an F tag. There's a franchise tag. That franchise tag then
allows a dealer to pick up certain extra license plates. Those extra license plates can be driven by employees. They can be driven to transport vehicles back and forth between maybe dealership to dealership. And once this use definition was all of a sudden expanded so broadly, it actually got to the place where, what is a use? Is driving to the gas station on the corner to fill up the tank for the customer who has not yet bought the car, but, you know, may want to test drive it,
is that a use? Driving it in a parade, driving it to the airport to display. So the use term got very concerning. So this bill clarifies that is not a taxable event under sales tax. Why this is a companion bill, and we'll get to it later, this bill does not open up the dealership misuse of these tags. In fact, I think it enhances the penalty pretty dramatically. It puts the enforcement, you'll see in 1834, the enforcement of misuse is now going to be in the Motor Vehicle
Commission Act, it will allow the commission to fine a dealer up to $5,000 for a, I'm sorry, it'll allow the commission to either suspend the license or penalize the dealership up to $5,000 per occurrence. So literally, and the way the commission's definition of per occurrence is, it'd be every day. So every day the vehicle was being driven, they could actually have a $5,000 penalty, or if the commission determined that the dealership was abusing this plate so much,
they could actually revoke the dealership's license or fine them $10,000 per occurrence. You'll see that in the next bill, but I just wanted to make it clear this wasn't something that's just going to try to open up the use of a dealer plate. So the primary purpose of this bill is to, one, define the eligible users, define the eligible use for the dealer extra plate, And the third issue is to actually state that this is not a taxable use under sales and use tax.
And as I said, there's no fiscal impact. And at this point, I'd be happy to take any questions. Do we have any questions?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
57:50
Senator Bryant? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just this kind of cursory look kind of got me to the, really the back page of Senate Bill, I'm sorry, House Bill 1688 section.
I guess what, I guess I can understand we're not constituting a withdrawal from stock. i guess under the currents technically if they withdrew it from stock you could start to they could technically be assessed some sort of taxation on their vehicles do you know why they added not authorized i guess i'm the balance between is the penalty what you're saying is
if they get caught allowing if a dealership salesman or owner allow their son or daughter stick it on there and we're going to keep this one at the house and let them go back and forth to school to work to just because they can i mean they can't but they can right are we saying that they are not authorized so if they get caught they're going to have a penalty for allowing that but we're not going to charge tax on the vehicle's use and the depreciation of that vehicle over the
Speaker 214
59:09
month that they didn't get caught. So under this bill, that would be a
Speaker 212
59:15
misuse. So that would then be, when we get to 1834, you're going to see that would then open up
Speaker 202
59:22
the dealership to the penalties under the Motor Vehicle Commission Act. There was a penalty schedule already in the law. The problem was the enforcement of it. It was unclear if it had to go to court. It really didn't say that in the law, but it then, you know, does DF&A have the enforcement authority? They don't
really have a good authority, a clear authority to issue penalties. So this will put it into the realm of a commission that actually has an administrative authority. It's a commission made up of a majority consumers. The chairman of the commission is a consumer from Pine Bluff. They routinely hear cases and matters about involving dealerships, and they have this pretty extreme penalty schedule that they'll be able then to enforce the provision.
But the defined users would not include kids or just, you know,
Speaker 240
1:00:15
it's very limited to dealership employees or owners. Okay, and then just
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:00:22
to follow up on that, the use of the term
without limitation is in a few places. Without limitation, a manager includes regional manager, division manager, department manager, sales manager, are we allowing the commission by rule to go too far into allowing basically any employee for a dealership
Speaker 214
1:00:43
to be permissive on their perks? No. In fact, I just had
Speaker 202
1:00:52
a no. I would say that. For one thing, dealerships have due to liability reasons. I mean, most dealerships aren't letting kids drive on these bluntly. It's a very kind of specific use, and it's a specific employee. For the most part, it's somebody in sales. We expanded the phrase manager because dealerships have sort of split into two camps now.
What used to be a general manager that sort of oversaw everything, and then you had a sales team, now you actually have most dealerships are sophisticated enough they've got a fixed operations side where they are running all of the dealership operations service parts. Everything in the office side. Then you have the sales side. This would allow a dealership, or I should add, or you have a dealership group, and that's probably where we're seeing the biggest headaches, I guess, for dealers, where you'll have a dealership group, where you may have a non-owned, where you'll have
a platform manager, let's say. Some of our largest groups have a position called a platform manager. They might have a platform manager in northwest Arkansas and a platform manager in central Arkansas. Well, that person clearly would be defined under the term overall manager. They're an overall manager of a pod of dealerships that are here and a pod of dealerships in northwest Arkansas. So we were trying to define manager in a way that allowed the flexibility for a dealership in modern parlance, I guess, in modern operations.
to allow that employee to drive on a dealer extra plate. And so it's still quite, it's still limited to somebody that has to be defined as, in fact, it's without limitation, regional manager, that's where I got on the platform side, a division manager, department manager, and finally, sales manager. You know, it's kind of funny. I just had this conversation with a dealer today, office manager, asked me about office manager. That's not going to be a manager under here. The word manager isn't the trigger. It's regional manager, division manager. Well, the office isn't going to be a division.
You know, as the dealerships have become more and more sophisticated, you still have some smaller stores that kind of operate maybe with some different terminology, and the old office manager position really isn't a position that's in most dealerships today. Most dealerships have a comptroller, they'll have a CFO, that person isn't going to be an eligible user under this, clearly. So it was really an effort to modernize
Speaker 212
1:03:45
the defined positions within the vast majority of dealerships.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:03:54
Okay, so I missed most of the conversation. So basically, but what we're trying to do is just provide them with additional extra plates they
Speaker 238
1:04:04
can use? No, no, in fact, the opposite. What are we doing? opposite. So dealers, you know, one,
Speaker 202
1:04:12
I hadn't even, I actually hadn't even brought this up, but as we're getting a little bit deeper into it, dealerships are required by the manufacturer to put a certain number of vehicles into some sort of user loaner status. That would include being
driven by employees. Factories want dealers to have vehicles with mileage on them. It's just a part of the operations. In fact, they give incentive money for you to sell vehicles that hit a certain threshold. In the old days, I mean, I still remember it used to be a demonstrator vehicle. Everybody always said, you'll get a demonstrator vehicle. You got one of these demonstrators. They don't really call them that anymore. Now they're loaner vehicles or they have to get to a certain mileage right below a certain mileage threshold and it varies by OEM. So this
dealer extra plate is an opportunity for a specific segment of a dealership's employees to be able to drive with that plate. What we're saying is that's not a taxable event, and I think that doesn't seem to be disputed, especially since we got back that there's no fiscal impact. So DF&A wasn't even viewing that as a taxable event. It was just being defined as taxable use so we're kind of closing that loophole but what we didn't want to do is open the floodgate and misuse so that's where the next bill you'll see
Speaker 240
1:05:35
will have the penalty phase and it's a very extreme set of penalties all
Speaker 245
1:05:41
right thank you any other questions seeing
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:05:51
none is there any I just want to just want
to broadly state we are expanding license plate to a point. Officers of the company, which weren't in the previous, so these large mega companies will probably have multiple
officers. They can now legally have a license plate, dealer plate. I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'm just stating the obvious. If you had a large company with 11 officers, You're going to have 11 dealer tags being signed out, potentially. And then owners, you could have an owner's group in addition to the officers.
So we are expanding the use of
Speaker 214
1:06:39
dealer plates. So that is actually, you're raising a very good
Speaker 202
1:06:44
point. And over the last, like I said, this line been amended or updated in 25 years. One thing that didn't exist like it does today are the number of, and Northwest Arkansas is a great example, I really hate to use specific dealership group names, but there are a number of dealership groups that the general process of ownership is groups of, there'll be an ownership group and then there's an on-site manager that runs the operation and has a small piece of the ownership.
So that is clearly a dealer, that's now an owner, and that was not ever a system that was considered in the old statute. And I'll give you an example. The word dealer in the current law is singular. So the fear that that was being defined as, well, how many dealers are dealers? If you've got five owners, does that mean that's five dealers, or is there just one dealer?
So what we wanted, we had to capture a way to make it clear that that ownership is a trigger to be called a dealer, because you could have multiple dealerships just today the way they are with private investment. I mean, again, I could throw names all over the state that you all are very familiar with, and those dealership groups generally have multiple owners. Yeah. Any other questions?
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:08:16
Senator Love? And so you said that these plates are not taxable, meaning they don't pay anything for the use of these
plates? No, there is a cost to the plate, I think. I don't
Speaker 220
1:08:29
actually know the cost. I don't know the cost offhand. There is a cost to the plate, but it's not a... Can you ask the question one more time? I think the
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:08:41
answer to your question is, I mean, of course, the dealer will have to buy the plate, but since it's an inventory owned by the dealership,
it's never taxable, it's never sold, so there would never be a tax. The amendment bill, companion bill to this, if a dealer took it upon themselves to use a dealer plate illegally, then they could be subject to a $5,000 to $10,000 fine and maybe even have their dealership license pulled. So they're just clarifying that there's inventory-driven among the managers in a dealership is never taxable, but if they misuse it, they subject themselves to substantial fines.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:22
Gotcha, okay. So, but there is a cost for the plate, though. Yes, but there is a cost for the plate. Okay, all
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:09:32
right, thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Senator, you're
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:09:43
free to close your bill. I'm ready to close for the bill, but I was also noticed I failed to disclose. I'm Matt Stone, State Senator, District 2, so I just wanted to go ahead and say that for the record. Thank you for that, I'm closed. Thank you for correcting me on that.
Well, I'm not correcting you, but we have a little commotion going on here, so I'll take ownership of that. But anyway, I just wanted to set it straight for the record. With that being said, I'm closed for the bill, and I'd make a motion. I'd appreciate a good vote, and I'd also make a motion due pass as amended. Thank you. So we have a motion due pass as amended. Do we
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:10:13
have a second? Second with Senator Scott. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign.
Senator Bill passed. And, Senator, you want to roll, go right into
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:10:40
1834? Matt Stone, State Senator, District 2.
Members, this is the companion bill that we referenced just a while ago. And just to summarize, if a dealer violates the law, these are the penalties that they will be subject to.
$5,000 per occurrence, and then up to maybe a $10,000 fine, they could have their dealership license revoked too. With that, I'd be open to
any questions. Any questions on the committee? Seeing none. Nope. Senator Brown.
Speaker 255
1:11:27
I'll go to the first question, go to the second question. So that the fee would be restricting and out of service and maybe charge by 0, no more than 129. That's the old 29 process we see there. But there's also a factor typically
Speaker 202
1:12:14
in the dealership that says this is not mandatory. So this is a situation where I kind of wish the bill was longer
because there's a whole section of law that very clearly states how that fee is used, more importantly, that the commission already sets that amount. And it's set by rule, it's commission rule eight. That has been in place since 2007. The goal is that, and we've seen this in other states, kind of hearkening back to the e-title bill,
you're starting to see more and more operations of the state shift to dealerships, so you're starting to see kind of an expansion of roles that dealerships have. This gives the commission flexibility to review that amount. The key is that amount is not going to change. Right now, rule aid is in place. All this will do would be if at some point in the future the commission wanted to review it, they could. Since it's a rule, it still has to go to ALC. It still has to be approved by the legislature.
So there's no, the legislature is still going to be setting this. That's why the phrasing reasonable was added. It's not something that you, it's not something that's going to change once the bill passes, and it's not something that's going to change without legislative approval. So that's two tags and then
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:13:46
the $129 fee. How do those make it into the same?
Speaker 259
1:13:52
I apologize. Because it's in the Motor Vehicle Commission Act, it's the same.
Speaker 66
1:13:58
All of those could have got rolled into the other, right, where we talked about multiple license for dealers.
Speaker 248
1:14:08
they were drafted at different times, to be honest. I don't have that. Are
Speaker 262
1:14:19
you talking about the bill that Senator Johnson just ran?
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:14:23
No, we're talking about when you just ran. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:14:29
misunderstood what you said. I apologize. The way that I understood the presentation was
Speaker 214
1:14:36
this paper tag goes hand in hand with this other bill. It's not the paper tag. It's the dealer. Well, the dealer's paper
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:14:45
tag. Not a paper tag. No. Okay,
Speaker 202
1:14:48
so to clarify, so this will be a metal plate. Yes, the dealer extra plate's a metal plate. So in line, on page one, line 22, where it says temporary pre-printed paper buyer's tag,
that was a, in retrospect, I wish that hadn't gotten put in there because of the temp tag conversations, but we were clarifying the Motor Vehicle Act said a cardboard tag. That went away in 2009. It's just the Motor Vehicle Commission Act had never been updated. So once we added this on line 28, once we added 308 is a laundry list of violations for dealers.
So we had to add the misuse of a dealer extra plate, which is a metal plate, into that laundry list. Because we opened up that section, it was actually brought to my attention by BLR that, hey, while we're here, why don't we fix the cardboard tag piece? because there are no cardboard tags. It's now printed on an 8 1⁄2 by 11 sheet of paper. You affix that holographic seal. You put it in a cellophane sleeve. You put it on the back of a vehicle. So there's no cardboard involved. So that's the only reason there's a reference to cardboard.
Then lines 28 through 29 are the provision that will now add to the list of violations by dealers the misuse of the extra plate. This section 308 is governed by another section 309 that gives a penalty provision that Senator Stone referenced for $5,000 or suspension of the license or $10,000 or revocation of the license. So that's how the
Speaker 248
1:16:35
temporary pre-printed tag piece got in.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:16:43
Do y'all need the, why is the 129 there at
all? I mean, what is the reason for that? Is that, I mean, it's still subject to sales tax. It's still part of the
valuation of the vehicle. Right. You can sell a car for whatever you want to sell it for. So what is,
Speaker 202
1:17:03
why, I've never really understood the 129 to begin with. So it, in most states, it's called a dock fee. In Arkansas, it's service and handling fee. It was in law and it was being abused where it was being, to your point, referred to as a mandatory fee.
It's not a mandatory fee. So the legislature, it was actually Senator Malone, Percy Malone, wanted to make it clear that that fee, how it was being charged, and the amount that could be set. The amount that was set at 129 was set by statute in 2007, I think. Over time, that amount has not, no one's asking for an increase in the amount,
but as more services are shifting to dealerships, for example, like this electronic registration process, That's a good example where you might be where you could see some savings down the road to the state by not having as many people having to review paperwork, these kinds of things. A lot of states have gone to sort of shifting some of those services to the point of sale. And what we wanted to make sure was there was something, again, it has to go through a rule process.
It has to go before the legislature to change. And this isn't triggering a change of any kind. It's simply giving
Speaker 212
1:18:29
flexibility should that come up in the future. But we couldn't deny
Speaker 269
1:18:35
it legislatively either. As long as it's in the purview
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:18:42
of the law, which we're granting you in B, 1 and 2, we couldn't deny an increase. We wouldn't have the ability to.
Speaker 259
1:18:53
I mean, it's an approval process. That's right. Review. I mean, we would
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:18:58
see it and we would approve it, but the way that we work, you could not disapprove that rule. It
didn't matter if it says $500 because of what it would allow here. So the cap would be whatever motor vehicle, whoever, his authority. Motor vehicle commission. The commission says it's going to be. Yeah.
And we would have to agree with it. We wouldn't have the authority to say no.
Speaker 202
1:19:23
i think it would um it's a it's a majority consumer board um it's it's not something that that they're going to set a fee amount that would be not it would that fee amount would have to be approved by the people are going to pay it so it's it's not but do we
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:19:43
need the fee at all i just don't understand yeah i understand what you're saying but why would either i don't why do dealerships need to call it that anyway. I mean, it's just the price of the vehicle. The state of Arkansas
is the price of the vehicle. We're taxed on it. We're assessed on it. We are everything on the fee. I've never understood the fee, besides someone gaming a system, trying to tell someone they have to do
something that they really didn't have to
Speaker 218
1:20:12
do, but it sounds good. Over the years, there's an enormous number
Speaker 202
1:20:17
of costs. The federal government states, Fortunately, Arkansas has been pretty consumer-friendly or pretty business-friendly for that purpose. But the EPA requirements that dealerships over the years
have had to implement, the requirement for truth in lending, all of these dealerships now are almost treated like a bank where you have to build separate facilities to store customer data. So as the operations and the requirements that were put on dealerships have grown that's where that fee has sort of come out of has has come up several states actually don't regulate it at all and and it's just kind of the wild west so Arkansas has been good about
having a regulated fee and I think there's some value to it and and it enumerate the the provision I don't have it right in front of me. The provisional law states the processing, storage, and there's another term for customer data for the business operations. Yeah. What I can see happening here
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:21:27
is us striking that out and us pushing more of it back with the digital to the dealers
that that could go up to $1,000. Because at that point, they'll have the liberty to charge what they want. And as I said earlier today, when we were debating tires, tire tax, I'm here for the consumer. Sure. I am here for them. I want to make sure we've got protection in there for the consumer. Okay. And so, you
know, I think we either need to leave it in there or we get rid of that fee altogether.
Because at that point, as Senator Disgelank said, we're depending on the commission coming telling us, here's what we're going to charge to our dealers need this much money, because they're having to do all this extra work now because of the digital processing, which they wanted. So now we're going to ask the consumer to pay for that. And so
that's just kind of my trains of thought. I mean, tell me if I'm right
Speaker 202
1:22:37
or wrong. That certainly was not the intent at all.
It was mainly to give flexibility in the future if you
Speaker 212
1:22:43
needed to look at adjusting it. The intent was never a thousand. I mean, there's no...
Speaker 202
1:22:49
I just randomly picked that figure. Sure. And it's a very public fee. I mean, everybody knows about it. And the rulemaking process is a public process. You know, there's so many different steps and backstops to prevent some sort of an abuse of the system. So that was certainly not the intent in any way. And the rule is already there, and it's not going to change once this bill were to pass.
It's still going to say, it's still going to be set at 129.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:23:22
Senator Brown, I can see the wheels turning over
Speaker 278
1:23:24
there. Go ahead. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I think it's whether we leave it at 129
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:29
by statute or we increase it to 50 to keep up with inflation and the cost of doing business, It's going to be whatever we say the limitation is because the cost of doing business is probably more than that.
But then they're going to put that in the cost of the vehicle somehow in their packages that they upgrade or whatever they've got to do. I talk about new vehicles. But you're saying it's not going to change now. Does that mean it's already in, based on the statute,
Speaker 214
1:24:01
you've already adopted it in the rule that it's 129? Yeah, there is an existing rule, Rule 8, that
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:07
nothing will change. after so it's it's capped at 129 only because the statute says you cannot go above 129 is that is that an accurate statement yes and so if we remove that 129 then you have dealers
then you go out to you know the public and dealers show you the laundry list of regulations that the state and the feds have put on them and then move to digital and buying the software and all the fancy things that they provide for their customers and then the consumer says well it's it's reasonable to go to $800 up to $800 and different dealers put in their calculations and they say well we're just going to go ahead
Speaker 214
1:24:45
and add that and go up to $800. No the process would
Speaker 248
1:24:50
be it would have to go to the commission. The commission would have to approve any amount in excess of $129. And then that amount. I guess that's my point. We
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:01
strike it out of code with this bill. Correct. And then the commission through its own activity says, okay, now we're not capped. Let's go out to our public and our dealerships to see what their new reasonable fee is and the feedback they get is 129 was not reasonable 799 is reasonable up to and dealers
can charge 129 and they can charge 799 based on the services they provide out of a a la carte menu that the board may or may not adopt so i think in essence by us stripping this language it may not be this year but eventually it'll head towards a higher cost to the consumer and maybe it needs to be because it's more cost to the consumer than in 2007, but I guess my concern is if we're not going to cap it by statute, we probably need to cap
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:25:56
it by statute. I'm just, I don't know enough
about it. Dock fees, can they be on, is it only
Speaker 234
1:26:02
new vehicles only? No, it's also used. Okay. Yeah, it's used.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:26:10
So, Senator Payton has used car sales tax increase. We could do this and negate all of it overnight. I mean, we could allow a fee to be charged that would be in excess of any savings that someone could have off of the new used car sales tax.
And that would be my, I don't know, I'm more of a free market, I don't know why we have it in there anyway. I mean, maybe it shouldn't be in here, but what I don't want is if you look at some other states, and I don't understand why. So Florida's is $1,000, essentially. Texas, who supposedly is not capped, is at $150, right? I mean, it's just kind of all over the place. Yeah, I can go around. I hate the idea, because right now the 129, well, that's what the, I mean, essentially they,
I mean, the pitch is going to be this is what we're allowed to charge you, right? This is what the state says to charge you. That's how it's inferred by the average consumer is like, oh, you've got to do this anyway. I really
don't know what to make of the bill, just to be honest. But anyway, if I look at the
Speaker 238
1:27:27
averages, though, our 129 is really not that out of line with our surrounding
Speaker 202
1:27:31
states. Well, I know Missouri is at 608. Louisiana is at $4.95, $4.35, I think.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:36
So on a used car, their state government is justifying this? That I'm not sure.
I don't know that for a fact. Is an agency having the authority to set the cap is just pretty much setting the new bottom? I mean, I don't know. I don't know what to do. Well, it
Speaker 212
1:27:59
would be a used car sold by a new car dealer, I guess. that may be where some of the confusion is. I don't know how the other states, because the used cars are regulated by the state police,
so, and I don't, the way this is drafted, it wouldn't affect the used car, the state, it would not affect the cap and the fee that
Speaker 289
1:28:16
the state police have implemented. Any other
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:28:22
questions? Seeing none. Is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, Senator?
Speaker 259
1:28:42
You're free to close for your bill. - I don't want to jeopardize the
Speaker 212
1:29:00
penalty phase. So I think would the committee appreciate more discussion on this? And I will defer to the senator. Well, I
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:29:07
think he has a question. Should we run it or pull it down?
Just for a purpose of amendment, just let me pull it down and we'll get it clarified and alleviate anybody's concerns that they may have. Okay,
Speaker 293
1:29:20
so, Senator, you're going to pull the bill down, correct? Yes,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:29:23
sir. Okay. Would the chair entertain a motion to suspend the rules for a amendment that's what i
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:29:29
that's what i was going to say to spend the rules for an amendment just so you know if they want to talk about or talk
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:29:35
about i don't know if he has to talk to someone in his area or not i
think he's got control of the bill we're meeting this this session i think
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:29:45
he's got control of the bill so i i'd i'd make a motion to spend the rules
about the amendment to un-strike the language on page one, line 36, and page two, line one. Have a
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:29:59
motion to suspend the rules. Do we have a second? Second. Second, Senator Love. All those in favor to suspend the rules, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. The rules are suspended. Okay.
Senator Bryant, we need a motion from you to adopt the verbal amendment and state the verbal amendment. Chair, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:30:22
make a motion to amend page one, to unstrike the language on page one, line 36, and page two, line one. And
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:30:32
we heard the motion on the amendment. Do we have a second?
Second. Second by Senator Love. Any discussion? Yes, I need
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:30:44
to clarify. So we're going to strike out B, we're going to strike out B altogether, correct?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:30:49
Lines two through? Yeah. Well, he's going to open line one up on page two, and anything that's stricken out on line 36, page one, or line one, page
two, will be unstructured. Yeah, but what I'm saying is page two, the B section,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:31:11
are we striking that? I think we can leave it. It's already in a rule.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:31:21
It'll just give some flexibility to maybe start flesh this out and next session they
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:31:27
could bring and say there's some changes. But B contradicts what you just
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:31:33
said. It gives it still a cap. I don't think it contradicts. It just allows the
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:31:42
cap to still be 129. Well, the cap is line 36 and page 2, line 1. So there's no need for B because the cap is there.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:31:53
That's the service handling fee. Yeah, because
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:31:57
that's new language. He is correct on that. Yeah, the new language, I mean, because if we keep B,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:32:06
then it's really a contradiction of. I guess, just give
me some latitude here, Mr. Chair. If you look at the Section 2 in its entirety, the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission shall determine by rule the amount of service and handling fee that may be charged, and then it gives a range of 0 to 129, and then just auxiliary to that,
the new language, if it were to remain, it would just say that shall not exceed the reasonable cost of the handling process and documents and other administrative services. It could be less than 129 based on
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:32:37
that, just can't exceed 129. I know, but that's already in
code. RD code is the service and handling fees shall be no less than zero and no more than 129. And so that's what we try to keep control of, is that the cap of 129, if we put B in it,
it's pretty much the other administrative and clerical service. It seems like B is a contradiction of. I don't think it contradicts. I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:33:05
think it defines what service and handling is supposed to be. I mean, if you look at--
Speaker 234
1:33:14
- So it's actually already in the law. That's a recitation of the current
Speaker 202
1:33:20
language in that section, so it could be struck and it still would say the exact same thing.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:33:26
- That's fine, whatever you want to do is fine. - I restate my motion, Mr. Chair. - We state a motion to strike the language, to unstrike the language stricken and then strike page two, lines two through six. -
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:33:48
Okay, so I'm going to. - Second. - Had a motion and we state the motion again. We're going to unstrike line 36 from the services
to line one on page two, the period. and then you're going to strike section B, lines two through six. We have
a second on that.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:34:32
So now we need a motion to adopt the amendment
to pass the bill. We have a motion by Senator Bryant, seconded by Senator Love. I'm going to take the two of them since they've been in this all along. We have a
Speaker 46
1:34:49
motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:34:52
Aye. Opposed, same sign. Now we need a motion. Do pass as amended. Do pass as amended.
As a verbal amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Or do we need a second? Excuse me. So we got a second here. Discussion? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, the same sign. Senator, your bill passed as amended. Thank you.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:35:40
Senator Dismanian. Are we done? Yes. All right. We'll do
1606. Yes. Members, on House Bill 1606, that's the UTV bill that we had a
discussion on. It's got some language on lines 31 through 33. I guess that's Section 75A7 that defines what can be on the road as a combustion engine that has essentially a gas-powered 900 cc engine.
I'd like to make a -- I'd like to suspend the rules to make a verbal amendment to strike lines 31 through 33 on page 2, so that would
be all of 5A7. We have a motion.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:36:29
Second. This has been the rules. To amend or delete lines 31 through 33, page 2.
Speaker 57
1:36:55
Page 2, 31 through 33. That will allow electric or diesel. I mean, on the
Speaker 152
1:37:15
discussion, if you don't want to discuss that. We got to second first. Senator Stone, did you say you seconded it?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:37:20
Yes, sir. We got to second by Senator Stone to spin the rules. All those in favor say aye.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:37:25
Aye. Opposed, the same sign? OK. The motion to amend. A motion to delete line or 5A7 on
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:37:42
page two. So we have a motion to delete line 31 to 33, which is 5A7. I have to
second by Senator Stone. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed, the same sign. Senator, you want to present the bill as amended?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:38:01
Yeah, it's just, I mean, it keeps everything else in place. It removes the provision on the 900 CC engine. I think that was in there because they were, per the sponsor, they weren't sure how to write in code an electric engine. I don't think they probably contemplated a diesel engine. I mean, I'd also say the way that I see this working out based on the way that it's written. Cities
are going to set parameters on where these things can go, right? I think that's the way that the bill is written.
Speaker 321
1:38:27
Coming back and looking at it, all we did was add electric because all it
Speaker 322
1:38:33
says is internal combustion engine, and that would be true of a gas or a diesel engine. So really, all we've done is then--
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:38:40
Yeah. Add the electric, OK. That was what Senator Dismayne was looking at at the beginning. So he got his electric ones on there. Yeah,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:38:51
we have several manufacturers of electric vehicles that would meet the standards to go on a highway in
the state. So I'll take any questions.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:38:59
I think my only question would be, were they attempting to achieve 900 cc to get it to a certain velocity to make sure safety was there? And did they manufacture UTVs that have
no power or just batteries that go 19 miles an hour? I still think the way that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:39:16
this is written, that they're going to set parameters, certain streets that these are going to be allowed on. That's the way that I understood the legislation, so that's going to be up to cities anyway. I don't see cities allowing these things to go all the way across town.
It's more of if you're in a college setting or a neighborhood setting, you could
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:39:39
allow these things to exist. Or the county judge can allow it,
whatever roads he deems permissible on the highways. So, we have a motion to do pass as amended by Senator Disbane, second by Senator Scott. All those in favor say aye. Aye. The bill passed as amended, and that was HB 1606.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:40:06
And one thing just for the committee, if
you don't mind, they can still write in whatever they want. That's what it says. And so it's how they're going to further define the UTV. So if they want to put more regulations on that, the way that I'm reading it, they can do that with
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:40:25
the local ordinance. Yes, I'll agree with you. This cannot be any less than
what we do. With that being said, we've got a bill or two in the House. It's going to be coming this direction.
I'm going to leave us adjourned, but we will be at the call of the chair. We're adjourned.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Ricky Hill
REGULAR AGENDA
SB96 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY DETACHMENT.
SB478 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDOM ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF DIESEL ENGINES.
SB541 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE OF A VEHICLE, IMPLEMENT, OR PIECE OF MACHINERY; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN TOWED OR STORED.
SB561 M. Johnson TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY PREPRINTED PAPER BUYER'S TAG IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO CREATE A PENALTY FOR THE USE OF AN EXPIRED TEMPORARY PREPRINTED PAPER BUYER'S TAG.
HB1666 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUNDED CYBER RESPONSE PROGRAM.
HB1606 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON A DESIGNATED PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
HB1688 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEALER'S EXTRA LICENSE PLATE.
HB1796 Beaty Jr. TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF GENDER INFORMATION ON AN ARKANSAS DRIVER’S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD.
HB1845 Holcomb TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC LIEN, TITLING, AND REGISTRATION SYSTEMS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF A SECURE DIGITAL TITLE SYSTEM.
HB1834 Holcomb TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB330 J. Scott TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL; AND TO ADD HAND SIGNALS USED BY BICYCLE OPERATORS TO THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS - SENATE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 22
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 31
Speaker 34
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 53
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 67
Speaker 75
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 126
Speaker 136
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 152
Speaker 154
Speaker 166
Speaker 115
Speaker 24
Speaker 195
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Speaker 200
Speaker 202
Speaker 210
Speaker 212
Speaker 220
Speaker 63
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Speaker 214
Speaker 240
Speaker 238
Speaker 245
Speaker 255
Speaker 259
Speaker 66
Speaker 234
Speaker 248
Speaker 262
Speaker 269
Speaker 218
Speaker 278
Speaker 289
Speaker 293
Speaker 43
Speaker 46
Speaker 311
Speaker 57
Speaker 321
Speaker 322