Revenue & Tax - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (48)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB394
· 10 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…394 1st? All right, so you're we're gonna be presenting uh SB 394. And if you don't, I don't remember if”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF REVENUES DERIVED FROM A … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB131
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB131 J. Bryant TO CONFIRM THE LAW RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A…”
|
TO CONFIRM THE LAW RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A HOMESTEAD BELONGING TO A PERSON … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1072
Act 876
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT. HB1072 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIG…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS, … | C. Cooper | Notification that HB1072 is now Act 876 |
|
HB1274
Act 521
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1274 Warren TO ALLOW A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT, TITLE INSURER, OR…”
|
TO ALLOW A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT, TITLE INSURER, OR TITLE COMPANY TO PAY REAL PROPERTY … | Warren | Notification that HB1274 is now Act 521 |
|
HB1594
Act 621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ABLISHED METHODS OF VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAX. HB1594 Vaught TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AN…”
|
TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND TO RELIEVE A SELLER OF SALES … | Vaught | Notification that HB1594 is now Act 621 |
|
HB1658
Act 550
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1658 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES; AND TO DEFINE "DEPLOYMENT" FOR … | Nazarenko | Notification that HB1658 is now Act 550 |
|
HB1695
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VETERANS, SURVIVING SPOUSES, AND MINOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN. HB1695 J. Richardson TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPER…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MUNICIPAL LIEN; TO ALLOW A … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1759
Act 551
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1759 Milligan TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO A…”
|
TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO ASSESS TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED … | Milligan | Notification that HB1759 is now Act 551 |
|
SB369
Act 778
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LE PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED DURING A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD. SB369 Irvin TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECYC…”
|
TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECYCLING GRANTS; AND TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB369 is now Act 778 |
|
SB408
Act 696
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB408 B. Johnson TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN P…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB408 is now Act 696 |
|
SB494
Act 717
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROPERTY TAXES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A TITLE. SB494 J. Bryant TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF PERMITS ISSUED…”
|
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF PERMITS ISSUED BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB494 is now Act 717 |
|
SB495
Act 718
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PERMIT UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977. SB495 J. Bryant TO AMEND DEFINITIONS USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBA…”
|
TO AMEND DEFINITIONS USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977; AND TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB495 is now Act 718 |
|
SB500
Act 780
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND ELECTRONIC RECYCLING FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB500 J. Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LEVEE DISTRICTS; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LEVEE DISTRICTS; AND TO ALLOW A LEVEE DISTRICT CREATED BY … | J. Petty | Notification that SB500 is now Act 780 |
|
SB529
Act 617
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977. SB529 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE INDEPENDENT TAX APPEALS COMMISSION…”
|
TO AMEND THE INDEPENDENT TAX APPEALS COMMISSION ACT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB529 is now Act 617 |
|
SB558
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O ADOPT PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS. SB558 Crowell TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTAIN CORPORA…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTAIN CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS. | Crowell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB567
Act 719
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB567 Crowell TO AMEND AND MODERNIZE THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOR…”
|
TO AMEND AND MODERNIZE THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM MULTISTATE OPERATIONS; … | Crowell | Notification that SB567 is now Act 719 |
|
SB573
Act 783
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTAIN CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS. SB573 J. Petty TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION UNDER ARKANSAS CO…”
|
TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § 5, BY DEFINING … | J. Petty | Notification that SB573 is now Act 783 |
|
SB577
Act 720
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4-2-2025 @ 8:28 AM) Moved SB577 to Regular Agenda Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES; AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT … | J. Petty | Notification that SB577 is now Act 720 |
|
SB7
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB7 C. Penzo TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REQUES…”
|
TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REQUEST A SALES AND USE TAX REPORT … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1085
Act 802
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO PURCHASES OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES. HB1085 K. Brown TO ADOPT FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING TAX-DEFERRED TUITI…”
|
TO ADOPT FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING TAX-DEFERRED TUITION SAVINGS PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1085 is now Act 802 |
|
HB1522
Act 620
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USED IN RELATION TO A PROJECT FOR A YOUTH FARMING PROGRAM. HB1522 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FU…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN THE MUNICIPAL AID … | Womack | Notification that HB1522 is now Act 620 |
|
HB1534
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Y INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1534 Schulz TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. SB377…”
|
TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Schulz | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1589
Act 676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG CHANGES MADE IN FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS. HB1589 Schulz TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF A COUNTY; AND TO AMEND THE … | Schulz | Notification that HB1589 is now Act 676 |
|
SB204
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R FUTURE FUND PLAN TO A ROTH INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. SB204 C. Penzo TO EXEMPT FROM GROSS INCOME A GAIN BY A TAXPAYER R…”
|
TO EXEMPT FROM GROSS INCOME A GAIN BY A TAXPAYER RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION OF … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB233
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EMINENT DOMAIN OR THE THREAT OF CONDEMNATION. Page 2 of 4 SB233 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN T…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN TRUSTS; TO PRESERVE CERTAIN TRUST ASSETS; … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB256
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TRUST ASSETS; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN TRUSTS FROM INCOME TAX. SB256 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT OF 1979; AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB268
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRANCHISE TAX FOR CERTAIN CORPORATIONS. SB268 D. Wallace TO TRANSFER GENERAL REVENUE TO THE AGING AND ADU…”
|
TO TRANSFER GENERAL REVENUE TO THE AGING AND ADULT SERVICES FUND ACCOUNT TO BE USED … | D. Wallace | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB274
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RVICES BENEFITING THE ELDERLY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB274 D. Wallace TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERT…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ITEMS RELATED TO HUMAN BURIAL; … | D. Wallace | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB289
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A CASKET, BURIAL VAULT, OR MONUMENT FROM SALES AND USE TAX. SB289 J. Dotson TO CUT THE STATEWIDE SALES TAX RATE BY ONE-EIGHTH…”
|
TO CUT THE STATEWIDE SALES TAX RATE BY ONE-EIGHTH PERCENT TO REDUCE THE SURPLUS FUNDS … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB310
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REDUCE THE SURPLUS FUNDS COLLECTED FROM ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS. SB310 B. King TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS TO CONDUC…”
|
TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS TO CONDUCT CERTAIN BUSINESS ONLINE; AND TO AMEND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB316
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NER OF STATE LANDS MUST FOLLOW IN SELLING CERTAIN PROPERTY. SB316 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX LAWS CONCERNING R…”
|
TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX LAWS CONCERNING REBATES; AND TO REQUIRE THAT SALES … | B. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB318
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THAT SALES AND USE TAX REBATES BE ADMINISTERED AS REFUNDS. SB318 F. Love TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIV…”
|
TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BASED ON INCOME AND AGE. | F. Love | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB338
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BASED ON INCOME AND AGE. SB338 Hill TO PROVIDE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR STUDENT FA…”
|
TO PROVIDE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR STUDENT FARMERS; AND TO PROVIDE SALES AND … | Hill | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB377
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…B1534 Schulz TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. SB377 Hester TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE L…”
|
TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND … | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB386
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…58; AND TO EXEMPT GROCERIES FROM STATE SALES AND USE TAXES. SB386 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO … | Crowell | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB419
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ANNUAL COUNTY FINANCIAL REPORT. SB419 G. Leding TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTA…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES TO A CULTIVATION FACILITY. | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB423
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES TO A CULTIVATION FACILITY. SB423 J. Scott TO EXEMPT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX EDUCATION…”
|
TO EXEMPT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS, AWARDS, AND GRANTS FROM NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB465
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND GRANTS FROM NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. SB465 B. Davis TO PROVIDE FOR A SALES AND USE TAX REFUND FOR A SP…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SALES AND USE TAX REFUND FOR A SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB49
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…T ARE SET TO EXPIRE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB49 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES, … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB502
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON LITHIUM. SB502 Crowell TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ACT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ACT OF 1965; AND TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC … | Crowell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB526
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…VE AGREEMENTS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED INCENTIVE ACT OF 2003. SB526 Irvin TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS FRO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. | Irvin | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB530
Act 701
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB530 B. Davis TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT. | B. Davis | Notification that SB530 is now Act 701 |
|
SB535
Act 781
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…APOR PRODUCTS FROM A Page 3 of 4 PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. SB535 Hester TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ARKA…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ARKANSAS MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS … | Hester | Notification that SB535 is now Act 781 |
|
SB568
Act 1012
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FINE ARTS AND THE ARKANSAS MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS FOUNDATION. SB568 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TAXES APPLICABLE TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TAXES APPLICABLE TO LITHIUM EXTRACTION AND DEVELOPMENT; TO PROVIDE … | Crowell | Notification that SB568 is now Act 1012 |
|
SB57
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O SUBJECT CERTAIN USED MOTORBOATS TO A SPECIAL RATE OF TAX. SB57 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INDIVI…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS; AND TO AMEND A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB605
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ELECTRONIC FILING OF A FORM 1099 IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB605 J. Dismang TO CREATE THE DELTA TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL EXCISE…”
|
TO CREATE THE DELTA TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL EXCISE TAX ACT; AND TO TAX DELTA TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL PRODUCTS. | J. Dismang | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB73
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. SB73 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR OUR RURAL ECO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR OUR RURAL ECONOMY (ACRE) ACT; AND TO PROVIDE … | B. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB82
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IDE AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LOANS. SB82 J. Payton TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR U…”
|
TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR USED MOTOR VEHICLES; AND TO AMEND … | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:09
our agenda, uh, we're gonna take them in the order that they're on the
list, uh, if the members here, if I see that member walk in, we've
already passed them, I'll back up and get them. So that's the way, that's the way we're going to do it. So SB 7, Senator Penzo, are you here? OK,
Speaker 4
0:30
not seeing him, SB 131, Senator Bryant, you can tell you, well, are you gonna want to run that one?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:41
Like a 394. You just want to swap them. You're riding together.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
0:47
I'll run it All right, why don't you have a seat? Just recognize your senator. You got, you got 131 and 394
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:54
right together. I don't care which one you do 3 394. There's actually 4 on the agenda. I'd like to move 131 to the end of my position. OK. That's no problem,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:11
so you want to do 394 1st? All right, so you're we're gonna be presenting uh SB 394. And if you don't, I don't remember if
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:20
you recognize yourself, so do it again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. Yes. All right, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. Senate Bill 394. What I'd like
to do is start off with some context of, of the act, act 991 of 1981 and ultimately Act 26 of 1981 extraordinary accession.
And what that act did was give the authority for the county to levy a tax among its citizens for the purposes of capital improvements and other items. In
the research I did with looking at Act 26 of 1981. I try to understand
the what the overall look of Arkansas was as legislators from back then and bond companies from back then were looking at as they were addressing how to implement a tax amongst its county.
And one of the things I came across was in 1981, the 1980 census had not been released yet. The 1980 census was released in 1982 and was not available to the public until that date. Plus we
didn't have computers back then, so it's all an old typeset and it's a very interesting how we looked at the 1980. So what I did is I went back to the 1970 census and realized that for the characteristics of the population of the state of Arkansas, the state was pretty
equally divided amongst its rural and urban populations with just a few urban populations dominating over a rural population primarily Little Rock and Pulaski County and Fort Smith and Sebastian County. The rest were the counties and the rural areas were far more populated than the culmination of any one city within its jurisdiction. So it would make sense, uh, in 1981 of how this bill or how this act became law, very easily to understand what that might look like if a county were to
pass subsequent legislation based on Act 26 of 1981. What, what the act did is it gave the authority for a county to levy a tax and 18 cents, 38 cents, half cents, 3/45 cents, or 1%. If the county chose to do so at that time, they could take that entire tax for itself. So the county could pass an ordinance, put a ballot initiative for the local voters in the county could pass a tax all for itself. The other option that the law
gave was an interlocal agreement. It could reach out to its municipalities and determine what best fit the need as far as proportionate share of that allocated tax through an interlocal agreement. If neither neither of those options were chosen or placed on the ballot. Then it defaulted to what the statute said and what the statute said is it would be based upon allocation of proportionate share based on population of urban and rural areas.
So in 1981, that was how it is and today that's how it is. The the caveat was if it was based upon allocation of
silent language on a ballot, meaning the statute language of allocation based on population. You could not change
the all you could not go back to the voters and change based on allocation. You could change it based on expiration date, or you could change it based on use, but you could not reallocate the based on population. And the reason for that was, is in case the
cities were using that for bond purposes. The other provisions of the statute were That if you chose to pass that tax, you could let that you could set a sunshine date or an expiration date on that. If you did that, it weighed the 6 month wait fee or wait um time lapse if you reinstituted the tax after it expired in several of our counties do that. They go to a certain time and then they readdress it. Several of our counties, if not
uh about 12 of our counties did not have that language in there. So this is a tax that is in perpetuity. What, what we're faced with now is, and not foreseen potentially 1980, is that a county tax becomes irre irrelevant to the county because the urban populations far exceed the population of the county. So in essence, what was intended to be a county tax for county infrastructure purposes really
became a city tax in several of our several of our counties. Now, provision of the statute says if the county quorum Court agrees to do so, they can send A ballot measure out to end the tax. Without a without collaboration with the cities, they could send a ballot measure out to the people to end the tax. If they did that, you'd be seeing lots of cities lose a large portions of their of their revenue on this of this tax, so it really was not feasible
option in some of these counties just to end the tax. But I would argue that eventually that date will come, because in the county where I live in Benton County. Of the $90 million this tax generates, 15 million of it goes to the county. The rest of it is dispersed amongst our cities. In 19 1990 when that tax was passed, it was roughly 50/50. I think 48% went to the county and the rest went to the cities and every census since then, it has just been depleted further
and further down. The projections in 2030 are at 10 million a year, which is pretty consistent what we've looked at is in 2030, the tax collectionsin County will approach 140, 140 million. The population of the census will push us down to around 10%, which means we will actually receive less of that county's share. In the cities will receive more based on the how the law works. Now the county still has its
obligations. It still has a collector, assessor, a court clerk, the courts, the sheriff, the judge, the corn court that still has all the obligations of the entire county, but its funding based on a sales tax meant to help the county is just drastically going further and further down. If you looked at what again and just counting what it looked like in 1990. We were, our jail was in our courthouse. We didn't have a jail. A lot of our counties probably still have that condition, but we were a much
different county in 1990 than we are in 2025. So what the provisions of the bill does is, and I want to make sure I clarify some maybe some misconceptions. This bill does nothing if passed, does nothing to the existing status quo of where we are in the current tax. Everybody still receives what they receive. But what the bill does is it would allow A look at the tax again.
Based on allocation, if any one city exceeds the population of the rural county. So if the rural population is 50,000 and one city within that jurisdiction of county exceeds 50,000. This would trigger the allocation look into how this tax works within the city. That would require in a local agreement. If interlocal agreements aren't happening, then there's no reason to go to to vote the tax because if you left the ballot silent, you would be just stuck right back
where the the provisions of the of the bill, I'm sorry, the provisions of the statute already exist. So what this is meant to do is, before those counties hit that cliff and have to make a decision that these these taxes aren't worth it. Benton County went to the voters for additional tax. They're not having it with the property taxes are in this area, the way city taxes already collected based on their own municipality collections. There's no appetite to increase a sales tax dedicated to the county whenever people's
perception is you already have a countywide 1% sales tax. We don't want to do that again. So 2 bites at the apple failed miserably. This is a way for the county and the cities to look again collaboratively on how can they address this before the county has to make a decision. To end the tax. Wait 6 months and reimplement a tax at the detriment to the cities because my fear is If it goes on a ballot as an abolition of the tax, which is permitted by current current law that
You would have large portions of of local municipality budgets be cut. And they had to figure out how to make up that revenue or convince the voters to not disapprove or not approve reducing their taxes, which again is hard in conservative areas of our state. So again, I'll reiterate, this does not change any existing allocations of the tax. It would require A a interlocal agreement of all cities in the county to agree upon and what is fair and
equitable for the county and the city. It would require the quorum court to adopt an ordinance, agreeing to those interlocal agreements and then it would require a vote of the people of that county to approve that new interlocal agreement. So with that, I know it was probably a lot, but I'd
be glad to answer any questions. OK, we'll, we'll start with the members.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:52
Do the members have any questions of uh Senator Bryant? I do. Senator
Chair
Unverified
10:58
Crow, you're, sir. Sarah Bryant, can you explain to me
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
11:04
again, you talked about the population when the city Its population becomes higher than the counties. Explain what you just said again. I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:13
wanna make sure I understand that. So when it when it,
so I'll just use what I'm experienced with is we've got, say, a dozen cities, um. Towns on incorporated towns, cities of second class, cities of the 1st class within a county. If you looked in 1990, the population of the county was 47% and the population of the nearest city, probably made up
roughly 19 or 20% and then it went consecutively down to add up to the proportionate share of the balance of the 53% of the total countywide. So what I'm saying is whenever the population at every, every 10 years when the census comes out is as those populations change and the cities that have been acquiring through annexation, been acquiring population. through their services they can provide, such as sewer and water and all the amenities that typically you don't have in a county as those populations every 10 years get readjusted
and shift, and, and the tax allocation proportions are starting to disbalance is when any one city. say the highest city grows to exceed the, the population of the rural areas, it would trigger The, the bill to allow the, the county judge to say, hey, marriages, we need to look at this and see what could be fair and equitable as an interlocal agreement, because eventually,
I'm going to get to 0% in the county tax is not worth to the detriment of the county, it's not worth it, so I'm going to abolish the tax. Potentially, the voters could reject the abolishment of the tax, but if they abolished the tax, then that 1% goes away and the entire county, including the municipal. Lose that funding and then they'd have to wait 6 months and then To redo a tax. Um, and then at that point, it would be through potentially an
interlocal agreement or potentially a full share to the county and you know, not even considering an interlocal agreement. OK Thank
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
13:17
you. Senator Petty, you recognize, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you've just said something a minute ago that I
want to get clarification on, and that is, and you were just talking about as the law currently exists, the ability to put a vote before the people to abolish the county tax is
already there. Yes, this does not change that at all. That's currently there and so the county or The county or counties that are having issues like you're describing could eventually do that and create a problem, but it would still require a vote of the people. And, and then the second one kind of in the same one at the same vein requiring this vote, I mean this bill right here would require a vote of the people.
In order to change the funding allocation percentage, correct? a collaboration
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:13
between the mayors and the and the judge. It would require a vote of the Qorum Court to approve that and require a vote of the people and and that
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
14:24
vote of the people is the same under either scenario. This bill or the existing in terms of it's before the whole county, including the incorporated portions of the county, is that correct? It's a countywide boat. Tax change is always a
countywide vote cities aren't in favor of that, then they could have the opportunity to rally their troops and say we are not in favor of this. This is going to cost the city $10 and they could decide the city citizens could decide whether or not they support it or not. It might pit the county versus the city, but the reality is it is a
vote of the people potentially correct. Thank you. Senator Boyd.
Speaker 41
15:10
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just help
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
15:13
me walk through this just briefly. So first of all, say in Sebastian County, there's roughly 130,000 people and there's roughly 90,000 people in Fort Smith,
so it'd be safe to assume that this law would If it passed and signed into law in 90 days would affect. Has the capacity to affect
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:32
the ability for these conversations to be had. It would not change anything currently. As, as the county has it.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
15:41
OK, and so then as Fort Smith or any municipality grows. And the county shrinks who, who is then paying for, I mean, is there any requirement on a municipality to pay for gel expansion, uh, the people in jails, county roads. I mean But currently, currently I mean it worked out currently,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:08
I'm sure, I'm sure that the
county, Sebastian County likely charges for certain rates for certain services if if
they had the chance for this, through this bill to have an interlocal agreement that would be discussed during the interlocal agreement. If we can reevaluate the allocation of tax, for example is if if
Just for your example, Fort Smith is 80% and the county is 20% and the next census, it's gonna continue to disproportionately shift. It
might be, you know, let's, you know, cap us at 25% of the county and we will reduce your jail fees or eliminate your jail fees. It would all be
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
16:51
worked out through the interlocal agreement. OK, so there's an ability to come to an agreement it's not just
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:57
we're gonna That, that's really the only option if, if they want to work on allocation. The other option is to abolish the tax, which is already provided by foreign law to abolish the tax and then reimplement it six months later and have and hope the voters
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
17:12
repass their tax that they just abolished. OK, well, we have just had a lot of discussions about jails and prisons and who funds the courts and how that's done and it feels to me like the, the counties are ultimately responsible, not the cities, and you're cannibalizing the revenue stream to do those things. I agree. The county still
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:33
has to provide the services for the entire county and every 10 years this is, this is the way the law is currently for those
metropolitan areas that are growing and acquiring through annexation and and
encouraging and investing and getting that population to grow there, which we all encourage that makes for a good community. The services that the county can provide are hamstrung or limited because they cannot access the full potential of their county tax because it's being shifted to the city. Thank you. Senator Petty, you have another
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
18:02
one, sir. Just a follow up, so to be clear, if it went to a vote of the people.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:14
And it did not pass, then nothing would change. It reverts back to exactly where it's been unless they go again to another of the people to abolish the tax, you know, they, they can keep taking bites of that apple, but again, that's, that is a hill that is probably a nuclear option, but at some point, I'll use just Benton County for example, at some point, a county judge is going to look at a tax labels county tax, and there's, there's no benefit to it except maybe paying for a 911 calls.
Um, so that he will make the attempts or he, she will make potentially make the attempt to abolish the tax to be able to, you know, recapitulate some money to the, to the county, uh, and I'm sure the mayors at that time would come to the table to get a bite of that through an interlocal agreement. They just don't have that avenue now and something else I'd just like to address is If You know, maybe just through the conversation of this bill, you might have cities saying, well, you don't need to do this bill, just let us, let us dedicate,
let us come to you and work these issues out. That's, that agreement would be binding upon that city council and that court at that time. It, it would not help for a bond company to have faith in it. They couldn't come and say, well, let's just go ahead and do an interlocal agreement because currently as the law is wrote, you cannot do it based on interlocal agreement if it affects allocation. What the bill would do is allow those conversations to be had and lawfully go to the voters to see if they'll approve it.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:48
Any other committee members before we go to the public, Senator Boyd, yes
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
19:53
sir. Sorry, I just, I'm just thinking of the things, so. Like if the school board has an election, the school board pays for the election, but like when we have a general election or a primary like the county is is paying for that, right? So this, this has an ability to afford to conduct elections too on some level. Am I making that up or is
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:13
that as the county pay for the election if, if, if this were to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
20:19
if you're shrinking money from if you're putting money in the city and you're taking away from the county and the county has to conduct a safe election. this could get into integrity of elections too
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:30
um so I sat on the corn court for 4 years and starting in, you know, 2018 as we're looking at the budget cycle. This was a major component of those conversations is how much revenue are we going to lose off our one cent sales tax of which at the time I think we were
getting 24%, and then when 2020 came and and the numbers came out, we dropped to 15.75%, so it was a huge cut. To the county's ability to function as a as a seat of government, constitutional seat of government with 7 constitutional officers to do all the things that were required, you know, you look at when these, when most of these counties passed a tax, you know, titles didn't exist, that that was annotated codes, you know, in 1987, so Title 5 was probably
much thinner than it is today, um, because we're, we got more laws on the books, we got more. needs. We've got, we just got so much more need through technology and all the other services that typically make our life easier, but actually expand the ability to provide services, yet the funding continues to go down for the countywide service requirements. OK, any other, uh, anybody else
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
21:45
on the committee have any other questions? We'll have some more discussion, uh. If we get a motion or whatever
happens, but, OK, at this time we're going to go to the uh public comment. We have a lot of people signed up right here, um, very adamant that we want
to give everybody, you know, the opportunity to speak, but if everybody here goes for 78 minutes,
we're gonna have an issue. So does the committee want to entertain a Yes, sir. OK, 33 minutes to per person is, that's a motion. We have a
motion for 30 minutes limit testimony to 3 minutes. And if, and if that's OK, it's not just on this bill. It'll be for additional bills also. So is that OK, Senator Caldwell? OK, we have a motion to second all in favor of that. Say aye. Can you opposed? OK, we're gonna limit the testimony to 3 minutes and we ask that the thing is if members have any questions of you, you will go past 3 minutes. This is just the time for your explanation. So if you see somebody that gets asked a lot of questions down here for 10 minutes it's because of the members asking questions because
we allow that to be unlimited. OK, so the first one that we have on the list is uh Speaking
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:04
against Charles from Walnut Ridge. I apologize, I can't read your last name, sir. Is it Mayo? And if you don't mind, you can just come
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
23:17
to the end of the table and uh If you'll set where the uh the
mic that has the red on it right now, it should already be on. And if you'll just recognize yourself and then uh you'll be
Speaker 76
23:39
you can begin. There you go. Thanks, Senators, I appreciate the opportunity to speak the last name is Snap. That's an APP. Snap your fingers with two peas. I'm the mayor of Walnut Ridge in Lawrence County. Your first name is Charles? Yes, sir. All right,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:55
Charles Snap, you're the mayor of Walnut Ridge. OK, you're,
Speaker 76
23:59
you're right, sir. Thank you. I'm the mayor of Walnut Ridge and also chair of 10 County mayor's caucus in northeast Arkansas. 6 of Counties if SB 394 is approved, will be immediately impacted in 4 others of the counties during a recent board meeting have expressed concerns about SB 394 coming up during the 2030
census. We have one metropolitan city in northeast Arkansas and that's Jonesboro and Craighead County. Uh, the gentlemen as they explained the 394 and about Benton County and the numbers, it's a little of astonishing when you look at rural Arkansas is most of our 10 counties or in northeast Arkansas and I suspect the entire state, but county sales
tax is essential for city services and with the number of rural counties that we have in our caucus, I'd like to use Lawrence County, my county, as An example because we are the smallest of the 6 counties that would be impacted. Lawrence County had just over 16,000 people in the last census. Walnut Ridge has 5000, 5,384
population, but there are 13 cities. In Lawrence County, cities and incorporated towns, and even though Walnut Ridge is the county seat and the largest population, we still fall in to the sign that catches the largest city offsetting the population of the rural area because of the number of small cities and incorporated towns that share in our existing
sales tax. Walnut Ridge generates 50 to 55% of the total revenue on sales tax in Lawrence County. That's year in, year out. Yet due to an inner due to an agreement that was passed with the sales tax 35, 40 years ago, we only received 16% of that revenue that's generated in Lawrence County. And that's fine. In fact, when
that was passed 35 to 40 years ago, I was on the city council at the time. Lawrence County was struggling. City of Walnut Ridge was struggling. The county would file for a sales tax, the cities would oppose it, the cities would file for a sales tax. The county would oppose it, and it just went back and forth. And finally, I literally called a meeting of some of the opposition, and we sit down and worked it out in both. seconds. Both the county and
city got passed. My point is, SB 394 is not good for the counties of Arkansas. It's going to cause a strife and please let me go to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:07
the members. Well, I think you got your point across, so, so, all right, do any of
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
27:13
the members, uh, are you, you are open to take questions, sir? You're OK, OK, uh, Senator Petty,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
27:18
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mayor, can you clarify or expand on You
mentioned that I think there were 6 counties that would
immediately be impacted and, and how they would be impacted and maybe, maybe Senator Bryant may need to come up and
clarify this as well, because as I understood it, there would not be any impact until
Speaker 84
27:41
there was a vote of the people. There would be there would
Speaker 76
27:45
be impact if bonding issues came up because even though it doesn't restrict the bonding use of county funds if a county is going to come in and need to use the sales tax. space for bonding, bonding agency is not going to look at something that can be removed
that easy on the end. That would be an immediate
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
28:09
impact. OK. OK. Any other members have any additional questions? We appreciate you being here. Thank you, sir. OK, I'm gonna
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
28:23
try to go back and forth on the against and for, there'll be some point where it won't work out that way, but it looks like to me that Barry
Mulring from Benton County, you're here to speak for it. Mhm. That Mars already owns, so you don't have to, it's kind of fidgety sometime. So if you don't mind, just recognize yourself and uh then you can begin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
Speaker 94
28:59
the committee. I'm Barry Moring, and I'm the Benton County Judge.
As you can see from the attendance of many mayors, including some from Benton County, SB 394 is a difficult issue between cities and counties. In Benton County, I work closely with our mayors. We all work closely together and regardless of the outcome of this bill, we will continue to do so. Having said that, SB 394 is very simple. It simply empowers voters to decide how to allocate their countywide sales taxes. In 1990, the voters of Benton County were given that option. They voted for a 1 cent
countywide sales tax to be allocated on a per capita basis between cities and the county based on the population of those cities and the unincorporated population. This bill simply recognizes that circumstances have changed since then and that voters should be given the opportunity to adjust how their county sales tax dollars are spent to accommodate those changes. Benton County has more than triple in population from 97,000 in 1990 to more than 320,000 today. During that time, Benton County's unincorporated
population has shrunk from just over 45% to around 15%. The county share of the revenue of the countywide sales tax is declined by that same amount from 45% to 15% and in an informal poll, when you ask citizens of Benton County, who gets the countywide sales tax? They think the county gets that tax. The county sheriff of our constitutional and statutory obligations remains at 100%. We still have all the obligations we've ever had. Two examples are particularly pertinent. First, the number of circuit court cases filed in Benton County
since 1990 has grown from 3400 then to more than 12,000 now. Second, our county jail is consistently over capacity almost entirely with felons, very few misdemeanors in our jail. In a recent study projected that by the end of 2027, the shortfall of beds in our jail. will be will exceed 450. Since I've been the county judge in 200 from since 2017, we have twice asked voters for a sales tax increase to help with those constitutional obligations, and
both were beat by wide margins. The message was clear no new taxes, particularly for places they don't want to go, surprise folks don't want to go to court and they don't want to go to jail. So they didn't vote for those sales tax increases. What they do want is they want us to figure it out locally. They want cities and counties to work together. Doesn't it make sense to allow the voters to the opportunity to revisit how their sales tax dollars are allocated. That's all this bill does. It allows a quorum Court elected by the voters.
To refer to those voters how countywide sales taxes should be allocated. Voters get to decide. That's the important aspect of this bill. Nothing happens. Nothing changes unless voters say so. This bill does not affect city-specific sales taxes for their own operations or bonds or other purposes. It is incumbent upon our counties and cities to work together to craft. A reallocation of our sales taxes. We're going to have to work together, and I would appreciate
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:12
a pass on 394. Thank you. All right, Senator Petty I didn't turn up, but I do have a
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
32:18
question. Yes, yes, sorry about that. So and I heard the senators say that you had attempted in Benton County to pass a tax and it hadn't or maybe, but in the past had have you had uh taxes or or bonds outstanding related to your sales tax. No, we have not. So if you did pass a tax, if you were successful in passing a tax, you
Speaker 95
32:42
would pay for it with bonds, uh, so that's a great question. It depends on the agreement that we came up with our
Speaker 103
32:51
cities because after all they're 85% of the equation here and what we need initially is we just need to be able to operate the jail. And so that allocation would probably go to help operate the jail plus we do have some money in our reserves to pay for minor expansions. We don't have enough this would not produce bonding kind of money through Amendment 79. Could we do some 5 year financing of some expansions.
Sure we could, but this would not be
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
33:16
used for bonding, no, but in the past and you have, you have legally the authority to issue bonds and so we have getting, what I'm getting at is, uh, with the rather steep decline with with that in itself have an impact on your ability to to bond projects like that, you think? I
Speaker 103
33:36
certainly think it could. Senator Bryant basically laid out that case earlier. It's not inconceivable that we go down to
low single digits on our share of this tax, and that would certainly have an impact
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
33:51
on our financing ability. Thank you. Yeah, good, good question, Senator
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
33:56
Petty. uh, Senator Hester. So, uh, is, is Benton County uniquely affected by this because of growth or counties that are losing population. Is it going the other direction? Can, can you uh You're, you're, you're leading on this issue. Why particularly are you leading? Are we unique in some way?
Speaker 94
34:15
So I, I, I can speak to Benton County much more than I can speak to other counties, but I can speak in a way to to the urbanized counties. We are unique. If you look at the population growth around the state. Menton County has led that. Uh, that has created this issue, and it's an issue with cities too, the infrastructure requirements, the other requirements we have are huge, and we're all trying to figure out how to use scarce resources. So it is a little bit unique for us because while we're doing that, our share of this sales tax is going down and down and down. That is happening in some other counties. I don't think it
happens across the entire state, and I think that that the way Senator Bryant teed it up, I think there's a dozen or so counties that are particularly impacted. For us though, this is, you know, I think the word existential is overused these days, but this could end up being an existential issue for us as this percentage of our sales tax declines further and further. You finished in
Speaker 41
35:11
history, OK. OK, center board. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
35:18
Again, I'm, I'm sorry I don't, it's been a while since I've been on City County Local, and I've not been on Rev and tax. So help me understand. The cities have to pay to use the gel do cities have to help with the court costs. So the things that the that the county is tasked with funding. Do the cities have to pay for that, or do you have a way to charge the cities for that. He help me understand how that works. So certainly at the at the
Speaker 95
35:45
district court level, cities pay a share, and I know that
Speaker 94
35:49
there's issues before the legislature this session on that at the circuit court level, no, they, they do not, um, with regards to paying for services at the jail. We do charge cities $60 a night and $60 to book into the jail, but those are typically for misdemeanors and to give you an example, I'm going to guess last night in the Benton County jail there were 700 plus inmates. Our ideal capacity is 580. If you looked at that ratio, because it's been
about the same, maybe 5 to 8% of those have been misdemeanors that are on required holds, and those are the only ones that the cities pay. 74, so we actually make very, very little revenue from cities for
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
36:31
services at the jail. So, so what I'm hearing from you is the challenges and overcrowding because of state
Speaker 103
36:37
inmates in your county jail. So it's for Benton County it's a complicated issue. We are certainly part of the overall issue of
Speaker 94
36:44
state inmates being held prior to being transferred to the state prison.
That's not our most significant problem though. It's a significant problem. Our most significant problem is when our jail was built, we calculated to have a population of 184,000 in 2020, and we missed it by 100,000. We just simply have too small a jail for the population we have. We're fortunate to have a low crime rate and to still have a low crime rate, we have terrific law enforcement, including in our cities, of course. But the problem we have with our jail is we just can't keep up with our population growth. And so what this bill would allow, it would allow us some flexibility to both have
operating dollars for the jail, but it would free up some dollars where we could do some minor expansions along the way to at least get us through. Might not prohibit us from the future going forward with a bond proposal to taxpayers. That would be a separate issue, but for now it would at least allow us to do some minor expansions. Any other questions? OK, we appreciate
Speaker 118
37:38
you being with us. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, next. Is Bill Edwards.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:01
Again, Mr. Edwards, that mic should be on right there, and if you'll just, uh, introduce yourself and you can begin. Mike's on
the seats. There you go. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning,
Bill Edwards
Unverified
38:13
senators and representatives. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes. I have to have it on for the record. Yeah, my name is Bill Edwards, and I serve as the mayor of Sennerton, which is the 20th largest city in Arkansas and the 6th fastest growing city in the United States for municipalities over 20,000 according to the last census.
Despite our growth, our current budget stands at $16 million a year and inadequate for estimated population of 26,000 people up from the 17792, according to the 20/20 census, notably, about 35% of our budget is derived from the county sales tax. Allocated primarily by population. Currently, Senator receives 6.25% of this tax, a figure established back with the last census. As we grow, we constantly see increases in tax
revenue across the county with Benton County itself, uh, collected approximately $15 million annually, and I wanted to just make a note, um, you know, there's been some context about the percentages dropping with each census. That's correct. You know, back in 1990 was 43% of what I've seen on information I was given, right now they get 16%. However, by a spreadsheet that the county actually gave us in a meeting, uh, and in 2018 they collected
$10 million in revenue from that sales tax and then when the percentage changed in 2025, it shows estimated about $15 million which is almost our whole budget. Furthermore, Senator provides essential services to county residents such as fire and EMS without receiving any reimbursement and about 1/3 of our service calls are originate from the county response area. Which significantly increases our or exceeds our city boundaries. While we do collect the modest
fire dews, about $40,000 annually. This uh Mount barely makes a dent in their $6 million fire budget. Also, the cities do provide, you know, water service in the county too. My concerns regarding Senate bill 394 multifaceted. First, it appears no cities were consulted or informed about this bill. I personally learned about it through a Facebook post from a Quorum Court member. I understand this proposal has been under discussion for some time, but clearly no communication with municipal
leader. I'm sorry, but clearly communication with municipal leaders is essential for, you know, so we all can talk about this. It's clear that the proposed funding change would primarily Benefit the jail system, which is important. I agree with the judge. And that's the issue in Benton County. I mean, other counties might have some other things, but it should not come at the expense of central city services that residents rely on. And one thing I want to make
sure is, you know, if there's some cuts in our funding, the thing I'm concerned about is I want to make sure when the county resident picks up their phone and dials 911. They have some help coming that EMS is coming, yeah, that's why I. up. I knew I was getting close. Anyway, I think I got most of my points through and I hope my other mayors
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:25
will get the rest of them. All right, if you don't mind, let's see if there's any, any questions. Anyone have any questions?
We appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
OK, the next ones speaking for is going to be Joel Jones. Same thing that
Joel Jones
Unverified
41:59
Mike should be on and just introduce yourself. Yes sir. Good morning. My name is Joel Jones. I'm a JP in Benton County. I'm also the finance chair for Benton County Court. Thank you, Chairman Hickey. Thank you committee for hearing
this, and thank you, Senator Bryant for bringing this forward. Um, I want to talk about a few things that that have been discussed already and that is we are your local administration for state business. We have to do these things. And we are hurting to do these things right now. We have, we've we've asked our voters several times, and they've said no to no to new taxes. We have no other way. Currently to bring this forward to do the things that we're required to do.
And that's what we're asking y'all to help us with. We need help, especially the large counties. I understand the amendment is may hurt. May or affect some some small counties, but the large counties, the Class 6 and 7, are the ones that this really affects. We have such a large population that we have to work for. And we are limited in our resources and continued to decline in our resources. Um On the jail payments and improvements question, Senator Boyd, we are, we do charge the cities. And it's for a couple of days,
and we do have state inmates in our jail and our sheriff works with the Department of Corrections to get those state inmates out as much as possible. However, the largest portion of time that somebody's in our jail is solely on the county to pay for because from the time of arraignment until adjudication, they are technically a county, a county inmate. And that's the largest portion of our time and the largest expense. Um, on a question of $15 million I understand that that's a that that is Sinnerton's budget, and they are, they get a significant
portion from the county's sales tax. It costs us more than $15 million to operate our jail. I'm not talking about sheriff and deputies out in the field. I'm talking about just the jail. We have over 700 inmates a day. We have people sleeping on the floor on cots. And it cost us a lot of money, as you know, because you're talking about in this session. An additional state jail. And it costs a lot of money to do that. We have a modest amount that we've saved, and we're lucky to
do that to build a misdemeanor pod, nothing that will affect the 700 inmate capacity for felons in our county. But we have saved to do that, but we have no way to operate it. We don't have additional funds that could operate that jail, and that is our biggest problem. Um, and I, I would appreciate if y'all would pass this so that we can have a way to ask our voters to help us. Thank you. All right. Anyone have any questions? We appreciate you being
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
44:40
here. Thank you for your time. Yes, sir. Thank you.
OK, the next one will be against. Uh, appears like uh ember Strange. Am I
saying that right? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't see you. You know the drill there by
Speaker 140
45:01
now, I'm sure. So just recognize yourself. I'm and I'm the chief financial officer for the city of North
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
45:07
Little Rock. Thank you for having me today. I am speaking against this, um, in North Little Rock, uh, in Pulaski County, our allocation of the
county tax that we got for 2024 was approximately 19 million. I have a spreadsheet where I've broken that down from all of the cities, if any of you wanted to have a 5 copies, so if this were to pass and if this were to go to voters, you'd be asking the city of North Little Rock to find $19 million. I think everyone that has come up here and talked this morning. Haven't said, voters don't want new taxes. So I feel like with this um legislation,
we could potentially be uh robbing Peter to pay Paul within your own county because what I'm mainly hearing is in Baton County there's an issue with the jail. I don't see our Pulaski County judge here to speak for or against this, so if this were to pass and we could reallocate taxes, this whole problem is going to be pushed on to the city, and the businesses that generate this tax, they're the majority of them are in your city limits. You don't see them
out in the farm area in the county where these houses that we're talking about the growing population, they're in your city and who pays for those streets if you were to drive over to McCain Mall right now on those roads to get over there, who's who pays for those? Who pays for the water? If an incident was to happen, what police officers show up? What firemen show up. So it's a fair way to allocate this county tax because the majority of it is, is derived within your city. Um, if we didn't have these
businesses in our city, is local tax wouldn't even be generated, um, with all due respect, Senator Bryant mentioned that the legislation said that the quorum Court would get with the mayors and make a decision. The legislation does not say that. It says the quorum Court will decide. Senator Boyd, you had asked about the jail tax. We absolutely pay a jail. It's a daily fee. I've been very
involved with that. If someone comes in at 11:59 p.m. we pay the full amount for that person for the day because the billing starts at midnight. The Quorum Court makes that decision, it changes all the time. I just did my 2025 budget based on the rate that they gave us for the daily fee based on my past bills, uh, a couple of weeks after the budget passed, they emailed us and they upped it and it was Substantial. I cut my budget $300,000 because of the lower
rate from the prior budget and then they went back and upped it. The Gorum Court didn't discuss that with us, and in fact we had had discussions with the judge about the billing and the issues and things, and we had no say in it, and I think that is how this legislation
Speaker 146
48:14
will go as well sorry I didn't give you 10. No problem. Anyone Senator Boyd, you're recognized, sir. Thank you.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
48:22
Uh, so my, my city director's been texting me here, uh.
Help me understand, can a city raise its own sales tax or or you just handcuffed to the county and there's no other way you can raise your own sales tax.
Thank you. That's a very good question. We would have to take it to the vote of the people, and that was my point earlier is if you cut 19 million for us, we can't, we don't have other revenue sources that we can just go out and make up. We'd we'd have to take it to a vote of the people, and everyone is pretty much said that people don't want new taxes. I don't know that voters would understand. If they change an allocation in
one place that they'd be hurting their city in their county, and that's my fear.
So wouldn't the cities, if you couldn't come together on some kind of agreement, wouldn't it kind of be a situation of the cities versus the counties and be that, and
Speaker 152
49:15
we have to work together on so many things. We want good relationships. We don't
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
49:21
want to be fighting for the taxpayers' money. We're all here to provide the best living. experience for the taxpayers. You want those taxpayers to live
in your county. And if you have a government where you're city and county can't get along. They're going to move somewhere
else. So if a county were to ask for a sales tax, do you think that would be any
Speaker 140
49:45
more successful than the city? Um, I don't think, I mean, you know, school boards go for taxes,
Speaker 61
49:51
city, county. OK. Any other, any other questions? And we appreciate you being here. Thank you. OK.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
50:02
Looks like the rest I have here are that are signed up for actually showing
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
50:05
against, so I'm just gonna do those and at the end, I'll, I'll ask if there's anybody else in the audience. So we have uh Jennifer Hobbs. We appreciate you being here. Thank you, Mayor Jennifer Hobbs
Speaker 159
50:34
from Wynn. Um, I just will take a few moments um to address you. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, I am here speaking against this bill because in Cross County, we are the county seat. I would venture to say that probably 80% of the county's sales tax is generated from businesses in my city, um, 25% of our revenue budget comes from the county sales tax, um, particularly in our county, We have had a vote for a new jail, and it passed. We vote to
support a hospital tax in our county. The city supports those campaigns for our county. We work well together and um I don't think that making a decision at this level to affect one county, it's fair to everyone concerned and um so that was really all that I had to say and I'll
Speaker 160
51:20
y my time. Anyone have any questions or sobs? We appreciate you being here. Thank you.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
51:38
OK, next one is uh I, if I pronounce this wrong, I'm sorry, Colleen Sharkhar maybe you can correct
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
51:43
me when you get here. I kind of got a little redneck to me, so
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
51:48
it's hard for me to get those correct. It's only me.
Speaker 165
51:59
It's Colleen Sercar, So and um I'm the finance director and treasurer for the city of Sherwood. Good to have you. Thank you. Thank you for
allowing me to speak today. I'm speaking against this bill. The city of Sherwood receives about 9.7 million in 2024 and uh county sales tax revenue, and that's approximately 30% of the revenue in the general fund budget. um Sherwood is a little bit unique. in that the city doesn't levy property tax revenue in general funds. The only property tax revenue is for a library bond
village, so while a lot of other cities have additional revenue supporting their general fund from property tax, Sherwood does not have that. Um, so that, you know, kind of weigh increases the amount that we rely on for those county sales tax revenue. Additionally, as some other people have spoken, you know, with the county and city working hand in hand, um, there are a lot of ways that some of those general fund revenues that we
receive, we're giving back directly to the county whether that's from um the amounts that we pay for the jail bill, I think the rate that we pay is $73.21 a day for anyone that's staying in 2024 that was approximately $500,000. dollars And we pay that out of our general fund. Additionally, our fire service is through the county and we pay approximately 2.23 million in 24 and so all of
those things are things that are kind of going back to the county. Um, and so all of those are through additional interlocal agreements and so while the revenue is coming in from the county, it's also going back, so you know this, I think long term could be detrimental because we don't have another way to raise funds, and it's a large portion of the city's budget. Questions? Thank you for being here.
Speaker 167
54:14
OK, Justin with Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs. Justin Scantlin, the president of the Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs. Good to have you. Thank you for having me, sir.
Alright, I'll try to get through this quickly, but here it says as a representative of the fire service in the state of Arkansas, I wanted to kind of discuss a few points for us that seems like I haven't heard anybody hardly other than the mayor of Centerton talk about the fire service, so we want to discuss those possible impacts. In most cases, from what I read, 20 most cities or fire department budgets could be slashed. 20 to 35% if this is to go in and pass, and again like the North Little Rock finance director said many of these
sales taxes are raised from brick and mortars in the areas of highest density, which is a municipalities, um, so these taxes that are currently go back to fund those dense areas with our services that basically the current model shows that we're going to be able to utilize the most money to protect, to protect the most people as a fire service, so the higher densities get the higher service based on the adequate funding and if distribution of these funds would be then
disproportionate to those densities. You'd have a lot smaller or bigger funds for a smaller populations that would reduce public safety services for a larger percent of the population and needs less dense populations, volunteer and career combination departments are vital and provide a much, much needed valuable service to the rural residents of the state. There's nothing written into the bill, and again, as you see, nothing's mentioned about the fire service that would guarantee. Any kind of funds for those county departments to cover or
to make up the difference in services, but there would be a guarantee if it passed that the municipal departments that often provide more equipment, more consistent staffing to the rural areas as well. So that's so we believe this only stands to hurt the fire service in the state of Arkansas. Thank you. Any, any questions? Appreciate you being here.
Speaker 118
56:35
Thank you. OK. The next one is Speaking
Unknown speaker
56:47
Or Brad Moore, You're speaking against. correct.
Speaker 174
57:23
Good morning, committee chair. My name's Brad Moore, legislative chair for the State Fire Association in the
Speaker 176
57:28
state of Arkansas. Good to have you. Thank
Speaker 178
57:30
you, sir. You're we're here today to be against this bill, echoing a lot what Chief Caitlin's already said, but the main point that I want to bring up that is not clear to us is the very last line in the bill states that cities were no longer be able to use tax dollars to back bonds and the way we understand is that this passes, it's just going to kill majority of all cities.
in the state of the state of Arkansas. We, we use bond money for capital improvements in the firesavers to build stations by apparatuses and things of that nature. So our understanding is this, if this bill passes, it's not going to allow our cities to back bonds by using tax, tax revenues any longer, so that's, that's the biggest point of where I were against this bill. So, any question? So
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
58:14
just I want to make sure. So what, what you're saying, of course, is if this legislation passes, there's always going to be
an option that it could go away. So
you're saying the bonding company is going to take that into an account, and I heard another gentleman say that at the very beginning. OK, so you all are just thinking at that point, you're not even going to have an option to bond. Is that correct? OK, that's, I understand. Any other questions in regards to that? Appreciate you being here. Thank you. OK, looks like Bob Tart.
Bob Tharp
Unverified
59:14
Good to have you if you just recognize yourself. Yes, good morning. My name
is Bob Tharp. I'm the mayor of Decatur, Arkansas. Good to have you. Thank you for having me. This is an experience. So, uh, I'm the mayor of Decatur, Arkansas. I'm likely the only former JP who is a mayor in Benton County. So I wholly understand the jail issue. 20 years ago when the jail was brand new, it was jail issue in those days, just like it's being talked about this morning.
So, let me get to my notes. OK. Decatur, Arkansas is located on Highway 102 and 59 Junction, Western Benton County, north of Solomon Springs. Over the past few years, the city of Decatur has lost commercial businesses just by attrition and being a small town where 1773 population. Our commercial business district is nearly gone, so we depend on sales tax and to the point a few minutes ago, what would you do
about a sales tax? I've already begun working with my city council. If this passes, there will be a sales tax, very likely on the same ballot because we're going to lose too much money. It's pretty straightforward. So, um, in 2024, the city sales tax for Decatur was $573 573,000 dollars. The county portion was 263. That's $10,000 difference.
I know it's not all going to go away, but I have no idea what we're going to lose at the city level. Uh, the general fund is our largest expenditure coming out of that, consuming it with administrative costs. fire department, police department, parks and recreational, all of the things that we all take care of for our citizens. So if Senate bill 394 were to become law, my comfort, my personal comfort with the future would be very much shaken. What are we going to do?
The bill, the bill does say that Benton County Corn Court and the Benton County mayors will have to work that out. I don't know what working that out is, and we won't know until that bill's passed and it goes back to the court members and the mayors to reconcile a percentage or however we might do that. But sustaining Decatur will be extremely difficult. I've used the word bankruptcy. I don't know if that would happen. We don't know. For 2025, obviously our budgets are in place. And we're operating and we're trying to take care of our
citizens, of our cities, me, my town, Decatur. This bill has the potential of forcing me to reduce services for one of those 7773 residents, some way, somehow, whether it's mowing, fire department, police department. If this bill becomes law, and when it goes into effect, depending on the percentage of reallocation, the year it becomes effective will be the year Decatur. Well. We will be the year that Decatur will have a just significantly.
Speaker 187
1:02:29
In closing, vote no, please. We figured that. Thank you. What do you do you let me, do you mind just make, make 100% sure. Any questions? OK, seeing none. We appreciate
Speaker 191
1:02:41
you being here. That's all. Do you have another?
Speaker 193
1:03:01
Peter from uh Springdale, Fayetteville area. I'm not even gonna attempt that.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:03:16
OK Yes, sir. You can introduce yourself, especially the last night. Good morning and
Peter My
Unverified
1:03:20
thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Peter Nierengarten, and I work for the city of Fayetteville. I'm here representing um our new mayor, Molly Ron. I've also been authorized to speak on behalf of
the city of Springdale's mayor Doug Sprouse on this particular bill as the two largest cities in Washington County, Springdale and Fayetteville stand to lose big if SB 394 becomes law. Our, our two cities derive approxim im ate ly 1/3 of our general fund budget from our portion of the one cent Washington County sales tax. This represents approximately $25 million for Springdale and Fayetteville to support critical city services such as fire protection, police protection,
district courts, dispatch, and parks and recreation and other areas of essential city services. These are critical city services that benefit not only city residents but also benefit residents of the county who regularly commute into Springdale and Fayetteville for work, for shopping, for leisure, and for other activities. Many of these services include including 911 addressing and 911 services extend into the county areas that are adjacent to our
cities. We happily welcome all of these county residents into our cities and consider them part of our larger community. Um, we are all Washington County voters. In fact, we're the same voters who authorized the distribution of the per capita formula for the county sales tax that's been in place since 1981 in Washington County. SB 394 would change the way that has worked, which has been a fair distribution of county sales tax for over 40 years and replaces it with what we consider to be a false dichotomy between counties
and cities competing for the same sales tax dollars to provide essential services to our citizens. Additionally, neither the city nor the county will be able to count on the long term stability of their portion of the sales tax because it could be reallocated at the next election cycle, as was indicated, the sales tax also eliminates our ability to bond or this bill eliminates our ability to bond against that portion of sales tax. In closing, this bill sets up a shell game of borrowing from
Peter to pay Paul, which creates a race to race to the bottom between cities and counties. Please vote no on SB 394. I thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions that the committee members
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:05:48
might have. Senator Hester, you recognize, sir. I just wanted to make sure you said that uh the city of Fayetteville would stand to
lose big in the county would benefit. Uh, the, yes, thank you. Any other questions? We appreciate you being here.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:06:07
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Petty, I didn't see you, sir. I want to explore the bonding question again
because I've heard it a couple of times now. Can you explain how it would affect
Peter My
Unverified
1:06:20
the bonding capacity and ability. Well, I'm not a bonding expert, um, but I can't say that we bond against our portion of sales tax for long term capital improvement bonding to build projects such as fire fire station expansions. We just built a new police headquarters in the city of Fayetteville, and
the sales tax we bond against that for the construction of those long term large capital projects and so if we have less sales tax to bond against, what that means is our total bonding. capacity
Speaker 202
1:06:53
would be reduced by the portion proportionate to what that sales tax represents,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:06:58
OK, but the less sales tax available would only go into effect if this passed, and if the county put it before the voters, including the cities to approve
Speaker 202
1:07:12
or disapprove. That's only half correct. So if the,
Peter My
Unverified
1:07:15
if this bill passes, we lose the ability to bond against that portion of the sales tax. Regardless of whether or not there's a Washington County vote on changing the allocation, OK? And can you explain that? Interpretation. Why,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:07:26
why you lose the ability to bond. It's in the in the very last section
Speaker 203
1:07:31
of the bill. I don't have the bill in
Peter My
Unverified
1:07:34
front of me, but if you look at the very last 2 or 3 lines of the bill basically it states in plain language that it
eliminates passage of this bill eliminates our ability to bond against that portion of our sales tax.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:07:48
OK, I'm not sure that I agree with the with that interpretation, but thank you. Yes
Speaker 204
1:07:55
sir. Senator Hammer. I'm going to read you the statement and see if this is the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:00
statement because you don't have the bill there or it says a municipality shall not pledge revenues from a tax levied under this subjectchater for the repayment of the bonds is that the statement that you're your position on, OK. Um,
Would that not be only After
Peter My
Unverified
1:08:20
the vote was taken, the whole section is, you know, not just the changes that are in the bill, but the entire section lays out the whole process for um Uh, the issuance of and the distribution of the one, the county sales tax, OK, and it says if the voters do not approve a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:40
change in the allocation or distribution of revenue among the county and the municipalities within the
county, two things. The tax shall continue to be collected. And there should be no change in the allocation or distribution of the revenue derived from the tax and I'm just trying to interpret that if there's no change, everything goes status quo as is. Is
Peter My
Unverified
1:09:06
that in terms of the distribution of the sales tax, yes, but that final language in the bill. if the bill passes, would
eliminate our ability to bond against that portion of the sales tax because I'm assuming because that allocation could change during the next election cycle and bonding is, you know, typically long term, you know, sometimes up to, you know, 1015, 20 years, and bonding companies aren't going to want to um or or They want to know the money's going to be there exactly correct, right? And so this by
enacting this law, it changes whether or not the money may be there, you know, 25, 10 years from now that that's if the voters vote to change
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:09:58
it. If the voters voted to change it, yes, all right, thank you, let me, and, and I, I, I, I agree with what he's saying here because that's the way I would see it. If I'm the bonding company. If I'm the bonding company at that point, I'm looking at, well, we could go ahead and put this in. Uh, we're looking at this cash flow should be available for these bonds, but
by the vote of the people at any at any time this can go away, uh. So
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:10:23
that that's that's exactly what you're saying there, of course, you know, we all know that if those taxes are reduced or whatever that that bonding
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:29
company is actually taking that risk that way also, but this does kind of put a different spin and caveat to it. It does because the bill
Speaker 211
1:10:37
specifically prohibits it. OK. That that was correct, right? I need
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:40
to phrase that as a question. I mean, that's, that's the way I see it in my head. OK,
Speaker 212
1:10:47
right. Yes, Senator, could we get Senator Bryan up here because that in my reading of it and in his closing, if you
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:56
don't mind, I hate to get us and that that probably makes sense, but I'd rather just let him do that in his closing. Or, or in discussion if we get motions, yeah,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:06
because typically in closing we wouldn't be allowed to ask questions you're gonna rule that we'll be able to ask questions before he does his closing that yes, I will as long, as long as we get a motion
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:11:18
in a second, we will have some additional discussion and we'll, we'll allow that, and he'll be able to answer. Thank you. And any 5 of y'all want to do it different, we'll, we'll make it happen today. But Any other questions? We appreciate you being here. Thank you.
OK, unless I've missed somebody, there's nobody else. There's nobody else on here to speak for or against this bill, but I want to give you every opportunity for public input. So is there anyone else that wants to speak on Senate
bill SB 394 right now. Senator Bryant. Let's see Yeah
Speaker 216
1:12:22
exposed. OK, um, Are you, do you want to close or do you want to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:12:31
go ahead and if you'll close and then uh like I say, we'll, we'll see if there's a vote and then we'll have discussion. Maybe I'll address the issue
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:12:40
in my closing, OK, and then we'll still have
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:12:43
discussion also. Absolutely, I'll go through, of course, made some notes just want to address any concerns that were brought up just maybe alleviate some. The first is that
with the with the passage of of Senate Bill 394, nothing nothing changes. No, you know, there are several statements that, you know, we're going to lose 19 million or we're going to lose 25 million. You're not. Nothing, nothing changes if you cannot and to address on that same vein that there's no language interlocal agreement. It may not be in the bill, but it's in the statute under 2674214 BI. It outlays that intelocal agreement, if approved by the locals that will be submitted to DFNA, and that's how they will
allocate the taxes based on interlocal agreement. If that agreement does not occur. There's no reason for the corn court to move forward to do anything different, because the difference is abolished the attacks, which they already have provisions, so the risk I will say is of the counties that are considering like what's our options for attacks is leave the bill as leave the law as it stands and look at the core on court's ability on its own volition to submit to the voters
to abolish the tax. Look in the law that 15% of the last voting group of the county. clerk can sign petitions, submitted the court, and forced them to abolish the tax, then you'll lose your 19 million or your 25 million if the voters choose to do that, so the, the statute as it's written in 1981, I, I think the the framers of it intended it to be a short term bonding tax because 201 through 206 talks nothing about but bonding and how to bond for
these projects based on the taxes coming. And so to get to the point of the last, the last speaker, the bond that the the bond cannot go away. The tax cannot go away until the bond is satisfied. So Senator Petty's point, once that bond is committed, then either the new interlocal agreement has to account for that bond, and the bond council has to approve that that agreement will carry over to the existing funds that are being bonded
or you have to, you have to wait till that bond depletes and then go away, but I will say in talking to Treasury and DFNA, there is no cities bonding on this provision of law. That's why in the first part of the bill, it says except as provided under 26 to 14C1b, that's where the bonding happens, so not underneath this level this way to tax because there's other provisions to tax to satisfy the bond, and that's what the cities typically do. Um,
to address, I will say part of my opening I kind of, I didn't leave out intentionally, but maybe it wasn't impactful, but maybe it is, is there's there's 25 counties in the in the state of Arkansas that have a population of an urban area, one urban area that exceeds the rural area. 12 of those do not have an interlocal agreement, which means 13 do have an interlocal agreement. So if the gentleman from Lawrence County that says the interlocal agreement feels like it hamstrings their their revenue because they only get I
think it was 16%. There's no fixing that without the original language of the statute, but with this bill passes, that conversation could have and Monut Ridge could say, I would like 20% since I'm generating the most and the unquote could consider that. Without it, the court could not consider that. Um The one, the one I, I would say. I would like to give some
scenario would be is if you look at just say Benton County and Benton County's at 15%. And they
wanted to meet with the with the local mayors and say I'd like to go to 20%. That's a 5% increase of just their allocation. If you were to do that math just on
a whole, I've I've crunched it on, on the books on the Excel spreadsheet, and it works the same, but if the total revenue is a 10% increase and what Benton County is asking for is 5% and the reduction of 5% to
each other's. It's 5% of that year's tax allocation. The growth per year is 10%. At each level, which means for one year, they would only get a growth of 5% before the next year they'd get their growth back at 10% and continue on, but that would shift that balance to 20% to the county. I would say even looking at the COVID numbers, taxes are always looked at as a guess in the future for what the rear look like, so it's always a rearview look and as you budget for that,
it's easy to budget for something coming up if you can get the support of the voters to approve a reallocation. You could actually adjust to what that interlocal agreement
would look like. So I, I guess that was just
to go through. I think I addressed. Most of the issues again, I'll I'll I would reiterate that the interlocal agreement language is on 214 BI
of the statute, no the interlocal agreement is just that. It is an ability to come to the table to talk about what this might look like. If the, if the answer is it looks like nothing, then everything stays the same. Or they go to the provisions of the statute that let them abolish the tax or let the electors sign a petition to abolish the tax. That's already in provisions in the code. And so I, I would again I
I would say that the cliff is coming. Some of these
counties will have to do this work in order to right the ship to ensure that they can provide the, the
essential services that the the tax in 1981 was intended to serve. It is not to ruin the counties I'm sorry, ruin the cities and take that revenue away. It's to right the ship. Um, because in 2030, that county, Benton County will be at 10% and 2040. 7%, 5%. Eventually, the
population that's 40% out of a 1 million. You know, what is that? If it's 40,000 out of 1 million, that's, that's less than 1%, I believe. So
this, this is, uh, it's coming, um, I will say the only other time I think this was attempted was in 1987, 6 years after the passage of Act 26 of 1981, and it was to put a floor in at 25% at the county level if that would have passed in 1987, I don't think we'd be here today, but it didn't, so we just
continued to drop. So with that, I'll be glad to take any questions if they will of the committee. If your,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:19:37
your closed, so we're gonna, I'm gonna have to ask for a motion and then if we get if we get
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:19:41
that, then we'll have some discussion. So we appreciate your explanation. So do we have a motion, Senator Boyd, you, you, you move what do pass? Well, I know that we have questions. I I'll make a motion. OK, Senator Hester makes a motion do pass. Do we have a second?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:20:05
have a second by Senator Petty. All right, so now we're in in discussion phase. So. Uh,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:20:12
who wants to ask Senator Bryant a question first. OK, Senator Boyd,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:18
you recognize, sir? So Senator Brown, I'm, I'm struggling with Are the cities and counties pitted against each other more today or the cities and counties pitted against one another more if we pass this. Can you, you've thought about this a lot more
than I am, but that's what my city director is telling me is this is going to cause the cities and counties to be pitted against one another, but I'm
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:20:45
not sure they're not already. Yeah, I would say just looking and I've crunched the numbers of of all 75 counties. There's one county that does not have a county sales tax. I think it's murder. County. They do not have this problem. They do not have a
tax, but of the counties I looked at that are balanced. Some are just recently imbalanced. And so I, I think what the answer would be is status quo
typically generates the least controversy. Does that
mean that your county judge in Sebastian County, that is probably one of the most upside down if they have other sources of revenue, which I didn't look to see if Sebastian County, I don't believe they do, but I believe Crawford County does has an additional county tax that may supplement. There may not be a need for Crawford County to have that conversation even though they have an imbalance on their books, um, Washington County that they have
an additional 25 cent sales tax that they passed in the late 90s. to offset their jail needs, so while the
court may like to look at that revenue, um, they don't have the need that other counties have because they have, they have that balance corrected through other taxes that they were able to produce 25 years ago. So in looking at Sebastian County, Uh, it's probably a status quo
issue, but the more knowledge people have about the intent of the legislation passed in 1981 and the avenues they have to
abolish their tax or that the voters have. I know Sebastian County has several groups that are eager to lower taxes and maybe just watching this testimony they can get 15% of the electorate that voted in the last county clerks. Tab And submit that to quote unquote. The court will have no choice to put it on the ballot, and then The city of Fort Smith will just have to suffer that consequence. And so that, that is my fear is if that happens that will create
more tension than they spill passes and the the ask is to come to the table and just have a conversation about what we can do to meet those needs of the county, but still not hurt the city. If that answers your
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:22:54
question. Yeah OK, now I'm letting Senator Bryant do this because I feel that. At least 5 of y'all wanted
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:23:00
to get a little clarification, so that's what our agreement was, so I don't want somebody to come back and say, hey, you didn't do that right. OK. That was that it?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:23:13
OK, Senator Hammer, thank you. I wanna Want
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:18
you to clarify, I think what you said in your closing statement. What did you say as far as the bond, the money being able to be used now or the current structure being able to be used now, uh, for the purpose of supporting the bonds or paying back the bonds. What do you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:33
say about that? So, so what what the bill contemplates is is a new tax. I believe Senator Petty, maybe,
maybe yourself, Senator Hammers said that it contemplates a new tax, so if there is a city that bonds on
this, which in all my research there was not a city that bonded this specific tax. They use other, other revenues. Then the current tax that's being collected still satisfies that bond. And so when you look at what bond council wrote and that's what they're dedicating, that's the provision that goes into our fund. It does what it needs to do. If the allocation occurred to change it. It would be the interlocal agreement. That would change. That would change where that
bond revenue got shifted to and the bond council would would know that and understand that and how to do it now if If this if the city if they agreed, you go ahead and have all the tax and that or the allocation changed to a certain point, then there would be no provision for the cities to bond this money. So it's only a new tax that the city could not bond it, but
they have other bonding sources, OK, and If If they
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:24:43
have a bond just speculating that they have a
bond now that this would affect. That tax would continue to have to be collected even if the voters voted something different because that money is obligated to that bond at which time when the bond is satisfied, then It would change, yes, I would say if,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:04
if money is already bonded on this, that when When that interlocal agreement happens again, they figure out a way to satisfy that bond. OK. Because if a new boat
happens, nothing changes with the current tax until the bond
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:21
is satisfied. So even if they voted. To change the tax structure. I want to say that you. Broad terminology. What was already obligated to pay that bond would continue to have to be collected until that bond was paid off in spite of what this bill does if passed, yes. But you're saying to your knowledge based on your research, there's none that have this. have
The portion of the tax that's in this obligated for bonds right
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:53
now. Yes, in my research I've talked to bond councils and the treasury, and they didn't have any
records of the for this statute being utilized for this Act, Act 26 of 1981
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:26:05
being utilized for bond. So would it be accurate to say that this is preventing that from happening without an intergovernmental forced conversation before it happens. Is that, would that be? Correct interpretation or not.
Restate if you would. Well, because there's no bonding, there's no nothing. Bonded against the way it's currently structured, what you're saying. If there was, you missed something there is. And this passes they vote, it gets changed. That would still have to be, that would still have to go be collected and couldn't be reduced or changed until that bond debt was satisfied. I would say the bond counsel, if that, if
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:45
there was one out there, bond council would throw a flag on
the play, and there could not be any movement forward until that bond is rectified, OK. Hey members, we've been going an
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:26:57
hour and a half, I mean, but we want to do a full vetting. Any, anything else on this? OK, we have a, we have a, we already have a motion on the floor of do pass. We have a motion of second.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:27:07
All in favor say aye. Any oppose. Do a roll call. I can't, I can't
Speaker 5
1:27:22
determine that there was 5, and I want, I want to
Speaker 233
1:27:31
do that the right way. I hate that if I.
Speaker 234
1:27:41
Let me know when you're ready. All right. She dismay. So this may not voting. So to Caldwell. Senator Carwes know send to Hester. Senator Hesters, yes. Senator Hammer, Senator Hammer is yes. Senator Boyd.
Senator Boyd, not voting. Senator Petty. Sherry Petty is yes. Senator Crow, Senator Crow
Speaker 186
1:28:04
not voting. The motion fails. Thank you, Senator
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:28:11
Bryant, and we appreciate you all that came for this. OK, Senator Bright, did you want to do 131 because you were, you were, you were
next in line with that particular one. So you want to do it? I, I hate that you've got to go back to back on that, but OK.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:28:37
So right now SB 131 by
Speaker 238
1:28:52
Senator Bryant. You got one person speaking
against one person. Is that the
Speaker 241
1:29:00
only one that's on there, or is there another one I can't. 1313 OK.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:29:31
131. No, you're, you're good. Take your time, Senator Bryant. Well, like I say, I hated you even went back to back on those.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I recognized? Yes, sir. Just introduce
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:30:22
yourself again. Joshua Bryant Senate District 32.
Yeah, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Senate Bill 131 is it actually
came to me through 3 different constituents going through an issue with their property taxes up in Benton County, making it to the level of the local courts before being handed back down just based on improper venue or other um items that the the court did have.
An attempt at at a ruling, but because they didn't go through Board of Equalization or have other processes met. They felt that the court felt that needed to push it back down. So the issue is and the reason for the bill is an act to confirm the law of property tax relief as related to persons 65 and older just or disabled in accordance with Act 79 of the of the of the state constitution. Um, if you remember, Amendment 79 I apologize. Amendment 79
deals with property taxes. It puts the caps at 5% on personally owned property as a homestead, or 10% on all other property to include commercial property. The issue originally at hand was The, the act contemplated that if an individual was disabled and therefore their property taxes were to be frozen. That if somebody came in that is also Disabled that they would enjoy
the benefits of the freeze of the prior disabled person. And that is under D1C if a person disabled or 65 years and owns a homestead uses the principal place of residence, uh, the homestead shall be assessed based on the lower of the assessed value as of January 1st, 2001, or a later assessed value, so the lower value is the frozen value. Because that's what is enjoyed. At some point, General Assembly
put in code, which is part of, part of what is struck in on page 2, line 2, I apologize. It starts on page 1 line 35, B1, when a disabled person or persons of 65 years of age or older sells his or her real property, the purchaser shall not be entitled to claim any reduction to the person, to the real properties assessed value. Uh, in my interpretation, and I hope this committee's interpretation that is in conflict with Amendment 79's
intent was. Because in the mid-nineties when this passed, I don't think we saw the property fluctuations as we do today. Typically you see, you know, 4 to 7% on a good year of a property increase. And so it it would make sense to the authors of the amendment and the voters that approved it, that let's give a some relief to a disabled person or a person over 65 on their property taxes and freeze them and then commit that to the next person if they also have uh
They are also of that same category as disabled or over 65. The rest of the bill, I kind of as I researched this, contemplated that I believe the legislature has allowed disasters or the assessors have asked the legislature to go beyond the scope of Amendment 79 and take the values up beyond the intent of Amendment 79. And so there was section 2 of the bill contemplates what a, what I believe amendment meant. 79 says and just says, hey,
refer back to Amendment 79 instead of what the statute says, which Amendment 79 says a homestead used as a taxpayer's principal place of residence purchased or constructed on or after January 2001. I apologize in the wrong section. Except as provided for in section D, which is the discussion about the disabled or over 65. If the parcel is a taxpayer's homestead used as the
principal place of residence, then the first assessment
following the appraisal, any increase of assess the value shall be limited
to not more than 5% of the assessed value for the previous year, meaning the assessment year. In each year thereafter, the
assess value shall increase by an additional 5% of the assessed value of the parcel for the year prior to the first assessment that resulted but shall not exceed the excess values determined by reappraisal.
So what, what is happening is they're having these as you own your home and you're paying 5%,
5%, 5% when you sell your home by the existing law. They're assessing the real property at its full market value, unadjusted for any assessment limitations required by a constitution Amendment 79, so. The way I read this, and I think the way the courts have proposed, if they could get through the entire process is Amendment 79 allows that person as to take advantage of the purchase of the assessment at the date of purchase, not waiting beyond as this
As the language I struck at the next assessment date on the data transfer. So what assessors are doing is they're waiting until the next year after you purchase it, they're going to that 20% of taxable value, uh, assessed value to create a taxable value, and that's the new rate. Which is why whenever you go purchase a house and you ask the seller, how much are your taxes, and they say they're 2500 typically I think by what Amendment 79 is saying is you could count on that going up to
5% of that. But what they're doing is they're going all the way up to the back to the full value and then taking 20% of that, so you're seeing those taxes on purchase price go from 2500 potentially up to 6000. And so while it's enjoying a boon in property taxes, I believe that's beyond the scope of Amendment 79, so that is the reason for the bill and the discussion, and I'll be glad to take any questions. Senator Hester, I'm sure there was a real-life
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:36:37
situation. Right, that brought this to your attention. Can you give me without names or can you just tell me about that? Uh,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:36:45
yeah, in 20, I believe it was 2020 constituent purchased a property. Um, and You know, you have an expectation that
your taxes are going to be something, and I think he was not going to be a Totally surprised if they went up more than because nobody really understands what our property tax law is. They get the bill, their jaw drops, they
pay it, they mumble another breath and then they may or may not ask questions. Will this individual, since it was after the 2nd assessment, he actually got caught up in a reappraisal, which means his taxes, they didn't just go up a little bit, they went up a lot. And so he went um talked to the assessor about it. Sorry, that's the law. He got counsel. They filed a lawsuit. The judge in the order kind of
favored his his ask, but because he did not follow the process of going through the equalization board and doing that process, he could not really hear the case. Subsequently, I believe the assessor looked to see where a good common ground was to satisfy the homeowner and they worked through that issue, I believe, um, but I recently learned that another case actually um allowed an injunction on Benton County by itself to stop doing. certain practices regarding the
65 and older, and so there is movement through the courts of trying to address this issue. I just thought as a legislature we might want to address it here.
Speaker 61
1:38:26
Any other questions? By the committee OK, I think we have, let me look at this. These are all mixed up. This is 131. OK, Lindsey French, you're
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:38:34
here, are you here, you're here to speak against the bill. Is she the only one?
Speaker 213
1:38:43
Well, they don't know stage. If you want me to
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:39:03
stay or go. You can stay. If you'd recognize yourself. Lindsey French Association of Arkansas Counties.
Chair
Unverified
1:39:06
Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, Full disclosure, we've been talking with Senator Brown about
this bill since pretty much the day it was filed, he knows that the assessors association and the Association of Counties are opposed to this bill, and we have had some back and forth um providing suggested language that we think we could live with, and we just never could get to an agreement, and that's OK. Um, there was a Benton County ruling that he mentioned that did get overturned by the Supreme Court, and since then there was another case in Benton County where The elected judge, the first one
was a special appointed judge where the elected judge in Benton County actually did make some concessions that waiting until the next assessment date was probably not consistent with Amendment 79. And so the assessors have proposed language that was not accepted. But I still think it's on this bill that would be a proper remedy of not waiting until that next assessment date, cutting that language out of the statute and saying that the property
shall be valued at the lower of the previous assessment date or the next assessment date, so you're getting that. Value as of the date of purchase. What's happening right now due to a lack of transparency at the point of sale. People are buying homes and it's Pretty Concentrated up in northwest Arkansas where the massive growth is. Other counties have said they've not had issues.
At the point of sale, say I am 65 years old. And I buy property from someone who is 85. Their property was frozen at the value 20 years ago. What my realtor shows me is what those people pay in taxes. So when I buy the property from them under Amendment 79, it goes back up to the assessed value at the time of purchase. That's a sticker shock that that person was not anticipating. The part that I agree with Senator Bryant on is with the language and their weight until
the next assessment date. If it goes up again at that next assessment date, that's what we're calling a double whammy. That is unfair and and we were willing to Address legislation that that would fix that. One minute. OK. One minute. OK, um. Under this bill as written, it would not only have a disabled to a disabled freeze, so if I'm my age right now, not 65 years old, and I buy from someone who
is 65 and older or that 85-year-old who got it frozen 20 years ago. Me and able-bodied, not 65 year old would also be entitled to that freeze. Not only then, it would never go up more than 5%, even if it was sold the way this bill is drafted, it would never go back up to market value, and it doesn't matter who the purchaser is. and whether or not they are entitled to a 65 over a disabled freeze. And that's all I have. Senator, dismay, you're recognized, sir. I think I was
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:42:22
reading it the same way. One thing I don't, I mean, and maybe this will be
for you later just to address, but. I mean that's on the realtor. I mean, I, I, I mean if a realtor. Can't look at what the valuation is by the county and relate back that, hey, you're purchasing it for 5 times the value that's, you know, represented here, then that's on the realtor and in some degree
the buyer too, would you agree? I
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:42:48
mean, yes, I would agree and I'm glad you brought that up because Senator Robin Lundstrom
has a bill over in House Insurance and commerce
Chair
Unverified
1:42:55
today that would require the realtor at the time of sale to disclose what the actual assessed value is, rather than just what the previous taxpayer and the assessors support that bill and one of the things I want to make
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:43:07
sure I understand, so you're saying, uh, walk me through the devil whammy again. So that was a
great show, but it was, if I'm under someone buys a property for $100 and it was valued at $50 before that. I mean, the new assessed value is the sale price. That's the most
accurate way to value a property is what it's sold for. And so if that's the case. What what is, so then it's getting reassessed for higher than the 100 in the
Chair
Unverified
1:43:38
next year. So the way I don't, yeah, that's what I understand is written right now and I'm, I'm
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:43:45
not sure if that part is in. Yes, OK, so
Speaker 268
1:43:48
page 2, line 11. Well, 12. No. Yes, uh.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:43:58
Page 2, line 11, um, it shall be assessed at 20% of the appraised value at the next assessment date on the
Chair
Unverified
1:44:05
day, on or after the date of transfer. So he has stricken that at the next assessment date, which Assessors would agree with and think that that's the right thing to do. What's happening right
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:44:17
now? Someone buys a property. And then it, and then it has the ability to be reassessed. Shortly thereafter at a much higher value than what was actually the ability to be, it is required to be.
But how much could a piece of property jump if it
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:44:34
had just recently sold. Very often and a majority of cases, not much, but with the crazy exponential growth in
Chair
Unverified
1:44:40
Northwest, the it was a pretty substantial increase there. I think that has already started evening itself out as markets tend to do. I mean, then I would understand that. OK,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:44:51
all right. Again, we offered that that solution too.
Speaker 118
1:45:01
OK. Any other questions? From the members We appreciate you being here.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:45:07
OK, is there anybody else from the audience who wants to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill. You want to close, Senator
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:45:21
Bryant. I will. I would just say I, I think the language, that's why I put in there just to be consistent with Amendment 79 to allow. What they, what they would agree
if they're doing is probably a little beyond the scope of Amendment 79 to take effect, which is why I just wanted to leave it Amendment 79 if they feel it goes beyond that this language will allow the courts to further decide that, but with that I'll close. OK. Thank you. Now, members, we're going to go back to the way
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:45:46
we always do it. We're gonna ask for, is there a motion on the bill? And we have a motion by Senator Petty.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:45:52
We have a second. Do we have a second?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:46:04
does for lack of a thank you, thank you, Senator Bryant. Next is going to be
Senate Bill 408. Senator Blake Johnson That's a question. Yes, sir. I, I wanted to do
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:46:31
this a little bit earlier in the beginning. We kind of got
rolling on uh hold on just a second. Yes, sir, just as a, there's a number of bills on this list. Penzo's bill, for instance, Senate Bill 7, I think it's been on this since every day we've been here. Uh, every time we've met, and he's never been here, I think I can't remember, we may have heard it once and it failed or pulled it down. I don't know, but it's remained on, and I don't know if people are showing up for that or not showing up for that. But it, at some point just so we know because we're getting the final days.
Is it possible that we have those that are looking to run bills, let us know or let the chair know that they're going to run a bill. In committee so that other people in the audience don't have to keep wondering if this is coming up or it's not coming up. I'm not even saying anyone's interested in Senator Benzo's bill, but just as an example. I'll
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:47:24
have, I'll have staff that anyone that's on the active agenda. It's anyone that's on the active agenda that they contact them and just see if there it's going to be their intention to run it between now and uh, uh, whenever
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:47:39
we sign he die and and then I could just got up a request for the committee or something to think about and we don't have to have an answer now, but I have a bill that Senate Bill 605. It's the, we was filed yesterday. It has to do with creating an excise tax on Delta 8 related type products. There is an undeterminable revenue impact on that, and that's what DFA is going. to come and say Uh, but it still takes time to create a green sheet for that. They may or may not have one by the time it gets to present, but it is on the deferred list. I thought it would have been on
the active list because there's no negative revenue impact. What is the plan for the committee is coming back and hearing some of
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:48:18
these bills like that the one in your particular case is not going to have a negative state revenue tax, it would have a positive one, which is a
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:48:25
little out of the ordinary from anything else we we may have on here, uh. at the will of the committee, I'm more than happy to put one on that of course that has the positive revenue impact. What we're not putting on is the ones that have a negative state
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:48:41
revenue impact, uh, you know, we'd have to have some discussion amongst the majority of the committee members legislature and and and Senator Hester is pro team. Well, I'd like to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:48:52
Move then to put Senate Bill 605 on the regular agenda, I guess for the next time that we meet. OK, do you
mind if I get Senator Johnson, I apologize. We're just going right, do you mind if I get D
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:49:12
and DFNA down here, not that I'm disputing what you say. I I get on
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:49:16
record that was kind of my plan was verbally state it and we can get a green sheet between now and when it's moving.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:49:22
Paul, do you, do you mind on that particular bill or I don't know if you were following us, but if you don't mind, would you just come down and we want to, uh, if you would just say that it'd be undetermined. The main thing that I'm gonna ask you whenever you get there is that it's not going to have a uh which I don't know how it
could, it's not going to have a negative. State revenue impact.
And that would be on what's that
Speaker 281
1:49:50
Senate bill. 605605. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, we have reviewed Senate Bill 605. We are working on a fiscal impact statement for that bill. We DFA can say that there will be no negative negative impact on state revenues. There will be an implementation cost for programming for having a new tax to administer in terms of providing a fiscal impact for the potential tax collections on
this new tax. It very well likely will be indeterminate. We'll just have to figure out if there's going to be any type of national data on this particular product, but it's entirely possible that the green sheet when we issue it will have undetermined increase in this
Speaker 283
1:50:26
type of revenue being collected. Sure, and Senator Dismay, if you want to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:50:30
make that motion, that's fine, but I'm willing to chair just to put it on because my, my whole thing has been that if
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:50:36
it has a negative GR impact and I think it's pretty obvious that that one won't. It's just the first one we've seen that way.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:50:45
Most of this committee was there for the conversation on. So and, and I agree with you on. From a macro standpoint, I had to see
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:50:53
the bill, but OK. uh, Mr. Gering, we appreciate you coming down just for that. Would you like to stay with for Senator Johnson. I can certainly say for the 408. If you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:51:06
don't mind, Senator Johnson, just recognize yourself and you're going to be doing a Senate Bill 408, right? 408.
Chair
Unverified
1:51:17
Your Senator Blake Johnson District 21. You're recognized,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:51:22
sir. Alright guys, uh, Yeah Mr. Geering, if you would go ahead and introduce yourself
Speaker 289
1:51:32
since you're going to be talking obviously. Thank you,
Speaker 291
1:51:34
Mr. Chair Paul Gehring, DFA. OK, Senator Johnson, 2020 last last farming year was, was not good. For real crop farmers and the federal government has recognized that and this bill
will provide income tax relief in in Arkansas farmers for these these economic aid and disaster payments. Uh, economic aid and disaster payments are under that one act and the economic aid will come in 2025, and most likely disaster payments won't won't be until 26, and this bill
scored one way and all that uh Mr. Gering talked about the scoring and how this how this was scored with zero impact. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 280
1:52:28
Mr. Chair, and this, this bill provides for an exemption for certain economic payments for agriculture. It is a unique method that we provided a fiscal impact for the bill because we issued a fiscal impact stating that this bill is budget neutral. These types of payments. This is recently
enacted legislation from Congress that provides these relief payments to farmers. These payments were not accounted for in our proposed budget and our forecast, so as in the fiscal impact if the if the bill were to
Speaker 281
1:53:02
not pass, we noted that there would be an increased collections in income tax from our farmers. that are going to receive
Speaker 280
1:53:12
these payments, but for purposes of the fiscal because it was not accounted for in the forecasts we provided a budget neutral um
Speaker 281
1:53:22
fiscal impact for the spill. We're happy to answer any questions. OK.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:53:27
Members, anybody have any questions, Mr. Garing? And the reason we went ahead and put this on is we we
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:53:34
viewed this or I viewed this much as the same as a new business is coming here and us giving a tax credit. It may be a lost opportunity, but it's not an impact on our current GR number, so that's the the reason it's on here is
Speaker 291
1:53:48
just so and remembers this, this is, you know, the 2024 was actually
the growing season and a lot of the income, you know, would come in in 25, but, but I'll tell you. Whatever was bad in 2024, the prices are, are lower at this time, so I don't know if they will put it into this packet, but I cannot see a relief back not coming in 2026, similar, similar to this, and hopefully, you know, it'll come in the same
bill and we'll be OK with uh with that and I just, I can't predict the future because, you know, it's the same way with planting, but, but this year right now is worse than last year before I
Speaker 285
1:54:38
ever put anything in the ground, but I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator. Johnson let me
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:54:44
ask this. Anybody from the audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone, anyone want to speak against the bill? You closed Senator Johnson, Senator Johnson's clothes have a
motion by Senator Boyd. Do we have a second? We have a second by
Senator Caldwell. Is there any discussion amongst the committee members. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Any oppose that bill passed and
you want to go ahead and do your other one while you're sitting there. You need Mr. Garing
Speaker 291
1:55:13
on that one too, correct? I don't mind if Mr. Geering stays up here. It's what's that's 5529. OK. Senate Bill 529.
You recognized Blake Johnson District 21 Senator District 21. Senators, we passed this bill to 2 sessions ago. It's been implemented. This is the independent Tax Appeals Commission and, and this is cleanup language to get rid of some of that implementation language and also create a small claims division in, in, in that that. Those claims that are under $10,000 a lot of these claims
are, are Uh Licensing licensing claims and that sort of thing. That's that's that's the cleanup bill though. I apologize. I it's so late, but I, I didn't get it from the, from the Inspector General's office until like last week or week before last, so. And I believe that uh the thing is, members, you do not
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:56:20
see a green sheet on this. I've asked Mr. Greening to come down. They're doing a great job on trying to get all these physical
impacts they're coming to them left and right, and they're trying to be, uh, very adequate, but on this particular one, although you haven't had time to prepare it, would you state what y'all the way that you know this one's
Speaker 281
1:56:43
gonna come in. Yes sir, Mr. Chair, Paul Gehing with DFA. This
Speaker 280
1:56:47
Senate Bill 529 addresses the processes and procedures that are available under the Senate Tax Appeals Commission Act. There is no change to a tax
Speaker 281
1:56:54
that's levied, whether by or any benefit for an exemption or a
Speaker 280
1:56:59
credit, so there would not be any fiscal impact to the to the state revenues within this bill. It's purely procedural in nature.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:57:09
OK. Any of the members of having questions to Senator Johnson, Senator Dimay you recognized and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:57:15
it may be for DFA in some ways we've had some conversations about that. There's kind of an initial punting
to the to the commission right now tax bills commission. Kind of bypassing conversations that maybe have had occurred, you know, at the DFA level in
the past. That's one of the things we're looking to reconcile, or I think y'all are looking to reconcile us having a little bit more communication with the taxpayer
up front for its automatically goes to the peels. Does this small claim provision impact That
Speaker 280
1:57:46
in any way, uh, no, Senator Dima, what essentially would be was that the tax appeals commission could develop,
Speaker 281
1:57:51
develop a small claims process by by rule. What you have right now in current law is that when DFA issues the notice of proposed assessment or a
denial of a refund claim. The taxpayer has a 90 day window in order to file a petition during that 90 day period, the taxpayer is can reach out to us and resolve the matter if possible without having to file the. um, and that does not involve any of our need to have an attorney involved with the matter. Once the petition is filed, then it is a matter that our attorneys will handle, but that dialogue will continue to be able to take place in order to resolve the matter. The vast majority of our cases, I
believe, over 80% are resolved without the need for a hearing. So we will continue that this new small claims process would would involve um of course it'll be promulgated by by the Inspector General's office through the Tax Appeals Commission, but certainly there will always be an opportunity for taxpayers to resolve the matter without the need for a, a pleading intensive process for in order to get to a resolution matter so it can be presented to a commissioner for a decision if a hearing is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:59:03
actually necessary, but y'all are going to Kind of resttra stayed in your forms that that avenue is available because the way that it reads right now when someone gets a proposed assessment, it would read as though your only option is to go to the tax appeals, you're going to have some language added to those proposed assessments that say, you know, here's a
number to contact to reconcile this issue if you're not contacted in 90 days, etc. Yes sir, we're certainly working on
Speaker 292
1:59:31
that issue. It does require programming in
the system to get our letters. and they
Speaker 281
1:59:36
all have to be consistent with the language of the Tax Procedure Act, but absolutely we don't want a taxpayer to feel like this is their only option, but if they do want to appeal, they do have those statutory 90 day period to submit an appeal, so we don't want to create a false sense of security that um so that they missed their deadline. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? I guess I have one. I don't
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:59:59
know if it's stiff, but I don't know
if DNA would be appropriate. I do notice that we're not that we changed
this to have at least 5 years of experience. I can't remember how long these people serve. We don't think that we're going to have any, any, I, I think it's a good
Speaker 288
2:00:19
idea. Are we're going to have any problem getting people to do it. Well, that is the problem. That's
Speaker 291
2:00:25
why the flexibility flexibility is there for the governor to be able to appoint somebody with that kind of expertise, because it's a
limited scope and in the, in the view of the thing, you're trying to get somebody to serve that this bill also allows the salary not to be adjusted by the district court judges because I mean, but uh that's, that is an issue is
Chair
Unverified
2:00:54
meeting those all those qualifications and given flexibility to the executive. OK. Thank you, Senator
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:01:01
Johnson. Any other questions of Senator Johnson, Mr. Garing, anything? OK, anybody from the audience
want to speak for the bill, you want to speak against the bill. You close Senator Johnson. Yes sir, I'm Senator Boyd moves to
pass, I assume. Second by Senator Petty, any discussion amongst the committee, all in favor say aye. Any oppose? Congratulations. OK, next one is House Bill
1274 Representative Warren. I'm sorry that you had to wait, sir, but The way it is.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:01:38
You, you're red. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I hope to give you your easiest meal of the day, uh, House Bill 1274 requires a county collector to respond within 3 business days to request from a person or entity facilitating the closing of a real estate transaction for real estate property taxes, and any related personal property taxes owed by the owner of the real property being conveyed. If the county collector fails to respond.
To that request within 3 business days, the collector must accept the payment of the real estate taxes. Do you without requiring payment of any related personal property taxes. what's happened. Did you recognize
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:02:25
yourself? I'm sorry, Les Warren. We all know you, but maybe some, we need
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:02:30
less Warren District 84. All right, and you are doing 1274 and you've already started, which is bad. No, we
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:02:36
just want to get it all in there correctly. So that's my fault. Go ahead.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:02:43
And uh we've worked with the uh tax collector leadership group and the Arkansas Association of Counties on this. Everybody's in agreement. What's happened is we'd have a transaction that would be closed and then the county would send the real estate check tax check back saying this is an acceptable personal property taxes were do everybody's already closed and gone on their way. The the mortgage is not allowed to be filed. The deeds allowed to be filed.
Everything is messed up and so all we're doing is codifying that. We make a request for what the real estate taxes are. In 3 days, the tax collector says, here they are, plus personal taxes or do you We pay those if we're not if we're given the information, if not, they have to accept the real estate taxes by themselves. Any questions, Senator, dismay.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:03:41
I would, I mean, and I've contended for a while that the
notion that we can require the collection of property tax payments at the time of collection of real estate taxes is probably unconstitutional because those are typically very different entities and I know that there are assessors and collectors, not many, in parts of the state that are tying those things together, and that is a problem, um, and then, and so the only, I mean, and I hope we're not doubling down on anything with this, but that's Again, those are I don't believe it's constitutional to property taxes and real property together, uh.
I don't think this and I mean it create it short circuits some of that for some entities that are trying to do it,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:04:30
but I'm fine with what you have going on. That's, he's fine with what you got going
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:04:37
there. Representative Hon. Yes sir, we understand. I think it's probably uh it's just may have a point there, of course, from your standpoint, you still have a cloud on the title, uh, I assume so, yeah, it's a, it's kind of a practice deal and and
I agree it's hard to, hard to maneuver. Senator, it's somebody else over
here say something. OK, any other questions of Representative Warren. Anybody in the audience want to speak for this? How about against it? You close. Senator Dimayer before we
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:05:07
close, I mean, I do think someone from the Association County probably needs to have a little bit of discussion how they plan on utilizing this association of counties want to speak.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:05:28
Congratulations, Mr. Curtis. Just when you get down there, just recognize yourself.
Speaker 311
2:05:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, uh, yeah, so this probably I'm sorry Josh Curtis Association of Counties. Uh, we've been talking with the title companies for a long time about this issue where they think they've collected all the taxes that needs to be collected, um, however, there may be certain instances where that's not the case and the collector comes back and says,
you actually owe this amount. So this way the title companies can talk directly with, uh, the counties and get. actual certified amount and whether that's right or wrong, that's all that the title companies are going to be on the hook for.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:06:13
dismay. OK And, and so again, I'll go back
to, I mean these are separate entities, these are separate taxes and the commingling of personal property taxes and real property taxes, you know, I don't believe it's constitutional and maybe it's
just right for challenge is this impact that or solidify that joining of those two
things together in any way. I mean, it's in
Speaker 311
2:06:37
law that we can collect them at the time that you can collect that we can collect, uh, so I would say the reason behind that is people move, you want to collect their personal taxes at the time they move. So that's the reason I think previous legislators have allowed this under the law, but some of
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:06:54
the collectors have tried to say that delinquent personal property taxes on someone that no longer even owns
that property, so it's moved through a chain before would have to be paid before the real property taxes could be paid by someone else. That actually is in the ownership of the property, so they're, they're tying like you would uh delinquent sales taxes, for instance, to a business on the real property that
business for that business can sell, which again I think is an issue. Hopefully it's one that y'all can reconcile with, uh, because I, I don't, I don't think it's appropriate. But thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator about this man. Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Curtis?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:07:33
Appreciate you coming down. OK, I'm a little off. I'm sorry. Uh, I think I already asked anybody want to speak for, anybody want to speak against.
There wasn't any. So do you want to close. You are closed. I am closed. All right. Do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Hester do pass seconded by Senator Boyd, all in favor say aye.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:07:57
And oppose if you had any discussion, you just missed it. I didn't recall that, so that
will pass. Appreciate you being here. Sorry for your wait. OK, members, uh, next one is SB 494. Senator Bryant, you want to do that one? Senate Bill
494. And if you are just both would recognize yourselves so we can get that out of the way. Thank you, Mr. Joshua
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:08:32
Bryant, Senate District 32. And Cameron Coker, a staff
Speaker 323
2:08:37
attorney for Arkansas Tobacco Control. Good
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:08:39
to have you here. Thank you. Yes sir. You're recognized Senator Bryant. Thank you. These, uh, Senate Bill 494 subsequently the next one to our uh agency bills on the ATC requesting some changes within the code. The first one, Senate Bill 494, just uh reduces uh or consolidates the permits, and I'll just let the ATC
explain the reason for it and what the benefit to it. Yes, sir. Thank you. So
Speaker 324
2:09:08
currently Arkansas Tobacco Control issues wholesale permits,
Speaker 325
2:09:11
retail permits, manufacturer's permits for the sale of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine and e-liquid products. There are currently 3 manufacturers' permits in our code that we are allowed to issue all three of them cost $500. The difference between the three is one is for uh manufacturers of vape and e-liquid products. One is for
the manufacturers of tobacco and alternative nicotine products, and then one is for the manufacturer of cigarettes only. This bill simply consolidates all three permits into one to cover all of the products that tobacco control regulates. It doesn't change the cost of any of the permit fees. It would still be $500 annual fee for the consolidation manufacturer's permit. Important to note it does not affect our
retail permits in any way or wholesale permits. Those are untouched by this bill. The second thing this bill does is it eliminates the vapor product and e-liquid product exclusive permit that permit currently allows the permit holder to act as both a retailer, a wholesaler, and a manufacturer that runs into issues with the current law, which In our three-tier system, it's the law states that a wholesaler cannot also be a manufacturer,
so that bill kind of contradicts or that that law kind of contradicts. 3 tier system that we have for tobacco for tobacco permits in Arkansas, so we this bill eliminates that permit. The permit fee for that is $1000. There's currently only one permit holder of that permit at present they're located out of state, and under the definition of our three-tier system as well to be a retailer in Arkansas,
you have to, you have to sell over the counter with a physical presence here in the states, so located out of state, they can't even act as a retailer, so that bill eliminates that permit and that's the reason for the bill. The reason for the bill is to consolidate these permits into into the manufacturer's permits into one and to eliminate the permit that Allow someone to act as a manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer outside of our
Speaker 326
2:11:43
three-tier system, so if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:11:47
I dread, I hate asking this, the one that's going to be eliminated that's out of state, uh. So we had issued a
Speaker 326
2:11:59
permit. Yes, sir, that permit has been that was issued was issued before my time with the agency, so I can't speak as to the reasons why, but it has you tell me that permit should not have been issued. I would say now that that permit probably should not have been issued. Yes, under the current
Speaker 325
2:12:15
statute or well, the Under the current statute, it is allowable, but under the current statute, it shouldn't have been issued, I believe, because they couldn't meet the definition of also being a retailer. One of the requirements is you have to meet all three definitions of being a wholesaler, a manufacturer, and a retailer, but that's where we run into the problem because a wholesaler cannot also be a manufacturer and a retailer also has to have it in-state presence selling products over the counter. Does
Speaker 328
2:12:42
that particular individual know about this or not? We've
Speaker 329
2:12:45
not received communication from that individual. You haven't given y'all haven't given them
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:12:49
information either though I assume, right? You haven't told them that they're going
to be eliminated from that because of because they would be because of what we're doing here is what
Speaker 325
2:13:02
you're saying we have not communicated that to them. However, they are a manufacturing company of vapor products in Colorado and um we um They're more than welcome to get this new this manufacturer's permit that is the primary
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:15
source of their business. I think the appropriate thing would be to to at least put them on notice since we
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:21
know it's just one, so that would be my. Suggestion that there's been a change in the law if they don't know it,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:33
so OK, OK. Any, uh, do you have anything else? OK. Members have
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:37
any questions? Anyone from the audience will speak for this. You wouldn't want to speak against this.
Are you close, Senator Bryant? OK. What's the will of the committee is moved passed by Senator Boyd. We have a 2nd, seconded by Senator Petty. Any
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:54
discussion? All the papers say ah. Any oppose? That carries, I appreciate
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:58
you being here. Thank you. Um, is it on, let me see where we're at. Yes,
it's next in line. The Senate Bill 495. Thank you, Senator Joshua Bryant's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:09
Senate District 32. Cameron Coker, a staff attorney for Arkansas Tobacco Control.
Y'all recognize committee. Senate bill 495 as a requirement to put the ATC permit number and the permitted physical address of the buyer and seller on the invoice and then it also addresses the invoice price for our tobacco loss, and with that I'll turn it to ATC for further explanation. Thank
Speaker 322
2:14:35
you, sir, and the The reason for this is under current law,
Speaker 325
2:14:39
all of our permit holders, retailers, permit holders are required to buy from permitted sources, wholesalers,
um, and the same thing applies for wholesalers. They're required to sell only to permitted retailers through us. The issue that we've run into is that we have several retailers who are being approached by wholesalers who are not permitted with us, whether they're from out of state or not, and they are presenting to them that they are permitted and They are selling to them and our retailers are Facing administrative penalties because of this. So the goal of
this bill is to require certain information to appear on invoices for when our agents go and check these locations as part of their inspections. It would require both the buyer and the seller of the transaction to include their tobacco control permit number on the invoices as well as the physical locations that they're permitted at. Um, we feel that this is a good way to protect our retailers from possibly being lured into illegal transactions from unpermitted sources, unpermitted
wholesalers from out of state by requiring the seller or the wholesaler to include their permit number and also protects the wholesaler as well so that they know that they're selling to a permanent retail location and also does another another protection of protecting our permitted wholesalers. It protects their business. From out of state players who are trying to influence and trying to illegally sell into the state and hurt are permitted wholesaler's business. The second thing that this bill does.
is it changes the definition concerning when we have large seizures of untaxed tobacco products, our auditors are tasked with calculating unpaid taxes on those products because oftentimes we seize these products when they're untaxed, whether they're from an unpermitted source or whether information cannot be provided from the person who has these products at the tax excise tax has been paid. When that happens, our auditors are attacks with tasked with
calculating the unpaid tax. They first have to look at the price on the invoice in order to calculate the unpaid excise tax on these products, however, oftentimes invoices are not available, as often the case with tobacco smuggling. So the law currently allows them to look to what the manufacturer of these tobacco products charges when they sell their products to wholesalers to calculate their unpaid tax when there's not an invoice available. Um, and it stops there. What this bill does, it allows them
because the issue we run into is when we have seizures of foreign tobacco products where the manufacturer of these products is located in a different country. We see this most commonly with seizures of shisha tobacco, which is the tobacco that goes into a hookah pipe, where that information about what the manufacturer sells these products for is just simply not available. What this bill does, it will allow our auditors in the absence of an invoice and in the absence of pricing information from the manufacturer, it'll allow them to calculate the unpaid taxes
based on what a similar wholesaler or retailer sells those products for, so we have, we have permitted wholesalers and permitted retailers that sell some of these products, and we can or or similar products even as well to see. What they pay for them and it would allow them to calculate the unpaid taxes based off those prices, OK? Any questions? Just one short. Whenever y'all are, are,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:18:17
are trying to calculate those values and things. Is that something that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:18:26
our judicial branch would use like whenever they go for a prosecution on that or for administrative.
Speaker 326
2:18:31
Proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. My question is, I assume that we've run this by
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:18:36
them, they, there's no issue with us calculating it calculating it that way so that it's based on something
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:18:42
different that would affect their prosecution. It's a Senate bill. I just, if we haven't done that, I just It, it probably would be
worth it. I would hate for somebody to say no, it wasn't the actual value and kick it out or
something of that nature. I doubt that, but I just I would hate to give somebody an out for that. So run by the prosecutors association, something of that nature, just, just, it's probably not, but just to make sure there's not an issue with it. They would have probably picked it up and called it, but, uh, I'd hate to, I'd hate to provide anybody a loophole, understood. All right. Any other questions? Anyone
from the audience want to speak for this. He will not speak against it. You're closed, I assume. Do we have a motion, Senator Boyd, motion is due to
pass. Senator Petty is a 2nd in discussion, all in favor say aye. Any opposed that that motion will carry in its past. Thank you all for being here.
Speaker 157
2:19:47
I appreciate the explanation. Oh, OK, members, uh, we are bad.
Speaker 172
2:19:57
Server. She's here. Senator Davis, you're here. SB 5:30.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:20:01
Center of history, we're going in at 1 today, OK. All right. It's gonna be, it's gonna be my intent that we will recess wherever we're at.
Hopefully we'll get through this bill. If I don't see that we're gonna get through another one, we'll recess and we'll just plan on coming back up on adjournment. It's your intent, Senator Hester, that uh to try for 5 today. So it may not be that time, but we'll be close to that. So if anybody needs to come back for other stuff, so. It'll be beef.
5 or a little bit after, probably. We'll
do that. I'll let you out. Senator Davis, you're recognized if you'll just introduce yourself and have your guests introduce theirself.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:20:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brianne Davis, state Senate District 25. I'm bred horrible,
Speaker 341
2:20:53
vice president and general manager of Arkansas Craft Division of Green Bay Packaging in Moton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:21:05
Chair. Senate Bill 530, I think there's probably been a lot of conversation with most of the members on this committee on this bill. Um, it is a more stringent version of a bill that we passed in 2021 for a wood pellet facility. The changes that we're making in this bill compared to 2021, is that we're increasing the required project amount from 50 million to 1 billion. We are decreasing the tax credit or the tax incentive percentage from 30% to 20% of the cost of equipment purchased, um, the
transferable tax credits max out at 5 million per year for a total period of 10 years and the increased job creation and retention went from 100 jobs to 400, um, and creates 40 new jobs. Uh, this project that um this bill deals with specifically is a billion dollars investment just in phase one on a 60 year old mill that will build a new recovery boiler, uh, biomass boiler and evaporator set, a turbine generator, um, and Green
Bay Packaging has been a solid community partner for 60 years now. Um, they're gonna retain 700 jobs in the area with the creation of an additional 40 jobs with the average salary being around $100,000. a year. And the turbine generator will be capable of supplying sustainable energy for up to 90% of the electrical demand of the plant and Green Bay has already partnered with local governments, including 5 county judges and Ardot to move a state highway and accommodate plant um expansion, and this was a really
big deal because other county judges were willing to take on miles of road, um, to accommodate this. They, um, own and manage over 250,000 acres of timber in Arkansas and provide free management assistance to over 900 private landowners in the state, um, compiling over 200,000 acres and impacting 32 counties in the state, so almost half of our state. Um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, do you have any questions?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:23:13
Remember, do you have any questions? OK, I'm gonna have one of DF and A, so I'm gonna ask them to come on down if you don't mind, Mr. Gering. If you just introduce yourself,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:23:39
Mr. Garing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul Gehring, DFA as you know, we at our last meeting, whenever we come in Monday morning, we had the
discussion on the on the buyback provision of these tax credits and you know, I've been very adamant with members that we're only running running bills, of course, that have a I know. Negative state GR impact, which you have that this one does not have any state GR impact. Is that correct? This bill has
Speaker 292
2:24:05
been scored to be revenue neutral. There
Speaker 281
2:24:07
is a provision that already exists in Arkansas law for these types of projects that the tax credits that are awarded
can be sold back to the state at 80% of the value and the annual amount that can be sold back is $5 million. So in case there is a project in the future, there would be the possibility that a number of tax credits would be authorized. Those credits could be sold back to the state. Maximum 5 million a year, so basically $4 million would have to be accounted for. However, the bill as it currently is, as well as already in existing law is that the if there's going to
be a project of this that would qualify, it is subject to a positive cost benefit analysis by AEDC, a requirement of to have clawback provisions in the bill as well, so we have scored this bill as revenue neutral
Speaker 290
2:24:59
for that reason. I put you on the spot too much on like I just want to make sure
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:25:06
that all of our members know that that we truly are going to have something that's that's Uh, GR neutral, uh, or, or on this thing, whenever you're calculating the cost benefit
analysis back on the, you know, on the buyback of these. We, it's obvious if it's obvious, of course, that if we just allow allow a company and this doesn't just focus on you, so, sir, don't don't think that, although it child Bill. So if any, uh, you know, if a company, if we don't have the buyback provision in there and, you know, they're just showing enough revenue or whatever. offset it, of course it's just lost opportunity the way we look at it. If, if in their case, you know, they've depreciated or
done, of course they're what they're able to do all their tax stuff to get it down to, you know, close to 0, we buy those back. Of course we have to either I guess credit or give them a check back for that 80% that we buy back. What factors are you taking into account. That would offset that is it sales tax or is it other taxes or do you know what was used in that, Mr. Geering?
Speaker 281
2:26:13
Also, I know that commerce might have some individuals here that can maybe speak to the process of the cost-benefit analysis. Usually
Speaker 280
2:26:20
there is a process where commerce will communicate with the department as well to. Do you all mind coming down some. In terms of the buyback for DFA's purposes, if the credits are authorized and there's a legal requirement for the taxpayer to to sell those credits
Speaker 281
2:26:37
back to us and give the state the first option, um, the state generally is going to elect to make that purchase, but certainly I'll let commerce speak to the issue about the cost benefit.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:26:51
You can pull one of those chairs up or if you
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:27:08
want to. If you just recognize yourself, sir. Clint O'Neal, executive director, AEDC. Uh, do, do you kind of know the discussion we're doing here. I hope
you're familiar enough with this one. I figured you were, but if, if you could just kind of give us an idea on the cost benefit analysis because again we've had discussion amongst the
members and there's been some other members have questioned some stuff, so I just want to get that out on the table, how you all have done that so that we are able to show this is a non-revenue impacting. thing as
Speaker 350
2:27:36
far as our current GR. Yes sir, we, we have a cost benefit analysis software modeling program called In Plan. The inputs to implant include the number of jobs the total payroll capital investment, the industry, and the location.
So looking at the inputs on the cost side and looking at the benefit side. So on the cost side would be the incentive programs that we're offering to any given company. Um, the benefit side being the benefit that we get from a major construction project from retained jobs from new jobs, the payroll of those jobs typically run that over a 10 year period to come out with a return on investment to the state, so the return on investment may be 4 to 1, maybe 2 to 1, we're obviously looking for a number that's greater than 1 to 1,
which indicates a positive return over a 10 year
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:28:30
period. OK, any specifics on this particular one
that you could give or is all that proprietary? I mean, I don't want you to say anything like that, but so you all
basically use the new employees that they were going to take any sales tax or anything was that included within that program or
Speaker 350
2:28:48
how does that Yes, sir. It's all plugged into the implant model from the industry and the location kind of drive the multiplier
effect, the capital investment oftentimes drives the impact of the one-time construction project and the jobs and payroll kind of indicate ongoing benefits, so for this particular company, you know, I'll say what's been restated publicly is that they're looking at 1 billion dollars+ dollar investment. Several 100 jobs that would be retained some new jobs. So what we would do if if we had this
tool in our toolbox would be to run the CBA with, you know, all the, the incentives that we want to put on the table to incentivize this investment, um, but there, there's a few different factors in terms of what the final committed numbers are retained jobs, new jobs, payroll, would we offer any other incentives? along with with this program that would yield a final cost benefit analysis number that we would have to go off of. OK.
Speaker 204
2:29:59
Any other hammer. My understanding, just to clarify it
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:30:03
for the public, is that the first option to buy these back would be the teacher retirement system, is that correct? Or do you know? Senator Davis, do you know. the first option to buy these tax credits back in this case on this would be, would it be teacher retirement. Do you know? Senator Hammer, certainly
Speaker 280
2:30:31
there's provisions in the steel incentives for involvement of a public retirement system. I don't believe in this particular legislation requires that the retirement
Speaker 281
2:30:37
system be an owner or a member, but I'd be happy to go back and double check, but there's clearly a requirement in the existing law for the 80% buyback for credits, but I'm not sure if it requires a retirement system to be an owner or a member. OK, and then if you don't mind, can you check
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:30:56
the floor, if it gets out of here today, and the second thing is when it
comes to selling these uh when it comes to selling these, we have adequate protection. They can't be sold to a somebody in a foreign country or one of our recognized foreign Emmy, right? I'm just asking because I've heard several conversations. Do you know as far as the prevention of these tax credits being able to be bought by uh, you know, by, by enemy of of ours. You know,
Speaker 281
2:31:27
well, with, with the Option for the state to purchase the tax credits back annually at
80% of the value. It certainly makes much more business sense for the states to to be able to exercise that first right of first refusal to buy them. Once those credits are purchased, they are extinguished at that point. There's there certainly could be a I can envision a circumstance far down the road that if for whatever reason the state budget reasons just could not buy the credits back at that point, the taxpayer would have the option to sell those credits to a third party. Um, uh, whoever would be interested in purchasing them,
but whoever bought those credits would actually they only would have any value to that taxpayer if they were already a taxpayer within the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:32:14
state of Arkansas. OK, let me get with
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:32:17
you offline on something. Thanks Senators and then Senator Caldwell. In dismay you, sir. Yes, so my question
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:32:23
is, and we're talking about revenue neutral and that sort of thing. I mean, if someone is spending a billion dollars,
someone else is paying taxes on a billion dollars, and that may be they're paying taxes on a, you know, I don't know,
$100 million of that, which means someone else is paying taxes on the next 900 until it trickles on through, but that billion dollars worth of investment. Someone ultimately is going to pay taxes on every single one of those dollars. And since it's occurring in Arkansas, the tax is going to be collected in Arkansas for those sales related to that billion dollars. In addition to that, and then this is how I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding the revenue neutral part. So if there's $5 million getting, you know, going out as tax credits per year, but over the life of whatever this project is, which
I think it's truncated down into what, 2028 or something like that. That billion dollars is going to generate a lot of tax revenue in the state as it cycles through. I mean, even on just, if we don't want to look at the What do we call it? We don't want to extrapolate it out to, you know, what each one of these people go out and eat and all the rest of that, it is still a billion dollars worth of new investment that ultimately someone here is going to pay taxes on. And and the reason that the buyback, I think matters because we've
started this conversation, so sorry that you're gonna be part of it, but part of the reason that buyback exists or the $5 million is to kick it off because you're an entity is making a billion dollar investment in the state of Arkansas, which is going to throw off an economic benefit outside of the billion dollars of tax we're going to collect because again ultimately someone pays tax on those dollars, but you may, you're gonna have a billion dollars worth. An expense. It may be depreciated expense that's realized over time or depending
on the nature of the expense could be, you know, sooner or later than that, but so you may not have income as an entity for years because of the expenses you incurred and the depreciation that creates, but that does not mean someone else does not have an expense or an income that's going to be taxable. So and that doesn't, I won't even get in the weeds on the employees, but if in an entity is paying employees, that's an expense, but it's also a taxable transaction for the individual that is collecting that payroll
or or making that payroll. So again, I, I think I just want to, when we've been talking about this in the committee, there's lots of things happening, but it is a guaranteed. Tax creator for the state of Arkansas to have a project this size come into play because ultimately someone's going to pay taxes on it. Thank you, Senator Disbans. Senator Caldwell,
Speaker 304
2:35:01
did you have a Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've got two
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:07
questions. I couldn't, uh, is there a time limit number of years that this tax credit is available.
Speaker 280
2:35:15
Or is it unlimited? Yes, it is. There has to be a closing date
Speaker 281
2:35:22
of June 30th, 2028. The project has to be to have a closing date before June of 2028 in order for
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:28
it to qualify for the credits. No, no. How many years is
Speaker 281
2:35:33
this tax credit available ongoing? I understand. I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question. So the tax credit once the project is essentially completed, there will be a process where that the investment
Speaker 280
2:35:43
that qualifies for the credits has to be
authorized, and then once those credits are authorized, the taxpayer would sell the credits back to the state of Arkansas. The credits will continue until
Speaker 292
2:35:54
they are extinguished. They don't expire. I'm asking,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:58
Paul, how many years are the credits available? Is there a limit of the number of years of credit's available, or is it ongoing? Can they ask for this credit for 25 years from now, 40 years from now, OK, so there would be a process to
Speaker 280
2:36:14
there's going to be two processes for the for the
credits. The credits that are awarded. Um, that's really 11 time you'll have an award of credits where the attacks, credit certificate will be given to the taxpayer based upon the amount of their qualified investment under this amendment
Speaker 299
2:36:34
to the bill, it's a 20%, but they can only
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:36:38
take them at $5 million a year, and that that's OK, that answered my question. Another question on any given year, good year, bad year, average,
ballpark, what would your tax ob li g ation to the state of Arkansas will be. I don't,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:37:01
I don't think I have that answer today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. All right, sir, any other questions of Senator Davis or anybody else here. OK. Anybody from the audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill. Hey, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, sorry, are you closed or you want to continue
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:37:19
in the interest of time? Yes, I'm close to
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:37:25
my bill. Thank you. We have a motion to pass by Senator board. We have a second by Senator Hester all in favor of what any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any oppose? it was unanimous, it sounded like, and just to let you know, we appreciate your company for being here. Don't think that this discussion was negative anyway towards you. Sometimes this helps on the floor with these members. So if we have other members that are not in part of this committee,
they can try to explain that. So that helps us do that.
Speaker 341
2:37:53
I'm honored to be here and I'd like to say thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Well, we greatly appreciate you all and uh what you do for
Speaker 127
2:37:59
us in the state. Thank you, sir. OK. He's here, but he has an amendment.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:38:29
All right, Senator Johnson, which one are you presenting? Alright, members, we're gonna be doing House Bill 1072 is my, we have an amendment. If you all don't mind while they're passing out the mimic, just go ahead and uh introduce yourselves. OK, Mark Johnson, state Senate District 17. Representative Cameron Cooper, District
Speaker 375
2:38:48
57. Let us get the amendment and let the members kind of look at it for a second.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:39:08
OK. Well, I think we're just gonna go straight to a motion for the amendment. Senator Hammer makes a motion on the amendment, Senator Crow has a 2nd all in favor of adopting the minute, say I. Any oppose. Now if you don't mind just you all can present your bill, uh, with him as amended.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:39:29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, this bill is as amended, uh, it clarifies the requirements on eligibility
for disabled veterans to receive the property tax exempt. tion along with their surviving spouses and minor dependent children. Uh, the collectors had some technical issues with the bill, the Association of Counties, Mr. Curtis worked with me and a representative. Cooper to clean this up. That's what the amendment you just adopted did. I think it's right now it's a good bill. The problem we're addressing is that
in some cases they were people that were, especially the widows or or widowers of 100% disabled veterans were unable to get the letter from the VA confirming that they still had that uh disability and it was causing a whole lot of problems. I think this bill corrects that. And again, the association of Counties and all the collectors have signed off on now that we've amended it. And Representative Cooper may have something to say. You want to add anything represent Cooper. Yeah, I'll
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
2:40:42
just add real quick, one concern the collectors had was if, uh, the veteran passed away. They wouldn't know that that had happened, so I got with the Department of Health and Department of Health has already sending a list of vital statistics to the assessors and the collectors on a monthly basis, and so I'm sorry, the assessors and the county clerks on a monthly basis, and so they said there would be no problem sending that information to the collectors, so the collectors can cross reference those names to see if if any those names of the deceased to match the names of the veterans
receiving that exemption, so that should cover that issue. OK, thank you for your
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:41:16
explanation. Members, do you have any questions in regards to this? Anyone in the audience want to speak for it. Against it Are you closed? Yeah, I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote, Mr. Chair. All right. What's the will of the committee, Senator Boyd is moves to pass and Petty's second discussion, all in favor say aye. Any oppose? OK, with that, I think we probably need to resets.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:41:44
Senator, dismaying you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. I just have
Speaker 381
2:41:48
a report that let's back up, Senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:41:50
Jo We one more time, that was the motion whoever made the motion in the 2nd. That was as amended. OK, so that everything's
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:41:58
gonna hold, everybody's in agreement to that, so, OK. Senator dismay, just when we do reconvene, and I don't know if we're going to hear Senator Wallace
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:42:07
is here in a second, but I, I would ask that we first
consider Senate bills because of time. I mean, there, there is plenty of time for a house bill to make it out of this committee onto our floor. There's a limited amount of time that a Senate bill can make
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:42:27
it out of this committee to the next committee and onto their for. We will, we will do that.
I had already made some previous commitments before that request was made with House members that that they could run that so that was, I, I had kind
of Pre-committed some stuff. Wallace, why don't you come on down and try,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:42:42
while, while he's coming, there is a witness here to speak on
577. I don't foresee it as controversial. Most everybody's left the room. It's just some definitional clarification if possible. It's your call. I'd like to just run through it real quick, uh, and then if it turns into to be a controversial, there's going to be, then we can pause, but While he's here rather than have him wait 4 or 5 hours to drive 44 hours back home that will
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:43:11
let me see with Senator Wallace, and we'll, we'll try
that Senator Petty. We'll try to be accommodating. Senator Wallace, which one are you doing? Sir,
Speaker 61
2:43:21
this is House Bill 1658. It will not take me 4 minutes. OK, 1658 members y'all, everybody have that. You're recognizeable
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:43:30
again. Thank you, sir. Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. For many years we've had a law on the books that if a A service member is deployed, he has Up until a year when he comes back, he or she comes back to pay their their property tax. And when we talk deployment, we
always thought overseas. This bill is going to help primarily our National Guard. It will help some active duty members, but we have more and more uh Of our National Guard. That are deploying for long periods of time on the border or other parts within the United States and this bill does two things. One, it exempts them from a penalty, and they have one year after they come back from their deployment, just like if you were going overseas to pay their property tax.
The catch in it is that when they come back, they have to show with orders or with a DD 214 that I was really down there on the border. Uh, those two things it's a good bill. It will help our National Guard and we'll help some of our active duty members and serve with that. I'll stand by for your questions. Any
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:44:44
questions of Senator Wallace on this particular one, pretty straightforward. OK. Anyone from the audience want to speak for or against it. Your clothes. Motion of the community.
OK, I have Senator Boyd and then as a motion center dismaying is the second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? OK,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:45:06
that carries. Do you really want to try that because I'd like to give the members a few minutes, but I mean
Speaker 384
2:45:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. I, I hate that, but I think that
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:45:17
we better, better at least give a couple of minutes just for. Before we go into session. I apologize to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:45:22
whoever you all has been waiting on that. It's just. Kind of the way we are here at
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:45:29
the end. All right, thank you. And we're, we're in recess and the uh the intent will be that we'll come back 10 minutes upon adjournment. So 10 minutes of bone adjournment and Senator Hester has already said that we're going to try 5 sometime that's 5:15, 5:20, but it'll be
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Jimmy Hickey
SB7 C. Penzo TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REQUEST A SALES AND USE TAX REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION.
SB131 J. Bryant TO CONFIRM THE LAW RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A HOMESTEAD BELONGING TO A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY OR A PERSON SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
SB394 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF REVENUES DERIVED FROM A COUNTY SALES AND USE TAXES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
SB408 B. Johnson TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
HB1274 Warren TO ALLOW A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT, TITLE INSURER, OR TITLE COMPANY TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A TITLE.
SB494 J. Bryant TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF PERMITS ISSUED BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO CONSOLIDATE SEVERAL PERMITS INTO A SINGLE PERMIT UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977.
SB495 J. Bryant TO AMEND DEFINITIONS USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "INVOICE" AND THE DEFINITION OF "INVOICE PRICE" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977.
SB529 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE INDEPENDENT TAX APPEALS COMMISSION ACT.
SB530 B. Davis TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT.
HB1072 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS, SURVIVING SPOUSES, AND MINOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN.
HB1695 J. Richardson TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MUNICIPAL LIEN; TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRIORITY OF UNRECORDED MUNICIPAL LIENS.
SB567 Crowell TO AMEND AND MODERNIZE THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM MULTISTATE OPERATIONS; AND TO CHANGE THE METHOD FOR SOURCING OF RECEIPTS FOR SERVICES AND INTANGIBLES.
HB1658 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES; AND TO DEFINE "DEPLOYMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES RELATED TO PROPERTY TAXES.
HB1759 Milligan TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO ASSESS TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED DURING A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.
SB369 Irvin TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECYCLING GRANTS; TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC RECYCLING FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB500 J. Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LEVEE DISTRICTS; AND TO ALLOW A LEVEE DISTRICT CREATED BY AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS.
SB558 Crowell TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTAIN CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS.
SB573 J. Petty TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § 5, BY DEFINING THE TERMS USED IN THE ESTABLISHED METHODS OF VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAX.
HB1594 Vaught TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND TO RELIEVE A SELLER OF SALES TAX REMITTANCE LIABILITY UPON GOOD FAITH ACCEPTANCE OF A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD.
SB577 J. Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES; AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CONCERNING SALES AND USE TAXES THAT ARE SET TO EXPIRE.
RECESS
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — REVENUE & TAX - SENATE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 4
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 41
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 84
Speaker 94
Speaker 95
Speaker 103
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 118
Bill Edwards
Unverified
Joel Jones
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 146
Speaker 152
Speaker 61
Speaker 159
Speaker 160
Speaker 165
Speaker 167
Speaker 174
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Bob Tharp
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 191
Speaker 193
Peter My
Unverified
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Speaker 204
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 212
Speaker 216
Speaker 5
Speaker 233
Speaker 234
Speaker 186
Speaker 238
Speaker 241
Speaker 213
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 268
Speaker 281
Speaker 283
Speaker 289
Speaker 291
Speaker 280
Speaker 285
Speaker 292
Speaker 288
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Speaker 311
Speaker 323
Speaker 324
Speaker 325
Speaker 326
Speaker 328
Speaker 329
Speaker 322
Speaker 157
Speaker 172
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 341
Speaker 290
Speaker 350
Speaker 207
Speaker 304
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 299
Speaker 127
Speaker 375
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
Speaker 381
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 384