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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:00
Welcome, everybody, to the Senate Rev and Tax Meeting. We're going to get started because we've got a lot on our agenda. We're going to take them in the order
that they're on the list. If the member's 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 we're going to do it. So SB7, Senator Penzo, are you here? Okay, not seeing him.
Speaker 4
0:25
SB131, Senator Bryant. Senator Bryant said he wants to take another order. That's 394. well you can tell you yeah well
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:37
you just want to swap them you're right in together
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
0:42
all right why don't you have a seat just recognize your center you got you got 131 and
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:49
394 right together i don't care which one you do 3394 there's actually four on the agenda i'd like to move 131 to the end of my
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:00
position. Okay. That's no problem. Okay. So you want to do 394 first?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:07
Yes. All right. So we're going to be presenting SB 394. And I don't remember if you recognize yourself, so
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:15
do it again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Joshua Bryant Senate District 32. All right you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you committee Senate Bill 394. What
I'd like to do is start off with some context of the act as Act 991 of 1981 and ultimately Act 26 of 1981's 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 is try to
understand 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 very interesting how we looked in 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 in 1981 of how this bill or how this act became law very easily just to understand what that might look like if a county were to pass subsequent legislation based on Act 26 of 1981. What the act did is it gave the authority for a county to levy a tax in one-eighth cent, three-eighth cents, half cent, three-quarter
cent, or one percent. 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, and 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 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 caveat was if it was
based upon allocation of silent language on the ballot, meaning the statute language of
allocation based on population, 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 based on population. And the reason for that was in case the cities were using that for bond purposes. The other provisions of the statute that if you chose to pass that tax, you could set a sunshine date or an expiration date on that. If you did that, it waived the six-month wait time lapse
if you reinstituted the tax after it expired. Several of our counties do that. They go to a certain time and then they readdress it. Several of our counties, if not about 12 of our counties, did not have that language in there. So this is a tax that is in perpetuity. What we're faced with now is, and not foreseen potentially in 1980, is that a county tax becomes 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 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 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 large portions of their revenue of this tax. So it really was not a 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.
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 collections in Benton County will approach 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
and the cities will receive more based on how the law works. Now the county still has its obligations. It still has a collector, an assessor, a court clerk, the courts, the sheriff, the judge, the quorum court. It 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, in just Benton County, what it looked like in 1990, 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 an interlocal agreement. If interlocal agreements aren't happening, then there's no reason to go to the vote of the tax because if you left the
ballot silent, you would be just stuck right back where the provisions 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 taxes aren't worth it. Benton County went to the voters for additional tax. They're not having it with the way property taxes are in this area, the way city taxes are 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 to do that again so two 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 six months and re-implement 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 law that you would have large portions of local municipality budgets be cut and they'd
have to figure out how to make up their 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 an interlocal agreement of all cities in the county to agree upon 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's probably a lot, but I'd be glad to answer any
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:47
questions. Okay, we'll start with the members. Do the members have any
Chair
Unverified
10:53
questions of Senator Bryant? I do. I do. All right, Senator Crowe, you're recognized, sir. Senator Bryant, can you explain
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
10:59
to me again, you talked about the population, when the city's population becomes higher than the county's. Explain what you just said again.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:06
I want to make sure I understand that. So
I'll just use what I'm experienced with is we've got, say, a dozen cities, towns, incorporated towns, cities of the second class, cities of the first class within a county. If you looked at 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 every 10 years when the census comes out is as those populations change and the cities that have been acquiring through annexation have 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 the tax allocation proportions are starting to disbalance, is when any one city, say the highest city, grows to exceed the population of the rural areas,
it would trigger the bill to allow the county judge to say, hey, mayors, 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%, and 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 abolish the tax, then that 1% goes away and the entire county, including the municipality, lose that funding.
And then they'd have to wait six months to redo a tax. 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. Okay. Thank you. Senator
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
13:12
Patey, I recognize, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you 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. 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. Yes. 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
it would require a vote of the people in order to change the funding allocation percentage, correct? Correct. It would require
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:08
a collaboration between the mayors and the judge. It would require a vote of the quorum court to approve that. It would require a vote of the people.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
14:19
And that 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?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:31
Yes, yeah, it's a county-wide vote. Any tax
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
14:35
change is always a county-wide vote. If the 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 X dollars, and they could decide, the citizens could decide whether or not they support it or not. Now, it might pit the county versus the city, but the reality is it
is a vote of the people, potentially. Yes, correct. Thank you.
Speaker 41
15:01
Senator Boyd. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
15:08
help 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
Portsmouth. So it would be safe to assume that this law would, If it passed and signed into law in 90 days would affect, has the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:27
capacity to affect. It would affect the ability for these conversations to be had.
It would not change anything currently as the county
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
15:36
has it. Okay. And so then as Fort Smith or any municipality grows and the county shrinks, who is then paying for, I mean, is there any requirement on a municipality to pay for jail expansion? the people in jails, county roads. I mean, currently? Yes, currently. I mean, it's whatever
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:04
has worked out currently. I'm sure the county, Sebastian County, likely charges for certain rates for certain services. If they
had the chance through this bill to have an interlocal agreement, that would be discussed during the interlocal agreement. If we can reevaluate the allocation of tax. The example is if, just
for your example, Fort Smith is 80% and the county is 20% and the next census it's going to continue to disproportionately shift. It might be, you know,
let's, you know, cap us at 25% at the county and we will reduce your jail fees or eliminate your jail fees. It would all be worked
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
16:46
out through the interlocal agreement. Okay. So there's an ability to come to an agreement, it's not just
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:52
we're going to take more. That's really the only option 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 re-implement it six months later and hope the voters repass their tax that they just abolished.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
17:09
Okay. 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 counties are ultimately responsible, not the cities, and you're cannibalizing the revenue stream to do those things. I agree. The county
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:28
still has to provide the services for the entire county, and every 10 years, this is the way the law is currently
for those metropolitan areas that are growing and acquiring through annexation 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 all being shifted to the
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
17:57
city. Thank you. Senator Petty, do you have another one, sir? Just a follow-up. So to be clear, if
it went to a vote of the people and it did not pass, then nothing would change?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:10
Nothing changes. It reverts back to exactly where it's been. unless they go again to another vote of the people to abolish the tax. You know, they can keep taking bites of that apple, but again, 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 labeled county tax and there's no benefit to it except for maybe paying for 911 calls. So he will make the attempts or she will potentially make the attempt
to abolish the tax to be able to, you know, recapitulate some money to the county. 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 dedicate. Let us come to you and work these issues out.
That's, that agreement would be binding upon that city council and that quorum court at that time. 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 a 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
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:42
approve it. Any other committee members before we go to the public? Senator Boyd? Yes, sir.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
19:48
Sorry. No, no problem. I'm just thinking of the thing. 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 paying for that, right? So this has an ability to afford to conduct elections too on some level am i making that up or is that as
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:08
far as if they would the county pay for the election if if if this were to pass
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
20:13
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
20:25
it affects um so i sat on the quorum court for four years, and starting in 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 the numbers came out, we dropped to 15.75%. So it was a huge cut to the county's ability to function as a seat of government, constitutional
seat of government with seven constitutional officers to do all the things that were required. You know, you look at when most of these counties passed a tax, you know, titles didn't exist. That was annotated codes, you know, in 1987. So Title V was probably much thinner than it is today because we've got more laws on the books. We've got more needs. We've 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 okay any other anybody else
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
21:40
on the committee have any other questions we'll have some more discussion if we get a motion or whatever happens but
okay at this time we're going to go to the public comment. We have a lot of people signed up right here.
Very adamant that we want to give everybody the opportunity to speak, but if everybody here goes
for seven, eight minutes, we're going to have an issue. So does the committee want to entertain? Yes, sir. Okay. Three minutes per person. Is that a motion? We have a motion for three minutes. limit
testimony to three minutes? And if that's okay, it's not just on this bill. It'll be for additional bills also. So is that okay, Senator Caldwell? Okay, we have a motion, a second. All
in favor of that, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we're going to limit the testimony to three minutes. And we ask that, the thing is, if members have any questions of you, you will go past three 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 okay so the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
22:59
first one that we have on the list is speaking against Charles from Walnut Ridge I apologize I can't
read your last name sir is it
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
23:12
Mayo and if you don't mind you can just come to it in the table and if you'll sit where the mic that has the red on it right now, it should already be on. And if you'll just
Speaker 76
23:34
recognize yourself and then you'll be, you can begin. There you go. Thanks, Chair. Yes, sir. Senators, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. The last name is Snap, S-N-A-P-P. Snap
your fingers with two Ps. I'm the mayor of Walnut Ridge in Lawrence
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:48
County. Your first name is Charles? Yes, sir. All right, Charles Snap, you're the mayor of
Speaker 76
23:54
Walnut Ridge. Yes. Okay, you're recognized, sir. Okay, I'm the mayor of Walnut Ridge and also chair a 10-county mayor's caucus in northeast Arkansas. Six of those counties, if SB 394 is approved, will be immediately impacted and four 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 in Craighead County. The gentleman, as they explained 394 in talking about Benton County and the numbers, it's a little astonishing when you look at rural Arkansas, as most of our 10 counties are 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 six counties that would be impacted. Lawrence County had just over 16,000 people in the last census. Walnut Ridge had 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 same 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 percent of the total revenue on sales tax
in Lawrence County. That's year in, year out. Yet due to an agreement that was passed with the sales tax 35, 40 years ago, we only receive 16 percent 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 strife and you're let me let me go to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:02
the members we i think you got your point across so so all right
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
27:07
do any of the members uh are you you are open to take questions sir you're okay okay uh
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
27:13
senator Petty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mayor, can you clarify or expand
on, you mentioned that I think there were six counties that would immediately be impacted and how they would be impacted. And 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 there was a vote of the people. There would be
Speaker 76
27:40
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 base 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 impact
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
28:04
okay any other members have any additional questions we appreciate you being here thank you sir
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
28:13
okay i'm going to 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 molring from benton county you're here to speak for it. That mic's already on, so you don't have to, it's kind of fidgety sometimes.
So if you don't mind, just recognize yourself and then you can begin. Thank you,
Speaker 94
28:54
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Barry Mooring, and I am 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 county-wide sales taxes. In 1990, the voters of Benton County were given that option. They voted for a one-cent county-wide 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 tripled 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 has 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 share 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 3,400 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. And a recent study projected that by the end of 2027, the shortfall of beds in our jail will exceed 450. Since I've been the county judge 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 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.
Speaker 95
32:02
We're going to have to work together and I would appreciate a pass on 394. Thank
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:07
you. All right, Senator Petty. I didn't turn it off, but I do have a question. Yes,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
32:13
yes, sorry about that. Oh, it works. So, and I heard the Senator say that you had attempted in Benton County to pass a tax and it hadn't or maybe, but in the past, have you had taxes 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 would pay for it with bonds? So that's
Speaker 95
32:41
a great question. It depends on the agreement that we came up with our cities, because after all, they're 85%
Speaker 103
32:46
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 five-year financing
of some expansions? Sure we could. But this would not be
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
33:11
used for bonding, no. Right. Okay. But in the past, and you have legally the authority to issue bonds, and so what I'm getting at is with the rather steep decline, would that in itself have an impact on your ability to bond projects like that, you think?
Speaker 103
33:31
I certainly think it could. Senator Bryant basically laid out that case earlier.
It's not inconceivable that we go down to low single digits in our share of this tax, and that would certainly have
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
33:46
an impact on our financing ability. Okay, thank you. Good
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
33:51
question, Senator Petey. Senator Hester? So is Benton County uniquely affected by this because of growth or counties that are losing populations that are going the other direction? You're leading on this issue. why particularly are you leading? Are we unique in some way? Yeah,
Speaker 94
34:08
so I can speak to Benton County
much more than I can speak to other counties, but I can speak in a way to the urbanized counties. We are unique. If you look at the population growth around the state, Benton County has led that. 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 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 finish Senator Hester?
Speaker 41
35:06
Okay. Okay, Senator Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I'm sorry I don't,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
35:13
it's been a while since I've been on city county local and
I've not been on revenue tax. So help me understand, do cities have to pay to use the jail 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 help me understand how that works so certainly at the at the
Speaker 95
35:40
district court level cities pay a share and i know that there's issues before
Speaker 94
35:45
the legislature this session on that at the circuit
court level, no, they do not. 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 five to eight percent of those have been misdemeanors that are on required holds
and those are the only ones that the cities pay revenue for so we actually make very very little revenue from cities for
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
36:26
services at the jail so so what I'm hearing from you is the challenges and overcrowding because of
Speaker 103
36:32
state inmates in your county jail so it's a for Benton County it's a complicated issue we are certainly part of
Speaker 94
36:39
the overall issue of 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 were 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.
Speaker 118
37:33
- Any other questions? Okay, we appreciate you being with us. - Thank you,
Speaker 120
37:38
Mr. Chairman. - Thanks, sir. - All right, next is Bill Edwards.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
37:56
Again, Mr. Edwards, that mic should be on right there. And if you'll just introduce yourself and you can begin. - Mic's on,
the seat's warm. - There you go. - Good morning. - Yeah,
Bill Edwards
Unverified
38:08
good to have you. Good morning, Senators and Representatives. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes. Introduce yourself. I have to have it on for the record. Yeah, my name is Bill Edwards, and I serve as the mayor of Centerton, which is the 20th largest city in Arkansas and the sixth 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 is inadequate for an estimated population of 26,000 people, up from the 17-792, according to the 2020 census. Notably, about 35% of our budget is derived from the county sales tax, allocated primarily by population. Currently, Centereden 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 collecting approximately $15 million annually. And I wanted to just make a note, you know, there's been some context about the percentages dropping with each census. That's correct. You know, back in 1990, it was 43% what I seen on information I was given. Right now, they get 16%. However, by a spreadsheet that the county actually gave us in a meeting, 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, Centerton provides essential services to county residents such as fire and EMS without receiving any reimbursement. And about one-third of our service calls originate from the county response area, which significantly exceeds our city boundaries. While we do collect the modest fire dues, about $40,000 annually, this amount barely makes a dent in their $6 million fire budget.
Also, the cities do provide water service in the county, too. My concerns regarding Senate Bill 394 are 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, you know, communication with municipal leaders, 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 will 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 essential 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, dials 911,
they have some help coming. That EMS is coming. - 10 seconds. - Yeah, that's why I wrapped it up. I knew I was getting close. Anyway, I think I got most of my points through and hope my other mayors will get the rest of them. -
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:20
All right, if you don't mind, let's see if there's any questions. anyone have any questions we appreciate you being here all right thank
you thank you sir okay the next one speaking for is going to be joel jones
same thing that mike should be on and just introduce yourself yes
Joel Jones
Unverified
41:54
sir Good morning. My name is Joel Jones. I'm a JP in Benton County. I'm also the finance chair for Benton County Corm Court. Thank you, Chairman Hickey. Thank you, committee, for hearing this. And thank you, Senator Bryant, for bringing this forward. I want to talk about a few things 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 asked our voters several times, and they've said 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 you all to help us with. We need help, especially the large counties. I understand the amendment may hurt, may or affect some small counties, but the large counties, the class six and seven, 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 continue to decline in our resources. 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 is in our jail is solely on the
county to pay for, because from the time of arraignment until adjudication, they are technically a county inmate, and that's the largest portion of our time and the largest expense. On a question of $15 million, I understand that that is Centerton's budget, and they get a significant portion from the county 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 costs 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. And I would appreciate if you all would pass this so that we can have a way to ask our voters to help us.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
44:31
thank you all right anyone have any questions we appreciate you
being here thank you for your time yes sir thank you okay the next one will be against uh appears
like uh ember strange am i saying that right oh i'm sorry i didn't see you you know the drill
Speaker 140
44:56
there by now i'm sure so just recognize yourself i'm ember strange and i'm the chief financial officer for the city of north
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
45:02
Little Rock thank you for having me today I am speaking against this in North
Little Rock 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 I have about five 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 dollars. I think everyone that has come up here and talked this morning have a sad voters don't want new taxes. So I feel
like with this legislation we could potentially be robbing Peter to pay Paul within your own county because what I'm mainly hearing is in Benton County there's an issue with the jail. I don't see our Pulaski County judge here to speak for or against this um 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 uh that 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 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. If we didn't have these businesses in our city, this local tax wouldn't even be generated. 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 tax. 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. 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 quorum 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
Speaker 146
48:09
legislation will go as well. Time's up. Sorry I didn't give you 10 second no problem all right anyone center
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
48:17
board you're recognized sir thank you so my city director has been texting me here help me understand can a city raise its own sales tax or are 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 we'd have to take it to a vote of the people and everyone has pretty much said the 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 uh their city in their county and that's my fear
so so wouldn't the cities if 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? It would
Speaker 152
49:10
absolutely be that and we have to work together on so many things. We want good
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
49:16
relationships. We don't 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 your city and county can't
get along, they're gonna move somewhere else. -
So if a county were to ask for a sales tax, do you think they would be any more successful
Speaker 140
49:40
than the city? - I don't think, I mean, you know, school boards go for taxes, city, county. -
Speaker 61
49:46
Okay, any other questions? And we appreciate you being here. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Okay, looks
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
49:54
like the rest I have here that are signed up or actually showing against.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
50:02
So I'm just going to do those and at the end, I'll ask if there's anybody else in the audience. So we have Jennifer Hobbs. We
Speaker 159
50:25
appreciate you being here. - Good morning, thank you. - Mayor Jennifer Hobbs from Wynn. I just will take a few moments to address you.
Thank you for the opportunity. 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 sales tax is generated from businesses in my city. 25% of our revenue budget comes from the county sales tax. 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 I don't think that making a decision at this level to affect one county is fair to everyone concerned. And so that was really all that I had
Speaker 160
51:15
to say, and I yield my time. Anyone have any questions, Ms. Sobs?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
51:21
We appreciate you being here. - Thank you.
- Okay, next one is, if I pronounce this wrong, I'm sorry.
Colleen Sharkar, maybe? You can correct me
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
51:38
when you get here. I kinda got a little redneck to me,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
51:43
so it's hard for me to get those correct.
Speaker 165
51:54
It's on me. - It's Colleen Sharkar. here. And 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 in county sales tax revenue and that's approximately 30 percent of the revenue in the general fund budget. Sherwood is a little bit unique in that the city doesn't levy property tax revenue and general funds. The only property tax revenue is for a library bond millage. So while a lot of other cities have additional revenue supporting their
general fund from property tax, Sherwood does not have that. So that, you know, kind of way 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, 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 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, 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 2024. And so all of those things are things that are kind of going back to the county. 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
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
54:05
here. Okay Justin with Arkansas - The Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs.
Speaker 167
54:34
- Justin Scantlin, the President of the Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs.
Speaker 169
54:37
- Good to have you. You're recognized, sir. -
Speaker 167
54:40
Thank you. Thank you for having me. and I'll try to get through this quickly, but here 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, most cities, their fire department budgets could be slashed 20 to 35 percent
if this was 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 the municipalities. So these taxes are currently go back to fund those dense areas with our services. Basically the current model shows that we're gonna be able to utilize the most money to protect the most people as a fire service. So the higher densities get the higher level 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 smaller populations. That would reduce public safety services for a larger percent of the population. In these less dense populations, volunteer and career combination departments are vital and provide a 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 been 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. - Okay. -
Speaker 118
56:30
Thank you. - Any questions? Appreciate you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
56:45
next one is speaking, Brad Moore, you're speaking against, correct?
Speaker 174
57:08
Good morning, committee and chair. My name's Brad Moore, legislative chair for the State Fire Association in the
Speaker 178
57:25
Thank you, sir. You're recognized. We're here today to be against this bill, echoing a lot with what Chief Scanlon'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 will not longer be able to use tax dollars to back bonds and
the way we understand is that this passes this is 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 fire savers to build stations by apparatuses and things of that nature so our understanding is with 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 a biggest point of where i were against
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
58:09
this bill so any question so just i want to make sure so what you're saying of course is if this legislation
passed 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 yes okay so you all are just thinking at that point you're not even going to have an option to bond is that that's correct okay that's i understand any other questions in regards to that appreciate you being here thank
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
58:44
you okay looks like bob dart speaking against
Bob Tharp
Unverified
59:11
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 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 a jail issue in those days, just like it's being talked about this morning. So let me get to my notes. Okay, Decatur, Arkansas, is located on Highway 102 and 59 Junction, Western Benton County, North Asylum Springs. Over the past few years, the city of Decatur has lost commercial businesses just by attrition and being a small town.
We're a 1,773 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, in 2024, the city sales tax for Decatur was $573,000.
The county portion was $263,000. 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. 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 gonna do? The bill does say that Benton County Quorum 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 quorum 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 every one of those 1,773 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 will-- - Almost done. - Will, it will be the year that Decatur will have-- - That's it. - Adjust significantly. In closing, vote no, please. We
Speaker 187
1:02:26
figured that. Thank you. Do you mind just make 100% sure? Any questions? Okay, seeing none. Okay, thank you. We appreciate you being here. Oh, no
Speaker 191
1:02:36
problem. I guess that's all for these.
Speaker 193
1:02:45
Do you have enough? Peter from Springdale, Fayetteville area. I'm not even going to attempt that.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:03:11
Yes, sir. You can introduce yourself, especially the last name. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Peter My
Unverified
1:03:17
My name is Peter Nierengarten and I work for the city of Fayetteville. I'm here representing 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 two cities derive approximately one-third 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 that 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, 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. 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. SB394 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 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
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:05:43
committee members might have. Senator Hester, you recognize, sir? I just wanted to make sure you said that the city of
Fayetteville would stand to lose big and the county would benefit. Uh, the, yes. Thank you. Any other
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:05:58
questions? We appreciate you being here. Oh, I'm sorry,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:06:03
Senator Petty. I didn't see you, sir. I want to explore the bonding, uh, question again,
because I've heard it a couple of times now. Can you explain how it would
Peter My
Unverified
1:06:15
affect the bonding, uh, capacity and ability? Well, I'm not a bonding expert, um, but I can say that we bond against our portion of sales tax for long-term capital improvement bonding to build projects such as 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 would be
Speaker 202
1:06:48
reduced by the portion proportionate to what that sales tax represents.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:06:53
Okay, 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
Speaker 202
1:07:04
approve or disapprove. That's only half correct. So if this bill passes,
Peter My
Unverified
1:07:10
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. Okay, and can you
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:07:21
explain that interpretation, why you lose the ability to bond? It's in the very
Speaker 203
1:07:26
last section of the bill. I don't have
Peter My
Unverified
1:07:29
the bill in front of me, but if you look at the very last two or three 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
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:07:43
tax. I'm not sure that I agree with that interpretation, but thank you.
Speaker 204
1:07:47
Yes, sir. Senator Hamer. I'm going to read you the statement to see if this
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:55
is the statement because you don't have the bill there. It says, a municipality shall not pledge revenues from a tax levied under this subject or for the repayment of the bonds. Is that the statement that you're basing your position on? Okay. Would that not
Peter My
Unverified
1:08:15
be only after the vote was taken? Well, the whole section is,
not just the changes that are in the bill, but the entire section lays out the whole process for the issuance of and the distribution of the county sales tax. Okay, and it says, if the voters do not approve a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:35
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 shall 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
Peter My
Unverified
1:09:01
is. Is that my... In terms of the distribution of the sales tax, yes. Okay. 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 election cycle. And bonding is typically long term, sometimes up to 10, 15, 20 years.
and bonding companies aren't going to want to, 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, two, five, 10 years from now. That's if the voters vote to change it. If the voters voted to change
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:09:53
it, yes. Okay, all right, thank you. Let me, and I agree with what he's saying here because that's the way I would see it.
If I'm the bonding company at that point, I'm looking at, well, we could go ahead and put this in. We're looking at this cash flow should be available for these bonds, but by the vote of the people at any time, this can go away. So that's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:10:18
exactly what you're saying there. That is correct. Of course, we all know that if those taxes are reduced or whatever, that that
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:24
bonding company is actually taking that risk that way also. but this does kind of put a different spin and caveat to it.
Speaker 211
1:10:32
It does, because the bill specifically prohibits it. Okay. That
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:35
was correct, right? I need to phrase that as a question. I mean, that's the way I see it in my
Speaker 212
1:10:44
head. That's correct. Okay. All right. Yes, Senator Petty. Could we get Senator Bryan up here? Because in my reading of it...
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:10:51
In his closing, if you don't mind, I hate to get us... And that probably makes sense, but I'd rather just let him do that in his closing. or or
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:01
in discussion if we get motions yeah because typically in closing we
wouldn't be allowed to ask questions that's correct you're gonna rule that we'll be able to ask questions before he does his closing that yes I
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:11:11
will as long as long as we get a motion in a second we will have some additional discussion and we'll we'll allow that and he'll be able to answer yes sir thank you if any of you know five of y'all won't do it different we'll we'll make that happen today. Any other questions? We appreciate you being here.
Thank you. Okay, unless I've missed somebody there's nobody else there's nobody else on
here to speak for 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 It'll be 394 right now. Senator Bryant.
Speaker 216
1:12:16
do you want to close or do you want to go ahead
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:12:26
and close if you'll close and then like say we'll we'll see if there's a vote and then we'll have discussion maybe I'll address the
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:12:35
issue in my closing okay and then we'll
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:12:38
still have 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 passage of Senate Bill 394, nothing changes.
There are several statements that we're going to lose $19 million or we're going to lose $25 million. You're not. Nothing changes. If you cannot, and to address in that same vein that there's no language of interlocal agreement, it may not be in the bill, but it's in the statute under 2674-214BI. it outlays that the interlocal 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 quorum court to move forward to
do anything different because the difference is abolish the tax which are they already have provisions so the the risk i will say is of the counties that are considering like what's our options for a tax is leave the law as it stands and look at the quorum 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, submit it to the quorum court, and force them
to abolish the tax. Then you'll lose your 19 million or your 25 million if the voters choose do that. So the statute as it's written in 1981, I think 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 speaker, 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 wait until that bond depletes and then go away. But I will say in talking to Treasury in DF&A, 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 26.214C1B, 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. 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 25 counties 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 revenue because they only get, I think it was 16%. There's no fixing that without the original language of the statute, but with those bill passes, that conversation could have, and Walnut Ridge could say, I would like 20% since I'm generating the most, and the quorum court could consider that. Without it, the quorum court could not consider that.
The one I would say, I would like to give some scenario would be is if you look at just say Benton County and Benton County is at 15% and
they wanted to meet 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 crunched it 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 others, 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 rear view 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 guess that was just to go through. I think I addressed most of the issues. Again, I'll 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 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 would, again, 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 essential services that the tax in 1981 was intended to serve. It is not to ruin the counties, or I'm sorry, ruin the cities and take that revenue away. It's to right the ship because in 2030, that county, Benton County, will be at 10%. In 2040, 7%, 5%. Eventually, the population
that's 40% out of 1 million, what is that?
If it's 40,000 out of 1 million, that's less than a percent, I believe. So
this is, it's coming. I will say the only other time I think this was attempted was in 1987, six 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 the will, the committee.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:19:34
You're closed, so I'm going to have to ask for a motion,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:19:36
and then if we get that, then we'll have some discussion. So we appreciate your explanation. So do we have a motion? Senator Boyd, you move what, do pass? - Well, I move that we have a motion that lets us ask any questions that we
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:19:56
have. I'll make a motion, do pass. - Okay, Senator Hester makes a motion, do pass. Do we have a second? Have a second by Senator Petty. All right, so now we're in discussion phase.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:20:05
So who wants to ask Senator Bryan a question first? Okay. Senator
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:13
Boyd, you recognize, sir. So, Senator Bryan, I'm struggling with, are the cities and counties pitted against each other more today? Or are the cities and counties pitted against one another more if we pass this? 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 not sure they're not already.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:20:40
Yeah, I would say, just looking, and I've crunched the numbers of all 75 counties. There's one county that does not have a county sales tax. I think it's Mervyn Monroe County. They do not have this problem because they do
not have a tax. But the counties I looked at that are imbalanced, some are just recently imbalanced. And so 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. Washington County, that they have an additional quarter cent sales tax that they passed in the late 90s to offset their jail needs. So while the quorum
court may like to look at that revenue,
they don't have the need that other counties have because they have that balance corrected through other taxes that they were able to produce 25 years ago. So in looking at Sebastian County, It
is probably a status quo issue. But the more knowledge people have about the intent of 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 clerk's tab and submit that to quorum court. 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'll create more tension than if this bill 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
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:22:49
answers your question. Okay now I'm letting Senator Bryant
do this because I feel that at least five
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:22:55
of y'all wanted to get a little clarification so that's what our agreement was so I don't want somebody to come back and say Hickey you didn't do that right
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:23:04
okay that was that it okay Senator Hamer thank you I want to want you to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:13
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 for the purpose of
supporting the bonds or paying back the bonds? What'd you say
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:28
about that? So what the bill contemplates is a new tax. I believe Senator Petty
and maybe yourself, Senator Hammer, 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 used 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 it goes
into our fund it 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 the city, if they agreed, you go ahead and have all the tax 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
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:24:38
they have other bonding sources. Okay, and if they 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?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:59
Yes, I would say if money is already bonded on this,
that when that interlocal agreement happens again, they figure out a way to satisfy that bond. Okay. Because if a new vote happens, nothing changes with the current tax until the bond is satisfied. So
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:16
even if they voted to change the tax structure, I want to say that in 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 the portion of the tax that's in this obligated for bonds right now? Yes,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:48
in my research, I've talked to bond councils in the Treasury, and they didn't have
any records for this statute being utilized for this act, Act 26 of 1981
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:26:00
being utilized for bond. So would it be accurate to say that this is preventing that from happening without a intergovernmental forced conversation
before it happens. Would that be a correct interpretation or not? Restate, if you would. Well, because there's 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 collected and couldn't be reduced or changed until that bond debt was satisfied.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:40
I would say bond council, if 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. Okay. Okay, members, we've been
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:26:52
going an hour and a half, I mean, but we want to do a full vetting. Anything else on this? Okay, we already have a motion on the floor. Do pass. We have a motion
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:27:02
and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:27:14
Do a roll call. I can't I can't determine that there was five and I
Speaker 234
1:27:36
Let me get ready. All right. Senator Dismeng? Senator Dismeng not voting. Senator Caldwell? Senator Caldwell is no. Senator Hester? Senator Hester is yes. Senator Hammer? Senator Hammer is yes. Senator Boyd? Senator Boyd not voting. Senator Petty? Senator Petty is yes. Senator Kroll?
Speaker 186
1:27:58
senator kroll not voting the motion fails
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:28:06
thank you senator bryant and we appreciate you all that came for this okay senator bryant 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 hate that you got to go back to back on that but okay so
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:28:32
right now SB 131 by Senator Bryan
Speaker 241
1:28:58
I think there's 131. I only see one for 131. Okay. 131.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:29:28
No, you're good. Take your time, Senator Bryant. Like I said, 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
1:30:17
yourself again. Joshua Bryant, Senate District
32. Okay, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Senate Bill 131, it
actually came to me through three 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 items where the court did have an attempt at a ruling, but because they didn't go through Board of Equalization or have other processes met, the court felt that needed to push it back down. So at 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 or disabled
in accordance with Act 79 of the state constitution. If you remember Amendment 79, Amendment 79 deals with property taxes. It puts the caps of 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 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 a principal place of residence, 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 what is strucken 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 real property's assessed value. In my interpretation, and I hope this committee's interpretation that is in conflict with what Amendment 79's intent was,
because in the mid-90s 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 would make sense to the authors of the amendment and the voters that approved it that let's give a summary leave 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 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 the assessors 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 Section 2 of the bill contemplates what I believe Amendment 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 taxpayers homestead used as
the principal place of residence then the first assessment following the appraisal any increase of the assessed 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 assessed value shall increase by additional 5% of the assessed value of the parcel for the year prior to the first assessment that resulted, but shall not
exceed the assessed value as determined by reappraisal. So 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 of 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 to take advantage of the purchase, as the assessment at the date of purchase, not waiting beyond, as the language I struck at the next assessment date on the date of transfer. So what the assessors are doing is they're waiting until the next year after you purchase it, they're going to that 20% of 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 $2,500, 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 full value and then taking 20% of that. So you're seeing those taxes on the purchase price go from $2,500 potentially up to $6,000. 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 would be glad to take any questions.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:36:32
Senator Hester. I'm sure there was a real-life situation, right, that brought this to your attention. Can you give me, without names, can
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:36:40
you just tell me about that? Yeah, in 20, I believe it was 2020, a constituent purchased a property and,
you know, you have an expectation that your taxes are going to be
something. And I think he was not going to be 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 under their breath, and then they may or may not ask questions. Well, this individual, since it was after the second 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, 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 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, but I recently learned that
another case actually 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. Any other questions by the committee?
Speaker 61
1:38:21
Okay. I think we have, let me look at this. These are all mixed up. This is 131.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:38:27
Okay. Lindsey French, you're here. Are you here? Okay. You're here to speak against the bill. Is she the only one? Well, that I know. Stay.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:38:58
stay. if you'd recognize yourself Lindsay French Association of Arkansas counties thank you Mr. Chair
Chair
Unverified
1:39:02
full disclosure we've been talking with Senator Bryan about this bill since pretty much the day it was filed. He knows that the Assessor's Association and the Association of Counties are opposed to this bill, and we have had some back and forth providing suggested language that we think we could live with, and we just never could get to an agreement, and that's okay. 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 the part that I agree with Senator Bryan on is with the language in their
wait 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 uh and we're willing to address legislation that that would fix that one minute okay one minute okay 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 five percent 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 disabled freeze and that's all i have senator dismay
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:42:14
you recognize sir okay because i think i was reading it the same
way one thing i mean and maybe this will be for you later
just to address but i mean that's on the realtor i mean 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 five times the value that's you know represented here then that's on the realtor and on in some
degree the buyer too would you agree
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:42:43
yes I would agree and I'm glad you brought that up because Senator Robin Lundstrom has a bill over in house insurance and
Chair
Unverified
1:42:50
commerce 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 assessor support that bill and one of the things I want
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:43:02
to make sure I understand so you're saying walk me through the double whammy again so that was
a great show but it was if I'm understanding someone buys a property for a hundred dollars and it was valued at fifty dollars 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 hundred in the next
Chair
Unverified
1:43:33
year so the way I don't yeah that's the way the language is written right now
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:43:40
and I'm I'm not sure if that part is
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:43:48
line what 12 12 yes page two line 11 it shall be assessed at 20 percent of the appraised value at the
Chair
Unverified
1:43:58
next assessment date 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
1:44:12
now? Someone buys a property and then it has the ability to be reassessed shortly thereafter at a much higher value than what was actually purchased? It doesn't have the ability to be. It is required to be. But
how much could a piece of property jump if it had just recently sold?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:44:29
Very often, in a majority of cases, not much. But with the crazy exponential growth
Chair
Unverified
1:44:35
in Northwest, it was a pretty substantial increase there. I think that has already started evening itself out, as markets tend to do. Then I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:44:46
would understand that. Okay, all right. Again,
Chair
Unverified
1:44:52
we offered that solution, too. Okay.
Speaker 118
1:44:56
Any other questions from the members?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:45:01
We appreciate you being here. Okay. Is there anybody else from the audience who wants to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:45:16
against the bill? You want to close, Senator Bryant? I will just say I think the language that's why I put in there, just to be consistent with Amendment 79 to allow 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
at 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. - Okay, thank you. Now members, we're gonna go
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:45:41
back to the way we always do it. We're gonna, I'm gonna ask for, is there a motion on the bill? - Okay,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:45:47
we have a motion by Senator Petty. We have
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:45:52
a second. Do we have a second? Dyes for lack
of a second. - Thank you, thank you. - Yes, thank you, Senator Bryant.
Next is gonna be Senate Bill 408. Senator Blake Johnson.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:46:26
Yes, sir. I wanted to do this a little bit earlier in the beginning. We
kind of got rolling on Senator Bryant's. Yes, sir. 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, every time we've met.
And he's never been here. 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 at some point, just so we know, because we're getting to 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 Penzo's bill, but just as an example. I'll have staff
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:47:19
that anyone that's on the active agenda, that's anyone that is on the active agenda that they contact them and just see if it's going to be their intention to run it between now and whenever we sign
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:47:33
he die. And then I just got a
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:47:36
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's Senate Bill 605. It 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. But it still takes time to prepare 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
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:48:13
of these bills like that? The one in your particular case is not going to have a negative state revenue tax.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:48:19
it would have a positive one, which is a little out of the ordinary from anything else we may have on here. 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
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:48:38
a negative state revenue impact. You know, we'd have to have some discussion amongst the majority of the committee members or legislature and Senator Hester as
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:48:47
pro tem. Well, I'd like to move then to put Senate Bill 605 on the regular agenda, I guess, for
the next time that we meet. Okay. Do you mind if I get, Senator Johnson, I apologize, but you're just going.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:49:03
Oh, that's okay. I'm the manager of this year. All right. Do you mind if I get DF&A down here? Not that I'm disputing what you say. No, absolutely. I just want to get them
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:49:11
on record. That was kind of my plan, was let them verbally state it and we can get a green sheet between now and when it's
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:49:17
moving. Okay. Paul, 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? We want to, if you would just say that it would be undetermined.
The main thing that I'm going to ask you whenever you get there is that it's not going to have a,
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
1:49:45
Senate bill? 605. 605. 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. DFA can say that there will be no 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
1:50:21
type of revenue being collected. - Sure, and Senator Dismayne,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:50:25
if you want to make that motion, that's fine,
but I'm willing as chair just to put it on because
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:50:31
my whole thing has been that if it has a negative GR impact, and I think it's pretty obvious that that one won't. It's just
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:50:36
the first one we've seen that way. - Well, most of this committee was there for the conversation on ag. - Yes, and I agree with you from a macro standpoint. I had to
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:50:48
say the bill, but okay. Mr. Gehring, we appreciate you coming down just for that. Would you like to stay for Senator Johnson? - I can certainly stay for the Senate 408.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:51:01
- If you don't mind, Senator Johnson, just recognize yourself and you're going to be doing Senate Bill 408, right? - Yes, sir, Senate
Chair
Unverified
1:51:07
Bill 408. - Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. - You're recognized, sir. - All right. Guys-- - Mr.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:51:17
Gehring, if you would go ahead and introduce yourself since you're gonna be talking, obviously. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, Paul Gehring, DFA.
Speaker 289
1:51:27
- Okay, you're recognized, Senator Johnson. - Guys, 2020, the last farming year
Speaker 291
1:51:32
was not good for row crop farmers and the federal government has recognized that And this bill will provide income tax relief in Arkansas farmers for these economic aid and disaster payments. 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 be until 26. and this bill was scored one way and I'll let Mr. Gehring talk about the scoring and how this was scored with zero impact. - Thank you. - Thank you,
Speaker 280
1:52:23
Mr. Chair. And 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 noted in the fiscal impact, if
Speaker 281
1:52:57
the bill were to not pass, we noted that there would be an increased collections in income tax from our farmers
Speaker 280
1:53:07
that are gonna receive these payments. But for purposes of the fiscal, because it was not accounted for in the forecast, we provided a budget neutral fiscal impact for this bill. We're
Speaker 281
1:53:16
happy to answer any questions. - Okay, members, anybody have any questions, Mr.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:53:22
Gehring? And the reason we went ahead and put this on is we viewed this, or I viewed
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:53:29
this much as the same and say 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 reason it's on here.
Speaker 291
1:53:42
And, members, this is, you know, 2024 was actually the growing season, and a lot of the income, you know, would come in in 2025, but I'll tell you, whatever was bad in 2024, the prices are lower at this time. So I don't know if they will put it into this packet, but I cannot see a relief packet not coming in 2026 similar to this.
And hopefully it will come in the same bill and we'll be okay with that. I can't predict the future because it's the same way with planting, but this year right now is worse than last year before I ever put anything in the
Speaker 285
1:54:33
ground, but I'd appreciate a good vote. Okay, Senator Johnson, let me ask
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:54:39
this. Anybody from the audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill?
You closed, Senator Johnson? Senator Johnson's closed. We 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. Aye. Any opposed? That bill will pass. And you
want to go ahead and do your other one while you're sitting there? You need Mr. Gehring on that one
Speaker 291
1:55:08
too, correct? I would appreciate it. I don't mind if Mr. Gehring stays up here. What's that number? It's 529. Okay. Senate Bill 529.
You're recognized. Blake Johnson, District 21, Senator District 21. Senators, we passed this bill two sessions ago. It's been implemented. This is the Independent Tax Appeals Commission, and this is cleanup language to get rid of some of that implementation language and also create a small claims division in that those claims that are under $10,000.
A lot of these claims are licensing claims and that sort of thing. That's the cleanup bill, though. I apologize I brought it so late, but I didn't get it from the inspector general's office until like last week or week before last. Okay. And I believe that the thing is, members, you do not see a
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:56:15
green sheet on this. I've asked Mr. Gehring to come down. They're doing a great job on trying to get all these fiscal impacts. They're coming to them left and right, and they're trying to be very adequate. But on this particular one, although you haven't had time to prepare it, would you state what y'all's, the way that you know this one's going to come in?
Speaker 281
1:56:37
Yes, sir, Mr. Chair, Paul Gehring with DFA. This Senate Bill
Speaker 280
1:56:42
529 addresses the processes and procedures that are available under the Independent Tax Appeals Commission Act. There is no change to a tax
Speaker 281
1:56:49
that's levied, whether by or any benefit for an exemption or a credit. So there would not
Speaker 280
1:56:56
be any fiscal impact to the state revenues within this bill. It's purely procedural in nature. Okay.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:57:04
Any of the members have any questions of Senator Johnson?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:57:10
Senator Dismine, you're recognized. And it may be for DFA. In some ways, we've had some conversations about
that. There's kind of an initial punting to the commission right now, Tax Bills Commission, kind of bypassing conversations that maybe have occurred
at the DFA level in the past. That's one of the things we're looking to reconcile, or I think you all are looking to reconcile, is having a little bit more communication with the taxpayer up front or
it automatically goes to the appeals. Does this small claim provision impact that in any way?
Speaker 280
1:57:41
No, Senator Dismang, what it essentially would be was that the Tax Appeals Commission could develop
Speaker 281
1:57:46
a small claims process 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 can reach out to us and resolve the matter if possible without having to file the petition, 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 involve, of course, it'll be promulgated 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 pleading intensive process in order to get to a resolution matter so it can be presented to a commissioner for a decision if a hearing is actually necessary. - But y'all are going
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:58:59
to kind of restate in your forms that that avenue is available 'cause 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, here's a number to contact. - Yes,
sir. - To reconcile this issue. If you're not contact us in 90 days, et cetera. - Yes, sir, we're certainly
Speaker 292
1:59:26
working on that issue. It does require programming in the system to get our letters,
Speaker 281
1:59:31
and they 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 periods to submit an appeal, so we don't want to create
a false sense of security so that they miss their deadline. - Yeah, all right, thank
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:59:54
you. - Any other questions? guess I have one. I don't know if it's Diff, but I don't know if Diff and A would be appropriate.
I do notice that we changed this to have at least five years experience. I can't remember how long these people serve. We don't think that we're going to have any, I think it's a
Speaker 288
2:00:14
good idea, we're going to have any problem getting people to do it. Well, that is the problem. That's why the
Speaker 291
2:00:20
flexibility is there for the governor to be
to appoint somebody with that kind of expertise, because it's a limited scope in the view of the thing. You're trying to get somebody to serve on that. This bill also allows the salary not to be adjusted by the district court judges, because I mean, but that is an issue,
Chair
Unverified
2:00:49
is meeting and all those qualifications and giving flexibility to that executive.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:00:56
- Okay, thank you, Senator Johnson. Any other questions of Senator Johnson, Mr. Gehring, anything? Okay, anybody from the audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill? You closed Senator Johnson? - Yes, sir, I'm closed. - Senator
Boyd moves do pass, I assume. Second by Senator Petty. Any discussion amongst the community? All in favor say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Congratulations. Okay,
next one is House Bill 1274. Representative Warren, I'm sorry that you had to wait, sir,
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:01:26
but that's the way it is. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I hope to give you your easiest bill of the day. House Bill 1274 requires a county collector to respond within three business days to a 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 three business days, the collector must accept the payment of the real estate taxes due without requiring payment of any related personal property taxes. What's happened? - Did you recognize yourself? - I'm
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:02:20
sorry, Les Warren. - We all know you, but maybe some, we need you
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:02:25
on record. - Representative Les Warren, District 84.
- All right, and you are doing 1274, and you've already started,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:02:31
which is fine. - I'm sorry. - Nope, we just want to get it all in
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:02:38
there correctly. - Yes, sir. - So that's my fault. - No problem. - Go ahead. - And we've worked with the 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 tax check back saying this isn't acceptable.
The personal property taxes were due. Everybody's already closed and gone on their way. The mortgage is not allowed to be filed. The deed's not 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 three days, the tax collector says, here they are, plus personal taxes are due. We pay those if we're given the information.
If not, they have to accept the real estate taxes by
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:03:36
themselves. - Any questions? Senator Dismayne. - I would, I mean, and I've contended for
a while 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. 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 tie property taxes, and real property together. I don't think this, I mean, it short-circuits some of that for some entities that are trying to do it, but. I'm fine with what you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:04:25
have going there. He's fine with what you got going there. Representative Warren, this.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:04:32
Yes, sir. We understand, I think it's probably,
Senator Diss may have a point there. Of course, from your standpoint, you still have a cloud on the title, I assume, So, yep, it's kind of a practice deal and it's hard to maneuver. Senator, did somebody else over here say something? Okay, any other
questions of Representative Warren? Anybody in the audience want to speak for this? How about against it? You close? Senator Dismain, you're
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:05:02
recognized. Before we close, I do think someone from the Association County
probably needs to have a little bit of discussion on how they plan on utilizing this.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:05:23
Anyone from the Association of Counties want to speak? Congratulations, Mr. Curtis. Just, when you get
Speaker 311
2:05:31
down there, just recognize yourself. - Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Yeah, so this probably- - Recognize yourself.
- Sorry, Josh Curtis, Association of Counties. - Yes, sir. 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. 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 the counties and get the 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
2:06:07
Senator Dismay. And so, again, I'll go
back to, I mean, these are separate entities, these are separate taxes, and the co-mingling of personal property taxes and real property taxes, again, I don't believe it's constitutional, and maybe it's just ripe for challenge. Does this impact that or solidify that joining of those two things together in
any way? I mean, it's in law that
Speaker 311
2:06:32
we can collect them at the time. That you can collect. That we can collect. 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
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:06:49
law. But some of 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 tying, like you would, delinquent sales taxes,
for instance, to a business on the real property that that business can sell,
which, again, I think is an issue. Hopefully it's one that you all can reconcile with because I don't think it's appropriate. But thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:07:23
you, Senator D'Amanda. Yes, Mike. Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Curtis? Appreciate you coming down. Thank you,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:07:33
Senator. Okay. I'm a little off. I'm sorry. I think I already asked. Anybody want to speak for or 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. Motion by Senator Hester. Do pass. Do pass. Second by
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:07:52
Senator Boyd. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? If you had any discussion, you just missed it. I didn't call that. So that will pass. Appreciate you
being here. Sorry for your wait. Okay, members, next one is SB 494. Senator Bryant, do you want to do that one?
Senate Bill 494. If you just both would recognize yourself so we can get that
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:08:27
out of the way. Thank you,
Speaker 323
2:08:30
Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. and Cameron Coker,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:08:34
staff attorney for Arkansas Tobacco Control. - Good to have you here. - Thank you, sir. - You're recognized, Senator Bryant. - Thank you, these, Senate Bill 494, subsequently the next one too, our agency bills on the ATC, requesting some changes within the code. The first one, Senate Bill 494, just reduces or consolidates the permits.
I will just let the ATC explain the reason for
Speaker 324
2:09:00
it with the benefit to it? Yes, sir. Thank you. So currently Arkansas Tobacco
Speaker 325
2:09:06
Control issues wholesale permits, retail permits, manufacturers permits for the sale of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine, and e-liquid products. There are currently three 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 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 consolidated manufacturer's permit.
Important to note, it does not affect our retail permits in any way or our 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, the law states that a wholesaler cannot also be a manufacturer,
so that law kind of contradicts the three-tier system that we have for tobacco permits in Arkansas. So this bill eliminates that permit. The permit fee for that is $1,000. 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 sell over-the-counter
with a physical presence here in the state. So them 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 the manufacturer's permits into one and to eliminate the permit that allows someone to act as a manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer outside of
Speaker 326
2:11:35
our three-tier system. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:11:42
I dread, I hate asking this. The one that's going to be eliminated that's out of state, so
Speaker 326
2:11:54
we had issued a permit? Yes, sir. That permit has been, that was issued. Right. It was issued before my time with the agency, so I can't speak as to the reasons why. So are you telling 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
2:12:13
statute or? Well, 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 an in-state presence selling products
Speaker 328
2:12:37
over the counter. Does that particular individual know about
Speaker 329
2:12:40
this or not? We've not received communication from that individual. Y'all haven't given
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:12:44
them information either, though, I assume, right? I'm sorry? 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,
Speaker 325
2:12:57
is what you're saying? We have not communicated that to them. However, they are a manufacturing company of vapor products in Colorado. And they're more than welcome to get this manufacturer's permit. that is the primary source of
Speaker 326
2:13:08
their business. - Okay, I think the appropriate thing would be
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:12
to at least put them on notice since we know it's just one. So that would
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:16
be my suggestion that there's been a change in the law if they don't know it, so.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:23
- Yes, sir. - Okay, do you have anything else? Okay,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:32
members have any questions? Any from the audience want to speak for this? Anyone want to speak against this? Are you closed, Senator Bryant? Okay, what's the will of the committee is moved past by Senator Boyd? Do we have a second? Second by
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:13:49
Senator Petty. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:13:53
Any opposed? That carries. Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you.
Is it on? Let me see where we're at. Yes,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:04
it's next in line. Senate Bill 495. Thank you,
Speaker 335
2:14:08
Senator Joshua Bryant. Senate District 32. Cameron Coker. staff
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:12
attorney for Arkansas Tobacco Control. Y'all recognize. Thank you, committee. Senate Bill 495 adds 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 laws. And with that, I'll
Speaker 322
2:14:30
turn it to ATC for further explanation. Thank you, sir. And the
Speaker 325
2:14:34
reason for this is under current law, all of our permit holders, retailers, permit holders are required to buy from permitted sources, wholesalers. 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. 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. It also protects the wholesaler as well so that they know that they're selling to a permanent retail location. It also does 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 our permitted wholesalers' 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 that the excise tax has been paid.
When that happens, our auditors are 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 the unpaid tax when there's not an
invoice available. Then 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 permitted wholesalers and permitted retailers that sell some of these products and we can, 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. Okay. Any
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:18:12
questions? Just one short. Whenever y'all are trying to calculate
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:18:19
those values and things, is that something that our judicial branch would use like whenever they go for a prosecution on that? Yes, sir.
Speaker 326
2:18:26
So those are used for administrative proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. My question is,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:18:31
I assume that we've run this by them. There's no issue with us calculating it that way so
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:18:37
that it's based on something different that would affect their prosecution. So Senate bill, I just, if we haven't done that, I
just, 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 it by the Prosecutor's Association? Well, something of that nature. 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 I'd hate to provide anybody a loophole. Understood. All right. Any other
questions? Anyone from the audience want to speak for this? Anyone want to speak against it? You're closed, I assume. Do we have a motion? Senator Boyd, motion is due passed.
Senator Petty is a second. Any discussion? All in favor say
aye. Any opposed? That motion will carry and it's passed. Thank you all for being here. I appreciate the explanation. Okay, members,
Speaker 157
2:19:42
we are. Senator Davis, you're here, SB 530.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:19:56
Senator Hester, we're going in at one today. okay all right it's going to be it's going to be my uh intent that we will recess uh
wherever we're at hopefully we'll get through this bill if i don't see that we're going to get through another one we'll recess and we'll just plan on coming back up on adjournment is your intent senator hester that uh to try for five 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 five or a little bit after probably. Senator Davis, you're
recognized. If you'll just introduce yourself and have your guests introduce themselves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brianne Davis,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:20:44
State Senate, District 25. I'm Brad Harville, Vice President and General
Speaker 341
2:20:48
Manager of Arkansas Craft Division of Green Bay Packaging in Morelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members? Yes. You're recognized, Senator Davis.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:20:59
Thank you, Mr. 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. 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. 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 and creates 40 new jobs. This project that this bill deals with specifically is a billion dollar investment just in phase one on a 60-year-old mill that will build a new recovery boiler, a biomass boiler, an evaporator set, a turbine generator, and Green Bay Packaging has been a solid community partner for 60 years now.
They're going to retain 700 jobs in the area with a creation of an additional 40 jobs with the average salary being around $100,000 a year. 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 five county judges and RDOT, to move a state highway and accommodate plant expansion, and this was a really big deal because other county judges were willing to take on miles of road to accommodate this.
They own and manage over 250,000 acres of timber in Arkansas and provide free management assistance to over 900 private landowners in the state, compiling over 200,000 acres and impacting 32 counties in the state, so almost half of our state. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, do you have any questions? Members, you have any questions? Okay. I'm going
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:23:09
to have one of DFA, so I'm going to ask
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:23:14
them to come on down, if you don't mind, Mr. Gehring. If you'll just introduce yourself, Mr. Gehring. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul Gehring, DFA. Okay. As you know, at our last meeting, whenever we come in Monday morning, we had the discussion on the buyback provision of these tax credits.
And, you know, I've been very adamant with members that we're only running bills, of course, that have no negative state GR impact, which you have that this one does not have any state GR impact. Is that correct? This bill has been
Speaker 292
2:24:00
scored to be revenue neutral. There is
Speaker 281
2:24:02
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 an existing law, is that 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 to have clawback provisions in the
bill as well. So we have scored
Speaker 290
2:24:54
this bill as revenue neutral for that reason. Okay. Am I going to put you on the
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:25:01
spot too much on like, I just want to make sure that all of our members know that we truly are going to have something that's GR neutral on this thing. Whenever you're calculating the cost benefit analysis back on the buyback of these, it's obvious, of course, that if we just allow a company, and this doesn't just focus on you,
so sir, don't think that, although it shows a bill. So if any, 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 to offset it, of course, it's just lost opportunity the way we look at it. If, in their case, you know, they've depreciated or done, of course, they're able to do all their tax stuff to get it down to, you know, close to zero. 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
Speaker 281
2:26:08
that, Mr. Gearing? Also, I know that Commerce might have some individuals here that can maybe speak to the process of
Speaker 280
2:26:15
the cost-benefit analysis. Usually, there is a process where Commerce will communicate with the department as well to. Do you all mind coming down? In terms of the buyback for DFA's purposes, if the credits are authorized and there's a legal
requirement for the taxpayer to sell those credits back
Speaker 281
2:26:32
to us and give the state the first option, 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. You can pull one of those chairs up over, Clint, if you want to. If you just
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:26:46
recognize yourself. Yes, sir. Clint O'Neill, Executive Director, AEDC.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:27:05
Do you kind of know the discussion we're doing here? I hope
you're familiar enough with this one. I figure you were, but 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 questions and 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 as a non-revenue impacting
Speaker 350
2:27:31
thing as far as our current year. Yes, sir. We have a cost-benefit analysis software modeling program called InPlan.
The inputs to M-Plan 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. 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 period. Okay.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:28:25
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. So you all basically used the new
employees that they were going to take. Any sales tax or anything, was that included within that program, or how does that? Yes, sir.
Speaker 350
2:28:43
It's all plugged into the in-plan 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 one billion plus dollar investment, several hundred jobs that would be retained, some new jobs.
So what we would do if we had this tool in our toolbox would be to run the CBA with all the incentives that we want to put on the table to incentivize this investment. But 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 this program that would yield a final
cost-benefit analysis number that we would have to go off of?
Speaker 204
2:29:54
Okay. Any other? Senator Hammer? My understanding, just to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:29:58
clarify it for 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? We asked that again. The first option to buy these tax credits back, in this case, on this, would it be teacher retirement, or do you know?
Speaker 280
2:30:23
Senator Hammer, there certainly is provisions in the steel incentives for involvement of a public retirement system. I don't believe in this particular legislation requires that the retirement system
Speaker 281
2:30:32
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. Okay, and then if you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:30:51
before it gets up to the floor,
if it gets out of here today? And the second thing is, when it comes to selling these, we have adequate protection. They can't be sold to somebody in a foreign country or one of our recognized foreign enemy, 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 an enemy of ours? Do you know that's
Speaker 281
2:31:22
in law? Well, 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 be able to exercise that right of first refusal to buy them. Once those credits are purchased, they are extinguished at that point. There certainly could be, 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, to whoever would be interested in purchasing them.
But whoever bought those credits, they only would have any value to that taxpayer if they were already a taxpayer within the state of Arkansas. Okay.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:32:09
Let me get with you offline on something.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:32:12
Thanks. Senator, who was first? Senator Dismanck's next, and then Senator Caldwell. Senator Dismanck, you're right. Hi, sir.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:32:18
Yeah, so my question 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, you know, I don't know, a hundred million dollars 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 this is how I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding the revenue neutral part. So if there's $5 million 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 need 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 the reason that the buyback, I think, matters, because we've started this conversation, so sorry that you're going to be part of it, but part of the reason that buyback exists
for 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're going to have a billion dollars worth of expense. It may be a depreciated expense that's realized over time or, depending on the nature of the expense, could be sooner or later than that.
So you may not have income as an entity for years because of the expenses you incurred and the depreciation it creates, but that does not mean someone else does not have an income that's going to be taxable. I don't want to even get into the weeds on the employees, but if 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 making that payroll. So, again, 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 Disbang.
Speaker 304
2:34:56
Senator Caldwell, did you have a... Thank you, Mr.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:02
Chair. We've got two questions. Is there a time limit number of years that this tax credit is available or is it unlimited? Yes,
Speaker 280
2:35:11
it is. There has to be a closing date of June 30th, 2028.
Speaker 281
2:35:17
The project has to have a closing date before June of 2028 in order for it to qualify
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:23
for the credits. No, no. How many years, is this tax
Speaker 281
2:35:28
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 the
Speaker 280
2:35:38
investment 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.
Speaker 292
2:35:48
The credits will continue until they are extinguished.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:35:53
they don't expire. But the number, I'm asking, Paul, how many years are the credits available? Is there a limit of the number of years the credits available, or is it ongoing? Can they ask for this credit 25 years from now,
Speaker 280
2:36:09
40 years from now? Okay, so there would be a process to, there's going to be two processes for the credits. The credits that are awarded, That's really one time.
You'll have an award of credits where a tax credit certificate will be given to the taxpayer based upon the amount of their qualified investment. Under
Speaker 299
2:36:29
this amendment to the bill, it's a 20%. But they can
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:36:33
only take them at $5 million a year. Exactly. Okay, that answers my question. Another question, on any given year, good year, bad year, average, ballpark, What would your tax obligation to the state of Arkansas be?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:36:50
I don't think I have that answer. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. All right, sir, any other questions of Senator Davis or anybody else here? Okay. Anybody from the audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill? Okay, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, sorry. Are you closed or do you want to continue?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:37:15
In the interest of time, yes, I'm closed for my bill. Thank
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:37:20
you. We have a motion do pass by Senator Boyd.
We have a second by Senator Hester. All in favor, what, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing 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. I'm honored to
Speaker 341
2:37:48
be here, and I'd like to say thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
Speaker 127
2:37:52
Well, we greatly appreciate you all and what you do for us in the state. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Okay.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:38:23
He's here, but he has an amendment. All right, Senator Johnson, which one are you presenting?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:38:28
House Bill 1072. All right, members, we're going to be doing House Bill 1072. We have an amendment, though. We have an amendment, yes, sir. If you all don't mind while they're passing out the amendment, just go ahead and introduce yourselves.
Speaker 375
2:38:43
Okay, Mark Johnson, State Senate, District 17. Representative Cameron Cooper, District 57. Let us
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:38:47
get the amendment and let the members kind of look at it for a second.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:39:05
Okay, I think we're just going to go straight to a motion for the amendment. Senator Hamer makes a motion on the amendment. Senator Crowell has a second. All in favor of adopting the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Now, if you don't mind, just you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:39:24
all can present your bill with them as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee,
this bill is as amended. It clarifies the requirements on eligibility for disabled veterans to receive the property tax exemption along with their surviving spouses
and minor dependent children. The collectors had some technical issues with the bill. The Association of Counties, Mr. Curtis worked with me and Representative Cooper to clean this up. That's what the amendment you just adopted did. I think right now it's a good bill. The problem that we're addressing is that in some cases they were people that were especially the widows or widowers of 100% disabled veterans
were unable to get the letter from the VA confirming that they still had that 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. Do you want to
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
2:40:35
add anything Representative Cooper. Yeah, I'll just add real quick. One concern the collectors had was if the veteran passed away, they wouldn't know that that had happened. So I got with the Department
of Health and Department of Health is already sending a list of vital statistics to the assessors and the collectors on a monthly basis. And so, or 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 any of those names of the deceased match the names of the veterans receiving that exemption. So that should cover that issue. Okay. Thank you for your explanation. Members,
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:41:11
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. Chairman. All right. What's the will of the committee? Senator Boyd, moves do pass. Senator Petty is
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:41:36
a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. With that, I think we probably need to recess. Senator
Speaker 381
2:41:43
Dismayne? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:41:45
Yes, sir. Just have a request. Let's back up. Senator Johnson. One more time. That was the motion. Whoever made the motion
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:41:53
in the second. That was as amended. Okay. So that everything's going to hold. Everybody's in agreement to that? So, okay. Senator Dismay. Just when we do reconvene, and I don't know if
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:42:02
we're going to hear Senator Wallace is here in a second, but I would ask that we first
consider Senate bills because of time. I mean, there is plenty of time for a House bill to make it out of this committee onto our floor. There is a limited amount of time that a Senate bill can make it out of this committee to the next committee and onto their floor. We will do that.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:42:23
I had already made some previous commitments before that request was
made with House members that that they could run that so okay that was i would i had kind of
pre-committed some stuff okay mr wallace why don't you come
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:42:37
on down and try what mr chair while he's
coming there is a witness here to speak on 577 okay i don't foresee it as controversial most everybody's left the room uh it's just some definitional clarification i if possible it's your call uh i'd like to just
run through it real quick uh and then if it turns into be a controversial there's going to be speak then we can pause but while he's here rather than have him wait four or five hours to drive
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:43:06
four hours back home we'll 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 uh doing sir this is uh house
Speaker 61
2:43:16
bill 1658 it will not take me four minutes okay 1658 members y'all everybody have that. You're recognized to begin.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:43:25
Thank you, sir. Senator Dave Wallace, District 19.
For many years, we've had a law in the books that if a service member is deployed, he has up until a year when he comes back, he or she comes back to pay 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 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 DD-214 that I was really down there on the border. Those two things is a good bill. It will help our National Guard and will help some of our active duty members.
And sir, with that, I'll stand by for
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:44:39
your questions. Any questions of Senator Wallace on this particular one? Pretty straightforward. Okay. Anyone from the audience want to speak for or against it? You're closed, Senator Walsh? I'm closed, sir. Motion of the committee?
Yes, I have. Okay, I have Senator Boyd. And then as a motion, Senator Dismaying is the second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:45:01
that carries. Do you really want to try that? Because I'd like to give the members a few minutes, but maybe.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:45:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. I hate that, but I think that we better at least
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:45:17
give a couple of minutes just before we go into session. I apologize to whoever you all has been waiting
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:45:25
on that. It's just kind of the way we are here at the end. All right. Thank you. We're in recess, and 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 somewhere around that time, so we'll be prepared to come back then.
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
Speaker 5
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
Speaker 120
Bill Edwards
Unverified
Joel Jones
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 146
Speaker 152
Speaker 61
Speaker 159
Speaker 160
Speaker 165
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 172
Speaker 174
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Speaker 157
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 233
Speaker 234
Speaker 186
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 335
Speaker 322
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