City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members Committee. Carol Day District 100. I am the house doctor on Senate Bill 523 and uh Senator Ervin asked if I could come to the committee this morning to run it, and I certainly appreciate the committee indulging to let me get in. Members, if you'll remember about who 4 weeks ago this bill just like this came through your committee, came through the House, passed out and it was dealing with the requirement for the formation of a nonprofit corporation to operate a private club in a dry county and that one was narrowed down to uh restaurants and so what was happening and, and what is still happening, and this is why this bill is uh coming to to cover everybody is because once this bill ran through the Senate, that was a question that senators were asking why can we not expand this to everyone. So what this bill simply does is It requires it, it does away with the requirement that someone has to form a nonprofit in order to operate a private club in a dry county and you may say why is that so important? Well, it's the current law is now, you form these nonprofits that nonprofit has to be out there for a year before you can ever open up this private club to operate. And so, um, I must admit I, I was not a very smart attorney or I would have figured this out a long time ago and I would have been setting up nonprofits and holding them out there because this is what's happening, not just lawyers, but anybody. They're forming these nonprofits, holding them out there for a year, and then selling those nonprofits, $10,000 a pop or something to someone who wants to open up a private club in a dry county. So, this will take away that requirement. This will eliminate ate also the requirement there, the multiple tax returns have to be filed. So for an example, uh, a hotel wants to have a private club at their hotel, maybe they have hotels, 5 or 6 hotels all over the state, maybe they have 5 or 6 nonprofit uh private clubs all over the state, they are having to file an income tax for everyone of those income tax returns for every one of those nonprofits. This will say you can file one tax return, which makes good business sense. It's much more efficient, uh, so it eliminates that this does not change the structure in any form or fashion to how you go about getting a private club, there's still all those local controls it changes absolutely none of that. All this is doing is eliminating that requirement that you have to have a nonprofit corporation set up, and with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from committee? Senator Petty, you recognize more of a statement than a question, but this is, this is very similar to what was run earlier, but there was a it's the exact same bill that was run earlier, it's just that instead that one was narrowed only to restaurants opening up uh restaurants around. This opens it up to any business, corporation that is operating those types of facilities. That's what I thought. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from committee? Saints anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for against the bill? We have nobody signed up. Representative Dalby, you wish to close for your bill? I am closed and I would appreciate a motion to do pass and a good vote from the committee. But, uh, we have a motion to pass and a second and discussion. All those in favor, say ah. All opposed. Your bill passes, Representative Dalby. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, and once again, thank you for letting me come on in. I appreciate that. Senator, Senator Flippo, you are next. Not to flip up if you want uh Identify yourself and your, have your guests identify themselves and who they represent. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Senator Scott Flippo, District 23, and with me I've got a lot of them introduce himself, Mr. Eric Pendergrass and my good friend Ronald O'Connor here. Eric Pendergrass from Burford Distributing, Fort Smith. Ryan O'Connor from Connor Distributing. There you go. All right, sent to football, you recognize present. All right, full disclosure, Mr. Carter and I knew each other in college um and so I assure you he's going to share those stories or incriminating information about me circa 2000, 2001 to influence any members of this committee, but no members with that, you know, this bill is a very simple bill. What we're doing is changing the definition of beer currently is defined as 5% alcohol content. What we've done in this bill is there was a original bill earlier this session that was going to take it up to 14%. This is going to cap the alcohol volume at 10%. Arkansas is currently one of two states that doesn't allow the crop beer to be sold, you know, in grocery stores and or convenience stores if it's higher than a 5% alcohol volume. So what this does is it's going to cap the alcohol volume at 10%. It's going to be allowed to be sold in convenience stores. And the grocery stores where beer is currently being sold. Currently these craft beers are being sold in liquor stores. This would just simply expand it to allow it to be sold legally in convenience stores and grocery stores, and I've got Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Pendergrass here to help answer any questions from the committee. basically this bill just levels the playing field for Arkansas and the surrounding states to be able to sell this beer. That's all free market level playing field and plenty of question Senator, this may be for your, uh, guest here, but, but aren't most craft beers uh generated with smaller businesses, smaller breweries. Absolutely, that's an emerging market that we've seen pop up in Baxter County. I have 4 separate craft beer, you know, local breweries that are that are brewing and selling their own beer on premises and for sale and local, you know, local, local liquor stores, and so this is an emerging industry and it creates a level playing field and again it's already, it's only going to allow for this product to be sold where beer's already being sold. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? saying, you know, we have a um a Mr. Paschal, Bill Pasco, to speak against it. Good morning, committee. I'm Bill Pascal. I'm here representing over 70 independent retail liquor stores around the state of Arkansas, and I'm here to ask you to vote against this bill. We've seen this play before. We've had similar bills introduced the last two sessions. They've gone down. I'm going to ask you please to follow the path of the last two legislatures and vote the same way, um, now these beers are being sold now. And only liquor stores. It's an exclusive product that helps us bring folks into our store and when you take that away, that's really going to hurt our small retailers, and I remind you that we don't get to sell products like uh groceries or gas or um antihistamines or whatever it may be to get people into that store. All we have are wine, uh, spirits and beer. So we're uh tightly regulated and we only get to sell. alcohol. So when you take a product away that's exclusive to us, it hurts our folks, our independent retailers, and it also puts a high octane beer at the fingertips of kids who are in the convenience stores buying chips or whatever it may be, so, um, there is a concern there about safety as well, so I'm gonna be brief. You guys have heard this argument over and over again, but I'll ask you please to vote no and keep those high alcohol content beers restricted to liquor stores. Thank you. All right, Ms. Pascal, how many states have 10%. I, I couldn't answer that. I don't know. OK. Or any, any other questions from committee? Are saying thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. to speak for, uh, Mr. Good, Steve. Identify yourself for the record. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Steve Good, and I'm here today representing uh retailers from around the state and also the convenience store industry from around the state again to Mr. Pascal's point, this bill has been introduced in the past. We have modified the limit this uh this limit is lower. And I know there's some frustration probably with some members, uh, and, and probably have alcohol fatigue. I'll promise y'all this if y'all will pass it, we won't come back with this bill again. Uh, so, um, today in grocery stores, you can uh you can purchase wine, uh, up to 21%, uh, but if you go right across the aisle or right down the aisle or right down the cooler, you can only purchase a beer product that contains up to 5%. To Senator Flippo's point, craft beers is an extremely emerging market in Arkansas. And in addition to representing all these stores, I actually own a supermarket and, and when I'm in my stores on Saturday, if I'm back at the beer cooler helping out stock the beer. One of the questions that I'm asked the most is, can I get 1 beer that's a craft beer and, and most times we have to tell them no, because that craft beer contains 6% alcohol, 8% alcohol or 10% alcohol. And so we think this is a good common sense bill that allows more consumer choice. Uh, it also allows Arkansas's emerging market craft beer market to have uh more store facings which would produce more sales for them. Um, you, you, Senator Stubblefield, you asked about uh neighboring states, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma have all removed the upper limit on their beer and so we would ask that Arkansas join those neighboring states and and raise ours. They've not, they've removed theirs altogether. We would just ask that ours be raised to 10%. We think that's a good number after talking to several, several folks on this issue. What, what is the heart, what is the highest percentage you can have in a craft beer. Uh, Senator Stubfield, I'm not sure. I know that there are some that are more than that. Uh, we, when we originally 15, aren't there? Yes sir, I'm not, yeah, I'm not sure what the law is, but, but we do know that there are more that that uh uh there, there are beers that have more than that. Yes, sir. OK. Or any other questions from the audience and one we should speak for or against. Thank you all. Thank you, Steve. See none, uh, Senator Flippo, you are recognized closed for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you members. I would just, you know, make one distinction. I think I heard Mr. Pascal say and there's no spirit-based products in this bill. That's, you know, nothing about that. This is just simply mending the definition of beer to take it from 5% to 10%. It's a good free market bill puts us in line with every other surrounding state that we touch, and I would just ask the committee that I appreciate a good vote. Or We have a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. We have a second and discussion on the motion. So all those in favor say aye. All opposed. The bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank yous. For Senator, Senator Crowe, are you doing the bill for Mr. Hawk, Representative Haw? OK. Do you want to go and recognize yourself for the committee. Mr. Wilkerson step up with me too. Senator Steve Coll, District 3. Sure. Oh, this is Bill number 1680 or 1618, 1618. I'm gonna give it to you, Mr. John Wilkerson, general counsel of the municipal League, this is kind of a cleanup bill in a lot of ways. Right now for cities of the first class, there is a staggered way to fill the vacancy in the in the field of the city attorney position and what has happened is that there's 3 different ways. There's a way for cities over 50, under 50,000, a different way for cities under 10,000, a different way for cities. 5, 5000. So, of course, under 10 and under 5 is also under 50, so it just became too complicated. So all this bill does on the first-class cities is make it clear that this that the law right now that deals with how to fill the, fill the city attorney position for under 50,000 is consistent across the board. So any city under 50,000 has the same method by which to fill the city attorney position. On the cities of the second class and incorporated towns, it largely mirrors the same procedure. The only thing we've added of substance to that is to clarify that cities of the second class and incorporate towns can come together with other cities and towns to share legal resources. This is already largely allowed by the interlocal agreement statutes, but we felt like it was important to to make sure that cities and towns, smaller cities and towns knew that you can't enter into agreements with other cities and towns to share legal services, because as you might imagine, there's not a whole lot of city attorneys out there and we're trying to do the best we can to, you know, max not the resources that we have. So again, for first class cities under 50,000 is treated the exact same way. Over 50 is a mildly different, but there's only 8 or 9 cities, so we didn't mess with that. So it's just more of a consistency bill than anything. Our Committee of art and explanation of the bill. Any questions? OK And he wanted the audience, we have no one in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill. Uh See no such Crow, you want to go ahead and close for the bill? I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. Uh, we need a motion. We have a motion to pass in a second. A discussion on the motion. All those a favor, say I. All opposed. Congratulations, Senator Crow. Thank you. Sure You want to go to end of the table. But, if you recognize yourself for the record. Yes, sir. Paul Childers, state representative, District 83, um, Chairman Stubenfield and committee, I brought a bill on March 20th, uh, House Bill 1686 and it's uh it was a bill to make concealed handgun permits, electronic, and I'm here to ask the committee and the chairman to expunge that vote and we really don't need to do that. You can run it twice, without having to explain to vote, so perfect. OK, with your permission I'd like to have Lieutenant Dyke from the state police join me Mr. Dickerson, come forward. You'll recognize yourself for the record. Tiffany, I'm a lieutenant with the state police assigned to the regulatory division. All right, you recognize the bill, Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a bill I brought uh on March 20th and it failed this committee with a vote of 3 to 2, and what it is, is just taking concealed handgun permits and making them electronic and it's kind of getting in line with hunting license and driver's license and the society we're moving towards and I know the committee had some questions about how to obtain one if somebody didn't have a smartphone or access to internet and uh we had some answers for that, but I'm gonna let Lieutenant Dycus explain a little bit about what the state. can do to kind of help with people that are in that situation. Right Thank you for allowing me to be here this morning. Our intent is certainly not to leave anyone behind as far as with the electronic licenses. I know that was a concern. So we've had some discussions and we're gonna make sure that we do everything that we can to get the licenses to the people who want one, so whatever we need to do to accommodate them, we'll make sure that we can do that. Is there a physical impact on this, on this bill? Yes sir, absolutely. We'll save in the printing costs, producing the licenses is very expensive with the printer and all the materials and since fiscal year 2021 between um concealed handgun licenses and private investigator licenses. We couldn't break them apart, but we've spent $172,000 on printing supplies and it would also save us on postage um since fiscal year 2021, we've spent 1 50,000 on postage mailing the licenses and what you're telling me, we have a net. Physical impact on this. I mean, this, this is going to save us that much money. Yes sir, absolutely. OK. All right. Any other questions from committee Senator Petty you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, so if, if, if I want a, uh, a hard copy license. There's a, there, there will be a procedure set up to allow me to ask for that, uh, and, and, and you will accommodate that. Is that I'm going to ask Captain Morgan to speak to that, if that's OK because I think that's where the pushback was the last time. Captain, if you'll recognize yourself for the record, uh, you recognize speak. Good morning, Captain Dustin Morgan, State Police regulatory. Senator Petty, uh, the intent of this bill is obviously to save the citizens of the state and the agency, both time and money, uh, that being said, uh, the mission of Arkansas State Police has always been to serve and assist the public, and this is no different. If if we have a constituent or a citizen that that does not have access to an electronic means we're absolutely going to make sure that they're taken care of, including up to issuing them. A copy of the license if need be. I don't, I don't anticipate that that's going to be something that we encounter frequently, but what we're going to assist them in whatever, whatever way we need to. And I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I think that the majority of people agree with this as long as everyone has access to this, uh, technology to be able to do this without putting a burden on them. So Senator Brown, you have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize, I was out of the committee that day that you ran this, so I'm probably gonna ask questions that were addressed previously, but so. Are we, are we truly striking the fee that the state police charged for these licenses because we're we're striking pay the division of a fee established by the director, so there is no fee for the license. There will still be the fee because we do still have to do the research and it takes the labor and the time to do that, so there will still be a fee assessed. Yes, sir. But the product I'm getting is not no longer licensed. I'm just getting a link to a digital ID card that I can store on my phone. And present upon request. Yes sir, that's correct, but we still have to pay for the service where we maintain those records and things like that, and we'll have to pay to produce the electronic license on there. It's just significantly less that we'll have to pay, but not enough less to reduce the fee. I have't approached that and I'm not authorized to speak on that. So I guess my concern is while it's the intent to provide a a card to those that like I would say my father would never have a smartphone, so he'll never. What to have a digital card he'll want. The tried and true card in his wallet. There's what, what legislation when he gets denied or rejected that from the state police in 2 years. What legislation can he look at or what statute can he look at to say, no, I'm I'm entitled to this because I do not have the means to do this. what we're saying is you'll you'll honor that and provide that, but You know, bureaucracy is promotions and vac vacancies and And, and a lot of memory problems, so that'd be my my concern and my question. Yeah absolutely uh. That's a valid concern, a valid question what I can speak to is that again, the agency, we're not in the business to leave anybody behind. We want to take care of. Every citizen in the state, they're paying for this service, they're entitled to it, and we're going to ensure that they're taken care of. We haven't written anything specifically into legislation saying that they're Entitled to a hard card, if that's what you're asking. It, it is, yes sir. Is it, is it not possible to say we're going to do this and if you want the hard part, we need to charge an additional fee to cover those costs. That way there's There's a common ground or a middle ground on this. I know it's late in the session. I know the intent. I know you got to buy hardware and move forward with some with some programming, but um I'm just my concerns. Just to be clear, are you asking, so then we would reduce the fees for those who are just receiving electronic copy, reduce those fees and offset them, and I know it's hard in this body to increase fees for the intended purpose of a card though, I think the general public will be willing to pay that extra fee, a reduced fee if I don't want it. I'm saving money. and I made an additional $15 if I want the card and then additional money to replace the card in the event of lost. And that's not a, uh, that's not a study that we've conducted to find out what the fee structure would have to be. We know that we still have again the cost of maintaining staff. We have the cost of background checks, state and federal background checks, and so the intent of this bill was just to save the agency and the state money and make it more efficient for everyone, including the citizens. OK, thank you. That's the question. bright, uh, of course I mentioned he wasn't here and he did have concerns and Senator Wallace is not today, and he did have concerns and I had concerns last time. I haven't been contacted addressed any of my concerns, Senator Wallace, to my knowledge, hasn't, uh. And it's not the fact we don't want to help. The process of the state police, but Senator Bryant mentioned. What's going to be done is what this bill allows, and your good intentions to take care of all citizens' problem to be of service if you retire, whatever, what happens that I see in government law, we just say, well, here's what the law is. And you're leaving a good portion. of people out there that still want hard copies. Arkansas does not have as high a percentage. of the electronic new age people. That some states do, and, and I'm not trying to be hard-nosed on this, but it's just a fact. And that's the ones that contacted me. That's the ones that contact Senator Wallace with those concerns. So I, I wish we We could have been addressed and kind of got on the same page before and now that we have another member back in or not on a hard five, so if you got your votes lined up, it'll move forward, but at this stage, I still can't support it. Thank you. Uh, any other questions from the committee? Saying none. Is there anyone in the audience that would speak for against the bill. Saying that, Mr. Childers, do you want to close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. I would This is our 2nd time through. I, I, I think I'm gonna trust the state police to do everything they can to help and like Senator Bryant said, if it wasn't this late in the game, maybe we could have amended it with some concerns, uh. I, I think it's a good deal. I support it and I would appreciate a good vote. All right. And I'm closed. When you have your motion art center motion to pass. We have a 2nd Senator Petty. And discussion. Senator Bryant, yeah, and again, I apologize to the committee for not hearing the original testimony. I'm sure it was further in depth, but as I kind of surveyed, People in the industry of issuing The training for these cards, I think currently if they get a card, you can just as a positive note, you can snap the picture of the front and the back and store that on your phone in lieu of having a card in your purse and it's and it's acceptable identification in the event you need to present it, but one thing that they have Grupili asked for is some sort of app that the state. can move forward to, to maybe upload into an official. A that the state has that might store because we're moving towards electronic driver's license. Maybe you can store electronic, um, other certifications in cars that the state would issue, um, in general, obviously it doesn't solve the problem today with the people that want the card, but I still have very valid concerns that in 6 months when this goes into effect, somebody reaches out for a card, they will be denied that and it won't be the fault of leadership other than leadership didn't pass down to the general working group. To ensure that card is available if requested, but then once the printer breaks and they don't want to replace it, nobody's going to be authorized because it's still a matter of you've got to have the resources to print the card, so with that, I appreciate the discussion. We have a motion and a second to pass in discussion, any more discussion on the. Motion Say none of them favor, say I opposed. Your bill fails, Mr. Childers. Thank you. Uh Who is it? 1665545, 1645. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Um Colleagues, this was a 1645. I'm sorry, Senator. This is a bill brought by myself, Senator Johnson, for a constituent in our county. We are in a dry county and we have a microbrewery private club restaurant. And the rules for these restaurants are very, very strict operating in dry county, for example, they can't engage essentially in any form of advertising unless it's limited to the name of the restaurant, not to promote the consumption of alcohol. Um, the issue that has arisen is number one, this my folks interpret this law as is that if you call them up on the phone and you say, hey, do you have that craft beer I had last week? I really liked it. They can't tell you or they'd like to talk about your menu. I can't tell you because that's maybe considered advertising. They also can't place like their menu on their website or on their Facebook page. So this of past would just create another little exception that makes it clear that if you place your menu on your Facebook page or your website, that's not considered advertising. And I think the distinction that we're drawing on this is, I think that the rule against advertising is, is for people to be bombarded with ads like on TV, radio, or billboards or things of that. This situation is the consumer actually has to specifically go and find the information, you know, hey, I'm gonna Google them so I can get their menu. This will just make it legal for us to be able to put that on their website, but it's for information you're actually seeking out and not information you're being bombarded with and be glad to answer any questions. Committee of our next elections, Senator English are recognized. Thank you. So is this a problem across the state or is it just in in your hometown. It is a problem, I think, with us also Craighead County has the same situation where they have this microbrewery private club restaurant in Dry County. There's only, I think, a handful of counties where this has come up because, because there's not very many counties that this affects, but it's not just mine, but there are, Senator, I think there may be like 3 other restaurants are kind of the same boat as we are scattered across the state. OK, thank you. All right. Any other questions from the committee? See not anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill. Saum Miss Brown, you want clothes for your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Uh We have a due pass. We have Paty at do pass. And a second. I have a second Senator English in discussion. All those in favor say a, all opposed. Your bill passes, Mr. Brown. Our special announcement uh for we we've still got a couple more bills, but I've got a couple of distinguished guests with me today. Uh, my daughter and my niece. Or sitting at the back. They drove a long way to be here today. So anyway, I, I appreciate, appreciate him being here. And who else center history of a bill? 1785. Alright, yeah, go ahead. You've got to. OK. Yeah, well, we're gonna go ahead and run the house. All right, Senator Ester if you recognize yourself. State Senator Bart Hester, and as I was walking over here, I agreed to Senator Hill that I would run this bill as long as Josh Curtis did all the talking. So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee, Josh Curtis Association, Arkansas Counties. This is really kind of a cleanup bill y'all passed a couple of bills out of here uh earlier this session that combines the office of County collector and county treasurer. There is a board that some counties utilize called the county depository. story board that does investments and things of that nature for the counties and the law states right now that it should be the treasure, the collector, and the sheriff, or, or the judge, excuse me, the collector, the treasurer, and the judge be that board. Well, since y'all combine treasure collector in a couple of counties, uh, we've got to have a way to appoint another member, so this bill simply states that theorum Court determines by ordinance any other constitutional officer within the County, so it could be county clerk, county assessor, uh, at the, if the office of County treasurer and Collector have been combined. It's very simple, and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, any committee members have questions? Anyone in the audience would speak for, yes, this bill. Seeing none of the chair would entertain a motion, motion to pass. Uh, are you close on a test? Uh, we have a due pass in a second, in discussion. All those in favor say aye, all opposed. But should be past Sanchester, uh, Senator Bryant, you Houses. 1789. Yeah, this one. And other page. 5 1555, which one do you want to run for, uh, 455. OK. Right, Senator Bryant, you, uh, You've got the table and recognize yourself, you recognize the run the House Bill 1455. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. House Bill 1455. You recognize. Thank you committee members. This brought Representative Pilkington is to ask to allow a private club to purchase beyond the current ability to purchase directly from a retailer. So if you own a private club, which is a Corporation in essence, you can purchase alcohol to dispense within your club, whether you are in a wet county or a dry county, you can purchase it from a retailer. What this bill will do is allow them to purchase direct from a wholesaler or a or a small brewery wholesaler. That way it expands their options, um, representative Pokingin says there's no opposition to this bill. It just expands options within the private club to be able to dispense more products that a retailer may not provide, but a wholesaler could provide. Uh, yeah, Central Petty, you have a question. So just because we were talking about dry counties a minute ago. This is not going to affect any of the laws related to the dry county that not directly what what they can do now, they can still do this will just allow them to go to a wholesaler or a small brewery and purchase their product to dispense within their private club. So another option to purchase rather than expanding. OK, thank you. All right. Any other questions from committee members? See none anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill. Uh We don't have your name down, so if you want to come, go ahead and come to the front and recognize yourself, state who you're with for the record, then you'll be recognized. My name's Robbie Vogel. I'm a permit holder in the wholesale tier of the alcohol industry. We own Golden Eagle of Arkansas Eagle Distributing of Texarkana and Arkansas Wine and Spirits, wholesale LLC. this bill I wanted to correct, should not allow a wholesaler to sell into a dry county. My version that I have does not have the wholesale. permit allowing to sell into a dry county. This does allow a brewery. That makes product in a wet county to sell product with an exclusive agreement. In a dry county. I think the exclusive agreement is very important because it allows the Permittee in the dry county to only carry that brewery's product. So this does not allow a wholesaler such as our businesses to sell into a dry county. So I just wanted to clarify that. For the committee. My apologies, Mr. Chair. There there was an amendment ran that I did not catch and the bill's sponsor is here and available representative Ho content if the committee has any additional questions. Representative Pilgen, you want to go to the other table and recognize yourself. Sorry, I'm late, you know, it's in the session, so it's getting crazy, but uh. Just, uh, I don't, I don't know what all uh Senator Brown has has said, but you know, essentially I've got a, this is a constituent issue. I've got a A farm to table restaurant in Clarksville that did in partnership with my university, and they have a private club in there, and they make their own beer in Logan County, and so they're wanting to be able to sell it, and they're willing to forego those higher profit margins if they get to have this exclusive agreement. And so part of the compromise I made with the industry was we're going to create this exclusive agreement where they have to be an adjacent county. It can only be one club. It can't be anyone else. Um, they have to be in the entertainment district. And because of those stipulations, it really narrows it down to being really just for this one farm to table restaurant that is wanting to show, you know, you can make Arkansas beer. You can grow Arkansas food and do it here locally, um, and so that's, that's why I brought this bill. I'm not trying to upset the apple cart with the three-tier system, and my understanding this will only affect 11 group in the entire state, this small farm to table restaurant in Clarksville, Arkansas, and so, um, That's essentially the the reasoning for the bill and why we we've come to this point and like I said, I've tried to work with the industry and we have to make a lot of compromises to make it so narrowly tailored and like I said, they're willing to give up. Higher profit margin beverages just so they're able to sell their own beverage that they make themselves and not have to go to this system where literally they're driving the truck, unloading their goods, paying a 30% upcharge, then loading the material back into their car and then driving it back. I mean, we've just made a ridiculous system where it's going to the same place and so we're just trying to make it a little easier on them so that they can operate their business in Clarksville, Arkansas, and so that's why I asked for a good vote. Appreciate it. Hope that was succinct enough, do you have anything to add? No, sir, I was just going to stay here until you let me sit back down in case questions were needed. Good do you have any questions for a guest. Mark the time. Thank you, Robbie Vogel. We'll be back. Robbie, any other questions for Robbie? All right, see no, anyone in the audience, anybody else in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill? I see none. Uh Representative Branch, you're closer, Mr. Pilkington, your clothes for I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and I make a motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. And a second We have a 2 We have a second a discussion on the, on the, on the bill. See no all all those favor, say ah all oppose. Bill passes Representative Pelley. Congratulations. Senator Bryant, you have another bill while you're there? Yes, Mr. Chair, 1789. OK, you, you're recognized house uh 79. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant State district, Senate District 32. House Bill 1789. His goal is to establish clear guidelines regarding the issuance of identification cards by municipal governments within our state and to ensure that taxpayer money is not utilized to issue government identification cards to individuals who cannot demonstrate a lawful presence in this state. This issue was first brought to the attention of Representative Burkes by ICE detention and deportation officer who covers Arkansas. He discovered that one of our local municipalities was issuing government identification cards to illegal aliens. These ID cards are considered a component of sanctuary city policies which attract illegal illegal aliens to the cities. Cities in Arkansas who roll out. These cards are essence rolling out the welcome mat to these individuals is the position of Arkansas that we are not a sanctuary state. State of Arkansas provides driver's license and state ID cards to anyone who can prove a lawful presence in the United States, DFA covers that in within their purview, our cities should be held to the same standard, and if a city chooses to have a municipal ID card, they should add a minimum require the same standards that the state of Arkansas uses with their state issued ID cards. So with that, I'll be glad to take any questions. Front committee Seeing none, we have uh Joan. A bank To speak against the bill. So you recognize yourself, you are, uh, free speech. Good afternoon. My name is John City director. OK, then. Thank you. I'm not used to all of this technology. My name is Joanna Adcock. I'm here this afternoon to speak about this bill and thank you for the opportunity. I have been a Little Rock City director for 32 years and I really feel like this is one of the most important things I have ever had the opportunity to work on. Can I, can I ask you a favor before we uh proceed. Could you pull your mic just a little closer, make sure, yeah, because I know some of us older people having a hard time here. OK, let's. like this, is it? That's much better. OK. Again, my name is Joan Adcock. I'm a Little Rock City director. I have been a director for 32 years and I really feel like the municipal ID was one of the things I'm the most proud of for our city. Because it serves those people who do not have an opportunity to have the things that some of us in this room has. I'm talking about the senior citizens. I'm talking about the homeless people. I'm talking about the father who wants to go to school to pick up his child and he does not have a picture ID to pick up his child. I'm talking about the people who have no ID for a bank account. So this opens up those opportunities for people. One thing that the gentleman talked about was what do we require and I think if you have before you, you would see some of the items that we have researched. We started this in 2016 and it was not started open to the public till 2018 because we've visited several other cities. We talked to people, we found out what the needs was in our city to serve this population. Chief, who was the police chief at that time, he was concerned about the crime when they went to a crime scene and people could not identify themselves. We had people that had problems, health problems. And when the police got there, they did not know who the person was and who to call. On our ID on the back of it, if you've seen one, you say see I has an emergency number to call in case of an illness or in case of a problem, in case of a rake. It has the person's name, an emergency contact, but also some health information. This serves a wide group of people in our community. People who want to rent property that have no ID. A lots of senior citizens do not have a driver's license and they have no ID and their families wants them to be able to have an ID on them. So this serves that purpose. We're very careful in talking to people. The sheet I have that I'm showing you has a whole list of items that you have to have to get an ID. It's not just walk in and pick up one. You have to have one of some items 2 and then 3 of some items to get one. We have talked to North La Rock. They have a similar problem program that we have in Little Rock. And as I said, homeless people, people coming out of prison that have no ID. They there are no charge to that population. People who are in domestic violence. It's that people are lots of times we don't think of. that this serves a real purpose in their lives. And as I said, we are very, very careful when we started this, Mr. Bruce Moore, who was a city manager at that time was very careful and picked out a lady who is an attorney to set this program up and I was out this morning visiting this program to make sure that they have followed all of the rules and regulations that we set up in 2016 for this program, and I found the same forms and everything that we started out with, so we are very, very careful of who receives these IDs. It's not a walk-in and get one. So I would request that you support the city of Lot Rock in this item on the IDs. If there's any questions I'll be happy to answer them, is there any questions? Ma'am, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. We have thank you for this opportunity. Well, thank you for being here. Thank you. We have one more, uh, Ms. Garcia. And Mr. Lopez left to speak. That's better. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak against this bill. My name is Marisa Garcia, and I am with Arkansas advocates for children and families because the advocates has advocated for the past 47 years for a research data-driven proven policies that support children and families in Arkansas. You know, it's important to understand that words have meaning. Sanctuary laws are not just whatever thing we think might incidentally benefit immigrants we have a sanctuary law in this program was in place and and in existence and making IDs and was part of the discussion at the time the sanctuary law passed, we heard from the sponsor of the sanctuary law. as well as many of the people testifying this, that this was not a sanctuary city in Little Rock and not a sanctuary policy. Sanctuary policies are those that prohibit enforcement enforcement cooperation with ICE, meaning policies primarily that, uh, restrict ice from being able to to issue detainers or restrict uh police or uh the jail, for example, um, from issuing detainers or arm detainers or requiring higher levels of cooperation. This bill is taking sanctuary policies and making an extremely broad. It would not make it. Safer for Arkansans, um, because there is really a flawed understanding of what sanctuary policies are, as a lawyer who worked in immigration law for 10 years, um, and with an expertise of working with victims of crime. I know how important investigations and prosecutions are and making sure that police have access to the victims of a crime on an ongoing continuing basis. This policy started because there was a series of robbers in 2013, 2014, uh, that were targeting Hispanic people, whether or not they were immigrants or not, they did not have access to bank accounts. The were groups of robbers that literally followed them home and they were armed robberies, which means those are uh very violent offenses. They're charged equally as a murder because of the danger involved, um, and in fact someone was shot, but they could not get cooperation because people didn't have identification to show that uh to show to the police and to be able to feel secure that they would be able to report what happened and work with the police. Uh, Chief Buckner as the director said, was the one to come with the issue and there, reaching out to the broader community of Little Rock. The idea came for the municipal ID. The idea itself is very secure and it can only be issued if you meet the requirements. Not everyone can meet the requirements right away. One of the things that we worked really hard on, we went to every single shelter in the city before the ID program launched to make sure that we understood what was going on with shelters. Many of the shelters would not allow homeless folks to stay if they did not have an ID. And uh it's difficult or it takes a long time sometimes to get the documents they need, like a birth certificate when it's from out of state, um, especially because there's not fee waivers, if they don't have the money because they're unhoused, and that ends up leading to more people on the streets. So that was a secondary issue of public safety. When we talk about uh additional issues, the idea was that we would work with banks and we to accept the ID because we put security protections on it and allowed for them to see. That we have similar security protections as to what the state uses. In fact, we use the ID system itself is has the same um distributor as the state uses for their printers with their driver's licenses and IDs. Excuse me, um, and we just have a like a smaller version of that because we were obviously gonna produce fewer. This is a public safety measure and removing it is not gonna improve public safety. It will actually harm public safety, that's what I've heard from the officers on the street from the detectives I've talked to, because this has also made it much easier to identify people. Um, while I understand that apparently some ICE officer presented an ID and said, hey, you gave this to this person, um, Understanding what someone's immigration status is, is very complicated and in fact I had ICE officers come to the office on multiple occasions to speak to me, to ask me, this person's in proceedings, so they have the right to be here, but we take their papers from them, we take their passport, their matricul, and all the things, um, and so can you make an appointment and work with this person and see what documents they can present. Um, I Also wants to know who the people are. The city wants to know who the people are, and in terms of who the ID benefits it benefits everyone because anyone who wants to get the ID can for whatever reason. Another population that we targeted was a juveniles because you can get the ID if you're age 14 and up. We learned that, again, by going out into the community of Little Rock, that many of the schools that stop issuing student IDs and so the students didn't have ways to prove who they were, except for their birth certificate, and obviously their parents didn't want them carrying that around. I think it's clear, um, That When you think about where the state has action in immigration law. It has been limited by the Supreme Court. This itself is not anything that has been barred. It's not a sanctuary policy, as I said, the sanctuary policy itself says, what are the specific, it lays out the specific things, and the vio the municipal ID does not violate any of those. So I, I would thank you and again ask you to please vote against this bill, as it recalls a lot of harm to public safety. in Little Rock and any other city that is looking to implement. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, do you know how many homeless people there are in Little Rock. I don't know off the top of my head, there are thousands, um, is my understanding about 900. And time and a lot of those were veterans, so you know, and you don't know how many of those don't have an ID. Well, I had veterans come to the office because they were Having lots of issues, getting collaboration at the VA. I'm a veteran myself, so I can say it is often very complicated, complex, and um cumbersome and so my office didn't just function to issue IDs as the liaison my job was to make sure that veterans, homeless people, if they had a question and issue in the city that we connect them with the services. So we worked with them. Oftentimes to get the ID so that they can go to the VA and say, hey, look, we got it. I have an ID. Here's proof and um then they could connect with the services the VA was supposed to provide them. I don't know how many don't have, but it is very common for me to see veterans, um, in my office. Any, any questions from committee? Mr. Garcia. That's Santa do you reckon? And maybe I'm missing on this, but This bill still allows you to do identification cards just not for someone that's here illegally. So are here legally. Immigration status is complicated to understand. Uh I worked in the field for 10 years as a lawyer, uh, primarily, like I said, victims of crimes, immigration status is fluid and it can change and so there are any number of things that a person might have that would look like To the average person, they are not here with permission, um, but they are. So for example, the ICE agent bringing people to my office, they are in a proceeding that proceeding has to continue. They go to check-ins every month or whatever it is, and they have only a paper that says they came unlawfully or they overstayed their visa and they are put in proceedings. That's what they have, but they're allowed to be here and So the average person looking at that is is not gonna understand that that person is uh, is actually allowed, and so then we get to a point where we are denying someone, uh, an ID card, who is actually allowed to be here. Sure, yeah, so you're describing people that are allowed to be here. That's not what this bill, this bill is about people who are not allowed to be here. But looking on this is uh uh you will for an ID card to someone who was in a US jail. their discharge paperwork. So if they came here illegally, got arrested for something. They got discharged from jail. Now you're going to provide them an ID card. It's under the whatever that word is, no, they, if you um look at this list, if you have one of the primary documents that's generally speaking, photo ID with your name and everything. Yes, so no, they couldn't just present their jail documents. That's not. not accurate. Thanks. Any other questions from committee members? He, uh, you're, you're excused Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I Mr. Lopez. if you would come to the front and identify yourself. It's state who you're with for the record and you may. Thank you, sir. Well, my name is Alvin Lopez. Al Lopez, uh, and I, I'm a citizen. I live in Rogers. Rogers has been my home for the past 30 years. So, uh, I, I am here today just to. Uh, testify in the way of You know, living in Rogers back in '94 when there were so many challenges when Latinos or what I like to call a Newark, Kansas started to arrive. The challenges in the way of how do we make this work. How do we, you know, have children now in schools that don't speak the language and How is this going to work? How is our community going to be able to connect. And um and saw a lot of proactive things going on in Northeast Arkansas regarding that. But I got to tell you that one of the things that was uh A big celebration in Northwest Arkansas. A big like wow, there's hope was like around 7 years, 8 years ago when we heard about The IDs, the municipal IDs in Little Rock and North Little Rock. Uh, celebrated through the Spanish media because we saw that there is an opportunity, uh, because even though it is true that there are undocumented. Latinos and from many other countries in our area, but at this point after 30 years, I still know some that are still undocumented, but their children were born here and they got the voters now and their grandkids, the future voters now, so even though, you know, that's why I heard that it's a complex situation when it comes to immigration. But the biggest thing for us was to feel that suddenly now the people that were here um in the shadows and trying just to be invisible, just trying to go to work and come back and not Community type of problem because they didn't want to be deported or taken out of here for, for me it was that it gave them hope and a sense of belonging. This idea, which really has no teeth in the way of saying what does it do? I mean, does it give me any other rights or does it make me, you know, untouchable? No, it just proves to me. Or I can show my children that, you know, we belong here, you know, it's going to take more time for me to become As a parent or grandparent documented that we belong here, you know, we, we, we have brought our children. They are invested in our schools, so many people that are doing so many wonderful things in our community, which I call again our Newark, Kansas. So It really, it really uh took me by surprise. Um, just to see this um this bill. Coming from, um, you know, and I say this with respect. But from our representative, Burks and Senator Bryan. From Norford, Arkansas, where Rogers is right now I would say 32% Latinos, you know, not all documented, but Most of them and, and then law that has like a 26%. I mean, to look at something like this that it could be bad when in our communities, We see it and when I say we, I'm talking about New York, Kansas Latinos and amigos of Latinos as something good, as something that should be Done all over the state, you know, something that just gives us a sense of being. That we are here also to add that we are here because we want to fight crime together, you know, when you see a bill like this and we explain to Latinos that it was passed because to protect them, for they will not become the victims of crime. So that, that was such a great thing to do, a great move to do to make us feel secure and to say, you know what, I am here and I want to help fight crime to Together we can do this, you know, language is not a barrier to interpreters, we can work together as one community. So, it's just, you know, this bill for me is just, it hurts me to have to go back to Northwest Arkansas and get on Spanish radio and have to talk about this. And, and, and why, why are we doing things like this to make it more difficult to help people have a better quality of life, you know, and for their children to feel more secure that at least some things are being done in order. To help their parents uh give them a better life, so that's all I wanted to say, you know, I feel the bill, you know, I wish they would vote against it. And at the same time, I invite um my, my senators and representatives from Norway, Arkansas for us to sit down and really have more conversations like this for them to go to the Spanish media to be able to talk and to get to know really their constituents against that some cannot vote because of their status, but a lot of them can and also their children. are the ones voting now, so those aren't my words. Thank you very much for the time given. Mr. Garcia, does, does it Springdale have one of the largest, uh, I mean to school children. Yes, there are teams there in the state. Yes, Springville is like the largest in in the state because I work for the Springdale School District, so like for many years, and I also worked for the Rogers School District and uh it's just amazing. I mean, the growth and also the Northwest Arkansas, like Springville, the largest Marshallese population in the whole United state. So, so you know, but you got to think about that. We've been there 30 years more over 30 years. So if you think about it, like 3rd generation going in, and I still know, sir, I still know of people that I've met 30 years ago that were undocumented that because of of the way that immigration, you know, and the law is so difficult. That's why we're saying that it's it's very complex to understand but still haven't been able to To become a citizen, still haven't been able to become documented even though they're children are documented because some of them are American citizens that were born in Arkansas. you have a question. Yeah, thank you for coming and testifying, and I think what I, I don't want to get lost here is we're talking about this is about people that are not here legally. You mentioned the Marshallese community. They're all here legally like we're a nation of laws. It is imperative that we abide by those laws and you mentioned the Springdale schools we provide education in 40, 50 languages in Springdale schools and maybe you would have a better, but like we we are, we are very welcoming in Northwest Arkansas. We, uh, we, we We believe that the rule of law, um, I will tell you this body right here, uh, just 2 years ago we gave status to be able to be engineers and police officers and teachers to people who had status but not citizens, right, like that was a that was a big step like we, we are, uh, we are part of the community, right? Like the, the Latinos we're, we're all together and, and you will see by past acts that we're supportive of this. right? Um, but, but it is the the very distinctive difference here legally and here illegally. And and here illegally is dangerous, not necessarily maybe from the majority of the Latino community, but if you don't, if the line is the line here legally or not, and then I we've been down to I've been down to the southern border and it it wasn't Latinos that were crossing, right? It was Iranians and Chinese and Lebanese and uh like that was the majority of the people that were cross people were afraid of, uh, we do not want to put in any way. Something that is saying Uh, found a way to get here. We're going to make it easier on you. We don't want these dangerous people coming to our communities that will harm your community and mine and all of ours, but I guess that's what I was gonna say you, you, you, you clearly it sounds like you speak for community, um, I don't want this to be perceived as this is, this is in our, in our opinion, uh, something that is protecting our communities, your community, and mine. Thanks. Absolutely. May I respond? you know, and I understand that and and again I just want to say Uh In the 30 years that I've been here, I've seen what you're saying. And when it comes to undocumented how you call them illegals. Uh, I've seen how that played on in our community. And when you have this situation going on. Where you have people that are undocumented but still, you know that they have a presence here. And not only your presence, they have gotten an ID for to do the federal taxes because people that are undocumented are doing their taxes. They have bought the homes. I mean they have established themselves, so my question is, you know, think about it in the way of people. You say for security, and I understand that, but wouldn't it be more secure to really know Everybody that lives here to really know, to have documentation of people that everybody that's here regardless of your status. We know who you are. I mean, I feel so and and and Latinos know this, and Latinos that are giving their information are thinking, well, I'm taking a risk here. But against the sense of they wanting to belong and not being able because it has not been allowed because of all the um things that go on with immigration laws. I mean, it's so difficult it is. It, it's, it's very hard. So, so, so people are taking a risk by saying, hey, this is me and this is my address and this is who I am and my kids go to this school, but at the same time, they're saying, I want a truth. I want a record that I was here, that I was doing something great for my community that I opened the business that I that, that, you know, even though my status is still legal, but everybody surrounding me, that's not the case. So I'm, I'm just saying think about how children growing up that are men now. They have seen their parents live in the shadows. What does that do really to a community in the long run, you know, if you want to become really part of of here if you say this is, this is my home. So Any other, any other questions from committee members. Saying no, Mr. Lopez, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill? Say no, Senator Bryant. You're gonna have to close for. Thank you. I think what one reason I agreed to be the Senate sponsor on this bill is just the basic question of should Those here without legal lawful presence be allowed to hold a identification card issued by one of our local authorities, our local governments. A government that was created by this body as a creature of the state, therefore has the full effect and force of the state. And when they use those services to engage in public activities such as voting, such as accessing public services, um, accessing public buildings in our schools when there is no legal reason for them to be in the state and they're they're here. Maybe they're attempting legal status. The state of Arkansas, by their own form says you can get a valid identification card or a valid driver's license upon proof of passing a course. As long as you provide a foreign passport with a valid US visa I-94, a permit resident alien card I551 or an I766. So that's the requirements that we're asking our cities to do if they choose to issue a card with their municipal logo on it by the full force and effect of that local government enabled by the state of Arkansas. Just to make sure that they have a lawful president to be here in the state. And so with that um closed for the bill and I would make a motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass and we have a 2nd in discussion on the motion. Saying none, all those in favor say aye or opposed? And you'll be OK, Senator Bryant. Mark, do we have any other reps? Parts of Senator Johnson, I'm sorry about that. OK Senator Johnson, you have an amendment with this bill. Yes, sir, I do they're gonna go ahead and pass this out. I can. OK You do this. You got too. We'll get you as soon as we can. I, I don't need a copy. All right, Senator Johnson, you want to state your name and yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Johnson, Senate District 17. Um. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just basically fixes a typo, it changes, takes out the word accurately and changes it to not accurately, just a drafting error that we're correcting, OK? I would appreciate motion to adopt any discussion on the amendment. See and we have a motion to adopt the amendment. And a second. All those favor, say ah. Alright, 10 what's been adopted. You are recognized to present the bill. Senator Johnson, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senate Bill 525, uh, I consider this uh uh both addressing a specific situation in some ways modernizing how we deal with incorporation of communities. Um we, we went through a change in our our process a few years ago and We used to allow, uh, 75 Uh, property owners in an area could sign a petition asking to be incorporated as a town. Then it was changed to 200 and and we're basically asking that in this bill we will change it back to uh uh 75. It also addresses a situation where if you have A community that would was in two counties. It straddles the line, so to speak. We would be able to, uh, uh, clarify that and by doing that, we put the jurisdiction of approving the uh incorporation duties with the Secretary of State rather than with the county court. And uh that way the Again, you're Secretary of State would represent represents both counties and you don't have any conflict there. I will say that uh Secretary Jester is OK with this bill. He did, he did not initiate it, but I talked to him about it and he's he's OK with with this responsibility. The petition would still be county clerks could approve the that these people are the, the qualified electors, etc. etc. and in that area that's designated. for the new town, but would also and then once that's certified, then it, the, the hearing and the other process would be handled by the Secretary of State. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions? It ain't no anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the bill. doneent Johnson, you recognized close. Mr. Chairman, it's a good bill. It addresses a situation where we've, I don't know how many communities straddled county lines, but it certainly take care of the one we have here in between Pulaski and Perry County, so I appreciate a good vote. Thank you. I'm closed. I do have a most uh. We have a motion to pass as, as amended and a 2. A discussion. on the motion. All those in favor say ah all opposed. Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you passed your bill. Uh So while you are next, and then we have I think. A couple of 3 from Senator Perry and we're going to wrap it up. You have one test, OK. In Perry can flip. All right, Senator Walsh should recognize. Thank you, sir. Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. I'm carrying this bill for Senator Hammer. It's a fairly straightforward and line 28 on page 1 through line 33 is a meat of the of the subject and what it says is, what is this bill number? Sorry, Mr. the bill number is 55353. Yes sir. 553. Sorry. OK. What it, what it requires is um it's making a change in training in the municipal treasure with elected or appointed, she complete 8 hours of training by the Arkansas Municipal League in cooperation with the Arkansas legislative audit. The other part is they need to have this done within the, they must have it done within the 1st 180 days. If not, then thatmunicipality is in noncompliance with this chapter. And that's, that's the meat of this bill, you heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions? Anyone in the audience wished to speak for against the bill? Saint Senator Wal should recognize you're closed, aren't share entertain a motion. a motion due pass in a second. Uh A discussion on the motion. All those in favor say hi. All opposed. Congratulations, Senator Wallace. But, uh, Senator Perry Thanks for your patience. What What else we go Mr. Chair, I have SB 571 574, and then I also would like to run House Bill 1802, but I will yield to Senator Hester if we run out of time to to run that so. You arere Senate Bill 571. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Petty, Senator, District 29, SB 571 is relatively straightforward, and it is clarifying some at least some discrepancy or or or adding some clarity in an area that is already a matter of practice, which is if you are county owned in a in a municipality that the county building and municipal codes apply and not the not the municipality and that's the essence of this bill is to clarify that counties are in control of theirs, even if it's in the city, and with that I'll, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any, any questions? Anyone in the audience would to speak for against the bill. Saying nonsense you recognized clothes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm closed and I could motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. And a second. A discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations, Senator Petty, your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 574 74, the next one very similar again, this is pretty much the standard practice now, but just clarifying that if the county does do something, then they, as long as they meet all the health department requirements and other requirements, and they pay for the cost of the improvements there on the site that they will have access to the municipality's services, and that's essence of this bill. OK. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from committee? Sitting down anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against. Say no, chairman, you want to close for your bill? I am closed and I make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass and we have a second discussion. All those in favor say aye all opposed. Bill pass the Central. I'm, I'm happy to stay here 14. I'm happy to do that. I think it's relatively quickly as well. Uh, many of you may have already been familiar with the program. It's a it's a talent recruitment program. It's a grant program, whereby educated people and, and, and hard to fill positions in locations across Arkansas and the country are able to work remotely. So instead of counties and, and, and cities being able to recruit large manufacturing jobs, in essence, what they're doing is they're recruiting the talent pool, they're recruiting the people and so as we all know, Arkansas is a great place to live and, and having a a a more uh Available workforce this, this bill does not include any funding. It is in essence, setting up a program that's already been used in in some municipalities across the state. Fort Smith, West Memphis, and Texarkana. Already have this, uh, again, no state funding here, but what this does is it allows, it sets up the mechanism for the ability to have a grant program that allows municipalities and and and others to recruit the talent to live in the city. So for example, in Van Buren, the city could determine. That they wanted to recruit a bunch of engineers for for some job or or maybe steel manufacturing expertise, they could do that with a program again if if funding in the future is is set up. This is setting up the mechanism in order for that to to to happen if future funding does become available, whether it be federal, state, or, or otherwise. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right, any questions from committee. Senator Hester, you yes, I'm familiar with the program and you just said this, I'm just affirm we're not putting any money in this. It's just if funds become available, if funds become available, it's setting up the mechanism for future funding. All right. Any other questions from the committee? See none anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill? Saying none, Senator Petty, you recognize close. I am closed. I make a motion to pass. All right. We have a motion to pass in a second discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye, all oppose. Congratulations, Senator Senator Hester, you recognize. What bill are you, Senate Bill 518 Senate Bill 518. You are raking natural members, first of all, I, I, I appreciate your indulgence. We, we could probably spend all day on this, but I'm, I'm not gonna ask us to take a vote on this today, but I would like, we've had some people come up to testify and so I'm, I am, I would like to hear a little bit of testimony on this. Again, I don't think we will take long, uh, and I appreciate your indulgence with You know, some of us in growing communities, uh, we end up having different uh concerns and other people, but that's, that's why the body is, is great, um. And this particular bill talks about floodplain management. And when land is really, really expensive, if you've got to take a little bit of land, uh, to manage flood plain outside of Develoon. Sometimes it could cost millions of dollars before you, before you think about it. What this bill says is we can't regulate floodplains more than the federal government. So, I mean, it's a real simple bill if you think it's, it's just the back of one page and it says shall not adopt an ordinance or building or zoning code in any way that's that's more than the national flood insurance program. Uh, since I filed that, I've been getting a lot of concern from municipalities. I, I don't quite get it, but I also understand there's a, there's a natural rub, particularly when cities have a compelling governmental interest to make sure that all property owners are cared for and concerned. not just the person developing. Uh, I think this bill is something we should consider doing. A lot of people came today to testify, and so I'm gonna ask a few of them if they will testify briefly, um, so we can at least hear the debate and if we need to move forward at another time, we will, but again, I will not be asking for a vote today. With that, I will, I'm happy to take any questions or I'll stand down for, for the for and against. But, but what you are saying, Senator, this bill would allow the state to align more with the federal government. guidelines as far as a flood plain. Well, it's saying that a municipality cannot cannot require more on a floodplain management than than what the, the national flood requires. All right, you want, uh, we have a whole list. Uh Those that would like to speak against it, Senator Rice should recognize, Mr. Chair, could you tell the committee how many there are, uh, where we can see 3. 4 or 567 just, we just have 4. OK, uh, I would make a motion that we allow 3 minutes each week. do have a caucus meeting that we will be late for, but that's fine but I'd make a motion for 3 minutes each. OK, we have a motion to limit debate to 3 minutes each and a second, all those in favor, say ah. All right, if you will, uh, Mr. Denny McPlay. If you would come to the front, uh, we'll be timing it 3 minutes. You have 3 minutes to. And you recognize. Thank you, sir, and thank you for having me here today. Uh, my name is Denny McFate. I'm deputy city manager for the City of Hot Springs, uh, for the past 22 years I've been also doubled as the floodplain administrator and the CRS coordinator, which is community rating systems coordinator for FEMA for the city. Uh, in 2012, the biggert Waters Act was passed by Congress, which did away with the sharing of premiums, uh, which increased flood insurance premiums on the individual homeowners, and it was amended in 2019 again increasing the flood insurance rates on homeowners. Risk rating 2.0 and 22 was further implemented another rate increase currently, the medium premiums for flood insurance. is $689 per individual and is incrementally expected to increase to $1,288. In 1990, FEMA created a community rating system program. And what that does, that program is specifically a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices that exceed the minimum requirements of the national flood insurance program. Over 1500 communities nationwide in participate in this program. Now, what that does, there's they, they raid out cities as class 10 through 1. So each thing you do, there's activities in the CSR that you can qualify for that gives you points for things that you do. Um Those things are like. Reviewing building permits for flood plain review, uh, public outreach for flood plain and flooding purposes, drainage maintenance within the municipalities. Stormwater mapping, flood prevention, stormwater regulations, all of those the communities get points for and for each 500 points you get, you, if you have your, if you join the program, you're just a class 10. If you get 500 points of different things that you do in the community, uh, you, you can reduce yourself to a class 9. And so forth down to Class 8, Class 7, class 6. With each reduction, the, the individual owners of that property gets a 5% reduction in the insurance premiums. So right now if uh this bill would pass, it says you can't do this. All of these communities that participate in the CRS would have to abandon those. And we would no longer be able to participate in the CRS program. Immediately upon termination of that CRS participation, which is all been approved ordinances by our city boards, um, it means that the insurance policies for the local people here in the state of Arkansas is going to go up. Just to give you a couple of examples of a couple of of what the numbers would look like. Little Rock is a class 7 with over 1000 premiums. Their insurance premiums will automatically go up 15% on passage of this. Garland County is 674 to class 9, they would go up 5% on the insurance. I hate to interrupt you, but your 3 minutes is up. wrap this up, you know, it's going to affect a lot of the insurance premiums and we don't know if this is going to reach out in the stormwater program for detention and retention where is or drainage ordinances as well. It's just it, I think that's gonna have to be fought out in courts over litigation beyond just NFIP. OK, thank you. Yeah, we want to take a question. Senator Petty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can, can you clarify when you're talking about insurance premium increases, you're talking about flood insurance, not property and strictly flood strictly flood insurance and, and those are usually for those that are already in the flood plain. Yes sir, homeowners insurance. Thank you. But Senator Bryant, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm going to probably ask this to all those who testified just to see where the balance is. So if you own a piece of property, In one of these highly regulated areas which does have compelling interests to Navigate flooding prone areas. Where is the balance between The, the cost is too great to do anything with that property, therefore, the value of the property plummets to zero because you can't do anything but except pay taxes on it versus because if the answer is not this, and the answer may be lowering where the takings clause is some, some sort of, if it's compelling interest of the government for you to protect the waterways of the area to prevent flooding and the landowner had it and they didn't ask for the area around it to be overdeveloped in the city to do this, where would that balance be if it exists? Most of the the the NFRP regulations are passed, passed in a flood plain ordinance by the municipalities, uh, with you, does that does those ordinances go beyond the NFLP requirements. The CRS, the only other builder requirement that it stipulates is freeboard. uh, and that they passed in 2022, which currently they say you bill to the BFE which is a base load elevation and not that but it. A lot of the municipalities have gone to 2 ft. FEMA now says if you a prerequisite to go to a class 8, you've got to have a 1 ft freeboard. To my knowledge, that's the only requirement outside of like Cio Hot Springs, if it was detention or retention that the beyond FEMA regulations, the CRS requires. On the builder. And You finished Senator Bryant. Yes Senator Petty Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, so so to, to, and this is a very complicated situation when you're moving dirt, but to, to, I think Senator Bryant's point to the point of this when, when the municipalities require that it be raised to 2 ft. Does that not have an impact on other areas that might not have otherwise been affected because you raised it above the minimum base flood elevation as I understand, and I'm just asking for clarification because as I understand, if you raise it to a certain level, and that's going to redirect the flood to potentially other areas which creates another situation. Yes sir, it can if you're in the A zone, you can't do anything that's just going to displace more water than it was there before. In other words, you can't feel. If you're in an A zone, you can Now, the other thing is and I helped write our ordinance for the flood insurance, uh, for the City of off Springs for each foot of free board, if you do go base BFE, it's set premium base price for each foot, you increase your free board. It lowers your insurance premium. 1 ft is one rate, 2 ft is a lower rate. 3 ft is the highest rate that you can get. You can go 4 or 5, but they kept it out at 3 ft as being the highest reduced premium on your insurance rates. We thought 3ooot was Excessive, so we went with 2 ft. FEMA now says through the CRS at least 1 ft. It's such a Mr. Phillips. So, but If we're raising a 3 ft or 2 ft or 1 ft. When you raise the elevation I mean the same amount of water is going to be coming through there. We're not changing the source of the water, the source of the flood. If you raise it higher, is that not going to push that water some other direction onto other land potentially as you raise that up. It depends on the construction method. If you built it on stilts, aEMA allows you to do that or even on stilts or with stem wall construction with adequate. amount of flood vents under it. So it's permissible construction permissible construction, but if it is filled with dirt, and most people do the dirt, uh, then that's, that is going to impact potentially neighboring pieces and it's not prohibited by FEMA in a zones. It is prohibited in AE zones, but you can mitigate that. Got you. Would this have a negative spectrum effect on farmers. No, sir. No, no, sir. Nothing, anything I could reckon realize. Say no more questions, uh. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for having me. Next Ed Bailey. Mr. Bailey, if you'll stay who you're with, you'll recognize. My name is Eddie Bailey. I'm a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas. Went to school up in Northwest Arkansas, and I'm representing Gateway LIG. We're property owners and Rogers. Um, the way I read the bill, is that it's not requiring that individual municipalities lower their standards. They're just saying that if you choose to have higher standards than a minimum that's required in the national flood insurance program that you then, the individual property owner who met the minimum requirements but does not meet the municipal requirements can then ask the city or the municipality to say buy my land. So effectively they're saying if you're going to have high standards, and that's great, you can have high standards, but Is it me, the individual property owner who must pay for that, or can the entire community pay for the highest standards that the community wishes to have. And so I think that's, that's one misconception that I'm not sure if I'm reading that wrong, but To me it sounds like the you're using individual. Private property for the benefit of a community. So let's just make it community property. Um, in our particular circumstance, we have acreage up in Rogers that is um 3 acres of land that we own and we meet the standards of the NFIP program. However, we do not meet the municipal standards. Um, the standards in the municipality are, um, if, if you don't, you can't increase the the floodwaters. You cannot increase velocity, and you can't increase the flow rate, so basically the water can't go any faster and you can't make it wider to where more water crosses an individual point at any given time and you know, I'm not an engineer, but to me, you know, if you're displacing water, the only way to not increase the elevation of the water is to either have it go faster or have more water past a given point at any given time. So that's just a scenario to where the local municipality has put in place standards that the community wanted to adopt. However, for the safety of the greater population. However, it's private individuals are private property owners who are carrying all the cost burden for the greater safety of the community. This This specific property that I'm speaking about, it does meet the minimum standards of NFIP, so if if we were and and the way I'm reading this also is, you know, if I was looking at it from a, from a standpoint, from a development standpoint, and I wanted to say, hey, I don't want to just meet the NFIP standards. I wanted to go above and beyond to reduce my flood risk, but also reduce my flood insurance. I have the option to do that. They're not saying you only have to do it to this. They're saying that's the minimum requirements. So, you know, I think, I think it gives everyone an an opportunity to make a decision as to say, am I developing this to, to be, you know, to, to just have the minimum flood insurance for for what they're saying, or do I want to go above and beyond and and mitigate my flood insurance risk, which could create value down the road for my individual property. um, Mr. Bradley, I hate to interrupt you, your 3 minutes are up. Uh, any questions from committee? right to recognize as you approach this with the municipality, how, how adapt were they to trying to adapt to the concerns and move the project forward versus just putting a line in the sand. Um, you know, they, they did try to help, um, but they felt like their hands were tied because the ordinance was black and white, and there was no process for a variances, and so we've literally spent 3.5 years, um, over $100,000 in engineering fees and basically the only solution is to purchase 5 acres to the south of us create a 5 acre detention pond and um and that way we can get it out, which, which is about over a million dollars more than what the alternative would have been. I will say to that we're, we're we had a great meeting with somebody I believe that's going to testify. We, we hope we found a solution maybe, right, to, to this situation, but it's key is like in so much stuff we do. Uh, proper adequate communication and meeting seems to hopefully resolve some issues, but uh I, I, at a minimum, this bill is necessary, I think, for us to continue to talk about, um, and maybe pursue, but anyway, we're hopeful that some good communication is going to help resolve maybe this issue. Or it appreciate your testimony. Thank you. We have, we have uh Mr. McCurdy. Mr. Kurt, if you'll stay who you're with, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. My name is John McCurdy. I'm the director of community development from the city of Rogers, so I was on the other side of that conversation that you just heard about recently. I've got prepared statement that I'll try to get through quickly and give time for Q and A. Um I think that I come before you as a supporter of of private property rights, fiscal conservatism, and local control of these matters. I, I, I do want to reiterate something that I'll I'll keep fairly brief, but, but FEMA does recommend an incentivize local increases in standards for some of the reasons that are already coming up with Senator Petty, um, in order to reduce the amount of damage to other people's property in the event of development of the flood plain. And I don't know how many cities in Arkansas. I think it's about 25 or 30 cities in in Arkansas uh participate in those FEMA incentives to reduce insurance costs between 5 and 15% and up to 45% for the greatest level of, of regulation. Um, so again, if, if, if those measures are outlawed, there would be an immediate increase in flood insurance for those folks that have structures in the floodplain. Um, I also want to bring your attention to a March 19th, 2025 executive order from President Trump. titled The Achieving Efficiency Through state and local preparedness. I'll give you a couple of quotes from that. Local leaders are best equipped with the knowledge and relationships to craft flood risk solutions that protect private property rights while preserving the broader public interest. And secondly, we must encourage local communities to adopt standards that reflect their unique needs and topographies. I think one of the things that we're seeing out of Washington is is a reduction in one size fits all regulation. At the federal level, but an expectation that at the local level, municipal municipalities who know their area better than anybody, uh, will, will take, will pick up the slack. Um, this would prevent us from from following President Trump's executive order as I see it. We talked about this real world example in this situation, we're doing two things. One is the free board requirement, but also we require that any time you put any fill in the flood plain You create compensatory storage on site so that you don't do any damage to adjacent property. So in in this particular situation, almost all of the parcel is flood plain, and so in order to fill that parcel, it was going to have to go somewhere. Um, it could either increase velocity, which is going to cause erosion downstream of this site or they could fill and then, and then create compensatory storage on an adjacent site in discussions with both of those adjacent land donors, neither one wanted that to happen on their property. And so we find ourselves in a situation where the city knows through engineering studies that this bill will, will damage other people's property, um, and, and so our whole purpose here is to avoid that from happening. If the parcel were large enough or had different topography, they'd be able to achieve the, the compensatory storage on site, but in this case it's pretty flat and the flood plain covers. Pretty much all of the property. So that's what we're really trying to get at here, um, I, I hate to interrupt you, but you 3 minutes is up. Any questions from the committee? Or see none. You have questions? Well, I, I would, I would just say Senator Brown has a question next, but I appreciate Mr. McCurdy's meeting with us. I, I told him a while ago that I, that I apologize for being so direct. Things are pretty busy right now. I hope it wasn't too abrupt, and he reminded me that, uh, uh, he's met face to face with the Taliban and I wasn't super intimidating. I said, only, only Senator Wallace might understand that as well, but anyway, it's pretty intimidating. So it can. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess it goes back to maybe my first question to the first gentleman and then the testimony of the individual that obviously has a little conflict within the city. For a public good purpose. Is there any, is there any balance to In, in lieu of spending, you know, a million dollars to accommodate. That the public good. And therefore, you know, making a value of the property. Unreasonable to develop at the current rate. Now if he waits 20 years, maybe that's maybe that's reasonable, but is there a balance between, you know, taking an essence of what he could or do the property that was 5 years ago, he could probably have developed that property because we didn't have what we've got today. I guess to direct my question, is there any balance that you see as a director of planning to where a city takes on some of that. Thank you, Senator. I think in an ideal world the city would own the floodplain, you know, I think that I appreciate the thinking behind the bill that if you're going to effectively have a regulatory taking, you know, based on your rules, then, then there is a public interest in holding that property. This is a true dilemma where I, I think best practices in planning and zoning and engineering road construction. thing is that you're not going to do any harm to your neighbor, um, and, and so if we're regulating more than that, more than to that level, I think we really need to be very clear on why we're, why we're regulating beyond the point of preventing damage to your neighbor. In in this case, we're, the intent is to prevent damage to the neighbor, um, we have had this peer reviewed at the National Engineering level, um, you know, one of the first conversations we had with the applicant was, is this really flood plain? Um, and there is a, there is a means to study the flood plain and to issue a letter of map revision to the Corps of Engineers, FEMA to get the floodplain, you know, corrected if it's not real. One other thing I'd, I'd say and so, you know, there are some ways to do that, but it turned out it really was flood plain. Um, You know, there's another really important point and I missed it, but, but, um, I guess that's it. I'll, I'll try to come back to it. Well, the balance sharing and the cost, um, I, I guess that that's it, that, that we should limit the regulation to do things that are going to have an actual public benefit and so on the one hand there are regulations that are there to prevent damage from being done to your neighbor, and then there are regulations that are incentivized by the federal government, encouraged by the federal government to lower insurance rates because we know that those are good things to do. Um, we're in a situation in Rogers right now, where we have structures that are are Multiple offenders for flood insurance claims because they're right in the middle of the floodplain. And so I think that there is a public interest in purchasing those properties and restoring them to active floodplain. Um, one thing that I can say that to your point that this was maybe 5 years ago, this would have been fine. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Um, there are some significant properties in Rogers where in smaller communities aren't going to see this. This is, this is one of the bad things about becoming a small city where as your, as you're developing the land, all those engineering studies are telling you that everything's fine, but in fact you see the you see the expansion of floodplain in in places where it didn't used to be before. And so we've got significant pieces of property in Rogers that that are probably more flooded than they used to be as a result of, of the, of the development that's happened and so that's one of the main motivations in in catalysts for us getting a whole lot more serious about ensuring that what we do is right, that we peer review the engineering models that, you know, we're very careful about this so that over the long run, we're just, we're not causing significant damage, and we have already caused significant damage that's going to cost. Our taxpayers a lot of money at some point to address some of the issues that have been created just from development. So it's not an easy question though. I think this is truly a dilemma. All right, Senator Petty question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess the easy answer is, is we could pass a law that says no more development and growth in Rogers, but that would probably, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Well, yeah, I mean that's that's kind of the, but seriously, my, my question is, and it it kind of goes back to, and you were touching on it, um, some of these things happen, but if I own land and it's, it's close to a flood area, but it's not in a flood area and it could change at some point, you know, what my intention and, and you know, building it up or whatever now it becomes an issue because the area has moved, as you've described there, and, and I think that's what we're after here is how do we, how do we get to a point where all, not just, we're not just You know, protecting all the neighborhood except for the one that that that has the most water on it. We're protecting the one that has the most water on it as well, so that's what I think we're looking for and I don't know that I've heard the answer to that. I'm glad that we've got a potential solution in there, but, but we are protecting the public, but we have passed a lot of bills to protect those in the in the minority as well in this body and so we want to make sure that all are represented and have a voice in solving the problems, so. But any other question from committee? Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Uh, we have one more, uh, Mark Whitmore. Members of the committee, Mark Whitmore, Association of Arkansas Counties. Uh, let me cover something, I guess from a accounting perspective, most are county judges have, we all have floodplain managers, all 75 counties, and they enforce the ordinance that the Cays adopted in order to maintain the flood insurance program. There's some misconceptions about the floodway or flood plain flood zones. There's not a 2010 map that you roll out of the state of Arkansas, and here's the map of the flood wave and flood plain. These maps. decades apart. There's areas of the Saint Francis River that hadn't been remapped except for when Missouri Pacific put a railroad through or a highway department put through, and there was another map or an update. And over time, and I'm gonna share with. Sherwood used to be a little dinky town. Dinky small. Now it's big. There are places in Sherwood that the manhole covers blow off the water infrastructure because there's so much concrete. Conway, I mean we can go over and over Rogers. The maps change. Matter of fact, some of the maps are decades old. What we have is we've got candy judges to where our counties are but a city and there's a special area in which unless you're just have rocks in your head that you know that the city has a foot above base or sometimes in the city of Fort Smith, it might be 2 ft. Well, the reason the city oftentimes does this because by God it floods and we got to the county judge of Saline County. Saline County has grown like a weed everywhere in King County used to not be concrete. It's got a lot of concrete. And so the county, the county judge who has a floodplain manager, Can't ignore what he sees with his own eyes. There are areas that, yes, got developed inside the floodway or flood plain that shouldn't have. And those maps, the water has gotten more turbulent faster. It culminates faster. There's areas that flood that always have flood, but flood waters. And so he's got to use his brain and when he passes a floodplain ordinance in special zones that might be a base, might be a foot. And these maps get updated, but to hold them to the base is going to create a stereo that I want to disagree with one of the gentlemen here, uh, to where it's going to cause more flooding flood insurance to go up, period. Just going to. Another thing is I will guarantee you I'm unaware of a county judge. That will impose a greater if the bill does pass as is, and they have to go buy properties. I'm not aware of a county judge that would go around buying properties. I think it'll just be like life is such that people's land is going to flood. And so I think that's where we're at. These gentlemen know it much better than I do. Uh, but a flood plain map is decades apart in different areas as far as the update this and the fact that the concrete gets there, people develop Conway and and Sherwood. Mark, I'm gonna have to cut you off the map changes and you have to have that latitude. Any questions from committee? Central Bay. Thank you, Mark. uh, Mr. Chair. So I, I guess I'm not sure where you were landing on that, but, but it sounds like to me what I was hearing. Was that the development that the issue that the developments happening in the municipalities is pushing, you know, more burden out on to the counties. Is that, is that what I heard? OK, just wanted to clarify. Yes sir. Thank you. Thank He sent to you and yeah, I like I committed I'm not gonna ask for a vote, you know, affordable housing, affordable communities is something that that we're we're dealing with nonstop. It's an issue in all of our areas regardless of how fast they're growing or not. There's a lot of, a lot of pieces to that puzzle. Um, this was one of those things I think I like was important for us to deal with, um, we understand there are compelling governmental interests to protect property. owners, but I think what we have been demonstrating in this committee is that we want that done at the least restrictive way possible. We understand they got a role, we understand they got a job they got to do, but we want it done the least restrictive way possible. We felt like that's what this bill did. Uh, we'll continue to discuss it. I'll continue to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Alright, so you know all the business, we are adjourned. Have fun.