Revenue & Tax - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (45)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB412
Act 614
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e SB 7. Penzo, Senator Penzo. SB 131, Senator Bryant again. SB 412 and if somebody comes in, we're going to, we'll put them ba…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO SET THE PER-MILE AMOUNT FOR THE … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB412 is now Act 614 |
|
SB503
Act 616
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB503 Crowell TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AN EMPLOYER MUST…”
|
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AN EMPLOYER MUST HAVE TO BE MANDATED TO FILE … | Crowell | Notification that SB503 is now Act 616 |
|
HB1716
Act 498
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “guess you're going to get to. You're just so lucky house House Bill 1716. I assume, right? OK. You know the drill if you just recogn…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES BY THE SECRETARY OF … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1716 is now Act 498 |
|
HB1303
Act 546
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1303 Jean TO CREATE THE SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL INCENTIVE ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL INCENTIVE ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT … | Jean | Notification that HB1303 is now Act 546 |
|
HB1691
Act 497
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VETERANS, SURVIVING SPOUSES, AND MINOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN. HB1691 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPT FROM TA…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN … | Torres | Notification that HB1691 is now Act 497 |
|
HB1695
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y FOR PUBLIC CHARITY ARE EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX. HB1695 J. Richardson TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPER…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MUNICIPAL LIEN; TO ALLOW A … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1760
Act 486
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1760 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION TO CO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PETITIONS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF … | Milligan | Notification that HB1760 is now Act 486 |
|
SB131
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…X REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION. SB131 J. Bryant TO CONFIRM THE LAW RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A…”
|
TO CONFIRM THE LAW RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A HOMESTEAD BELONGING TO A PERSON … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB394
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…Jim Petty RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB394 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION, DISTR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF REVENUES DERIVED FROM A … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB502
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…E ASSESSMENT OF SALES AND USE TAX IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB502 Crowell TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ACT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ACT OF 1965; AND TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC … | Crowell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1072
Act 876
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT. HB1072 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIG…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS, … | C. Cooper | Notification that HB1072 is now Act 876 |
|
HB1085
Act 802
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO PURCHASES OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES. HB1085 K. Brown TO ADOPT FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING TAX-DEFERRED TUITI…”
|
TO ADOPT FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING TAX-DEFERRED TUITION SAVINGS PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1085 is now Act 802 |
|
HB1274
Act 521
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R FUTURE FUND PLAN TO A ROTH INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. HB1274 Warren TO ALLOW A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT, TITLE INSURER, OR…”
|
TO ALLOW A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT, TITLE INSURER, OR TITLE COMPANY TO PAY REAL PROPERTY … | Warren | Notification that HB1274 is now Act 521 |
|
HB1522
Act 620
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USED IN RELATION TO A PROJECT FOR A YOUTH FARMING PROGRAM. HB1522 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FU…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN THE MUNICIPAL AID … | Womack | Notification that HB1522 is now Act 620 |
|
HB1534
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Y INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1534 Schulz TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. SB369…”
|
TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Schulz | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1589
Act 676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG CHANGES MADE IN FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS. HB1589 Schulz TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF A COUNTY; AND TO AMEND THE … | Schulz | Notification that HB1589 is now Act 676 |
|
SB204
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROPERTY TAXES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A TITLE. SB204 C. Penzo TO EXEMPT FROM GROSS INCOME A GAIN BY A TAXPAYER R…”
|
TO EXEMPT FROM GROSS INCOME A GAIN BY A TAXPAYER RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION OF … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB233
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EMINENT DOMAIN OR THE THREAT OF CONDEMNATION. Page 2 of 4 SB233 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN T…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN TRUSTS; TO PRESERVE CERTAIN TRUST ASSETS; … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB256
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TRUST ASSETS; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN TRUSTS FROM INCOME TAX. SB256 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT OF 1979; AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB268
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRANCHISE TAX FOR CERTAIN CORPORATIONS. SB268 D. Wallace TO TRANSFER GENERAL REVENUE TO THE AGING AND ADU…”
|
TO TRANSFER GENERAL REVENUE TO THE AGING AND ADULT SERVICES FUND ACCOUNT TO BE USED … | D. Wallace | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB274
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RVICES BENEFITING THE ELDERLY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB274 D. Wallace TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERT…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ITEMS RELATED TO HUMAN BURIAL; … | D. Wallace | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB289
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A CASKET, BURIAL VAULT, OR MONUMENT FROM SALES AND USE TAX. SB289 J. Dotson TO CUT THE STATEWIDE SALES TAX RATE BY ONE-EIGHTH…”
|
TO CUT THE STATEWIDE SALES TAX RATE BY ONE-EIGHTH PERCENT TO REDUCE THE SURPLUS FUNDS … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB310
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REDUCE THE SURPLUS FUNDS COLLECTED FROM ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS. SB310 B. King TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS TO CONDUC…”
|
TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS TO CONDUCT CERTAIN BUSINESS ONLINE; AND TO AMEND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB316
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NER OF STATE LANDS MUST FOLLOW IN SELLING CERTAIN PROPERTY. SB316 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX LAWS CONCERNING R…”
|
TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX LAWS CONCERNING REBATES; AND TO REQUIRE THAT SALES … | B. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB318
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THAT SALES AND USE TAX REBATES BE ADMINISTERED AS REFUNDS. SB318 F. Love TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIV…”
|
TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BASED ON INCOME AND AGE. | F. Love | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB338
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BASED ON INCOME AND AGE. SB338 Hill TO PROVIDE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR STUDENT FA…”
|
TO PROVIDE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR STUDENT FARMERS; AND TO PROVIDE SALES AND … | Hill | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB369
Act 778
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…B1534 Schulz TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. SB369 Irvin TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECYC…”
|
TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECYCLING GRANTS; AND TO REPEAL THE COMPUTER AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB369 is now Act 778 |
|
SB377
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND ELECTRONIC RECYCLING FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB377 Hester TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE L…”
|
TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND … | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB386
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…58; AND TO EXEMPT GROCERIES FROM STATE SALES AND USE TAXES. SB386 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO … | Crowell | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB408
Act 696
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TAIN PETITIONS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF A PROPERTY ASSESSMENT. SB408 B. Johnson TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN P…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB408 is now Act 696 |
|
SB419
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ANNUAL COUNTY FINANCIAL REPORT. SB419 G. Leding TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTA…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES TO A CULTIVATION FACILITY. | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB423
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES TO A CULTIVATION FACILITY. SB423 J. Scott TO EXEMPT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX EDUCATION…”
|
TO EXEMPT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS, AWARDS, AND GRANTS FROM NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB465
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND GRANTS FROM NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. SB465 B. Davis TO PROVIDE FOR A SALES AND USE TAX REFUND FOR A SP…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SALES AND USE TAX REFUND FOR A SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB49
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EALS COMMISSION ACT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB49 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES, … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB494
Act 717
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION FOR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES BY PROCLAMATION. SB494 J. Bryant TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF PERMITS ISSUED…”
|
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF PERMITS ISSUED BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB494 is now Act 717 |
|
SB495
Act 718
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PERMIT UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977. SB495 J. Bryant TO AMEND DEFINITIONS USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBA…”
|
TO AMEND DEFINITIONS USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX ACT OF 1977; AND TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB495 is now Act 718 |
|
SB500
Act 780
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…VE AGREEMENTS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED INCENTIVE ACT OF 2003. SB500 J. Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LEVEE DISTRICTS; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LEVEE DISTRICTS; AND TO ALLOW A LEVEE DISTRICT CREATED BY … | J. Petty | Notification that SB500 is now Act 780 |
|
SB526
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O ADOPT PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS. SB526 Irvin TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS FRO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. | Irvin | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB529
Act 617
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3-31-2025 @ 8:39 AM) Moved SB529 to Regular Agenda Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation…”
|
TO AMEND THE INDEPENDENT TAX APPEALS COMMISSION ACT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB529 is now Act 617 |
|
SB530
Act 701
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AN INCOME TAX CREDIT RELATED TO SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL. SB530 B. Davis TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT. | B. Davis | Notification that SB530 is now Act 701 |
|
SB535
Act 781
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IN PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SB535 Hester TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ARKA…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ARKANSAS MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS … | Hester | Notification that SB535 is now Act 781 |
|
SB57
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O SUBJECT CERTAIN USED MOTORBOATS TO A SPECIAL RATE OF TAX. SB57 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INDIVI…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS; AND TO AMEND A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB7
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…APITAL IMPROVEMENTS. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB7 C. Penzo TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REQUES…”
|
TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REQUEST A SALES AND USE TAX REPORT … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB73
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. SB73 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR OUR RURAL ECO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR OUR RURAL ECONOMY (ACRE) ACT; AND TO PROVIDE … | B. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB82
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IDE AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LOANS. SB82 J. Payton TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR U…”
|
TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR USED MOTOR VEHICLES; AND TO AMEND … | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:18
fiscal impacts that are being being run, we try to make it so that there's not any fiscal impact, and we'll back that up as needed. So in other words, if we have to meet at 9:30, 9, 8:30, 5 o'clock
in the morning to get them all done, we'll make it happen. So just everybody kind of watched the agenda to see what time that we're going to start. So with that, the first one on the uh Agenda today is going to be SB 394, Senator Brian, are you here? We're just gonna go down the list today.
OK, next one is gonna be SB 7. Penzo, Senator Penzo. SB 131, Senator Bryant again. SB 412 and if somebody comes in, we're going to, we'll put them back in line just to let you know, but SB 412 Uh Boyd Brian, again, Brian again. Representative Kavanaugh, you asked if you could go first. I
guess you're going to get to. You're just so lucky house House Bill 1716. I assume, right? OK. You know the drill if you just recognize yourself and Members will do 1716 Representative Fran Kavanaugh,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:35
District 30. Um, this is just a bill that I worked with DFNA on it's
actually taking case law and make it statute. So basically, if a sales tax exemption has been given to a manufacturer or anyone else, uh,
that exemption will stay in place until the law is changed. And with that, I'd take any questions. OK, and the fiscal impact on this is none. It's 0, yes
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:02
sir. any of the members have any questions on this particular bill? Anyone from
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
2:12
the audience wanna Speak for this bill. Anyone want to speak against this bill.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
2:22
You want to close with that members, I'd appreciate a good
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:26
vote. We have a motion. Motion by Senator Hester, seconded by Senator Petty, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I told you in 30
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
2:36
seconds. I'd do them now. Thank you very much longer than that. Thank you Senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:42
Boyd, do you want to present any of your, you want to present SB 412 or not?
All right, well then we'll back up and let you get in the queue. That'd be fine. DF and A, you want to come on down and Senator Boyd, you know the thing if you're just introduce yourself and then we'll
have whoever's with you from DFNA to introduce yourself and y'all can begin. Members, it's gonna be
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:17
SB 412. Senator Justin Boyd Fort Smith here to present Senate Bill 412. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul
Gehring, DFA. OK. And so my high-level interpretation of this is it's going to reduce some bureaucracy to allow the state to legally and legitimately line up the mileage reduction, but with the federal government, but I'm gonna let Mr. Geering do the heavy lifting on explanation, Mr.
Speaker 20
3:43
Garing, you're recognized, sir. Thank you, Senator Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently, if the DFA would like to
Speaker 25
3:49
amend the mileage rate for income tax purposes. We are required under existing statute to promulgate a rule
under Senate Bill 412 DFA would be able to Issue a mileage rate by proclamation as opposed to the rural promulgation process. What this will do is we will assist taxpayers so that DFA can move quickly to to match the IRS rate as quickly as possible. Also, there is statutory language in the bill that we have to take this action within 30 days and to do so to match the IRS rate as much as possible in the most fiscally responsible method the
Secretary determines. We're happy to answer any questions. Any members have any questions
Speaker 26
4:32
in regards to this fiscal impacts 0. That's correct. Any of the members have questions?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
4:40
Anyone from the audience want to speak for this bill. Anyone want to speak against this bill. We have
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
4:49
a motion from the committee. I make a motion, Senator Crow, 2nd, if that's OK, Senator Hester. OK, any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? OK, that'll also carry.
Congratulations. Thank you, Senator. I We'll wait till it until it gets in, in the queue. All right, I think the next one, nobody else has come in, so SB 502 Center Crow. I'm not gonna run that one, but I'm gonna run right, Senator Crow is gonna run
SB 503. Mr. Geering, do you want to come up on this one or someone else?
Speaker 23
5:34
OK, if y'all just introduce yourselves. Senator
Speaker 34
5:37
Steve Groh, District 3. Paul Geering DFA. And I am just going to turn this over to Mr. Gering with
Speaker 25
5:46
his expertise. OK. Thank you, Senator Kroll, and thank you members of the committee. Current law requires an employer with more than 125 employees to file an annual income tax withholding statement electronically under Senate Bill 503, that would reduce the threshold from 125 employees to 75, and it would also apply to the annual withholding
statements and W-2s. Any business that provides the service of reporting and remitting withholding tax. on behalf of an Arkansas employer would file annual returns electronically if the employer would be required to file electronically. DFA can waive their electronic filing requirement if it would cause undue hardship. It's also part of existing law. In 2023, the General Assembly reduced this same threshold from 250 to 125. We did not get any negative feedback from taxpayers over reducing that threshold. We've
done an analysis at DFA on we would have 262 taxpayers that are currently filing on paper that would now be required to file electronically. This would also under this bill reduced the amount of W-2s that we are having to process manually on paper from down by 24,288. We're happy to answer any questions about the bill. All right, thank you, Mr. Gehring. er fiscal impact,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
7:00
impact. Do any of the members Senator
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
7:09
Dimawa on 503. Any of the members have any questions in regards to this one. So this
Speaker 37
7:27
will make sure you don't have one. We, we discussed this one, I think already, so I think we were OK with it and we already passed 502, so. No.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
7:40
OK, no questions from the members. Anybody from the audience wants to speak for or against this one. Do we have a motion from the committee, Senator Hester is due to pass. Senator Boyd is a 2nd. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say I. Any opposed? I'll carry. Thank you. Congratulations. OK, the next one is a House Bill
1303, Representative Jean. Is that it? Right. We have a center
Speaker 41
8:17
stone. You're here also. I'm sorry, I didn't know you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
8:20
were here with Representative Jean, so you can have a seat, y'all can have a seat. Represent Jean, you wanna come to the table? We'd love to have you here. We have an amendment.
Speaker 7
8:48
We have an amendment to which the staff is passing
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
9:05
out. Yeah And I know you were here last week to present. We appreciate you uh helping with the amendment and then coming back. I do want
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
9:12
to recognize, uh, uh, the way you uh helped with that. so uh. OK.
Well, this, let's let them present on the amendment. So if you don't mind, y'all recognize, recognize yourself. Um,
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
9:27
mad stone state senator District 2. Paul Gehing DFA Michael Newton,
Speaker 49
9:32
Natural State Renewables. OK. Good to have you here too. So
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
9:36
if you want to, let's present this amendment first because I know it is a substantial amendment. So let's let's talk about it just a little way I understand it, what this
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
9:45
amendment is going to do, it's going to relieve the
state of its obligation to buy back tax credits, and it also has it removes it to where the tax tax credits cannot be sold, and I'll defer to these gentlemen to see if there's anything else. needs to be discussed. OK. Any, any questions in regards to this, the bill, the bill was
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:07
written was so we do tax credits, but then there was also just to let everybody know, because I know there's some other ones that are going to come the same way. So we might as well just talk about this. So in other words, the way that we've been structuring these, of
course, is that if, if we do a tax credit for a company and uh Within those, we would put that the state could buy them back for 80%, which, you know, sounds like a, like a good thing, of course, but the way that with the amendment, what this does would be
against the pure profit. So in other words, if, if this company or another one, I'm talking from a
macro level, if, if we don't have the 80% in there, the purchase back, like if a company wants to show a small loss or whatever and then
wanted the state to take a, you know, to buy them back, we would have a a hit against our income. Now there would be some argument that, you know, like if somebody's building a large building or doing some
huge improvements that there would be some uh uh sales tax and things like that that would be generated from the project. We've kind of told some of our members that we're going to use uh static. Static stop scoring on on everything and then of course,
sometimes on these tax credits and stuff we're doing dynamic scoring, it seems like, so we're just trying to stay consistent. So I think that that's the reason that we'd ask you to take it out, so and we do appreciate that, but any questions from any members on this just because again it's going to come up with
Speaker 12
11:38
some others. Yeah, I want to make sure. What we're saying and maybe in regards to how
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
11:45
we're going to apply it to others. Are we saying if it's got a provision that the state will buy it back, then that's going to trigger more discussion, I mean.
The whole point of these credit structures are to encourage a development that would not otherwise occur. Most entities when they're starting up or they're in a major construction phase or they're doing whatever, say they're buying significant amounts of equipment, they're going to throw losses for several years just by the nature of it is what they're doing. Um, and so these credits then almost become, but the credits are to help offset those investments. That they're making because they can monetize them.
If we take that away, then most of these projects are just no longer viable projects. And to your point, they would have been paying property taxes and sales taxes and all these other items that would go in, including payroll and and and and all, you know, 1099 expenses that someone else is paying income taxes on and But if, I mean you can't take a deduction without having the expense. So I, I just want to make sure I understand what we're saying because I'm not sure that I fully agree. I think it's fine
because this entity is agreed, you know, one of the entities that's looking to do this is agreed. I'm not sure that it's going to be something that we've replicate
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
13:06
in every other project. And that that's why I'm wanting to have this conversation because this gentleman right here, we had, we had asked you to do that, and again we're appreciative of you, of you doing it. And we, I know there's some others coming and it's going to probably be a uh An issue of a little bit of conflict on what we may or may not do. So did you want to speak to that or
Chair
Unverified
13:30
anything? Yes sir, I'm glad to. Thank you, Senator Michael Newton, Natural State Renewables, so with our plant that we are building in South Arkansas, we, you know, from a dynamic standpoint we rule out a lot of value to the community will be buying $50 to $100 million a year of forest products that currently don't have any. Using that area, but we do all of our financial models models show us making a profit and having a 20 to $40 million tax liability with the state of
Arkansas each year, so even early on with deductions and everything considered, so we are happy to appreciate working with the rest of the committee to make this bill acceptable. Senator Petty, you recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
14:18
kind of piggyback off of what Senator Dimain was talking about on the buyback part. What can you expand on that? I mean, most of the credits have a carryover for a carry back or carry
forward provision as well. Is this, I don't guess I know enough about this particular one and maybe DFNA wants to comment on that. I do want to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
14:40
make sure that that I'm explaining this right. The previous bill did have a buyback agreement. You know that the state would buy them back this amendment takes it totally out, so I want to be very clear about what and this we're having this discussion is, it's not about your bill really. It's
just because of it that I want to get this out on the table. So, OK, thank you so much I do want to
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
15:05
understand more fully the buyback provision and then also how the carry back or carry forward uh with this one. Sir,
Speaker 20
15:13
thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Senator Petty. Prior to the proposed amendment that is being presented to
Speaker 25
15:19
committee, the bill provided for a 30% tax credit on qualified expenditures for for the plant. Those tax credits would be certified by Energy and Environment, and then once those tax credits were certified, the company would receive a tax
credit certificate under the current bill before the amendment, the company would have the ability to sell up to $10 million of those credits per year. year to the state of Arkansas for 80% of face value, um. And the credits that were not able to be redeemed would carry forward indefinitely. The credits that the company, let's say a state did not want to buy the credits and the company could sell the credits to another third party. Those credits would have a 3 year lifeline before they expire as long as the credits under the bill are held by the taxpayer.
They are can be held indefinitely, but they do have the option. They did have the option under the existing bill to sell them back $10 million a year where the state would pay $8 million at
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
16:19
the end. each fiscal year. OK. And, and
follow up. So when, when in this particular case and I understand you have a liability and so maybe you're going to use them completely, but in, in some instances with the credits they're monetized and used as part of the proceeds to construct the facility or to,
you know, to cover operations or whatever, uh, is this particular situation any different, uh, are you, are you going to monetize it and use part of it. to uh pay for the construction or what, how, how is
Speaker 67
16:51
this particular credit uh being used. I was like,
Chair
Unverified
16:57
yes, sir. The, the way I understand this credit to be used is after the plant construction is complete, and after we have verified the job requirements and the salary
requirements for all the jobs at that point we get the credit, so it would not be till
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
17:15
after we started up. But you're, you're planning to use it against your liability is, is as opposed to monetizing it for a construction cost or something. That's correct. OK, thank you. Good question, Senator Petty. Senator Hammer, did
Speaker 63
17:25
you have a question, sir? And if I'm being redone, I'm sorry, just trying
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:33
to get my mind around it on a couple of things, so they can be sold to
Speaker 25
17:40
the state or they would not be sold to the state. Senator Hammer, under the amendment, the credits will only be able to be redeemed by the taxpayer on their returns. The credits will not be sellable to the state or to a third
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:52
party or to a third party. That's so they're going to stay housed with the entity. Um, and the reason I was asking, I was thinking about who I'd read something, saw something where somebody in another country was buying them up kind of thing, and I just want to make sure that they wouldn't be able to be sold to anyone that
we wouldn't want to be able to buy them, but this locks it down to where it's got to stay with the entity itself for the duration of it, correct? That is correct, sir. OK, thank you. Senator Dimay. Well, I mean, I,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
18:24
I would like because I, I don't wanna bug y'all, you know, y'all have places to be and things to do. I know Stone's got to go back to a committee. I think this does need a bigger discussion probably with DFA about I mean, because you have partners that don't even have tax liabilities, and we, I mean, there's lots of scenarios here that.
Uh, the blanket policy that we're talking about putting forward on each one of the other bills doesn't work, um,
and so it's gonna have to have a bigger conversation, but there's no reason to drag them into that bigger
Speaker 88
18:55
conversation that my, my reason, my reason is this, Senator Dismay, because I want to stay consistent with this gentleman because
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:02
he's been so good to work with and and did what we asked, but here's the thing, if, if this committee on a macro level.
wants to allow for those buybacks. I want to, I want to offer him the opportunity sitting at the table to run the bill the way it was without the amendment or with the amendment. It's again, I don't what I don't want to happen is, is for us to, to have said, you have to do this. We passed the bill as amended. He can't sell the tax credits back and then we run 3 more after after this. So that's why I'm wanting to have this.
This discussion this discussion in here, so. Senator Caldwell, you have
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
19:49
a, your neck, sir. Well, I just addressing Senator Disma's statement right there if we took that assumption up that we could go right any bill and write into tax credit into any bill, we're obligated to give those tax credits no matter how our RSA turns out that happened to us before on Big River Steel where we were about to get dumped $254 million into our state budget 11 spring
because the bill was not written correctly and so I disagree that we automatically give tax credits out there. I'm not opposed to some tax credits on it, but we need to, we just can't arbitrarily say that we're going to allow tax credits to be written into something you talk about dynamic scoring a few minutes ago, and you mentioned sales taxes. Well, you mentioned sales, the other things, uh, uh, of, of what we were doing on this bill that that we weren't
taking into consideration. expenditures of sales tax and things of that nature and and and most of these things are sales tax exempt when we construct these factories and so I think we need to be very careful on how we assume that there's other tax incomes coming in to allow for these tax credits. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dimay this is what I'm trying to make sure I understand
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:15
because I did not say they had to make this amendment. I mean, no one, I don't, we collectively didn't say they had to make any
Speaker 92
21:21
amendments. That's not an agreement of mine that was myself and a couple of
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:24
others so I just want to make sure that that now if they're willing. To having to change their, you know, make an amendment to the bill and it works for them, and that's great, but I don't think what I want to make sure is whenever we do this and if we pass the amendment which they've agreed to, that doesn't lock us in and you know, and create some new precedent on everything that we do moving forward on some
other tax credit bill, and I, and I think I heard that maybe in what you were saying, but I just want to make, I'm not, I didn't make an agreement that they had to do this. I'm fine with them doing it and the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
21:59
amendment being made, um. You're, you're fine, you're fine with or without the amendment. OK. And that's what I'm trying to do, and I apologize to you again that this is outside of, but we've got to do this because of these things are huge as far as the dollar number. So, so do all the members here kind
of understand where we need to make a decision. Let, let
me ask you this, if if it's OK with your company. because we can,
we can make a decision around this table. Are you good with the way the amendment is as far as your company is concerned, or would you prefer it to be the other way because we can, we can do a poll around this table.
The amendment that you had, I mean, your bill, the way that it was originally done and not run the amendment today if we need to. We are fine with the amendment. OK. All right. Then, then that's going to solve, that's going to solve our discussion here. I just don't want to mislead you. We may, we may do some other ones that'll be up to this committee where we buy them back, so I don't want to mislead you or you to look back and think that we were just singling you out as a company. That's. Is that fair? That's fair. OK,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:17
and I appreciate you, Senator Hammer with the amendment, how does that,
there's no change in the fiscal impact and what's the, what's the fiscal impact on this without me looking at
Speaker 25
23:28
the sheet and does it change it any at all, so we did issue a fiscal impact statement for the most recent amendment, which was the House amendment number 2, which also had a revenue neutral fiscal impact with the amendment, it would also have a revenue neutral fiscal impact. And the reason for that is is
that in order for there to be any tax credits that are authorized for these projects is that the taxpayer would have to enter into an incentive agreement with the Department of Commerce that provides a positive cost benefit to the state as well as clawback provisions in case those the The taxpayer was unable to meet the terms of the incentive agreement. All right, so the bottom line is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:09
it's revenue neutral in the original form, revenue neutral in the amended form. That is correct, Senator Hammer. OK, thank you. It's more, more
Speaker 101
24:19
revenue neutral in the with the amended form, Senator Petty.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
24:23
So in that same vein though, you're assuming because the reason is revenue neutral is that it's being fully utilized in the cases of buybacks, it would actually be a net positive potentially to the state if we bought them back at 80 cents instead of a dollar, but you have to assume for, for the static, you know, calculation that it is at the full credit amount for the full
Speaker 25
24:49
dollar, correct? Yeah, that's that's a correct point under the bill before the amendment. Essentially the state is able to buy those credits for 10 million a year in credits that would be extinguished, the state would pay $8 million for those credits now under the amendment when the taxpayer files it's returned when it does have taxable income, the taxpayer's claiming those at 100% value of the credit as opposed to 80%. But either way, under the amendment or the current version of the bill still subject to a
positive cost benefit analysis as well as clawback. OK.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:23
All right, good, good conversation. I think we had to have it. Uh, motion
on the amendment. Senator Caldwell Du pass Senator Crow 2nd. Is that the way we need to do it, right? Yeah. All right, motion was to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? OK, Senator Hester is that emotional carry. All right, now you can present the bill.
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
25:54
As amended. Let me, I want to present the bill as amended members in 1995, the legislature uh, passed a bill that named Arkansas the natural state, but prior to that in 1953, the General Assembly adopted the name the of Arkansas was the land of opportunity, and I believe that's what we have before us this morning is an opportunity for our state. You know, the company Natural State Renewables is looking to locate in our state and put in a
biofuel mill that will make jet fuel. And what's unique about this is that they're going to use sawdust, oversized chips, uh, wood from first in pine plantations is going underutilized the lowest priced products out there on the market and turned it into a viable economic business to make a sustainable aviation fuel. to create approximately 200 permanent jobs with an average salary of $100,000 per year and
generate over 1500 construction jobs during the facilities build out. This is going to be a boon to the timber industry for landowners, loggers, and even mills who have trouble right now getting rid of their residual products after they make their product, um, it's going to be a boon for our colleges who can help develop and train a skilled workforce, you know, for this. facility. This bill, as we've already discussed, is revenue neutral. It has been approved by the Arkansas Economic
Development Arkansas Economic Development Commission, Department of Finance and Administration, and I believe the governor's on board with it too. Thank you, Senator Stone. Now with that, I guess we're open to any questions. Any members have any questions in regards
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:38
to the bill. I know we've had a lengthy discussion on the, on it. And he won in the committee. He wanted the
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
27:45
audience have any uh want to speak for this bill. Anyone want to speak against this bill. It was the pleasure of the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:56
committee, Senator Crow has moved to pass as amended, correct? Senator Hester is 2nd. Any discussion on it? Yes, sir. Senator dismay, and I was, I was wanting to have
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:09
this on the amendment before we passed it, but I just, again, I want to make sure that I, I believe that DFA was correct in their zero revenue impact the first time. Before the amendment, and I believe they were correct, after the amendment we're going to have other bills that come up in this committee that take the same context, I mean, again, we
can call it dynamic, but it's not dynamic when you're requiring employees to be hired because those create expenses with throw off losses. It's not dynamic when you're requiring equipment and investment to be made because those create depreciation which create expenses, and those are just the reality. Those are expenses that would not otherwise occur. That creates income for someone else. Without the program and, and again, so I just, I understand where we are and what just happened. It works for you because you've got a, you know,
you're incorporated, lots of other factors, they think they're going to throw off revenue, perfectly fine, but again, I don't want to set some precedent that at least for me sitting in this
room that we've we've changed the narrative that we know how to Create a green sheet setting here.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
29:14
Senator Dismay is exactly why we had had the thing. I think my personal opinion is, is it's a lot of How the cost benefit analysis is written, how many employees, you know, whether or not they've got
to uh you know those those employees all have to be hired, you know, beforehand. I think a lot of the structure was within each specific bill, but again, I just think that we needed to get, get that discussion out. So I think we did. Did some good work here. So with that we've had discussion. Any other discussion on the bill? OK, do I have a motion as amended on the bill that was Senator Cruz. Well, we've already had that. I'm sorry. OK, all in favor say aye. Any
oppose? OK, it's passed and we want to let you know we greatly appreciate you coming to Arkansas and uh we look forward to our future. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. The next one. 100 days SP 50. Senator Davis, are you here? go It's SB 530. Senator Davis.
All right. House
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
30:53
House Bill 1691.
That's him. Senator Wallace, you're running that one, sir? Alright. If you get to the table, you can recognize yourself and begin. We're looking for, we're looking at House Bill
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
31:23
1691 members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. You're recognized Senator
Wallace. Sir, this bill, House Bill 1691, proposed an exemption from personal property tax for certain motor vehicles used exclusively for public charity purpose. Yes, here's what it means in simple terms. The current law currently exempts buildings and materials used solely for public charity from property tax. The state also recognizes that motor vehicles owned and used exclusively by charities qualify for this exemption. What this bill changes is it
clarify clarifies and expands the tax exemption. Uh, to include motor vehicles that are leased, so that's the key. If if you own it, you already get exempt. Now we want to be able to say if you lease it, it gets exempt. And this will align with existing rules that allow state and local governments to decide whether to lease or buy their vehicles while still receiving tax exemptions. And with that, I stand by for your questions. OK, Senator Wallace. So as
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
32:29
far as the state physical impact, we're
not showing any state fiscal impact on this. Is there any Just Senator Hammer.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:39
You recognized Thank you using the term charity, it's not unless I'm missing it, it's not specified in the bill. Is that going to be like a 50 1 sheet, 501c3, is that going to be a charity as defined by the state of Arkansas but may not have a 501c3 status, or can you give me an idea of what you have in mind? I don't know. That's a good
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
33:03
question. I don't know that answer. Could, if it's OK with you, Senator Wallace could DFNA come, come forward. Let's see if we have a definition on that or if it's a specific enough or Get y'all's opinion on it if that's OK, Senator Wallace. Yes, sir, absolutely. Cener hammer maybe now you can. Make sure that we're specific enough with just using that word. And
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:22
these only applies to leased vehicles, right? leased. Yes, sir. Yeah. OK. Mr. Gerry, you're recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair Paul
Speaker 25
33:35
Geering, DFA. So the the language that is provided in the bill is also included generally with regards to the exemption that is provided in the Arkansas Constitution for charitable organizations. A charitable organizations may take the form of a 501c3, but not necessarily. Not all nonprofit organizations that are 501c3s would be would be charitable. They may have a nonprofit purpose but maybe not a charitable purpose. So the way the way the language is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:00
written or the reference that you're referring to or if it's referenced in here somewhere.
Um Titan has a tight definition of what charitable is, so So it could be a church that doesn't have 501c3, but they're listed with the state of Arkansas as nonprofit or it could be some other charitable organization that may be recognized by the state but not necessarily 501c3. It would allow them that option. I agree. Yes, sir. Thank you. And y'all's physical impact, you were all, you were inclusive
Speaker 35
34:37
with all of those, correct, showing none, Mr. Chair. There there's no impact to state revenues with this
Speaker 25
34:42
change. But there, there could be cities and counties that's local sales, local property tax collections could be affected, OK. Any other questions from the members?
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
34:51
OK. Anyone from the audience want to speak for this bill? Anyone want to speak against this bill. You'll, you'll close Senator Wallace.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
35:07
I closed. Do I have a motion? Motion do pass by Senator
Crow. Seconded by Senator Boyd. Any discussion on any other discussion. All in
favor say aye. Any oppose? OK, that passes. Congratulations. Yes, sir.
0 You gonna do that OK, next one is House Bill 1695, Representative Richardson, but I believe Senator Crow, you're going to OK remembers 1695.
Speaker 131
36:08
And if y'all would just Senator Troops, sorry, go ahead. You're District 3. John Wilkerson, general counsel of the Arkansas Municipal League. Yes sir, good to have you
Speaker 39
36:19
here. So we all know that dilapidated structures are an issue for all cities in the state of Arkansas, and this is a bill that addresses that. So I'm going with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Wilkerson to present it. Thank you very much. Um, so dilapidated
Speaker 133
36:34
properties, neglected properties, abandoned properties are a major issue for
pretty much every city and town in Arkansas, every city and town has one of these. It seems like, and as we went around the state last year talking about our legislative priorities for cities and towns. This was the number one issue that cities and
Speaker 134
36:48
towns had, and we went through a lot of kind of rigmarole to figure out exactly how to navigate this, and I had a grand plan a couple of 3 sessions ago that, you know, we're going to overhaul all the law and we're going to make it do this, that and the other. and make sure that cities use it. Turns out a lot of cities just don't know how to do it, and we have been since then been
on an education mission to let cities and towns know exactly how to deal with neglected properties and abandoned properties. We know this is important for economic development, safety and health issues and beautification for the city and town, affordable housing, all these, all this is a goal to get these properties back being productive parts of our cities and towns and as We started to do the training across the state, we realized that it wasn't so much that the law needed to be overhauled. We just need to make some, some
small changes here and there that really amount to a fairly substantial changes without necessarily undoing the overall fundamentals of the laws that stands stands right now. So I want to start with that real quick in section one. I know we're all busy. I won't take up too much of your time. But in section one, there's a whole new section there it looks like subsection B, that gives the city the ability to remove or raise buildings or homes that are dilapidated, unsightly, unsafe. That is not new language. That
is language that is in 904 of the law and what happened is that by putting it at 904, the lien process didn't refer to it, so we're just sort of having to cram it in there to try to make sure that we navigate the lien process, so this section, section 1, subsection B is not new language that is existing language in the law, so our ability to deal with buildings that are that are dilapidated, unsafe, unsanitary has not changed. Now on the House side, somebody did raise the issue of what about
Insightly? Does this mean that cities are able to just take down an unsightly structure. No. This law was written in 1907 and in 1939, the Supreme Court said unsightly means unsightly perhaps, but you have to declare it a nuisance. It has to be a nuisance. It has to affect the live health safety of the city or town. So this is old language. We didn't, we didn't try to undo old language because the law is very clear that it has to be a nuisance. So any city or town that is raising a building has to get it declared, has, has to
have it declared as a nuisance, which requires notice and opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to be sued, an opportunity to go to court, where a judge can say to the city, this is not a nuisance. None of that has changed. This has not changed at all. This is the way it's been for 100 and some odd years. So what else, what, what's the bill also does is It allows foreclosure, which I'll get to a little bit later. The law's already done that. Um, allows us to become a delinquent property tax um allows us to become a delinquent property tax, property, which means that if we
can declare it a nuisance, we put a lien on it, that lien gets transferred into a property tax delinquent status. Again, that's the law. Also allows for collection from the owner for the cost of collection, the cost of raising the building, the cost of cleaning up the property. It gives us a little bit more time, gives us a year from the time that we declared a nuisance. Or file the lien to get it processed all the way through, goes from 120 days to 365 days, and once we create once we set
in place the amount that it cost us to clean up the property, it gives us a little bit more time there to to get that into the county recorder's office. Now, the one thing that was a gap in the law is there's no requirement for the cities to make sure that the court knew or the county clerk knew that the lien had been satisfied. The law not require that, so we added, added that in there to make sure that the property owners know that their title has been cleared because they paid the lien. The big, the big addition in this bill is the foreclosure
process. That is already the law. Cities can already foreclose on these properties, but that is the end of that sentence. It was, it said cities can foreclose and then That was it. This became an issue in Jonesboro. They have a big building on Main Street that was falling in, and they're trying to deal with it, trying to clean it up, trying to see what they could do with it, but they had no real remedy to foreclose it because while the law says you can foreclose, it gave no explanation of how you do it. So what Jonesboro had to do is to borrow other language
from other sections of the law to create a foreclosure process. So what we did is to create a foreclosure process. We borrowed from other parts of the law and created a clean foreclosure that again ultimately gets to these properties being ready to be productive again. Clean title is always the goal or clear
Speaker 133
41:33
clear title is always the goal. Uh, we can collect for, um, cost of, like I said, cost
Speaker 134
41:38
of collection for the actual raising of the building and um and then of course, we have to require, we, we're required to
show satisfaction should somebody pay their their delinquent or pay their lien. Uh, finally, Fort Smith had an issue where they're having, you know, multiple property owners. come in, leave these properties dilapidated, and they said, well, can we somehow let the state know that this is happening. Tried a couple of avenues, ultimately, we talked to the land commissioner's office and settled on, we can give notice to the land commissioner of property owners that are leaving their creating tax delinquent properties or clean up lien delinquent properties, just so that we know the state can know exactly
what's going on in our cities and towns. And then finally there's a provision here again from the land commissioner's office regarding unrecorded liens that allows for if a city does not record the lien or town does not record the lien. This city or town can collect on, on that lien in the amount only up to the amount that's in excess if the land commissioner sells the property. So the the lien does not carry on after the property, but this lien holder, the city or town, can't collect on the excess amount from the sale by
Land commissioner. Again, this is it's not a cleanup bill, obviously there's, there's some changes here, but the idea was to make sure our clean up lien process, or all of it was very friendly for us to make sure that we can navigate it while also protecting the the notice rights, the due process rights of property owners, which has been
Speaker 133
43:07
left unchanged. I know that's a lot. Sorry, I'll take any questions, of course. Senator Boyd.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
43:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so I just want to go back to unsightly
Speaker 145
43:31
for just, just a minute. Again, uh, we've, I'm fully disclosed, but I'm not an attorney, right? So if we
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
43:39
repass a bill with this language. In 2025. That doesn't somehow undo this definition from the Supreme Court or are we confident that it really is tied back to that Supreme Court decision. Yeah, so what the Supreme Court
Speaker 147
43:52
and McLean versus City of Fort Smith actually says that whoever
abates an alleged nuisance and destroys or in the private property or interferes property rights, um, doesn't pay and when his act is challenged, it must be that the thing abated was in fact a nuisance. So it doesn't, it would not change that at all. We, we can't do anything that's property unless it is raising buildings taking
Speaker 149
44:17
it. If you'll turn your mic, it went off, I think we wouldn't change the
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
44:22
Supreme Court we're confident that unsightly by itself, I built a house that
my neighbor doesn't like and they're well connected in the city. Next thing I know, I've paid for a property that's going to be raised. I just want some assurance that's not what's going to happen. It's not gonna
Speaker 133
44:37
happen. There's also federal federal Fifth Amendment protections that would be in place too, so no, that would not be, not at all. Senator dismay. Well, I have a couple of questions, but the first was on
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
44:51
that I was going to ask Senator Boyd's question, but I would
refer you back to page 2, line 4 which would be Section B. We're creating a new set of definitions, and so those new definitions are going to be litigated completely
different than what's already been litigated. I mean, in, in, I, I don't want to make a statement, but how do you Reconcile that with the statement that we're not creating some new Definition of what's what would be required for something to be raised. I mean, it's exactly what it says. Nothing in here is
Speaker 133
45:24
new. This, this is already the law in Section 904. And so the
problem was that when when you look at when you had this definition 904, the lien process says that you that under 903, then you can have a lien process in 903 and to go back to this section right here, which is 1454901. And so what we did is we put 904 into 901 to make it clean. what was happening was a disconnect between the lien process for raising a building and a lien process for, you know, mowing or weed lots and so it does, it adds no new language. This is, this language
Speaker 134
45:59
has been in place since 1909. It just puts
Speaker 133
46:02
it in a different section so that it's clear that it flows into the same lien process, which is the way we've been operating for however
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:11
many years. Don't know that I'd agree, but that's OK. And then was there a problem with needing to extend something out to 365 days. Why weren't those liens being timely filed. I mean someone essentially could have Been out of town, got a notice, city owed their lawn and 365 days later, you know, and have
their lawn kept up after that or maybe even missed notice. I don't know, whatever, whatever could have happened. Why, why the 365 days. Well just to be
Speaker 134
46:37
clear, the 365 days is for the city to be, yeah, right. And so cities
Speaker 133
46:41
were saying that it was just too quick for them that they, that's just a common complaint we've had that it just wasn't enough time to get this process completed, so they're expecting a property owner to get something done
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:51
in a very short window, but they're saying we can't get done what we need to get done to perfect whatever we're doing in a short order. They needed more time, all I can
say. And then does it not also allow for the setting of the side of a sail with the commissioner of State lands in addition to being able to be first in line. For a property tax lien and then how does that impact anyone else that would have, uh, you know, for instance, state of Arkansas, uh, could have a debt against a piece of property and are y'all putting yourselves in front or where do y'all come into play there for the for the getting in the
Speaker 134
47:27
way of the sell of the property, that's, that's current state law. This land commissioner can do that. We're
just notifying the land commissioner that we can ask, look, this has been an issue, this property owner has has continually bought up property in the city and then just let it. Be vacant and dilapidated and whatever it is and we're just letting the land commissioner know that you have the authority to stop a sale land commissioner,
Speaker 133
47:48
and we're just saying this has been a problem for us, just giving you some, you know, notice of it. Has that happened in the past or why
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
47:54
do we need the new language to do it if it's something that's already available to the disconnect
Speaker 133
47:59
has been the land commissioner is really looking at obviously state tax
delinquencies, and we just haven't had, we just haven't had that connection between what we're seeing out there in the states. It's really more of a way that we probably could. it already, obviously, but it's a well I say obviously, but it's a way that we can make sure that we know that we can tell the land commissioner what we're dealing with. I think it well
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
48:23
there's a discussion time and I'll discuss it then, but all right, and then the last piece or question that I had, if that's OK, we go back to The liens. What are you able to
put liens on for now that you would ultimately be able to foreclose because I think you use an example of a dilapidated building that needed to be torn down in Jonesboro, um, and then, but I don't
think that's all that it's limited to. No, it's not. You're right. No, the again, the
Speaker 134
48:47
lien, the ability to place a lien is not being touched by this. That's existing law, but you can place a lien on, so you have a grown-up grass that's
Speaker 133
48:55
gotten way too high and then it's breeding vermin or snakes or whatever it is, and then we Can we notify the person if we
Speaker 134
49:05
have a code violation. We notify the person of the code violation, and then 7 days later if they don't abate it, then we can go in and we can mow mow the grass. If they don't pay
Speaker 133
49:14
that, then we can place a lien on the property for the amount that that that we spent that taxpayer funds, of course, that have been spent to clean up the property just to make
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
49:22
sure I understand, let's say they let that repeatedly happen. The liens get
placed. What are you able to do with those liens under this new proposed law. Could you foreclose for someone not mowing the lawn.
Speaker 160
49:35
You could already do that under the law. It just,
Speaker 133
49:39
there was no foreclosure process. It just said you can't foreclose, but it doesn't, it didn't give a process for it,
Speaker 64
49:50
changing that. I just, OK, thank you. Senator
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
49:53
Petty. Apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know I came in just as they were having a conversation about this, so my apologies, but I, I don't have a broad concern
about what we're trying to do here, but uh this body has not specifically this committee, but in general the legislative body have tried to use more narrower terms and when we uh when we go into things that are obnoxious or unsightly, or, or, you know, detrimental to the public welfare in only the opinion of the city council or town council, that kind of gives me cause for pause, and I know you
said it's been defined in the past, but we've been trying to eliminate those through the legislative process, so it was better defined in terms. You know, good moral character, you know, that's in the eyes of the beholder and as is unsightly and unsanitary or obnoxious. I've seen some really obnoxious colored painting on houses, but I mean can you, can you comment on that and, and, and tell me uh uh has
there been any conversations in the past about narrowing that just a little bit or or giving a a, you know, some other. definition more, more defined term to obnoxious or to unsightly, uh. Well, we, we again, we tried to not change the law too much because we didn't want
Speaker 139
51:22
to um we worried that I was worried that if we get too deep into this and we change
Speaker 133
51:29
it all too much, and all of a sudden it becomes something that it was never meant to be. So I didn't really give a whole lot of thought to that. Um, truth be told, this
provision right here that we realized had to be changed is kind of late in the game. We thought, I think somebody raised the issue that how is the lien process working if this is out of place. We thought, that's right, it has to be in a better place to make it, make it run smoother. Again, the concept was just to make it more. You know, linear, so I didn't give a whole lot of thought to change that definition because we've relied on Supreme Court case law for 90 some odd years, but to your point, you know, we, we can't tear down a building because it's unsightly, so having that in there, I agree with you, is superfluous. Um, but again, we
relied on Supreme Court case law to say that it has to be a nuisance. So beyond
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
52:20
that, I haven't given it much thought. Senator Dimay, I feel like we're going in discussion and I'm trying not
to, but if we're going to delete a set of Statutes which we are Section 9, I believe it is, and replaced them somewhere else. The Supreme Court doesn't get to go say, Well, I'm relying on the old thing that's been deleted now.
I think they rely on the new thing that's been added. And they would, they would say is that carries the weight of the legislation. The legislature said that all these other items that are now underneath here are back up to be rehashed or, you know. deliberated by the court. I mean, that's how I've always understood it and that's one reason. You're very cautious about changing statutes on things that have a case law determine what the actual definitions meant, so. There's more issues with that. The bill in general, I think it does more than we think it does,
at least other folks perceive it to be that way, uh, but I I just, I, how do you reconcile completely striking a section and putting in another section with the same language, I agree it's the same language. But open for a brand new interpretation and brand new litigation. Uh, by everybody involved because what we're doing is we're talking about how to abate a nuisance and
Speaker 133
53:32
then to abate a nuisance and get a lien for the abatement of the nuisance, there has to be a nuisance. So I don't think it changes that requirement that there has to be a nuisance, and so that's what
the Supreme Court has said, and so to that point, I don't think they even says that it has to be a nuisance at all. I think I think what the Supreme Court is saying is that when you're doing anything, it has to, you have to be abating a nuisance, so I don't think it wasn't, it wasn't looking at unsightly and saying Slightly must mean a nuisance. It's saying that to do what we're trying to do, it has to be a nuisance. That's the way I've, I've looked at it, of course. I, I don't know the case law, but
Speaker 57
54:08
where did they get the definition of nuisance from? Is that something that's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
54:14
constitutional common law. Yeah, there's there's actually a statutory
Speaker 133
54:18
definition of nuisance as well, not in here, but common which typically a common law nuisance, but to your credit, I mean, to your point,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
54:27
it doesn't mention the word nuisance, and so we're not even including that as being one of the qualifying factors to raise a building. We're not even saying it has to be a nuisance. Like I just I understand what you're saying, but in nowhere if I'm interpreting this as the new
court or whatever that's going to take a look at it. Does it get to what you're saying? It says it gets to because it doesn't even reference nuisance. I don't understand. But
Speaker 134
54:55
we, we, well, I I'm not put it any other way except we can't do what we want to do under
Speaker 133
55:01
this law of property without it being a nuisance. Otherwise it's a taking. And so it's not, it's not as if we can just go in and make it, say, even if we relied on the word unsightly. There's, there's no constitutional provision that would allow us to take somebody's property because it's unsightly. There has to be a
nuisance and one that's declared. Well, that's what the law doesn't say now. That's what the comma, the, the Supreme Court law said this. That's what I'm trying to. Any other, any other questions by
Speaker 122
55:33
the members? We'll have some more discussion in a
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
55:38
minute if y'all want to. Is anyone from the audience wants to speak for this bill? Anyone want to speak against this bill.
Speaker 12
55:50
Are you close. All right. Do we have a motion? Have a motion from the committee.
Speaker 130
55:58
Looks like we're going to die for. Lack of emotion. Thank you. We have time, yes sir. Yes. Yes
Speaker 113
56:22
Oh yeah. on 1760. I send a boy. Sponsor
Speaker 45
56:31
for. OK. We're on House Bill 1760 as Milligan,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
56:39
Senator Boyd, are you presenting that one. Yes, sir.
Who do you want for help? Who? Lindsay was pronounce. Miss French. Members we're going to do House Bill 1760. Y'all
Speaker 18
57:09
know the drill if you just recognize yourself and then you can begin. Uh, state Senator Justin Boyd from Fort Smith. Lindsey French Association of Arkansas Counties.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
57:17
So, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present this
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
57:23
bill. So I'm, I'm just going to say again this bill helps reduce some bureaucracy, but I'm going to hand it over to Miss French to explain exactly how it does that. You recognize
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
57:37
Mr. French. Thank you. So if a taxpayer has an issue with their property tax valuation. They typically start at the equalization board. From there it's appealed to the county court circuit court, and so on. There are a few exceptions to this that are laid out in this statute of things
that do not have to go before an equalization board. They go straight to the county court and we had a Supreme Court case last year that said, um, If you have an issue with your homestead free status. You feel that you should have received a homestead value freeze that you don't have to go to the EQ board for that. You go straight to county court. So this is just codifying that exception for a homestead free status because equalization boards deal in the
equalization of values and lowering of values, not of homestead freeze determinations. OK. Give the members a second he wasn't going to have any of the members have
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
58:38
any questions in regards to this one. OK. Anyone from the audience have any want to speak for this
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
58:56
bill? Yes, Senator Dismay, you're recognized. Sorry that. Um, This is
not going to preclude someone from calling up and and just verbally. I mean, walk me through and I'm sorry, I was in another conversation, so. It just creates another process, but I mean someone can call and say, I don't agree with the assessed value, and that can be a conversation between somebody at the assessor's office and The taxpayer and they can work that out. That's correct. The first step is always an informal
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
59:27
call to the assessor's office to allow the assessor to voluntarily make that adjustment. Is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
59:32
there but nothing in this would stop that. Nothing in
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
59:34
this would stop that. It simply takes out the the extra step of going to an EQ board that was unnecessary.
And if the assessor is unwilling to make the change, you go straight to county court because the one
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
59:44
thing I wouldn't want to do is just use this as a reason to not have the, you know, not have that
conversation if that makes sense. We would not want to do that. Thank you. All right, that's fine. Thank you. OK.
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
59:59
It, I'm gonna go back to the audience. Anybody in the audience wants to speak for this? Anyone want to speak against it. Senator Boyd, you closed. I'm closed. What's the will of the committee Sender
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:00:15
Hester is a motion to pass. Uh, seconded by Senator Hammer. Any other discussion? All in favor, say I. Any oppose that carries. Thanks for being here.
needs to. OK, Senator Johnson, SB 408. I thought he
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
1:00:41
was going to be here. We may pick it up. We all got the fiscal impact
Speaker 130
1:00:48
on that, right? Yes, well, OK, we'll definitely be hearing that on Wednesday, I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:00:55
think. That's right, uh, Senator Hester is not presenting that one. Senator Johnson SB 529.
I think he's in another committee right now. Um
All right, is there anybody, any other members want to present any other bills that's on our active agenda. OK? Any other discussion by the committee? OK, with that we're adjourned and well, before I say that again, everybody
watched their calendar. We'll see what time we're going to meet Wednesday. With that we're adjourned.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Jimmy Hickey
SB412 J. Boyd TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO SET THE PER-MILE AMOUNT FOR THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES BY PROCLAMATION.
HB1716 Cavenaugh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES BY THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ASSESSMENT OF SALES AND USE TAX IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB503 Crowell TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AN EMPLOYER MUST HAVE TO BE MANDATED TO FILE AN ANNUAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING STATEMENT ELECTRONICALLY; AND TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF A WITHHOLDING RETURN FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS.
HB1303 Jean TO CREATE THE SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL INCENTIVE ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT RELATED TO SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL.
HB1691 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PUBLIC CHARITY ARE EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX.
HB1695 J. Richardson TO CLARIFY THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS FOR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MUNICIPAL LIEN; TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRIORITY OF UNRECORDED MUNICIPAL LIENS.
HB1760 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PETITIONS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF A PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — REVENUE & TAX - SENATE, Mar 31, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Chair (Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr)
Unverified
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 25
Speaker 26
Speaker 23
Speaker 34
Speaker 37
Speaker 41
Speaker 7
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 12
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 63
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 88
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 101
Speaker 45
Speaker 119
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 131
Speaker 39
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 145
Speaker 147
Speaker 149
Speaker 160
Speaker 152
Speaker 64
Speaker 139
Speaker 57
Speaker 122
Speaker 130
Speaker 113
Speaker 18
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified