Said in CommitteeBeta

Exactly as spoken.

City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House

March 19, 2025 ·10:00 AM ·Room B, MAC ·2:33:28
Video Transcript 1 document

Bills discussed (25)
Bill Title Sponsor Status
SB324 Act 519 · 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ile. I'm gonna skip over myself, and then we'll get down to Senate Bill 324. Representative Brooks.”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF A COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. M. Johnson Notification that SB324 is now Act 519
HB1802 Act 606 · 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/17/2025 @ 7:30PM Added HB1802, HB1808, and SB424) House Committee on City, County, and Lo…”
 TO CREATE THE TALENT RECRUITMENT GRANT PROGRAM; AND TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR INDIVIDUALS TO RELOCATE … Warren Notification that HB1802 is now Act 606
HB1660 · 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ood morning, uh, good morning, colleagues. Um, so what, um, House Bill 1660, hopefully it's a fairly short bill. Uh, so, um, what this,…”
 TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT; TO REGULATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS; AND TO REQUIRE AN … S. Meeks Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1711 · 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “next on the list. House Bill 1711. Committee, this is a bill that we've already heard, uh, on…”
 TO ALLOW A MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A POLICE FORCE; AND TO ESTABLISH THE … Unger Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1695 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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.
HB1701 Act 925 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRIORITY OF UNRECORDED MUNICIPAL LIENS. HB1701 Gonzales TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEWER COLLECTION AND S…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEWER COLLECTION AND SEWER TREATMENT PROVIDERS AND RELATED SERVICES. Gonzales Notification that HB1701 is now Act 925
HB1760 Act 486 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM. 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
HB1783 Act 834 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1783 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF A CITY…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO … Clowney Notification that HB1783 is now Act 834
HB1785 Act 525 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO A CITY OF THE SECOND CLASS. HB1785 J. Moore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERS OF A COUNT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERS OF A COUNTY DEPOSITORY BOARD. J. Moore Notification that HB1785 is now Act 525
HB1789 Act 605 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1789 R. Burkes TO RESTRICT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM PROVIDING FUN…”
 TO RESTRICT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING AN IDENTIFICATION … R. Burkes Notification that HB1789 is now Act 605
HB1790 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTIFICATION CARD TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1790 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF S…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT. B. McKenzie Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1808 Act 686 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1808 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPAR…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AND TO CREATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS … A. Collins Notification that HB1808 is now Act 686
SB374 Act 751 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIES OF A MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SB374 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CIVIL SERVICE SYST…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM. B. Davis Notification that SB374 is now Act 751
SB424 Act 422 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GENDA (Revised 3/17/2025 @ 7:30PM Added HB1802, HB1808, and SB424) House Committee on City, County, and Local Affairs Wednesd…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF A MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. G. Stubblefield Notification that SB424 is now Act 422
SB91 Act 459 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB91 C. Penzo TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS SHALL HAV…”
 TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR CONTROL THE … C. Penzo Notification that SB91 is now Act 459
HB1130 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION ORDINANCE IS NOT ADOPTED; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1130 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITTING FOR RESID…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITTING FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; TO AMEND THE FAST-TRACK PERMITS ACT; … Pilkington Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1212 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SERVICING UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO LEVY DUES. HB1212 Steimel TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CIVIL OFFICE HOLDINGS;…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CIVIL OFFICE HOLDINGS; AND TO ALLOW A JUSTICE OF THE … Steimel WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
HB1331 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MPROVEMENT DISTRICT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1331 Barnes TO REQUIRE A COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE…”
 TO REQUIRE A COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE … Barnes Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1416 Act 673 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ZONE. HB1416 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPAR…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AND TO ALLOW A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICING … L. Johnson Notification that HB1416 is now Act 673
HB1436 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ALSO SERVE AS A POLICE OFFICER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1436 Steele TO PLACE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD PROCE…”
 TO PLACE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS OPERATING A SLAUGHTERHOUSE ON THE SAME … Steele Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1448 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ING CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF OFFERED UNDER ARKANSAS LAW. HB1448 Puryear TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREA…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS; AND TO REQUIRE NOTICE AND COMPENSATION TO … Puryear Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1462 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION POSTED ON AN ONLINE DATABASE. HB1462 Painter TO AUTHORIZE AN OWNER OF A PUBLIC WATERWORKS SYSTEM…”
 TO AUTHORIZE AN OWNER OF A PUBLIC WATERWORKS SYSTEM TO EXPEND PUBLIC FUNDS AND TO … Painter WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
HB1565 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY PERMITS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. HB1565 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF A COUNT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF A COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSOR; AND TO PERMIT … R. Burkes Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1567 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TERHOUSE ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS THE FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS. HB1567 McClure TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FA…”
 TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY" RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE RACING FACILITY … McClure Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1627 Act 877 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MENT OF LEAD AND CERTAIN GALVANIZED CUSTOMER SERVICE LINES. HB1627 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROPERTY TAX RELIEF; AN…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROPERTY TAX RELIEF; AND TO REQUIRE COUNTIES TO PROVIDE NOTICE … Barnett Notification that HB1627 is now Act 877

Official video page ↗

Transcript

Transcript available SliQ live captions ✓ Whisper: not yet available Download .txt
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
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 0:13
Introduce yourself for the record, you may present your bill. All right, good morning, uh, good morning, colleagues. Um, so what, um, House Bill 1660, hopefully it's a fairly short bill. Uh, so, um, what this, uh, bill does, it allows in the legislative auditors are, are here if anybody has any questions of them, but uh what this bill does is uh for very large POA, so these are gonna be POAs that are basically de facto cities. They have sewer systems, they collect garbage, they maintain the roads. this bill would allow is at the request of a member for legislative audit to go in and do a, do an audit of them, um, there, you know, every year we audit all the cities, we audit all the counties, but, uh, we've got a situation that's come up in Fairfield Bay, where they, they do the sewer, they do the roads, and the citizens up there, and I'm gonna try not to get into all the dirt that's going around, but the citizens up there are concerned that they are not being responsible with the money they are getting. And um that concern is actually even gone so far as, uh, to the Attorney General's office. They're aware of the issues up there, uh, legislative audit when I first brought this to Roger Norman when he was the auditor, he saw some concerns up there, but there was no way for either the Attorney General's office or the auditors to go in and actually to, to audit these organizations. And so what, uh, this bill does. as just like any member can request an audit to be done of uh a planning district or a water district, so forth, uh, any member can go to the uh auditing committee, uh, asked for an audit to be done. The audit committee looks at it and they decide whether, yes, there's enough concern there to conduct the audit and if the resources are available to conduct the audit, and if so, then the audit can proceed. Uh, if you've been down here. Any length of time, you know that if an organization is doing things right, they welcome that audit. They welcome the people come in, but if they start throwing up walls, it's usually because they're trying to hide something. Uh, and, and I'm just gonna give you one example of something that happened up there. Uh, so, uh, evidently up in that area, there's only one liquor license that is available up there. The POA wanted that liquor license. Um, they didn't get it. Uh, there was a lady up there who had a small business. She got the liquor license, and shortly thereafter, the POA shut our sewer off. Basically shut our business down. She had to hire a lawyer to sue the POA to get her sewer turned back on, so that she could continue to do her business. So, the POA is collecting money from her in the form of dues. They're then taking that money to hire lawyers to fight against the lawyer that she was to try to keep her business going. So that's the kind of just an example of some of the stuff that's going on up there. Also, the, the way Fairfield Bay is organized is they do have a city, so we send turn back money to the city for the roads, the city then gives that money to the POA to do the maintenance on the roads, but the roads are not actually owned by the city. They're owned by the POA. So we have no idea if that money is actually being properly spent on the roads that we're sending through this. So again, this is just an accountability to allow for um, some transparency. If the PLA is doing everything right, great, we move on. But if they're not doing something right, this allows us to get in, create that accountability so it can be dealt with to make sure that those people are, are being taken care of, uh, legislative audit helped me draft the language in here. They cannot take an official position one way or another on this, um, but they are good with what's going on and actually, as a matter of fact, when I first brought this to them, they thought I was talking about a different POA in the state. So evidently Fairfield Bay is not the only one that has an issue here. I also say that the Van Buren County judge also strongly supports this legislation and would be here today and support uh had his duties not required him elsewhere. So, uh, committee, uh, with that, I'll be happy to take any questions from the committee. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 4:37
McKenzie, you're recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks. I actually enjoy the sentiment of the bill. I have. It, it, it flushes with a few. Principled issues that I see. I mean, POA I, OK, let me start by saying I agree. I think POAs that extend beyond or encompass an entire city could be problematic, um, it is a contract. It is ostensibly a contract that residents enter into, and that's what governs them as neighbors. Um, so that's the principled argument, but I do have a question relevant to audit. I mean, the audit function would still exist because like you mentioned, the we have turned back to the city, the city gives to the POA. The POA then goes in the same could be said about all the the municipal services that they have to go and contract with either some regional authority. We, there would be legislative audit oversight onto the transactions or the individual municipal functions. That's just the, the big word for utilities, so water, sewer, if they go in contract with like, let's say it's in Northwest Arkansas NACA, or, you know, they have to go and pay RA for some kind of a service, those, those individual contracts or service agreements are subject to audit currently because they're with
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 5:42
a state entity, correct? Just to the degree to which those funds go. And I don't know if maybe someone from Audit might could come and, uh, answer that question a little bit, uh, a little bit better than I could. And so I, I, and I understand what you're trying to, to say here about uh doing the audit of a almost a private organization. I, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm sympathetic to that argument, but here's where my counterargument would be. When the people of the city go to vote to elect their leaders. It is by law that that vote takes place, you know, on a regular basis, once every 4 years or so, and that it's one person, one vote, right? The way these POAs are structured, it is one vote based on the amount of land that you own. And so what's happening in up in Fairfield Bay at least, is the people that are on the board, they get their rich friends, they go buy all this delinquent and there's a lot of qu ent land up there. They go and buy all this delinquent land up, they get all this, all these voting, uh, rights, they vote their friends in and and then after that, they let the land go back delinquent to the state. So it creates a lot of turnover that the state has to deal with. But long story short, what you end up with is you end up with an oligarchy. You have the wealthy people that live in that area who are electing the people that they want to be on the board and this last year, the board just decided to cancel the elections. They, they, they weren't gonna do any. So there's not that accountability that comes from the elections that we have, um, if you are, you know, a private business, you have regular audits. These are kind of quasi-government entities that are sitting out there with no accountability whatsoever. And so that's why I'm bringing this is to try to bring that accountability. The, the original bill that I had was actually tried to dig deeper to create more rights for the citizens, but I decided to to scale it back and my thinking was, if we allow the audit to take place, if we do the audit, if they're doing everything right, then that should assuage the concerns, but if there is, you know, bad management or even worse, if there's illegal stuff going on, then that needs to be brought to. light and this is the only way that, that it can
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 8:07
be done. And you'll just introduce yourself for the record and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 14 8:10
say who you're with. Kevin White legislative audit. Representative McKenzie, you are correct in that our authority would extend to the funds flowing through the city
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 17 8:16
and then to those entities. Thank you. And again, just as
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 8:19
a follow up, I, I, I would agree. I think that this is a problem. It principally, again, it's a contract, and if you we have to vote on the bill in front of us. If the bill in front of us were to create some kind of reconstitution for people in this area to say every 5 years that, you know, POA has to come up for, you know, approval by the citizens of the incorporated town, I'd vote for that bill as it currently stands, it's a little bit tough because Um, they are, they are not a governmental entity. They act, you know, quack and and walk like government Lindsay they're not, and until there can be some kind of a reproach for that, that city to take over the POA or to to to, you know, for it to go away so that they can either create overlays or resize or POA, you know, it's just a tough one. I appreciate the bill. I really do. I think it's, I'm a big believer in legislative audit and your team that, you know, Sunshine, um, is the best disinfectant, but I appreciate it. Sure, sure,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 9:08
and I, and I get where you come and, and the, the city of Fairfield Bay has only been Incorporated, I guess, for a couple of years. And so right now, they're, they're the two of them are actually butting heads. And, uh, I didn't even know this was possible, but, uh, the POA, they did not like the mayor cause she was trying to bring some of that sunshine, and they got a recalled and got their own person plugged in there. So, again, this is just trying to create some of that, you know, sunshine for the citizens that are up there, because the problem that, that they're in is, yes, they're in a contract, but what's happened over the years is because that oligarchy has taken over their rates have continued to go up and go up and go up, and, you know, I, and, and full disclosure, I had land up in Fairfield Bay back in the 90s, but I got rid of it because of the, the POA rates. Uh, it made it so it was not worth it. And so what you end up with is you have a lot of retirees that have moved to that area, that when they move there, the rates were at a certain level. Well, now, because of the people in charge and, you know, they're running it like their own. a little fiefdom, they keep raising the rates and the people that live there have no recourse. There's no, like I said, the board elections have been canceled, uh, whenever they, they have, they, some of them have actually sued to try to get this financial data and the POA has not been forthcoming with it, even though they're supposed to be by law, um, And so this is, like I said, this is just uh an attempt uh to try to bring some sunshine, and it's only going to be when a member comes and convinces
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 10:49
the audit committee that it's worthy of their time. These POAs are, do they, can they receive any taxpayer dollars or something like that or they're just funded
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 10:57
through their dues. So, um, they're funded through their dues, but depending on the way the structure is, they can also receive taxpayer dollars. So like in the case of Fairfield Bay, um, the road turned back money that goes to the city, some of that then, because the city itself doesn't own the roads up there. The POA does. So they then give that money to the POA to maintain the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 11:20
roads. So Is that a contract that they have with the POA to main maintain those roads and why would they be maintaining roads that don't belong to them. That's a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 11:29
very good question, but that's just the way, that's the way it's done. Yeah, that the city gets turned back and then because the city doesn't own the roads, the POA does, um, the money goes to the POA and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 11:43
the POA does the, does the roads. OK. All right. uh, Representative Hall,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brad Hall Unverified 11:49
you're recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this almost sounds like a timeshare agreement, uh, our timeshares, are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 34 11:59
they audited in any way? Are they Mm. Yeah, you're right, it's not a direct timeshare,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 12:04
um, but to, to answer your question, no, as far as I know, they're not audited anyway. Now, as I understand it, according to law, they're supposed to make their financials available to any of the members of the POA, but, uh, the, at least in Fairfield Bay, they have not been forthcoming with that. And when the citizens have tried to sue to get that information, the POA has gone out and hired these high-priced New York lawyers to come down. And defend the POA from the people. So the people are paying money to basically have it fought against them. And so that's what, again, I'm trying to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 12:41
OK. All right. So you have no further questions from committee members. Um, we don't have anybody speak signed up to speak for or against anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Send on Representative Meeks, would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified 12:57
you like to close for your bill? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committees again. This is just trying to create an opportunity for the, the people that live there and these other POAs to, um, get some, Uh, transparency on what's going on in their communities. If their communities are doing good, then that's great. If not, then we need to, uh, be able to, uh, get these problems solved again. Um, the Attorney General's office and both audit have been, you know, they've seen it up there, that in the past, they believe there are concerns there, and this is just to create a nexus so that, um, you know, we can go in and take a closer look if need be. And with that, I'm closed and appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 13:43
All right, Representative Meeks is closed for his bill. What's a will of committee? Oh Have motion do pass is any discussion on that motion? Seeing none all in favor say aye,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 42 13:58
all opposed. We'll say the noes have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 14:10
it. Sorry, well. OK. Without objection of, of, uh, we'll take up Representative Warren's bill next, told him he could be, be up next. So we're gonna take these a little bit out of order, try to accommodate people who've come from other committees and need to get back to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 44 14:28
other places. Representative Warren, you are recognized run
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Les Warren Unverified 14:34
House Bill 1802. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. Today we're presented with, uh, an opportunity to address two significant challenges facing the state of Arkansas. The growing number of unfilled jobs and the continued decline in population across several counties. Currently Arkansas faces over 50,000 open jobs. A stark reminder of the workforce shortage that is impeding our economic growth. Simultaneously, 36 counties in our state are experiencing a decline in population. which threatens the vitality of both urban and rural communities. This demographic shift results in fewer workers to fill essential positions, weakening our local economies and stalling community development. In response to these challenges, I'm introducing House Bill 1802, talent recruitment grant program. This bill creates a framework for statewide program administered by the Association of Development District Organizations and aims to provide targeted incentives to attract talented individuals from outside the state to relocate in Arkansas. The program will offer grants to municipalities and nonprofit organizations that focus on economic development. Within the state. Supporting their efforts to recruit individuals with specific qualifications, including those who will bring high paying remote work opportunities or want to secure employment within with it with Arkansas-based companies. The grants will help cover the costs of marketing, administration, and the incentives necessary to successfully attract and retain these new residents. The value of the new family or individual relocating to a city, county or region cannot be overstated. Every new resident not only fills a job vacancy, but also contributes significantly to the local economy. New residents pay taxes, spend money in the local businesses, invest in housing, seed future growth and participation in community development. In fact, studies showed that each new household can generate more than 90,000 annually in economic activity, benefiting everything from schools to small businesses. This bill offers a powerful tool to help rejuvenate our communities, sustain essential services and ensure long term economic stability for Arkansas. This program especially benefits the rural communities of Arkansas, many of which do not have an economic development pipeline and declining population. This program aims to give them a tool to generate new residents, new tax revenue and new customer consumer spending, all of which can be reinvested to improve the quality of life and ignite growth again. Any and every size and type of community can benefit from a talent recruitment program. So how the grant works and return on investment. The structure of the talent recruitment grant program ensures that Arkansas is not only attracting talent but also receiving a tangible return on the investment. The grants will be awarded to municipalities and nonprofit organizations again with an economic development aim. That demonstrate a clear and sustainable plan for recruiting individuals to relocate their company. To their communities. Importantly, the applicants must outline the total cost of their recruitment efforts, including marketing, administration, and incentives, as well as the expected economic impact. This ensures that the program is designed with transparency and measurable outcomes, uh, in mind. Moreover, recipients are required to submit quarterly reports detailing key metrics, including the number of individuals recruited, the jobs they fill. Their income levels and the resulting economic impact. This accountability mechanism ensures that we are not simply spending resources without verifying results by tracking the tax revenue generated, the consumer spending of the relocated individuals and the overall economic impact of the program, the state will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the grants and make adjustments. As necessary to ensure that Arkansas is getting the return on investment that it deserves, so I want to share with you, uh, this program has already started in Arkansas. Without any legislation right now. And there are 3 communities that the program has already reached out to Texarkana, West Memphis, and Fort Smith. They're currently working with these cities. For Texarkana. They've had a total of 6,869 applications. Of those applications, people interested in considering moving to Texarkana, they had 687 qualified applicants. They had 173 offers extended to people to move there, paying incentives to them. Of the offers uh extended 57 were accepted. West Memphis. 3,763. Uh, applications. 302 qualified applications, 83. Offers extended. 27 accepted. Fort Smith 2,838 applications. 303 of those were acceptable, uh, applications. They offered 65 uh. Of those people, the offer to move 21 were accepted, so basically it's about 1/3 of the qualified, uh, applicants are actually accepting. So Uh, the average household income is $127,421. The households have relocated from California, Florida, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Montana, Maryland, and Texas. The economic impact generated just on this small group right now is 1.77 million, uh, with new annual economic impact generated for Arkansas by these so. I would just say that this bill is just another way, uh, to introduce people to the amazing way of life in Arkansas. A lot of people work remotely now. We give them an option to come to the natural state or stay in a city full of concrete with little outdoor. Options We want to get uh the program on the books. Uh, some of these programs in other states have started with foundation, uh, contributions. If the state at some point decides to undertake a recruitment program, uh, to Arkansas. This bill would be a great partnership, uh, for a program like that. It's been successful in other states and I'd really like to see us bring it to Arkansas. So I'd be glad
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 22:19
to entertain any questions. I think that Representative McKenzie, you recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so we have success with these programs currently in the state. We have chambers, AMP tax divisions, regional tourism boards already doing this. Some, some, OK, not necessarily with the organization that that's bringing this along, but we have entities, non-governmental entities across the state that are already trying to recruit. Um, remote workers currently, correct? Right. Um, why
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 48 22:49
do we need to fund it with taxpayer dollars. I, I can give you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Les Warren Unverified 22:55
a great example. Uh, I live in Hot Springs, Garland County. And we would love to do this program, uh, both our chamber and our county said we just don't have the excess funds right now. And so what. They talked about is if we had some kind of mechanism where there was even a match, like a fifty-fifty match. Then they would be willing to pitch in. And do it. So, My hope with, with getting this on the books is even if, uh, and we've, we've taken this to the, uh, Well, West Ark, uh, Planning district in my, uh, community, all of the, uh, planning districts have said we'd love to work with this. We think it'd be a great tool. But even if we could get a foundation contribution to begin with. Uh, and then if there is State funding as you, as you know, our budget is tight. Uh, I don't necessarily expect Uh, any contribution from the state at this point. But I want to get it on the books. So that if we do get a foundation. That is willing to help us or if the state agency says, hey, this is in line with what we're doing. I'd like to just maybe test the waters and see if we can help some communities. So I'm not necessarily expecting funding right now, but I'd like to get it on the books so that we can maybe help some communities.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 24:40
Representative Pilkington, you reckon those for questions. Uh Over here. uh, thank you for bringing this, uh, Representative Warren, uh. I mean, I think this is a good program. I've, I've met with these groups before when they came to Clarksville, uh, you know, we're a small town just under 10,000 people, um, and we've had a lot of people move into our area because of low cost of living and, and kind of to representative McKenzie's point is some points are already doing it. But I mean, would you not agree? I mean, just like with a large organization that I've had multiple sites. I mean, my understanding is a lot of this is, um, they're saying there's a plethora of places in Arkansas that we could put you at. Let's find you the best place instead of cities and counties acting as siloed operations. We have a cohesive group working together to bring more people to Arkansas because I know, I think they've recruited someone to West Memphis. I would have never dreamed to move to West Memphis, but clearly that was someone's dream, and I'm glad they moved there and, and, and that they're happy. Um, I would be someone who if I was gonna probably would want to live in a really cool place like Rogers, uh, but, you know, or even a cooler place like Clarksville or Knoxville. So, um, I just, I, I, would you not agree that that's kind of the purpose of this is not having siloed efforts, but having a whole forced effort that could potentially work for the benefit of the entire state and, and finding locations that fit these
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Les Warren Unverified 25:58
people the best. Would you not agree? Yeah, I mean, here, here's, here's what I'd say. I mean, like Clarksville is one of the communities that If something comes from this, we get some kind of funding. They're at the top of the list like please include us. Uh, we want to be a part of this program. We need a little help to recruit people to Clarksville. And, uh, and that, that's the deal is we want to, uh, be able to help some of these communities that that are struggling with, uh, decline in population to be able to just be considered. Yeah, thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 26:43
OK, seeing no further questions from committee members, is there anyone we don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against anyone in the audience want to speak
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Les Warren Unverified 26:51
for or against this bill, see no, Representative Warren, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for the bill. I, I think it would be a good, uh, recruitment tool to get people to Arkansas and I would appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 27:00
Representative Warren is closed for his bill. What's the will of the committee? Of a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor. Say ah. will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Right, committee, I know we have several people in here, uh, who've been waiting, so we're just gonna start going down the list from here. I'm, um. Representative Richardson wants to run his bill, but I think he is, he's out for a little while. I'm gonna skip over myself, and then we'll get down to Senate Bill 324. Representative Brooks. And Senator Johnson, pleasure to have you here. Y'all just
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Keith Brooks Unverified 28:01
introduce yourselves. You may begin. Thank you committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Keith Brooks, State
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Senator Mark Johnson Unverified 28:06
Rep, District 78. Mark Johnson, state senator, District 17. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Keith Brooks Unverified 28:10
We do have an amendment on this, uh, Mr. Chair, and this amendment is simply adding me as the House sponsor on the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 28:17
bill. OK. All right. Let's, we'll get that passed out, um. In the meantime, anybody want to make a motion to adopt this amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations, you're your amendment is adopted. He now how sponsor of uh Senate Bill 324. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the majority of the committee.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 69 28:44
You'll give me just a minute to get those passed out and then
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Keith Brooks Unverified 29:17
OK, like you. Perfect. Thank you. So, uh, committee, I appreciate your time today. This is my first time ever in front of City County locals, so it's an honor to be here with you. Uh, so Senate Bill 324 is pretty easy. There's, there's only 13 total lines of texts in the bill, so it's a very simple bill, just, uh, dealing with county planning boards and the reality of the need to have a majority of county planning board that lives in unincorporated area of the county. I will let Senator Johnson take additional.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Senator Mark Johnson Unverified 29:51
um, specifics from there, but that's the basics of the. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Brooks did a good job explaining it. Let me give you a little bit of background to understand where we got here, uh. Uh, only about 15 of the 75 counties have any form of a planning board, and some of them have, I'll just say narrow planning boards that deal with some just. Much less extensive regulation in the unincorporated areas, uh. The, uh, I came to my attention. We have in Pulaski County we have a more extensive one that came to my attention that, that 60% of the membership of our Pulaski County Planning Board lived in the incorporated cities. And that didn't seem very representative to me considering, you know, it's, it's, I use an example of my our, of our neighboring cities, uh, people in North Little Rock don't serve on the Little Rock planning commission and people in Sherwood don't serve on the Jacksonville Planning Commission so we felt that people that had this responsibility should be people that live under that jurisdiction, so my original hope was to say that all the members had to be and uh there were some legitimate uh concerns. voiced by some county judges, uh, uh, one case you had an excellent chairman of the county planning board, uh, the one of the cities had annexed him into the, the uh city so under my original bill he would not have been eligible to serve, and, and he was doing a good job, so the compromise and I appreciate, uh, Mr. Curtis with the Association of accounts helping me work out a, a compromise is that a majority. Of those people that serve would be uh uh would have to live in the in unincorporated area, so it's just to uh make sure that the majority of people that serve on this board are people that uh are subject to the jurisdiction of that board and I'm sure that both of us will be happy to answer any questions this
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 31:59
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, any questions from committee members? Seeing none, we have nobody signed up to speak for or against anyone in the audience like to speak for or against. Would you like to close for your bill? We are closed for bill, and I appreciate the motion to pass. Thank you. I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. I'll oppose Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. I see Representative Unger, you're
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 1 32:38
next on the list. House Bill 1711. Committee, this is a bill that we've already heard, uh, once, so
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Steve Unger Unverified 32:44
maybe this will be quick. Representative Steve Unger District 19, and it only gets better. Could I ask a Chief Gary Sypes of the Chiefs Association who joined me at the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 32:52
table, sir. Just come on up, introduce
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Steve Unger Unverified 32:56
yourself for the record, and so y'all may begin in the in the spirit of since you've heard me do it once, I'm not sure how much you want me to rehash. Basically when I was here before and I really appreciate the feedback. I put in a concurrent jurisdictions with the host City County, which was a good catch, also put in there limits that on the shore, the port police, when they are established by the Port Authority. We're not doing that here. We're basically giving the ports the authority to do it as we would say at the proper time on the shore they will patrol the the property under the control of that Port Authority, which is probably the industrial park and the adjacent roads on the water we're saying 5 miles up. And 5 miles down. And in the state of Arkansas for Fort Smith, Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Morton, White River, basically 5 miles up and 5 miles down will include all the major bridges and the locks and dams so they can uh keep them safe for force protection. And I will try to answer
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 34:08
any questions. All right, thank you for that. Any questions from committee members. Seeing none, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against. Saying yes, would you? OK, if you'll just, uh, come to the table and State your name and who you're
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stetson Painter Unverified 34:32
with for the record, you, you can testify. Hit the button, turn your mic on, please. My name is Nathan. I worked in the port area for Frito-Lay a couple of years ago, and understanding to protect, you know, property from folks, possible, no attacks or vandalism. I just get uncomfortable when I think about this police force being accountable only to the Port Authority, um, because I was fired from Frito Lay for unionizing over there for attempting to unionize, and I've known Frito-Lay to harass, um, workers who are trying to unionize and I just worry that You know, the Port Authority, these, these police are accountable to the authority, which is mostly accountable to the businesses they want to attract and I worry that some workers might try to unionize or do something and then face extra harassment. Um, and I also live in Little Rock. I don't know why we need to have the whole new police force, I'd be uncomfortable with that, um, accountable only to the Port Authority when there are police forces that are accountable to the people, at least have some mechanisms to be, and I'm not
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 35:39
sure how I see this one is, would be. OK, thank you for that, um. Seeing no questions thank you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 82 35:44
for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience like to speak for or against this bill. Saying none, would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Steve Unger Unverified 35:51
you like to close for your bill? Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. I see this as a force protection bill. I see it as a bill to protect the cargo passing through the ports. And probably more important to me is a is a ex-military guy force protection for our critical infrastructure. Uh, to protect our bridges and our locks and dams. I ask you for a good vote and I'm closed
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 36:13
for my bill. All right, Representative Hunger is closed for his bill as well of the committee. We'll have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed. I'll say the noes have it. Sorry, your bill has failed. Yeah That have a roll call see two hands. We
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 87 36:56
call the roll Representative Hall. Representative Hall. Representative Hall, no. Representative A. Brown. Representative A Brown. Representative Andrews? Representative Andrews. Representative Andrews, no. Representative McKenzie, Representative McKenzie, yes. Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson. Representative Shepherd. Representative Shepherd. Representative Painter. Representative Painter? No. Representative, um, McAlinden Representative McAlinden, yes. Representative Burks. Representative Burkes, yes, Representative Milligan. Representative Milligan, yes, Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson, no. Representative McCall. in my call? No. Representative Pilkington Representative Pilkington, yes. Representative Rye. Yes. Representative Rye, yes, Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kay Brown. Representative Kate Brown, yes. Representative Holcomb. Representative Holcomb. Representative Womack represented Womack? No. Representative Schultz.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 38:45
Representative Schultz. The bill has failed. It's failed. OK, um, just moving on down the list, we'll. Representative Wang, what, what bill did you tell me you were here to run? 374. Yeah, come on. You are next on the list.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carlton Wing Unverified 39:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. House Bill 374, uh, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 374 is fairly simple. What it's doing is modernizing some antiquated code in the civil service. Um, this is regarding specifically for fire and police to be able to adjust examination dates and processes, um, when this bill was originally written, uh, there was quite a bit of applicants and they were able to do things efficiently, efficiently in that way. Things have changed now as you'll see that what we're amending is taking out that examinations were held in April and October, and those were the only times that you could have examinations and the needs of our modern law enforcement and fire departments, they need to be able to hire more frequently than just that, and they also need to be able to meet the timing for the uh academies and things like that and so, uh, no known opposition, that's endorsed by the Police Chiefs Association and this is just a modernization of, of this code.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 40:25
I'm happy to answer. Any questions? Any questions from committee members? Saying none Yes. Uh, hang on just a second, we gotta go through, through all the other motions, um. Anyone in in the audience signed up to speak wanna speak for or against this bill, seeing nos Way, would you like to close for your bill? Close for the bill and appreciate a good motion. Now we'll take that take that motion. We have motion to pass, um, any discussion on that motion. All in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you very much. Thank you committee. Right, do we have anybody else in here that is not on the committee that's waiting to run a bill. Jay. Yep. Representative Richardson. Mr. Chair, can I have John Wilkerson join me at the table.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative R. Scott Richardson Unverified 41:33
Just introduce yourself for the record, y'all may begin. Representative Jay Richardson, District 49, John Wilkerson, general counsel, the Arkansas Municipal League. The bill we have today, uh, will address some issues that we're seeing across municipalities and I'll let
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 108 41:47
Mr. Wilkinson jump right in. Uh, thank you very much, uh, committee, uh, so dilapidated properties and neglected properties have been a major issue for cities and towns. We had several legislative roundtables in the interim, earlier last year, I guess later and earlier last year. And it was the issue that every city and town had had an issue with. Uh, there's dilapidated properties, neglected properties, and all of our cities and towns. And while there is a mechanism by which we can clean up the properties, place a lien on the properties, and then we're closing the properties if, if need be. Uh, the issue became, how often is it being utilized? And we thought, I'm honest with you, a couple sessions ago, I thought we, we need to overhaul this entire system and redo it. And then I realized that really part of largely the problem was our cities and towns didn't necessarily know how to do this. And so we went on an education effort. We've already had one regional meeting last two weeks ago in Berryville. We have another one in Cross it on Friday. We have 3 more across the state in Stuttgart, Jonesboro, and Fort Smith, I believe. So we're, we're traveling the state to help cities and towns understand how to navigate this and how to deal with, uh, neglected properties. In doing that, we realized there are some issues in the lean the lien process that can be, uh, helped. It can be modified. I won't call this a simple cleanup bill, obviously, but uh it clarifies a lot of what we already do and makes it a little bit easier, a little bit more streamline and fills in some gaps in the law that we have found when it comes to the cleanup process. We feel like this is about economic development. We feel like this is about health and safety, and I feel like this is about beautification of our cities and towns. So, the bill does a lot, um, the, the biggest thing it does, it clarifies that when we're talking about raising buildings or demolishing buildings that are dilapidated and they have not been cleaned up. We've gone through the process to get, to try to get the property owner to clean them up and the property owner just won't, then we can, uh, demolish the buildings or raze the buildings. We already have that authority. Nothing's changed about that. We also have the authority to Um, we'd eat or mow the grass or fill in swimming pools or get rid of, uh, you know, a vacant swimming pools to, because of a mosquito, uh, problem. So it clarifies that those two things are now in fully in the lien process. It was a little disjointed. We just clarified that in section one, section. Uh, 2, deals with, um, how we get, we get access to or how we can recoup the public funds that we're spending because ultimately these are public funds that we're spending to clean up these properties. So it already we have the ability to foreclose. We have the ability to place lies, and now we have the ability to um sue the property owner themselves for the public funds that were, that we we spent in cleaning up the property. Uh, we clarify that, um, the county recorder, we, we've, by the way, we've vetted all this with the County Clerks association. They have no issues. We, we, we made sure that their, uh, issues were addressed. It gives us more time to file these liens, uh, so that we had that so cities are, have enough time to make sure they're getting this lien process going. Um, it's, um, allows us a little bit more room, because right now we're capped at a certain amount that we can charge to raise a building, to do grass or weed cutting. It raises those amounts, does not mean we have to charge it. The charges that we make, um, do have to be commiserate with the amount that we actually spent, so there's no huge change there. It doesn't add another ability of ours. And we, we want to make sure that if we do go through the foreclosure process or we, or we do go through the lien process and a property owner satisfies a lien. We want to make sure that we have to record that lien. The lane, the law was silent on that, so we want to make sure that we know that if you satisfy the lien, you, it has to be recorded. Um, again, we, we want to make sure that, uh, all, all the references to circuit clerks and is now county recorders to make it very, make it again, very clean. The big, the big thing is the foreclosure. Right now, under the law, the cities have the ability to foreclose on a lien, and that is the end of that sentence. There is no procedure. There's no mechanism, and I, I learned just today that, um, there's cities that, um, are, are having, they're passing ordinances to create this method for foreclosure, but it was a major issue for Jonesboro because just this past year, because Jonesboro had this, their high rise on Main Street was falling in, and they want, they needed to do something about it and they wanted to foreclose on it so they can get that property taken. of, but the law just says you can foreclose and that's it. And so Jonesboro had to borrow from other sections of the code to try to figure out the process. This creates a process. It's a process that process that again we vetted with the county clerks, land commissioner's office, uh, to make sure that we know how we can foreclose to ultimately get the property to the point where the, the title is clear and get it to being a tax producing property that is obviously not uh unsightly, not dilapidated, not tax delinquent. We get To something that can be beneficial for the public at large. And then finally, last thing, um, we want to make sure that if you had an, have an unrecorded lien, that's a land commissioner idea, have an unrecorded lien, then we have an option, cities have the option to, uh, recoup money on that unrecorded lien after the sale has already gone through the land commissioner's office. So, uh just a minor cleanup on that. I think it was a good suggestion by the land commissioner's office. So again, uh, we've, we've vetted this with the County Clerks Association. We've vetted this vetted this. The land commissioner's office, and it just helps us, uh, accomplish what we're already trying to accomplish, which is to clean up these properties and get them to the point where they can
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 47:21
be productive parts of our cities and towns. OK, any questions from committee members? Representative Brown,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 47:27
you are recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilkerson, um, I might have missed. The whole train of thought that you were sharing with us, but, um, what, what isn't, I mean, who would have filed an
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 115 47:40
unrecorded lien. The cities turn your mic back on, please.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 108 47:46
Yeah, so the city would have a lien. And so what we're, what we learned is cities would have a lien, and they wouldn't see the process, which is to to file it with the county clerk, and then once it becomes on, it becomes a tax delinquent lien basically because of tax lien. So that's the way that it should happen. And so a lot of cities didn't know that process. We're making sure they do know this process and so some cities will have that lien and it would be unrecorded. Now that does not mean it gets collected when the, the land is sold. It just means that if the land is sold, The city has a chance or town has a chance to come back and ask for recoupment of any proceed, um, additional or, um, Um, any, any amount over the asked amount at the sale, if that makes
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 48:30
sense. So, um, who, who sells the property, the land commissioner or the city? They actually,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 108 48:35
it's from the appointed commissioner, which is usually the county recorder or county clerk. So that the judge appoints the commissioner to uh handle the sale. And so if any anything was
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 48:49
any money was left over, then that would go to the, the owner or the heirs or the, the previous owner. It
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brad Hall Unverified 49:00
would satisfy the lanes and whatever would be left over. Yes, thank you. Representative Paul, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you know, as the old saying goes, it, it might not be your castle, but it might be mine, you know. So how do you, uh, differentiate between Maybe a community, uh, Maybe they don't like their neighbor, you know, they want it dilapidated, wanted it taken out, uh, was one thing. And then 2 on the cleanup costs, could you not use community service to help keep the cost down. We could so we
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 124 49:30
could, yeah, yeah, that would be, that would be an optimal solution. The way for the, the other thing
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 108 49:35
though, um, so already, that doesn't change the process of having a lien. We, we already have that authority. It has to go through due process. We have to notify the landowner, they have the right to, to appeal it, both the city council or the town council. and then they have a right to appeal it at circuit court. So all the due process has not been changed. In fact, we, we, we tried to enhance a little bit by making sure that listen in the back end that we have to let, make sure that the, the city or the county knows that they've satisfied the lien and to try to get to clear title. So yeah, none of the notice
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 127 50:08
provisions are changed. It's, it's still the Representative Wombach, you recognize for questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Richard Womack Unverified 50:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's, let's go back to that unrecorded lane. I'm, I'm not. Uh Explain to me exactly how that would work. Are you saying that, that if there's proceeds from the sale that satisfy. Existing liens and there's money left, then the city can access those funds or the city is going to have an opportunity to go back to the person that just purchased the property and go, hey, there's this lien you didn't know anything about, you owe us $200 or whatever, the first
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 108 50:41
one. Yes, so any excess proceeds the city within a year. Can, um, petition for that through the land commissioner's office. Yes, thank you for that clarification.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 50:55
OK, so no further questions. Anyone in the audience will speak for or against this bill. Saying none, Representative Richardson, would you like to close for your bill. Close
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative R. Scott Richardson Unverified 51:03
for the bill and ask for a good bolo
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 51:06
for the bill. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none, all in favor, say ah. All opposed. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. Alright, we're gonna do a little more skipping around here with
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 69 51:26
objection Representative Collins, are you still, yeah. House Bill 1808 and there
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 51:42
is an amendment on this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that's getting passed out, um, with your permission, could I bring someone up, uh, Matthew Stallings.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 51:51
If you would like to go ahead and start telling a little bit
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 51:56
about what the amendment does while it's getting passed out. Sure, this amendment's real simple. It's just changing, uh, two words. One's a typo and the other was, uh, something that was changed, uh, suggested by the municipal league that we accepted, so. That's all it does, a shout to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 52:28
MA. We'll give everybody a chance to look at that. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion seeing none, all in favor
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 52:40
say aye, all opposed. Congratulations, your amendment is adopted. You may present the bill as amended. Thank you. Um, so this is House Bill 1808, and it would create a bill of rights for firefighters. There is one in statute that is for law enforcement officers and this takes it exactly and applies it to firefighters. They are in separate sections. Code, which is why we need to add it all here as opposed to just adding in in firefighters, which is essentially what we're doing, um, it lays out and I'll just kind of tell you in brief, kind of the areas and happy to answer questions and uh Mr. Stallings represents the Arkansas Professional firefighters, and he can tell you a little bit more about any of these details, but the sections in here are disciplinary proceedings, disclosure, uh, is not required for promotion or assignment, not. ific ation of a personnel action will be made to a firefighter participation in political activities is allowed and there's no retaliation that can be made by a municipality or other, you know, governing body against uh firefighter for exercising their rights in here. This is just kind of a, a baseline protections for firefighters as it is currently for law enforcement officers in their, uh, relations with the department that they serve. Um, and it is, um, not compulsory as municipality can choose to adopt or not choose to adopt. Uh, I think that, uh, we talked with the municipal league and I don't think that they have any issues with this, and it's obviously supported by the firefighters, so I'm happy to answer any questions and, um, right, any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 69 54:16
questions from committee members? Saying none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against anyone in
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 54:21
the audience like to speak for or against. Seeing none, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Collins is closed for his bill. What's the will of the committee? I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. OK. Anyone else in the room that is, uh, yeah, Representative Moore. I see you sitting over there now. House Bill 1785.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified 55:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, uh, Jeremiah Moore, House District 61. This bill, House Bill 1785, it's pretty straightforward. This is brought to me by the Association of Arkansas Counties. Currently the county depository board is comprised of the county judge, county treasurer, and county collector. Regarding counties that have a combined treasure and collector's office, uh, that makes it a little questionable how to get that 3rd member. So, uh, this gives the quorum court the ability to pass an ordinance selecting the third member of the county depository board. Uh, with that,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 55:43
I'm open for questions. All right, any questions from committee members saying none. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Saying none or you close for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified 55:51
bill? I'm closed for my bill and I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 55:54
would appreciate a good vote. Representative Moore is closed for his bill. What's the will of the committee. I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion, hearing none, all in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations, you passed your bill. OK, anybody else sitting here ready to go looks like uh. Representative McKenzie is ready to run Senate Bill 91. Brit
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 56:28
McKenzie, State Representative District 7, Thanks committee. I'm stepping in today for Representative Ray. Um, I'm here to present, uh, Senate Bill 91. Let's talk about what this bill does. This bill clarifies our existing statute on rent control, so that local governments cannot regulate the application fees or deposits for landlords, property owners, property managers, etc. in the state of Arkansas. Arkansas code has long prohibited local governments from engaging what is commonly known as rick control, which is essentially a government-imposed limit on the amount landlords can charge for rent. Uh, the reason the state prohibited rent control is because these policies, while well-intentioned, have failed everywhere they've been tried, reducing the housing supply as well as the quality of housing. Um, it was assumed that this prohibition extended into rental deposits and applications, but in October of 24, the Fayetteville City Council passed an ordinance that would put a $40 cap on rental applications. And background check fees. What, what are the reasons to support this bill? Government price controls do not work, um, virtually any credible economist will tell you that rent control often leads to fewer houses, uh, housing choices, and it certainly hurts residents, uh, that the policy purports to help. Um, there's a great economist named Walter Williams, who once opined that short of aerial bombardment, the best way to destroy a city is through rent controls. Um, cities like San Francisco, New York City, Saint Paul, Minnesota have implemented rig control policies and has led to the continued housing crisis they experience today. Uh, we're hoping to not allow that to happen. Um, the National Apartment Association has a great description on their website of why rent control policies do not work. rent control, uh, rent control distorts the housing market by acting as a deterrent and a disincentive to develop rental properties and and expedites the deterioration of existing housing stock. Well done under the guise of uh preserving affordable housing, the policy hurts the very community it purports to help by limiting accessibility and affordability. Um, the area of commerce is already regulated by the state. And that's gonna be a, I think a good portion of the discussion today. Arkansas code 14-16-601 already prohibits local rent control policies, um, as well as Arkansas Code 1816304 already lays out the state's regulation of rental deposits. Uh, simply put, that this is, this is just an attempt by certain municipalities to be creative and implement backdoor rent controls because whenever and whomever 14, 16601 didn't have the foresight to include the accouterment or the necessary steps in um uh rental agreements. Um, allowing these types of ordinances would frustrate state policy. As well as create unnecessary metal in the free market. If someone wishes to charge $50 or $75 for a rental application fee that is voluntary contractual consumer relationship and the local government cannot say that $50 or $75 is too much. The reason landlords charge rental application fees is because it corresponds to cost uh processing that application. Uh, there's typically a background check that is done, and those often do cost money. Uh, often landlords called references, uh, uh, landlords call references, interview the applicant, uh, or make an effort to verify the applicant's reported income to ensure that they have the ability to pay, uh, similar to or not too dissimilar to um how other forms of commerce commence, banking, um, um trying to uh uh achieve capital for a development projects, um, putting your children into private schools, those are custom and standard practices. Um Uh, let's see. Uh, the common objections to this bill. Um, if there are apartments charging uh application fees with no units available. Uh, there are two points here and that's going to be a refrain I believe you're gonna hear in the testimony provided today. Um, if apartment complexes are behaving unscrupulously and engaging in deceptive practices. Um, we have laws that currently exists that the Attorney general has made a renewed commitment and does uh vociferously go after. We don't have to look too far outside of the city of Little Rock for examples of him going after bad landlords and uh those. were taking advantage of their tenants, um, to push those bad bad actors through the trade process, um, uh, it's specifically called the deceptive Trade Practice Act. And if the second reason why that that argument does fall short is if a unit is full, people, people will often um. I would like to be placed on a waitlist for an available unit and are willing to pay a rental application fee in order to be pre-approved. Local control. Uh, I understand that that that is often a uh um a phrase that is exercised in this committee, um. And it's important enough that local control should exist, albeit when it doesn't have state statute behind it that already precludes the activities of a municipal government from doing something. Also local control, uh, is not unlimited. Um, again, the conventional wisdom of our legislature and of our Arkansas code, uh, years, years gone by have been to protect um the ability for individuals to invest in communities to provide long term rental housing. Um, and the common objection that XX is too much, um, you know, the amount of whatever application fee or background check is too much. Um. Oftentimes when we're talking about a rental market, there is a market that exists within communities. Um, there will be, um, the, the, the invisible hand of or the invisible hand of the economy will determine if someone is charging too much or too little for the same services delivered. Um, so, you know, I understand that that may be a uh a common complaint or um Uh, argument used when talking about the opposition of this, but um we have seen it work at hand in the rental market, um, uh, the rental market for generations. So with that, I'd be happy to take
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:02:13
any questions. You have any questions from committee members? Saying no, I believe we do have people signed up to speak against this bill. First on the list, Jamie Hampton. You will come to the table and state your name for the record. You may begin your testimony.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Jamie Hampson Unverified 1:02:44
Yes, just press a button, turn the mic on. Hello, my name is Jamie Hampson. I'm a resident of Fayetteville, uh, food service employee and a renter. This bill will continue to allow renters. Who are applying to be hemorrhaged by these application fees, with some of them being around $200 in some of these places in Fayetteville. This, it might be a market, but it's not very elastic. It's very inelastic in its demands. This will worsen the crisis as people can't afford to apply to different places. Leave the door or um they've already repealed its ordinance on the cap. Leave the door open. Door open for more deliberation with cities. Vote no on SB 91. Thank you. Are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 144 1:03:36
you open to questions from committee members?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:03:38
Um, see you Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Next on the list, James Jones. If you'll state your name and who you're with, you may begin your testimony.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
James Jones Unverified 1:03:56
Hello, my name is James Jones. I'm a renter. I'm from Fayetteville, and I'm a member of Arkansas Renters United. Um, most of this is because of the people. The Constitution doesn't say we the corporations. It doesn't say we the companies. It doesn't say. We The people that make all the rules as as we the people. The people literally came. To our city council members, we told our stories, mine of which being a single father. Having to apply to many, many, many apartments over an 8 month period, I spent about $1500 just wasted, gone. There was no reason for that at all. As a single father, I, I wanted to take care of my child, and that's all I needed to do was get an apartment, get somewhere to live, so that I could take care of my child. These $1500 that I wasted, this wasn't. 150 apartments that I applied to. This was less, much, much, much less. So We've already repealed. The ordinance. This is to leave open discussion for the people. Not the companies, not the corporations, the people to make the decisions in their cities, in their municipalities. Thank you very much.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:05:29
Thank you for your testimony. Next on the list, Billy Cook. You'll state your name and who you're with for the record,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 149 1:05:41
you may begin your testimony. Good morning. My name is, uh, Billy Cook, and I'm a resident of Fayetteville. Uh, hello to you committee members. Uh, this bill, unfortunately is countered in many of the values we hold as Arkansans like local control, which has been brought up already. Not only does this prevent home rule and local control, but this bill is now redundant and that it is being pushed in response to an ordinance passed by the Fayetteville pertaining to rental application and background check fees. However, between the filing of this legislation and today Fayetteville has since repealed the ordinance in question. which mind you, was never even given the opportunity to go into effect, uh, and which was determined by the Arkansas Attorney general to have likely already been in conflict with existing state statute with the repeal of Fayetteville's ordinance, this bill no longer has anything specifically to oppose and offers only a solution to a problem that no longer exists. This bill will punish every city in our state for the actions of one, and it is unnecessary. It is an unnecessary infringement of the local control that we all value as Arkansans. Moreover, the initial Fayetteville ordinance that was passed was an effort to provide additional consumer protections, uh, as the housing market in Northwest Arkansas is becoming so strained to obtaining rental housing can be excruciatingly time consuming and expensive as we have heard from other people who have testified. Uh, the more money spent on one facet of obtaining housing is less money that the consumer has to spend on moving costs, other expenses that are related to obtaining housing. Because many tenants are transient and are always on the move. Uh, that is less money that finds its way into other sectors of our economy. We as cities and a state must find meaningful ways to lower costs for consumers, and that is meaningful and makes them feel as though uh local and state government has their back. Please vote no on this redundant and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:07:38
now unneeded legislation. All right, seeing no questions from committee members. Thank you for your testimony. Next on the list, Nathan Huffmaker. Huffmeister, I'm sorry. It's a rioting, it's not your fault. State your name and who you're with for the record,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Stetson Painter Unverified 1:07:59
you may begin. My name is Nathan. Good morning again. Uh, I'm an organizer with Arkansas Community Organizations, Arkansas Raers United. Um, I work with renters a lot here in Little Rock and the invisible hand of the market is failing most low income renters here in Little Rock. We are in a housing crisis. There is not enough places for these people to go. There's a long, long waiting list, um. And I want to talk about Otis Green, who stays in one of these bad apartments. I've been organizing at Autumn Park Apartments since about the summer of 2023. Been trying to get the attorney general trying to get the city to hold this landlord accountable for having so many building code violations, and we're still fighting. um Otis wants to move. Otis is a retired, a disabled blind man who wants to live in an apartment that actually fixes things when he needs it done, that keeps the grass mowed, that keeps, you know, the property safe. from random people coming into the property and committing crimes, and he has a limited income on disability, social security, and he is dealing with $200 application fees. Um. People talked about this bill that price caps would limit the amount of apartments available, there are already too many limits, or there, there are already not enough houses, enough apartments available that people can afford. Um, the, the ordinance was repealed in Fayetteville, and I just wish that we could keep this as an option, keep this tool available for municipalities across the state to be able to address the very serious housing crisis that is going on all across the state. And because Otis cannot afford a $200 apartment. application fee and there's not hardly any other places that he can go, that he can't afford that you or I or Otis would want to live in. So I'd please ask that you vote no and leave this tool open for some cities to pass a modest cap on on rental application fees. Thank you. Thank you for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:09:51
testimony. Sarah Moore You will come to the table and. State your name and who you're with for the record, you may begin. Yeah
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 150 1:10:09
Mm Is that good now? Sorry, I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Sarah Moore Unverified 1:10:13
thought it was still on. I apologize. Hi, um, my name is Sarah Moore. Um, I am a Fay Fayetville City council member, um, and, um, as was mentioned when this was discussed by Representative McKenzie. I think there's several things that this bill currently addresses, um, looking at, you know, rent and the deposit, but also adding in application and background check. Um, that particular area, I think, was originated because of our conversations and Fayetteville. Um, I know you get a volume of emails I sent you how deliberative and how this has been a years-long conversation in the city of Fayetteville around our housing task, uh, housing crisis that we have and how we arrived at the ordinance that we have since repealed. Um, I think it's important to really understand, um, that, uh, you know, supply in different parts of our state, we heard someone presenting earlier, we do have declining populations in some parts of the state, but in others, we are seeing. increase in population. And so the pressures in our markets look different across all the 500 cities and the 75 counties in the state of Arkansas. Um, whenever, um, the last couple of years, the city focused on um our housing situation, um, we actually declared housing crisis in April 2024. That was done after over a year of discussions, public conversations, that there's record, very deliberatively of the folks that you heard earlier telling us of the struggles and concerns and we're They have struggled to afford in particular, 60% of our population in the city of Fayetteville are renters, um, which is not, you know, um, the same in the state. I know that we have more, uh, folks that own property in the state of Arkansas in totality. So our situation again is unique in the city of Fayetteville. Um, we also didn't look at this as we need to immediately, you know, pull a lever, um, around, you know, uh, looking at um looking at application and background check fees, but again, this discussion um opened that we the housing crisis task force together and we identified a lot of different areas in the city that we needed to work and get our heads together to address all these many factors that we're facing both in our city and across the state, um, things like trying to get um properties to market more quickly, trying to figure out how we reduce timelines to market, um, trying to um see if there are any um regulations or, you know, red tape that we might be able um to figure out, uh, with our community. We've seated a new mayor, um, in particular around this conversation in January, who just did a state of the city address, um, who um talked to um the situation that we face and that in our um next quarter that we will be working towards another reduction of 3 of the timeline that it takes for us to look at properties, um, as they're coming through our development process. And so we recognize that we have many different solutions that we need to look at. But when we look at this particular area, we heard so many stories over and over again and heard hours of, um, you know, testimony from individuals, and this was not an area much like um many of you probably, um, we only have one renter of the 8 of us on city council. Many of us are homeowners. I would venture if I look across these members that most likely, most of you are homeowners, I would, I would venture that there are probably no renters that sit currently, um, on this committee. Um, and so for me, I had not rented in the city of since 2001. Um, it's a totally different market, um, what's occurring. And so, um, in the conversations and looking and surveying, um, it might be um interesting, and you can look at the, the presentation I sent to you on email, but um just looking at the state of Arkansas, we identified 12 different fees that are happening um in the state of Arkansas on a regular basis, utility fees, valet trash, cable internet, maintenance fee, waiver rental insurance admin fee, leasing fee, pet fee, pet screening, online payment, processing fee, guarantor application fee, resident benefit package. I'm asking that you, you know, today just pull out the language around application and background check, because what we've identified in the conversations that we've had is that, um, consumers in the state of Arkansas that have to go and purchase the opportunity to participate in housing are being met with much, um, you know, burden when they go, um, to look, it's not just the monthly rent, it's not just the deposit. It's all the additives, it's kind of death by 1000 cuts. Um, also, I think It was stated by Representative McKenzie that it's just the cost of doing business, that's trying to be recouped, um, in those conversations, when folks, um, spoke with us from some of the properties, um, we were told that this, you know, was, had become a profit center for some properties, um, maybe making as much as $100,000 that a background check may only cost the property $3 you know, but they were charging, you know, $50 and then after that, they had a $200 administrative fee, which is becoming commonplace and no one knows exactly, you know, what. covers. And so, you know, I say today, if this is not the appropriate possible vehicle to just at least leave open for municipalities have every tool in their toolbox that I'm bringing forward to you today, the concern that there is definitely a need for consumer protections in this market, much like has been identified and we do, you know, an all-in sticker price, you know, on cars, um, other different protections that have happened when we understood certain markets, um, you know, have had maybe runaway costs that aren't, um, always explained or understood. Um, this is a situation that we are seeing expanding, and I think across the nation, what they've deemed junk fees that have been studied by the federal government since 2023. I think they identified almost 25 different fees um that exists for people that are out in the rental market. So it's important we have to balance, you know, the needs between people being able to operate, um, and, uh, offer their properties for rent, which is important, right, to create, not great, you know, overly burdensome and cumbersome process, but there's just a balancing act too, and I think these are incredibly nuanced conversations, and as I share just a very small snippet today where I've had to talk at length to explain this to you. Um, this has taken up a lot of time, um, the entire past two years that I've been on the city council, and I continue constantly to learn more about this, again, because I don't live this every day. I've owned my home in the city of Fayetteville, um, you know, for the past, you know, over 15 years, and so I haven't been. this market. I appreciate your time today, and again, I'd ask that you um consider amending and pulling out the application and background check fee, um, so that we at least offer this as a possible conversation going forward, we wouldn't have to take additional legislative action in the future to remove this whenever, hopefully, um, I can speak further with some of you to look at consumer protections for renters in the state
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:17:14
of Arkansas. Are you open to questions? Representative Pilkington, you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 1:17:19
recognize. Councilwoman Moore, um, so we hear a lot about this ordinance. You in your background, can you walk us through, you passed it, then you repealed it and, and now I'm hearing we shouldn't pass this bill because they might want to put the ordinance back into place. And so, can you walk me through the why you guys decided to repeal an ordinance and why you don't want the option to not to be or why you do have the option to maybe do a similar or into the future since you repealed it. So I'm, I'm,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 150 1:17:50
I'm, I'm not tracking on that. No, no, there's a lot of moving parts here, so that's a very good question. Uh, so there is currently
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Sarah Moore Unverified 1:17:57
a state statute that says that we cannot regulate the price of services, and I apologize, I don't know the state statute off the top of my head. Um, that was when we passed our ordinance originally and our, our city attorney, um, looked at this. Uh, we always look in the city of Fayetteville to make sure that we're not going to be in conflict with state law. That's obviously very important to us, um, to make sure it's legal, um, that was not an area of the law that we looked at and considered at that time. And so the ordinance at the time had a mechanism that we had delayed because we thought it was important to um work with everyone in the city you know all those properties for implementation to make sure we are communicating it to seek out any other hurdles because maybe we need to revisit things. Uh, there was an attorney that that brought to our attention that they were concerned that this might be in conflict. And so when the city attorney reviewed that, um, he came forward and said, hey, you know, I think that this, this might be the case. Um, we had further conversations. That was sent to the AG's office. Um, one of the areas when you look at the AG's opinion, um, there's been no case law in this regard and so oftentimes when you see an AG's opinion, you know, it's reliant on extensive case law that's, um, that's occurred. And so there have been, you know, no cases where this has been, uh, decided, but it said it's highly likely that this would be in conflict. And so with that guidance, we had additional conversations in the city of Fayetteville, um, and, um, had ultimately ended up repealing. So my, my question is really like, this is, to me, this is a very evolving and an ongoing conversation with some continued unknowns. I think that there's still some additional diligence and exploration that probably needs to, to happen. So for me, it's, you know, closing the door on something that I think still, you know, even if there's, you know, it's a 10% chance that that's an opportunity that that's a mechanism. I think again, we're going into kind of unknown territory. I know we have gone through the pandemic and COVID. and we, you know, are settling into whatever we're calling this new normal, I keep saying, I think a lot of us have the language where we're saying, you know, maybe we're gonna, what, this is a new normal. I mean, what is the new normal, but you know, the escalatory prices for building, etc. as we're navigating those and I think this is a very similar um conversation is, um, you know, where, where is the line and where do we settle, um, and so yes, I'm not saying that Fayetteville is going to immediately try to go do something in this regard. I am just saying I feel like it needs to be a part of the conversation. much like all these other levers that we're trying to, to look at, um, or pursuit
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 154 1:20:29
as well. OK. Thank you. I appreciate you walking me through that. OK,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:20:33
seeing no further questions from committee members. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Like on the list Neil Seeley. Nope. OK. Neil is apparently not here, so. Uh, that ends everybody that signed up anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 1:20:54
Saying none. Representative McKenzie, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm ready to close for this bill. Um, uh, last piece of testimony was given. There's not one, but there are 2 attorney General's opinions that state without equivocation that 14-16-601 clearly, Limits the municipality's ability to to regulate goods and services. There, there is not a need for case law when the law is clear. So I understand and respect the testimony given here today. The law is clear. I also have a memo from the city attorney of Fayetteville that clearly indicates that the ordinance as written is illegal. We have the current, we have the current protections on the books. What this goes and does is create an additional protection based in concert with what we've passed already for the protection of rent controls, also in in in uh in terms of protections for goods and services and the powers of municipalities. To the, to the point about having a conversation. Um, I think it's important that we're clear. This isn't um This isn't something that's when, you know, might happen or can happen. Uh, I just read something directly. Uh, there was a member of the city council of Fayetteville who in a video that's posted on their website, um, said specifically into a camera that was being recorded for the purposes of a meeting of the city council, quote, We have to be strategic. A lot of this has to be done when the legislature is out. We don't want them to come in and dismantle it. The state legislature, they don't meet every year, and when they do, they only meet for a few months. When they end their session in a month or two, that gives us 20 months. And so my hope is, is that we implement some good policy, so that when it, so that when they come back in 2 months that maybe they don't just see uh what we did because they're not paying attention, right? They may have other shiny objects in front of them. End quote. I didn't, I didn't screen record it. I didn't have a fake login, a member of the city council said that. They're waiting for us to go home. Because they think they can pass some um obfuscation-based ordinance, um, that's going to continue what they already repealed because it's in violation of the law. Um, ladies and gentlemen, I, I think it's pretty clear this legislature has spoken loudly that we need our, we need those who want to invest in our communities to build rental properties so that our communities can continue to grow and the flywheel of success and economic prosperity can continue, so I appreciate your consideration, uh, I, I thank you for your time and I make a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:23:37
motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to do pass, um, discussion on the motion. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 162 1:23:45
McCulloch, you're recognized for a discussion on the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Tippi McCullough Unverified 1:23:48
motion. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I mean, I worry just from listening to all of this, there are a lot of things I worry about. I worry about legislating against a person or one municipality who has done something because there are so many others out there that I would like to still have the right to have local control. I still think it's important that our localities have the freedom to address, address her local housing issues because there are very different depending on where you are. Um, I'm not sure. the particular need overall for this bill, and I still think we have to look at things that hurt folks in our state who cannot afford to buy and struggle to afford renting, so I'll be
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:24:31
voting against this bill based on that. Thank you. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 1:24:38
Pilkington, you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you. Um, I, I think it's good and for the committee to remember, I mean, we know price controls do not work. I mean, you can look anywhere around the country where you have cities that have tried to use price controls to fix the housing situation, and it is failed time and time again, um, we talked about the housing crisis. I 100% believe there's a housing crisis. We need to do more to get people building homes so that we increase the supply, uh, the demand is there. We have to increase the supply and little trinkets like this are not gonna do anything about it. Uh, and I will say as a legislator, I take great offense to the idea that they need to wait for us to be out of session to then do things and then hope that we don't, we forget about it in 20 months when there's a new shiny object because there is a lot of objects that we have to deal with. We're governing the whole state, but um, I just, uh, you know, I don't think this is a single one on anybody. It's, it's the whole say. We just have one bad actor that has shown that this will eventually spread, I think, to other places that have a similar mindset, and the next thing you know, we have price controls all over the place and our housing crisis are getting even worse. So, uh, you show me a city with price controls, and I'll show you a city with a housing crisis and uh so that's why I will be voting for this measure and I appreciate, uh, Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Johnny Rye Unverified 1:25:53
Ray and Representative McKenzie bringing it to us. Representative Rye, you were recognized for discussion on the motion. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's, it's pretty clear. I mean, the local government cannot have any authority to regulate control. So what would this be? Would it come back to the, the renters, and if that's the way that it is, how do you stop that? I mean, it's a free market. I've just, I've got a question there and I, I can't
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:26:19
get an answer. Representative Burks, you were recognized for discussion on the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:26:22
motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say it is a free market and it should be up to the property owners and the landlords who own these properties to set those rates, um, and the things that we need to be working on is increasing housing supply. Thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:26:37
You're seeing no further discussion on the motion, um, have motion. Of Du pass all in favor say aye, all opposed. Bill has passes, passes. Congratulations, you passed your bill. You are now recognized Representative McKenzie recognized around House Bill 1790. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 1:27:00
you, Mr. Chair. Britt McKenzie, State Representative District 7, Rogers, Arkansas. Um, I'm back again, uh, new day, same topic. Uh, House Bill 1790. Uh, I first want to begin the this bill presentation. I hope to not relitigate all elements of this, um, this bill, but I, I want to begin by by taking two points of privilege, which are to thank uh John Wilkerson from the Arkansas Municipal League and to thank our deputy whip Stetson Painter for driving clarity and compromise on, on this new piece of legislation. Um, I've, I've come to this body before, I think 5 times on the same subject. If we count the different committee meetings, um, and I've been clear in my intent that this bill should work to affirm the, the core fundamental rights that we have as Arkansans, uh, to the, the use and ownership of our property, um, but at the same time, I understand that there's a need for in a, in a world where we're trying to figure out emerging technologies and opportunities, um, what local control looks like. So I believe this bill compromises that those two things. Uh, and again, I want to thank all of those who have worked to make this bill a better bill. Um. It's legislation introduced, uh, strikes that impressive uh balance between protecting the fundamental freedoms of property owners and offering thorough, thoughtful compromises to municipalities for that local control. In my opinion, it's a win-win for both residents looking to embrace the sharing economy and local governments, aiming to maintain order and safety. Um This preserves the liberty of property owners lodging operators, and tenants to use their properties creatively and profitably, uh, fostering economic opportunity and flexibility at the same time, it prevents heavy-handed, uh, uh, heavy-handed prohibitions or arbitrary caps that stifle this growing industry. Um, to get into the meat and potatoes of the bill. It's easy because you got to think about it in 3 sections. Uh, the top section hasn't changed. This bill ostensibly affirms the things that we are looking for out of, out of this process. Uh, municipalities aren't able to affix a ban. They're not able to affix a cap, and then The newest edition is they aren't able to effectively prohibit. And that word will come into use later. The middle section is what has changed, whereas we went through in, in, in 1445 and the other members of the bill from the previous General Assembly, we went through and created a regulatory scheme in which municipalities had to operate under, we give that a responsibility and power back to the municipalities. It allows them to collect permits, allows them to collect fees. It allows them to pass ordinances relevant to health, health and safety, uh, and it allows to take uh uh short-term re off market, uh, in the event that something occurs, similar to how we outlined in the previous version of the bill, um, and it gives that local control back to municipalities, um, and I agree, the government, the government that governs closest to the people, governs the best. We, we affirm those basic fundamental rights that municipalities can't say absolutely not, or, you know, picking winners and losers in terms of the houses and the cul-de-sac and then they can't create prohibitions that are, that are effectively prohibiting them in the first place, uh, and you know, I'm not gonna hypothesize on what that could be, but We, I think we all understand when the local government says, you know, we want X, but reality Y is needed, you know, that's where that that clause can come into effect, but they still have the ability to govern as they see fit in terms of the health, safety, welfare standards, as well as all other nuisance ordinances that have been a part of it, the collection and remittance of taxes, uh, and things of that like, uh. The third section of which, uh, let me get down into it. Uh Nope, that basically covers, you know, the, the We, we have the, the prohibition on bands, caps, uh, and effectively prohibit, and then we allow for the local governments to assign licenses and fees and permits as well as on board, offboard, allow that just very essence of local control to come in. Um, Trying to think what else I'd like to cover. Um, again, this is, this is a, this is a great sign of compromise. Um, I, I'm, I'm fortunate that we have the opportunity to, to put our heads together and let, you know, conventional wisdom and fundamental rights, as well as the need for local governments to prevail. So I'm happy to take
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:30:57
any questions. OK, any questions from committee members. Seeing none, we do have people signed up to speak against this bill. Personal list, Vincent. You will come to the table and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 173 1:31:13
state your name for the record you made and who you're with. May begin your testimony. I'm Vince Henderson. I'm representing myself, um, uh, live in Little Rock, uh, I've looked at the bill. It is a vast improvement over House Bill 1445. Uh, I do have 2 or 3 small things that I, I'd like for the community to at least consider, um, First off on page 3. Um On lines 2728 that these are classified as residential land use for zoning purposes. I, I can't really agree that this is a residential use, but if it's going to be for zoning purposes, I'd like for that to say zoning purposes only. So that it can't be held to be used considered residents for any other purpose. Uh, the other aspect of the bill is that actually very few short term rentals are owned by people. Most of them are owned by for-profit companies. Uh, in corporations and those little liability companies and corporations are owned by people. Uh, who Uh, or Operating Uh, these, these types of uh short term rental properties. The problem is that with respect to the penalty provisions. Uh, if you look on page 2, Bottom of the page, line 35 and 36. Permit Maybe revoked or suspended by the governing body. The, the, I can't find anywhere in here where a permit is actually revoked. They're all suspended because that's just a time limit. And I think there may be a situation or circumstance where A city town, county may need to actually revoke one of these permits. It may be a situation where it gets so bad that that's what they have to do and there's there's nothing in here. Uh, the second The point on this is that if you look on page Uh, 3 Um, on line 4, a permit issued on the section may be revoked suspended by the governing body. For 24 months after state or federal felonious criminal act has occurred. At short term relocation. And the criminal act was committed by the owner, permit holder, or occupant was already said, most of these are owned by companies or corporations, so it's highly unlikely that that will ever actually happen. That being said, the owner of the company might commit a felonious act, but that's not necessarily going to be a permit holder. The permit's gonna be held by the company, not gonna be an occupant. And so, the, the argument there will be, well, they don't own it, they don't occupy it, so there's no penalty there. Uh, the other aspect of it is an Airbnb has a lot of this, uh, what are called co-hosts. What you would only call a lodging manager, hotel manager. Um, they're not mentioned at all, and yet they're the ones that are in all likely looking at and managing these properties on a day to day basis. So those are the only points I have at this point. Reviewing the bill. Um, I can't say so much I'm opposed to exactly as I, I think. There could be some things that could make it
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:34:56
better. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next on this Nancy McDonald. To speak against if you will.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Nancy Mcdonald Unverified 1:35:09
State your name, who you're with for the record, you may begin. Mr. Chairman, and esteemed committee, Mr. McKenzie, my name is Nancy McDonald, and I live in House District, uh, 73 in Little Rock. Appreciate the opportunity, uh, to address this and, and like, uh, Mr. McKenzie, I, I have, um, a strong feeling about local control, and I know that we've all been facing, um, you know, that issue and we keep bringing it, bringing it up together. Um, I wanted to talk about, um, I see a situation here where the state is taking a hammer basically and, and when you understand when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Um, not that we're against control of, of short term rentals or, uh, leniency of short term rentals, we, we see, uh, there's a need for short term rentals and say resort areas and, and, uh, and the like lakes, we, I've used. Short-term rentals myself. But what I see is a difference and, and the reason we keep going back to local control across, uh for communities across our state is that, um, we're uh, concentrating that control in the hands of lobbyists with a statewide, uh, amendment, um, Airbnb, VRB, others, I think we turn, you turned them, uh, short term rental marketplace. I said, governments have always been able to formulate policy and, and act ordinance specific to their communities. My biggest issue is a personal one. I live in a, a area where houses literally, uh, my next door neighbor is 10 ft. from my house, my bedroom to the house next door with unregulated, uh, residential neighborhoods, uh, and the ability and, and we don't have a property owners association, we should, uh, and I know that that's an exemption, but, um, In my neighborhood, our homes generally are somewhere around, uh, I don't know, 100 years old. And, uh, you know, it is my primary residence, you know, we keep saying communities need, uh, strong residential neighborhoods and for those of us in those residential neighborhoods, we don't need the short uh short term rentals operating in effect is commercial businesses next door. And so my thought is, you know, I know we've used the analogy that these are hotels, uh, there are some operating already in the city of Little Rock and um, and, and they are party houses in some cases, yes, some serve uh. some serve as a specific function. But just like we don't want the federal government regulating our state, we don't want the state regulating, you know, neighborhoods and, and local control. Uh, I would like to see an amendment if this must go through and an amendment that would put some restriction on location of short-term rentals, um, just as in Little Rock, we have a short term rental one, which is a, uh, which is a bed and breakfast, but it requires owner occupied, uh, or within 1500 ft of, of the, uh, property. I wouldn't mind, uh, this bill if there was some sort of restriction or amendment to it, uh, where it took into account, uh, the homeowner. I mean, we keep, keep, keep talking about property owner rise. But what about my rights as a residential homeowner. And so, um, Uh, I, the last thing I wanted to say is that, um, If you don't believe me, uh,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 175 1:39:07
ask the state of Arizona and they have, um. Uh, Arizona state mayors were the proliferation of, of short term rental has caused a host of other problems
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Nancy Mcdonald Unverified 1:39:18
affecting their cities and town. My one general comment is one size doesn't fit all, and I, we can keep amending this, this bill to try to make it, but isn't that a function in
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 175 1:39:32
my view, left back to the local control. The issue is not a nail looking for a hammer from the state of Arkansas. I would ask you to vote no on this bill, as it is, um, certainly, I, I think, uh, Mr. Henderson made some suggestions and I've certainly made a couple more, uh, and allow, uh, local communities to decide and govern what's best for his residents because we need to preserve our strong neighborhoods through local
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:40:04
control. Thank you for your time. OK. See no questions, thank you for your testimony. Next, uh. JK Patel. She left the room. OK. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none Hang on. OK, yeah, if you'll come to the table and. State your name, who
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 179 1:40:46
you're with for the record, you. May begin your testimony. Stacy Lamb. Um, I'm Stacey Lane from
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 180 1:40:52
Rogers, Arkansas. Um, I'm a property owner, um, I also represent. Short term rental owners, uh, with the Arkansas short-term rental under association, um. And I just wanted to, uh, clarify a couple of things that I feel like, uh, gets thrown around a lot to lawmakers, uh, that just absolutely isn't true. Um This is, uh, this is stats and, and facts that are easily verified, um, with any city in Arkansas, but one thing that, um, The media often puts out for us is that our, our, uh, short term rentals in Arkansas are owned by big business, they're owned by corporations and they're owned by people that don't live in the state. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that that is absolutely not true. Um, over 80% of all SCRs in Arkansas are owned by, um, real people, small business, mom and pop situations, um, while a handful of them, some of them may be in an LLC. see uh that is simply a tax structure. It has nothing to do with being a big corporation, um, for instance, I, uh, just verified, uh, all permits and hot springs, Arkansas recently. And I believe it was right at the 80% mark that all of the owners of STRs and Hot Springs were owned, um, you know, by single, um, single families. So, uh, that's, you know, a really large myth that I think is driving a lot of, um, a lot of the fear and a lot of the decisions that we are, uh, making in our, our small town governments, um, I, I think I, I can say. Very confidently for, for all the hosts and all the property owners that I do represent today, that we all want to follow the law, but we don't want to be made into criminals, um, to my knowledge, any of the professional hosting property owners, uh, small town owners that I know we're not criminals, and um we don't deserve the punitive measures, um, we were having our property rights taken away left and right, um, cities are trying to. Um, I really in my opinion, um, bring in Trojan horses with these, with these, um, Ordinances and regulations and what it's doing is it's just harming your citizens that, that you're elected to, uh, protect and I just want to say that Putting guardrails in place, um, shouldn't be such a concern if cities were not already, um, overstepping property rights and uh where they should be, so. I hope that you guys will, uh, vote for this, this new SDR bill, and, um, So that we will have to stop suing cities across the state of Arkansas, um, because if you don't, that's what's happening. um, so please,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 179 1:44:01
um, please vote. Yes, today. OK, thank you for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:44:07
testimony. Anyone else in the audience to speak. You speak for or against, right, if you would just take a seat at the table and state your name, who you're with for the record,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Marilyn Glissman Unverified 1:44:24
you may begin. Thank you for your time. Um, my name is Marilyn Glissman, and I am here, um, as a manager and a representative of short term rental owner. Um, I wanna have a couple, just things that I would like to address, um, to the committee today. Uh, one is I have no issues with, um, being held responsible for short-term rentals, um, for safety and public safety and all those concerns, um, that is, uh, Definitely needed. I have no issue with that in the bill, uh, the main thing I have is the expense and the um regulations that are in place currently in Little Rock. I can give you a personal example, um, with the regulations currently in Little Rock right now. It is going to cost over $3000 for this one short-term rental to bring The, um, bring it to the city of Little Rock for approval. And that is too much and as excessive amount for that. Um, this is a short term rental that is a, um, it's a supplemental income. It's, um, a, it's a dual purpose. It's a residential and a short term rental part-time. And so it is not a big business. It's a small business income. And the reason behind that large amount is, first of all, the registration fee was $250. And then it's required to have. A title search by a licensed title company. Um For 200 ft of all residents and owners around the property. The cheapest I can find a title company to do that for this property is 2000 to $2500. Because it is a condominium and has 80+ owners within 200 ft of this property. Then every one of those owners would have to be sent a certified letter. Again, that racks up another $500 in a minimum of so we need to put some caps on this and make this more realistic. I don't feel like that over $3000 just to bring it to proposal, and that's not even guaranteed that it will be approved. And I don't feel like for a small business that's viable to have that kind of amount of money put out in advance without even having a a guarantee of approval. So I feel like there needs to be caps and some some caps on the regulations of the cities can impose for this. Um Zoning is is a big part of why that is being required. Um, so therefore, that's another one of the pieces that I feel like I feel like going back to the House Bill 1445, takes care of a lot of these issues and we'll put that in place and that's why I am against House Bill 1790 today because I feel like 1445 served the purpose of what we need for all parties, still gives some regulations for the city to make sure. that there are safety issues in place and those type of regulations, but not to be excessively costly for the um small business. It just more fairly allows the short-term rentals to be a viable business, and that's all I have. Thank you. Yeah, thank you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:47:59
for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience wanna speak for or against this bill. Saying none representative McKenzie, would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified 1:48:06
you like to close for your bill? I would, yes, thank you, Chair. Um, I'll be as brief as I can. I want to thank Mr. Henderson, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Lamb, and Ms. Glisman, um, for their testimony. Um, I think everyone else here also appreciates it's not a 75 person roster this time, but, um, I just have a few closing remarks, um. Uh, 1790 compromises, compromises a lot of things by empowering the uh chiefs compromise by many ways, um, empowering local governments to regulate short-term rentals sensibly, uh, municipalities can can require permits, collect fees, and enforce practical rules like providing owner contact, posting safety notices, and ensuring taxes are remitted and paid. Um, they can revoke those permits to repeat offenders, uh, and they can keep communities safe and accountable without overreach. Um, this bill helps clarify short-term rentals as residential for zoning use, harmonizing with the neighborhood essence, irrespective of zoning type, and respects private agreements like homeowners associations or deed restrictions. Um, I, I, I appreciate again this committee's patience as we've worked through the, uh, the legislative process on this bill, um, I, I think this achieves a lot. Um, we respect those fundamental rights. We allow for local control, and then we can let the flywheel of our economy and tourism and local attractions continue to start. So I appreciate the time and I make a motion
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:49:28
to do pass. Alright, we have a motion to pass any discussion on that motion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye, all opposed. So that I have it. Congratulations, your bill is. I see two hands color.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 84 1:49:53
Representative Hall. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 87 1:49:55
Hall, yes. Representative A. Brown, representing A Brown, yes. Representative Andrews. Representative Andrews, yes. Representative McKenzie. Representative McKenzie, yes. Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson. Representative Shepherd. Representative Shepherd, no. Representative Painter. Representative Painter, no. Representative McAlinden. Representative McAlinden. Representative Burks. Representative Burks, yes. Representative Milligan. Representative Milligan, no. Representative Hudson, Representative Hudson, no. Representative McCall. Or is it gonna call no. Representative Pilkington, representing Pilkington, yes. Representative Rye. Representative Rye, yes. Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kay Brown. Representative Kay Brown, yes. Representative Holcomb, Representative Holcomb, no. Representative Womack. We did a while
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 84 1:51:20
back, yes, Representative Schultz. Representative Schultz.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:51:43
Sorry, Representative McKenzie, your bill has failed. Our committee, we still have a few more bills left on the agenda. We're running up on lunchtime, but I think these will mostly be short bills, um, House Bill 1760 Representative Milligan, you recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jon Milligan Unverified 1:52:08
to present House Bill 1760. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, John Milligan, representative, uh, of District 33. Yeah, this bill is short and simple and what it does, it, it, uh, you can see on the second page of the bill, the elderly and the, and the ones are the, I'm sorry, the disabled. And the 65 years and older allows them their property's frozen, allows them to go to the ce and go straight to the county court, the JPs instead of waiting on the Uh, um, board in the, in the fall to, to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:52:39
do that. So I'll take any questions. Any questions from committee members?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Johnny Rye Unverified 1:52:48
See, yes, Representative Johnny Ra, you're recognized. I know that the assessor can change that at any time and go back 2 or 3 years if they need to. Yeah,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jon Milligan Unverified 1:52:56
but it's still got to be approved by the judge, even if it goes to the board, it goes to the judge is what I'm
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 1:53:05
being told, so yeah, they're just simplifying the process, making of these. OK. Seeing no other questions from committee members. We have nobody signed up to speak for or against this bill. Anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this bill, saying none whatso would you like to close for your bill? Yes sir, I'm closed and make a motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass, any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed no. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. Representative Burkes, are you ready to run House Bill 1789. You recognized for House Bill 1789.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 69 1:53:57
The committee, we have a handout coming out. Give it just a minute to get that passed out and then, thank you. You can begin. I think they're done.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:54:28
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, House Bill. 1789, um, relates to the uh establishing clear guidelines regarding the issuance of identification cards by state and local governments in Arkansas. The primary objective is to ensure that taxpayer money is not utilized to issue identification cards to individuals who cannot demonstrate lawful presence in the United States. Uh, we issue state identification cards and you have in front of you, um, a document from DFNA which shows what's required to. a state identification card. It's not necessarily a driver's license. If you don't need a driver's license, you can go to DFNA or DMV rather and get a state issued identification card, and they require proof of lawful presence in the United States, whether you're a citizen or a non-citizen and proof of identity and you can see the documents on that handout that what is required. What we have found in this at this was brought to my attention by an ICE detention and deportation officer is that some cities in Arkansas provide identification cards. to people
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 195 1:55:36
who don't present proof of lawful presence in the United States. So essentially illegal aliens are receiving official government issued identification cards from these municipalities, and we
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:55:46
know that across the country these municipal ID card programs are part of sanctuary city policies in Arkansas generally takes the position that we are not a sanctuary state and we do not want to invite illegal immigrants into our state for a variety of reasons, um. But by having these municipal ID card programs, we are essentially inviting these individuals into our state, our surrounding states all around Arkansas do not, and there are no cities and our surrounding states that provide these, so these cities that are doing this in Arkansas are, are reaching out the invitation, um. I would just submit that this bill will provide clarity so that the municipalities understand if they are going to issue and use taxpayer dollars to issue identification cards, they should be held to the same standard that the state holds itself to and require that lawful presence
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:56:44
be proven. With that, I'm happy to answer any ques Hudson, for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Burkes, as I understand it, these cards in Little Rock are primarily used for people experiencing homelessness, um, and they often are not going to have the documents that that this bill requires, um, but having these cards can be very helpful, especially for law enforcement when they're interacting with people who are homeless and also to help assist them in getting services, trying to get jobs, um, And doing all the things that we want them to do in order to try to improve their situation. So, you know, what protections are there
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:57:18
available to ensure that we're not scooping up these people. That is the argument that is used by sanctuary cities that want to enact policies to to assist the immigrants living in their, in their cities, um, they state ID cards are available to to individuals who
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 195 1:57:32
can prove lawful presence as are, uh, if the municipality wants to use taxpayer funding to provide a duplicate identification card, they can do that. I would submit. That law enforcement is that public safety is, is more satisfied by requiring a lawful presence proof because the government issued official identification card will tell law enforcement instantly. They know that this individual is lawfully present in the United States or not,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 27 1:58:00
and it will enhance public safety. You're hang on just a second, let me turn
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:58:07
your mic back on. There you go, there you go. Yeah, in looking at, at the requirements in order to get a driver's license or ID card, you know, someone who's experiencing homelessness, someone who is in a shelter for, for people experiencing abuse and trying to escape a dangerous situation are not necessarily going to have a passport or birth certificate, uh, certificate of citizenship, you know, it, I understand what you're trying to do, but wouldn't the Um, more prudent solution be to just simply say that these, these cards are not, um, cannot be used to prove lawful. Residents in the country, I mean, why, why are we going to pass something that's going to make it harder for us to identify and connect homeless people with needed services to try to get them, um, employment to try to protect women in in shelters who are trying to seek, um, you know, trying to get away from abusive situations. Why are we making it harder for those groups just to, to try to make
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:59:06
a statement about, uh, uh, sanctuary cities. We are, we are not just trying to make a statement. I would submit to you that we have the. state policy of requiring a proof of lawful presence to get an official government ID card and, and that same policy should trickle down to our municipalities as well. If an individual, if an individual municipality wants to provide a service to the homeless population or the vulnerable population, they should be helping them get the documents that are required, uh, as demonstrated on this handout, that would be the most prudent and the most
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 195 1:59:37
effective thing they could do to help these individuals receive the documents that they need, whether it's a birth certificate. and, and a municipality could spend taxpayer dollars helping these individuals do that. Otherwise, I would say that the ID card that these cities are, are, are creating is no different than if the individual themselves just wrote their name and took their picture and put it on a piece of paper, uh, so I, I would argue that, that we want our municipalities following the same policy that our state policy is if you're issuing an official government identification card, you should
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 105 2:00:08
meet the same standard that's outlined on this handout. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Tippi McCullough Unverified 2:00:13
McCulloch, who recognized for questions. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, isn't it true that these municipal IDs that are given out, um, once they're applied for only valid in the city that they're given in. I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 202 2:00:23
I don't know what they're used for. Um, they
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 2:00:26
are, they are issued and you may have also received a handout. I'm not sure if you did, that had a sample ID card on it. Was that passed out? OK, so that was an example of, of an ID card that was issued by the City of Little Rock, provided to me by the ICE deportation and detention officer saying that Little Rock had issued this card to an illegal immigrant, illegal alien, and it has an expiration date on it. I don't know where they're presenting these. They're, uh, and what they're using them for, but once they receive the card, they can be used at, at, for any purpose. We don't know what
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Tippi McCullough Unverified 2:00:59
they're using them for. Um, follow up, please. Um, I, um, I mean, use the word officials, so I understand there's state official, there could be municipal official, but, um, let me move on to something else. Can the sponsors of the bill provide, can you, can you provide data that shows that, um, these local IDs contribute to, to illegal immigration or crime in Arkansas. Will, will they
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 195 2:01:19
act, they, they definitely act as an invitation because the other cities that that don't offer them are not as welcoming, uh, uh, are not providing this service to illegal aliens. Uh, again, I mentioned that our other states around us, none of the.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 2:01:33
in those states have these kinds of policies, um, and the data about sanctuary cities is very obvious, clear available research.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:01:42
OK Seeing no further questions, we do have people signed up to speak for and against. We're gonna start with, uh, against. Martella, if you will come to the table and state your name, who you're with for the record, you may begin your testimony.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Marisa Garcia Unverified 2:02:20
Good afternoon. My name is Marisa Garcia. I am with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:02:26
for more than 47 years, Arkansas advocates has promoted policies that support families and children in Arkansas based on data and proven research. I wanna be sure that you also understand that I'm an immigration attorney. I spent 10.5, 9.5 years at Catholic Charities as the director. I also was the person who wrote the policies and procedures for the Little Rock Municipal ID program because I was the first. Person who was uh developing this program for the city and I wanted to make sure that we complied with all state laws. HB 1789 would make it less safe for Arkansans because there's a flawed understanding of what a sanctuary policy is. I want to tell you, there are no sanctuary cities in Arkansas that have been identified, that's as true now as it was in 2019 when we passed the sanctuary cities law. At that time, the municipal ID program for the city of Little Rock had already been in existence for approximately 9, 10 months, and the sponsor of the bill testified there were no sanctuary cities in Arkansas. Little Rock is not a sanctuary city. The only other program is North La Rock, same with them. Municipal IDs are intended to be used for a resident of the city for local services. They are not allowed to be used for other purposes that would get them some sort of status. It does not prove that they have legal status, and the reason is because it is a complicated question to understand if someone has legal status. A person could be here with no identification. And be lawfully present in the United States. No identification that the state would recognize because they could be released from ICE custody. In fact, ICE officers when I was the municipal director in charge of the program, sent People to me to try to get them an ID because they didn't have one. Um, and they had appointments with ICE to check in and they wanted them to have an ID. The ID does not grant any kind of privilege beyond, for example, being able to open a bank account, which is crucially important because in 2013 when discussions first started around municipal ID and Little Rock, uh, you may remember there were a series of armed robberies, uh, that Little Rock PD could not. Catch up on. They could not get a hold of the community, the people were scared to talk to them. And so this idea really came from law enforcement. That's why this is not a sanctuary policy. It's actually a policy about Safety and protection. Um, When you look at public safety measures, this allows people to report crimes to the police. It also allows us to know who the person is, instead of maybe them not having an identification and giving a false name, and I can speak to specifically that's how the ID is issued, there's a requirement for training from the IRS on how to identify fraudulent documents. So there is a whole process that is involved that is not just we hand out an ID to whoever comes in. They're required to present proof, but many people, including Unhoused folks, including people who are in domestic violence shelters who we worked with to get IDs, including those people um who are here, but don't have a proof of, uh, Status because they have to send their passport back to their country, for example, to get it renewed. And so that's their only ID that ID went away for a period of time. Sometimes it takes months for them to get it back. And I think it's really important to understand that Sanctuary policies are those that uh, prohibit Uh, com uh law enforcement from working with ICE in some way. This ID does not do that. It does not prohibit any any kind of interactions with eyes. The sanctuary policy that, that we passed and the legislature requires that you, um, That no city received funding if they pass any policies that uh would do such uh a limitation already, that doesn't happen. Um And I want to be super clear as an immigration attorney, it is very hard. 2 years ago when they were attempting to get driver's licenses passed, DFNA testified and also put in there um quote on how much it would cost that they would need extremely high skilled specialists to review documents, and that's a huge cost for the city that can't, can't be born because there is no purpose to requiring whether or not What their immigration status is, it will be very difficult for the average person who is not an attorney to be able to figure that out. It's complicated even for me sometimes working with clients. But I can say that I know that the idea is not just given out to whoever. There are strict requirements and People are pre-screened before they even get to the office. The identification card itself. relating back to the original issue we had with the robberies. Banks came on board in Little Rock to want to use the ID so that people could put their money safely in the bank and not be a victim of a crime because they are cashing their check weekly. Whatever, whatever, um, Issue exists around whether people are lawfully here or not, is not relevant to the services that people receive with the municipal ID. The municipal ID only gives you access to local services. It, it identifies you to the police. It makes sure that we know who the people are in our city, and there's no blockage of any sort of uh cooperation with immigration enforcement, the police are not required to not arrest someone because they have a municipal ID. That's not the case at all. So, And the training to identify someone and determined that they're actually a resident of the city is much easier, but still difficult. It is a certification course from the IRS, but it's much easier than the years I spent in law school and the time I spent as an immigration attorney to be able to do that work. The average person is not going to be able to do it. Um So again, the, the municipal ID only does two things. It proves who that person is and where they live. It's valid for 3 years, so that they come back and they can renew it and provide proof of that they still live in the city of Little Rock, or we can um expunge that IDs invalidate the ID, um, I think what will happen if this passes, is that municipalities will have more problems with law enforcement being able to engage the community and we'll go back to that area where it's difficult to solve crimes, and in that particular case, it went on for months and months before he finally attacked the wrong person and he was able to get away and report it. So I, as I said, the municipal ID does not violate sanctuary. policy. It's not a sanctuary of city policy. It was in place when we passed the sanctuary city law, so the cities that have, have this are not sanctuary cities, and I would ask you vote against
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 2:10:49
it. Thank you. Representative Brown, you recognize for a question. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 2:10:53
you, Mr. Chair. Um, ma'am, how do you, uh, prove who a person is if they don't have these documents, the documents that most of us have. For example, um,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:11:09
The list, I, I think that you received a list of documents of what's required, right? From, uh, no, that's not what it looks like. It's, it's a 3, so on, it's a two-sided document on the front, there is class 1, class 2, and class 3 documents, which means you can have. costs one is like a driver's license, um, uh, a US passport. The driver's I get that, but I mean, who's issuing it? This, it could be Arkansas. It could be from out of state, but also you can have secondary documents just like you do at DFNA. You can have tertiary documents, which means you have to have 3. So let me give you an example of, for example, why this is important for unhoused people. When unhoused people are, uh, immediately, for example, going to Jericho away. Um, they do not have an ID. They cannot get services that they need, they can't access benefits, and they oftentimes have to send off for a birth certificate and I can take a month or longer depending on the state. So they don't have in their possession that documents that are necessary to get a state ID. We worked with the shelters and uh Jericho and and other providers to make sure that we looked at what documents we might be able to access, and how can we put those together to be sure that this is the person that we're identifying, and that's why there are primary, secondary and tertiary documents. And in that, in that case, it may be that um. For example, we can download their um draft registration. Because that's available online. And they may have some other tertiary documents that we can use. Not everyone has immediate access to the documents that they need and the ID itself again, doesn't. grant you any more status than, than Who you are and that you live in that city. So,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 2:13:27
um So if they have a driver's license issued from maybe the state of Utah or some other place. Why can't they go to the DMV and get. I mean, can't they just get a driver's license and they turn in their old one. They can and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:13:45
they should, I believe the law is that they have 30 days, um, but if they need to upgrade to real ID they may need more documents, and so in the interim, they can have the LiRock ID and get their utilities turned on, open a bank account here, um, while they're waiting for whatever things, additional documents because everyone is subject to real ID now in May, May 4th. Essentially, I think it's the requirement. So everybody is going to have to meet that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 2:14:16
higher standard for IDs and, and driver's licenses. Do you think that that, um, Real ID requirement. Um That we've, we've gone to that because there is a need to be
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:14:32
able to absolutely identify people in our area. Well, the federal law passed it. We're required to comply with it. We did, I think starting in 2016 or 2017 is when we began to issue real ID. So, Absolutely, there's a need to identify who they are, but also you can, excuse me, you can still get an ID that says you're not. of an idea that wouldn't be valid, for example, to fly or to go into the federal buildings, um. These, the real ID. Uh Absolutely does prove who you are. The municipal ID does as well. It's just gonna be used for a different purpose. You cannot use the municipal ID to go in federal buildings. It doesn't comply with those
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 122 2:15:19
requirements. It's used for local services.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 2:15:22
uh, a municipal ID identifies who you are. If you don't, if you can't to do the same things that are required to get a real ID if you can't produce. And how can you say they're absolutely identified. People can give false information if they don't have the documents they could, uh, just lie about who they are, where they are,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Marisa Garcia Unverified 2:15:49
uh, you know, they can lie. People do that. People can lie, um. But again,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:15:55
there is training for the staff on Uh, fraudulent document authentication, which means that, uh, they are able to identify what types of documents are fraudulent, why they would be fraudulent and deny that person an application. And are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 2:16:11
they diligent about checking that out? I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 207 2:16:14
was there, I was absolutely diligent because I signed off on every single ID form, so I'm sure they are because the process that I created was to ensure that there, for example, for the banks to come on board. they need security in knowing that I really did verify who this individual is. They don't want people to open up a bank account and then have problems with it, right? So, uh, the process that I created was after lots of community input with the people who are local to the city and what what they would need and how we could go about affirming it. So that's why the IRS training on fraudulent document detection was part of the process. for becoming the director of municipal IDs was, was exactly that. Uh, because we wanted to be sure that if I signed off saying I saw this document, it was valid that it was. There are people that I turned away multiple times because Documents are. Construction workers are very good example. Many times their identification cards in their wallets become very damaged. I don't know how, but they do. And so they would come in and they would have something that's cracked or peeling or whatever the case may be. We don't accept that, and that's right on the form, right on the instructions that we can't accept those. There's a policy online that that I wrote and that they enacted about what was acceptable, what's not. Um, because we wanted to be sure that the IED was secure itself, if I'm saying I saw lawful documents, they were lawful. There are people that I absolutely sent away when I was the director.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:18:04
Thank you. OK, so no further questions, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. We're gonna move to speaking for uh Gary Sypes. Gary still in here or is he gone? Believe he is gone. OK, we're going to go back to against. Uh Mara I get that right. I'm sorry. If you will come to the table and introduce yourself, you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 219 2:18:35
may begin your testimony. Thank you, um, and uh it's, it's Mireya right. Thank you, sir.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Mireia Ry Unverified 2:18:39
Thank you, sir, and um I also wanna thank, uh, the sponsor of Representative Berks, who was so kind to um step out earlier and and let us start a conversation about this bill and we deeply appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all. My name is Mireia Ry. I'm the founding executive director of Arkansas United, and I run a membership-based organization, um, that assists immigrant workers with resources and workforce development and we've been really proud over our 15 year journey to even work with you all as a legislature, um, to create good opportunities, um, so that we could have our DACA students have access to professional licensures and scholarships, and they've been proud to be in that pipeline and helping our economy here in Arkansas. Um, we echo a lot of the concerns shared by Miss Garcia, um, but we thought that we would offer maybe two additional reflections, um, for the benefit of this committee. Um, first and foremost, um, to the primary use of these identifications. We are a membership-based organization and so we do have members who actively use municipal IDs and we wanted to be able to elucidate a little bit about what they're using it for. And we actually have a couple of those individuals here. So if any of you all would like to physically see a municipal ID, they'd be glad to show it with you. But as Mr. Garcia said, the primary purpose and the primary impetus of the municipal ID was um for banking and for safety. Um, in the community of Little Rock, um, banking because many of our members, our immigrant workers, um, have not, um, established the custom of opening up bank accounts and we're frequently found carrying cash, and we saw an uptick in Southwest Little Rock in general around robberies, um, with the acknowledgement um that individuals might be more likely to carry cash than in other places. And so the municipal ID Actually was forged in large part by banking institutions that wanted the ability to have that money in banks and then hence the opportunity as well to establish these relationships with the community and create some safety alongside that. And then in regards to the safety concern, again, it was originally with crime, um, but we want to say um that we have also seen a wonderful component and this gets to the secondary benefits of municipal IDs, which is actually creating more reporting of crimes. Um, again, um, conversations around federal changes, sanctuary policies. A lot of this is coming to be around the idea that we can work together to help make our communities safer and something that we found is having these municipal IDs have actually augmented, um, the, the feelings in our community around safety and being able to approach law enforcement, um, of different types, and be able to report on crimes and together actually focus on the individuals who are committing felonies and are hurtful to everyone in society. And for us at Arkansasite our members, that's one of our biggest fears with the youth and getting rid of the municipal ID, um, uh, buying, not having that established identity upfront with something that's um used locally. It already many times puts us at a position of, um, discomfort with law enforcement. And so having something that everyone agrees establishes that identity actually helps with reporting of crimes, and we know we have the opportunity to work together on this. We worked with the Rogers Police Department several years ago when we saw an uptick in gang activity, and it was opening doors, different acts of opening doors, of building bridges and relationships that together we were able to see that crime activity decline, and that's one of the things that I think is most concerned with us right now. We've been working hard with the human trafficking commission. together to identify those human traffickers, those labor traffickers that hurt all our Kansans, and it's just having these things that feel simple, right? And it is just solely used for the purposes of banking and relationships with law enforcement. Those are the predominant uses our community has and access to those local services, but those things there create confidence and create good community and good society together. And so we hope, um, if given the opportunity, we'd love to continue to bring individuals here. can speak about the municipal ID and just say that this is something that really has helped all of us achieve our greater potential in Arkansas, and that's all we want to do as an immigrant community. We want to keep working together and we think the municipal ID has been one of those positive programs that really
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:23:22
has helped us do that. Right. Seeing no questions from committee members. Thank you for your testimony. Next on the list, Maryland to speak against.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 2:23:35
She has gone. Representative Birch, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee for hearing HB 1789. This bill just simply provides clarity around what is required for a subdivision of our government to issue an ID card. um, I would also just, uh, in closing quickly, note that Rogers, Arkansas does not have a municipal ID card program as as far as I'm aware right now, Little Rock and North Little
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:24:08
Rock are the two that do have these programs, and with that I'm closed. Thank you. Would you like to make a motion to pass? I make a motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. I'll opposed. No So the eyes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Committee, we've got 2 more bills on here and I think I'm, I'm hoping they'll be quicker. Representative Holcomb, you're recognized to present Senate bill. 424. We will do our best to get out of here by one o'clock so everybody will have a chance to get up. Snack or something before sessions. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commius is a real simple bill, uh, Senate Bill 424 is just the transparency bill, uh, it's transparency be on an accountability bill for uh improvement districts and commissions. It actually stipulates that property owners who fund improvement districts have a right, uh, to comment on the agenda prior to any action taken by the board, uh, uh, before the meeting and input from the neighbors. It also clarifies that the, uh, uh, they meet quarterly. And that is they each, each quarter of the calendar year, uh, for 24 also requires that the meeting's agenda will be provided to property owners prior to the meeting day and the time. It's just a good common sense, uh, public policy bill and the intents really just to simplify, require the improvement district commissioners to be more accountable, more transparent, more responsive and respectful of the property owners and their neighbors. That's it, uh, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that, saying no questions from committee members. Uh, we do have one person signed up to speak for Mr. Ed Bullington. Would you sell if you're gonna waive that. OK, thank you. Um, would you like to close anybody else in the audience likes to speak for or against, seeing none, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you, and I, I move for adoption of the bill. Right. We have a motion to pass for Senate Bill 424. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. All opposed, said no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. All right, my bill is the last one that we're gonna do today. And, but before we do that, little housekeeping. Um One of the first bills that we ran today, Senate Bill 324, uh, we had an amendment on that adding Representative Brooks as the house sponsor and we did not have a motion to pass, do pass as amended so that is gonna be noted in there that it's due pass as amended. I, I apologize committee, I made a mistake when I did that. I know you are shocked by that, you know, it just, it happens to the best of us sometimes so anyway that will be noted as DuP pass as, as amended adding Representative Ruth. Um Also, we're gonna take a few of these bills off of the deferred list, um, Representative McClure's bill, House Bill 1567 will be coming off deferred, um, there was, uh, representative Johnson's bill 1416. Representative Burkes, are you leaving your bill on deferred? OK. All right. Anyone else want to take a bill off deferred list. All right, we'll, we'll have those, those two coming off the er. Uh, in a poking thing. Would you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 224 2:27:45
like to come take over chair so I can run a bill. And
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 46 2:27:52
rumbles of a motion of do not pass. That's, that's uh. We
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:28:02
use a table just introduce yourself and have your guests introduce himself as well, and you may, you recognize may begin.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 230 2:28:17
Representative Justin Gonzalez, House District 89. I'm Heath Ward. I'm the legislative chair of the Arkansas Water and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:28:28
Wastewater Manners Association. And there is an amendment on this bill. Is that correct? That is correct. Right We'll just wait till staff finish passing that out and then you may begin. And explain the amendment.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 22 2:28:49
Representative Gonzal our Chairman Gonzalez could begin. All right, thank you. um, committee, the, the amendment just the intent of this bill was to align
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:28:56
it with a water bill that we did, uh. Several sessions ago, I think there's now Act 6040605. Um The intent was to aligned with that. The amendment just gets it more in line with, with what that bill was, so I make a motion to adopt them. Do you have a second?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:29:20
Uh, all those in favor say aye, oppose. Your, um, amendment has been adopted. You bill as amended. So House
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified 2:29:29
Bill 1701, like I said, it, it is meant to, uh, kind of mirror what we did with, with water, water rate studies in the past, uh, to require. This Uh Wastewater facilities to get right studies and and uh. Be subject to audits and I'm gonna. But Mr. Heath Ward expand on
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 229 2:29:51
that if you would like. OK, uh, thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 233 2:29:53
Representative Gonzalez. First of all, I'd like to thank, uh, the committee for having me here today. As I've already said, I'm Heath Ward with the Arkansas Water and Wastewater Managers Association. I want to thank Representative Gonzalez and Senator Stubblefield for sponsoring this legislation and champing it. 1701 is a sister bill, the retail water bill, otherwise known as Act 605, which was passed in 2021. That was championed by Senator Clark and then Representative, uh, Fred Love in 2021 and was also admitted by Representative Maddox in 2023. 1701 is a seeking to accomplish for was. water providers with Act 605 has done for water providers. The overreaching goal of 1701 is to keep our wastewater providers strong by requiring them to perform a routine rate analysis at a minimum of every 5 years and to implement the results of those studies. As wastewater systems performed these studies, they are required to factor in operating and maintenance expenses and all other expenses necessary to operate the system. Additionally, the system will be required to deposit a sum of 5% of its annual gross revenue in a dedicated fund for the refurbishment and placement of broken and aging equipment. By having a dedicated fund, it keeps the system from running into a catastrophic situation where multiple failures may happen simultaneously. These rate studies can be performed by a variety of qualified individuals and professionals. If a wastewater provider does not comply with these requirements, they can be found in fiscal distress, which requires them to develop an improvement plan to remedy operations. And if they are in fiscal distress, it prevents them from taking on additional debt or transferring their assets to another entity without permission of the commission. Additionally, some basic training will be required for the wastewater Providers Board to ensure the governing body is adequately prepared to operate and oversee the operations. It's worth noting that as amended, the bill contains the same exemptions as the water bill, including utilities under a court order such as Fort Smith. Municipal utilities providing electric service in addition to wastewater. Privately owned and non privately owned non-residential providers, entities crossing state lines in any wastewater systems governed by the public Service commission. This has been a very good law for water providers to ensure accountability and proper operation and maintenance of the last few years. Uh, it's been very well received by the industry as a whole, and we want to extend that same coverage to our wastewater operations in the state. I'm happy to take any questions from the committee. Any questions from the committee?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:32:24
All right. See none, uh, there's. We've got 2 sons to speak for the bill, uh, Spurs up as Michael Clayton. I think Mr. Clayton's gonna
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 233 2:32:37
pass. uh, he's, he's gonna basically echo the same comments. He's from North Little Rock wastewater and, and they support this
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:32:45
bill. And there's an Ed Bullington. No. Oh, that's a different one, sorry. That's 5. All right, we've got no one insider to speak for against this bill. Is there anyone in the audience to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 52 2:33:02
speak for gets this bill? Are you ready to close for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified 2:33:04
bill? I'm closed. Make a motion to do pass as amended. We have a motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you. See no further uh items on the agenda. We are adjourned.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error

Agenda

REGULAR AGENDA

HB1660 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT; TO REGULATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS; AND TO REQUIRE AN AUDIT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS.

0:20
▶ Play chapter

Meeks

0:20
▶ Play chapter

SB91 C. Penzo TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR CONTROL THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR A RENTAL APPLICATION FEE OR RENTAL DEPOSIT FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

56:44
▶ Play chapter

McKenzie

56:44
▶ Play chapter

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.

41:22
▶ Play chapter

Richardson

41:22
▶ Play chapter

HB1701 Gonzales TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEWER COLLECTION AND SEWER TREATMENT PROVIDERS AND RELATED SERVICES.

2:28:19
▶ Play chapter

Gonzales

2:28:19
▶ Play chapter

SB324 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF A COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.

27:54
▶ Play chapter

Johnson

27:54
▶ Play chapter

HB1711 Unger TO ALLOW A MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A POLICE FORCE; AND TO ESTABLISH THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF A MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

32:54
▶ Play chapter

Unger

32:54
▶ Play chapter

SB374 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.

39:26
▶ Play chapter

Wing

39:26
▶ Play chapter

HB1760 Milligan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PETITIONS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF A PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.

1:52:09
▶ Play chapter

Miligan

1:52:09
▶ Play chapter

HB1783 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF A CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS TO A CITY OF THE SECOND CLASS.

HB1785 J. Moore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERS OF A COUNTY DEPOSITORY BOARD.

55:21
▶ Play chapter

Moore

55:21
▶ Play chapter

HB1789 R. Burkes TO RESTRICT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING AN IDENTIFICATION CARD TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

1:53:58
▶ Play chapter

Burkes

1:53:58
▶ Play chapter

HB1790 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF SHORT-TERRENTALS BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

1:27:08
▶ Play chapter

McKenzie

1:27:08
▶ Play chapter

HB1802 Warren TO CREATE THE TALENT RECRUITMENT GRANT PROGRAM; AND TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR INDIVIDUALS TO RELOCATE TO THE STATE.

14:34
▶ Play chapter

Warren

14:34
▶ Play chapter

HB1808 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; AND TO CREATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR FIREFIGHTERS.

51:49
▶ Play chapter

Collins

51:49
▶ Play chapter

SB424 G. Stubblefield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF A MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

2:24:47
▶ Play chapter

Speakers

Representative Stephen Meeks Unverified
28 segments
Representative Brit McKenzie Unverified
43 segments
Representative Mike Holcomb Unverified
96 segments
Speaker 14
1 segment
Speaker 17
1 segment
Representative Brad Hall Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 34
1 segment
Speaker 42
1 segment
Speaker 44
1 segment
Representative Les Warren Unverified
23 segments
Speaker 48
1 segment
Representative Aaron Pilkington Unverified
21 segments
Representative Keith Brooks Unverified
3 segments
Senator Mark Johnson Unverified
6 segments
Speaker 69
4 segments
Speaker 1
1 segment
Representative Steve Unger Unverified
6 segments
Representative Stetson Painter Unverified
8 segments
Speaker 82
1 segment
Speaker 87
7 segments
Representative Carlton Wing Unverified
2 segments
Representative R. Scott Richardson Unverified
2 segments
Speaker 108
18 segments
Representative Matt Brown Unverified
10 segments
Speaker 115
1 segment
Speaker 124
1 segment
Speaker 127
1 segment
Representative Richard Womack Unverified
2 segments
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified
10 segments
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified
4 segments
Jamie Hampson Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 144
1 segment
James Jones Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 149
5 segments
Speaker 150
2 segments
Sarah Moore Unverified
20 segments
Speaker 154
1 segment
Speaker 162
1 segment
Representative Tippi McCullough Unverified
5 segments
Representative Johnny Rye Unverified
4 segments
Speaker 170
14 segments
Speaker 173
8 segments
Nancy Mcdonald Unverified
11 segments
Speaker 175
3 segments
Speaker 179
2 segments
Speaker 180
7 segments
Marilyn Glissman Unverified
8 segments
Speaker 84
2 segments
Representative Jon Milligan Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 195
4 segments
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified
6 segments
Speaker 27
2 segments
Speaker 105
1 segment
Speaker 202
1 segment
Marisa Garcia Unverified
2 segments
Speaker 207
31 segments
Chair Unverified
1 segment
Speaker 122
1 segment
Speaker 219
1 segment
Mireia Ry Unverified
10 segments
Speaker 224
1 segment
Speaker 46
1 segment
Speaker 230
1 segment
Speaker 22
1 segment
Speaker 229
1 segment
Speaker 233
6 segments
Speaker 52
1 segment