City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (15)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB456
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ua Bryant SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB456 J. Petty TO CREATE THE HOME OPPORTUNITIES MADE EASIER ACT.…”
|
TO CREATE THE HOME OPPORTUNITIES MADE EASIER ACT. | J. Petty | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB252
Act 590
· 5 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “Senator Breanne Davis. Motion to suspend the rules to hear SB252”
|
TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY VAPOR PRODUCTS AND E-LIQUID PRODUCTS; AND … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB252 is now Act 590 |
|
SB406
Act 752
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN ARKANSAS COUNTY. SB406 A. Clark TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INF…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL … | A. Clark | Notification that SB406 is now Act 752 |
|
HB1272
Act 520
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS. HB1272 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROPERTY VACATED BY A MU…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROPERTY VACATED BY A MUNICIPALITY; AND TO REQUIRE VESTED ABANDONED … | Warren | Notification that HB1272 is now Act 520 |
|
HB1414
Act 417
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1414 Andrews TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS FOR FIRE SERVICE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS FOR FIRE SERVICES; AND TO UPDATE THE SCHEDULE OF … | Andrews | Notification that HB1414 is now Act 417 |
|
HB1725
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1725 Schulz TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Schulz | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB345
Act 421
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/17/25 @ 5:15 PM) Added SB345 Senate Committee on City, County, and Local Affairs Tuesday…”
|
TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF THE PRIVATE CLUB PERMITTING PROCESS … | Irvin | Notification that SB345 is now Act 421 |
|
SB448
Act 579
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL ESTATE. SB448 J. Petty TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IM…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND … | J. Petty | Notification that SB448 is now Act 579 |
|
HB1555
Act 995
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HEDULE OF EQUIPMENT RATES USED IN CLAIMS FOR FIRE SERVICES. HB1555 Painter TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACAN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACANCY IN A MUNICIPAL OFFICE. | Painter | Notification that HB1555 is now Act 995 |
|
HB1590
Act 454
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACANCY IN A MUNICIPAL OFFICE. HB1590 J. Moore TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLEC…”
|
TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN WOODRUFF COUNTY. | J. Moore | Notification that HB1590 is now Act 454 |
|
HB1591
Act 455
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN WOODRUFF COUNTY. HB1591 J. Moore TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLEC…”
|
TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN ARKANSAS COUNTY. | J. Moore | Notification that HB1591 is now Act 455 |
|
SB10
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY. SB10 B. King TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB399
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OME TAX REQUIREMENT. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB399 G. TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB60
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CTRIC GRID BY BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS AND DIGITAL ASSET MINING. SB60 Hill TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING LOCATED WITHIN A THIRTY-MILE RADIUS OF … | Hill | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB69
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E OFFICE OF SHERIFF. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB69 A. Clark CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR…”
|
CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY … | A. Clark | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
0:07
meaning of City, locals started and our first presenter is a special order of business, uh, Senator. Petty, you are recognized. All right, if you want to go ahead and tell us where you're from. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Petty, uh, state senator,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
0:40
District 29. And uh thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to place this bill on the agenda for special order of business today. With me today, assisting me in presenting this as Mr. David Warren from the Institute for Justice, and he's going to help me a little later here after my opening remarks. All right, this
Speaker 9
1:00
is, this is uh committee, this is Senate Bill 448. 4565656.
Speaker 12
1:10
I apologize. All right, you're Senator Petty. Thank you. This
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:13
is such an important issue to our state and our nation, so I wanted to uh to be able to bring in someone who works in this space across the country and other places, uh, and, and bring a perspective from someone who sees How others are trying to address this issue, this issue that's a growing issue. Actually it's a crisis that could threaten the future of economic development and growth in Arkansas.
The crisis is around housing, all types of housing, rental and ownership, housing affordability, and housing availability, uh, members, I'm here today to present. Bill 456 Senate Bill 456, that I think, I believe addresses this serious issue, but before I present to you what I believe this bill is, uh, I wanted to take a few minutes to tell you what this bill is not. First of all, this bill is not some bill sponsored by or pushed
for paid for by some. lobbyist or outside organization. It's not a bill aimed at any particular situation or city or county or or anything like that. It's, it's, it's not an attempt to grow big government or take away local control. It's not an attempt to remove single family zoning, although the buzz around is that it's no more single family zoning, and that's absolutely a misleading statement or a misunderstanding
this bill does not eliminate single family zoning. It is not 11 person told me or accused me of, it's not the an act for Ralph Coleman, Schubert Mitchell, or DR Wharton and other developers to do whatever they want to do, Bill. This bill was not presented to me by them, uh, which, by the way, those companies are all well respected companies within their communities and they provide a much needed product to the market. And finally, lastly, I don't
believe that this is what I was told by one is this bill is insanity as one member of the public said, we all know what insanity is what they say about insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. To my knowledge, this bill has not been introduced in any form or fashion to the Arkansas legislature in the past. Before I talk specifically about the bill, I want to let you know that I, I wanted to try to get an amendment here today that
added about 15 co-sponsors. There was also in the bill, you'll notice there's a provision around auxiliary dwelling units or ADUs, and we recently passed legislation to to deal with that in a standalone, and I wanted to get that edited out. And there was also some, some areas that I wanted to clarify around historic structure. in historic districts and around minimum parking requirements, developments, and, and so I wanted to add that, but trying
to get David in here and and and coordinate that, uh, was not something that we could do and so what I, what I also wanted to do in there, which is I think something that the city's care a lot about is is add an amendment around putting some guardrails in place for extra jurisdictional territories, as you know, we, we passed some legislation. I want to put some guardrails around subdivisions for the protections of consumers around that. And I know that sounds like a
lot of things and amendments, so why don't we just, why are we presenting it today? Well, in part, we have a scheduling with an expert that sees it across the country, but also if we can pass it today, we'll we'll have an amendment at some future date that you guys may be on the on the House end or or something, but we'll bring it back, so now on to what this bill is and why it was introduced. It was introduced. is an attempt to solve a housing
problem, like I mentioned earlier, actually it's more commonly referred to if you, if you look at any articles, a housing crisis in America and Arkansas is definitely not immune to that, uh, big cities, small cities, no one's exempt whether we see it as a legislature or not, it's there. It's very real and it affects far more citizens in our fine state, then we're willing to admit this housing. crisis that we face is this.
It's, it's not enough housing and the housing that we do have is increasingly taking increasingly longer to produce, uh, and, and it's increasingly costing more to build and own and and rent and so if this issue, this crisis is left unchecked, it can and it will begin to affect our economic growth and stability as a state and as a nation. Uh, so the simple motivation behind this bill is to address a growing
problem we face as a state that can can and will continue to plague our citizens and cities if we don't do something about it. It's, it's our attempt to address this problem based on experiences. I and others have had and and stories that we have all heard probably and the lives that have been affected by this crisis, but it is a problem. We can't just ignore it and and and and say the problem is is doesn't exist. Um, you don't have to spend too much time. reading stories or listening to
the news to see that it is a problem. In fact, there were two stories just this past weekend in the Democrat Gazette about this very issue in two different communities, but as I get into the bill, I doubt very much attention was paid to the, to the preamble or the legislative intent of the bill, but these, these six statements, I believe everyone in this room would agree. I don't know that they would necessarily clearly they're not agreeing with the and how we fix it, but I think these statements are true.
Working families are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase or rent a home in or close to the communities where they work. Many moderate income workers are working 2 or 3 jobs to reach their to meet their monthly housing expenses. And the gap between those who can't afford it and those who cannot is widening at an alarming rate and and affordable rental housing is also in short supply. And regulatory regulator territory barriers by state and
local governments often prevent construction of a mix of different types of housing in various price ranges in some areas of the country, regulatory delays, some believe at as much as 20% to the cost of a home, I think it's probably closer to 25 or 30%, and then of course everyone in Arkansas, all of the members, they want Arkansas to be a leader in solving problems and problems like this. So, but you don't have to believe me and what I'm saying there are
hundreds if not thousands of studies, surveys, task force, and reports and case studies. That support these statements. I've personally sat on committees myself and task force to address the housing affordability issues. The problems are exacerbated in cities that have rapidly growing populations like Northwest Arkansas, but they affect us all, large or small, and, and in my hometown and where I live, uh, good luck finding a lot to build a house on. Good luck to
finding a house or an apartment to rent. If, if, if I was to be a hero and. bring 50 to 100 job economic development company to the city. I don't know where we would put them, uh, and, and so, uh, I suspect the same story is true all across Arkansas and cities large and small, so, so why does this bill include the provisions it has in it. As I mentioned, there's hundreds if not thousands of studies, surveys, task force, etc. around housing
affordability and believe it or not, these items I didn't just create as thin air. These items are what these studies over and over and over again, show up as the most common uh factors and barriers contributing to this housing crisis, and I'll get into more details in a minute about that, but according to George Mason University Merca study. So far this year there have been more than 400 bills introduced across 44 states and legislate by
legislatures across the country, all dealing with some form of reform around local zoning laws. Some are new, some are, uh, building on existing, but 44 of our competitors see this as a problem, and I think we should do what we can to address that so we can remain competitive nationwide, the shortage of rental and owner-occupied units is estimated to be on some surveys to be as high as 5.5 million units in the current pace of
construction just can't keep up with the. man and this lack of affordable housing. That lack of available housing leads to higher prices for renters, higher prices for homeowners, and it's forcing some into homelessness, and is preventing others from becoming homeowners, according to some estimates, housing and the cost of housing has increased by approximately 30%. Some would probably believe it's higher than that in the past 5 years, while personal income growth has
only grown about half of that, uh, and that's creating a even larger gap to families to try to feel it. Another national survey found that 76% of Americans believe that housing affordability is a growing problem. It's a real problem, and to break that down just a little further, 80% of Americans in rural communities believe that this is a problem. 72% of, of Community or people in communities in urban areas
believe it's a problem. And so this is not just in Northwest Arkansas problem or any particular problem, and by the way, those surveyed that that we're talking about 80% and 70%, 72% are all what we lack as elected officials to refer to as likely voters, so 80% of likely voters believe it's a problem, so, but back to the bill, uh, why these items, this approach and again study after study after study,
The same items keep showing up as barriers to housing supply and contributing to the higher housing costs, zoning restrictions, lack of zoning flexibility and it's estimated that 75% of all available land across the entire country is zoned only for single family homes. We can't build single family homes and solve this problem, and the land that is zoned for other than single family has become increasingly more and more restrictive. Lengthy permitting processes can increase costs and
slow construction down perpetuating the problem. Construction standards and building codes for other than health and safety issues, drive up costs, and basically these are aesthetic codes, i.e., the color of brick or the color of the door or the elevation of the front porch, etc. minimum parking and and and lot sizes can also increase building costs and reduce the number of units that can be constructed and so one more study. I'm going to quote a nonpartisan think tank concluded this.
And, and I'm not quoting, it is, it is difficult to overstate the role local zoning and land use regulations have played in creating the affordability crisis in most urban areas of the United States. Decades of limitations have had substantial negative effects on the level of housing production and the cost of housing produced that includes downsizing down zoning dramatically increasing local discretion over project approvals, substantial growth of hysteric zones and other overlays that make redeveloping
land more difficult and building codes that add considerable complexity to the projects and so, uh, according to a a another national housing task force, again a bipartisan task force that says that since 2019, the cost of a home in the US has jumped by an average of 47% and since 2012, the number of units available for less than $11,000 a month has fallen by 4 % and the really sad statistic they've produced, uh, and that
is since 2015, the number of unhoused people staying outside of shelters has increased by 48%. And again, according to another Harvard Business Review, guys that are far smarter than I am. They talk about economics 101. It says economics 101. Uh, teaches that when prices of a good like housing rise that acts as a signal to producers to supply more of that good. By logic, if, if prices remain stubbornly high, something must be impeding the balance of
supply and demand, and when that obstacle is removed, new supply will be produced and prices will go down. Uh, many of the commentators of that particular group have argued a version of this story that says the housing market can be repaired with a simple fix of liberalizing zoning rules and other public regulations allegedly strangling the supply of new homes, which they say will lead to an explosion of housing construction. Once the the government gets out of the way, the private actors will fix
the problem themselves. So that's not me. He's a really smart guy saying this. So there's plenty of at least plenty of research and evidence out there about what other states and other cities are doing to try to address this, and that is what this bill attempts to do, not recreate the will, not grow big government, not pull backload address a real problem, but pull from what others have done to address these obstacles and again, today I have David
Warren from the Institute of Justice with me here who I'd like to share some, some national issue or national initiatives that he's familiar with across the country, so. Senator Petty, I have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:57
a question. Yes, Senator, a question before Mr. Warren starts, uh, just
a couple of weeks ago, we passed a bill dealing with territorial jurisdiction. How would this bill affect that
Speaker 12
16:13
bill? Currently, it wouldn't affect that
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
16:17
bill at all. What I, what I have, have intended to do is like I mentioned
a minute ago, amend this bill to incorporate some some safeguards that the the cities in municipalities and the municipal league feel like might be necessary to protect the public in regards very specifically to subdivisions, we want to make sure that that they are following the the the the
minimum health and safety standards that are Health department require and so some some minimum safeguards, adding back in a little bit of, but that's, that's not in that, that's not in the current bill. That's just what I want to try to accomplish with the amendments will satisfy the municipal
Speaker 21
16:59
league, uh, well, they haven't seen the enemy yet either, but,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
17:02
but we're trying to address their concerns. Yes, sir, Mr. Warring, you want to Chime in on this. Sure, yeah, thank you, Senator.
Speaker 25
17:15
Thank you all for having me here today. Uh, my name again is Dave Warren. I'm a senior research analyst at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit pro bono law firm that works to present to protect civil and economic liberties, especially property rights. The bottom line up front is we see Senate Bill 456 is a bill that promotes both property rights and economic liberty and more affordable housing, and I'm happy to be here today to testify in support of the bill. As Arkansas state legislators are well aware housing affordability is a growing
concern for many constituents, not only for middle and lower income families, but also for the state's business community which understands the importance of workforce housing affordability and availability for business location and expansion decisions. Of course Arkansas is not alone, as Senator Petty pointed out, in experiencing these growing housing affordability pressures, the nation as a whole faces a shortage of anywhere between 2 million and 7 million homes, depending upon how that's measured, that shortage and the
ensuing higher prices and rents lead 1 in 3 US households now paying more than 30% of their income on housing. That figure is 1 in 2 for renters, despite Arkansas being a little more affordable than other states. 1 out of every 4 Arkansas Arkansas households is burdened by high housing costs, and if you do the math on that, that adds up to 300,000 households throughout the state of Arkansas up for growth reports that Arkansas faces an annual homebuilding deficit of around
4500 homes, and that's a larger deficit than in the last year's report, despite around half of all states reducing their deficits in the past year. Uh, one of the biggest, one of the biggest reasons for growing housing affordability problems is regulation. While markets for other goods can more easily respond to growing demand with increased production. The housing market faces some of the most stringent regulations of any industry in America, overly restrictive zoning ordinances and lengthy permitting processes make it difficult for builders
to add to the housing supply. An analysis of thousands of local land use regulations across the country show that jurisdictions with more stringent land use. regulations are associated with 28% higher housing prices. That 28% figure is pretty close to the National Association of Builders estimate that regulations account for 24% of the total cost of building a single family home, that same estimate for for multi-family homes is 40%, so 40% of the cost
of building a quadplex or an apartment building is from regulation, the costs of dealing with regulation. Uh, but there's good news in all of this, unlike interest rates and supply chain disruptions and tariffs, land use regulations, and onerous permitting processes are something that state and local governments actually have control over. They can change. And while most local governments have been slow to act and often increase restrictions over time. State governments of all political stripes have taken the lead in rolling back
regulations, stymieing housing production. Uh, as an example, in a single legislative session in 2023, And it's legislature passed reforms that broadly legalized housing types like duplexes and ADUs made it easier to build housing and commercial zones and streamline permitting processes. Those changes were championed by the state's Republican governor and easily passed with big big bipartisan vote margins in a conservative legislature. states like Colorado, Utah, Washington State, Vermont, Arizona, Oregon, and Maine have
all passed similarly ambitious state level zoning reforms, with many other states over the past few years proposing or enacting other reforms that appear here in the Senate Bill 456. Uh, even California, which is the poster child for a housing crisis driven by overregulation over decades, uh, even California is now steadily deregulating land use and permitting processes after decades of going in the. op po s ite direction to such an extent that the state has now lost population to those fleeing for more affordable states.
As someone who works for a nonpartisan organization. I'm happy to report that these reforms are supported by organizations across the political spectrum in Montana, for instance, left-leaning groups like Forward Montana and Shelter Whitefish joined with right-leaning groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Frontier Institute in support of the property rights expanding reforms. Similar coalitions are supporting statewide land use deregulation in Texas with groups like Open Philanthropy, Arnal Ventures, Mercati, the
American Enterprise Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, all in favor of those efforts that include reducing minimum lot sizes and legalizing more housing types by right. So again, the bottom line here is we see this bill as a pro-property rights, pro-economic liberty, pro-unity bill that would allow faster, more affordable. And bottom up solutions to the state's growing housing affordability problems. And just before taking any questions, I'd like to end with
a story that comes from an AEI case study on a town named Palisades Park, New Jersey, and so in, in the 1940s, palisades Park and its surrounding jurisdictions all past zoning ordinances. They all banned all housing types except for single family homes with one exception, Palisades Park left duplexes left duplex is legal, so If you wanted to build a single family home or a duplex, you could do both of those things. They were on the same playing field. Um
And Palisades Park actually started with mostly single family homes. That's what people wanted at the time, um, and so people built single family homes in Palisades Park at about the same rate as as people in its surrounding communities over time though, as, as housing prices increased as land values increased, um, those surrounding communities got much more expensive, while Palisades Park had the ability to convert some of those single-family homes to duplexes or to duplexes with new construction
in green fields, and so it gradually, you know, you gradually saw this mix of single family homes and duplexes and what they found there was that Palisades Park over time um it grew, it grew, it grew its population, but it remained more affordable to more people and more people had the ability to, if they wanted to convert their single family home to a duplex. Um, another interesting thing happened in Palisades Park in the 1990s, uh, they enacted a
moratorium on duplexes there. And what happened after they enacted that moratorium is suddenly their property values went down a bit because now all of these property owners who once were able to build uh a duplex on their lot to have a duplex on their lot. Their their land was now worth less because they could do less with it. And so with those declining property values, property tax rates. actually went up. Um, at the finally, they, they got rid of the moratorium, property values went back up and the property
tax rate went back down and part of the reason for that is because you had more housing units on the same amount of land, and so infrastructure costs were lower, costs for services were lower, and so this was really, it's a great example of the sort of win-win situations that come about when you allow more housing types in communities. And so if you all
Speaker 27
24:50
have any questions, I'm happy to take those. Did this have any effect
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
24:56
at all on the insurance rates? An insurance rates, I, I would
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
25:04
question though, OK. to me, any questions from committee? Senator Ross you recognize.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:13
Thank you, Senator Petty is what I'm seeing in this. This does not take away the requirement for Structural integrity, safe plumb and safe electricity. With all that, that, that's still in the building. That's right. Thank you.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
25:34
Mr. Warren, do you have any idea, and I know this
is a kind of a tough question. How many acres? Agricultural acres are taken out of production every year
Speaker 25
25:47
for housing. Agricultural acres for housing. I do not know an exact number, but I, uh, one of the benefits of allowing more housing types and the same amount of land as you reduce pressure on rural areas and so um oftentimes, you know, communities that seek to protect their more sensitive
landscapes, the rural rural areas, farms are starting to look at these types of zoning reforms as a as a way to protect those areas from encroachment. OK. Any, any other questions
Speaker 33
26:17
from the committee? Art say no, we have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
26:22
a some individuals signed up to speak for and against. Kathy Wells. You If you will come to the end of the table, state your name and
who you're with. You will be recognized to speak. Against the bill. Thank you so very
Speaker 45
26:51
much. Let's see. Yeah Is that better? Thank you. I'm Kathy Wells of
Senator Jane English
Unverified
26:54
Little Rock. I am president of uh coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods. Uh, we've come together to speak with the latter voice in official circles on our common concerns. We want our neighborhoods to be safer and we
want, uh, in fact, to address the housing issue, we agree that we need more housing and more affordable housing. But, uh, we think there's some issues that haven't been overlooked in this bill as it stands. The image of uh putting in a forplex where single family residents had been maybe on a vacant lot, now coming back into use. Leaves you with a picture that 4 people are now going to be occupying her for families living there, um. They're going to be able to get
uh ambulances in an emergency system that seems to be very doubtful from the analysis that's come my way because the addressing system, the tech, is already struggling to deal with it. Uh, they expect the police to come when they call. They expect to get their mail in the postal service on illustration of that concern, and by the way, have the water and the sewer officials, given their approval to the capacity to serve 4 units where one had been.
Coming back into the lots that are now vacant. But last night the Little Rock police came to my block in response to a domestic call, and they were standing on the corner casting around to find where to respond. A good neighbor pointed out a second dwelling at the rear of the property and got them connected as they needed to be. We have carriage houses downtown. I do live in 103 year old house and I'm benefiting from all of the tourism promotion that comes our way, and we don't want that to be
harmed, but one of the things that concerns me is that If you put up this lowest common denominator property. Structure An operation. The comparable sales that result in real estate are going to go down and my value is going to go down. And if I understand and I'm still researching this course. The vacant lots don't have any connection to historic. There are non-contributing structure,
as they say, so they're just off to the side and not addressed. If you uh open the gates without any kind of dealings with city zoning in ordinances, they can pop up all over. They can hurt us and in fact I'd rather think the tourists wouldn't be finding it nearly as appealing to come up and down the blocks where you've got this mix of um wonderful historic architecture and the place where this governor lived in this
major figure resided and then there is this lowest common denominator structure. Um, I'm also worried about the absentee landlords. We struggled over the decades. With absentees. Just like the famous big country chateau scandal in the last year in the papers. They had the property, but they did nothing to maintain it. In fact, they took the guys's water bill money. Um, we don't have enough protection.
Against all of these new properties. Being operated in a poor fashion that doesn't benefit. The community as it should, and we have taken from the city some abilities to bring them back into proper order and um deal with any criminal elements that they might be bringing in. So please do think about this very carefully. I think there's some gaps in what you're dealing with, darling. All right,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
30:49
any questions from the committee for Miss Wells. Say no thank you,
Speaker 44
30:56
Mr. Wells. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:00
before you. We have Paul Dodds. To speak against the bill. Thank you very much
Paul Dodds
Unverified
31:10
for permitting me to speak. If you tell us who you're with, my name is Paul Dodds. I'm the owner of a company named Urban Frontier LLC
as a rebuilder of distressed homes in Little Rock Central High School National Historic District. I strongly object to Senate Bill 456 over the past 21 years I've invested over $3 million saving vacant homes around the school. Over 35 people now live. In my moderately priced renovated rental houses that mostly would have been me weedlots, but for me to do my work, I need a business enabling
environment that provides me reasonable, reasonable protections against others. I'm not asking for anything like the strictly sanitized protections of a property owners association. I need solid basic rules that support the gradually rebuilding of my long struggling neighborhood. I need cover against an invasion of a random, an invasion of random out of character and overcrowded homes and trailers
nearby. These proposed laws would rip away the rules that protect me and harm my private property interest, both as a serious investor and as a long term resident. While I strongly encourage Little Rock to update its ordinances for zoning and code enforcement, this draft legislation will not help. It will just terrorize cities into inaction. We need locally focused rules focusing fostering denser development,
affordability, and a good housing mix. We need a legal structure to live together in harmony. We need our cities enabled to do this, not to be crippled. If you really To encourage investment. Consider the private property rights of one's already here and investing. Don't rigidly revoke long-standing local government powers, the only ones that provide me any protection. Don't force me to flee to a gated community to have safe
investments. I depend entirely on city government and have built in reliance on existing rules. Please don't strip my last defenses in favor of those. Who would ruin my beloved neighborhood for a quick buck. There are much smarter and much less destructive ways than the standard model copying a standard model draft law. Please use local intelligence and create local home opportunities and encourage investment outside of the gates of property owners associations. Let's find them
and let our cities thrive. All
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
33:58
right. Uh, Senator Petty, you
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
34:01
have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you and, and, and while it's not my primary day job, I do very similar things to what you're talking about, but just to try to get a clarification as to what you were
saying, uh, you, you renovate dilapidated vacant buildings were you trying
to say that the dezoning laws or these proposed changes. contributed to that dilapidation, or what, what exactly
Speaker 58
34:33
zoning laws have been contributed to dilapidation. The dilapidation has come from It's very complicated. A lot of it's come from just long term segregation and urban sprawl and just sort of like I live in the doughnut hole. zoning laws have not contributed to it. They don't find them terribly burdensome as a developer it comes from many, many other
causes. So the problem is probably outside the scope that you're talking about there much better code enforcement against dilapidation, but that's outside of the scope. All right. Any other
Speaker 33
35:08
questions from committee? Say no thank you, Mr. Do. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
35:13
you for your testimony. Uh, next is uh Mr. Keltner, Bob Keltner. You'd come to the table and State who you're with,
your name, you'll be recognized. Yes, my name is Bob Keltner.
Speaker 63
35:31
I am a local architect here in Little Rock and also a member of the Hillcrest Residents Association, one of the neighborhoods, uh, and Little Rock had come as a concerned citizen, um, Certainly, uh appreciate the intent of this bill in terms of trying to achieve affordable housing, but when I looked through the bill and look at uh duplexes, multi-family housing, parking, queer housing types go.
It, it appears that those types of decisions are very different depending on if you're in an urban neighborhood or historic district or in a rural area, and I think that's my biggest concern. It seems like that statewide legislation for these types of issues is just kind of the wrong way of addressing this, um. When those kind of decisions are made in cities, towns, um, it
takes wisdom and discernment to try to make sure that they are applied properly depending on the situations where they where they occur, um, and that ultimately is why we have city planning. I mean, uh, and I feel like that this bill would kind of limit the ability for cities and municipalities to make those kind of those kind of decisions. I think ultimately it would yield unintended consequences. I
think, you know, property rights were mentioned earlier. I think it would work against property rights in areas of in, in my neighborhood, for example, which is a very older established neighborhood if you came in and started changing all the zoning requirements from a statewide mandate, it would have very destructive effects, um, and so To me, this would have a very negative effect on our cities,
towns and neighborhoods, and so uh, I would, I would urge voting against the bill, so thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
37:46
you. Any questions, Mr. Keller? Saying none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next is Rachel. Pat
Speaker 69
37:59
one Patton. Hello, good morning. I'm Rachel Patton. I'm the executive director of Preserve Arkansas, our statewide nonprofit advocate for historic preservation.
Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. Preserve Arkansas has serious concerns about Senate Bill 456 as presented about historic neighborhoods and commercial districts throughout the state. The Arkansas Historic Districts Act allows local governments to establish local historic district commissions that oversee design review for designated local ordinance historic districts. These communities partner with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and the
National Park Service through the certified local government program, which gives them the opportunity to apply for grant funding to be used anywhere in the city limits, not just in historic neighborhoods to complete additional historic resource surveys, national register nominations, bricks and mortar repairs and to conduct educational programs about historic preservation. On page 5 of Senate Bill 456, the language references properties within an already designated historic district.
I'm interpreting this to mean that existing local ordinance districts will be grandfathered in, but that additional new local ordinance districts or design overlay districts would not be allowed. As currently presented, local governments will not be allowed to create the less restrictive design overlay district in historic neighborhoods and commercial areas that wish to encourage the preservation of their own neighborhood, their own streetscape. Local ordinance, historic districts, and design overlay
districts, preserve the character defining features of our state's historic neighborhoods and commercial areas while allowing compatible new construction, contributing properties in these historic districts are eligible for rehabilitation incentives like the federal and state historic tax credit, which can be used to put vacant and underutilized properties back into service for a variety of uses, including affordable housing. These zoning tools are vital to the preservation of our historic
places, and they can help accomplish the stated goal of creating affordable housing. As currently presented, Senate Bill 456 is harmful to historic preservation efforts throughout the state, takes away local control and severely hampers the effectiveness of municipal zoning and invites unchecked development in our national register listed historic neighborhoods and commercial areas and I realized and I appreciate that Senator Petty is going to make an amendment that will address some of our concerns about historic
buildings and neighborhoods but without having seen the language, um, I have to speak against the bill.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
40:51
Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Patton.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
40:56
Any questions from the committee? Senator Petty, corrected. It's, it's probably more of a statement than it is a question, but you and I have
spoken and I shared with you that the original intent was was to exclude the historic structures in the historic districts from this bill and the language didn't get perfected, so I'm stating on the record that that
was the intent and we'll work diligently. I too have worked in the historic space and so I have an appreciation for preserving our history. So thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any, any other
Speaker 33
41:27
question for Ms. Pat? Say no, you're, you're excused.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
41:31
Thank you for your testimony. Uh, next is Tricia Bean. Speaking against the bill. Hey, good morning. Thank you so much for giving us
Speaker 82
41:43
a chance to speak to the committee about this bill. I really appreciate
Speaker 81
41:48
it. Can you hear me OK? Yeah. So, uh, again, my name is Tricia B and I'm the
Speaker 86
41:57
executive director of the Qwapa Quarter Association, serving greater Little Rock. Our mission is to preserve and revitalize communities and breathe life into historic places. We care deeply about responsible growth and strong governance that benefits neighborhoods across Arkansas.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
42:11
Across Arkansas, families, small business owners, and historic neighborhoods rely on local
Speaker 86
42:16
zoning to protect their investments and ensure
responsible growth. SB 456 as it is currently written, puts us at risk. I know that we all share the goal of ensuring Arkansas communities thrive, however, this bill as written removes critical tools that cities and towns rely on to manage growth, protect historic districts, and maintain community character. Hear a little bit about the statewide implications and conflicts that also are happening right now with another bill in the House that's concurrently running in committee HB 1754.
SB 456 restricts local zoning and design authority, and that's from section 14-56-404 and prevent cities from maintaining historic character through design standards, which is Section 14-56-426. Meanwhile, HOAs and POA's still retain their authority over aesthetics, creating an unequal system where private associations can enforce rules, but governments cannot.
At the same time, HB 1754, which is, again, also being considered today, further limiting zoning enforcement. If both bills pass, SB 456 will force cities to change their zoning laws, while HB 1754 will make enforcing any zoning nearly impossible, and that's from section 18-11-904. This contradiction creates legal uncertainty, invites lawsuits. And removes any clear path for
responsible planning. Here's a little bit about the impacts on historic districts and local planning as it is written today, it does weaken historic protections. So Arkansas's historic districts are economic and cultural assets. I think we can all agree with that. Without design standards, property values, and neighborhood character are at risk. This bill is written forces one size fits all zoning changes, the bill mandates that multi-family housing, tiny
homes, mobile homes are allowed in all single-family neighborhoods regardless of the infrastructure capacity, or community impact. It also threatens areas like the governor's mansion and the Capitol zoning districts, SB 456 could allow development that jeopardizes the historic and civic significance of these areas. So talking a little bit more about
Speaker 89
44:48
a balanced approach. Well, again, we all want Arkansas communities to grow
Speaker 86
44:52
in ways that are sustainable, inclusive, and
locally driven, SB 456 makes this more difficult by taking away decision-making power from those who know communities best, local leaders, property owners, and residents. Cities and counties must have the flexibility to adapt zoning policies to their unique needs, restricting local authority won't create better housing solutions. economic growth, it will create confusion, legal battles, and uncertainty. I respectfully ask this committee to reject SB 456 because Arkansas communities deserve the right to make
decisions that reflect their own needs. There's majority of the studies, including palisades Park that were sighted earlier at the top of this when reviewing the bill are not from Arkansas. Almost all of that analysis and study were from other places across the country. Let's not take that right away from the people who have built and invested in these communities to maintain their unique leads in their local, their unique needs in their local communities. I urge you to stand with
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
45:53
Arkansas communities and reject this bill as written. Thank you so much. Any questions from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
46:05
Ms. Bing, for your testimony. Next we have uh Antoinette Johnson. It You
will go to the table and
Speaker 100
46:18
Recognize yourself and who you're with. Antoinette Johnson. I'm just a citizen and also um live in a historic district. I
Speaker 101
46:26
appreciate that Senator Patty is um
interested in amending the bill. Um, to make it more amenable for historic districts, but it's very worrisome that it would be voted on today without the language. Um, they are understanding exactly how the bill would be amended. I'm gonna, um, explain a little bit about the neighborhood that I live in and how this would affect those things, um, probably with an intended consequences. I live in the Hillcrest Historic District here in Little Rock. We are the largest historic
district in the state of Arkansas. We have over 1800 houses, um, we have our own commercial corridor and the houses run from around 800 square feet to about 5000 square feet. So we have a lot of variety of structures. Um One problem that we've had over that we fight constantly is that we're very lucky that we live in a sought after neighborhood, OK,
because we have that big variety and because we have a mix of residential and commercial there. Um, we also have these historic buildings. The 800 square foot houses are much more affordable, obviously than the 5000 square feet houses. So the problem we have I consider us being a victim of our own success. People with a lot of money will come in, buy up 12, even 3 sometimes, 800 square feet houses next to each other, tear them down and then
build a big giant house. So we're taking away affordable housing in our neighborhood. If this bill goes forward, that It basically, it's hampering the effectiveness of municipal zoning. It prohibits local governments from instituting design requirements and what has happened with our historic district slowly being chipped away is that people want to live there, but they maybe can't afford the 5000 square foot house or don't want to spend the
money for that, but they can afford 800 square feet houses. They wiped the lot clean and build a brand new house. And takes that affordable housing out of our community and we lose our historic structure, we lose our historic district status. We're always in danger of losing that because you have to have more houses that are contributing structures that are built, look very much like they did when they were originally built as opposed to removing
that houses and putting apartment buildings, um, large structures or something else that wouldn't be 50 years old or older. there. So I encourage you, please not to vote on this, or vote against it as it's written now because it's very worrisome that it would be kicked down the road for the house to amend it. Now I must sit just a citizen, you guys all know how this works way better than I do, but if we just kick it down the road, I don't
understand really how do you have control? Over it what it leaves this room. We don't know what that wording would be and it's worrisome that things will be left out of it. That will do the opposite of what we're trying to do here, which is keep affordable housing in our communities. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
49:56
you. OK. To me, any questions from the committee?
Saying none, uh, next. To last on the list is Ed.
Surgeon I probably pronounced that wrong, er, sorry about that, Mr.
Ed Sargent
Unverified
50:14
Sergeant. It's the military spelling, but everybody does. appreciate your service. Hello, thank you very much. Yes, my name is Ed Sargent, um, I'm here to speak against the bill, uh, Laura and I, uh, live in actually we live at the governor's mansion historic District. My biggest point, the most important thing is the fact
that residential is the most important use in any city. It's the neighborhoods that keep everything stabilized. Once they're stable, they're doing well. Everything comes, everything builds around them and wants to be near them, uh. best case, best thing that happens too is you get great walkability, so here's all this connectivity, um, the bill which which would address, let's say we do live in a historic district. The The rules that affect us would also affect this neighborhood
over here, this neighborhood, this neighborhood, which says it's got to be the rules tend to be have to be very broad, very, very lenient to let everybody do whatever they want to do is what it says. So where we live, we would start to see, um, things turned down, uh, the, the users changed things uh subdivided, so which again starts to risk the stability of our neighborhood. It's, it's We've seen it go very stable. We've got a nice close
community. We should be the rules should be what are similar to what we've been hearing. The rules should be separate for it's kind of for different areas, different districts, um, which would be most effectively. most effective vision upon those different districts in different areas. Um, the, uh, other than that, I think that's all my points. Um, any questions I can answer, please? All right, any questions? Mr. Sergeant,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
52:11
Say no, thank you for your testimony. OK, thank you. I appreciate it. Uh.
Next is John Wilkerson. With the arcel municipality. John, you know, yes, John
Speaker 108
52:23
Wilkerson, counsel municipally. I don't belabor the reason that we're opposed the bill. I've had very good discussions with Senator Petty, which I appreciate. I met Mr. Warren and listened to his presentation today, and I appreciated that as well. I understand the timing of this, and I, I appreciate the acknowledgement of some of the issues that we've had in the
bill and for our part, we we appreciate the issue as a whole, and we are we're dedicated to working together and finding ways to solve the housing crisis. I've been talking to folks about. Planning our summer convention around this very topic and continuing this conversation and we've tried very hard to work together on fast track permitting bill, design restrictions bill from years past and so we're we're dedicated to helping solve this crisis at a way that cities can navigate and know how to do it correctly and um do it to the best of their ability, and so we appreciate those discussions and
we look forward to having them in the future as well. So we are opposed, but we are very much looking forward to solving this crisis together. Thank you. OK. Any questions
Speaker 33
53:20
from to work Saying none. There are any, any other
Speaker 41
53:25
questions from committee? chair would, you would have closed for your bill. Senator Petty.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
53:46
Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I know this is a very complicated issue. It's a very real issue we face here in Arkansas and this bill, while it may not
be perfect, uh, to, to add just a little bit to one of the comments about the amendment as, as we know, amendments happen, agreed to amendments happen. I'm the lead sponsor on this, and so we can incorporate an amendment on the House and it still has to come back to us for
approval and so it won't, it won't be. down the road, the can won't be kicked down the road. We will address it again and here, and I've given my word and I'm a man of my word that we're going to have a conversation around a number of these. Uh, and so, uh, we can all ignore this, we can all believe it is not an issue in your local town that doesn't change the fact. It's very real. We can go on about our lives and we can ignore the fact that 26% of the
households are not cost overburdened, which means they pay more than 30% of their household income towards housing means they're not spending on other things. We can act like the 306,000 families that Mr. Warren talked about don't live in our communities. They don't live in our cities, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. One fact and then I will Um, shut up, uh, you all remember the financial crisis of 2009 and 2010. It was the
biggest financial housing related crisis in the country since probably the Great Depression. Uh, and at that point, 29.3% of our residents in Arkansas were cost burdened, paying more for their housing. And here we are it's a, it's a distant memory and today, 26% of our of our residents still are cost burdened. Just think about that for just a
minute. 45% of renter households in Arkansas are a cost burden. Nearly half of our population pay more than they should. should have to pay for housing, uh, and so I hope if nothing else, introducing this bill and I'm I'm very confident it has, has raised awareness around this crisis that we all face and, and, uh, I, I, I guess the one thing that if I look back and I was a little disappointed on is that with all the, not with a, with a lot of the opposition to this bill, there was a lot of
pushback about, you know, the, the, uh, taking away uh local control. or opposition was talking about growing big government, a lot of, a lot of pushback, but there's not a single one that I received that acknowledged that this issue exists and not a single one offered a solution other than uh state send us local folks money and we'll solve it ourselves. And so, uh, with that, I know we've had a long and again I
appreciate the committee and the chair I want to have a special order. Today and with that I would make a motion to pass. All
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
57:01
right, committee, you've heard we have a motion to pass. And we need a second. We have
Speaker 115
57:09
a 2nd in discussion. All those in favor all opposed.
Speaker 121
57:24
Um Let's do this. I want to get this right. So let's do this one more time before we have to
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
57:34
have a roll call. All of them favor, say ah. All opposed. The bill passes.
Speaker 111
57:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. I've sent to Wallace.
Unknown speaker
57:54
You, uh, carrying a bill for Senator Irvin.
Chair
Unverified
58:37
Senator Walsh, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sid Wallace,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
58:42
District 19. This is a bill presented by Senator Irving. It's basically a concurrence. With a House bill, and I believe Ms. Mullenix, if you'll join me. I believe that Julie can give probably more details than I can give.
Speaker 130
59:07
But Julie, if you want to do Mullenix and Associates, uh, representing Darden Restas, uh, they're very interested in this bill along with other restaurant chains and it's simply, as you will remember it was before you earlier. It's simply removed the requirement to form a nonprofit before you could, uh, Have a private club in a dry county. Uh, when the bill was on the Senate floor, there were several
questions from senators about a provision on the last page that required no more than 35% of the sales to be from alcohol and at least 65% to be from food sales, um, also ABC said that would be very difficult to track, if not impossible. So when the bill was on the House and Representative
Speaker 42
1:00:01
Dalby removed that with. an amendment and it's coming back to you to concur. So we are just concurring with
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:00:10
the amendment in the House amendment. House Amendment. Yes sir, yes sir.
OK. Committee, any questions? Be gentle. And one of the,
Speaker 123
1:00:23
one of the artist to like to speak for against the bill. See none, uh,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:00:30
we have a motion. We have a motion to pass, and a second, in discussion. to heart
To keeper. Yeah, this, this motion is just to concur with the amendments in the house, so all those in favor, say ah Uh, most fast. Congratulations. Anyone else have What's your bill number 1272. It's yeah.
273. Representative Warren, you got to
the end of the table. If you will identify yourself, you
Chair
Unverified
1:01:26
are recognized to present. 12, 127272. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, Clint is tied up in another
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:01:32
committee I carried this on the house in. Uh house Bill 1272 addresses property rights to any street or alley abandoned by a city or a municipality uh when a street or
alley is abandoned. The adjoining property owners take title to the center line of that abandoned street or alley. When those adjoining owners later uh sell their property, they often forget to include the portion of the street or alley, which vested in them when it was abandoned. This bill will make it so that the applicable portion of the abandoned street or alley automatically follows the conveyance of the adjoining
property. Uh, this bill is retroactive to 1945, which is when the Arkansas section that's being amended was codified and will aid in the clearing of tidal to portions of the abandoned streets and alleys that the adjoining owner and their successors inadvertently failed to include in conveyance often decades ago. It was the end of World War 2.
There you go. So we're just trying to make it clear, you know, what happens when the street or alley
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:02:59
is abandoned by the city. Senators, do you have a question? So what happens if that was abandoned. I see some of these like at our at our tax sales, the other neighbor bought it like if, if someone else has bought it. It doesn't now go back to the original property, right? Or how do I, how do we The retroactivity, how do we clear up? If there OK.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:03:22
If the first of all, a city has to take the action to abandon the street or alley. So if the city in connection with that sold the property, then that's a record. It wouldn't undo that, but if no action has been taken, it goes to the center line of the adjoining properties. Or any other questions from committee? So you
Speaker 33
1:03:42
know any any anyone in the audience that
Speaker 145
1:03:48
would like to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:03:53
But You recognize close for your bill. I am closed for the bill. I would appreciate a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:04:04
good vote. Thank you, Representative Warren. With a motion. We have a motion to pass in a second, in the discussion. All those
Chair
Unverified
1:04:13
in favor of the bill say ah all both. Congratulations, Les. Thank you, members, Mr. Chairman. These are people here. Such a lark.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:04:40
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask that you allow circuit Saline County Circuit clerk Marca sample to join me to help present this bill. OK. If
Speaker 152
1:05:05
you want to go ahead and recognize yourself for the record. Good morning. I'm Mara Sample
Speaker 154
1:05:10
and I'm the Slain County Circuit clerk and I'm also a representative of the uh circuit Clerks Association.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:05:18
Ellen Clark State Senate District 7. All right,
Senator Clark, you recognize to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, SB 406 originated uh because a constituent came to me concerned, very concerned about title theft, uh, and it's been shared with me that it's costing
people up to $30,000 to regain their titles in court, and this, uh, especially concerning with the elderly and your deferred list, you have SB 69, which was our original bill. Uh, with the constituent working with BLR, uh, since then, uh, the title people in the circuit clerks work together, uh, and brought us SB 406 and I'm going to, uh, Let, uh, I tell you what it does.
Speaker 158
1:06:16
And with this bill, it's gonna require individuals that are preparing a either a quick claim deed or any kind of of deed to change property owners, um, it will require us to actually ask for a copy of their driver's license before it's filed either if they are standing in front of us or if they mail in the paperwork, we will call and ask them to mail a copy of their driver's license that we will record. the paperwork, um, well,
actually provided as a redacted and unredacted because we definitely don't want driver's license information out um to the public, but we're hoping that this would just deter those that are fraudulently taking property from owners and um this is just the beginning and a step that can really help our citizens because as Senator Clark has stated Um, the one of the citizens I spoke to said it actually cleaned out their savings account to be able to get their
property back because it was fraudulently taken. Senator, you have a question?
Speaker 12
1:07:29
So, I mean, we wouldn't be sitting here if this didn't happen. I've never heard of it, but like how often is this happening? We're
Speaker 158
1:07:39
seeing it more often, um, it's actually one of the fastest white collar crime that is going on across the United States right now. It is so easy to go
and get a quick claim deed and change property owners, um. I know that there is someone here from the towel company that can actually speak on some of the things that he saw we've actually seen where there's been false las uh put on citizens, so it is happening more often. A lot of the circuit clerks across the state actually are are providing a property fraud alert that citizens can sign up for that will alert them if
something is recorded in in that county, um. That doesn't stop it from being recorded. It's just alerts the citizen that something was recorded where they can call the office and verify, you know, is it something legitimate, um, this with this bill we're hoping that it will stop it on the front end, um, especially if we're
Speaker 155
1:08:43
asking for them to show proof of who they are. So it is happening more often across the state. You worked on the title
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:08:54
companies. I don't see them here complaining
Speaker 160
1:08:56
the, uh, uh, And circuit clerks are, you know, you're not rogue here, you're with the group? Yes,
Speaker 153
1:09:04
yes, we have worked um with the title companies, um, we
Speaker 158
1:09:08
actually in the bill, it states um that you know it's on page 2, subdivision 2 like A through E that we can automatically, you know, send the recording through if we receive it from them like
a title company or a bank, it's this just focuses on an individual. That has prepared the paperwork themselves. And this does not apply
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:09:33
to the commissioner of State lands, does it? Um, no, sir, they are listed,
Speaker 154
1:09:38
they are listed that they can record without us verifying it they're actually uh letter E. Senator Petty, do you have a question? Well, when they're OK,
Chair
Unverified
1:09:48
Wallace, you're right. Is this just quick claim deeds or warranty deeds as well? It's any kind of deed, OK,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:09:57
and is it both dire and seller present
Speaker 158
1:10:01
an ID. It is whoever is there to presenting that paperwork or we will call um the great tour, the grantee to provide the information. Yes sir. All
Speaker 33
1:10:15
right. Any other question from Petty. There we go.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:10:29
So I appreciate you uh bringing this back uh, Senator Clark, there is, I believe, a representative from
the title company. I'd like to just have them come and verify that they're good with it in case some of their members aren't plugged in, so we'll know that they're representative was here. Yes sir. Good morning, committee. My name
Wes Lasa
Unverified
1:10:54
is Wes Lasa. I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas Land Title Association.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:01
Um, as Senator Clark mentioned, we did meet with him, had some concerns with Senate Bill 69 initially because it was limited to quit claim deeds. What we're seeing across the country is that what we refer to in the industry as seller impersonation has become rampant. That's not limited to quit claim deeds, warranty deeds are used, and if you think about it, if you're a thief and stealing someone's property, why are you going to limit yourself to equipment? climb a. I'll give you whatever
warranty you want as long as I get my money as the crook, right? So we didn't want to limit that to warranty deeds, and so we've worked with the circuit clerks in an effort to uh put up a roadblock to the perpetrators realizing any gain based on their fraud attempts. It's not perfect, but it will, it will certainly help slow things down. We even discussed. The recording, uh, but it was, it was determined and it was the
opinion of the circuit clerks that The majority of the fraud attempts that they receive are done through in person or in mail recordings as opposed to electronic recording, and so of course we've carved out and created essentially what's known in the industry as a known filer that exempts title companies, attorneys, mortgage lenders, commissioner of state lands, etc. from having to comply with presentation of identification, so I'll be happy to field any questions.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:12:36
And just to clarify, the uh, the recorder is going to verify that the person really is who they are,
even though it's a bank or a title agent or someone just to make sure that we don't have someone imitating, uh, I'm a title agent or I'm a banker
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:52
or whatever. Yes sir, I mean that will be part of the notarization process, of course those known foulers, if you will, uh, are in the business of closing these transactions. They certainly don I don't want to bear any expense
or any loss as a result of being a victim of fraud themselves, so they'll certainly Take efforts to eliminate that. All right. Any other questions
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:13:22
from the committee? Thank you, Mr. Langer for your testimony. We have one more to speak for the bill. Uh, Mara sample. That's you. It's not anybody else have any questions?
Any committee members? Say no to Clark. You reckon that's closed for you, Bill.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:13:47
Thank you. uh, Mr. Chair, thank you, members of the committee. I'm gonna, I have an unusual request, uh, uh, going too close for the bill, but I sit here and noticed that Representative Warren is not listed as the House sponsor and is supposed to be, and I would ask you to suspend your rules and make Representative Warren the House sponsor, and
then pass the bill as amended. OK, we
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:13
have a motion and a second to suspend the rules. We have a motion to suspend the rules and add senator Les Warren as he had a sponsor. 2 from er. In discussion I wasn't favor, say ah. all opposed. Our amendment's been adopted.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:14:40
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed for my bill as amended. I appreciate a good vote. we have a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:48
motion to pass in a second. Any discussion All those in favor say aye, all
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:14:54
opposed. Congratulations to today, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Uh,
Speaker 145
1:15:01
we've got 3 more, 3 more bills. Senator Davis'
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:15:07
short one, isn't it? Yeah, OK, Senator Davis, you
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:15:10
recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Senator Desma is gonna present Senate Bill 252, and it's been amended and all of that, so I need to make some motions ahead of him presenting. You want to go before I need to make a motion to suspend the rules so that we can hear it, because it's on the deferred list. Oh, it's OK. Yes. So you have a motion to suspend the rules
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:15:35
to hear Senate Bill 252. Senate 252, take it off the
list. All right, put it back on the reenter Wallace. In discussion on the motion. if I
ever say ah and any post? Our amendment passes and then I need to make a motion
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:15:57
to expunge the vote by which Senate Bill 252 failed in we have a motion
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:16:04
to expunge the bill by which Senate Bill 252, uh, failed.
And a second, any discussion? All those in favor. Say ah. I oppose. Alright. There
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:16:25
make one more motion to expunge the vote by which um we passed the amendment. On that bill. Another vote to expose the
Speaker 182
1:16:33
amendment we attach to that. The amendment that we voted to. We need another motion to expand the vote we attach the amendment on.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:16:43
Alright, we have, we have a motion that second in discussion. All in favor, say ah. Is there any other amendments to that bill for the disband days.
Speaker 182
1:16:56
Is there anything in the bill left? Senator Jonathan dismaying District 18.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:17:06
So what we had to do because we adopted amendment in this committee. We had to expunge that because we had the
full engrossed into the bill, um. Yesterday on the floor, so it would be there. And so if you don't mind, I can explain the amendment in its entirety, so that everybody's on the same page, but there was the typo that was related to cakes. That amendment stays in place. We remove the emergency clause. There was concerns that some of these folks would not be able to solve the Chinese vapes that they had on their shelves in time if the emergency clause stayed, so this would allow them to show off their inventory of Chinese vapes or items that
weren't on the registry, um, the third thing that It does that is different than anything that we've discussed in this committee as it removes the system bait products from the registry list so it exempts them, which was a concern that was here. And then lastly, it does again go ahead and lower the initial rate from 500 or 1000 to 500 and then the annual rate to 250, uh, for those that are looking to sell bait products in the state, which brings it lower than what we would do for a regular tobacco
product. So that's the amendment that's in. engrossed into the bill yesterday. And this bill still
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:18:22
has the emergency clause. It does not.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:18:26
That should have been part of the, yeah, we removed that whenever we did the um The amendment. There was concerns that there was inventory on product or on shelves that would not be able to be sold with the emergency clause, so this would give them time to empty the Chinese bait from the shelves.
Speaker 186
1:18:46
Or Senator Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:18:51
So just, just to clarify, uh, I think you said open, but is it open? I mean closed, but it's open, isn't it? I'm sorry, did I say? Yeah, I'm not, I'm not a vape guy, so I'm not either, but I remember that term from a previous discussion. So, so those that were concerned about the effects on small business. A lot of the small businesses use that and create those open whatever they're called vapes
and this excludes them from this bill. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Any, any other questions
Speaker 109
1:19:22
from the committee? Anyone else in the audience who wish to speak for against
Speaker 145
1:19:27
the bill? Saying nonsense this man you are. I'm close for Bill.
Speaker 188
1:19:35
All right, closed for the bill. We have a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:19:38
motion to pass. In a second In discussion All those in favor, say ah. All opposed?
Speaker 190
1:19:50
The Bill passes. We have uh yeah. Senator Hamer. little. OK. OK, this. Senator Davis, do you have a bill? That was yours. OK.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:20:28
1725 House bill. So Senator Hammer, if you want to go ahead and Present yours House
Bill 14. 14 Mr. Chairman Kim Hammer, state senator of District 16 ring House Bill 1414.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:04
You are red. Thank you real short bill, noncontroversial, does one simple thing. If you notice it strikes the date of January 1, 2013. This is so that we can come in alignment with the Federal Emergency Management Agency as far as their funds, and right now we're kind of held at a disadvantage because it dates back to 2013, so this will lift that date so that we can get current as far as the reimbursement from those funds. Arts committee you've heard.
Speaker 145
1:21:36
an explanation of the bill in discussion. And he won the audience wish to speak for or
Speaker 105
1:21:47
against. So Tamer, you're clothes for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:51
good bill for just removing the date so we can get the rates up to current time and I appreciate a good vote from the committee and thank you very much. All right, have a we have a motion? Evolution in a second. Any discussion?
Chair
Unverified
1:22:06
I love and favor, say ah. All poses. Congratulations, Senator Hammer passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Speaker 192
1:22:18
committee. Senator Davis. We need to expense a vote on this. You'll go ahead and recognize yourself,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:22:31
Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brianne Davis, state Senate District 25.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:22:40
Um, this bill, House Bill 1725, is something that we worked on with the sheriff's Association. It essentially just says that the quorum Court has the ability to adjust the salary of a sheriff, if they are not in compliance with training and law enforcement standards that are required to be a sheriff. So, you'll see on page 2, it talks about their compliance with the selection and training requirements for certification, um, that are documented by Arkansas law enforcement training academy. They have 10
days to submit paperwork to the county clerk to show that they are up to date on their certification, and if not, the Quorum Court has the ability to adjust their salary based on them not being certified appropriately. OK. Or simple
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:23:25
bill. Anyone in the committee have any questions? And one of the audience which to speak for
Speaker 145
1:23:36
against the bill. Say no, Senator Davis, you are
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:23:43
recognized close for you, Bill. Thank you. I'm closed for my bill and make a motion to
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:23:48
pass. All right, we have a motion to pass and a second in discussion. All those in favor, say ah. Well, the post. Congratulations, Senator Davis. The
bill passes. Any others? Any other bills? Please, Chief, y'all have any bills?
Gary, you have a bill? Oh well, I thought you might be going to run this
companyering bill for me. OK. All right, any, no other bills, then we are. Adjourn
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
SB456 J. Petty TO CREATE THE HOME OPPORTUNITIES MADE EASIER ACT. CONCUR IN HOUSE AMENDMENT
SB345 Irvin TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF THE PRIVATE CLUB PERMITTING PROCESS OF HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND LARGE-EVENT FACILITIES; AND TO REMOVE AN OVERLY BURDENSOME TAX REQUIREMENT.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1414 Andrews TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS FOR FIRE SERVICES; AND TO UPDATE THE SCHEDULE OF EQUIPMENT RATES USED IN CLAIMS FOR FIRE SERVICES.
SB406 A. Clark TO REQUIRE A COUNTY RECORDER TO VERIFY CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL ESTATE.
Senator Alan Clark. Motion to suspend the rules and add Senator Warren as a sponsor of SB406
Senator Breanne Davis. Motion to suspend the rules to hear SB252
Senator Breanne Davis. Motion to expunge the vote by which SB252 failed
Senator Breanne Davis. Motion to expunge the vote by which the amendment on SB252 was attached
HB1272 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROPERTY VACATED BY A MUNICIPALITY; AND TO REQUIRE VESTED ABANDONED PROPERTY BE CONVEYED WITH THE ABUTTING REAL ESTATE.
HB1725 Schulz TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF.
SB252 J. Dismang TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY VAPOR PRODUCTS AND E-LIQUID PRODUCTS; AND TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ARKANSAS YOUTH.
ADJOURNED
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 12
Speaker 21
Speaker 25
Speaker 27
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 45
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 44
Paul Dodds
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 63
Speaker 69
Speaker 82
Speaker 81
Speaker 86
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 89
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Ed Sargent
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 41
Speaker 115
Speaker 121
Speaker 111
Chair
Unverified
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 130
Speaker 42
Speaker 123
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 145
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 152
Speaker 154
Speaker 158
Speaker 155
Speaker 160
Speaker 153
Wes Lasa
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 182
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 186
Speaker 109
Speaker 188
Speaker 190
Speaker 105
Speaker 192