City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (14)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB424
Act 422
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING A DEED TO REAL ESTATE. SB424 G. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND Stubb…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF A MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB424 is now Act 422 |
|
SB322
Act 591
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…D CANDIDATES TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS. SB322 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT; AND TO ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO PERFORM … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB322 is now Act 591 |
|
SB271
Act 460
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…r Sen. Joshua Bryant REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB271 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A COUNTY CLERK'S CERTIF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A COUNTY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES TO THE … | Crowell | Notification that SB271 is now Act 460 |
|
HB1414
Act 417
· 1 mention in agenda
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 |
|
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: “…RADIUS OF A MILITARY FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
SB23
Act 188
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “motion to adopt Senate Bill 23 as amended, have a”
|
AN ACT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB23 is now Act 188 |
|
SB252
Act 590
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN ARKANSAS COUNTY. SB252 J. Dismang TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY V…”
|
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 |
|
SB399
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THIRD PARTIES TO PERFORM PLAN REVIEWS AND SITE INSPECTIONS. 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. |
|
SB406
Act 752
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SAFETY OF ARKANSAS YOUTH; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
SB60
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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: “…MPROVEMENT DISTRICT. 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
0:13
Mr. Kroll. Senator Crow, uh, Senator Bill. 271. Thank you, gentlemen. I have a
Steve Coll, District 3. Miss. French is going to
Speaker 6
0:31
help me present this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee Lindsay French Association of Arkansas Counties.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
0:46
Uh, you were recognized. Thank you. This is a bill by the County Clerks Association and it um it's not just a technical cleanup, but it's a cleanup of some archaic language. Currently, the county clerk's required to notify their county party uh when there's certification list of candidates is due, and this requires them to do that by registered mail. Um, registered mail is only used, we are told, for stocks
and bonds, and this is just changing that to certified mail, and if the party I'm, I'm sorry, I'm talking about a bill that's over there. I was wondering where the
Speaker 11
1:27
stocks and bonds. I don't see this. Sorry. But yeah, no,
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:30
I've got the right bill in front of me. I just wasn't looking at it. OK. Erase all that. My apologies. Um, all this one does is currently when school elections are held in conjunction with a general and primary election,
um, there are two certification deadlines for school board candidates that are like 2 or 3 days apart. So this is just doing away with a duplicate school board candidate election deadline to where there's only one, they certify them with all the other candidates. Thank you. Committee for the bill. Any, any
Speaker 5
2:06
questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill.
Speaker 15
2:20
Saying none, Senator Crow, you're breaking the clothes for you both appreciate a good
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:26
vote. Right, we have a, uh, see, we have a motion in a second. In discussion All those in favor, say ah. All opposed. Congratulations, Senator Crow.
Speaker 15
2:37
Thank you, and I've been asked by the circuit Clerks Association
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:42
to remind you all that they're having lunch down at the AAC at noon today, and we hope to see you there. that past.
Speaker 17
2:51
That that bill passed at 272. 71. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, Senator Bright, you got a bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant said District 32. I've got an amendment. All right.
Speaker 28
3:26
You wanna You want to explain this is a pretty,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:33
it is, it is a a rework, um, so when I filed the bill, Um, icy reached out to discuss, discuss the bill, we sent it to one of their uh partners here in the city just assist them in these type of, this type of language, they sent me a rework of suggestions. We combed through it. I loved it, uh, BOR did the rework. I just
like to adopt the amendment just to get it engrossed. I can explain the me or we can just adopt them in it and get it engrossed and, and then come back and go through the bill. What's that? uh, we have a motion to adopt
Speaker 34
4:16
the amendment. if it can't be engrossed. If we adopt the amendment, it cannot be
Speaker 33
4:20
engrossed until we pass the bill. OK. I will, I will ask the committee. I know it looks like it looks.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:28
Obviously daunting. It's, it's the content of the bill is in the amendment. They just asked for a rework to reorder and reprioritize how it laid out in the bill, and I can go through it entirely as as amended and ask for a vote or if the committee is not comfortable because he feels overwhelming, I'm I'm happy to try to run it on a member's own um to come back. I just, it was time is running out and I was just trying to means it found any
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
4:53
objection from committee. All right, then go ahead.
Go ahead. Go ahead, Senator Petty. So clarification though, you, you said it's,
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
5:06
it's basically the same bill. But reordered and Can you go over the any any true
Speaker 40
5:10
edits or was it, was it, yes, I, I can, I can do that, um. Senator Petty, I can just kind of as we go through it, I can show you where it's just reducing
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
5:24
some of the fees and the requirements of how to collect fees because cities thought it would be too cumbersome, um.
So Mr. Chair, with that I will, I will present the amendment which the amendment will be in essence, the bill. And so the context for this is if you are going to pursue a building permit, uh, and then the inspection process after building a permit is approved, you approach the city and you, you satisfy their requirement to receive all the plans and documents that they require as part of their plan review process. If you can satisfy all those processes they enter you into
plan review and that could take anywhere from a couple of days in some cities to a couple of years in other cities and they're, they're, while we do have a fast track permit uh bill um that we passed two years ago, there's too many ways that cities were able to over basically over override that and keep that process dragging out. And so once you get your, your authorization for permit, you're authorized to build and then every at different steps throughout the building process,
you have to get inspections of that process. And again, these inspections could take, could be scheduled the next day in some cities it's 9 days later and continually delays and in the construction industry that relates to cost, plain and simple. If I cannot keep a schedule of my trades, they will move on to the next job and then I might wait a week, I might wait a month. So Basically, the, the, to overcome the city's requirement is is adding a regulatory burdens to our development and our building.
And so what uh Senate Bill 322 does is provide an alternate path for third-party inspections, but still using the city as a as a regulatory body to provide oversight to the process. So What the bill would allow for is, as, as a developer goes and seeks a plan approval is the city will have 5 days to understand if they can accommodate the 60 day window to provide for plan review processing as the original fast track intended.
If the city says they can provide that, the developer can choose those services that the city will provide for the regulatory fee, or they can choose to still go to a third party, and that third party would be one of 3 options, a registered engineer by the state of Arkansas or registered architect. And the reason those two are important is because they got their own governing body, they've got their own professional licensing, they got their own professional insurance, errors and omissions insurance and so they have their own regulatory oversight and
they are in all essence, the, the, the ones that drew the plans, the ones that designed the the civil designs, they, they have basically the internal working knowledge. And then they have all the ordinances and regulatory functions of the city adopted in code listed in Unicode that they can reference and look at. The third option that I placed that was actually a very good idea on behalf of the city is what if we want to use somebody that is just really experienced, maybe a retired city planner or retired inspector that started a 3rd 3rd
party business and so we put provisions in the bill and the change, Senator Petty, this want to change that would allow a company to be approved by the city to provide. Those services for the city that way they don't necessarily have to be a certified engineer or a registered engineer or registered architect. So that they can choose to go that route. They're still fees that the city could charge and those developers don't have a problem because once they provide um The documents back as as reviewed so that third party will review those documents.
They'll provide an affidavit saying they complied with all requirements of the plan review per the city's requirements. They'll hand that back to the city and the city will have 10 days to go through the reviewed plans. If they find an error in the review plans, they will be required to send those back list with errors are being missed and the site the specific code that they are saying is, is omitted. The engineer can then review
that and send it back and all this will be told on a 10-day period every time it goes back, the tolling stops. It goes back to the city. They add 5 days to give the city plenty of time to work those differences out. Once all differences are worked out, they will issue that permit. If the toll time expires. The, the, as per the original fast track, that permit will be automatically issued and so, but once the permit is held in hand, and it's a review by the third party, which is then signed off
by the city, the construction can begin on that project, so that is kind of phase one of the third party inspection process. Phase 2 goes into the uh third party inspection, so you got plan review, then inspections, and in the same manner, they can use that third party approved as a registered engineer. registered architect or a certified individual by the cities authority. To to enter into the inspections process and what that would look like is they would reschedule the inspection with that third
party at the same time, they would notify the city of when that inspection is going to occur. The city can choose to be there to give oversight or just be a part of the inspection or they can choose to just let the certified inspector handle it. Once that inspection report is done, they send it to the city and the city has one day to say, wait, I don't like it, or it's, it's approved. If they say nothing, it'll be deemed as approved. The city can come back and say if it's something that would typically be closed up, um, and
they need more time, they can make that request to the third-party inspector to make sure that they requirements are satisfied. And that's how that process will go until the completion at no time can can a third party issue a certificate of occupancy that will be held up to the regulatory authority to ensure that their certificate of occupancy, their final walkthrough is adhered to. But once that process is complete, they can move on and request a certificate of occupancy and consider that project deemed approved.
The way I would say that more detail would be a larger projects such as a subdivision development of that nature. subdivisions are a long process. They typically go through the, the city's own planning board regulatory. This doesn't affect that. This affects the the third party portion of do you have all the requirements met of the plan review and if there's any portion of it that needs more time, the city has the authority to say you can begin on this section, but we need to still work on this section that way maybe they can do their
The grading plan, they can start cutting in their streets even though they have other issues that they're working on getting regulatory compliance in other areas. So there is some flexibility in the language, but overall, The intent of the bill is to allow third party inspectors to be engaged in the process at the expense of the applicant, so there's no cost to the city, but the city can still charge regulatory fees that would be part of the oversight of the third party. And so that what if it took longer than one day for the city
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:48
to approve the third party. I mean, you, they had a day to approve. So yeah, inspection one day, so let's say
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:55
it's footing, so they, they will by the city's requirements provide the information to be an affidavit that it's inspected. Here's the pictures that I'll go along with that, send it to the city, the city will have the to the end of the following day to say it's exactly if, if at any time they say something is not right, I'm missing something, then that inspection is deemed not approved until it's satisfied.
And if there, if there is a dispute. whether in the planned review process or the inspections process, because it, it absolutely happens. I think maybe Senator Petty can explain a few things where there is a, a code requirement that provides for a certain situation. In the city currently comes back and says, I don't like it. Well, it's not a matter of if you don't like it, it's allowed by code where the city has ultimately the final say. So those disputes occur quite often
in the industry, and so there is a process for the dispute complaint process to go through, whether it's through the city council that has regulatory oversight if it's an ordinance violation or a substantive violation of their local planning or to the Board of Engineering or the Board of Architects to dispute maybe something that is held inside the the, the realm of the fire prevention code, um, or something held under the Department of Labor. So there's a like a a next
regular scheduled meeting or within 60 days or 30 days if the scheduled meeting happens once a year. That way they'll have to convene, sort this out and move forward. So the goal is to uh expedite and reduce the regulatory burden to our construction industry. All right, any questions from committee, Senator Petty?
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
14:44
subdivisions, but that's another day. Uh, I know the answer from my perspective, but
why do you think that builders and developers would be willing to pay for third-party inspections when the cities do it basically for free and you're permitting, you know, process. Why do you think that the builders and developers would be willing to pay that, and, and go through this process as opposed to the other process. Uh, because the, the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:16
process that's intended to be um for the safety of our citizens, while well-intentioned is is such a
random, depending on what city you get, depending on their, their staffing, their funding, um, their relationships, and all the things that compound into just moving a project forward, um, I know as as a developer, you probably speak, you know, volumes to these issues. So if I was a developer, And I, I contract a third party that has so much more liability in the project. Insurance requirements, because when the city inspects something and they're wrong, there's no
liability that can transfer the onus is on the developer or the consumer in that relationship or the courts will have to weigh in, whereas if you bring a third party in under this bill, there's insurance requirements for that third party. They're required to have insurance, and you can, you can, if they make a mistake, you as a developer or as a builder, you can, you can pursue options against them, and that makes them better because they don't want their insurance to be dinged. They don't want their licensing to be dinged at the
regulatory authority, so they bring so much more to the table that is consistent um and dependable where our typical regulatory authorities that have no liability and have no very little consistency, and not to say that all aren't bad actors, they're surface cities that have high marks, they fund their inspections process. have a redundant plan reviewers. They work well with builders. If that's the city I worked in, I would pay those fees and let them handle it because that's a relationship they'd have, um, if I went to the city, I wanted to
develop that I had, they had poor track record and there's several in our area that have a poor track record and inconsistent, they send, you know, there might be 2 inspections down removed from an inspection that was approved two months ago and they failed something based on the inspection that was approved two months ago and You have to, you know, rip walls out and there's no liability, there's no going back on that, whereas if a professional engineer approved it and sent it to the city and the city dinged it on their certificate of occupancy, that would be on that
third party inspector to compensate for their oversight failures. Also provision in the bill if there is a inconsistent third-party inspector. The cities can reject them as an approved third party inspector. They can say we're we're, we're not dealing with, we got too many complaints, we're not dealing with you much in the same way that the city can advocate for a third party inspector on a list. They can they can maintain a list of say dozen third party inspectors that have good track records and say here you can use our
services because we can meet your demand or We don't really have the means to meet your demand. Here's a list of third-party inspectors that we work well with.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
18:07
Yeah, I don't want to testify for your bill, but time is money and, and when
you're dealing with nature and weather and, and the, the concrete guys are ready to go, but the inspectors can't be there and then it snows the day after and and all of a sudden now you're 3 weeks away from, I
could have done it if I'd had an inspector, so. Uh, I like it. Hope you'll come back and look at subdivisions maybe some other time. Any other questions from
Speaker 56
18:46
the committee? Citrus. Thank you. I see the name in Center Petty
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
18:49
just stated, we understand. The urgency is there a particular association behind this bill.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:59
There's not. There's not. I, I do it's a lot of language in here not to. So, so, uh, the impetus for this bill is this, it's actually quite an interesting story. I was at the Southern Southern Regional Educational Board Centered English back around Thanksgiving, I guess that's when I was there, and we are at the University of Georgia's. Camp George Georgia Tech's campus, and I use my my morning walk to get away from the conference table, and I would go over to the local coffee shop and right across, you know, if
you're in downtown Atlanta, you have to build up and I was just intrigued being in construction of how efficient they were building up and how complex the project was and so like any job you've got, you know, a couple of guys doing the work and a couple of guys watching the work and so I walked over and I engaged the gentleman. watching the work, and I asked them actually specifically about how do you do such massive projects in the city of Atlanta with inspections, and he mentioned that they had recently
had a law passed in Georgia dealing with third party inspections, and so a quick Google search came up and I think it was 2021 or 202, they passed a bill that authorized third-party inspections. I spent a cup of coffee periods reading that language. I sent that bill to BLR and I said I'd like to have this conversation. and see what that looked like in draft form um for Arkansas and so that draft turned into a conversation with uh several of
our, our large builders and developers, some of our small builders and developers, a few plan reviewers that are third party planner viewers already for attempting to provide these services, um, in addition, obviously once municipally picked it up, they sent it to a local engineer who provided this language just to clean it up and make it more palatable. Kudos for you for being observant. I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
20:53
did notice in there it's got exemptions on there. I didn't hear you mention, but the hospitals, nursing homes,
being it's got things doesn't do. Would you cover one more time? I was trying to listen, but uh uh uh with my hearing and I. Go with it again, I think Chairman mentioned it. Tell me about the one day. I understand you can hire a third party. To, to get everything ready and now is, is the one day. For city enough or if you had any feedback? On that, um, I, I would say any
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
21:27
city would say they want more, they want more time they've
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
21:32
they've already approved this third party person to be able to do. be certified for the work. So it's really when they turn it in, it's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
21:45
basically stamping, they reject they are signing an affidavit saying with in accordance with all regulatory plans um ordinances I deem this to be the appropriate, I guess a business day. One day. Yes.
Speaker 61
21:57
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any, any other questions from committee?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:07
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for
Chair
Unverified
22:15
or against. Well Saying none, Senator Bryant, you recognized
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:18
club, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee. I appreciate me.
I apologize uh bringing a rework as a as a to amendment, um, uh, time an hour short um but uh I will close for the bill and move for its adoption as amended. Uh, we have Yeah,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:37
do we have a motion to adopt the
amendment. We have a motion second. All those in favor say any discussion. All those fighters say ah. I
Speaker 35
22:51
oppose Congratulations. I need a motion, we need to, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to adopt Senate
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:00
motion to adopt Senate Bill 23 as amended, have a
motion to have a second. Any discussion? All those vivors say, huh, all
Chair
Unverified
23:08
opposed. Thank you. Bro, the bills passed. Uh Representative Andrews. Representative
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:26
Painter. Representative Moore. Senator, dismay. Dr. Clark.
OK, I'm going to go ahead and present Petty, if you want to come, go ahead and present, uh, if you got
Speaker 15
24:14
You know, the drill. Mr. Chair, so Senator Gary Stubblefield
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
24:22
District 26. Uh, for me this, uh, this bill is an act to amend the law concerning the accountability and transparency of municipal improvement districts. I read the title. It's basically what it does, uh, SB 424 stipulates that property owners who fund the improvement district have a right to comment on any agenda. Adam, prior to the action by the
board of of all board meetings to provide meaningful input from neighbors. 424 also clarifies the quarterly meetings shall be held in each quarter of each calendar year. It also requires that meeting agendas will be provided to property owners prior to the meeting. Day and time. In conclusion, this really just a common sense bill. Uh, public policy, it's a tended simply require the improvement district commissioners to be more accountable, more
transparent, more responsive. And more respect of what people's property rights. That's it. All right, uh, is there anybody? Are
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
25:31
there any questions of the committee? Is there anyone here to speak? It looks like Mr. Bullington. He, he did a good job. All right.
Anyone else like to speak for or against it. If not, you're
Speaker 15
25:54
clear to close. I closed, and I would ask for a to pass from the Queen. I appreciate it a motion by Senator Stubblefield the
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
26:01
seconded by Senator English. All those in favor of any kind of discussion. All those in favor will be, let it be known by I, I, any opposed? Congratulations, Chairman.
Speaker 73
26:31
Is there any other legislators that have bills in here? Or I them saying none, uh. Where's your.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
SB271 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A COUNTY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS.
SB322 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT; AND TO ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO PERFORM PLAN REVIEWS AND SITE INSPECTIONS.
SB424 G. Stubblefield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF A MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
ADJOURNED
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 13, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 6
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 5
Speaker 15
Speaker 17
Speaker 28
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 33
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 47
Speaker 56
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 61
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 73