Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Commerce. I'm sorry. So we're going to go to, we're working on an amendment if we can get that done and a few bills, House Bill 1387 look in the back of your packet. That Just to introduce yourself and you're welcome to to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cameron Cooper, District 57. I have house Bill 1387 today. This is a constituent-driven bill. It would require the members of a water authority board of directors. To have their names and phone numbers displayed on the water authority's website. Water authorities are created under the Arkansas Water Authority Act, and when formed, they become political subdivisions of the state with oversight provided by the Natural Resources Commission. The way these board members are selected depends on the bylaws of the authorities. Some are chosen by sitting members of the board, and some are elected by the members or customers of the water district. So that makes these board members public officials. So you may be asking why do I want to make this change? Well, as I mentioned, this is a constituent driven bill. Last winter, a water authority in my district had issues with their system shutting down, which resulted in no water for the customers. Constituents didn't know what was going on and when they tried to call the water authority's office, the phone just rang off the hook or the voicemail was full. Citizens then began trying to contact me and one of our state senators as well as the mayor of a small town in the area. And asking us questions about what was going on, but obviously we couldn't answer these questions. I started looking for contact information for the board members of the water authority and couldn't find any. The board members are the ones who can answer these questions and address these issues to our constituents, but unfortunately our constituents were unable to contact them. I've looked at several of the water authority's websites, and it appears there's no consistency when it comes to available contact information. Some already list the names and phone numbers of the board members, some list only the names but no contact information and some don't say anything about the board members at all. The change I'm trying to accomplish with this bill will simply ensure that these board members' contact information will be accessible to the people they represent. This bill is about transparency and good efficient government. It's also about making government accessible and accountable to the people. I'd be glad to answer any questions. The question from the committee. Seeing no Seeing no go, go ahead, Senator Mcee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative, for bringing this bill. Do you have any concerns that just requiring any telephone number, leaves it vague enough that they can put any phone number on there and. Still not be able to be reached by the people that they represent. That is a possibility. I would say that that would hold true for any elected official, any elected official could do that same thing, um, I don't know what we could do to ensure that that doesn't happen. If you have any ideas, I would love to work with you on it. I don't right now, but thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Representative Cooper, I'm obviously going to support your bill, but I'm, I'm wondering if we have a state entity and you'd mentioned it's under what state entity that the water boards are the natural Resources commission, so the Department of A could we And I'm not saying you got to put this in legislation, but could we have that same information on their website where you could key in your, your water, uh, authority and then get it would pop up then with the same information. Is that that's a great idea. We can get with Secretary Ward on that, and I would think that that wouldn't require legislation that since you publishing it through your bill anyway that it would be someone could maybe do a Google search and it would come up like that, so. Thank you for a very good bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions? Senator Irvin, yeah, actually that's a very good idea, and that was a little bit of what I was thinking about as well. I mean, if I were you, I'd just amend the bill and require that it also be on the ANRC. Like a link should be provided from the ANRC website to do. Well, maybe, maybe not, but it does, I mean, you could, you could do that and be in a good addition to your bill if you want to do that, we'll, we'll work with you to make the amendment. If you want to do it. I made it on this side and then we'll. Run it back through the house after it passes over here, yeah. If, if the majority of the committee that I'm at your mercy, so you, you let me know we can we can suspend the rules and and and do that verbally if if the committee wishes. I motion to suspend the rules and verbal amendment. We need the actual language of the amendment though. Well, that's what a verbal amendment is. I know, but we need to know exactly what the verbal amendment needs to state. The only thing I think we could simply adding yeah I'm good this is on the fly Mr. Chairman. May I, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. On page, well, it's just one page online 27, it says the website of the public Water Authority, we could say, and the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. Yeah, on that line 27 and The Arkansas Natural. Resources. Commission. I think that would that is available to the public. Yes, ma'am. So that's what the verbal amendment would be. cry. I would put in the Natural Resource commission after the bill. Of the public water authority and the Arkansas Natural Research Commission that is available to the public. Between the word authority and that would be, uh, I think appropriate place to this is an editing question, not a policy. It's editing question, I think it's that's where you think it would be because both, both of them would have to be available to the public. OK, counsel. You have anything to add? Our BLL attorneys probably watching killing us right now, but Alex, we apologize, but I hope you got that I'm gonna entertain emotion to spend rules and add this verbal amendment. I'll make a motion to suspend the rules to allow for a verbal, that'll be one motion to allow for a verbal amendment. Make a motion to suspend the by Senator Johnson, all in favor. Say hi. I'll oppose like sign. All right, and then I'll move, I'll move that the verbal amendment to be made would be on page line 27, where it states shall post contact information on the website of the public Water Authority. The amendment would be to add the language and the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. Uh, after the word authority and before the word that. That would be the verbal amendment. One quick, if you would amend your amendment, Senator, make the website plural, websites, and then those that's correct on the websites of websites of the public water authority and Arkansas Natural Resources Commission that is available to the public. That are available me that OK that's, that's the amendment 2, my senator McKee, all in favor say aye. I oppose like sign and now I'll make a motion to do as amended, you want to close on your bill as a I'm do you I'll make a motion passed. I seconded by Senator Johnson, all in favor. Say aye, all opposed like sign. Representative Cooper, you've been sanitized. And to see the Senate work. Thanks a lot. Thank you, sir. Or Sting she's at a recess, uh, that gummit Insurance and commerce. I don't know why I got that in my head today. Uh, so we're going to go to Senate Bill 220. Senator Boyd, just go past. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair, with your permission, get started and I have a couple of people who are going to introduce themselves in and join me in case you have any tough questions. All right. You're welcome to begin on Senate Bill 220. Good afternoon, Susannah Marshall, commissioner of the State Bank department and the state securities department. Good afternoon. Campbell McLaren, deputy commissioner of the Arkansas Securities Department. All right. All right, go ahead. All right, Mr. Chair, with your permission, Senate Bill 220, this is an agency bill which seeks to expand exemptions for securities offerings for Arkansas-based startups. This bill Invest Arkansas Exemption Act will provide expanded opportunities for Arkansans to invest in Arkansas startup businesses, um, and with that said, we're happy to try to answer any questions you might have. any questions from the committee. Yeah, Senator Irvin, thank you. I just, if y'all don't mind just kind of going through the details of what you're changing and why. Yes, ma'am. So we wanted to seek an opportunity to, as the senator said, enhance business opportunities and economic development by amending some existing exemptions, so this is already in place, but this new exemption will make it easier for new entrants or participants in Arkansas-based businesses and Arkansans that those businesses may serve. What we're trying to do is limit some of the burdensome requirements and lower the bur uh lower the barrier so that we can perhaps attract more Um, individuals, so specifically, we we're going to increase the total investment right now it stands at 1 million. We're looking to increase that to 10 million so that could bring in more entrants, and we're looking to increase the maximum investment up for any single non-accredited investor from 5000 to 100,000. So we hope that spurs more interested parties and more uh business development. OK, so these are just these are just the current. Rules on, OK, the investors, so this has no fiscal impact to the state, correct? OK. Got it. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there anybody here from the Bankers' Association. Any kid. Thank you. Uh, any other questions? Senator Johnson, just as a point of clarification, uh, Madam Commissioner. This is just a, this is a private placement. This would not be something where they're like somebody goes to Stevens and wants to do a public offering. This is would be a private placement, nonprofit non for profit business entities, but not the public sector. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no one signed up for or against the bill. You want to close your bill? Yes, this is just a good way to help expand Arkansas businesses and increase investment in Arkansas. Do you want to and I'd make a motion to pass motion 2 by Senator McKee, all in favor. Say aye. All opposed, like side, and thank you, Senator. You've passed your bill. Thank you. Next is, uh, this is Senator Boyd Day. We get Senate Bill 229. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, I, I will have another couple of people up here just, I'll have Miss Marshall with me just in case there's a question I can't answer. I think I've got this, um, so if you'll introduce yourself. Susannah Marshall, Bank commissioner, Securities commissioner. So this is another agency sponsored bill. This is really just a next step in consolidation from 2023. This bill creates the name with emphasis on name because that's really all this bill does is creates a name. Department of Financial Services, the state bank department and State Securities department will be under the Department of Financial Services. They already are. This just creates a name for clarity to the public and Quite frankly, for us, it just makes it more user friendly. Uh, no new authorities, no new appropriations, no new operations or staffing. On a name that unifies the two departments functioning under the current bank commissioner, Mrs. Marshall. So when transformation, they had their own, they were out there by their self. Transformation put them under commerce, and this would give clarity under commerce, right? That's exactly right, Mr. Chair. All right. Go ahead. Yes, Senator, the middle step of that was so transformation started the process, you're absolutely correct. And then in 2023 Act 475 combined the Security Department and the bank department even further so it pulled the security department underneath the operational oversight of the bank department and then that's how I became the commissioner for both, and this is just the next step in furthering that agency consolidation and the merger of the two entities, Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is trying to get this straight in my mind, and this is for both the sponsor and the commissioner. You know, a lot of the things we did in transformation, for example, in ADEQ became the division of environmental quality under the Department of Energy and Environment is, is it, do you still want to call this the Department of Financial Services or should it be the division of financial services. That's just a question, not a suggestion. Yes, sir, we were asked that, but this we prefer and believe that it's most appropriate for it to be called the Department of Financial Services because at one day, at some point in one day, That may be the only name in use and it's consistent with how other states across the country recognize their dual bank and non-bank regulatory industries, OK, it's good enough for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions? Seeing none, you want to close for your bill? Yes, sir. So all this bill does is again it gives a clarifying name to over 2 departments that are already there and the Department of Commerce. So with that said, I'm closed. I'd make a motion to pass and hope someone will give me a second here. Motion Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator McKee, all in favor. Say aye. Aye all oppose like sign. You have, you have passed your bill. Thank you. Next we'll go to holy smokes. Is that one bill? Yes, sir. It's one really good build. I read this year. You got time. We're gonna talk about this one. We may come back around and vote on them, but at a later date because that's pretty extensive. Um, you, I mean, we'll see how this goes, but it's it's pretty extensive, but go ahead with 230. OK. Thank you. I, I appreciate your cautious approach, uh, Ms. Marshall, and Mr. Allen are both here too if they'll introduce themselves. Susannah Marshall, bank commissioner, securities commissioner. John Allen, Deputy commissioner, Bank department. So with your, your permission, Mr. Chair, this is an agency-sponsored bill which impacts only one business currently located in our state. The business is aware and has expressed no concerns. The current law was passed in 1997 based on model law. There has only been one change in 2005 since that original passage, the current law is internally challenging to function as intended, 90% of the changes are non-substantive. Non-substantive and just editorial. There are no reductions or restrictions on operations. There's no increases in fees. There are no new permits or licenses for existing businesses. With that said, I'd like to hand it over to the other two who, who can speak to those. 10% changes 10% that starts on page like 68. Go ahead. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is something we have been working on for quite some time and and interested in doing to make the existing act much more user friendly, not just for us, but for any uh party to it. It was a model law that we adopted in 1997 by our National Association. It was adopted pretty much in piecemeal. And has been in effect since that time with only the modification in 2005, and we feel like that it is ripe for opportunity to just restructure it and really kind of correct some of the inconsistencies that exist. It was poorly organized initially with 199 sections of code that are not organized by subchapter or by topic, so our bill is seeking to do do that. It's going to create 12 subchapters organized by topic, correcting any internal inconsistencies, making updates where appropriate clarifying any language and then clarifying that uh requirements for a representative trust office. And as the senator, as Senator Boyce said, no new fees, no new obligations, no new authorities and not restricting any authorities for our trust company. You got anything to add? No, sir, happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. Go ahead, Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you so it's my understanding that trust companies aren't traditionally allowed to loan money. And is it the case that this changes that. And so this is what's called a non-depository trust company and we do have one chartered in Arkansas that's been around for quite, quite many years now. Uh, it's name is Community First Trust Company, and they are um as I said, a non-depository, so they don't accept consumer deposits and they don't lend money. OK, OK. Thank you. You have questions? Seeing none. I question. Go ahead, Senator. Can you just, um, so 90% of the bill is nonsubstantive change, OK, so this is a reorganization bill of your existing code, which I understand. Can you point to the area, the 10% of substantive changes of where those are located in the bill. There's a section that's been added that's for representative trust offices, and those sections were taken from the model law for some reason they weren't adopted in the original 1997 bill and so there were reference is made to them in the prior act, but they didn't give a mechanism to actually form a representative trust office, so we just brought those sections into this so our trust company could actually have those that they so desired. Is that it? That is the main substantive change. Everything else was probably style working with the bureau for drafting purposes. There are a couple of references to stuff that was out of date. There was a reference to the Office of Thrift Supervision, which ceased to exist in 2011, so we removed that. So a lot of the changes were along those lines, OK, all right, thank you. Senator Boyd, I'm going to entertain something. And if it's not good, this may be the last bill you get out. So you better hope it's good. Are you comfortable? Are you comfortable with I want to say that, hey, this is just a couple of pharmacists bill that has to do with trust law in the state of non-depository trust companies in Arkansas. I appreciate the committee's hesitancy, but what I will say is I give strong assurance that these people have led the charge that this is well drafted. There's not anything in here that is going to surprise us. I'll just say don't burn me. So I was gonna ask Senator, we have filled in a few questions and we've answered them, to our knowledge today from interested parties, so we have visited with folks as they reached out to us. All right, is there any other questions, Senator Johnson? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look at the legislative history. This was filed on the 13th, Senator, today is the 18th, and you had one amendment. Could you tell me what amendment one did. Yes, Senator, I'd be happy to answer that. So in working with the bureau, we identified a section of it of the bill that made a reference to bank branches, bank branches are covered by the banking code, and so it was duplicative. It didn't really add anything to this, so we decided to take it out, but it was after the bill had been filed and our sponsor Senator Boyd was good enough to file the amendment to clean up that one little piece so that was the amendment was to remove the reference to the Thrift supervision or what you just call it this was actually to full service bank branches which under the banking code has a very specific meaning and the trust institutions Act doesn't pertain to anything that. Yeah, so we removed that. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'm. Mr. Chair, if I, if I may, uh, to Senator McKee's question, I want to make sure I clarify the this non-depository trust company does not do traditional banking products and services. I don't know exactly that they would not lend money in a trust relationship, but they don't lend money to the public. And so I would be hesitant to say affirmatively that there was nothing of that nature that happened, but not in the traditional sense of a bank. All right. No, no other questions, Senator, you want to close your bill? I am close for my bill. I appreciate the scrutiny that you have given it and I make a motion do pass and hope someone will second it motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator Johnson, all in favor. Say aye. All opposed, like sign. All right. Did uh 12 1287, Senator Dodson, do you got your Still waiting. OK, we'll go to 1287. Yeah I can just do both. All right, go ahead with 1287. OK. All right, House Bill 1287, uh, what the bill Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Um, what this bill does, members, it just requires payers to notify providers of down coding just like they do denials. That's all the buildup. Any questions from the committee? It adds the definition of what down code is. All right. Seeing no question, I have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Do you want to close your bill? I'm closed. I'll make a motion to pass. Motion by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator Boyd, all in favor. Say aye. I'll opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator. You have passed your bill, uh, Senate Bill 1286, we have amendment. It puts Senator Boyd on. As the Senate sponsor. She's not about Motion Senator Irvin, you're going to present it, right? I'm going to present it. Motion to adopt the amendment. The motion to adopt the amendment by Senator seconded by Senator McKee, all in favor say aye. All opposed like san right, you're welcome to present Senate Bill 1286 as amended, yes, OK, House Bill 1286. It just clarifies that ambulances can treat in place patients that may refuse transport transport. So they can have the ability to treat an enrollee that's in place versus transporting them, um, and then allows for them to be paid for that service rendered. I think it's a I'll I'll just say one of the good, um, Good things that we've been able to do is fully maximize our ambulance services and EMTs, and this hopefully if this passes, gives them that option, which then would save that patient from having to go to the emergency room or, um, if they don't want to be transported. Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it gives them the option. It does it in any way. Could it in any way compel them. To do that at the request of the individual needing treatment. Up here. Oh, there he is. He, he can answer that question. I'm presenting here and this is House Bill 1286. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. What was the question? So it was mentioned that this gives Then the option to treat in place instead of transporting. Would it in any, in any way be construed to compel them. No, if, if the person didn't want to be transported or things like that. No, it's just in power so we passed this legislation last session prior to last session, the only way an ambulances could get paid is if they took you to the, to the hospital, right? And so we created these different tracks where an ambulance could get reimbursement if if they treated someone in place, so they show up and It's a cut or something doesn't really need to go to the ER as long as they had telehealth involved, they could treat them and get paid. It said if they, you know, showed up and they didn't need to go to the ER. Maybe they could take him to an urgent care. They could get paid for that route, but it also says if they show up and the patient says, look, I don't want to go to the hospital and you're like, dude, you need to go to the hospital? And they're like, no, I'm not going. Uh, you could still charge for that, right? Because you went out for the call. There was some question on the ambulance services part in the interim about whether in that scenario were they allowed to treat the patient to refused transport, and this just clarifies that you can, you know, so, so they show up and you're like, man, I've got this cut. I think you need stitches. You should go to the hospital. I'm not going to the hospital. Let us at least put a bandage on you, you know, so that was just clarifying language, that's the intent. Go ahead. So are we then putting the ambulance technicians in a position of determining the patient's ability to pay. No, none of this has anything to do with payment. They, they're, they're not asking those questions upfront. They're just trying to decide, you know, do you want to go, do you not want to go? It's up to you as the patient, and all of that has to be done in conjunction with the telehealth. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, you close your bill. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Motion by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator Boyd as amended, all in favor say aye. I'll oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Uh, we have run to the end of our list, and uh I mean, we got nothing better to do. Y'all want to recess for a while and see if we can get this well. It's in you. They're, they're checking. I Snow is expected to stop at 12 minutes and start. Will this, will this do 15 minutes and if and see see how it goes from there, so we'll reconvene at 5 till 2. All right, thank you. We're in recess. What is this? All right. We are reconvened, it was agreed upon language. It's got to run back through review and it's going to take another half hour, so Senator Dodson is going to to do that amendment on the floor and we'll bring it back to committee when we can, so send an insurance of Commerce is adjourned.