City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate

I understand you have a bill. If you want to go up to the on the table, identify yourself, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman Robin Lundstrom, District 18. Are you recognition, colleagues, this is a pretty straightforward bill in Arkansas we have Oh, I'm sorry. Um, House Bill 1311. Sorry about that. In the state of Arkansas, we have standard accounting practices that the state, the state agencies and all the counties already use and many of the first class cities. Unfortunately, the second class cities have never caught up. This accounting system or the standard accounting practices have been used for 40 years. This just brings our second class cities into the fold, helps them acclimate, gives them 3 years to get their accounting practices up to snuff. We even have or excuse me, some small cities, they're still doing. counting on paper. So it makes it very hard to audit. If you've ever been in City County Local and the audit process. You know, we've had some serious problems. This will ease those problems and also give our mayors and city councils some real facts about what their budgets are as well as the citizens. With that, I'll entertain any questions you have an explanation of the bill. Any question from committee? See none. Anyone from the audience wished to say anything? That Sher would entertain emotion. Of a motion do pass any discussion. I have a second uh English. Any discussion? no, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. All right, uh, Senator Bryant, I understand you have a bill that we need to uh wait. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to expunge the votes of House Bill 1075. Our motions have been made to explain the vote that this bill had previously passed by, uh, in discussion. All those in favor say aye, all opposed. Arthur vote had been expunged. May you may perceive, recognize, both of you recognize yourself and thank you, Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant, District 32. David Ray, Representative District 69. OK. You go ahead. And Mr. Chair, I got an amendment to House Bill 1075. I'd like to adopt first. You recognize to present your amendment. Members, if you recall last week when we presented this on the Senate floor, a few members had some concerns just for some clarity of some language. They weren't opposed to the intent of the bill, but they wanted to make sure we were certain on levying sales and use tax, so the 1st, 1st Amendment was really the probably the We just struck some language just to make it simple, um, that the sales and use tax could still be imposed on devices for the city sales tax code, um, And I think I'll let Representative Ray, he, he kind of dove into the tax issue to make sure that cities, they can't just pick arbitrarily pick one item and increase it, then there's also caps in code that they can't go beyond 2%. That's right. So we, we confirmed with BLR that local governments don't have the ability to go in and exempt specific items in the sales tax code or create an additional sales tax on a specific item. So we had kind of a lengthy uh clause here where we were just clarifying that this bill doesn't prevent a city or county from levying their regular sales tax, so we just removed the extra language to make it very clear. OK. And then the second edition we made was just to make clear that this does not, uh, just allow the city from enacting a noise ordinance, so you can't have a user saying, I can use this gas-powered device even though it creates a high decibel, they still have to comply with any city or local noise ordinance. Alright. You, you've heard an explanation of the bill committee. Uh, any questions? Anybody from the community have any questions? Anybody in the audience have any questions? All right, saying none. Are you close? I do pass on the amendment on the, here's my my or we, I need a motion to adopt the amendment, motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment in a second, all those in discussion, all those in favor say aye, all the posts. Art Mamans have been adopted now. And how will that Representative Ray present the bill as amended. OK. Thank you committee. I think you've already heard the bill once. I'll just be really brief. This is a very simple, narrowly tailored preemption bill that would prevent local governments in Arkansas from banning or trying to levy an excise tax specifically on lawn care machines based on their energy source as strange as this may sound, there are literally hundreds of cities across the country that in the name of fighting climate change, have decided to ban gas-powered lawn care machines like push mowers, weed eaters, leaf blowers, snow blowers, things of that nature. Um, there's a whole host of reasons why that's a bad policy idea, but I think you've you've heard the presentation before, so I'll spare you that, and we'd be happy to answer any questions. All right, you have heard an explanation of the bill and the amendment. Any questions? From committee. Anyone from the audience. Seeing none. The chair would entertain emotion. I'm closed for the bill and I move to pass. As amended, we have a, we have a motion to uh in a second. To adopt uh this bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. All right, your bill, your bill has been adopted. Thank you, gentlemen. Who's next. Senator Davis, are you ready? OK, then we'll go ahead. the vote. Make sure she she does a Same same. I think we have the same process here, Senator Davis, that we did on the other one. Well, I expunge this vote. Because this bill passed, did this bill passed out of here? Yes, but it has been amended, so, but we'll still have to expunge the vote by what you passed out here. So, uh, you want to make a motion that we we have a motion and a second to expunge the vote by which this uh Senate bill passed. In discussion All those in favor, say hi. All opposed. Are the The vote has been expunged and the amendment, if you want to explain the amendment. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, um, there are a few things that have been amended in SB 98. So, I will run through them on page one, line 30. We clarified that retail. is a retail permit holder that is open to the public for a minimum of 30 minutes per hour, an hour per week. Just to ensure that it was actually A grocery store or something that was open to the public and nobody could set up shop and kind of do a faux retail. So, there's just extra clarification in there. Um, that some groups asked for. Then on page 3, line 7, we clarified that the division, um, ABC will charge an annual fee of $500 for a third party delivery permit to be paid to and retained by the division. And then on page 5, we removed the rebuttable presumption, um, that a lot of members had an issue with on the floor, um, that was no problem. We just took it out completely, so it is no longer there. Um, and that was, that was originally starting around line 21, so you'll see that it's no longer there. And then line 26, we put in more detail about what the training would look like for the delivery drivers. Um, so it's detailed starting on line 26 all the way through page 6. So just give us more detail there, so we understand exactly what we're looking at in regard to training. I'm happy to answer any questions. Our committee heard an explanation of the amendment. Any questions? Anyone from the audience like to speak for or against. Saying none, uh, we need a motion. We have a motion and a second to adopt the amendment? Well, it's already in. We need a motion to pass. I move that we do pass and a second and discussion. All those in favor? Opposed. Motion pass your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one more bill. Is it OK if I run that, or would you like me to wait? I'm happy to do either. What's the number on it? It is House Bill 1324. Yeah, boy, that's what you the table, let's go in. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1324, it's very simple, um, currently, uh, You're allowed to sell fireworks starting June 20th through July 10th, and we would just like to bump that up one week to June 13th. There's a lot of cities that have different celebrations in June, and they're not able to purchase fireworks in time for those celebrations, and so our city council brought this to myself and Representative Duffield, and we would just like to push it up one week to allow cities to be able to purchase fireworks. Happy to answer any questions. All right. Uh, Committee for the explanation of the bill. Pretty simple bill. Any questions? Anyone from the audience would like to speak against moving up the fireworks to a week. Are saying none, uh, you recognize the cause for your bill. I'm close for my bill and I moved to pass we have a motion to pass and a second. In discussion All those in favor say aye, all opposed. Archi bill is passed. Thanks. Who's next on the uh, if you want to go back up, you have Senator Johnson, Mark Johnson. Senator Johnson, we have somebody signed up. Speak against the rules against this one, yes sir, SB 87. Senator Johnson, you recognize yourself? Uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Johnson, state senator, District 17. OK, you reckon I Presidential bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Senate Bill 87 arose because of discovery I made that uh we have permissive legislation, uh, That allows counties to set up a planning board analogous to a city planning commission. Uh, I'll further learn that the uh uh This, these, these issues, these authorities that they have are done in various ways across the the state, some are much more intensive and others are to deal with specific countywide planning issues, and that's fine because not every county is the same either in its demographics or it's geography. Uh, I did find that in my county, we had a planning board that Uh, once I learned this, I was actually shocked that this has been going on, but a majority of the members of the county Planning Board in Pulaski County, which is, uh, their jurisdiction is the unincorporated areas of the county excluding, of course, the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction that those municipalities would control. Uh, the, the problem came when I learned that a majority of the members, a majority. Over 60% of the members of this uh board were people that lived in the cities and we're not subject to the jurisdiction in there where they live of of this board and I thought, well, this is analogous to uh North O Rocks, uh, Planning commission having members from Little Rock or the Sherwood Planning Commission having members from Jacksonville or etc. etc. Y'all see the point here, so It's not taxation about representation, but it's planning without representation. So I, I threw up a bill that basically said that people that serve in these capacities need to be, need to live in the area that they have the jurisdiction over. Uh, I got some, I will say legitimate pushback from some county judges, not all, just a few, and uh so with the help of some very smart lawyers at BLR uh. And the logic I applied to it, I came up with an amendment and if, if you will look on page 2 starting line 31. It says accept is provided in subdivision a for this section and then if you'll flip over to page 2 of the bill. Uh, the exception is, does not apply. It only applies to a county with a population of 200,000 or more according to the most recent census that contains 8 municipalities or less. Now, there, there are 3 Class 7 counties, that's Pulaski, Benton, and Washington County, uh. Pulaski County is different and when we think of it as sort of the 500 pound gorilla, but the fact of the matter is, uh, the, uh, the population density is very high in Little Rock, North Little Rock, Jacksonville, the, the incorporated municipalities and uh Pulaski County. However, we have a huge uh unincorporated area in which I live uh in West Pulaski County and then a smaller one sort of to the southeast. Uh, but what this would do is simply say that people that And I mention a little about the 8 municipalities. Ah, Uh, they cover a lot of the population, but they're, they don't cover a lot of the uh the land area, and that's exception to say Benton in Washington County, which, uh, as you all know, have a lot of smaller municipalities. As a matter of fact, when I'm in in Bentonville and Senator all up in there, I don't know which one I'm in from time to time, as you say, they, they are spread out, but they have their own uh jurisdiction. So that in this bill was I mean to limit it to address a particular problem that we have here and I excluded the other counties that seem to have their planning jurisdiction clear because of understandings with their, their county government and the fact that they have multiple municipalities that coexist just fine. Uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Uh, of course, I mean, let me ask you a question. What was there, was there several members? Of, of different planning commissions, serving on All of them I mean, all the, there are no, there's no prohibition on that, Mr. Chairman, but there is a practical matter, these are just appointed by the county. They're not like a, it's not like a coalition of city planning commissions that meet separately. This is a separate entity that only has jurisdiction in the unincorporated parts of the county. OK. All right. Our committee for explanation of Central English. So what we're talking about now, are there any, I mean, how is the, the um the Board set up right now is everybody from Little Rock or Jacksonville or someplace or a vast majority. It's over 60%, Senator, live in one of the municipalities. Therefore, their own home area is not subject to the jurisdiction of the board that they serve on. So what we're suggesting is that all 12 members of the board would be from unincorporated area. Yes, ma'am. Do you think there's room for some to be from From the county and some to be from the municipality, you bring up a lack of of expertise that might be available for those boards. Well, you bring up a very good question but you know we we could probably say that about a lot of our very small towns around the, the state that they don't have expertise in certain areas on their council either, but they are the people that represent their city or or in some cases quorum. County, but this is the idea being that if you're going to sit and make it be to take it to an extreme, we'd be like us having someone from, from Oklahoma or Texas or Missouri serving in the in the legislature. It's not that they're not smarter than we are. Probably a lot of them are, but they're, uh, we represent our people and and we would want this planning board to represent the people that it actually governs. OK, thank you. All right, Senator Petty, you're not your question. Mr. Chair. You and I have talked about this in the past, and I appreciate you uh sharing with me your thoughts. I had some pushback from county judge before and, and, and while he says this basically excludes them now, uh, much to the same as Senator English's point about expertise, but also about just getting individuals in the rural unincorporated areas to participate, uh, is, is sometimes very difficult, and so I don't know if there's, if there's an appetite for having some sort of, if it, you know, if you're wanting all 12, I think that's probably extreme and you're, you're discounting those that are in the county, but they happen to be in an incorporated part of this county and incorporated part of the county, but if, if If you have a certain ratio that can't be filled. You don't want to just fill it with a warm body. We've had that happen in a few situations that I'm familiar with, not down here, but uh, so if you considered maybe revising the language a little bit to to have it kind of a right of first refusal type situation where you try to fill that, but if you can't, then it, you know. No more than 50% or no more than what some percentage can be filled from the incorporated part of the county because right now, again, my county judge says that while it doesn't affect him, he's still think it's a very well written law and and the practical application is going to be difficult in some counties, so. Well, again, Senator Petty, let me respond by saying your county judge has written out this bill, and remember that Pulaski County, although it has this vast area that is unincorporated and primarily in the West. There's still a lot of people live there, and there's enough people of interest that would, I think, would be willing to serve both in the unincorporated area to the northwest as well as that to the southeast. It's just, I can imagine a situation just like you outlined, that you county judge made a exception to uh The difference being we're not going to apply it to him or his county, and I would certainly entertain future legislation that would loosen it up if if someone wanted to make this net a little broader and catch more counties faced with this situation. I think that would be a legitimate way to do it, but since, you know, we wouldn't, it would not apply to any other county. The only ones even at all that are Class 7 are Washington, Benton and Pulaski. Senator Bryant, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Senator Johnson, for Bringing this to our attention and being willing to Revised the bill to address the concerns. I think, I think my something just recently made aware of that I've got some heartburn. I spent 4 years on the corn court, um. All 4 of those years as the planning, planning commission liaison to the court, so I spent a lot of uh Tuesday nights dealing with planning issues of the county, so I see the concern that when you have a majority of the of the board members living in incorporated areas, they tend to adopt those philosophies and try to apply it to people that chose to live in the county or or typically choosing to live in the county. But the area of concern that I would have, uh, again, I assume Play County being a Class 7 has Uh A 12 member corum court I'm sorry 15, but we're, we're requiring that only those unquote members that live in unincorporated areas of the county have the ability to confirm. Um, the judge's appointments. Rather than the entire body. And so if you have 15 districts and I'm sure every one of those districts might have a member of the corn court that live in an incorporated one of the 8 cities of that area. What do you do when there is no, when there's only one member of the court that lives in unincorporated area of his district. Again, that's not the case. If you lived, for example, Senator Bryant, you lived, uh, you represented an area of the county that was partially incorporated and partially in the unincorporated, you would have a vote on the confirmation, but someone, for example, that lived in an area that was totally urban and doesn't, none of their district included any incorporated area, then you would not be able to vote on the confirmation, and that's so It's not like you must live in an area that's totally unincorporated in your, in yourorum Court district. It's just you have to at least in part represent an area that is the unincorporated area and what we're getting down to is, uh, it's a local control thing if you're, if you're in the heights and you know you go to the Little Rock Planning Commission for things that's fine. Uh, I, it's, this is almost backwards from, from the ETG E T J I live in the unincorporated part of Pulaski County, but I, I live in the extra territorial planning jurisdiction. So I have to go before a group of people, if I need to do something that requires some kind of planning change, uh, that I have no, not only didn't vote for them but couldn't vote for the board that elects them or selects them, whatever the process is with with the mayor and the city board in Little Rock. So it's, it's, I'm disenfranchised in being able to be represented, but I still have to go in and deal with them uh to get what I want, but In doing this, there would be those JPs like you mentioned that they serve part of an incorporated community and part unincorporated, and they would be able to vote on this to serve their constituents that live in the unincorporated. Thank you for that clarity. Do you know how many of the districts in Pulaski County, particularly I wish I had that and I don't. I apologize for not, I should know that and I apologize for not knowing it. Thank you. All right, any other questions from committee members? If not, we have someone in the audience, Mr. Brumbling, Matt Brumley, to speak against the bill. If you would come to the mark and Identify yourself for the record. You, you were recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. My name is Matt Brumley. I served as the Saline County Judge. Senator Johnson, thank you for the very healthy discussion that we have had. And while I agree that today this would affect a very few counties throughout the state. There's also very few counties throughout the state that have planning boards and so all of a sudden that percentile rises of those that have, there's less than a dozen, I believe there are 10 counties, us being one of them. We're very fast growing county, and we hope to meet. threshold that's mentioned in legislation now as quickly as possible. I'm not as concerned of myself in today's planning board is I am of my successor and those that go forward, and here's a couple of reasons why many of them were already mentioned, so I won't belabor those points. I believe that The bill requires all members of the county planning board to reside in the unincorporated area is mentioned. We have planning board members now with an area of expertise that is not necessarily unique but unique for somebody that's willing to serve on a planning board that meets on a regular basis to do things like send forward new planning regulations as we are now contemplating today to go to our quorum court. Then I worry about the body being separated on the quorum court basis and who can vote for and who can vote against those planning rules are new planning rules that are being set from a court basis. I feel like the next time these are contemplated that we may be at that threshold. I also am concerned about our budget. And there are dollars that are attached to planning board and can't be spent in any other way is appropriated by the planning board. While our budget is voted on by the entire body of the Quorum Court. What does it do with the disposition of these dollars and are people excluded because of the location of their home from being able to vote as a justice of the peace on this quorum court. The ETJ was mentioned and in our county it's very dynamic where that ETJ is and you move quickly. We have one planning board commissioner now that has gone from the unincorporated area to an ETJ to an incorporated area, while still maintaining the expertise that they have and actually a business where I would say, and I think spouse would say they spend most of their time boosting economic development, but come home to an incorporated. area to to reside, the minority of the hours of the day with one other person while they employ several in the unincorporated areas and care greatly on how these things affect those areas. I'm concerned that there's no transitional language in the proposed bill that at the stroke of reporting a census that you would move into potentially disqualifying members on your planning board. Also, if upon annexation into an area, who is going to keep up with, are they in the ETJ unincorporated area or incorporated area and are they now a de facto member or or they a member that knowingly knows they were just annexed in and so they should be disqualified and the same goes for justice of the peace, where we really are close. The last thing I'll hit on is language in the bill. It's actually Section 2, Part B, that I'm very much in favor of this portion as we have run up against this. A person who is knowingly in flagrantly. That concerns me a bit that the The word knowingly, the word flagrantly and the and. It seems as if though there are two boxes to check there and if we are to check those two boxes, are they synonymous with one another and how do I prove both boxes as It is represented in Section 2 portion B. I have lastly. I have spoken with Two of the three judges that this will affect immediately with no transitional language. And I believe that they are 100% opposed to this. Its one might expect. While they're opposed to it today. I'm extremely concerned for all counties throughout the state that contemplate, should we have a planning board, which I know a couple that this will hit much like us in the near future. And so I would appreciate the consideration as this is written to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. right Thank you. Thank you, Judge, for sharing your perspective. Do you have an idea? I'm sure you do, what your makeup would be like and what it would look like after if this passed what of your 12 member or whatever. So currently we have 6 members. Our ordinance says that we shall have greater than 5 but not more than 12. Immediately we would not have a planning board if this if, which it won't, if this were to affect us immediately. All right now, and when I say that we would not be past the 5 threshold, OK, and then follow up. And then um as it is right now, as it is written, uh, you, you could have someone that was in the incorporated outlying community municipality that was on your board, but they're not part of, you know, Benton, uh, or Brian or whatever the bigger cities are, but they are a surrounding smaller city that could be on your board, but because they're in an incorporated city as as I read it and I I'm curious on your perspective, would that then exclude them from, from participating and maybe that's for Senator Johnson as well. With the constraint of the 200,000 of the county. I believe that it would not allow somebody that lives in an incorporated area with a population of 111 currently to serve while that person lives in an extremely rural area and surrounded by extremely rural areas. Do you agree, Senator Johnson? Senator Petty, your question would maybe have been relevant to the original bill prior to the amendment, uh, and I appreciate the judge bringing this point. As a matter of fact, Judge Brumley's comments to me were the uh impetus for me amending the bill. He brought some great arguments and what he was doing, he mentioned that his chairman was someone that literally had been annexed into a city. He didn't move. He just, his property. was annexed, and he would like to keep that guy because he did a great job as his chairman, and that's why I went to BLR and said, give me an amendment that, that limits this to where the issue is and doesn't touch the others, and so he did a great job of advocating for why I had the amendment done in the first place. Now, uh, I can imagine there are people out there that any time you pass something, well, you didn't do anything to affect me, but you're getting closer. Well, we have to draw lines and split hairs up here all the time on a lot of different things. Uh, I've been over backwards to try to solve a problem in my county without touching or hurting anything, and again, the judge made it very clear in his conversation with me that the uh activities of in Saline County with their planning board are nowhere near as invasive into the areas as what we've been dealing with in Pulaski County. I mean, we've we've got a situation here where this board is, is pushing a countywide plan. They're paying an engineer. They're, this is laying the groundwork for county-wide zoning. Now, if we're worried about, you know, going down that road, then if every one of you that represents a rural area, you know, your ears should perk up too, because that's what I'm trying to head off, that if you have the people representing the rural areas in agreement with such a plan. Well, that's one thing, but if you have uh a, an entity that is stacked against your people. Uh, that and your people being people that specifically chose to live in the unincorporated area so they could have a little bit more freedom to use their own private property without having ordinances and and planning commissions that go into great detail of telling, telling them how they can or can't use their property. And again, we recognize that's needed sometimes in a densely populated area, but the idea is simply being we we separate the rules. For those that want them and b are living under the jurisdiction that they have. So I go back to one of my original statements. This would be like the Little Rock Planning Commission telling North of Iraq what to do. We wouldn't allow that. We wouldn't even contemplate that, and I, I, so again, the judge made a great argument for my amendment. Uh, he gave me a great argument against the unamended bill, but he made a great from my amendment to exclude not just Saline County but any similarly situated county that had some unique situations. So the simplest way to I felt to deal with that is just let's limit it to the greatest county, the largest county with the greatest amount of unincorporated area of of those three class 7 counties. I hope I answered your question, Senator Petty. Central right. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you're, you're currently the county judge, right? OK, OK. I just want to make sure I title you appropriately judge, um, can you give me the, the, maybe the top three issues in Saline County that you're planning your current 6-member planning commission attempts to address, uh, at any given board meeting. Currently, those that have development coming to the unincorporated area, whether it be subdivision or commercial. Um, these aren't in order. Uh, our current rules and regs that are going to be rewritten, um, and ETJ issues in which we attempt to work harmoniously with our incorporated partners in Saline County. You must be 8000 residents or greater, so it's just Benton and Bryant that have ETJs, but it's certainly um put some burden on other incorporated areas. Do you have any current members that's how many of your current members live in an unincorporated area versus an incorporated area. I have an annexation sitting on my desk right now to to sign the court order for and probably have one at least once a month and that's probably very conservative. If I, I'm guessing here, please don't quote me because that's one of the problems. I'm not sure where they actually are with these number of annexations, but I would say I'm certain, I believe that 3 live in the unincorporated area, which is half of our, our current board. OK. And then I guess just a question for maybe Senator Johnson. To attempt to address if, if you have You know, you county judge would like to have maybe an engineer, maybe like to have an attorney and the pool gets limited if, if you're searching just sections of unincorporated areas, would you be amenable to saying, you know, 2/3 of the planning board must live in an unincorporated areas to make sure that threshold balance and a judge's concerns about finding qualified individuals or are met. Senator Bryant, I have no problem with your suggestion and if it's all right with the chair, I would like to pull this down and amend the bill to accomplish just that. Now, I do, I do feel like that's a speculative thing. I mean, we're saying, well, what if, and I don't like to generally deal with what ifs and this. I just, it's simpler to say, well, you know, Saline County, this doesn't apply to you. We just, we've narrowed it down to where we felt the greatest need was, but Your point is well taken and with permission of the chair, I would like to pull this down and and have this bill amended this week and bring it back, but then make that change. I'm not going to say for sure, Senator, if I say 2/3, let me look at the total membership and see maybe, maybe 2/3, maybe 3/4, but certainly to have an exception to where a member of the board could be from within that. I, I, I, it's a reasonable compromise, and I'll be glad to do that. All right, Senator Petty has some questions Senator Johnson, thank you for for considering one thing if you're talking about the makeup of the board, uh, for example, in my, in my county that I was referring to, you, you've got The big cities and then you've got the smaller outlying rural communities cities, even though they're not in unincorporated, they, they, they are surrounded by and to your point they include a lot of residents that, you know, conduct business in their communities and so maybe in that makeup, ultimately you could you could include requiring or or suggesting that smaller communities like For example, Elkins in mind. I mean, it's, it's they're 10 minutes from Fayetteville, but it's very different, uh, in terms of, of the way they operate and the things that they do in their in their community very, very, very small community minded versus big city, uh, so just as you're doing it and I'm happy to talk to you, uh, you might consider that as well to incorporate the smaller communities that are incorporated but are very different than the, the larger ones that you're talking about giving you Yes, sure. And Senator Petty, that's the reason why we use the criteria of 8 or less municipalities because I recognize the situation in your part of the state where you do have these small communities like Elkins. I'd use Sinnerton as an example a moment ago, the same thing and it's when you have multiple small municipalities where uh South of the river in Little Rock in Pulaski County. We have Little Rock. I mean we have Camac Village and we have, uh, uh. I'm blanking out rights for, but generally, it's, it's the 500 pound gorilla, and then two little bitty places, and that's why we only have 8 municipalities in Pulaski County, so I was specifically trying to address the issue you bring up of, of the, the smaller communities, Cave Springs, Elkins, uh, a lot of these, uh, I always think about how you're moving from one place to another. Now, I feel for the judge and what he's dealing with. especially I can remember when uh Bryant was a small town and Mayor Boswell was the mayor, and I don't guess they were within 3 miles of Benton. I don't think they would have been at that point, but now I do know that they butt up against each other. It's kind of like your situation with Springdale and Fayetteville. They're not, you know, you go from one right into the other, so I, that's again the reason why I amended it to narrow it down. And as I stated earlier, Pulaski County is very urban, but when you get go out Highway 10, it suddenly gets very, very rural, and we're wanting to preserve that nature. My constituents that live in west of the city limits in Little Rock are very, very protective of being out in the country. I love living out in the country, although I'm in the ETJ, I still have some concerns. I feel like I'm being it's taxation without representation. If I go to my closest grocery store or supermarket that I'm going to be paying Little Rock sales tax, but when my next door neighbor's house caught on fire, the Little Rock fire department didn't come out to put it out, so I feel like I'm being forced to pay for services that I don't get, but I recognize there are boundaries and this was an attempt to address that to make sure that those that would impose strict. Strict or not so strict, land use restrictions uh are my neighbors and friends that share those feelings with me. And I have, Mr. Chairman, in respect for my colleagues and their great suggestions, I would like to pull the bill down and we can work on it a little bit. I'll be happy to answer as many questions as y'all. Thank you, Mr. I'll be real brief, just, just to go back to address section 2, which I think the judge said would be welcomed but knowingly and fragrantly, just, uh, what are the standards and what, you know, what are the legal bars for those, you know, they're put in to address his concerns because it would That'd be a, you'd want to knowingly means like you basically you got an email saying I'm intentionally, you know, doing these things and that language is done on purpose, Senator, because when you have a situation that you're imposing a fine, you want to set the bar pretty high. Uh, and that's why it says no flagrantly. In other words, you just did something we found one particular case where uh land had been sold without being properly planted by someone. who should have known better and uh this was a violation in and of itself. So again, I know that. Citizens, developers can make a technical error, and while that is a correctable error, it would, I think, be wrong to find them unless it was determined that they, they, they should have known what they were doing and they didn't do it. For example, you put a fence up and you're over the line, you're encroaching on your neighbor, but uh that's one thing, but when you put the fence up and you're a registered surveyor and you put a fence up on the wrong side, and that's a little different burden, so that's, that's why I use that language. of of knowingly and flagrantly to again to make it harder to impose those fines, not easier. Are any more discussion among committee. Senator Johnson, you agreed to pull the bill down. I will pull it down now. I think we have some common ground and I will certainly talk to Judge Brumley and others that might have some input on it. I, I sadly, as you know, I'm a former member of this committee, and I, I, I sometimes find myself in a situation where the organized uh lobby for local government, and they're my friends. Uh, they just don't want to be told anything to do, and so I I try to work with them because Most of the time they're concerns are legitimate, uh, but sometimes it's like you can only compromise so much and not solve the problem we're trying to address. I appreciate the committee's time. I hope this will help us grease the skid so when I bring it back with some necessary corrections and we'll, we'll, we can move it out. Do you want to try to bring this back on Thursday, this Thursday, uh, that's 2 days, Mr. Chairman. That might be a little bit, but I will certainly try. If you can, you let me know and we'll we'll get you in. I think I know where to find you. in the chamber you should. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You're excused, gentlemen, uh, anyone else here to present a bill? Oh, Ricky Hill. I can't even see you, Rick. Central Hill, if you got any dess yourself. Recognize Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ricky Hill, District 11. I've got House Bill 1067. And this is uh a bill basically everyone knows that Firearms kind of get heated time discussion with with firearm bills. Hopefully this one here is not that way. This bill actually uh hopefully in the uh in the future we'll assist with suicide prevention. Depression And different methods that people have when they realize that they're down on their luck with their wife left or something happened to them healthwise. Hopefully this bill will help with that. We currently have 3 that I'm aware of that are that are doing this to around the cabinet area and 1 up in northwest Arkansas. It allows a Fire firearm hold agreement, which basically said that the transaction between a federal firearms licensee in an individual that the individual can go in and turn their guns in if they're down their luck and they feel like something's really bad that could happen. And they can turn it into them. They'll hold the gun under a contract for a certain amount of period that they agree upon and hopefully during that time, whomever it is will get some help and get, get their minds straight and not do anything to themselves or someone else. So this basically just gives them civil, civil liability coverage to those gentlemen and women who are holding the guns. To say, hey, if you give it back to someone they do something they should and you're not responsible for it. You did your part by trying to prevent that by taking responsibility and holding, holding on to the guns for them. All right, this is, this is not, it's just a place where they can get therapy. No, sir, this is just a place to it's just to turn them in and say, would you hold my guns for me? committee for the bill. Any questions? So right. Thank you, uh, Senator Hill. I I watched, I don't know if I can't remember if I got to watch all of it, but I watched the replay. Of the house and trying to think of some of the deals. This is where the owner of the firearms is the one that has to turn them in. That is, he voluntarily walks up there and says, is not a relative or a friend can do that. This is the owner of the firearms, the owner of the firearm this just gives liability for the, the one that takes possession of them, which is what they require to be able to do that. Thank you. in Senator Petty, you're Senator Hill, just a quick question. In the unfortunate event that They access some other means to to to commit suicide or whatever you were referring to. What happens to the, to the firearms that are that are being held on this contract. Does it go back to the estate or has that been contemplated or what's, what's What's the plan there? I cannot say on this, but I would actually take that back to whomever is taking the guns in, that would be in their contract in there, you know, if something happens to you or who, who do these go to? And at that point, they can, can say, because you never know if you leave, leave a leave a location someone get, be in a car wreck or anything else. And so at that point, those firearms would be either held in the estate or if they listed it out there, who they would give something to, that would be a contract between the Firearm owner and the lace who is holding it. All right, Senator, the, the feds are not involved in this, in any any way are they? Because these guys don't return guns. They're not good at returning guns, Mr. Malinowski's wife still has not received the guns back that they took from her. Yes, no, the feds are not involved in any way whatsoever. This will be between a firearms licceny and an individual. And the individual does not want to have take the gun for, they have the right to not do it. This is just allow someone who feels PTSD or anything else that they might, I might do some, would you hold this for me and let me get my head straight. All right, any other central English? I guess I'm a little just a little confused. Who is it that I would give this gun to if I was feeling like I might hurt myself. Who is it that's going to get the gun? What kind of a contract are we talking about? The contract will be between the individual. I would say a dealer. Let's just use, use a uh a gun dealer, a lace. It wouldn't be just another person like I would go up to Ricky Hill and say, I've got this gun. I really need you to hold it because I'm feeling a little unsure of myself. So it would have to be specific people and I'll use for example in Cabot we have UFO, uh, unlimited firearms, and they actually will do this already for military personnel. Who who are down there, they'll actually take them in right now. We're just actually giving them some coverage for some liability if something someone does something to themselves after they return it. Alright. Any other questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against. Si here you're breaking your clothes he Bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. I think this will be a good deal. All right, we have a motion do pass and a second. In discussion, all those in favor say aye, ah, all opposed. Bill passes Centri. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one more here as well. What, what's the number of it? This is House Bill 1145, and y'all should have an amendment to this. In the The amendment is basically just adding me to the bill. Uh, you want to go ahead and explain the amendment? It adds Ricky Hill as he's in his sponsor. As what? It has my name to it being the Senate that's it. That's it, OK. We have, we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Of adding Senator Hill's name to the bill. Any discussion We did have a 2nd and. OK, uh, motion 2. All those in favor say ah. All opposed. Our commitment has been adopted. You want to go ahead and House Bill 1145 as amended. Basically it takes uh cities and counties want to allow $600 as far as aftermarket products added to a vehicle up to 2000 and with the uh with the county they have been at 1200, it takes them up to 2000 as well for aftermarket price whenever someone buys a vehicle through the fleet pricing it allows them to add to do add-ons to it, such as a big metal grill up front or extra bumpers or whatever else I need to do, allows them to go up to $2000 from. 6 and 1200. And that is all it does, sir. Committee exponent of the Bill. Any questions, Senator Res? So this is just an inflation. Factor inflation factor, yes, sir, it sure is. Any other questions from the committee? Have a motion. Anybody in the audience have any? Input committee. You're clothes Center Hill. I'm closer. We have a motion to pass a son to rise, have a second my son Wallace. Uh, in discussion. All those in favor say I as amended, as amended. this doesn't do it again one more time just for the record, let's do it again. You pass. Then we have a, we have a due pass as amended. The motion that's on the floor, the bill that's on the floor. This guy is a stickler for details, you know. I might have to get him some Xanax or something. House Bill 1145 as amended. All right, thank you. although the I say all the post. You will pass the same. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Or anybody else in the room that you have a bill. Central English got the end of the table. You're getting me nervous up here. I'm sorry. That's right. That's all. here. But uh Yes, Senator Jane English, District 13 and thank you, uh, this, um, House Bill 1318, uh, few sessions back we um passed some legislation that would allow a permit for a an excursion train up in Northwest Arkansas and the ability for that is excursion train to sell alcoholic beverages at certain places in Times. This bill basically amends that to ask add an excursion boat permit, so a paddle boat could go up and down the Arkansas River here in Little Rock and North Little Rock on a cruise and be able to serve dinner and drinks so that this this would allow that. want. I'm closed for the bill to move to pass. 2 All over the all opposed. Right. Saying none, we are adjourned.