Revenue & Taxation- House

against a bill, please be sure to sign up so that we'll have that on the list. Um, I just want to, you got anything you'd like to add? OK. What we're gonna do is I'm gonna tell you the bills we're gonna hear today. We're gonna hear 4 bills today, but we're only gonna be able to vote on one because 3 of them have a physical impact and one does not. The first bill we'll hear is HB 1063. Then we'll go to 65. 66 and 74. 74 is the only one that does not have a physical impact that we will be able to take a vote on the rest of them, we are going to present and debate. Any questions about that? OK? With that Representative Maberry, are you here to represent, to present your bill. If you go to the end of the table and introduce yourself, please. On the right. The only one. If you only introduce yourself for the record, sure, this is a State Representative Julie Mayberry. Alright, and your guest, uh, Chris Scott, manager of the 529 Enable programs in the treasurer's office. Thank you. And you are actually recognized to present your bill, representative Mayberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Everybody back in 2015 or so, we passed A legislation here in the state of Arkansas, basically the federal government decided that it was OK to allow states to allow um individuals with disabilities to have a savings account. As it stood before, if you had over $2000 in your name, you would lose your benefits if you had Medicaid, if you had um perhaps Social Security. income and you can imagine as you're trying to save up to provide for yourself that limit of $2000 really gets in the way and I think all of us will agree that we want people to be able to help support themselves and so we passed legislation here in the state of Arkansas that allowed for us to start AB accounts. I'm proud to say that my daughter Katie over here with spina bifida was the very first account that we had in the state of Arkansas, and we have used that account. It has helped us actually add a an accessible bathroom onto our home that we were unable to do, um, but today I'm coming to you because um every so often the federal government expands what it allows in those accounts, but we need to make sure that you all are OK with it at the state level and the way that the accounts were originally set up, if you were 26 or under, you could, um, if the, if the disability occurred before the age of 26. Um, you could have one of these accounts, but if you were even a day over 26 when the disability happened, you couldn't. Now the federal government is saying it's good, um, if they are allowing up until age 46, and so all we're doing here in the state of Arkansas is trying to align ourselves with the federal regulations that will now allow someone up to the age of 46, if that's when the disability occurred to be able to set up one of these accounts and I'll let um the treasurer's office explain a little bit more. Yeah, so just kind of expand upon that representative Maberry and Madam Chair, in December of 2022, Secure Act 2.0 passed, and that amended Section 5 Section 124 of Internal Revenue Code and as she explained, it expanded eligibility for the Abel accounts by raising the qualifying age of disability onset from 26 to 46 years of age and this is effective in January 2026, and this means that more people with disabilities will soon be able to open up an AB account to save money without risking their benefits, uh, we did not want to make the newly eligible Arkansans with disabilities wait until the 2027 legislative session. And I'm free to take any questions. Members, do you have any questions? Representative right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so a couple of questions just generally about the AB accounts. The, the $5000 limit on the contribution per year, is that limit set by the state or is that something that the federal government sets. Uh, I'm, I'm gonna let you answer that because actually it's more than 5000, so the annual contribution limit into an A account for beer 2025 is $19,000. It's always tied to the gift tax exclusion that the feds change and the $5000 figure that you mentioned, that is the state income tax deduction, so if somebody contributed 70 to $8000 they could only claim $5000 of that on their state income tax deduction. OK, that makes sense. Um, my other question was regarding the the Secure Act when it was this is this the only change for the AB accounts that was part of the Secure Act that we would need to incorporate or are there others? Yes, sir, this was the only change to papal accounts. OK. All right, thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, do I have anyone to speak against the bill? I've got one person signed up to speak for the bill. Constances. You'll come down and introduce yourself, please. Tell us who you're with. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Constance Tullis, and I'm a traumatic brain injury, a TBI survivor. Thank you for being here. You're recognized. Thank you. All right, my name is Constance Tullis. And I'm here to share my story and advocate for an important change to the Arkansas Abel program from 26 to 46 years of age. I sustained a traumatic brain injury. Whenever I survived a gunshot to the head in Southwest Little Rock in on September 28, 2011. Since that time, I've worked hard to rebuild my life, overcome challenges and achieve goals I once thought might be out of reach. My TBI is an invisible chronic disability. I'm proud of how far I've come. I've done so while navigating the complex world of resource limits and benefits, which often feels like a balancing act with no room for error and the anxiety it causes like whether I'm going to overdraft my account or have to use my credit card. It's just Anyways, the Arkansas A Program is a vital resource for individuals with disabilities offering a chance to save for our futures without jeopardizing the supports we rely on. Unfortunately, I missed the program. eligibility requirement by just a few days, turning 26 shortly before I could qualify. It's difficult to put into words how Devastating, it felt to realize that something so arbitrary like 20 something days. kid keep me from assessing this life changing program, especially those of us who rely on Medicaid. At that time, I was given just a 2% chance of living. And, um, I was med flight to Baptists. I was paralyzed, unable to walk. And talk. I had to relearn everything from speaking to walking. To this day, I live with a severe traumatic brain injury and I still carry the bullet in my head. I require Botox injections in my leg to currently maintain my ability to walk. Without Medicaid, I wouldn't be able to afford this treatment. Medicaid has been a lifeline for me, but the restrictions to maintain these benefits have made financial independence nearly impossible. Let me repeat that. Medicaid has been a lifeline for me, but the financial In the Pinned But the restrictions to maintain these benefits had made has made financial independence nearly impossible. I'm here today by the grace of God I'm here today. I believe no one should face such a barrier. Updating the A Perk plan to align with federal IRS guidelines. And expanded access is not just a matter of fairness, it's a step towards empowering. More individuals with disabilities to achieve independence and stability. The Abel account would have provided me with the opportunity to save for. Essential expenses like bioest device, um, which The doctor said improved my walking like night and day, um. But Medicaid has been paying for Botox for years. Because I couldn't save up for this device. And assistive technology like dictation and even my service dog expenses. And housing without fear of losing benefits that sustain my daily life. For many of us, these accounts are not a luxury, they're a lifeline. Um, grateful for my colleagues like Chris Scott and Representative Mayberry, um, For supporting this effort and you to pass this bill. By doing so, you will help people like me and countless others who are striving every day to build better lives. Thank you for your time and considering this important issue. Thank you for being here, members, do we have any questions? Seeing no, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for coming. Um, is there anyone else signed up to speak against the bill. For the bill Thank you. Representative Mayberry, would you like to close for your bill? Members, I realized that you are not taking a vote on this today, and I understand the reasons why, um, I just want to stress this is if you look at the fiscal impact on this, it's less than $20,000. Um, and you can see that this can make a huge impact and allow people to um support themselves and give that independence that we, we all want, um, the other part is that this is just helping us align with the federal guidelines and so I, I urge this committee when we are at a point where you will take a vote to please vote in favor of this to allow this to be one of those that does get. through. Thank you so much. Members, thank you, Representative Mayberry for presenting, as you know, as my representative Mayberry said we won't be able to take a vote today, but we do thank you for presenting. Thank you all so much for coming. Um, with that, we're going to move down to um HB 1065 and Representative Ray, if you'll go to the table and you recognize, introduce yourself, and you'll be recognized to present your bill. Yeah Thank you, Madam Chair, and uh good morning committee. Uh, so House Bill 106 introduce yourself for the record. State Representative David Ray, House District 69. Thank you. So House Bill 1065 is a bill that I have called the inflation reduction Act, you probably remember a piece of legislation by that same name that passed in Congress a few years ago, um, unlike that piece of legislation which made inflation worse, uh, this one actually would help. Alleviate some of the effects of inflation. Um We often think of inflation as a hidden tax because it decreases the value of our money and if your tax policy doesn't properly account for inflation, then it results in what, um, I like to call an unlegislated tax increase. And that's why Arkansas as a matter of policy, indexes both are tax brackets and our standard deduction to account for inflation. The problem is, uh, and what this bill addresses is the maximum adjustment that our law allows for is a 3% adjustment. Um, there's a cap on it. And normally this would not present uh really a big issue if you look at the years from 1994 through 2020. We had 2.5 decades of pretty low inflation where we never really peaked above 3%, but in recent years, as we all know because we've lived through it, uh, we've seen much more aggressive inflation 2022, for example, was the worst year where we had, um, inflation north of 8%. And so when you have a year where you have 8% inflation, what happens is the tax brackets adjust by 3%. And the taxpayers just have to eat the other 5%, um, and when that happens, it harms workers and the workers that it harms the most are middle and low income Arkansans, those people who can least afford to uh absorb the effects of inflation who are already paying higher prices on pretty much everything. Um, so this bill would eliminate the 3% cap on the inflation adjustment for income tax brackets and for the standard deduction. You'll also notice that the bill changes to a regional inflation metric, uh, as opposed to a national inflation metric and the reason I included that is because sometimes nationwide inflation numbers can sort of be be uh skewed. things that we see happening on either the east coast or the West Coast and a regional numbers is probably just a a better and more accurate picture of what Arkansans are experiencing. So I want to move to the fiscal impact statement. That you have there You can see on the fiscal impact statement. Uh, it says there are reduction of general revenue by $3 million. But I think it's worth uh drilling down just a little bit and looking a little bit closer at what this fiscal impact statement shows because by definition if we experience a year where inflation is less than 3%, there cannot possibly be a fiscal impact. The only way in which you would experience fiscal impact. is if inflation came in north of 3%. Um The last 12 months I uh The committee staff sent around a handout that I pulled from the Um, the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and I guess I neglected to bring one of those down here with me. Um, but you can see on the, on the sheet that inflation for the past year. Thank you, Representative Wang, in inflation for the for 2024 came in at 2.6% for our region, so that was, that was below the 3% threshold. And if you look specifically at the second half of 2024, it came in at 2.0%. So while I know it, it's impossible to say with a 100% certainty what inflation would be over the next 12 months. I think it's, it's more likely than not that we're going to experience another 12 months similar to the last 6 months. And this bill would not have any fiscal impact. Um With that being said, I think I'll answer any questions that folks have at this point. Thank you, Richard Nebra. Members, do you have any questions? Representative Wooton, you recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, Representative I would you wouldn't have any cap. Oh, you just do away with the 3% and it would be whatever the rate of inflation ended up being Yes sir, that is what I'm proposing, um, so like I mentioned, historically, uh, Throughout modern history, you would not experience, you would not regularly experience inflation above 3%, uh, but we do have periods of time, uh, periodically where inflation spikes and in those instances I do think it's warranted to fully adjust for inflation, um, because the only alternative is to stick it to the taxpayers and I don't think that's appropriate when people are already suffering from paying higher prices due to set inflation. Thank you, um, I understand. How, how it affects them and my question was just on the um the that you just won't have any cap at all. That's right OK, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Wing, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, I always like to look at historical norms and kind of see, you know, what, what, what kind of trends there are. Did I hear you say, is it just like one year in the last 30 or so. Did you date back to 1994? We've had one year that exceeded the 3%. So from 1994, uh, if I'm remembering correctly, from 1994 to 2020, we did not have a year that exceeded 3%. Since 2020, um, In 2021, we were at 4.9 in our region. And then in 2022, that was the really bad year. We were at 8.9% in our region. In 2023, we had dipped back down to 3.9. And then for 2024 we're back down to more of a historical norm at, at 2.6. So had this bill been in effect for the, the if you look at the fiscal impact statement, what DFNA is saying is that if this bill had been in place for all of the last 10 years, then it would have had um approximately $30 million impact, but the entirety of that impact would have occurred in those 3 years. So this is kind of like um Catastrophic taxation insurance for when a really severe event comes that that we experienced during those very high inflation rates. That's a great way to put it right, thank you. Representative Ry, you're recognized for question. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative David, let's just say that you had a year that would be 6%. What would we do? Just pull that back to 3%. Now, if you had a year where inflation came in at 6%, you would adjust the the the income bands in the tax bracket by 6% and you would adjust the standard deduction by 6% as well. So it would come off the taxes. It, it would have the effect of of lowering the net taxes that people paid, yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, do I have anyone that would like to speak against the bill? For the bill See none, Representative Ryan, would you like, sorry, Representative Ray, would you like to uh close for your bill? Sure, so knowing that we're not taking a vote today on this bill, um, what I'm trying to do right now is build political support for this idea, and I would just ask that if you agree with me on this, if you think that this is um a common sense pro-taxpayer policy, um, I do have a sheet with me, uh, to add co-sponsors. I would love to amend the bill. A As many co-sponsors from this committee as possible and so if that's something that you're interested in, please see me afterwards, and with that, I'm closed. Thank you, Representative. Members with that, we're gonna keep Representative Ray at the end of the table and we're actually going to hear his bill HB 1066. Ray, if you recognize yourself again. Or introduce yourself and you're recognized again. Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative David Ray, um, I'll, I'll be much quicker on this one, House Bill 1066 is a bill that would increase uh the standard deduction of our our personal income tax from $2200 per taxpayer to $4400 per taxpayer. Uh, the bill would also increase that for spouses, so if you are married, filing jointly, it would increase the standard deduction there as well. Um, the FNA estimates that the fiscal impact on this change would be um $57.8 million reduction in general revenue for the 2027 fiscal year. What I would say about this bill is uh we've done a really good job over the past 11 years of lowering our state's top income tax rates, and that is something that I have been fully supportive of and that I hope we continue to do as much as possible in the years ahead. Um, the reason I'm offering this bill is because I think an increase in the standard deduction is something that we should consider in addition to Lowering the top personal income tax rates moving forward. A couple of reasons for that. um. I passed our committee staff shared a list of all of the various states that have a standard deduction and what the value of that deduction is. Of the 32 states that offer a standard deduction, you'll see that you might notice that Arkansas's is the 3rd lowest. Only Hawaii's and Mississippi have a standard deduction that's lower than ours, and so if we, if we basically doubled the size of our standard deduction, we would leapfrog 5 other states, um, on that list. Secondly, one thing I would point out that increasing the standard deduction is a is a very broad-based way. To administer tax relief. If you look at the fiscal note, DFNA estimates that approximately 895,000 taxpayers, uh, would benefit from an increased standard deduction, uh, that's the better part of a million taxpayers that's one of the most broad-based ways you could, you could um um administer tax relief. And then the third thing I would point out is that it, it helps simplify taxes, um, I filed an identical bill in the, in the previous legislative session in and in that fiscal note DFNA noted that if it were adopted over 100,000 additional Arkansans would take the standard deduction, so that's a significant number of people who could give up on itemizing, um, they wouldn't have to keep track of all those receipts and searching for last minute deductions and And so it's sort of a It's sort of a win-win. It's both tax reform and tax relief all in the same measure, so um that's what the bill does and we'd be happy to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Representative Wootton, you're recognized. Resent, I agree with you, uh, relatives of tax cuts and tax reductions. But do you agree that any time we react. And pass legislation that reduces by 57 million or 100 million or whatever we need to be conscious of what we would do in the event that we get in a serious situation and I realized we've got a, a, uh, 645 $million billion relative to um the uh O'Rey day or a catastrophic event occurring. But don't you think we need to be mindful. Would you agree that we need to be mindful of what are we going to do in the event that we get in a situation where it's, it continues on. Are we, are we, uh, what will we do? Will we cut taxes or, or will we, uh, cut services or increase taxes, and that's, that's my major concern relative to reducing um the tax burden on our, on our people. We need to be conscious, do we not, that what will we do? Will we increase taxes or will we cut services? Representative Wootton, uh, your point is well taken, and I think that is why uh it's important that when we make decisions to provide tax relief that we do so in a responsible manner. I think and make sure that all the numbers balance and, and the budget looks healthy and if you look back over the last 11 years of the work that the legislature has done, um, we, we have We have been able to significantly deliver very robust tax relief to the taxpayers of the state, and we've done so without jeopardizing essential services and without uh putting ourselves in serious financial strain and so I think we just ought to continue that approach. I would just add one more thing. I am, I filed this bill as sort of a stand-alone measure, but what I, the, the purpose in filing it this way was really just to draw attention to. this particular aspect of, of uh income tax relief, and I would, I would hope that if there's enough support for this type of idea that it might be included the next time we do some sort of large income tax relief package, that would be my hope for it and I, and I agree with that. I think that we need to be, be conscious and mindful of the amount of money that people are paying when, when I was at DFA we attempted to index the, uh, salary increases to the point that, you know, we had a situation and I think it's still current in some instances where a person gets an increase in their take home pay and it puts them in another tax bracket and consequently they don't realize anything. So I think we need to be conscious of all this Madam Chairman, a question for you, if I may. On, on, uh, the holding of the votes, which I totally. understand and agree with. We we, we, uh, I'm sure we'll take into consideration, uh, all the amounts of money that we give as it relates to tax cuts or this type of proposal here relative to the final analysis of the voting that we take. Yes, so until we actually know what we have and what the budget is gonna look like, we won't be able to determine what we might be able to use as far as tax cuts or anything. So until we get that number, we're just gonna present and then we'll come back and meet as a committee and determine, yes, Mr. Ray, and thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Aides are recognized. Thank you. Um, Representative Ray, just a couple of quick questions. How did you come up with the, the 4400. from 2200. Basically I just doubled the number. I thought we should have a much more robust standard deduction that we do have, and I thought that if we doubled it, that would be a good start. And you may have answered this a little bit with um Representative Wooton, but, and, and I think you and I have talked about this in times past, you know, every time we do something like this. That has a general revenue reduction, it could potentially make it more difficult for us to lower income tax rates across the board. It's one of the, and, and you may have answered it with your comments about this bill being in conjunction with the further income tax rate, but um just wanted to get your thoughts on, you know, $57.8 million is no small amount. Um, and we kind of know how that relates to 110 or 2/10 reduction in the top rate, so just want to get your thoughts on, you know, doing something like this and how it might affect future ability to cut the, the rates, the top rates especially. Sure, well, I guess I would respond to that by saying that. Increasing the standard deduction is an income tax cut, uh, you're correct, it would make it incrementally harder to lower the top rate, but um I don't see this as being in conflict with. Cutting income taxes, I would say it, it is. It is cutting income taxes, and it's a step toward what I think is many of our ultimate goal, which would be to phase out the income tax entirely. Um, it just moves us closer to that ultimate goal, um, by about $58 million. I, I think we, let's talk about it offline, but I think that that also shifts the burden a little bit more to those that are, you know, in the, the higher income tax brackets, and by that I mean, you know, making over whatever it is 25 or 30,000, but um Anyway, we'll, we'll talk some more. Appreciate you on this. Sure. And um I'll just add. are reiterate, I guess what I said in response to Representative Wootten's question, which is I sort of. Oh, I, I, I proposed this as a stand-alone measure to sort of draw attention to it, but The way I would hope it would be implemented would be along with a reduction in the top right so that both goals could be achieved. Thank you. Representative Lane Junior recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative Ray, I'm looking at your, your sheet on the, uh, standard deductions and there's. 19 that has NA of course there's 10 states I think they have no income tax at all, which wouldn't apply to them and my, my, my curiosity since I'm down there on the Louisiana border. Do they not have a standard deduction does that mean they're not applicable or or not available that you couldn't find the information on the standard deduction. Uh, that informa I downloaded that table from the Tax Foundation's website, um, I assume that means that they don't have a standard deduction, but, um, I couldn't say that with 100% certainty because I have not drilled down on each individual state. All right, all right, that's that's, that's my question. Thanks. Thank you, Representative McClure, you're recognized her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Representative Wootton and Representative Eaves bring up good questions that are valid and need to be considered. I think as we have looked over the last few years when we cut taxes, we grow the economy. We know that DFNA has to provide us the number that is as they look as the cut. There's no way to project how much of this cut might be put back in the economy, generate money. Do you have access or know of anyone that could run the numbers. To give us a projection. Of how much this might, how much of this money might go back into the economy and generate more tax. So Uh I might defer that question to the chair. I think we have a method now that we can Cask folks to, to do some sort of dynamic scoring on these proposals as everyone knows, ALC we went into a contract with Remy to help us do dynamic scoring. It's probably what you're talking about and they give us a little further details about how that dynamic scoring is going to work. I'm gonna let the chair of ALC representative Bs kind of discuss how that would work so everybody will kind of understand it. Well, thank you very much. to Um, um, what representative, you know, Chairman Kavanaugh said is correct. We are finalizing contract with Remy, which will allow the Bureau of Legislative Research to do some dynamic scoring of exactly these kind of ideas, we're still probably several weeks away from being able to have that tool up and running. There's things we all have to consider about um. The guardrails on it and and you know. Who can ask for a fiscal impact and how it gets asked, what the guidelines are, what the input data looks like, so yes, to answer your question, finally, I think we'll have a tool that we'll be able to access that will give us some information just exactly as you described, but I think we're still a couple of weeks away from that. Thank you. Can you turn your mic off for me? Thank you very much. And Representative Rye, you're recognized for question. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative David, there's one thing that I haven't seen in this and I Just heard Mr. McClure, uh, Representative McClure tap into this, you know. I've heard and and I don't know this exactly to be right, but I know that it's, it's, there's something to this. When you cut taxes, Especially something like this one and you put this back in the hands of the taxpayers. David, I've, I've heard that it could be something like a 7 or 8 to 1 ratio that it actually would generate. You know, but have you done anything on that that you could kind of give us a little information on that. I, I would just say generally I think there's broad agreement among economists and tax policy experts that uh income taxes are some of the most economically damaging because they're they're punitive toward labor, work, and productivity, um, all things that we want more of, not less of, and when you lower those taxes, you incentivize all of those things, and that's why uh cutting the Income tax is often described as a pro-growth policy because it does lead to economic growth, and I think that's what we've experienced over the last 10 or 11 years in the state where our economy's grown as we have as we have simultaneously lowered income taxes significantly. Our revenues have increased. We're now an inbound now a net plus in terms of inbound migration. Um, so I think all of those things are true. Thank you. Any other questions, members? Representative Wootten, you're recognized we have a opportunity to make a statement or I, I just want to share with the committee, Madam Chairman. We need, we need to be conscious that we're not going to continue to have billion 780 million whatever uh surpluses and uh this, this, uh, is will directly impact will be directly impacted by the actions that we take as a committee. Um, I'm not opposed to cutting the tax burden of of our citizens. I hope that's come through clear, but you need to keep in mind anytime that we do anything, and this, this proposal here is well deserved. I mean, the taxpayers, uh, when you look at the other states, but we sure need to be conscious of the fact we're still living on some of the increases are not uh mister. Secretary of DFA. We're still living on some of the COVID money and funds that we got from Washington and, and it has had a tremendous impact on Arkansas. We were in a good financial position beforehand, but that made us even better, but the, with, with the good comes the bad part, to be careful and be fiscal managers and good stewards of what we're given to. work with and we need to be mindful that anytime we take any action. This is not speaking against Representative Roy. Like I said, I agree, but we need to keep these things in mind. You need to remember two things. Are you going to increase taxes or are you going to cut services if you're getting in the buying. So let's, that's all I have, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none? Do we have anybody who would like to speak against the bill? For the bill. See no Representative Ray, you're recognized the clothes for your bill. OK, um, I will just close by saying the same thing I said on the last one. I would love to amend this bill to add co-sponsors if this is a policy that you support, please come find me and I'd be happy to add your name, and with that I'm closed. Thank you. Um, with this, we're gonna move down to HB 1074, um, and this is gonna be the only bill that we're going to be able to take a vote on today because there is no fiscal impact and after representative. Right, uh, presents this bill. I'm gonna ask that Paul Geering come down and explain why that there's no physical impact and why you don't see one. So Representative Ra you introduce yourself again for the record. And you'll be recognized State Representative David Ray, District 69, um, committee, this is House Bill 1074, um. This is an this bill is an idea that had been in my mind for several years and I finally decided to put it into a bill form and Introduce it for your consideration. What this bill would do is it would require um a 3/4 vote, um, threshold to utilize funds from the property tax relief Trust Fund. For a purpose other than property tax relief. And the reason that I think this would be beneficial is because there have been times in the past, um, when legislators have gone in and taking money out of the property tax relief trust fund in order to spend it on various projects and I just don't think that's what the voters had in mind when they approved Amendment 79. I think the voters intended for the property tax relief trust fund to be used for. Wait for it. Property tax relief and so, um, having that 3/4 threshold, I think would provide a meaningful protection for those funds that the voters intended to be used for property tax relief. It's the same threshold that we have for appropriations and so I think it would still make it possible to move money, you know, in the event of emergency when there was, you know, 3/4 consensus on, on doing so, but I think it would send a strong pro-taxpayer message that moving forward, regardless of what previous legislators have done, we intend to use these funds for exactly what they've been intended for. Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions? Representative wing, you're recognized. Just a quick question. What's the current balance of the property tax relief fund? I'm gonna defer that question to our friends at DFNA OK. I, I will tell you I think the um the, the half cent sales tax that goes into the property tax relief Trust Fund generates, um, on average about $333 million a year. That's those are the last, those are the numbers that um BLR sent me last year when we were having the debate about the property tax relief trust fund, but if, if somebody Has those numbers or wants to share them from DFNA, that would be great from DFNA want to venture down to the end of the table for us. And if you will introduce yourself for the record, please. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Paul Gehring, DFA. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, DFA is preparing a report of the property tax relief Trust Fund. We'll be providing that report by the end of the week. Uh, I don't have the number of the current balance in front of me, but we certainly will provide that information to the committee. if you don't mind, please get that to the committee, please. If you had that, give that to the staff and they can get it out to the committee. We certainly will as soon as it's ready, Madam Chair, and while you're down there, do you mind to go ahead and explain why there was no physical impact report. I just want the committee to understand sometimes why we don't have them. Yes, Madam Chair and members of the committee, we reviewed House Bill 1074 when it was initially filed just like we do any type of bill um that might end up in this committee to determine if a fiscal impact statement was required in reviewing the bill, we saw that the vote requirement was increased 2 3/4 for any purposes other than um uh providing property tax relief. So this was a type of bill that even though it's going to arrive in this committee would be not a bill that would impact the administrative process. of the revenue division of DFA, so we did not issue a fiscal impact statement, but we did, um, I can't tell the committee that we do not believe it would have any type of fiscal impact on the state. Thank you. Um Representative Laundstrom, do you have a question? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, Do you know how much money we've taken out of that fund in recent years. We certainly do have that information and we'll provide it with the other information that we're providing um regarding the current balance. Um, this is for Representative Ray. My understanding of that 0.5% tax was the taxpayers' minute for the property tax fund and not for us to write it for things that we can't get past otherwise. Isn't that correct? I believe that is 100% accurate, um, you know, the, the, the most notable um instance that I can recall was in 2019 when there was a little over 8 million. dollars taken out of the trust fund to pay for some of the counties that uh wanted or needed new voting equipment and you know, that may be a perfectly legitimate legitimate expense, um, but there's certainly other buckets of money that can be utilized and I just think it's inappropriate to go into a fund that has been designated for property tax relief that's been approved by the voters for that specific purpose and then to use it for something other than its intended purpose. I couldn't agree more. I can't wait to vote on it do pass at the proper time. Thank you, Representative Wootten, you're recognized. Representative Why do we not just say it cannot be used for anything other than Tax relief. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that idea. I thought it might be prudent to leave it at a a very high bar just in case there were some sort of catastrophic reason that we, that we should need to access those funds, but I don't have any objection to. Just saying that it can't be used for anything other than that. OK, well, I'll just, I'll just offer that as a suggestion because like you say, that, that was the intention that it has been there for several years, and I think that's what the voters expect and I don't think that we should dabble in that fun at all, but that's you, you're running the bill, but thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other questions, members? Seeing none. Is anybody signed up to speak against the bill? For the bill See none, Representative Ray, would you like to close for your bill? I appreciate the feedback from everybody, um, the only thing I would add is that I, I did get a message that the association of counties and the assessors Association support the bill and um I appreciate Representative Lundstrom's motion. I'm closed. Thank you, Representative Blunstrom. You're recognized for emotion. I moved to pass. We have a motion to pass, all in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, your bill has passed. Thank you committee. Thank you, members. With that, that's all the bills that we have to hear today, um, watch your calendar. We'll have a scheduled to have a meeting on Thursday and we'll watch the calendar and see what happens. I appreciate it. Thank y'all with that word journ.