[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6594747,"mediaKeyId","3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7","parentId",3091021,"title","Votes at a glance: committee advances several tax‑and‑exemption bills","audioSeconds",126,"startMs",4350000,"endMs",4476000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7&start=4350&end=4476","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7/thumbnail_4350000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6594747/Arkansas/Votes-at-a-glance-committee-advances-several-taxandexemption-bills","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594747-5f63aaa4f80604d9a291f9f796e191e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007605&Signature=XLzzPv9XYSfilDUcQVQROC5-k7zAZLLDY~slWx084ddvXyCSoLMeRku8uJijwq9EqshKaC2Znh1YvZxDAq0dNLLc6KVr6p6nXsZF6FCUBqgjLQEsdkqMcLCuyXpl0-JQuLcRlHpketMe4qVEjMnKvf90rX1LhknXB4uxh73mUiK9-FnLusxxUs0DZiuksUHqLMjZNe14UmXMxUd3FmfXno0w1ZVjtUekyz1xLdKAbF3KXseZnRfPJbdfP49tHXXd9ZmxBe1ZYjp80SnqfppQKKribKt2tcOVVg8Adufx44toh-Zsq~917UuZBiZ2ZaCWHhAWCR7ddUsgTKk11wA27A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","REVENUE & TAX - SENATE","date","2025-04-07T10:30:00Z","article","The Senate Revenue & Tax Committee approved several bills with limited debate and voice votes during the session.

House Bill 16 57 (companion to previously considered legislation): Representative Rick Beck presented this bill as a literal companion to a measure the committee had discussed earlier. Senator Boyd moved to pass the bill and Senator Caldwell seconded; the committee approved the bill by voice vote.

House Bill 15 89 (museum sales‑tax exemption): Senator Hester presented HB 15 89, a short bill to extend a sales‑tax exemption to the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts similar to the exemption for Crystal Bridges. Senator Hester said the fiscal impact is roughly $20,000 a year. Senator Dismang moved to give the bill a do‑pass recommendation, Senator Bullard seconded, and the committee approved it by voice vote.

House Bill 18 51 (school cafeteria sales‑tax exemption clarification): Senator Justin Boyd presented HB 18 51, which updates a 1941 sales‑tax exemption for K‑12 and college cafeterias to clarify that contracting cafeteria services to for‑profit vendors does not void the exemption. DFA staff (Ali Shawson Smith) and Shane Broadway (ASU System) joined the presentation; the committee’s green sheet listed no fiscal impact. The committee adopted a motion to give the bill a do‑pass recommendation and approved it by voice vote.

All three measures advanced out of committee on voice votes; formal roll‑call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","REVENUE & TAX - SENATE - Apr 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Revenue & Tax Committee passed multiple bills with little debate: a companion bill to earlier legislation, a museum sales‑tax exemption, and clarification of school cafeteria sales‑tax exemptions for contracted vendors.","taxTitle","REVENUE & TAX - SENATE, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21190,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6594752,"Committee approves bill clarifying municipal lien, notice and demolition procedures",0,6909000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7&start=6909&end=6909","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7/thumbnail_6909000.jpg","/articles/6594752/Arkansas/Committee-approves-bill-clarifying-municipal-lien-notice-and-demolition-procedures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594752-470427e2f289b20ec51d6947357c8a79/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007605&Signature=OaN26OM9Lr7qkNevfY9l0sMd2GBEjgG0jaG96GLapARVByTG9Lkqo8pfC7jLZ4fnj1jPhTQ-oYtH3OKamtCRxxVU7Dw5G7aYG~u108k5EkJjco-8TTxS2aRkEom4rx31Y~qYEhTLqUy9u4~fsAeF5mCSSTzREKoEb84zkFBM6M2oLBtBBDxvU0K02mBen1xwwGRNWuS~UUKCzwwCNLA8ZOEUzlPnQ9d2eSP28CiwVwUT5GuKRHmAKetR~~JiaUFCfU-nQomhN7gOXB3JbHuFYWIoRYIPQQT4WcB~B8uVvBmXXVm2ClRpFb~NFsf9b5GVqY7Q58P7cMKtf91LOSN5hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Revenue & Tax Committee approved House Bill 1695, as amended, updating municipal foreclosure and lien procedures and clarifying how counties and cities report certain financial information.

Senator Steve Crowell presented the bill and John Wilkerson, general counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, outlined a weekend negotiation that produced the amendment. Wilkerson said the amendment rolls back proposed extensions for cities to perfect liens, requires explicit notice to existing lienholders and removes an authority that would have allowed cities to petition the Commissioner of State Lands to void a sale.

Wilkerson summarized the changes: “In the original version of the bill, we extended the time for a city to file a lien, perfect a lien, to the county clerk from 120 to 365 days in 2 instances. And in 1 instance, from 60 to 180 days... So that's the first change. Also, we have, made sure working with the bankers, banker folks that we are required to give notice to any existing lienholders.”

Committee members asked whether the amendment addressed mortgage bankers’ concerns about priority and notice. Wilkerson and sponsors said the amendment resolved those points; the priority of existing mortgage liens remains unchanged. The committee adopted the amendment on a motion by Senator Boyd with Senator Caldwell seconding.

Paul Calvert, speaking on his own behalf, urged caution and described problems he experienced with liens and the appeal process. Calvert said some enforcement actions are taken before an owner can complete an appeal and described an instance where a judge dismissed his appeal after he had paid the imposed charge: “They can tear my house down without a court order, and then you can charge me for it.” He asked the committee to delay expanding municipal authority until the current process is improved.

Sponsors said the bill creates a formal foreclosure process for municipalities that previously lacked consistent procedure, and they cited an attorney general opinion and other research supporting the approach. After discussion, Senator Crowell made the motion to pass as amended; Senator Caldwell seconded. The committee approved the bill on a voice vote.

The enacted amendment specifically: (1) retains original shorter timeframes for cities to perfect liens rather than extending them to 365 days; (2) requires notice to existing lienholders before municipal foreclosure actions; and (3) removes the provision allowing petitions to the Commissioner of State Lands to void a sale. Supporters told the committee these changes resolved objections raised by municipal officials, bankers and other stakeholders.","The Senate Revenue & Tax Committee voted to pass House Bill 1695 as amended, revising municipal lien timeframes, adding notice requirements for existing lienholders and removing a state‑land petition provision; public comment raised concerns about demolition without court orders and appeal effectiveness.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6594754,"Senate committee rejects proposed tax-incentive package for lithium industry",1796,4619000,6415000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7&start=4619&end=6415","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3091021-92c6ef6c24f90e4f3bfdb0f6a833f8a7/thumbnail_4619000.jpg","/articles/6594754/Arkansas/Senate-committee-rejects-proposed-tax-incentive-package-for-lithium-industry","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594754-a7e2393ef13bd4476c24754335fe7148/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007605&Signature=gzwviQ7ZNdsmxr99l4~j6n7BS-BJy6bSMKGcxfghAALQX0JNwL5CrWgYpxUYpbSv6kNVyPmc5kchDnpxryEbZNcb9Kps0vPPZqR9Iyqi0lsEy9kRQT4teScWKnorRM0o3F0tYLqq3MsAZ1ak4GsM-9-Ite3HmynbF2mj2deLjWxANVg7yr4HjGJLYgCP1MdYFBOt-V-FMR1st9hu27RFaAYNRm6zmEt7iwdERg68-HJqt43uNOlGEy8zjQnugDuNjf4bbQ8myOHIg~qNL2MGmNkzkmxXE4nPZ3UiHWPJO8jtpM9SM3-c6Crprg-WYwKmsmwNjuLMAmjCrSZTxHNFYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Revenue & Tax Committee members voted against Senate Bill 568, a package of tax incentives aimed at encouraging lithium extraction and downstream processing in Arkansas, after extended questioning about how the bill treats extraction, lease payments and local severance revenue.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Steve Crowell (District 3), described SB 568 as “a very comprehensive, very complicated bill about, lithium and upstream and downstream, possibilities,” saying the measure is intended to keep more of the lithium value chain — from extraction through refining — inside Arkansas. Secretary of Commerce Hugh McDonald and Jennifer Emerson, deputy director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC), testified in support of the bill’s goal of attracting processing and manufacturing jobs.

Supporters said the measure would offer sales‑tax exemptions for certain processing and manufacturing steps, a severance-tax break limited to new production, and other tax incentives intended to attract capital investment and jobs. McDonald told the committee that national supply-chain gaps make upstream processing a strategic target and that the state has worked with Benchmark Minerals on market analysis: “They’re a global expert in terms of the lithium space and critical minerals,” he said. Proponents argued the incentives could spur construction of high‑value refining and battery-component facilities that would create jobs beyond extraction.

Opponents and some committee members raised multiple concerns. Several senators pressed whether “lease payments” in the bill would be interpreted to include royalty payments to mineral owners, which would effectively treat extraction and payments to landowners as eligible facility costs for incentive thresholds. Paul Gehring of the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) said DFA interprets the bill as intending to limit eligible costs to facility costs, not royalty payments, and that clarifying language or an amendment would increase DFA’s confidence in administering the program. Senator Dismang and others said they were uncomfortable with an incentive that appears to subsidize extraction in a way not used for other mining industries.

Committee members also questioned when local governments would see offsetting revenue from infrastructure impacts, given a multi‑year production and construction timeline. Supporters noted the industry is nascent and argued incentives are needed to recruit the chain of manufacturers that would create local jobs, while skeptics warned the state could be undercut by other states’ incentive packages.

After debate, Senator Crowell made a motion that the committee “do pass” SB 568, seconded by Senator Qualwell. The motion failed on a voice vote. The chair announced, “Motion fails. So that bill does not pass.”

The committee’s discussion highlighted two concrete technical issues proponents said they would try to fix before further consideration: (1) specifying that “lease payments” means facility lease costs rather than royalty payments to mineral owners, and (2) clarifying the treatment and timing of severance‑tax relief so counties and cities are not unintentionally deprived of revenue tied to new production. Supporters said they would seek an amendment and additional guidance from DFA and AEDC if the bill is reintroduced.

No roll-call vote was taken; the committee recorded the outcome by voice vote. The bill failed to advance out of the Revenue & Tax Committee.","Senate Revenue & Tax Committee voted down Senate Bill 568, a comprehensive incentive package aimed at encouraging lithium extraction and in-state processing, after extended debate over royalty treatment, lease-payment language and local revenue impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: committee advances several tax‑and‑exemption bills

Committee approves bill clarifying municipal lien, notice and demolition procedures

Senate committee rejects proposed tax-incentive package for lithium industry