TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTIES USING CERTAIN STATE TAX REVENUES; AND TO CREATE THE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION COUNTY TURNBACK FUND.
HR1007 is a House Resolution that authorizes introduction of a separate nonappropriation bill to create the Equal Distribution County Turnback Fund and direct certain state tax revenues into that fund. The underlying proposal would dedicate the first $150 million in annual general revenues to the new fund, then distribute $2 million to each county each fiscal year once the fund balance reaches that threshold. Counties would be required to spend 90% of the money on infrastructure and equipment, including county roads and water and sewer infrastructure, and 10% on fire protection, law enforcement, or community projects.
The resolution also includes an emergency clause in the draft bill it authorizes, stating that counties are under financial strain from rising costs and need immediate additional support. If enacted, the proposal would amend Arkansas Code § 26-52-107 to change the disposition of certain tax receipts and create a new statutory fund administered through the Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, and Chief Fiscal Officer of the State. The bill was not enacted; it died in House Committee at sine die adjournment.
The proposal would have redirected a portion of state general revenues before they are allocated to the State Apportionment Fund and Revenue Stabilization Law distributions, effectively prioritizing county aid over other state budget uses. It would also have created a new special fund, the Equal Distribution County Turnback Fund, and imposed statutory spending restrictions on county use of the distributed money for infrastructure, equipment, public safety, and community projects. Counties, county treasurers, and state fiscal officers would be directly affected by the new distribution mechanism, while other state funds that rely on general revenue apportionments could receive less revenue.
The bill text reflects a strongly supportive posture toward county governments, emphasizing financial hardship, rising costs, and the need for essential local services. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded floor debate or formal vote sentiment to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s failure in committee suggests it did not advance to final consideration, but the available record does not show whether that was due to policy disagreement, fiscal concerns, or procedural timing.
The main point of contention is likely the diversion of the first $150 million in annual general revenues away from the state’s normal revenue allocation process, which could reduce funding available for other state priorities and revenue stabilization. Another likely issue is the size and structure of the county distribution, including the equal $2 million per county formula regardless of county population or need, and the restriction that most funds be used only for specified purposes. Supporters would be counties and local officials seeking more stable funding, while potential opponents would include state budget stakeholders concerned about the impact on general revenues and the fairness of the distribution formula.