Arkansas Senate Bill SJR5

Arkansas 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/8/23
• Refer: 2/8/23
• Failed: 5/1/23

Caption

An Amendment To The Arkansas Constitution To Authorize A County, City, Town, Or Other Municipal Corporation To Fund And Administer A Water System Customer Assistance Program.

Impact

If passed, this amendment would modify existing provisions in the Arkansas Constitution that currently restrict municipal corporations from becoming stockholders or lending credit to private corporations. The specific changes would permit municipalities to allocate funds for water utility customer assistance programs, thereby extending their roles beyond just economic development projects. The implications of this change will likely enable a greater involvement of local governments in directly supporting their constituents, particularly in the realm of essential services like water supply.

Summary

SJR5 proposes an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that would authorize counties, cities, towns, and other municipal corporations to fund and administer water system customer assistance programs. The aim of this bill is to enhance local capabilities to provide financial assistance to customers facing difficulties in paying their water utility charges. By allowing municipalities to engage in such programs, the amendment addresses a pressing need for customer support in water-related utilities, thereby promoting community welfare and aiding those economically challenged.

Contention

While the bill is designed to help residents manage water utility costs, it also raises questions about the financial implications for municipalities and their ability to fund such programs sustainably. Some lawmakers and citizens may be concerned about the potential for misuse of public funds or the necessity of such programs, particularly if local governments are not equipped to handle the added responsibilities of administering customer assistance. This debate could be a focal point in discussions surrounding the bill, with advocates arguing for the necessity of support systems for vulnerable populations, while opponents may stress fiscal prudence and the impact on local budgets.