Assessors hold meeting at Folk Center in Stone County

Assessors hold summer meeting at Folk Center in Stone County

Top: The Arkansas Assessors’ Association held its 2015 summer continuing education meeting June 9-12 at the Ozark Folk Center in Mountain View. The event included a golf tournament, float trip, tour of Blanchard Springs Caverns, fish fry, vendor giveaways and numerous educational seminars.

Left: Doug Smith, county government liaison in the Arkansas Governor’s Office, and state Sen. Missy Irvin, who lives in Mountain View, visit with Bear Chaney, director of the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Department.

Bottom Left: Jefferson County Assessor Yvonne Humphrey and Commissioner of State Lands John Thurston greet one another during a lunch break.

Bottom Right: Stone County Judge Stacey Avey welcomed assessors to Mountain View on Wednesday, June 10, and then mingled with officials at the Folk Center. Here, he chats with Doug Smith, county government liaison in the Arkansas Governor’s Office.

Worker’s Compensation Fund pays $1 million in dividends to its member counties in 2015

The Association of Arkansas Counties Workers’ Compensation Trust is proud to announce that for the 19th straight year dividends will be returned to all participating counties. The 2015 dividend is declared based on 2011 premiums paid and losses incurred. This brings the total dividends paid over the last 19 years to $25,698,953.

AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust Group Manager Chris Villines recommended the $1,000,000 dividend to the board of trustees at its June meeting. Checks were issued in August.

“There are several reasons that we are able to continue returning such large sums to the counties,” Villines said. “Our staff is excellent and efficient and the counties of Arkansas work hard to minimize risks at home. I cannot compliment our Risk Management and Insurance Director Debbie Norman enough. She has an incredible responsibility and handles it wonderfully. The Workers’ Comp staff is equally adept. Debbie Lakey, Kim Nash, Elizabeth Sullivan, Barry Burkett, Renee Turner and Kim Mitchell do an excellent job.”

AAC Risk Management and Insurance Director Debbie Norman said, “From inception to today, this program has performed beyond expectations. It has always been our goal to reward counties with dividends, and this is the 19th straight year that successful management of the program and the commitment to safety in our counties has allowed it to occur.”

AAC, along with county officials from around the state, created the AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust in 1985 – a plan to pool resources and form a self-funded, county-owned trust to provide premium Workers’ Compensation coverage at a savings to members. The AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust is fully regulated by the State of Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. Current trustees are Judy Beth Hutcherson, Clark County Treasurer; Debbie Wise, Randolph County Circuit Clerk; Debra Buckner, Pulaski County Treasurer; Jim Keasler, Lee County Judge; and Joe Gillenwater, Miller County Justice of the Peace.

Here are the formulaic dividend amounts per county as approved by the AAC/WCT board:

Arkansas County................................$10,546 Ashley County......................................$7,290 Baxter County....................................$24,890 Benton County...................................$49,088 Boone County....................................$13,722 Bradley County.....................................$5,774 Calhoun County...................................$8,289 Carroll County...................................$10,282 Chicot County......................................$6,286 Clark County......................................$12,039 Clay County.........................................$8,564 Cleburne County................................$11,249 Cleveland County.................................$2,447 Columbia County..............................$13,927 Conway County.................................$12,193 Craighead County..............................$36,236 Crawford County...............................$18,966 Crittenden County.............................$18,545 Cross County........................................$8,719 Dallas County.......................................$7,049 Desha County.......................................$6,517 Drew County........................................$9,712 Faulkner County.................................$26,991 Franklin County......................................$500 Fulton County......................................$7,487 Garland County.................................$30,599 Grant County.....................................$10,230 Greene County.....................................$7,346 Hempstead County..............................$9,951 Hot Spring County............................$11,966 Howard County....................................$6,958 Independence County........................$21,948 Izard County............................................$500 Jackson County..................................$10,689 Jefferson County.................................$25,803 Johnson County....................................$9,330 Lafayette County..................................$5,988 Lawrence County.................................$9,363 Lee County...........................................$5,700 Lincoln County....................................$4,362 Little River County...............................$7,122 Logan County.......................................$2,202 Lonoke County..................................$14,975 Madison County................................$15,270 Marion County...................................$10,762 Miller County.....................................$12,639 Mississippi County.............................$27,266 Monroe County....................................$5,501 Montgomery County...........................$8,672 Nevada County.....................................$6,815 Newton County..................................$10,006 Perry County........................................$6,823 Phillips County...................................$12,596 Pike County..........................................$8,254 Poinsett County....................................$8,328 Polk County........................................$12,427 Pope County.......................................$18,293 Prairie County......................................$3,809 Pulaski County...................................$58,180 Randolph County.................................$6,864 Saline County.....................................$30,249 Scott County........................................$9,962 Searcy County.....................................$11,329 Sebastian County..................................$3,439 Sevier County.......................................$9,245 Sharp County.....................................$11,218 St. Francis County................................$8,095 Stone County........................................$9,711 Union County....................................$18,414 Van Buren County.............................$20,271 Washington County...........................$55,088 White County....................................$25,823 Woodruff County.................................$5,294 Yell County.........................................$17,017

75 Counties - One Voice

AAC f amily & f riends » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » AAC C onferen C e » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » Association of Arkansas

Counties W hen you participate in the AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust, you Workers’ Compensation Trust can relax in the hands of professional staff members who are going to take care of your needs. The AAC team has decades of experience in handling county government claims – they’re simply the best at what they do! Did we mention that participants in our plan are accustomed to getting money back? Since we started paying dividends in 1997, the AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust has declared almost $26 MILLION dollars in dividends, payable to members of the fund. In fact, we mailed $1,000,000 in savings back to member counties in August 2014. The service is available for any size county government and other county government-related entities. We’ve got you covered!

Members enjoy dividends! $26 Million paid since 1997

We’ve got you covered

Experienced & licensed examiners

Debbie Norman

Risk Management & Insurance Director 501.375.8247 Debbie Lakey

Claims Manager 501.375.8698 Kim Nash

Claims Adjuster 501.375.8805 Renee Turner

Claims Examiner 501.375.8805 Barry Burkett

Loss Control 501.375.8805 Kim Mitchell

Admin. Assistant 501.375.8805 Elizabeth Sullivan

Admin. Assistant 501.375.8805 Brandy McAllister

RMS Counsel 501.375.8694

The Association of Arkansas Counties

Working for county officials toward the common goal of effective county government...

www.arcounties.org

Did you know that counties are subdivisions of Arkansas state government?

As such, our county and district elected officials and staffs are like gears in a large and complex engine. AAC’s goal is to keep that engine welloiled and finely-tuned by providing a broad array of:

• Legislative Representation • Education and Training • General Assistance and Research • Publications & Public Information • Protection Options: AAC Risk Management & Worker’s Compensation Programs

AAC serves as the official voice of county government at the state Capitol, and serves as the official spokesperson and liaison of Arkansas counties in dealing with state and federal agencies. The key to the stability and development of county government is in presenting a unified voice to other levels of government. There is much truth in the adage, “There is strength in unity.”

The Association of Arkansas Counties provides training and assistance in solving problems and in developing “best” practices. AAC produces numerous publications to help county officials with both simple and technical questions, so they can get needed answers without having to reinvent the wheel. This information is available through numerous training workshops, helpful brochures and directories, County Lines magazine, and online at the website: www.arcounties.org

Our Mission

The Association of Arkansas Counties supports and promotes the idea that all elected officials must have the opportunity to act together in order to solve mutual problems as a unified group. To further this goal, the Association of Arkansas Counties is committed to providing a single source of cooperative support and information for all counties and county and district officials.

The overall purpose of the Association of Arkansas Counties is to work for the improvement of county government in the state of Arkansas. The Association accomplishes this purpose by providing legislative representation, on-site assistance, general research, training, various publications and conferences to assist county officials in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of their office.

EPA

to have nothing to do with your day-to-day tasks. Essentially, the Court is sending a clear message to all federal regulatory agencies that, at least when its regulation must meet the threshold of “appropriate and necessary,” the cost of implementation and compliance with their standards borne by the entities being regulated must be considered before that regulation is permitted.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge publicly praised the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling:

“Today is a victory for Arkansas’s economy and consumers as the Supreme Court reined in the EPA. We all want to protect the environment to make sure that we pass along clean air and clean water to future generations. I’m pleased the Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA cannot ignore the costs of those regulations it seeks to impose. As Justice Antonin Scalia indicated in his majority opinion, the Clean Air Act makes several mentions of costs, which should be one of the many factors the agency considers as it proposes new rules. The EPA’s own estimate of the cost of compliance with the challenged regulation was $9.6 billion per year, with only $4 to $6 million per year in benefits.

This ruling should serve as a reminder to the EPA that it is not above the law. Last month, the EPA put forward its unprecedented rule to expand its authority over numerous isolated bodies of water, a clear violation of the Clean Water Act. In addition, later this summer, the EPA is expected to finalize its Clean Power Plan, which will seek to impose illegal requirements on States and power plants. Both rules exceed the intent provided by Congress and will have devastating effects on Arkansas. In light of today’s ruling, I encourage the EPA to withdraw its WOTUS rule and carefully consider the legality of the Clean Power Plan.”

Standing up to federal overreach has been one of Rutledge’s most prominent platforms since she first declared her candidacy for the 2014 Arkansas Attorney General race, and she certainly has not backed down from it. Rutledge testified before the federal Senate Agriculture Committee in March in opposition of the EPA’s proposed “Waters of the United States” rule under the Clean Water Act. She testified that the proposed rule could cripple Arkansas’ agriculture industry; that it further convoluted what the federal government can regulate; would serve to confuse Arkansas farmers; and force them to seek legal assistance in order to comply with the proposed rule. She explained in her testimony that potential fines for farmers not in compliance could reach $37,500 per violation per day.

Rutledge does not stand alone; more than 1 million comments, largely by farmers and ranchers, have been submitted to the EPA expressing concerns over the proposed rule and its potential costs. Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, Agriculture Committee chair, acknowledged the validity of rural America’s concerns on the rule’s economic impact to these regions, saying that the EPA has provided no evidence to alleviate those concerns. Roberts expressed his own reservations about the cost-benefit analysis, citing other experts who disagree with the EPA’s assertion that the rule would have only a minimal economic impact.

Even EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted that the agency did a poor job initially of introducing and explaining the proposed rule to the public. She went on to say that the amended rule would clearly define what will and will not be regulated — and that farmers will not be impacted. Rutledge has since stated that she has no confidence in McCarthy’s assurances about farmers, instead asking the EPA to throw out the proposed rule altogether and start over, better addressing the concerns of numerous states and stakeholders.

U.S. Senator John Boozman of Arkansas also has expressed concerns about the potential economic impact on rural Arkansas and stated that he will seek to prevent the rule from being implemented. He referred to the rule as a “power grab” by the EPA that “circumvents Congress and is beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act.” On the other side, the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club stands firmly behind the bill, defending its clarity and “well-crafted environmental protections.” (Peter Urban, Washington News Bureau).

The final version of the Clean Water Rule was finalized on May 27, 2015, published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015, and will become effective on August 28, 2015. In response, as of July 23, 2015, three different lawsuits had been filed against the EPA over the implementation of the Final Clean Water Rule, by a coalition of 27 states, various conservation and environmental groups, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, as well as others.

Rutledge joined with 12 other states the day of the rule’s publication in one lawsuit filed in North Dakota, alleging that the rule violates the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the U.S. Constitution. Rutledge’s press release adds:

Continued From Page 19 <<<

“The States assert that the EPA’s new rule wrongly broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the States have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management. The States argue that the burdens created by new requirements from the EPA on waters and lands are harmful to the States and will negatively affect farmers, developers and landowners, and thus the overall economy.”

The U.S. District Court agreed and granted the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, guaranteeing that the WOTUS Rule will not go into effect nor be enforced until it has been fully litigated. The court recognized the states’ likely success in their lawsuit, stating that it appears the EPA exceeded its constitutional grant of authority and also failed to comply with Administrative Procedures Act requirements, which ensure public participation in the rulemaking process, with its promulgation of this rule.

In conclusion, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Michigan v. EPA might provide key leverage to the claims of these states and organizations that the EPA, once seeming almost untouchable, is in fact overstepping its bounds with the Waters of the U.S. rule. It certainly bolsters the accusation that the EPA is implementing regulations while failing to properly account for the cost to the entities being regulated. While U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has defended the rule, the U.S. House of Representatives and a key U.S. Senate committee recently voted to rescind it.

Whether the rule goes into effect is something for rural Arkansans to keep an eye on, since agriculture is Arkansas’s largest industry, contributing around $16 billion to the state’s economy annually, according to Arkansas Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau’s web site states there are 49,346 farms statewide, and that 97 percent of those are family owned. Needless to say, costly compliance and legal issues could be devastating to these farm families, and subsequently, the state’s economy as a whole if the Waters of the U.S. rule is implemented. The three pending lawsuits, all in different federal courts across the nation, are worth watching and will be key in how the EPA and other federal regulatory agencies study, implement and administer costly rules and regulations going forward.

www.naco.org

About NACo – The Voice of America’s Counties

National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the U.S. NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal government, improves the public’s understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money.

Department of Labor releases proposed rule on overtime pay

By Daria Daniel

On July 6, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division released a proposed rule to update and revise the regulations issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would change the way employers implement the exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay for executive, administrative and professional employees. This proposal could have a significant impact on counties and the number of employees that are eligible for overtime pay.

According to the Obama administration, the proposed changes would affect an estimated 5 million workers across the United States, and the new overtime regulations would cover about 40 percent of the country’s full-time salaried workforce.

There are several key issues that counties should be aware of:

• The FLSA, first enacted in 1938, established a national minimum wage and set the overtime pay rate at one and one-half times an employee’s regular rate for any hours over 40 hours in a workweek. • The standard salary level required for exemption from overtime pay is $455 per week ($23,660 for a full-year worker), which was last updated in 2004. • DOL seeks to update this salary level and more than double the current salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility to $970 a week ($50,440 for a full-year worker) in 2016. • While these wage and overtime protections extend to most workers, the FLSA provides employers with a few exemptions from the overtime pay requirement, such as the “white collar” exemption, which applies to executive, administrative and

professional employees. • The Labor Department’s proposed overtime pay rule for

“white collar” employees is applicable to state and local government workers. The proposed rule is also applicable to any businesses, including small businesses, which have annual gross sales of $500,000 or more. • If the overtime pay rule is enacted, there could be significant financial and administrative impacts on state and local governments and small businesses.

The “white collar” exemption was created to exempt workers that earned a salary well above the minimum wage and enjoyed other privileges, including above average benefits, greater job security and better opportunities for advancement, setting them apart from workers entitled to overtime pay.

To be considered exempt, the workers must meet certain minimum tests, which include earning the standard salary level and performing particular job duties. The job “duties test” is an assessment of whether the worker performs mostly executive, administrative or professional duties. If so, the worker is not entitled to overtime pay. The proposed rule would increase the minimum salary threshold from $455 to $970 per week, potentially increasing the number of “white collar” employees that would be eligible for overtime pay.

While the proposed rule focuses on increasing the minimum salary threshold for overtime pay, the administration is also considering changes to the job “duties test” and has asked for comments on this along with the new salary threshold.

DOL is accepting written comments until September, 4, 2015, at www.regulations.gov. A final rule is expected in early 2016.

Advertiser Resource Index

AAC Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 AAC Workers’ Compensation Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 DataScout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Apprentice Information Systems, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Crews and Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Guardian RFID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Ergon Asphalt & Paving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Financial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Metro Disaster Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Nationwide Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Rainwater Holt & Sexton, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Southern Tire Mart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Tax Pro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Time Striping, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

This publication was made possible with the support of these advertising partners who have helped to underwrite the cost of County Lines. They deserve your consideration and patronage when making your purchasing decisions. For more information on how to partner with County Lines, please call Christy L. Smith at (501) 372-7550.