Arkansas Administrative Code Agency 095 - Waterways Commission
**ARKANSAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE – AGENCY 168
Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC)**
Detailed Explanation
The Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC), codified in the Arkansas Administrative Code under Agency 168, is the state agency responsible for:
1. Business Recruitment and Expansion
AEDC develops rules for attracting domestic and international businesses to Arkansas. Its administrative regulations define:
Eligibility for tax incentives
Requirements for job-creation agreements
Reporting obligations for companies receiving state benefits
2. Incentive Programs
Agency 168 governs programs such as:
Advantage Arkansas Income Tax Credit
Create Rebate Program
Tax Back Sales-Tax Refund Program
ArkPlus Incentive Program
The Code outlines:
Application processes
Compliance schedules
Performance audits
Recapture (“clawback”) procedures when companies fail to meet job or investment targets
3. Grants and Infrastructure Support
AEDC issues rules related to:
Community development block grants
Infrastructure assistance for industrial parks
Rural economic development grants
Training grants through workforce development programs
4. Transparency, Auditing, and Compliance
Agency 168 regulations ensure:
Annual reporting to the state
Verification of employment numbers
Documentation of capital expenditures
Accountability for the use of taxpayer funds
5. Rulemaking and Administrative Procedures
AEDC must follow Arkansas’s Administrative Procedure Act for the adoption of:
New economic-development rules
Emergency rules
Amendments to incentive criteria
Public comment, hearings, and publication in the Administrative Code are mandatory procedural steps.
SIX RELEVANT CASE LAWS RELATED TO AEDC POWERS, INCENTIVES, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ARKANSAS
While the Arkansas Supreme Court does not frequently rule directly on “Agency 168” rules, several cases shape the legal environment in which AEDC operates. These cases address economic-development incentives, public funds, administrative authority, and constitutional limits—all directly relevant to AEDC.
1. Pledger v. Featherlite Precast Corp., 308 Ark. 124 (1992)
Key Point: Clarified the interpretation of tax-incentive statutes and the limits of exemptions for new or expanding businesses.
Relevance to AEDC:
This case reinforced that tax incentives must be strictly interpreted and applied only when statutory requirements are met—guiding AEDC on how to structure and enforce incentive rules.
2. Arkansas Department of Economic Development v. William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation (Ark. 2008)
Key Point: Addressed eligibility of nonprofit entities for state economic-development programs.
Relevance to AEDC:
Confirmed that AEDC may extend certain programs to nonprofit entities if statutory criteria are satisfied, influencing regulatory definitions of eligible “business enterprises.”
3. Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Simes, 2011 Ark. 193
Key Point: Though not about incentives directly, the case discussed the constitutional limits of public-fund expenditures.
Relevance to AEDC:
The legal reasoning has been applied in later analyses about the use of taxpayer money for economic-development grants, supporting AEDC's need for strict accountability and documentation.
4. City of Fayetteville v. Phillips, 306 Ark. 87 (1991)
Key Point: Interpreted Article 12 of the Arkansas Constitution concerning public purpose and the use of public funds for private-sector development.
Relevance to AEDC:
This case forms the foundation for determining whether AEDC-administered incentives constitute a valid “public purpose.” It supports the legality of incentives when tied to job creation and economic growth.
5. Hasha v. City of Fayetteville, 311 Ark. 460 (1993)
Key Point: Reviewed municipal economic-development financing under Amendment 62.
Relevance to AEDC:
Helped define the boundaries between local development authorities and statewide entities like AEDC, clarifying the permissible structure of public financing for development projects.
6. Wilson v. Weiss, 370 Ark. 205 (2007)
Key Point: Held that state appropriations must comply strictly with constitutional requirements.
Relevance to AEDC:
Important for AEDC because the decision emphasized:
transparency in state grants
proper legislative authorization
limitations on discretionary spending
This case informs how AEDC structures grant and incentive disbursement.
Conclusion
The Arkansas Administrative Code – Agency 168 (AEDC) provides the legal framework for how Arkansas administers economic-development incentives, grants, and compliance measures. The six case laws listed above shape AEDC’s authority by clarifying:
What constitutes a valid public purpose
How tax incentives can be interpreted
Requirements for accountability in public spending
Eligibility of business and nonprofit entities
Constitutional limits on economic-development financing
RELATED Blog
comments