House State Agencies Committee
January 22, 2025
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:00:00] ...folks in attendance today. And I want to start with an announcement that if you wish to speak for or against the bill, there's a sign up sheet outside the door for you to sign in. And so please do that if you haven't already done so. And with that, we're going to begin at the top of the agenda. First Bill on the agenda is House Bill 1050.
I see Representative Tosh there at the end of the table. And Representative Tosh, before I recognize you, I want to say that how much we appreciate the work that you've done over the years and this committee for the last three sessions leading this committee as the chairman. You did excellent work and you're a member for whom I have always had the utmost respect and admiration. And it's an honor to try to fill your shoes, which is going to be a tough task. So I just want you to know that. And appreciate you for all, again, all that you've done. With that, Chairman, you're recognized.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:00:56] One question, if you don't mind, before I present my bill. I'm just curious. When I was chair of this committee, I had a policy that many of the committee members will, I think, recall that the first bill that was presented during a session, we just automatically always passed that bill and and we always killed the last bill of the session. So I'm presenting the first. I didn't know if that policy was still in effect or not.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:01:23] That policy is not in effect.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:01:24] That's what I was afraid of. Committee members, well, it's great to be back before this committee. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those kind words. Obviously, I have a great passion for this committee. And ever since I've been elected, I've been a member of this committee. This is the first time.
So but anyways, my bill today is, what it does, it separates the Poinsett County sheriff's department and the tax collector's office. Right now, the tax collector's office is under the umbrella of the sheriff's office. And across this state, we have 75 counties. 51 of those counties have already made that separation where they've separated those two offices, the tax collector and the sheriff's office. And the quorum court passed a resolution recognizing that this is what they wanted to do.
Of course, it takes legislative action to be able to actually separate those two. So as the representative for that area, they contacted me and asked me to run this legislation to be able to separate them. Of course, you're looking at the bill. You know that during the general election of 2026, that'll be when the new tax collector, if this committee passes it out of here and we pass it off the House floor, in the general election of 2026 election, they will select a tax collector.
And I think all of us who would agree that we need to separate these offices for the simple fact we need the sheriff of this county, and like the other counties, they need to be focused on public safety, not trying to collect taxes. So as I said, there's already 51 counties that have done this. And with the blessing of this committee, this will be number 52 of the 75. And I'll take any questions.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:03:28] Thank you, Representative Tosh. Representative Tosh has explained his bill. Are there any questions? Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:03:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I did have a question. Section D talks about the General Assembly's involvement. Will this have any impact on separating those offices? Is there anything that will be hurtful for the county or anything? If you can kind of explain that portion of it for me.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:03:52] That's a great question, Representative, and absolutely, I'll be glad to explain it. The sheriff's office and the tax collector's office actually started back in England back in the ninth century, I believe it was. And then when the American colonies came in and then the states, they adopted this, where the sheriff and the tax collector were the same. And then under the Constitution, I believe it was Amendment 55, it gave the General Assembly the authority at that time.
And that was established in 1874, which Arkansas has been under that since 1874. But we've always we've had the authority since then under Amendment 55 of the Constitution that we could separate those two offices. But in that amendment, I believe it's 12-12-02. But I know that it says that we, as the General Assembly, will establish a class for each county, and I'm sure that's based on population. And in that classification, there'll be a minimum salary and there'll be a maximum salary.
And so what that language you're seeing in that bill does, it's reminding Poinsett County, Hey, we're going to pass this bill, but you have to follow that salary that's specified in that class that's set out by that statute that I just mentioned. So that's just making sure that they follow the guidelines that were put into place years ago.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:05:31] All right. Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, is there anyone here in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Wardlaw says he has a motion. Representative Wardlaw has made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Tosh, would you like to close for your bill?
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:06:03] Mr. Chairman, I am closed with the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:06:04] All right. There was a motion do pass on the floor. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. First bill the session. All right. Next item on the agenda, House Bill 1058. Representative Unger, you are recognized.
Representative Steve Unger [00:06:35] Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mayor Angela Russell to join me at this end of the table?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:06:40] Yes.
Representative Steve Unger [00:06:57] Mr. Chairman, Committee, what 1058 intends to do is basically tell state agencies that regulate entities that they should not tip them off ahead of time that they're coming on a complaint based inspection. So whatever it is, restaurant ,nursing home, daycare center, if it's complaint based, you don't give them a big heads up. This is needed and actually this sprang from the issues at the landfill in Tontitown run by Eco Vista and Waste Management where they have been tipped off. They had been told ahead of time. And so they can clean up. If I could ask Mayor Russell to talk about that.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:07:54] Mayor, before you begin, would you please state your name and identify yourself for the record?
Angela Russell [00:07:59] Absolutely. Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. My name is Angela Russell. I am the mayor of Tontitown currently. I would like to speak to you regarding some of the issues Tontitown has been facing over the last several years. Daily we face Eco Vista landfill's trash being blown all over our yards, our streets, our fields. We even have had animals, cows, eating bags and dying, ingesting them and dying. Gassy odors coming from the landfill. Not just odors, gases that make you sick, your eyes water.
I myself have actually had to go to the hospital in the middle of the night. I live very close to the landfill. We have had boat fires where there's tires in the landfill and batteries in the boat. I have pictures. Dead birds. We had hundreds of dead birds, could not understand why. We've had three air tests that have been taken showing chemicals above EPA levels. Red dye was placed into a hole and came out in one of our creeks, Wildcat Creek, that leads to the Illinois watershed.
This affects the livelihood of our citizens and myself and my family. I actually had citizens contacting me last night due to the odors. And it's hazardous odors. Like I said, eyes burning, throat burning, nauseous. We've dealt with this for four years. We've made many complaints to ADEQ. And we could not understand why Eco Vista was continually being allowed to operate the facility with such standards, such low standards.
I personally went to the ADEQ website and I printed off all of the inspections, all of the complaints from 2021 to 2023. There were no violations in 2020. I'm sorry. Excuse me. In 2020, no violations. 2021, there was 12 inspections, 0 violations. 2022, there was 14 inspections, two violations. 2023, 29 inspections, nine violations. So you're telling me a 609 acre landfill, which they don't use the entire thing, but 609 acres, there was so little violations. Why was there so little violations?
We came to find out that there was someone tipping off a Waste Management agent from ADEQ who was tipping them off. We could always tell when they were coming a week before, and the way that we were able to tell is the dead trees that was on the property, they pulled them up and replanted them. This has been done at least between 5 and 7 times this year. I'm sorry, in 2024. We could tell that the gas plant had been shut down for a couple of days before they got there. We could not hear it running any way. Whether they shut it down completely, I don't know. I just know that we could not hear it running and we can hear it running from my back deck.
There was people out there picking up trash. You could tell when they were coming because everything started getting cleaned. Multiple workers were out there cleaning. There was state agents that was out there in detail cleaning up the trash from the roads. My citizens are suffering and I don't know what to do about it and I cannot get help. And whenever I contact ADEQ and they tip off Waste Management, whenever they come for their inspections, they're all cleaned up. So I ask you, please take this bill seriously because my city is suffering and my citizens are suffering. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:12:05] Representative Unger, you're recognized.
Representative Steve Unger [00:12:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, committee, thank you for hearing us out. I've had feedback on the bill and had been asked for clarifying language. And I am flexible for clarifying language and hearing concerns. Everybody has said it is a good bill with good intentions. It just needs to be fine tuned a little. And so in the spirit of that, I would like to not take a vote on the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:12:39] Representative Unger, I appreciate that and I will honor that request. We do have some committee members who do have some questions. And so while we're here and while there's been a presentation and your mayor is here and I think there are witnesses in attendance, why don't we just go ahead and take those up? So. Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:12:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Representative Unger, I agree with you. I think is a well-intended bill. I think that I would be willing to help you work on some of the language on this. The couple of questions I have is you guys, in your testimony, we're talking about feeling like they were being tipped off. You had no proof that they were tipped off, correct?
Representative Steve Unger [00:13:19] I do have proof.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:13:20] So, I mean, because just based on the testimony, just felt like there was a complaint and then you just saw people out cleaning things up. And it didn't seem like there was actual proof that things were being done on that. But do you have proof this is going on?
Representative Steve Unger [00:13:36] I actually do. I know the person's name and the media has asked me for the name. I have not given the name. I will only say the name when we are sworn in in front of a judge.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:13:52] Just a couple more questions, Mr. Chair. I think that the biggest piece of this that is a bit concerning is just having some teeth in it so that when we do get that proof and we go in and put that on the record that we can we can add some of these people to where we can get them out of these agencies as soon as possible. You know, my fear though is that we go and it's just a bunch of hearsay. And we go, well, this guy over here, this woman over here, is tipping off Waste Management to this person. And then it just turns into a he said, she said thing. So I would love to work with you, if you don't mind, to help draft that language.
Representative Steve Unger [00:14:37] Thank you, sir. If I could address those concerns. If you look at paragraph 2. I'f any person is convicted under this section while employed by the department of the State, he or she shall be removed from employment immediately.' Paragraph B. 'If a person is convicted under this section while holding public office, the conviction shall also be deemed a malfeasance and a malfeasance in office and shall subject the person to impeachment.' And this comes out of the Arkansas Employee Ethics Manual. That turns out to be a Class B misdemeanor and the case is heard in circuit court. So it will go before a judge. And I appreciate your concern, but I do believe it has teeth.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:15:25] Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:15:31] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, Representative Unger, I guess I'm kind of curious about the conviction. Is this a criminal offense we're talking about? And if so, what's the classification? What's the punishment? And if not, why are we using the language of conviction?
Representative Steve Unger [00:15:46] Well, it ends up being a class B misdemeanor. So that gives the judge some leeway on how much they sentence them to. There needs to be consequences. I believe the citizens and the taxpayers expect their state agencies are looking out for their welfare.
Matter of fact, when I asked Senator Bryant to help me on the Senate and he said, Isn't this already against the law? And I said, No, you would think so. I've been contacted by the media about this. I've talked to 5 or 6 reporters. Their comment has been, Isn't this already against the law? And I would say, Well, you would think so. So something needs to be done. The status quo isn't working.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:16:30] Just to follow up real quick on that. It's not stated in the bill that it's a misdemeanor. So I just, I mean, in order for a criminal law to have validity, it it needs to be clear. Otherwise, I think we're going to run into an issue. And so that would just be one thing I might suggest is that if we are creating a criminal offense here, we need to state that clearly. Just a suggestion.
Representative Steve Unger [00:17:00] I would be happy to put that in. I have to say, the lawyer at BLR that drafted that didn't think it needed to be in there because it quotes Arkansas Code Title 1, Chapter 8. But I'd be happy to try to get that in to satisfy your concerns. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:17:17] Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck [00:17:20] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we can get into more details on this, maybe offline, but one of my concerns is a line where it says that they get advanced notice outside of the normal regularly provided to all persons. You know, in industry, it's not uncommon at all for the state to come in and inspect your stacks to make sure that you're not putting out something you shouldn't be putting out and all that.
But normally those are done, you're pre-notified that, Hey, we want to come in and check that stuff like that. So I think that by using the phrase 'all persons,' 'provided to all persons,' that's kind of putting a big blanket over that. And I think in the case of different industries, we have to be running, it has to be ready for them to do that.
So we need to make sure that we provide enough details in there to make sure that those who normally would get a day's notice to make sure that they're running enough and up and they can do the inspection that they'd be able to do that. So it just seems like it's a little bit broad there. You might tighten that up.
Representative Steve Unger [00:18:29] And I actually believe that's what the governor's office concerns were. And like I said, I am flexible to tightening up language and clarifying. And I appreciate the feedback from all of you. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:18:42] Thank you. Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:18:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I spoke with you last night about my concerns about the bill, and I still have the same concerns. I think those are some of the concerns have been raised by other members. My question is, like we discussed last night of how you're going to prove this, at what point are-- this is going to have to go to a prosecutor that's going to refer it to the court. It's not just going to come from a recommendation from the city or a complaint from the city.
You're going to have to have someone, if you're making this a criminal violation, someone in the judicial system is going to have to take this matter up. And, I mean, good luck with getting anything passed through that's going to be hearsay without verifiable evidence of someone to say, Yes, I was notified and I was told. So I think that's a big issue that I see with the bill. And how would you address those concerns?
Representative Steve Unger [00:19:49] I think there just comes some time in the rule of law where a neighbor might have to turn in somebody he knows. And I'm thinking about a cattle rustling case from 40 years ago that I'm familiar with, that everybody knew this family was rustlers, but law enforcement couldn't do anything because it was all hearsay. And finally, one brave soul stepped up and they had to do something.
In this case, I know who told me the name of the ADEQ employee, and it would be very stressful for him to be compelled to testify. However, there just comes a point, much as at Lexington and Concord, where we heard the shot fired round the world. Somebody's got to be brave enough to step up and do something. What's going on in Tontitown, it'll never stop. It'll never stop. And so, sir, I don't know that I can completely answer your questions because I'm not a criminal attorney. And I hear your concern, sir. But the status quo is killing us.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:21:05] And to follow up on that, as I told you last night, the issue that you're trying to address is one that I know is vitally important to your community. And I share in the concerns that they have. But the last thing we need on the books in Arkansas is another law that does nothing, that will never be utilized.
It may be virtue signal and is sending a message, a shot across the bow to the offenders and to the agency that is tipping off or giving advance notice. But outside of that, I just don't see it's going to accomplish the purpose you have. Another question, concern I have, what would prevent that agency from saying, in the normal course of our business and inspections, we're going to notify everyone that we inspect 24 hours prior to the inspection. How would that affect the validity and enforcement of your rule?
Representative Steve Unger [00:21:56] Would that be complaint based or just normal regulation?
Representative Howard Beaty [00:21:59] It's going to be up to the agency, I would think. They're going to decide and set the terms of how they operate and what they do. So then, yet again, we come back with another piece of legislation that we would have to address that they can't give advance notice. And I don't know that we have that authority. So I just think it just continues to create another stack of legislation that's not going to accomplish the purpose that we want.
So those are the concerns I have on the bill. And I just don't know how you're going to address that in legislation. I understand and I'm sympathetic to the calls. I would be aggravated, too, and I'd be screaming bloody murder as you are. But I've also got a question for the mayor. Mayor, I live in a community that has a large corporate presence. And it's not uncommon, when they have visitors or guests or anyone coming in from out of town, that they clean up. They clean up around their place of business.
Sometimes that's not on the same terms that we would like it because sometimes it might need a little more attention than when they're giving it attention. But how does that signal or indicate that they're going to have an inspection or anything else? And maybe just that they're just cleaning up and trying to take a little bit of a little pride of their workplace for the corporate folks that may be coming in.
You always want to put on a good front. I don't know how that's a sign of a cover up or some master plot. And I wouldn't think that the appearance of the site would weigh heavily on an air quality inspection. They're going to be focused more on what their instruments read and along those lines. So could you speak to that?
Angela Russell [00:23:56] So whenever we know that they're going to be coming-- I'm sorry. We don't know when they're going to be coming. Whenever we see them start cleaning up, we know that there will probably be someone there. Let me give you an example. Because of the odors and the gases, there's been trees planted around the property. And the gases or something is killing specific trees. So they get other trees and replant them.
And like I said, they've been done several times. And whenever they start cleaning up, gathering all of their workers and cleaning up the lawns and the trees, within the next week or few days, then the inspectors are there. We see the inspectors' vehicles there. I live next door. My house is 500 ft from the landfill.
I have cameras that is pointed in that direction. So I do know when people are coming in, going to that area. And I know when they start cleaning up. You can watch and see. And I don't know what else to say other than it's very visible. There is one more thing I'd like to say. I gave you all of the numbers for all of the inspections and how many violations was on there in several years. You go to any other business, any other company, and I can guarantee you there's more violations at smaller companies there than there is at this huge company. I had my own child care facility. I know how that works. And whenever they would come, there would be something minor that I would get a write up for. There's not any. How is that? Why is that?
Representative Howard Beaty [00:25:56] Final question.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:25:57] You're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:26:00] Do you and the city, or Representative Unger, do you all get advance notice of an inspection or when they're going to be there? Do you have knowledge of someone talking to you and telling you, Hey, we're coming down for an inspection on Monday?
Angela Russell [00:26:11] No, sir. As a matter of fact, when they were doing the air testing, we did not know about it until three days in. And the way that we did finally realize what was going on with the air testing is my cameras caught the vehicles going back and forth and we started watching the vehicles.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:26:27] Okay. Thank you, mayor. Appreciate you coming today and sharing. Thank you, Unger.
Angela Russell [00:26:30] Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:26:32] Representative, I have just a couple of questions. I want to follow up on some specifics in the bill. Subsection A, it refers to a public servant shall not provide. And so the bill seems to make some distinction, one, that it applies to public servants. But then it goes on in a later part of the bill when it talks about if a person convicted under this section while employed by any of the departments of the state. And then further in the bill, if the person is convicted while holding a public office.
So public servant has a pretty broad definition, I think. Not sure exactly who you're meaning that to apply to. And then you seem to have two classes of people that you're trying to apply this to, both a public official who holds office and then someone who's employed by a department of the state. And so I guess I'd like to hear your explanation on how you're kind of working through that and what you're envisioning in terms of how this will apply to those different groups of people. And so if you'd like to explain that, you're recognized.
Representative Steve Unger [00:27:47] The only answer I can give is the bill drafter pulled this language out of the employee ethics manual. And that is why it's worded the way it is. However, I do hear what you're saying and we will tighten that up.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:28:03] Thank you. And then the last point that I would make, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, specifically when you're referring to someone employed by a department, I think there would be some argument that if a person is employed by a department and they know an inspection is coming-- and again, I'm not sure exactly who you're meaning this to apply to. I think you may have a very specific scenario referring to maybe a department of this state.
But let's imagine that you have a public servant, if you will, who's employed by a local water department, and they hear that ADEQ is coming to inspect the water department. They get wind of this complaint. And so the first thing they do is they go tell the mayor or whomever it is that, Hey, I think ADEQ is going to be here on Thursday to inspect. Number one, would they be guilty under this bill for doing so?
And number two, some would argue that they might have some obligation as an employee if they get wind of such notice, if they have any loyalty to their employer, to, in fact, tell them that this is going to happen and that we might want to be prepared for it. And so I'd just like to hear your thoughts on that and how you envision this bill applying to those scenarios. Thank you.
Representative Steve Unger [00:29:17] Thank you. My intention was to just drill down on state employees, and I realize that I could have been more clear. If, let's just say the Springdale Water Department knew that ADEQ was coming and they proactively got busy cleaning up-- and I have full confidence in the Springdale Water Department-- if they started taking corrective actions, well, that's exactly what we want them to do.
And I would also say it was not my intention to impugn the character of state employees, and that is not my meaning at all. My father was a career state employee. And in my dealing with state employees, 99% of them have been just true professionals. And I think the world of them. But as any organization, it's that 1%. It's that one bad apple that gives everybody else a bad name. And it's the bad apple I'm going after. Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:30:25] Thank you. And, again, you just might keep those thoughts in mind as you continue to work on this draft. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:30:34] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from the Department. There's been a lot of allegations, and I'd like to hear their side of the story.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:30:41] All right. Is there anyone here from ADEQ? If you would, each state your name, identify yourself for the record, and then you'll each be recognized to present your testimony.
Shane Khoury [00:31:17] Sure. My name is Shane Knoury. I'm the secretary for the Department of Energy and Environment.
Bailey Taylor [00:31:22] Bailey Taylor, Deputy Director and Chief Administrator of Environment.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:31:27] You're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:31:28] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a little leeway and ask the Department any opening remarks to the testimony that's been at hand, and then I would like to ask questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:31:36] All right.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:31:38] Department, you are recognized.
Shane Khoury [00:31:41] Thank you. I'll just say that for all our entities within the Department of Energy and Environment, not all them, but most of them are regulatory based. Our job and our role is compliance, and we have a lot of inspectors. I would say that the numbers that the mayor recited to you, starting in 2023 is when I became the secretary.
And we purposely increased our inspections because of the allegations around Tontitown and Waste Management and the Eco Vista landfill. I would say that the 29 inspections in a year, that means we were there every other week. I am not aware of the specific situation that Representative Unger is alluding to. I would say that I have no knowledge of any of my employees giving improper advance notice to a regulated entity, and if they did, that would be something we would address. There are instances where we do have to give entities that we regulate advance notice to make sure that there are adequate people there.
A lot of the facilities we inspect are unmanned and we need access. So a lot of times if we're doing stack test, if we're doing things, we need to make sure that there are people there who can operate the equipment so we can conduct an inspection, For example, on the oil and gas side, a lot of the facilities we regulate, we don't actually perform mechanical integrity tests on a well per se, but we have our inspectors witness those. So in order to properly conduct those inspections, then we have to have advance notice so we can have people there. So complaint based, I think, is a very broad term.
Just to be honest, I mean, some of them are complaint based, but a lot of the complaints we get on the ADEQ side might be like a sanitary sewer overflow. And our quickest way to reach out to that person is not to send an inspector, but to contact the wastewater treatment facility and ask them for a report so they can go out and check it out and send it to us. So I understand Representative Unger's concerns. I would just tell you, I'm not aware personally of any of those situations. If I was, we would definitely take action to mitigate those circumstances.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:33:56] Did you have any other remarks?
Bailey Taylor [00:33:58] No, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:33:59] Okay. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:34:01] Thank you, Mr. Chair, And thank you for the lead way. So, Mr. Secretary, in your testimony, you said there are times that you would have to give notice. I have no idea what's going on with this microphone. So this bill would hinder those operations as it's written today, correct?
Shane Khoury [00:34:19] As it's written today? I believe so, yes.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:34:22] So Representative Beaty's concerns are valid?
Shane Khoury [00:34:23] I believe so.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:34:25] And so what I'd like to know is, and the mayor made an allegation that state employees actually picked up the trash a while ago in her comments. Was state employees actually out there picking up trash?
Bailey Taylor [00:34:36] No, sir. We don't pick up their trash.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:34:38] Do you know of any notice that was given from state employees to the Tontitown landfill that inspections were taking place?
Bailey Taylor [00:34:45] No, sir. And solid waste inspections are conducted every quarter. As the secretary mentioned, we did increase that in recent years. And so there was no notice. The solid waste sites, especially Eco Vista, are operating from 5 a.m. till well into the evening. So there's no reason for us to have to call them to make sure that the gate is open or that there are people there. Now for the airside, we may have to call and let them know so that the plant operators are there and any tests that will be conducted are scheduled.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:35:23] One more, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:35:24] You're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:35:25] The quarterly meetings, are they done on a calendar? I mean, do they know when those quarterly inspections are going to happen or do you just show up within the quarter to conduct those inspections?
Bailey Taylor [00:35:35] It's any time within the quarter. Typically, it is around the same time each quarter because they inspect all of their landfills or solid waste facilities within that quarter. And so they want to give--
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:35:47] So if they show up in Springdale, Tontitown knows they're coming.
Bailey Taylor [00:35:52] It doesn't always have to be in that order. And we also switch up inspectors. So it's not always that same week each quarter. It's just sometimes it can generally be in the same pattern. But any time within the quarter.
Shane Khoury [00:36:09] Let me also say that that's the difference between our routine inspections and the complaint based ones. Because when we receive complaints, we also dispatch inspectors to do that. So you have your quarterly regular routine inspections occurring plus additional complaint based inspections.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:36:25] Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just for the knowledge, two years ago in session, there was a bill brought forth for the ability to sue some of these folks and it didn't make it through the Public Health Committee at that time. So this is not the first stab at this landfill. This is a problem for that area. And my heart goes out to those folks that live there. But I just don't know that we're taking the right steps to address the issues.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:36:52] All right. Thank you, Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:36:55] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two quick questions. Before you came in today, were you guys aware that there was a concern that somebody in your department had shared information that maybe inspections were coming? Was that new news or did you guys already know that?
Shane Khoury [00:37:14] I would say we have heard that allegation. My understanding is the allegation occurred prior to 2023. We are very diligent in making sure that our inspectors don't do that. If somebody has done that, we're not aware of it and we are actively trying to guard against those things when it's improper notice.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:37:35] I got you. My last question is, when you learn of things like what we're discussing today, a concern that maybe this has happened, do you guys have a protocol where you do any kind of like an internal investigation or series of questions or anything like that to verify?
Shane Khoury [00:37:49] I would say it's not a written protocol. But yes, I would work with Bailey as the DEQ director. And those inspectors report through a chain of command, solid waste inspectors, specifically, we would talk to them. We would talk to their supervisors. So, I mean, this is a well documented issue, I think, in Tontitown. I mean, there are active lawsuits and appeals. We are actively doing air monitoring. And I mean, I don't think this is new to any of us on our side, but I don't think that-- I have no reason to believe that any of our inspectors are giving improper notice to the facilities in that area.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:38:25] So just from my understanding, you're saying you guys are aware of this, you've looked into it, and you're saying that you don't have any record that that's happened.
Shane Khoury [00:38:34] Correct. And specifically in 2023, when I became secretary, we increased the number of inspections for a period of time because there was so many complaints, so many of the same people making the same complaints that I wanted a better understanding. So if you're looking at those numbers, as opposed to once every month for 2021, 2022, 2023, I think we have 39 or 40, give or take inspections. We have a lot of inspections going on and they're not always the same person.
So we tried to take steps to have other inspectors looking at the same set of circumstances to see if there was, for example, somebody who was maybe overlooking things that we shouldn't overlook. We've had other people, independent inspectors, that maybe not cover that area go to that area with very similar results.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:39:23] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:39:27] Representative Long, did you have a question? Yeah. Okay. Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:39:34] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess where I'm coming from is we know there's a problem. We've been hearing about this for years. And in your opinion, you've only been there since 2023, but you've been there a couple of years now. In your opinion, what can people of Tontitown do to get something resolved?
It almost seems like to me that government is the problem here because we just keep hitting walls to where, and I don't want to say you're not believing the people, but something's going on. There should be a way that if there are dangerous chemicals, which we know there are, I believe, what can be done to take care of the problem?
Shane Khoury [00:40:39] Sure. And I would say that what we do know is that there are chemicals in the air that are higher than the RSL levels. We have done, so far since I've been secretary, we have done three rounds of air monitoring. And what those have shown us is that they also occur in the background levels. So we have spent well over $100,000 thus far.
We are currently going through an RFQ process to select a bidder to do another round of air sampling in and around the Tontitown area. It'll probably be $500,000 to $600,000 for this particular study that we're going to do. And it is designed to help us identify where these chemicals may be coming from. But I will also say that even though those chemicals are higher than RSL levels, we also know that they are background and that they are naturally occurring in some areas.
So we have designed a next step working with the Department of Health to try to identify if we can determine where these particular chemicals in the air may be coming from. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not doing anything. We have continually expanded our monitoring program to try to provide some relief and try to identify is there a specific cause. What we've seen so far is there's nothing that's pointed that cause specifically to the landfill. As you go out further away from the landfill, whether you're upwind, downwind, crosswind, the samples are very similar.
So we have designed a broader scope of that test with more monitors and a longer period of time and look forward to doing that as soon as we get through the RFQ process, working with state procurement and others. So we are continually monitoring this and trying to design a program that will help us identify what can be done working along with the Department of Health.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:42:30] Okay. If it's a natural thing, as you said, rather than the landfill itself, will the state be involved in helping take care of that as well?
Shane Khoury [00:42:43] I would say that if it is not caused by a regulated entity from Energy and Environment, then our role would be somewhat mitigated and it would be some other entity of the state because we are regulating impacts caused by the environment from permit holders.
So if there's a cause that is identified, I think we have to know what that cause is to evaluate who the proper regulatory entity is, whether it's us or someone else. If there is truly not an identifiable cause and it's in background areas and it's in a larger area, I think that we would obviously have to have some input from other stakeholders to try to figure out what the next steps are.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:43:21] Okay. But you're committed to do that?
Shane Khoury [00:43:23] Yes, ma'am.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:43:23] Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:43:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. My understanding, this bill is to protect the person that Representative Unger said knows that the tip off has been given. I guess my question for you is, what is in place currently inside your administration to protect that person if they were just to come to you as the secretary and say, hey, we understand this is an issue. We know for a fact that folks are being tipped off. What protection does that employee have currently that maybe would prevent the need of this legislation?
Shane Khoury [00:44:01] I'm not sure I understand the question specifically, but I think Representative Unger's bill is to prevent the tip off from occurring in a complaint based situation, where ideally there was no need for that entity to have notice. I mean, there are instances where there is a need for an entity to have notice, to have proper personnel.
But assuming that if I understand the intent would be we shouldn't give notice to facilities that don't need notice. I think that's what he's trying to guard against. And that's the same thing we try to make sure that we're not doing as well. Because if there's no need to give notice, we don't. And we shouldn't because there are routine inspections. There are also surprise inspection. They're also complaint based inspection.
So I think we do a lot of that. And in this particular case, we rotated inspectors because the allegation is one particular inspector has a relationship and gives notice. And we have no evidence of that, but we've sent other inspectors with similar results.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:44:59] So I guess I don't understand. If the notice is being given publicly then nobody's being tipped off, correct?
Shane Khoury [00:45:08] Correct. But I guess, it's not a public notice. I mean, the allegation is the employee notifies Waste Management prior to showing up on site. Hey, I'm going to be here tomorrow.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:45:21] So are they supposed to do that or not supposed to do that? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Shane Khoury [00:45:24] It depends on the type of inspection they're doing.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:45:27] Okay. Okay. I guess maybe my question would be better suited for Representative Unger. I don't know. My point to that is if they're doing something they're not supposed to be doing, is there a protocol in place for a coworker to turn them in without fear of retribution or loss of employment?
Shane Khoury [00:45:44] Yes. And I also think that, I mean, they're not written, but we continually ask and evaluate those scenarios, especially where there are allegations, whether it's in DEQ or Oil & Gas or any other entities within Energy and Environment. We want to make sure that we are doing things properly and above board.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:46:00] Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:46:05] I do have a couple of follow ups on that. Again, along the lines of what I asked Representative Unger, and so we're kind of in hypothetical land here, but bear with me. It seems that Representative Unger's bill applies to three groups of people.
First, it references public servants, which is a broad term, which could include a lot of different people. Then it references employees of the Department of the State. And then it references public officials, like an elected public official, would be removed from office. So are you aware, and we all know, I think, the scenario that this bill is aimed at, is there any allegation that there are public officials who are tipping off, like elected public officials that are tipping off the landfill in this case?
Shane Khoury [00:46:59] So I think that's probably a question better addressed to the sponsor. But in our specific case, the allegation has been a solid waste inspector in particular, so an employee of the Division of Environmental Quality.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:47:14] Right. And so and again, and I don't know if that's happened, if it's happened, how it's happened, who the person would be giving the notice to, how they would be notifying or tipping them off, so to speak. You know, I can also see a scenario where an employee of the Waste Management facility somehow learns-- these things go through multiple channels. The information winds up in the hands of an employee of the Waste Management department.
This goes to the point I made earlier. If I work for the Waste Management district and I find out that DEQ is coming for an inspection on Thursday, why would I not let my employer know that? I want to tip them off about that because I want things to to go well. I have some loyalty to my employer. I want to be in my employer's good graces. And one way to do that is to let them know that there is an inspection coming. Why would I not tell them?
But I think under Representative Unger's bill, that would essentially criminalize that person from doing that, which kind of puts an employee-- because it does mention employees, public servants and maybe a public servant is someone that works for the Waste Management division. I'm not sure. But the point is it would put an employee, and again, I'm not sure it's aimed at this specifically, but assuming it applies, it puts that employee in a really difficult situation.
Do I tell my employer out of loyalty to my employer that this inspection is coming or do I not tell them and incur the consequences of that? So I just think that's something to think through. If you've got any comments on that, be glad to hear it.
Shane Khoury [00:48:51] I mean, I think you recognize some of the issues. Another particular issue along those same lines is if you're an inspector, you're an entry level inspector, you're learning on the job. And a lot of times there are, like I said, instances where you're going to have to notify them of inspection.
And if this bill passes and becomes law, then there are times when you can't. And if you have a new employee who is trying to figure out and improperly gives notice, now, under the penalties of this provision, you have taken someone who may have made an honest mistake-- I mean, it's not a willful or purposeful or knowingly intent required for this. It could have just been an honest mistake.
And now that employee is no longer ever allowed to work in state government. So I understand Representative Unger's intent. I truly do. And I think we share the same intent. I just don't know that the way that it's written, I think we have a lot of concerns, but I think he's agreed to tighten up the language.
So maybe we can come to some resolution. But like I said, we don't disagree with the intent. We don't want people giving improper notice. But we also have to give notice in some circumstances to be able to do our job.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:49:57] And that's a great point about the mental state. Thanks for bringing that up. I've heard I think some other members make references to that also. So thank you for that. Representative Beaty, you're recognized. And I think this is the last question. You guys have been here for a while and I don't believe there's going to be a vote on this today. So if there are no further questions, we're going to move forward after this. Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:50:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, just one question. One of the repeated complaints that I hear in discussions about the air quality inspections at Tontitown is that those inspections are done when I guess the gasification plan is not running. You mentioned that you have an RFQ or a request out on a vendor. Does that contract include a condition that those inspections be conducted when the gas plant is running and operating? And if not, could that be added to that request that those inspections only be conducted when that plan is operational?
Shane Khoury [00:50:58] I don't believe it is specifically stated in the RFQ, but that is something we fully intend to do is to make sure that the landfill is operating at capacity in the proper form with the gasification system working.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:51:10] Well, my concern there, I appreciate your willingness to address that, I just think that takes away another condition. If something's going on there and it's a problem and that's where it's coming from, then that's easy enough to either identify that that's the issue at hand or that's why that those processes go away. If we're spending that amount of money, let's make dang certain that we're getting a good inspection at a time that could be of the highest concern for the citizens there. And let's put this thing to bed one way or the other.
Shane Khoury [00:51:43] Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Bailey Taylor [00:51:44] And we do have data that shows that the plant was running during the previous two tests.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:51:58] Seeing no further questions, there's also no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Unger, if you've got any additional remarks you'd like to make, and we're not going to take a vote today, and so closing for the bill necessarily wouldn't be in order. But if you've got any additional remarks that you'd like to make before we move on to the next item, you're certainly recognized to do that.
Representative Steve Unger [00:52:20] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. I appreciate your feedback. I truly do. I can understand this thing has got some loose parts and pieces. It could be done better. It will be done better. Appreciate Representative Crawford's remark that something is going on. Yes, something is going on. And you don't need to be a weatherman to know that it's raining. So thank you for your time. I'm closed.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:52:51] Thank you, Representative. So we're going to move on to the next item, which is House Bill 1059. So, Representative Unger, don't go too far. That's you also. And so you're recognized to present House Bill 1059.
Representative Steve Unger [00:53:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the grace of God, this will not have that much drama. But I'm not a good prophet of my own stuff. 1059. If I could just give a little background here. After I retired out of the Navy and went back to Springdale, I became active through twists and turns of fate of being a volunteer for the National Child Protection Task Force, which involves getting juveniles out of sex trafficking.
And through that, came to find out that our truck drivers of the nation are basically our eyes and ears of a lot of sex trafficking, streetwalker prostitution, because a lot of it happens at truck stops. Thinking about how could we incentivize this?
And so what I landed on was not money, but a lifetime hunting and fishing license. I talked to the commissioner at the time, Mr. Booth. Sorry, I'm fumbling for the right title there. He said these things cost us about $1,000. Early on, I sit down with incoming Speaker Evans and I pitched this idea to him of a lifetime hunting and fishing license. And I said, Now there's a price tag per of $1,000. And Representative Evans said, Well, what's a human life worth? And I like that answer. I ran it past the wise man of the budget, Lane Jean. He basically said the same thing.
It was flattering to me Judge Fowler in Craighead County reached out to me, who's the judicial ambassador for the National Judicial College, and he teaches and trains judges on sex trafficking issues. And he forwarded my bill to the National Judicial College and the National Center for State Courts. And that's good to hear. And it's possible that Arkansas could be a leader in the nation with doing this.
How many tips will we get? I have no idea. I can tell you there was a young woman from Benton County who was recovered from a truck stop up in Missouri from an anonymous tip just within the last few months. We just need to do something. And this to me is a step in the right direction because the sex trafficking, human trafficking issue, it's just not getting any better. And so I'd like to take a look at this and just try to help the problem and bring these young people home. Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:55:55] All right. Representative Unger has explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:56:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Unger, I don't think there's anybody at this table or this committee that doesn't agree with trying to help find sex traffickers. But I do have concern with, why the Game & Fish Like? Why not do a tax credit or why not do like a cash reward for somebody?
I mean, why the Game & Fish? Because what if somebody turns somebody in and they get convicted and they've never hunted or fished in their life and they say, well, Representative Wardlaw is going to get a Game & Fish thing for turning somebody in, but I don't get anything. I mean, why the Game & Fish, I guess?
Representative Steve Unger [00:56:48] I just didn't like the sound of a cash reward. We're proud of our hunting and fishing in the natural state. And yes, I get it that not all truck drivers do so they won't take advantage of this. Hopefully they'll just turn in the tip, take their lifetime license and frame it on the wall. Maybe. I don't know. And I just didn't like the sound of a cash reward.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:57:13] Or even like a tax credit or something along those lines.
Representative Steve Unger [00:57:17] You know how hard it is to get tax credits.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:57:19] I'm just throwing it out there. Whenever we go after one agency and then the agency goes, when they've just said things to me like, why us? Where are they going to get reimbursed whenever that $1,000 goes out to somebody on that? How are they going to get reimbursed on that out of their budget?
Representative Steve Unger [00:57:38] They will show us how many they issued and we will find the money to reimburse them. And that will work for Lane Jean and it works for me.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:57:47] Okay. One more, Mr. Chair, and then I'll move on. Actually, I'll save this question for in a moment.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:58:02] Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:58:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, Unger, again, last night we spoke about my concerns related to this legislation. I agree and echo the comments by Representative Hawk that I don't think you've got anyone sitting at this table or in the legislature or even in this room that does not despise and completely understand the evil that is human trafficking and support the cause which you are trying to draw attention and support.
My concerns come back to the words 'if appropriated,' more or less. You say, and if we get the money, but nobody's got an idea of where we get the money. I understand last night in discussions we talked about, well, it's $1,000. Surely we can find $1,000 for the expense. But that's $1,000 right now. And it's probably a little bit more with all the stamps and everything else that's involved in the legislation.
So my concern is we need to find that money and find the appropriation for it, where that's going to come from. Because when you start looking for money around this place, sometimes it's hard to find and you got to get everyone's consensus to get that money and everybody's got another use for it somewhere. So have you had any specific discussions with someone of where the money will come from or it's just we're going to find it?
Representative Steve Unger [00:59:36] I would hate to quote Representative Jean out of context, but basically the feel was for $1,000 a pop, we'll figure it out.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:59:46] And follow up.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:59:47] You're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:59:50] Again, we had this discussion last night of why we just limit this to truck drivers in the state and we wouldn't open it up to anyone in the state to expand that to have a bigger impact. I understand maybe the reason for that is the cost and expense of the hunting license.
But could you explain just a little bit because you made it clear to me that the bill is only for Arkansas licensed resident operators, but they can report this crime anywhere in the country where they're driving and traveling and delivering. So outside the state, they could report things and I think you said Maine last night or California, wherever they're traveling. Is that the intent of the bill? So it doesn't have to happen inside the state of Arkansas? Could it happen anywhere?
Representative Steve Unger [00:00:12] Yes, sir. It could happen anywhere. To go back to what I said before, there was an Arkansas girl recovered up in Missouri. And in the world of sex trafficking, a lot of times the trafficker will get them as far away from home as possible to put them in an unfamiliar setting. And so there's just no telling where an Arkansas youth could be recovered.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:00:32] And last thing is, again, I support the cause. I just don't think I can support the bill as it's currently written. Get your money, get your funding, and you'll get my support. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:00:46] Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:00:52] Mr. Chairman, this is not going to feel good, but I'm going to need some leeway again, please.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:00:56] Yes, sir. You're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:00:59] Representative Unger, how many coffee shops have you ever been to?
Representative Steve Unger [00:01:03] A bunch.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:01:04] What's the number one thing that happens at coffee shops when it comes to trust in politicians? What do they say?
Representative Steve Unger [00:01:09] They don't trust us.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:01:11] Okay, so you're asking me to trust them with this bill, because nowhere in here do you lay out where the mechanism is and when we pay them back for the lifetime license? Do we pay them on an annual basis? Do we pay them on a bi annual basis? What budget are we taking it from or are we taking it from surplus or we're taking it from general revenue? I mean, you're asking for a whole lot of trust for the number one thing the public does not trust at all. True or false?
Representative Steve Unger [00:01:36] But we should trust each other.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:01:38] True or false?
Representative Steve Unger [00:01:41] Does the public trust us? Not much.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:01:42] Okay. I don't trust us either. And when you bring a bill to us, I agree 100% with Representative Beaty, it ought to outline exactly how you're going to pay for what you're giving away when you say we're going to pay for it. I mean, it's an incomplete bill, in my opinion. So, I mean, do you want to pull it down and put some funding in it or show us how you're going to pay it back or when it's going to be paid back? I mean, they've got a budget at Arkansas Game & Fish. I mean, how can they budget not knowing when the funds are coming?
Representative Steve Unger [00:02:16] Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of that, I would like to pull down the bill and roger up for the concerns of my colleagues.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:02:26] Representative Unger, I'll honor that request. You're certainly free to pull the bill down. However, I will say there are other representatives that had questions. Before you do that, we may just want to go ahead and let everyone ask their questions and then I'll allow you to do that. I certainly don't have any objection if that's what you want to do. But while we're here and while we're addressing the topic and there are our members with questions, let's let them ask their questions because they may have some pertinent point for you to consider when you bring it back. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray [00:03:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Unger, I just want to commend you. I think this is sort of a creative out of the box idea. I do have a question of functionally how this would play out. Who would be the person that determines that a particular tip led to that conviction? Who would be the arbiter of that? How do you see that playing out?
Representative Steve Unger [00:03:30] Well, when I had the conversation with the former director, it was basically they present proof of either a conviction or arrest because there are police reports. The truck driver could not make an anonymous report. He would have to, if he called 911 or whatever, have to give his name, address, contact information. And it would be incumbent on him to stay on top of that. You know, this thing is just not going to show up in the mail automatically. The former director said they would figure out the mechanism of how that was going to be rewarded.
Representative David Ray [00:04:09] Okay. I do have a question for Game & Fish about this if they're willing to answer questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:04:28] Is there anyone from Game & Fish here? If you'd identify yourself, state your name for the record, and you'll be recognized.
Chris Racey [00:04:33] Good morning, Mr. Chair, Committee. Chris Racey, interim director for the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. And I do have my CFO, Emily Shumate, here as well.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:04:38] All right, Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray [00:04:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would start off by just asking what is the agency's posture toward the bill? Do you have a position or thoughts on the bill?
Chris Racey [00:04:51] Sure. First of all, as has been said across the room, we're obviously against human trafficking and we definitely appreciate the spirit of the bill. We appreciate Representative Unger and those who are working collectively across Arkansas to reduce and eliminate human trafficking. And first, let's be clear about that.
As far as the bill goes, again, I think for us, we're looking at trying to better understand the administrative process. We need to work with some other state agencies pretty closely. And then there is a need because we cannot give away hunting and fishing licenses for free. That's in the Constitution.
There would be a need to have an appropriation and a funding source outside of AGFC filed to help handle the reimbursement. We're certainly more than willing to sit and work with the representative if there is additional information that needs to be put into the bill to make it more palatable for the committee.
Representative David Ray [00:05:48] So I understand you have to charge fees for licenses. That's one way that your agency generates revenue to operate. But I guess I'm curious, what is the additional cost to your agency of one additional person having a license to hunt or fish?
Chris Racey [00:06:09] So the product that is most recently referenced for this bill is our $1,000 lifetime license. That's the most expensive lifetime license that we have. We do have a suite of other lifetime licenses. A 65-plus lifetime license. We have a veteran's lifetime license. We have a disability lifetime license, which are obviously a discounted rate compared to our standard $1,000 lifetime license that also is accompanied by waterfowl stamps, trout stamps and so on and so forth.
Representative David Ray [00:06:42] Yeah, I understand that's the cost of the license. And I understand you have to charge for the license because the agency needs revenue to operate. I just don't see what costs issuing one person a license imposes on the agency that you would need to be reimbursed for.
Chris Racey [00:07:03] Sure. Let me ask our CFO if she's going to comment on that.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:07:11] Ma'am, we would again identify yourself, state your name and you're recognized.
Emily Shumate [00:07:17] Absolutely. Emily Shumate, CFO, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission.
Chris Racey [00:07:23] The question is what are the additional fees that would be incurred in addition to the $1,000 to the agency for each license?
Emily Shumate [00:07:33] So the lifetime license, the $1,000 would cover the full life of the holder, including the fees, including the state issued tags. This would not cover as written any federal duck stamps that were required. Now, if this is an avid hunter and fisher, there may be a cost much larger, or not much larger, much further down the line of missed revenue. But that's not something that we're concerned about at this time.
Representative David Ray [00:08:10] Okay. I guess I'll try one more time.
Emily Shumate [00:08:14] I'm so sorry.
Representative David Ray [00:08:15] Well, I understand that the agency has to charge a fee for the license because that's one way that the agency generates revenue, and there's obviously costs to running the agency. But in this particular instance, I don't see how there's an added cost to your agency that you would have to be reimbursed for just because there's one additional hunter or fisherman in the state that has a license.
Emily Shumate [00:08:41] No, sir. Not above the $1,000. The reason for the reimbursement on the $1,000 is that in the Constitution, we're not allowed to give away a free license. Also, under Pittman Robinson, we're not allowed to give away any free licenses. But administratively, we should be able to absorb, but those are minimal transaction fees. The rest of it, we would be okay.
Representative David Ray [00:09:02] Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you.
Emily Shumate [00:09:03] I apologize.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:09:10] All right. And you said under Pittman Robinson?
Emily Shumate [00:09:15] Yes, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:09:16] What is that?
Emily Shumate [00:09:18] That's our largest federal funding stream. It's what funds wildlife restoration and sports fish restoration in the state of Arkansas. We have three main funding streams. And it's one of our pillars.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:09:35] Very good. Learn something new every day. Thank you very much. Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:09:41] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is probably mainly for the sponsor. Did someone else want to do Game & Fish while they're up? Representative Unger, thank you for your heart. Thank you for bringing this. And we can talk offline. But as I'm listening to this, maybe you could have something where it wasn't a blanket hunting and fishing license like was talked about.
Not all truckers hunt and fish, so it could be something that could be applied for if, when they found a girl or a boy and were taken out of that lifestyle, they could apply for that. The other thoughts in my head were people like trophies. They like awards. We could do something like that, even something to set on their dashboard. A bobblehead comes to mind. I don't like bobbleheads but it comes to mind.
But just something that they could set on their dashboard that makes them feel good about what they've done. So I just thought I would throw that out. And if you want to talk offline, I'd be glad to talk with you on that.
Representative Steve Unger [00:11:15] Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:11:21] Representative Hawk, he's not here. Okay. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:11:30] Thank you. Kind of following along with Representative Ray's questions because I don't think, at least, I didn't get the answer. And this kind of comes-- if we could have the Game & Fish folks back up there. I'm so sorry. I'll wait till you get there so that you can hear my questioning. I didn't feel satisfied with the answer that was given. So I'm going to ask maybe in just a slightly different way.
We understand that the price on it is $1,000, but in reality it's not like we're having Game & Fish to come up with money for that. I mean, I don't know what actually costs truly $1,000. Like, is it a piece of paper? I mean, what is it? And so what that would lead to is if we continued on this route and you got the lifetime hunting and fishing license, and I realize that you're saying it can't be given for free, and now as the legislature we're going to compensate you for it, do we really need to compensate you for $1,000? Or can it be $10?
Do you kind of see where, I think, maybe I misunderstood what Representative Ray was asking, but I think this is what my question had been. Is the true cost to the state of Arkansas $1,000 for this license? Or is it a piece of paper and maybe a few other clerical things? And it is, you know, a half hour of someone's work, and really, we could just kind of exchange this out for $10 or $20.
Emily Shumate [00:13:19] Absolutely. I apologize. I'm following now. So what is has the value is the privilege of hunting and fishing in the state of Arkansas. If this was not a lifetime product, it would be $52.50 each year that a person is hunting and fishing. And so the lifetime license, if someone is an avid hunter, fisher that $52.50 over each year compounds.
The $1,000, while it's upfront, is if you're someone who's going to hunt or fish 20, 30 years, we do end up losing some revenue. What we have to have on just each piece is that paper. There's a gold plate that comes with a lifetime license. There is the minimum regulation under the code that a license on the federal side that there's $2 per privilege per year. And I'd be happy to go through all of this with you in detail as well. But so that would be $4 per year would be the absolute federal minimum that we could charge.
Now a lifetime, we estimate a lifetime at 80 years because that's the average lifetime right now. So we can work through that formula with you as well and see if we could come down a little. But not knowing how old the person who's providing the tip will be, what their lifespan will be. We can come up with a number. But the $1,000 is the cost of the privilege right now on our website.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:14:53] Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I think that's more along the line. Did you say $4 is the absolute lowest year?
Emily Shumate [00:15:02] For our federal policy, the $4 is the absolute lowest per year that the privilege is offered. So 4 times 80 would be the absolute lowest that we could still certify that person as a hunter, fisher for the state of Arkansas and stay clear on our federal law.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:15:19] But we are talking about a truck driver that has to be a certain age to begin with. So we're not talking about like an infant getting this. So I'm just trying to think, how could you come up with a better number, so it's not $1,000 to the state if this conversation continues. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:15:41] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:15:43] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my question would be also for Representative Unger. Thank you, Game & Fish. Mr. Chair, if that's okay. Also, Mr. Chair, for clarification, would we need a fiscal impact statement? We are talking about a lot of money here and about ongoing stuff. Would we need a fiscal impact statement on something like this?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:16:03] I think it would be advisable when the sponsor brings the bill back, because clearly people are concerned about the fiscal impact, that if BLR can prepare a fiscal impact statement on this to try to bring one.
Representative Steve Unger [00:16:17] I will tell you, I asked that question early on and they said because we have no idea how many people are going to apply for this, it is kind of hard to say. I did ask the question.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:16:27] And I appreciate that. You might ask them if they can, you know, with some assumptions, assuming a certain number of people, give us some idea. Anyway, they like to take that approach from time to time, but they may can do a little better than that. So we'll check on that. Thank you, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:16:50] And I've got one final question. We keep talking about the tips and getting the tips in. My biggest question with this whole bill is the execution. Once you get a conviction from the tip, how are we getting the execution to the Game & Fish? Because the judges and everybody else, I mean, they're not going to hand the tip guy a piece of paper and say, okay, take this to the Game & Fish, get your lifetime license. It's just not going to work that way.
So we're going to have to rely on the judiciary system to then send a piece of paper to the Game & Fish and there's nothing in the bill that is going to say how this thing is going to work. And so really, once again, like Representative Wardlaw has said, there's a lot of moving pieces in this that aren't identified. And I think that if we're going to move this forward, we've got to identify that, not just for the Game & Fish, but for the tip person and for the legislature who's going to provide the funds. There's a lot of moving parts in this, and I would just like to see that fiscal impact statement. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:17:57] All right. Members, I'll remind you that Representative Unger has asked to pull this bill down. And so let's try to keep the questions limited. We have three other bills that we're going to hear today. And so I'm going to recognize everybody that's in the queue. But after that, I'm going to let Representative Unger pull this down and we're going to move on to the next bill. So, Representative Wardlaw, did you have a question?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw [00:18:20] No.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:18:21] All right. Representative Long, you're recognized. All of your questions have been answered. All right. No other members are in the queue. Representative Unger, you're requesting to pull the bill down, is that correct?
Representative Steve Unger [00:18:41] Yes.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:18:41] All right. We will honor that request. The bill is considered to be pulled down and you can bring it back at another time. Thank you. All right. Next, we have House Bill 1064. Representative Whitaker. Welcome to State Agencies.
Representative David Whitaker [00:19:11] I'd like to say I'm thrilled to be back. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. I'm sorry we're coming to you so late. I will be brief. If you had a chance to look at the bill, you see it's not much more than two pages of text, the vast majority of which is already current law. The underlying sections set forth the only changes I'm requesting.
As background, late last fall, I got a phone call from some constituents out in Farmington who had told me that they had contacted the county clerk's office to get an application for an absentee ballot because they were over 65. And evidently the state they had relocated from, it was just standard practice in their law that once you reach 65, you could by right from the safety and convenience of your home. I told them I thought that was already one of the things. I'm not a huge election law buff.
So I called up BLR and they said, in fact, that was not one of the reasons you could vote absentee in Arkansas. So on behalf of my constituents, I filed this simple, limited bill that changes nothing except adding people who will be 65 or older on Election Day. I'm happy to take any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:20:53] All right. Thank you, Representative Whitaker. Representative Whitaker has presented his bill this time. Are there any committee member questions? Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:21:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Whitaker, what state was that? Do you know off top of your head?
Representative David Whitaker [00:21:07] I don't know off the top of my head. Actually, within a couple of weeks of that, another person from about that same area called me. So we may be talking about different. I have heard from others who are advocates for what they call vote at home who tell me that the vast majority of states, some 36, allow this. Of course, it doesn't include the ones who have gone to full measure no fault, which we're not asking for here. But evidently it's quite a number of states and I could get that for you offline if you need it.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:21:41] That was going to be my next question. I was curious which states those were and if you had that list.
Representative David Whitaker [00:21:45] I don't have it with me today.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:21:46] Okay. Do you know any of them?
Representative David Whitaker [00:21:48] Not off the top of my head.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:21:50] All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:21:52] Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:21:54] Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. Couple a couple of concerns about your bill. Under current existing Arkansas law, there's no restriction on who can request an absentee ballot. So I think the first part is designating those voters that attain the age 65 is unnecessary to designate those specific individuals because there's no restrictions on who could apply.
The other concern I have is that this selection for absentee ballots is good for, I think a calendar year, according to the bill. So it would be for all elections. And then the cost of mailing that absentee ballot out as much as change of address and folks relocating and moving, the expense of continuing that for the entire year for all elections in the year, I would have an issue and a concern with that.
And that would be one of the issues of why I would not support your bill is that it is for a calendar year and moves that forward. And we don't restrict anyone from requesting an absentee ballot right now. So two of my concerns there.
Representative David Whitaker [00:23:12] The understanding was they certainly could have requested one, but they were being told by the county clerk that they were not eligible to get one. So the mere ability to request something you can never have would discourage most people from bothering. As far as the language of the year, that was on the workmanship of the bill drafter. If I may inquire, what would you prefer that to be?
Representative Howard Beaty [00:23:43] My preference would be that every time when there's a ballot issue or an election out there, if they want an absentee ballot, they do what everyone in the state has done and request an absentee ballot for that election and follow that instead of just a blanket absentee that would be mailed out.
Representative David Whitaker [00:24:01] So per election is some language you would prefer?
Representative Howard Beaty [00:24:03] Yes, sir.
Representative David Whitaker [00:24:04] I'm certainly amenable to that.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:24:06] Good. Good.
Representative David Whitaker [00:24:07] Although with the caveat, I'm not sure how much more work that would make for our front line folks and clerks and election commissions, etc. So I have things that have to kind of be weighed against each other.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:24:21] I would think the amount of work to mail an absentee ballot is going to be the same instead of just a blanket. The cost would be the concern for me. If you have a ton of folks that elect this option and we're sending out absentee ballots they're not going to utilize-- maybe they're going to come to the polls and vote and we're mailing those out automatically for every election-- then that's compounding the expense of operations on the county and would drive that cost up. And so that would be my primary concern.
Representative David Whitaker [00:24:51] And I'm grateful for your input. And following the trend of the day, I'm inclined to pull it down and get the changes folks are requesting. Although one of the reasons I stayed was the fact that we had folks signed up to speak on it. So if we could, following the example of earlier, we could continue the questions for members and allow whoever may be here to testify an opportunity to be heard. And I could come back another day with appropriate amendments and other things that anything else you may request of me. I'd just really like to get this done for our seniors.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:25:38] Just a quick follow up, Mr. Chair. As one, I applaud you for trying to take care of your constituents. That's what we all want to do. And I think the committee, we'd welcome to hear anyone that's going to speak in favor of this bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:25:54] Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:25:57] Just a point of clarification. Representative Whitaker, so my understanding is that there are two different ways absentee ballot applications go in. One is for the election cycle, and that's if you live outside the county. And the other is for the year, and that's if you are in a residential care facility or if you have a disability. So I'm thinking that's why it was drafted to be a year. That's consistent with how we handle the people with disabilities and who are living in residential care. So would you agree that's probably why that was drafted that way?
Representative David Whitaker [00:26:35] It wouldn't shock me at all.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:26:42] Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:26:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that this kind of places the administrative burden on the county clerks. Did you happen to get any conversation with the County Clerks Association or have they issued kind of their statement of belief on this?
Representative David Whitaker [00:27:03] I've heard nothing from them.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:27:08] So you haven't talked with them?
Representative David Whitaker [00:27:10] I've heard nothing from them. We filed the bill a month ago.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:27:15] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:27:18] Representative Whitaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Has the Association of Counties reached out at all, or would you mind if we brought them to the table just to get their take on this?
Representative David Whitaker [00:27:27] I have heard from no one who opposes the bill, and I've not heard from the association, which I have no objection to having anyone who wishes to speak, speak.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:27:37] Mr. Chair, would you mind, if they are here, if we could hear from them?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:27:42] Ms. French.
Lindsey French [00:27:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lindsey French with the Association of Arkansas Counties. And the Clerks Association has not taken a position on this bill. Hence, the reason I have not reached out to you. The only concern that I have heard from 1 or 2 clerks is that the absentee application is already two pages and a concern that adding one more thing could make it longer and add an additional page to the mailing. So if that could be addressed, I think that would be appreciated. But that's the only concern that we've heard. And again, the clerks haven't taken a position, so we have not either.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:28:35] Thank you. Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:28:38] All right. Thank you, sir. No further questions. And also, Representative Whitaker, you said that there were folks signed up to speak for or against the bill. We don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against this bill, at least on the sign in sheet that I have. Is there anyone here who has signed up to speak for or against this bill? If you're here, speak now or forever hold your piece. Alright. Seeing no one, Representative Whitaker, is it still your desire to pull the bill down and do some work on it?
Representative David Whitaker [00:29:12] Well, it sounds like it needs it, and I'm always eager to bring a bill that actually accomplishes what I want to and that our fellow members can believe in. It's a blessing to be on the very first day. It gives us some time to actually do some good work fashioning a bill that will make everybody happy. Well, most everybody.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:29:33] All right. Well, if that's your request, then I certainly am happy to honor that and allow you to pull it down. And we'll bring it back at a later time.
Representative David Whitaker [00:29:41] Thank you for your forbearance.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:29:42] All right. Thank you. All right. Next, we have House Bill 1075. Representative Ray, you are recognized. You're recognized.
Representative David Ray [00:30:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was momentarily contemplating just not running any bills this session after the last couple of hours. But I do have House Bill 1075 today, which I believe is a pretty simple, narrowly tailored preemption bill that would prohibit local governments from banning the use or sale of lawn care machines based on the type of fuel or energy source that they utilize.
I've had several people reach out to me about this bill, curious as to what prompted it, and I'll try to answer that for you. As strange as this may sound, there are well over 100 cities in the country, and that number is increasing, that have banned the sale or use of gas powered lawn care machines like mowers, weed eaters, leaf blowers, snow blowers, things of that nature. And they enact these sort of heavy handed government prohibitions under the auspices of fighting climate change.
But of course, these policies needlessly meddle with the free market. They infringe on people's individual freedom. They unnecessarily limit consumer choice and they harm small businesses that rely on these sorts of machines to earn a living. And so, in short, I would argue that it's really just not any of the government's business what type of lawn mower or weed eater you're using. Thankfully, I'm not aware of any local governments in the state of Arkansas that are doing this.
And so this bill is admittedly somewhat preventative in nature. But one thing that we do know is when policies like this take root in other states, they often don't stay there. They try to be exported to other states. And so this bill would prohibit that from happening in Arkansas. I think this is a good pro-consumer, pro-free market bill to ensure that the government is not meddling in an area of the economy that they really shouldn't be meddling in in the first place and picking winners and losers in this sector of the economy. So I would be happy to answer any questions about the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:32:29] All right. Representative Ray has presented his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Ray, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative David Ray [00:32:48] Okay. I'll just close by saying if you've ever wanted to proverbially or literally tell the government to get off your lawn, you can vote for this bill and do that. Thank you. And with that, I move do pass.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:33:06] Representative Ray has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee members? He made a motion. He's on the committee, has made a motion do pass. All right. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ray, you've passed your bill.
Next we have House Bill 1138. Representative Torres. And there is an amendment to this bill. So before we get started, we're going to pass out that amendment. All right. It looks like everybody has a copy of the amendment. And so at this time, Representative Torres, you are recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Randy Torres [00:34:50] Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The draft amendment changes that you now see are to section 7-3a of the bill and the language 'require recertification of the person with a disability once every six months 'as opposed to the four years as it stands.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:35:17] All right. Representative Torres has explained the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment? Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Okay. Any questions on the amendment? All right. Seeing none, is there a motion? Representative Mayberry, you're recognized for a motion. Representative Mayberry has made a motion to approve the amendment.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Congratulations. The amendment has been adopted. Representative Torres, you are recognized to present the bill as amended.
Representative Randy Torres [00:35:48] Thank you. House Bill 1138. This proposed legislation allows for physical therapists to be added to the list of persons to certify disabilities for parking permits, license plates and placards. Currently, physicians, nurse practitioners and physician's assistants are on that list. We did run this as an ISP in Public Health and had no objections at all.
This bill aims to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities by involving an additional health care professional in the certification process and establishes clear certification requirements for both permanent and temporary disabilities, reducing the administration burden for individuals with lifelong conditions. This bill shows commitment to support individuals with disabilities in Arkansas, and there are 37 other states in our nation that have physical therapists as an additional certifier. And with that, I'll take any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:37:00] All right. Thank you, Representative Torres. Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:37:06] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good idea. Thank you for bringing the bill. I was actually just kind of curious about the contents of the amendment. I mean, so are we changing current law to say that if it's a temporary disability, you need to certify every six months instead of every four years?
Representative Randy Torres [00:37:24] That's correct, sir.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:37:25] What's the rationale for that change?
Representative Randy Torres [00:37:27] The rationale is, is 'temporary' isn't four years. And a lot of parking spots are being taken up by folks that no longer are considered with a temporary disability. So in my conversation with Mr. Thomas, the executive director of Disability Rights Arkansas, he suggested that the six months would be an ideal time frame for people to be recertified with a temporary parking pass.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:38:00] So, okay, so your understanding is that disability rights advocates are in favor of a shorter time?
Representative Randy Torres [00:38:08] For temporary disability, not permanent. If it's permanent, there's no recertification requirement at all.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:38:15] Nor is there under current law. That's unchanged.
Representative Randy Torres [00:38:19] That's unchanged. That's correct.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:38:20] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Randy Torres [00:38:21] You bet.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:38:23] Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:38:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the same concerns and probably should have addressed those on the amendment side, but was somewhat hesitant because for some reason I read that as six years until I've focused in and saw months. But I have the same concerns, not so much with those that are taking advantage and taking places, but more on the burden on Arkansans that truly are disabled and putting that burden back on those individuals to go back to their physicians or their health care providers to be recertified to maintain their parking decal.
Because, I mean, I have some that probably, it's not a permanent lifetime disability, but it definitely lasts longer than six months. And to go from four years to six months, I think may be a little restrictive on that side. And that causes me some concern. And I think there's somewhere between six months and four years that would be more acceptable. And I don't know if other members feel that same concern or issue or not. But that would be my concern on this issue. Can you address that?
Representative Randy Torres [00:39:43] Well, in my conversations with physicians and so forth, if you have a knee replacement, you know, that's a temporary deal. And they're saying that anywhere from 3 to 6 months, probably less than that, probably four months on average, they're no longer disabled. They're able to move freely and meet the requirements that are stated in this bill to be able to not be disabled. And then the other was someone with a heart condition that does meet the standards for a certification are typically nine months is when they would come off of that. So six months is kind of in the middle of those two scenarios that are prominent in our state.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:40:34] Follow up based on those issues. Again, some concerns that that's two different cases of medical conditions and the timing of that. I would assert that there are probably some medical conditions that lasts longer than six months, longer than nine months, that are going to be somewhere in that range of a year to 18 months, provided on the treatment that they receive.
And so, I mean, without going in and then identifying a health condition with a time approval, suddenly we have a bill that's going to become expansive to those conditions. My concerns, again, are that going from four years to six months, and I think that would create a burden on some of our disabled Arkansans that need this parking pass. And I would like you to address that.
Representative Randy Torres [00:41:27] Well, of course, I'm not a physical therapist. But, Mr. Chairman, would it be permitted for me to have a physical therapist join me and answer these questions that are out of my realm?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:41:38] Is there someone here that you're aware of?
Representative Randy Torres [00:41:40] There is.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:41:42] I don't have any objection to that, sir. Just identify yourself for the record. If you're here representing any particular organization, please make that known and then you'll be recognized.
Arthur Hulbert [00:41:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Arthur Hulbert. I have a doctorate in physical therapy. I'm not really representing any organization other than I've had a constituent to ask for certification and was not able to do so in the state of Arkansas. Basically, like you said, from a 50,000 foot view, this bill makes it easier for people who have trouble walking to get certified. I'll talk for about 30 seconds and I'll specifically answer your question.
Basically, as you guys know, physical therapy is an entry level doctoral profession. For over 100 years, physical therapists, their job has been to help people with deficit to mobility, canes, walkers, crutches, people with oxygen, strokes. And in the state of Arkansas, people have been able to access physical therapy since 1997. So for 27 years without having to go to their physician. So it makes sense to add physical therapists as a certifying provider. Also, too, in Arkansas as part of the compact states, so basically, compact states all across America, your Arkansas license works in other states.
So many, like he said, many states across America have already approved this legislation. We live on a border. So a Arkansas physical therapist can with a compact license, go to Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana, and already do this to certification. And basically, the job for physical therapy is to get people where they don't need handicap parking passes. All right. So, like Representative Torres said, there are many conditions.
I mean, it doesn't disrupt the long term disability, such as I have two family members with the end stage at a total care. This bill does not prevent them from losing their permanent disability because they are total care, in motorized wheelchairs, what have you.
What this bill does, in some ways it frees up some of those parking spots from people that may not necessarily need them. And there's a point someone could have a knee replacement, total hip replacement, someone could have a short term deficit that within six months clears up. And if not, then you've added more individuals that can certify appropriately for six months at a time. And if it's permanent, nothing changes. If it's temporary, it can be renewed by more professionals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:44:09] All right, Representative Beaty, did you have a follow-up?
Representative Howard Beaty [00:44:12] A question for staff on the proper procedure. If we wanted to reconsider, expunge the vote and reconsider the amendment that we voted on, what would be the proper motion?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:44:26] Well, my feeling is that the amendment has been adopted. And so at this point, I would be very hesitant about considering a motion to try to undo the adoption of the amendment. If you don't like the bill as it's been amended, then we certainly could ask the sponsor to pull it down. We could vote it down today. We've got some options. But I don't like the idea of trying to undo an amendment that's already been adopted.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:44:53] I understand that. And then so my request would be, do something about this amendment, pull it down, amend it, do something about the six months or two years. I mean, I don't have a problem with physical therapists issuing the special plates and certifying that. I do have a problem with the six months. And I feel like there are probably some members in the room that may have the same concerns.
So I would ask that you would pull it down, address that amendment. And again, I'm sorry that I didn't raise those issues when we were addressing the amendment. So I would request if you would consider doing that. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:45:32] Before we go there, we've got other members with questions. Representative Beck.
Representative Rick Beck [00:45:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do like the intent of the bill, and I'm going to echo what Representative Beaty said as far as I think the idea of having physical therapists do this is a great idea. There does seem to be some question about the six month issue. So my question is this, and I don't know the answer to this, when one of those things that hangs on a mirror and the license plate or whatever are done, are they dated as to when they expire on that tag? Does it say like June 15th is the expiration date?
So with that said, and just a suggestion, the possibility might be that someone could, whoever's issuing it, could issue the proper day for the diagnosis for the person. In other words, if they think the person is going to need this for a year, they would put a year expiration date on that. If it was a four month, or even I think he said some 90 day things, they could put that on there. And that way you'd get what you're wanting to as far as clearing out those spots as soon as possible. Just a suggestion.
Arthur Hulbert [00:46:58] Mr. Chairman?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:46:59] Yes, sir.
Arthur Hulbert [00:46:59] And forgive me. I used to be a legislator in Oklahoma, so I have high regard and respect for what you all are doing. Would it be possible for a committee member to amend an amendment and then that be voted on if the six month is too restrictive to be two years and go back to the four years? And forgive the question.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:47:19] Certainly. No problem there. So we don't accept oral amendments. Amendments have to be in writing and it would be possible for him to, I suppose, amend the bill as it's now been amended, bring another amendment. But that would have to be prepared at the Bureau. They have to bring it over here. We could recess. We could come back. I mean, we've got some options available to us.
So let's think about that. We'll let staff think about that. But we do have some other members in the queue with questions. So before we do anything along those lines, let's let all the members ask their questions would be my feeling about that. All right. Thank you. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:48:05] Thank you very much. I need to explain. By going to six months, you're actually expanding the amount of time that someone can have a temporary tag. Right now it's three months. Go to the DFA website and you can only have the temporary tag for three months. This amendment actually expands it to six months to allow for whatever it might be. We've talked to Wayne Hambrick, who is over this area. I don't know if there's someone from DFA here or if we could get Wayne physically here to discuss this bill. I would appreciate that because this actually expands it.
And I want members to think about this. If we're going to say, and you want to go to where it's four years, that allows someone who has a knee replacement or had a car accident and they're using crutches for a little while or whatever, whatever that might be. And we know that that is only going to be very temporary, you're allowing them to use a handicap tag for four years when they won't need it from someone who struggles to find a handicapped parking spot all the time. And even here at the Capitol, that's not right.
And if it's going to take longer than six months, then by all means let that person go back and apply again for another six months extension. Right now, they have to do it every three months. So you're actually giving some benefit of the doubt that it might actually take six months. So I please would encourage members to keep it exactly as it is, or if you would like someone from DFA to clarify. But I'm looking at the website. We've had conversations with the guy who oversees all this, and right now it's three months.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:50:14] All right. Thank you. Representative Mayberry. I'm not sure that was a question. We do need to try to keep these things to questions. But those were excellent points, and I appreciate that. I do see a witness here who is asking to be recognized. And so I'm going to do that. Seems to have some relevant information on this topic. So if you would, state your name and you are recognized.
Emily Johnson Smith [00:50:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Emily Johnson Smith. I'm the chief counsel for the Revenue Division of DFA. Staff presented a copy of this amendment. I do think that it's amending the wrong section of the code. I don't think that we're amending what we're intending to amend.
This amendment would actually amend Arkansas Code 27-15-308, which regards special license plates and certificates. And what Representative Mayberry is referring to is Section 3O4, which actually regards temporary special certificates. So I think we're talking about two different things here. The temporary special certificates are only valid for three months. So what we would request is the ability to actually score the amendment to the bill. We've issued a fiscal impact statement. We would love to be able to issue an amended fiscal impact statement on the amendment and make sure that we're actually scoring the right section.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:51:39] All right. Thank you very much. You might remain at the table in case the members have some questions for you. We do have some other members in the queue. Representative Rose, did you have a question? You're recognized.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:51:51] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lots of good discussion this morning. One of the things that was crossing my mind with maybe the potential challenges if we are shortening a period of time versus lengthening. Would you agree with me that one of the benefits of this bill is that you're expanding who is able to, and this is agency or bill sponsor, but the bill is expanding who is able to certify or authorize those placards to be used?
Representative Randy Torres [00:52:22] That's correct.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:52:23] So it's not just that you get to make a doctor's appointment, but if you're currently going to a physical therapist, nurse, the physician's assistant, etc., that the list of people who can authorize these in the first place or to reauthorize that is a much easier person to get in front of now.
Representative Randy Torres [00:52:42] Correct.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:52:43] And the last thing I'll say is this is somebody that you'd likely be seeing regularly already during this period of time that you fall into this category. Is that correct? Do we agree on that?
Representative Randy Torres [00:52:56] Yes.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:52:57] Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:53:01] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:53:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for our resident PT in the room. What's the average time you work with a client? Just on average over your career. What's the average for months, weeks?
Arthur Hulbert [00:53:16] It depends on diagnosis, but I think that's a fair question. It's usually three times a week for four weeks. Depending on the diagnosis, that's typically how it goes. The goal, if you look at the bill as written, it's basically people that have difficulty walking more than 100 feet without an assisted device without having to stop, breathing.
And a lot of times those are the typical patients that come to physical therapy. And your goal is to get them above that. So in essence, you're going to free up parking spaces for that. But typically three times a week, four weeks. If you are dealing with someone with special needs in a school setting, for some people, years. I mean, sometimes you work with people for 12 years, K through 12 for someone with special needs.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:53:52] Those are two different situations.
Arthur Hulbert [00:53:54] Completely different. But it's usually very short, three times a week, three times a week, four weeks typically.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:53:58] So, when we're sitting here talking about amending the time, in your experience, six months is still a long period of time to give a temporary license. Four years is really, really long to keep that going. And we're taking up parking spots from people that actually would really need it, correct?
Arthur Hulbert [00:54:16] Yes, Representative.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:54:17] Okay. That's all I'm done. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:54:20] Representative Beaty, you're recognized. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. All right. I'll try one more time. Representative Long, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long [00:54:37] I was wondering, when a person does do the recertification, just how much trouble is that? Does it take a long time? Is there a lot of paperwork? Or is it just kind of a simple, simple thing to take care of?
Arthur Hulbert [00:54:49] As it currently stands, couple of pages. The longest time it takes is getting in a referral to get in for your doctor's appointment to get the script done. That's the longest thing. In terms of the paperwork itself, it's a couple of pages.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:55:10] Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:55:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So does it take-- you mentioned the code, that we were referencing the wrong code with the amendment that's been laid out. Is it the right code or not?
Emily Johnson Smith [00:55:30] Thank you, Representative. That's what we'd like to dig into, because what the amendment appears to change is a four year recertification process, downgrading that to six months. But then the testimony seems to be about for a temporary injury. And that's in a separate section of the code where it's just a three month certification at this point in time. So that needs to be redone before we vote on it. And we would certainly like the opportunity to issue a fiscal for this amendment.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:56:06] Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:56:08] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Have already kind of asked the question if we'd be willing, the sponsor be willing to pull this down and make that amendment. Have we crossed that bridge yet?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:56:19] I think he indicated that earlier. I'm going to give him an opportunity to do that if he'd like to. I do have a question for DFA. You referred to that you'd like to issue a fiscal. I take it you're referring to the fiscal impact?
Emily Johnson Smith [00:56:33] Yes, sir. We issue a fiscal impact statement on any bill that affects not just the revenue of the state-- I know that's the general thought-- but also anything that we actually administer. So because this would affect our section-- for example, Wayne Hamrick was referred to, if his motor vehicle section would have to issue titles more frequently or placards more frequently, then that might actually affect our administration and our cost there. So we would like to score the actual amendment to the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:57:00] I see. Okay. Because it's taking it back to six months. Because we do have a fiscal impact. And I should have noted that for the members, there is a fiscal impact on your desk associated with this bill that shows the fiscal impact of none that was issued by DFA. But you think the change from four years to six months will have some fiscal impact?
Emily Johnson Smith [00:57:19] Yes, as it's written, these individuals would be coming to the Revenue Office more frequently.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:57:24] All right. And you also used the term earlier that you were going to score this bill. By that, did you mean a fiscal impact or does it to have some other meaning?
Emily Johnson Smith [00:57:31] Yes, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:57:32] Okay. All right. Just making sure.
Representative Randy Torres [00:57:33] Mr. Chairman, I have a little quick update here. In my conversation with Mr. Wayne Hamrick with DFA Driver Services, he stated that six months would not be an issue. A simple system change form and website update with minimum staff training.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:57:55] Okay, well, we may give them the opportunity to verify that. That sounds like they want that. I'm not disputing you at all and I certainly take you at your word on that. But if DFA needs some time to confirm that, then I'm happy to give them that. Representative Rose.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:58:11] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make sure I had a good understanding. I've heard a couple of prevailing themes from sponsor, DFA and some other representatives at the table. I think at one point it was that it's currently at four and we're wanting to change it to go to six. But under a different bit of code, it is actually three months and this would be expanding it to six if it was written slightly differently. Did I interpret that correctly from DFA?
Emily Johnson Smith [00:58:46] Thank you for your question. So we do not appear to be amending that section of the code that stands at three months right now.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:58:52] So to the bill sponsor, I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Were you wanting to expand it from three months to six months where it's not currently written? Or were you wanting to go from four years down to six months the way it's currently written?
Representative Randy Torres [00:59:06] Yeah, well, initially I didn't know that that was a different part of the code, because it's not--
Representative Ryan Rose [00:59:11] You did or didn't?
Representative Randy Torres [00:59:13] I did not. I did not. Because that part of the code isn't in this bill. That's my understanding. So I think we're talking about two different areas of law. And my thought, because I heard the website was incorrect and in my research with them, they said that the three months was not correct. Okay? It was the four years.
And then in my conversation with different people that I've already mentioned, they thought that four years was too long for a temporary permit for recertification because it's taking up too many parking spots throughout the state. So not knowing that this other portion of the law is there, then I'm happy to make that adjustment. Yeah. Appropriately.
Representative Ryan Rose [01:00:02] Yeah. I think I was just trying to make sure I understood your intent. I'm not inclined to disagree with the four years to six. I know some other members are and I can be supportive of that line of questioning. But I would certainly be in favor of expanding it from three months to six. So if that's what's happening, I think that kind of would address a lot of the concerns at the table.
Representative Randy Torres [01:00:24] Representative Rose, I agree with you. I think I would, too.
Representative Ryan Rose [01:00:26] Yeah. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:00:27] Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [01:00:28] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to ask for some clarification. I'm trying to kind of shake the rest off like everybody else. So the four years, is that part of current statute? It looks to me that that's added language in this bill. It's struck language? I see the struck part now and then it's added back underneath that.
Representative Randy Torres [01:00:50] Correct.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [01:00:51] Okay. Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:00:55] All right. Any other questions? Seeing none, Representative Torres, you made a request earlier to pull it down, to do some work and--
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:05] I'll pull it down and work with DFA to get it crafted and bring it back?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:01:09] Sounds like we're real close. Just needs a little work.
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:11] Yes, sir.
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:12] Thank you. Appreciate you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:01:14] Thank you very much. There were some folks signed up to speak for the bill. I don't know. Are they here? Okay. Okay. Anyone else who was signed up to speak for or against the bill would like to be heard today? All right. Seeing none, that was the last item on our agenda. I want to remind you all that Representative Beck said this committee was going to be fun. So I hope you've experienced that today. With that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
