Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1811
Act 1048
· 6 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB 1811 J Maddox TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OPERATION 15 OF AL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. | Maddox | Notification that HB1811 is now Act 1048 |
|
HB1956
Act 1063
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1956 Watson TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR A…”
|
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR A NONCONSENT TOWING ROTATION SYSTEM FOR HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR … | Watson | Notification that HB1956 is now Act 1063 |
|
HB1970
Act 1069
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1970 S Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE 16 INFORMATION NETW…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1970 is now Act 1069 |
|
HB1979
Act 1070
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1979 Richmond TO AMEND THE LAW DESIGNATING THE "GOLD 15 STAR FAM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW DESIGNATING THE "GOLD STAR FAMILIES HIGHWAY". | Richmond | Notification that HB1979 is now Act 1070 |
|
HB1944
Act 1061
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1944 S. Meeks CONCERNING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY.”
|
CONCERNING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1944 is now Act 1061 |
|
HB1982
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1982 G Hodges TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTRIC MOTORIZED 14 SCOOTER ACT…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTRIC MOTORIZED SCOOTER ACT. | G. Hodges | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB208
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB208 Bond TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISTRACTED DRIVING; AND TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISTRACTED DRIVING; AND TO MAKE THE USE OF A WIRELESS … | Bond | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB379
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A WIRELESS TELEPHONE BY CERTAIN DRIVERS A PRIMARY OFFENSE. SB379 T. Garner TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL LICENSE PL…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE FOR THE ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION. | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB465
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE FOR THE ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION. SB465 B. Davis TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYCLING ACTIVITIES ACT. SB5…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYCLING ACTIVITIES ACT. | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
I'm going to call this meeting to order. First up is House Bill 1944. You got some folks you
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
0:30
Are you ready for me to go ahead and start, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Good morning, committee, and thank you on these last few days of having the sexiest topic you've ever had in this committee. I take that back. You've never had a sexy topic in this committee. But this is a good one, this is on blockchain technology. And pretty late in the session, I got an email from some folks here in Little Rock who are interested in blockchain technology.
And the more research I did on it, of course, I realized that it's things that could apply to our everyday lives. And in a matter of about five and ten minutes, I was telling them what this could mean. because for some of you who maybe have not looked at it, they're going to tell you and answer any of your difficult questions. It really does mean, for example, that each of us creates our own block of identity and commerce. And if the chair and I want to have, maybe if I were going to pay you for something,
I might use a credit card to pay you. But in this case, this cuts out what we call the middle person. Most of you would say middle man, but you know I would say middle person, would cut out the middle person. And that way, we could just, from one to the other, it's just right there. Because it's secure, and it's scripted, and it's something that I think a lot of people begin to use. In Arkansas, we don't want to get behind with it. And the governor's already had a blockchain summit here in Arkansas.
So we need this legislation so that we can keep moving forward. And with that, I'll allow these two people sitting right here with me to tell you more about it or answer any questions that you might have if you don't want to hear us for a great long
Speaker 13
2:17
time and you already know what it means, that's, we are here at your service. So
Speaker 15
2:22
thank you, Mr. J. If you will, identify yourself, tell us who you're with, both of you, and then you're welcome to
Speaker 16
2:31
proceed, whatever you want. Hi, I'm Marla Johnson, and I am a partner at Blockchain Ready Studio,
Speaker 18
2:36
which is a company that we started last year. Many of you know me because I founded Aristotle Internet, an internet company 25 years ago, that has since hired over 250 Arkansans and generated millions of dollars in revenue every year for many, many years, and brought internet technology really to many companies and organizations throughout Arkansas. So when I saw the promise of blockchain technology,
I realized this was significant in the same way that the internet was significant, except for much more for a B2B type experience. So let me just tell you that the blockchain is actually an operating system. It sits on a network of computers. So what happens is we are able to share, as Senator Elliott described, information in blocks of content in a very secure way. This technology is already being used extensively here in Arkansas, not only by startup companies
at the Venture Center, but also even by farmers. And also, there's been several significant solutions that have been launched by Heifer International, by Walmart, by J.B. Hunt, and by ArcBest and others. I think our greatest promise for this is actually food security and food safety and the streamlining of food production. So that's why we had several hundred people at the blockchain summit last year.
And many of those people were not only from the ag department and extension services and those kinds of organizations, but many of them were farmers. Because what we're able to do is using blockchain technology and smart contracts, we're actually able to take a lot of the waste and latency in payments as we're shipping a product and actually transforming that product from a raw material to a processed food that actually shows up in a retail store. So right now the biggest, most significant use case is that we can do traceability.
We can make sure that there's not E. coli or salmonella. We can isolate that from the food supply chain. And this is really our biggest area of interest. And one of the reasons we believe and the governor believes that Arkansas can be a leader in this technology because we have companies who are leaders in that entire supply chain here in Arkansas who are advocating for uses of
Speaker 21
5:09
this technology. Thank you. Thank you. All I would add is that there's a...
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm
Speaker 24
5:18
Ken Hubbell with Blockchain Ready Studio, and I've had a consulting practice for 24 years doing a lot of work with higher ed institutions and hospital systems. There's a lot of workforce opportunity in the advancing of blockchain. It's a wonderful, fast-growing career. We're just starting at the post-secondary level
to train enough blockchain engineers, system integrators. There's a lot of interest from community colleges. is Arkansas Tech, UAPB, of bringing their students in. The U of A has the first undergraduate and graduate program, so we're at the front end of something that could transform careers here. And then, as I think you'll see, many other states have started putting the policy scaffolding
around blockchain and contracts into place. There are seven or eight states that have built a pretty solid foundation. So these smart contract pieces in this legislation would give Arkansas the first building blocks. It would suggest to folks we're open for blockchain business. Enterprises here can compete. The state is on the edge of this technology and ready for it.
Speaker 29
7:24
I just wanted to add our support for this, and while I don't speak for the state chamber, they've also, in their daily update, have also said they're supportive of it. From our standpoint, representing the business community, we do a lot of work with the Little Rock Tech Park and it's 52 startup tenants, and while this is a relatively small tweak in the law,
we see it as a big signal to those types of companies that Arkansas is the type of place that they can come do business, and we welcome them and want to retain
Speaker 30
8:07
them here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any questions from
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
8:15
the committee? Mind you, Senator Pitch? I, electrical engineer, understand blockchain, work with one of my companies with that. My question is, why do we need a state law? I mean, I guess I'm not quite sure, that may be to Senator Elliott,
but if a business wants to set up a supplier and start doing blockchain technology, why does this body have to give that blessing?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
8:36
Well, that's something Marla has explained to me, so I'll let her explain it to
Speaker 18
8:43
you, that might be even more helpful. So, we've been seeing this legislation show up in many states across the United States, and the main reason is that you don't want there to be any dispute. So even though you really have a contract which is behind the smart contract,
in other words, as you understand it, two businesses have a contract to, let's say, ship goods or produce something, then what happens is the smart contract is actually an automation of that on a blockchain platform. So this is just to say, should that ever be called into question that it is actually legitimate and a reflection of an actual contract and not to be dismissed because it was automated from a computer. So along the lines of electronic signatures
and that type of thing. And then the only other thing is that having legislation actually in your state that is recognizing this technology is, to Buckley's point, a signal to entrepreneurs and business people who are developing in this field that this is a state that's supportive.
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
9:52
Quick follow-up, yes. Any language in here that protects those of us already doing it?
In other words, if we are already doing blockchain technology and now there's a law, are those contracts gonna be suspect in any way? I don't believe so. Okay, so this has a start date and no backdating. Exactly. Okay. Chair, any questions? Closed for your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 15
10:30
What's the will of the committee? Motion by Senator Eads. Second by Senator Pitch. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Congratulations, Senator. We have House Bill 1956. You're going to do it? All right. All right.
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
11:08
You ready? Thank you, Chairman and Committee. This is a good bill. I wish I'd had time to amend my name onto this bill, but I'm just presenting it for Representative Watson. HB 1956, why do we care how quickly an interstate is cleared? Clearing serious incidents quickly reduces the risk of secondary crashes. In 2017, there were five fatalities and 36 serious injury secondary crashes.
On March 22nd, a traffic accident on I-40 between Forest City and West Memphis led to four secondary crashes and three fatalities. Interstate was blocked for over 12 hours, limiting commerce, limiting business, limiting people's lives. This legislation, HP 1956, has been reviewed by the governor, by the Arkansas State Police, and the Arkansas Highway Police, and all of them support this legislation.
It passed overwhelmingly in the House. The intent of the legislation is to create a standard for tow companies that serve on non-consent rotation for heavy-duty towing and recovery. Let me say that again. This is not your traditional towing company that goes out. This is the heavy-duty eight semis accordioned into a pile. You need special sets of equipment in order to deal with that. That's what this bill is about. It's called the application for an enhanced license to tow is voluntary.
It's not mandatory. An enhanced license is intended to offer a tool to law enforcement to know that when they've got to call somebody, if law enforcement determines that I've got this interstate shut down for multiple hours affecting commerce and lives, I can get somebody with the right equipment to get out here. According to the Federal Highway Administration, approximately one quarter of all traffic congestion is due to traffic accidents. We all know the cost to society with traffic accidents.
Law enforcement is given the needed latitude to use any tow company, even those tow companies that have not applied for enhanced duty, but when they think they need it, they have a list of a certified enhanced carry. I have multiple tow companies here in the audience willing to talk to you or answer questions. The economic impact of Arkansas's and businesses due to traffic incidents amounts to $10 million each year due to traffic delays. We have got to give the law enforcement somebody, and there are certain tow companies that are set up literally almost to this level,
but certifying them and having that enhanced license makes the people who need them now know they're there. It's an agreed-upon bill with the governor's office, the law enforcement, and the towing folks. With that, I'd be open for questions.
Speaker 49
14:06
Any questions? Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 47
14:14
How is this process managed currently, since this is all new language? Right now, most tow companies are on a, there's a
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
14:21
buzzword for it, it's consent rotation, I believe is the right word.
and so what happens is law enforcement has a list and they go down that list to try and make it fair to each of them. The problem when you're just going down the list, if the next person on the list has a tow truck that only handles so much and you're looking at a 12 hour shutdown, you want to be able to jump to somebody that can get out there and get semis off the road and get the road cleared. So towing rotation is a good thing. We still have that. but we want to also give another tool
to our law enforcement to clear up an accident when it really needs to be cleared. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
15:08
Any other questions? Senator Haley. Senator Pitch, I want to ask you the same question you asked a while ago. Do we really need a law
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
15:15
for this or a bill for this? Yes and no, if we don't have a law for it, the reality of it is the tow companies that want to be known as that. When, if we spend the first four hours
with tow companies out there getting a multi-car pileup, we have not done the citizens of Arkansas the right thing to do. And law enforcement, the governor's office, and the tow companies feel like they need to have this in statute that people can be certified. There are some day-to-day things you have to do to get there and in order to mandate that on a company, you need a statute to reflect it. And the reason I'm asking that,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
15:49
I was involved in an accident one time, and we have a great big truck and horse trailer, and it was a very bad
accident, and the state trooper that was there knew to call someone that had a real big wreck, not just your regular-sized wreck wreckers.
So that's what I'm asking, do they know that information already, or? They do not know that now
Speaker 1
16:15
without this bill. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? We have two folks signed up to speak for this bill. If you want to come forward. It's up to them.
Speaker 67
16:40
State your name and who you're with. Yes, my name is Matthew Ross. I'm an owner of Pro Auto Towing and Recovery, also the legislative chair on the Arkansas Towing and Recovery Board. With deference to the time of the committee and an appreciation of that, I'll speak just briefly. I think Senator Pitch has done a great job in reflecting the character of this bill. The only thing I think I would add to that is the training component. So there's not only an equipment component, but there's a training component that goes along this as well, which helps to expedite these accidents
as they're being worked. It really starts to lay the groundwork for a standard of training across the state of Arkansas. Arkansas. My employees, the men and women that work in the tow industry, work in very hazardous conditions on the roadside. We lose many, many towers each year to these secondary accidents, even in the state of Arkansas. We have lost folks who have been struck on the side of the road. We really feel that it is time for our industry to embrace greater training and safety protocols
as we do that, not only for our workforce, but also the motoring public as they engage up and down the highway. And so
Speaker 68
17:50
we think that this bill, it strikes really the first nail at that and helps us kind of claw back some of that. Do you want
Speaker 70
17:59
to reference the five years experience maybe substituting? Absolutely.
Speaker 67
18:03
And so in addition with some training, the Tim's training that happens at the state level that the Arkansas RDOT has really been behind in fostering across the state. If there is no other industry training
that somebody has participated in, they can substitute again five years of experience in the heavy duty recovery industry for this training. It's really not looking to bump anybody out, it's looking to lift the industry up. The Tow Board and its other members are looking to kind of get our arms around this and disseminate this among the folks that are working with us and operating tow companies across the state so that the citizens
Speaker 68
18:43
of Arkansas enjoy a more professional, speedy, and expedited repair or recovery scene.
Speaker 1
18:49
Let me ask, so if you're going through the, what do you call it, the cycle or the call list? Rotational. So what if that recovery person next on the rotation was 30 miles away? Do they have to wait on that at this
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
19:12
current time? We actually have in there that law enforcement is given needed
latitude if an enhanced tow is too far away.
In other words, law enforcement is kind of the, can I get them here in time to be effective? So that's written into the law. So we don't have a, oops, they're coming out of Little
Speaker 6
19:32
Rock and can't get to it. Well, that's, you know, like you was talking about on 40. That could be
Speaker 67
19:38
a mess trying to get there. And the reality of the situation is, while there may be a tow company that is unequipped to handle the type of recovery, let's say it's a bunch of, I don't know, whiskey spilled out on the interstate, referencing a recent accident.
While there may not be a tow company that can get on scene 20 minutes faster, the end run of the 12 hour recovery time on that accident, if we can get a company that maybe takes 40 minutes to get there but turns that into a three hour recovery time, It's still a net positive in a large degree, not only for the insurance companies on the billing and the time on scene, but also again, for the motoring public and secondary
Speaker 68
20:18
accidents in the queue. Very, very targeted towards those aspects of commerce.
Speaker 1
20:23
Any other questions for members? So the other one signed up is, are we good? All right. Seeing
Speaker 15
20:34
no one else signed up, you close your bill. Ladies and gentlemen, I
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
20:41
think this bill is something that an industry has brought to us. There is agreement, it's good for the citizens of Arkansas. And with that, I would make a motion do pass as a board
Speaker 15
20:51
member. Motion by Senator Pitch, second by Senator Hill.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like
Speaker 80
20:58
signed. Congratulations, Senator. Appreciate it. Yes. Yes. House Bill 1811 is
Speaker 1
21:08
not right for that. That's, I'm fixing to go through here if, and
Speaker 2
21:13
there are a number of bills for that, that looks like there wouldn't be any controversy on, and if we
Speaker 2
21:26
it would be House Bill 1811, House Bill, they're already in here, all right, House Bill 1970, House Bill 1979, and House Bill
Speaker 1
21:42
1982. If you want to write those down on your pad there next
Speaker 2
21:48
to you. House Bill 1811, House Bill 1970, House Bill 1979,
and House Bill 1982. I don't
Speaker 1
22:03
know if we have any, the members for House Bill 1979, if someone would look at that and see if they could run that, I think it would be agreeable. it's Senator Wallace's on our end but I think I think all of us would possibly agree with that
one if somebody would pick that one up you pick that up Senator Hammer I'm going to have to entertain a motion to suspend the rules to hear those four bills motion by Senator Hammer Second by Senator Davis. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Unanimous. Thank you, Senators. We will start with House Bill 1811.
Yes. Wait just a minute. He was outside talking. You got them written down? All right.
Speaker 80
23:10
Yes, go ahead, just state your name and
Speaker 2
23:13
you're welcome to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, committee. I'm John Maddox,
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
23:19
representative for District 20. Go ahead. Can I present my bill, Mr.
Chair? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. This is House Bill 1811, this is, as we say,
but this is a very simple bill. The Department of Parks and Tourism asked me to run this. All this does is allow them to ride their ATVs across a street or highway in the performance of their duties. And it has to be an ATV that is owned by the park system and only while they are performing their work duties. That's all this does. To be frank, they're probably doing it now, but this is just going to make it legal. So that's really all, as you'll see, that's all the bill does. There's just some new language on it. And I'd be glad to take any questions, though.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
24:06
Any questions from the members? Senator Davis? I'm curious, do you know if citizens have the same ability to do that as to
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
24:19
drive across the road if they're going from trail to trail? Yeah, so I'm pretty aware of ATV law, unfortunately, or fortunately for me, in our last session that became a very controversial topic. So citizens now have the ability, basically they have an unlimited ability in exemption if they're performing any sort of hunting or farming exemption.
and it's unlimited the way the statute reads. There's also a trailhead to trailhead exemption, which is something we did last session, meaning if you're going from one trailhead to another, regardless of the distance, as long as you don't get in an incorporated town or on an interstate, citizens can do that. So citizens, our ATV laws are fairly liberal, I would say, which in my district is a good thing. So this is gonna allow them to cross the street and perform in their roads. That's all I really know about ATV law at this stage. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 3
25:08
You're welcome. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'm
Speaker 15
25:15
gonna give the audience a chance since these were not on the agenda. If anybody wants to speak for or against this bill, raise your hand. Seeing none, you want to close for your bill? I'm close
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
25:29
for my bill and I'd appreciate a good vote,
Speaker 15
25:32
thank you. What's the will of the committee? Motion by Senator Eads. Second, by me. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. All opposed, like sign. Congratulations, Representative. Thank you, thank
Speaker 1
25:47
you. Next, we'll go to House Bill 1970. If anybody would, so I don't have to do that again, in the audience. We're gonna go through House Bill 1970, 1979, and 1982.
If you wanna speak for or against those bills, please go forwards and sign up on the sheet. Just state your name and who you're with if you wanna start and then go down the line. Okay, thank you,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
26:29
Mr. Chair. Breanne Davis, State Senator, District 16. Jessica Jones, Director of
Speaker 101
26:33
the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, and I'm here representing, I'm part of the INA board. And
Speaker 103
26:41
Edward Armstrong, State Procurement Director. I'm here because this bill touches on procurement.
Speaker 41
26:46
And I'm gonna let the two of these. Whoever's gonna speak, just one mic on at a time,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
26:54
if that's all right, so we don't get feedback. Yes, I'm gonna let the
Speaker 101
27:00
two of them explain the importance of this bill, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mrs. Chairman. The new language will give INA the flexibility, other agencies enjoy with different procurement methods under the Arkansas Procurement Law. Today, the NIC contract expires June 30th of this year, and the current statute only
allows to do competitive bid. So with the time frame that we have today, we need to change the language so it would allow us to do a special procurement so that we don't have to stop the services that INE currently provides to different agencies and our citizens. I'm here if somebody has a question.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:45
Senator Hammer. So I'd like to hear office procurement. Do you favor this, opposed it, or neutral,
Speaker 103
27:49
or what's your position? I favor it because I think that the best type of a procurement method, when you're going to look at something this technically complex, it's for a network manager, you need to be able to evaluate the different vendors based on criteria other than just the lowest price. And right now they have a statute that specifically says they shall use competitive bidding. And just to clarify too, that's not competitive sealed bidding. Competitive sealed bidding is what most people think of
and that's where you submit your bid and it's sealed. Competitive bidding is just getting three quotes. So there's not a lot of documentation because all you need to document are the three quotes that you want to document that you've gotten and then do it based on price. An RFP would be a more transparent evaluation of the different options out there, allow you to evaluate, score, and then also consider price. Follow up,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:48
Mr. Chair. Go ahead. And so there will still be,
who's going to be handling this? Is DIS
going to be handling it or Office of Procurement
Speaker 114
29:01
going to be handling it? DIS will have the subject matter
Speaker 103
29:05
expertise and the statute specifically says that they develop the criteria, but then DIS could actually have the procurement process managed through our office and that would be their option. Alternatively, they could request, the INA board could ask for a delegation of procurement authority, but because they're just a board
and they don't have any full-time staff, I'm guessing they'll
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
29:29
probably ask us. And so you will have some oversight as far as making sure that the one that is allowed to procure the contract for network managing actually has, there'll be some apple to apple comparison against some others, so it's not just directed toward one network manager,
Speaker 103
29:47
correct? Absolutely, there'll be paper documentation, there'll be submissions and proposals based on specifications that DIS has developed. Okay, all right, thank you.
Speaker 1
29:56
You said this would put you in line other departments can you elaborate on that the other
Speaker 15
30:01
departments use this method and I will go
Speaker 119
30:06
back to what mr. Armstrong mentioned today like he said you know that
Speaker 101
30:10
the the statue only says competitive bid and other agencies we can do either a special procurement we can do the RFP process which with this language we're not able to do and because of the contract is aspiring in June we need to make sure that those services are continuing and they're not
Speaker 15
30:27
stopping. All right, is there any other questions for the members? No questions?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
30:39
No closed for you Bill. I'm closed and motion
Speaker 15
30:41
do pass. Motion by Senator Davis. Second. Yes. Before
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:45
you do that did you want to give the members of the audience in case there's anybody speak for? I did that. Okay.
Speaker 15
30:51
I asked them if they wanted to to come up and write, nobody a second by Senator Hill. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. All opposed, like sign. Congratulations, Senator.
Speaker 14
31:07
We will go to, if you wanna stay there,
Speaker 1
31:14
Senator Davis. For 1982, it has amendment, if we could pass that out.
Speaker 2
31:26
This is codifying a motorized scooters, I believe, so this is an agreed-upon amendment.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
31:34
I've got a card, thank you. Breanne Davis, State Senate District
Speaker 128
31:46
16. Go ahead. Bill Stovall with WSG Consulting, representing Bird Scooters Industries. I'll let the members have a
Speaker 2
31:53
chance to look at the amendment, and we'll vote on the amendment.
If you could, just go ahead and whichever one wants to explain the amendment
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
32:12
and how it's in here. So this amendment is something that the Municipal League and industry have agreed to just recently. so this is something that all groups
are on board with that they'd like
Speaker 134
32:29
to see in the bill. The House sponsor, Representative Grant Hodges, had this bill in committee last Thursday. The Municipal League submitted this language to us at 9.23 before the meeting at 10,
and so there wasn't an opportunity to get an amendment on that end and transmit the bill to you so that we could have the best opportunity to mechanically get the bill through. He testified in committee that he would amend the bill to that. He testified on the floor as well. So it's just a step in the process of backing up what what was said by
Speaker 15
33:02
us and our sponsor. Motion to adopt the amendment by Senator Eads. Second by Senator Davis. All in favor say aye. All opposed, like sign.
Go ahead. You can proceed with the
Speaker 134
33:18
bill if you would like. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, appreciate your calling the bill up for consideration today. This is an industry that's fairly fresh and new. 16, 18 months ago, shared scooters weren't really much to be considered about in the United States. The first market was out west. It hasn't come without a few bumps and bruises along the way. It's very, it leans very forward with technology
and it's getting better all the time. And so the bill that's in front of you today presents some definitions of what an actual scooter would be so that cities have the opportunity to regulate them and specifically say that we're regulating the electric motorized scooter and not a bicycle or something other than that. The second part of the bill defined in the definition of the electric motorized scooter, you'll see that 20 mile per hour is the limit, but the bill for safety concerns later on in the operation
in the bill is limited to 15 miles per hour and 16 years of age. And so you may be curious about that age limit. The mobile applications that are utilized to rent one of these scooters requires a driver's license, a photo of your driver's license so that no one under 16 can be on there. That's for the consideration that a 16 year old or older would have more road awareness, more safety understanding, you know, traffic lights and such as that.
The other, last part of the bill sets minimum insurance requirements and this is to protect the citizens so that if there is a neglect by the scooter company that they are protected with minimum insurance requirements, kind of keeps some of the, maybe the smaller operators that might be of concern, makes them also meet those same requirements. Just a couple of things about the technology. These, when they were first launched, there was no way to ensure that a rider
properly parked a scooter. That became a pedestrian impediment. Now, both Lime and Bird, which are the two that are here in Arkansas, Russellville being our share market and a line being here in Little Rock, you're required to take a picture, a photo, of the scooter when you park it to ensure that you're being the appropriate steward of the equipment and of the sidewalk. In addition to that, though, they can get knocked over.
And when that happens, another scooter person comes along, takes a picture of it, we call them bird watchers. We extend the bird metaphor as deeply as we can. What we call those bird watchers, And at that time, that photo gets sent out to the employment force that we have that pick these scooters up every night, charges them, does safety evaluations, and then redeploys them in nests of three. And so that's the way we put a bounty on those that are either broken or not properly parked
to try to resolve those issues as quickly as possible. And with that, that's an explanation of the bill and not answer
Speaker 1
36:34
any questions. So, if you're not renting a scooter, is there any regulation in this bill for kids who are under 16 that would limit those children from riding on roads? The city
Speaker 139
36:48
would have the ability to enforce that as they would another regulation.
Speaker 134
36:54
It's kind of touchy, Mr. Chair. In the House Committee, we had a couple of House members testify how much they enjoyed riding these scooters with their children in Tulsa and around. But we just know that this industry in its infancy needs to take steps from our part to make sure that these riders are as safe as possible. As soon as you take your first ride, you get qualified for a free bicycle helmet as well that you could carry to work with you.
If you've been down the river market, there are people wearing suits and ties going to work in the office that are going from their office to lunch and back because of the parking and the congestion from all that. So it's an attempt to try to be good stewards of safety from our part. But we do understand that there's an enforcement issue, but the city's, the Municipal League, has not expressed
Speaker 135
37:48
any concerns about that. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Senator Hill?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
37:56
I want to use the city of Russellville as an example on this. Who is going to oversee the scooters in Russellville to make sure the insurance and everything is in place? And who approves, who can have the scooters out there? If there's more than one company, who approves that? That's
Speaker 134
38:21
all regulated, that would all be regulated by the city. The launch of Bird Scooters in Russellville last fall was strictly an agreement between the city and the industry,
and the city could do an exclusive launch like Little Rock did, or they could do a multi-company launch. And in terms of the minimum requirements and stuff, I think that this is kind of one of the reasons why we never had any concerns from the municipal league about the insurance, because I think they would have liked to have had some guidance on how the MOU should be set up when you do an RFP, and that's all going to be in the hands of the city. And the amendment expressly gives the cities the ability to regulate by ordinance,
and we're trying to strike that balance so that the city, the local authority has all the tools they need, and at the same time, they're taking care of their constituents, safety-wise and otherwise, and also not creating an unfriendly market, because there are cities that want the scooters and there are cities that don't want the scooters and we're just trying to find that balance and that's all in the hands of the cities with this
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
39:31
bill. Go ahead. I know in a lot of our cities we have bicycle lanes
and everything else for people to ride their bicycles and stuff. Is this going
Speaker 134
39:41
to impede on that? Thank you for the question, Senator. It does not. The city still has complete authority to regulate that. We did have bike paths and stuff included in an original version that I gave to the cities on the 28th of January. So we've been working with them for quite a while. And there was concerns about shared scooter operators being on
Speaker 128
39:58
bike paths. And we agreed to let them regulate that by ordinance and didn't even mention it in this current version. Senator Pitch.
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
40:08
I think this is a great idea. My concern, I guess, to use your analogy, is the bird watchers. because as I drive around Little Rock, I haven't had the pleasure of Russellville, but I'm seeing scooters all over, dumped, left, et cetera. Has there been any thought about how we clean that up?
Speaker 134
40:31
Go ahead. Senator, thank you for the question. I think Little Rock, quite frankly, Little Rock is, and what's gone on here in Little Rock has made it difficult on this bill and the industry.
Back in January, before certain press articles got out, we actually had a deeper agreement with the Municipal League. The city has learned that was done by an outgoing mayor. It was done with an exclusive vendor. I believe that's part of what the problem was. If you'd had more than one vendor, you'd had two people really, really trying diligently diligently to try to make sure that the launch was done with the best of care.
Having said that, the city is going to put out by ordinance a new RFP. It will not be a sole source. It will not be exclusive. And I think they'll get a better opportunity to see what competition can do to make people a little bit more aware of some of the concerns that they have. But you're right. The largest scooter market in the country per pro rata of the population is Austin, Texas. And there's four companies actually delivering there.
And it doesn't come without some problems, but that's why we wanted to try to get this bill so that the cities could have some guidance on minimum insurance and such as that. I don't
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
42:05
think I'd have used Austin, Texas. My daughter goes to school there,
and they've got just as big a problem as Little Rock does with scooters strewn all over. But that said, I think it's a good idea. My question with the advent of technology, and maybe the cost is prohibitive, but you
mentioned the staff in towns, and that may have been where Senator Hill was going. If there's a simple GPS on these bikes, they'd know where they are. And if they aren't at a docking station or they aren't in transit, we've got to get somebody out there. Because these things are, they're everywhere. I mean, I don't even live on the main thing, and there were three of them down by the maintenance crew the other day. I guess they've been picked up somewhere on the Capitol to get them out of the Capitol. So at some level, I think that's probably the biggest issue.
I think it's a great idea getting people to ride a scooter and not have parking and alleviate some of that. But at some level, we're going to have to use technology to get these things picked up
Speaker 134
43:06
because they're everywhere. And I should have addressed that, too. Thank you for reminding me, Senator. We do know now if a scooter is laying on its side or not. We do know those things as well. The technology is getting finer and better. GPS technology is getting finer and better. We're still not to the point where we can make one turn off when it gets to the middle of Broadway Bridge going to North Little Rock.
We're not to that point yet, and there's some safety issues we have to address when a scooter starts to shut down, obviously. But they are deploying more technology, and I think we're learning a lot about GPS technology through this industry. Senator Hammer. Thank you,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:45
Mr. Chair. Is this modeled after the Texas piece of legislation or is this brand new legislation?
Speaker 134
43:54
The other states that have passed the definition and the insurance and the fundamental pieces of this bill
are Nebraska, Utah, and California. I'm
Speaker 153
44:01
not aware of Texas at this time. It may be, but I'm not aware
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:07
of it. So this is modeled after some existing legislation somewhere, right? Yes, sir. Okay. And then as far as the enforceability, if they catch somebody under, like my grandson has a hardship license, he's under 16, but what's the enforceability or what's the penalty for violating what's written into this law?
Speaker 128
44:29
We didn't put that in here because the cities will be regulating that by ordinance as well.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:35
Okay, so they'll have that, they'll have
control of that? Yes, sir. Okay, and so the reason for this being a state piece of legislation versus a city piece of legislation is to bring just some standardization across the state, and this is the beginning point, but this wouldn't limit the cities from tightening up more. Is that correct? That's right,
Speaker 134
44:57
Senator. In fact, even on the 15 miles per hour, it's a maximum.
I mean, any type of agreement that the city might want to enter into, they would put in their RFP. It could be more restrictive than this. This is the primary reason for this bill is to put the definitions and the insurance requirements and those safety pieces in the law so that the cities know that that's the guidance for them. If they want to regulate a scooter, an electric motorized scooter off of the River Trail bike path, we need a definition of what that is so that they can make sure that that's what they're regulating. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
45:31
Senator Reeds. Mr. Stovall, I want to clarify on something here because concerns somebody else just said. These are different from bikes in that they're not set up at docking stations on purpose, correct? So they're just placed all over the city in just random places and groups. That's where they're supposed to be, correct? Yes,
Speaker 146
45:49
sir. They're dockless. That's right. Thank you. Is
Speaker 157
45:52
there any other questions? Seeing none, close for your bill. I just want to
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
46:00
say, I think this is a good bill
that's got good agreement from both industry and municipal league. And I know I'm an avid scooter rider and I think a few of you on the committee are as well. I've seen you scootering around town, so I won't call anyone out for that, but I just think this is a good step forward to, you know, welcome scooters into more communities, but do it in a way where cities still have local control on that and can work with this industry to make sure that we have something, you know, fun we can do and also help with transportation, but also still regulate in a way that is safe for other citizens.
And with that, I make a motion do
Speaker 15
46:42
pass as amended. All right. Motion do pass as amended by Senator Davis, second by Senator Pitch. All in
Speaker 2
46:53
favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Congratulations, Senator. Senator Hammer, 1979. 1979.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:06
Which was a good year, Mr. Chair. Yes,
sir. You're welcome, Steve. Thank you. I'm carrying this piece of legislation for Senator Wallace and Representative Richmond. I think it's pretty clear in what it's intended to do, which is to designate a Gold Star Families Highway. The route is explained on lines 28 through 29, Highway 163 North from its intersection with Highway 42. It actually goes down, just identifies what the route is. As you all know, we've been putting forth some efforts over this session and the previous session
under Senator Williams then about recognizing Gold Star families. I think this would be a great thing to do to raise it to where it's seen on a regular basis for anybody to travel those routes. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take any questions. Any questions for the members? Seeing
Speaker 15
47:52
none, what's the will of the committee? I make a motion do pass, Mr. Chair. Motion do pass by Senator Hammer. Second by Senator Reeds. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like signed. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
Speaker 1
48:11
No other business to come before the committee today. We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call To Order
HB1944 S. Meeks CONCERNING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY.
HB1956 Watson TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR A NONCONSENT TOWING ROTATION SYSTEM FOR HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES.
HB 1811 J Maddox TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OPERATION 15 OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS 16 AND HIGHWAYS.
HB1970 S Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE 16 INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS; AND TO 17 DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1982 G Hodges TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTRIC MOTORIZED 14 SCOOTER ACT.
HB1979 Richmond TO AMEND THE LAW DESIGNATING THE "GOLD 15 STAR FAMILIES HIGHWAY".
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS - SENATE, Apr 8, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 6
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Speaker 16
Speaker 18
Speaker 21
Speaker 24
Speaker 29
Speaker 30
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 47
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Speaker 70
Speaker 80
Speaker 2
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 101
Speaker 103
Speaker 41
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 119
Speaker 14
Speaker 128
Speaker 134
Speaker 139
Speaker 135
Speaker 153
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 157