House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs
Video
Transcript
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 4, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
State agencies is going to come to attention. Representative Williams, you are recognized to run House Bill 1308. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:11
find my place. I've got so many bills, I've got to find that one. I saw that stack on your
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:23
don't have it in front of me, but I know. So 13808, simply, guys, is a bill by the Department of Correction.
As you know, our Department of Correction runs a number of farms. They have a number of farms. And I think right now the law says they can only have a farm within five miles of a stockade. Well, we don't really have any stockades, and we'd like to be able to farm much beyond five miles of a stockade. We don't want to build stockades on our current cropland. And so this just allows the Department of Correction to continue to farm areas without building stockades.
Speaker 5
1:01
Any questions from the committee? Representative
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:10
Walker. Representative Williams. Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Williams, what was the definition of stockade in the last bill? Representative Walker, I don't know the answer to that question. Well, it may
be that a stockade may not mean literally a stockade, but it could be a place where prisoners are detained
so that they would not be in proximity to populated areas. Representative Bell may have some input on that. Representative Bell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:49
just going to say my read of the bill indicates the language actually used is stockade or established camp. And I'm just certainly not a lawyer, but that would seem to me to indicate an area where prisoners are sleeping, et cetera, being housed.
And I guess my only concern with this bill, because generally I think it's a pretty good bill, But the further we get these folks away from where all the resources are, the slower our response, it seems to me, would be to an escape, et cetera. And I'm just curious what your view on that was or maybe DOC's view as to their ability
to respond promptly should somebody vanish from one of these farming operations. Yeah, I'm sorry.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
2:38
No one from DOC is here. I thought they would be here to answer that question. I don't think that's a problem. These folks are, as my understanding, they're bussed out there and bussed back. So I think that's part of the reason why we don't want to have to house them there. I think this is actually currently happening now. We're trying to clean up what is currently happening. I don't think anyone realized we're supposed to have these stock gates built where they're not even using them anyway.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
3:05
Do you have any idea how far they're currently bussing these folks to work?
You know, I don't know. Thank you very much. That information would seem to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
3:20
me to be at least somewhat pertinent to this bill. Representative Walker. Thank you, Chairman Lee. Is it that you want
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
3:29
the word stockade removed and not the other language? I want the lines 27
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
3:39
through 30 removed. That takes into account- That was camp or stockade. All right. So I take it then that you and the people at the commission have thought about this
and determined its ramifications. That's correct, sir. And what are the ramifications?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
3:58
That they'll continue to do what they're unfortunately may be doing now that may actually be in violation of the letter of the law of the state of Arkansas. Which is? I don't know the exact number of acreage, but it's thousands of acreage that the prison currently farms. And they do so, I don't want to say without incident. I'm sure in a prison there are always incidents, but they've done so for some period of time, and they want to continue to do that without having to build stockades or set up camps on those farmlands.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
4:29
Thank you. Representative Wilkins. Representative Williams. It's true now that we're busing or the prison
system is busing multiple prisoners out to do public works, and they may be, I know of them busing them 60, 70 miles to complete a public works project.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:00
Do you think that's true? That's absolutely true. Not only are your prisoners doing that, your county jails are doing that in your own Capitol building, including this office, sometimes cleaned by prisoners. Multiple miles from where? Multiple miles.
Speaker 40
5:13
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Madam
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
5:19
Chair. Are we just talking farming? This bill only deals with farming, yes, sir. I would hate to see them not be able to work.
You know what I mean? I mean, working what they need to do, right? That's
correct. Can we change that word stockade to something else that we
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:42
can all understand what it is? Well, the
problem is with the Board of Corrections and Governors' approval, they'd like to be able to farm additional land without having to build a stockade or a camp on that land. They want to be able to bust the prisoners out to work the land and then bust them back without having to build additional barracks or places for them to live or to camp
because they won't be staying overnight there. They'll be going back to their jail cells. I totally
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
6:13
understand, sir. Thank you. All right. Representative Kerr. So if I understand this right, Representative Williams, you're basically trying to remove the limitation
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
6:23
of the mileage. I am trying to remove the limitation
of the mileage and the fact that they'd have to build a
Speaker 60
6:29
stockade on any land that they rent or lease for farming operations.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
6:33
All right. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Wilkins. Representative Williams, they normally don't take people off a death roll
Speaker 40
6:43
to send them out to work on these projects. That is practice. That's current practice. They don't do that. You're correct, sir.
Speaker 65
6:52
My cheeky vice chair there. That's funny. Representative Wagner. Thanks, Madam Chair. Motion at
Representative Wes Wagner
Unverified
6:57
the proper time. Representative Bell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
7:04
I just wanted to clarify, Representative Williams, you've indicated that current
language requires them to have this at any location. There's currently a five-mile limit, as I understand it, so they currently aren't required to build a stockade at every location. That's correct.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
7:20
They're wanting to remove that limit. If they release lands outside
of the five miles, they don't have to build the stockade on lands that they're leasing. I'm very much
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
7:32
in agreement with the antenna where you're going here.
I guess my concern is do you think it's the best thing to do to completely repeal the language or to simply increase the mileage limit to a larger radius where it doesn't become carte blanche to essentially go anywhere? Or is that what you intend to do? The real intent here is to prevent
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
7:54
them having to build a stockade or a camp wherever the prison's farming the land. That's the real intent here.
They don't want to have to go and build a stockade or a camp because no one will be there.
They'll bust them there. They'll bring them back
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
8:10
when they're done with their work. I appreciate that. I don't think any of
us want them to have to do that. I think my only reservation about this rests in the situation where we currently have a mileage limit, and I'm not certain that that couldn't be accomplished by simply increasing that mileage limit, but retaining at least some limitation on, for example, maybe we don't, we aren't, and I sometimes illustrate things with the absurd, but let's just say that we wouldn't be taking prisoners from Cummins
and Farman in northwest Arkansas as an absurd example.
Speaker 25
8:51
I'd like to hear someone in response to that. Well, I guess
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:55
I don't understand the question. Are you asking me, does this bill prevent them from taking prisoners from southeast Arkansas or northwest Arkansas?
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
9:03
I don't think this bill speaks to that at all. No,
I guess my question goes more to, in coming up with this legislation, what was the line of reasoning for completely repealing the language
versus just increasing the mileage distance to some more reasonable distance? In my discussion with the DOC,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:23
this bill really has related much more to the building of a stockade and nothing all with regard to the mileage radius. When they rent or lease additional farmlands, they just don't want to have to build stockades or place a camp. If you'd like for me to find more information about that, I'd be happy to do that. If you pass this out, I'll make sure it gets fixed on the Senate side if that's a problem.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
9:46
I don't think that's a problem. I don't think it's necessary, Representative Williams. Again, I generally
agree with the bill. I'm just curious as to how we got to that point versus a simple increase in the mileage. So I appreciate you taking my questions. Thank
Speaker 82
10:04
you, Representative Bell. Representative Overby. Did Representative Wagner beat you to the punch? All right. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak for this bill, against this
Chair
Unverified
10:14
bill? Representative Wagner, I'll recognize you for a motion.
Representative Wes Wagner
Unverified
10:16
Do pass, Madam Chair. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Representative Williams, you've passed
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:29
your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, may I also run 1395, which I think is
Chair
Unverified
10:37
the last bill on your regular agenda? Yes. Is that okay? I was looking for Representative Wilkins. I heard he was going to be here to run his. I do not see him in the room right now. All right. So, yes.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:47
Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair, and committee for your indulgence. House Bill 1395 is a bill on behalf of the Capital Zoning District Commission. The state of Arkansas has a Capital Zoning District Commission, and it regulates the area in and around the state capitol, the governor's mansion, my house, and several other places. The tent is to try to keep the historic nature of the homes and buildings in that area. The Capital Zoning District Commission has a number of rules and regulations, but they have no method of enforcement because they have no staff.
They have no staff to actually do an enforcement. And right now, those of us who live in capital zoning, we have no way to enforce simple code violations because capital zoning has no enforcement mechanism. This bill would allow the capital zoning and the city of Little Rock to enter into a mutual agreement to allow for capital zoning violations to be enforced via the city of Little Rock code officers, and the venue for that enforcement would be in the Little Rock District Courts, so as not to have to create an enforcement agency and mechanism
for the Capital Zoning District Commission. And this bill is supported by the Capital Zoning District Commission and many of the neighbors in and around the Capital Zoning District Commission. I would appreciate a good
vote and be happy to answer any questions. Committee, are there any questions? Representative Dotson. So
Speaker 93
12:22
we're not creating any new agencies here. Is there any fiscal impact? No, this agency has been in existence for years.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
12:29
It's not new. There are no state dollars here. This is just an agreement between the state of Arkansas, Capitalist Joint District Commission, to use the Little Rock City Code Enforcement Officers and their courts. Right now, folks call the city of Little Rock who live in that area to enforce code violations. where the city of Little Rock really can't do anything because they have no jurisdiction over that area.
Speaker 92
12:53
So we're basically authorizing the city of Little Rock to have
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
12:57
the jurisdiction there? Well, we're authorizing the city of Little Rock to be the venue for enforcing state regulation.
Just to be clear for those lawyers here, we're not engaging in any unlawful delegation here. We're making sure that the venue is
being used, and the city of Little Rock code and law enforcement officers are being used
Speaker 92
13:17
to enforce state regulation. So we're basically giving them the teeth to enforce our regulation and bear the cost of doing so. Right. We have,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:25
and keep in mind, all these areas within the city of Little Rock, we have the teeth and the regulation all within state law. We just have no mechanism of actually doing anything about it.
So if someone within the Capital and Zoning District Commission is committing a violation, the staff can go and write a ticket. They don't actually have any code enforcement officer. They could do that, but there's no way to get that person into the jurisdiction of the district courts, kind of the code enforcement court.
Thank you. Give me an example of a violation. Well, the Capital and Zoning District Commission has a number of regulations
trying to maintain the caret of the neighborhood.
So it could be simply the wrong size fence that was not properly approved. It could be, I don't know, anything from not properly, you know, not cutting your grass. any simple municipal code violation you see in any city right now, all that's done now through the Capital Zoning District Commission, not through the city of Little
Chair
Unverified
14:36
Rock. Does this area you're talking about, though, because it's historical, are the codes on it more stringent?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
14:43
Absolutely. Very much. They are more
Chair
Unverified
14:46
stringent. And is this grandfathering in all those that haven't followed the code? I mean I think I know the neighborhood you're talking about and it goes from a historical house to a more modern house and again the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:06
codes have been in place for decades, this is not new, this is only to allow a way to actually enforce those codes
it doesn't grandfather anyone in, if they're currently violating state law, they're currently violating state law, there's just nothing we can do about it There's really no mechanism to actually get them to change other than continue to send letters and warnings. So this allows those within the Capital Zoning District Commission to be treated just like anyone else outside of that district in the city of Little Rock. So if you're violating a code outside of this area, you'd get a letter, you'd get several letters, and then you might get a tap on the
door. They don't get the tap on the door. They don't get sent to the district courts.
Speaker 11
15:46
This would allow that to happen. Representative Walker. Mr. Williams, Representative Williams,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:01
there are some state regulations that may be inconsistent with Little Rock's own regulations.
Speaker 101
16:06
Would you agree? Mr. That's correct. That's why they'd only be forcing the state regulations, not Little Rock regulations don't apply in this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:16
area. How can we be assured that they'll be enforcing state regulations rather than the Little Rock regulations?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
16:23
Well, this is going to be done through a mutual agreement, and if they enforce Little Rock regulations inconsistent with state regulation, then that person would have a remedy like anyone else if that happened. Well, of course,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:38
I have a problem with this Capital Zoning Commission in the first place. Many do. because the purpose was not pristine as it suggested, and that probably
Speaker 101
16:45
needs to be discussed at some other point. That is a different bill. You're correct, Mr. Walker. Thank you.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
16:54
Representative Bell. Well, this raises several questions in my mind, and I want to make sure I
understand the background correctly. Folks who live in this district currently are subject to the adopted building code by the city of Little Rock and enforcement is done by the city of Little Rock. Is that correct for adopted building code or are they not subject to any building code?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
17:24
They have to go to the Capital Zoning District Commission. When I restored my
house, I had all my codes, everything I had to go through the Capital Zoning District Commission first, then the city actually would send out folks, code enforcement officers, to make sure that we were complying with standard building operations. But before you do major construction, renovation,
and capital zoning, you have to go before the state, not before the city. Well, I
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
17:52
don't believe you answered my question. I guess I didn't understand it. The city of Little Rock has adopted a building code.
I assume it's the SBC, but I'm not 100% certain. That's, I believe, what they've adopted. But that building code should be enforced for all structures in the city as a minimum with the Capital Zoning Commission requirements being in addition to that. So my question is, are these folks not currently, is there no zoning enforcement at all in this area, no building code enforcement? There is building code enforcement
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
18:26
with regard to, you know, the City of Little Rock comes out to inspect when you're building.
When I renovated my project, the City of Little Rock inspectors came out to inspect all of my plans, the architectural designs, all that had to go before the state capital zoning district commission. But you're much more knowledgeable of building code than I am, so I'm not familiar with the exact code you're referring to. But the City of Little Rock inspectors, yes, they did inspect the electrical,
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
18:55
heating, air, plumbing, those kind of things. So currently, if you violate the Capital Zoning Commission rules,
the Capital Zoning Commission can ask you to appear before the Zoning Commission to answer, or do they not have any teeth whatsoever in what they do? I'm not familiar with Capital Zoning Commission enough to know how their process works. I'm going to look for some
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:24
help from the AG's office We want to read an hour from the AG's office here as well
Just in case I'm going a far fetch But right now if capital Capital zoning has
They have a board that you go before When you want to do something to your home And you have to have approval there If you do something in violation of state law Capital zoning law right now They have no way to get you into court or to enforce
their regulation. Do they have someone's ability to force you to come before
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
19:56
the zoning commission? I don't think so, no. Can't go to court. There's no way
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:00
to get the court from. I'm not talking about the court.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
20:07
I'm asking, can they summon you to appear before the zoning commission? Warren
Speaker 112
20:12
Reed now with the Attorney General's office. Our office represents the Capital Zoning District Commission just as we do many state agencies. We're having a hard time hearing you. Warren Riedenauer with the Attorney General's Office. Thank you, sir. Our office represents Capital Zoning District Commission, just as we do a number of state agencies. They do not have the ability to issue a summons or require you to appear. The only legal authority they have to try to enforce something is to go to court and sue that person and seek an injunction.
So as Representative Williams was saying with regard to something similar to changing out a door or using the wrong windows in a historic area, they would have to go to court seek an injunction and have the court order that person to remove whatever non-complying structure they put up. Mr. Reed and I, since you're
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
20:58
here, just one additional question. I appreciate that clarification. Just one additional question regarding the legality here. I think the chairperson brought up a good point. What's the situation for folks in this area who are currently out of compliance?
Are they going to start receiving summons to appear in court? Or is there some provision? I don't see it
Speaker 112
21:19
here to grandfather them. Well, the capital zoning could already go to court right now and seek an injunction. What really is trying to set up is, as Representative Williams was saying, he did have to comply with the building codes for the city of Little Rock. That's the overlapping jurisdiction. But capital zoning rather than city has zoning authority, which is how high your house can be, how close to the road it has to be, those type of things.
So there's two authorities right now, and that does cause confusion within the neighborhood. This would simply allow, rather than capital zoning have to sue them and initiate an action, it would allow them to work with the city to go to district court just like that person would if they violated the building code or just like anyone else that lives in Little Rock other than capital zoning. If their grass is too high, the city writes them a citation, they go to district court and get an opportunity to defend that action. So they're already in compliance, and they're already grandfathered in as far as if that house was there before capital zoning was created,
it's grandfathered in, but any new changes would be subject to
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
22:24
this. I guess as I listen to this, my concern is very simple. You've got a lot of class disparity in that area. You have folks who are pretty poor, and you have folks who are pretty wealthy. And what I see with this potential enforcement change is it becomes much easier to go after somebody through the enforcement process versus a lawsuit. It's a pretty good hurdle to go file a lawsuit and a lot of hassle for the zoning commission to do that,
as opposed to just sending an enforcement officer out to ticket somebody who may not be able to afford to bring their home in compliance. I have some real reservations about this, and I appreciate everybody taking my question. Just to answer that, we're not asking the people
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:04
in the Capital Zoning, me, I'm in this district, to be any different
than anyone outside the city of Little Rock. If they were not in compliance with something and they lived outside the city of Little Rock, they'd have the same – and outside of the Capital Zoning District Commission, it'd be just the same.
So we have a number of neighbors who live inside the Capital Zoning District Commission who have properties who would like to see something done. but the Capital Zoning District Commission have not in many instances, maybe in egregious violations, have not taken the hurdle of actually, you're right, of filing a lawsuit. So those within the Capital Zoning District Commission have to put
up with violations that those who live outside don't have to put up with. So it cuts both ways. Well, I
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
23:47
think that's exactly my concern. The Capital Zoning rules are on top
of the existing building code rules that are being enforced And I'm concerned that we're going to place an even higher burden on some folks who are living in that area. But I appreciate you taking
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:04
the time to respond to my questions. Just to respond to that, Representative Bell, we're talking also like cutting grass, cutting the grass, whether you're inside the capital zoning or outside
the capital zoning. Capital zoning doesn't have to go file a lawsuit to get someone to cut their grass. You currently have building
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
24:19
code enforcement, and I understand that. That's what I'm saying.
This is simply placing an additional enforcement hurdle on the folks in that district and making it much easier to target them. I think I understand. Okay, we've got some other
Speaker 63
24:34
people with questions. Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Madam
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
24:37
Chair. Are you talking the Capitol and the surrounding area? Is that what we're talking? I mean, the Capitol and the surrounding area, How much area are we talking?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:53
Well, I don't have the exact boundaries. I don't know the exact boundaries, but it's several blocks in each direction. It goes from the Capitol
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
25:02
to the Governor's Mansion. I guess what I'm saying, it can't be just a little parcel of land
Speaker 45
25:10
over here or over there. It's all in a square, right? Fairly square. Fairly square.
Speaker 29
25:15
Okay. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Representative Walker?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:19
Thank you, Madam Chair. MR. Well, to answer Representative Hutchinson's question, the area of the Zoning Commission
far exceeds the Governor's Mansion area. It begins somewhere around Main Street, maybe east of Main, and it goes all the way to Chester Street on the east, and it goes to Roosevelt Road on the south and to the river. or at least it can go to the river on the north. Now, the commissioners are not elected,
and they serve at somebody's pleasure who is unidentified, and they make whatever rules they wish whenever they wish. And as Representative Bell correctly points out, those people may do what they wish except the restraint now is that they have to go to court. Now, my concern, and this is for Representative Williams, is what is the documentation of the level of the problem that precipitates the necessity for this legislation? I mean,
where is the evidence that the present situation is not working? And to what extent is it not working that requires this modification in the rules? Well, this has been
a subject for this is the third session,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:49
I believe, or second or third session that this has come up. So I wish Boyd Mayer, the head of the Capital Zoning District Commission was here he could give you significant documentation where they have chosen, I guess, not to file, because they don't
have the resources to file an injunction or a court action So I think there are a number of examples where they've needed to use or would have liked to have had a ability to go to district court to enforce their own rules and regulations. Your office, like my house, obviously is within that area and we're very familiar with it. This area has been identified for decades, and those folks are elected. But keep in mind, it was the General Assembly that created this district.
and it's been around for some time now. It's the General Assembly that actually established its rules, its regulation, and its authority. So if we're talking about whether we like the Capital Zoning District Commission or not, I think that's a different subject than whether they're going to have the ability to actually enforce or enter into an agreement
for the enforcement of their rules. Representative Altus.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
28:08
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, you'll have to bring
me up to speed, Representative Williams. How is the Capital Zoning District different than a POA? And if a POA has a problem, do they not have the power to condemn and things like that? My understanding of POA really
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:36
is by contract, so they may have the power to condemn.
I'm not sure. The Capital Zoning District Commission is different because we set it up. We established as a state said that this area would be subject to additional regulation to try to maintain the historic character of this community. We established that. We gave them the power. The Secretary of State, the Governor, the City of Little Rock, various folks have representatives on this commission who sets out these rules and regulations, and their rules are adopted like any other rule.
It goes for Administrative Procedures Act. It has to
come before our council for review, just like any other state agency. They are
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
29:21
a state agency, unlike a POA. Okay. On the first page, line 33, it says, other matters within the jurisdiction of the commission and we don't have those other jurisdictional matters in front of us, is that in the code somewhere? Are all those other matters within the jurisdiction, are they in code somewhere? That's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
29:41
within their rules and regulations that
have come before the state for review. Okay, so it's
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
29:48
like a state agency and we have rules and regulations that we have approved? It's not just like a state agency. It is a state agency. Right. Okay. Okay. So right now they don't have the power to regulate anything or to condemn anything? Is that what you're saying? That's what you want the power
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
30:11
for? Well, they have rules and regulations.
In order to enforce those rules and regulations, they actually have to file a lawsuit or an injunction against someone. What we're trying to do is to simply allow the folks who live within the Capital Zoning District Commission to have the same enforcement structure as someone who lives outside of the Capital Zoning District Commission. So a code enforcement officer could contact you, could ticket you, and then you go to court before a judge and address that issue. Now the state would actually have to file a lawsuit against someone who is alleged to be in violation of a regulation of the Capital Zoning District Commission.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
30:54
So I'm not understanding still. So the city of Little Rock, all of this zoning district lies within the city limits? That's correct. So the city of Little Rock can't go in and let's say somebody's grass is four feet high. They can't come in and condemn that property or write them a citation?
No, they can't. They cannot, even though it's within the city of Little Rock. That's correct.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:25
They can, the city of Little Rock can't do anything. The Capital Zone District Commission can find a lawsuit to get you to cut your grass, and that's kind of the absurdity of it. And it's simply because it is an agency within the government that we created. And so by mutual agreement, we're trying to just give that state agency a different venue other than filing a lawsuit against someone for whatever violation it may be. I'm just
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
31:49
not understanding why the city of Little Rock cannot enforce their rules and regulations, even though this property lies within the city limits of Little Rock.
does this Little Rock capital zoning district, does that trump the city of Little Rock's laws? Yes, it does. So none of the city of Little Rock laws are in force and effect in the capital zoning district? Those that
are in conflict with state regulation are not enforceable by the city of Little Rock. That's correct. I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding. Thank you. I have Representative Dotson.
Speaker 92
32:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Valtus basically asked my question, but let me see if I can understand this. The city of Little Rock has no authority within this zone for any sort of zoning regulation whatsoever. That's what you're telling me. Building code or just
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:50
zoning, not building code. is, as Representative Bell pointed out correctly, not building code, but zoning.
If I'm going to build a house in this area and the city is going to come out and inspect my plumbing, my heat and air, like they would any other, but for zoning issues, then the city
Speaker 92
33:12
has no authority at all. So back to the grass being four feet high or whatever, the city cannot issue a citation whatsoever within this zone. No, because it's all state regulated. Maybe we should remove the state or allow the city to actually enforce rules for the
city within that district as well. Thank you.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
33:42
question. Representative Walker. Representative Williams, would you tell me how cutting the grass constitutes
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
33:53
a zoning issue? Yeah. Well, that's really zoning law.
I think anything dealing with appearance, any of that, also, that's what it's enforced through any city, through zoning regulations and through city code.
It could also be, obviously, windows that are out of compliance, the doors that are out of compliance, all the things that we, or fences that are out of compliance, could be any of those things. All right.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
34:21
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Why don't we just do
away with the commission? And I remember one time going on a tour, and they
telling me something, there was a code that they just didn't want to build buildings higher than the Capitol because of the views.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:38
Is that why this was formed, maybe, back in the day, or what? You
know, this has been formed now for decades. That may be one of the reasons. I think part of the purpose, and obviously I went around when it was formed, was to try to protect the integrity of the historic structures in and around the Capitol, the governor's mansion. This is a significant tourist area for
the state of Arkansas, and there's a reason why you'd want to make sure that you protect those historical treasures. That was just a thought. Thank you. Representative Wilkins.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
35:09
Representative Williams, if I understand this right, the intent of this bill is to correct the unintended consequences consequences of previous
Speaker 40
35:18
regulation. Is that right? That's partially
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
35:23
right, Representative Wilkins. It really simply is trying to give the Capital Zoning District Commission similar ease of administrative enforcement as any city within the state of Arkansas might have, as opposed to having
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
35:39
to file a lawsuit for injunction against someone. But state regulation now
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
35:47
prohibit or don't cover what you're saying. State regulation right now does not provide for a way for the Capital Zoning District Commission to seek enforcement of their rules through city courts, through district courts. Thank
Speaker 99
36:04
you, sir. Is that it for questions? Representative Bell? Can I,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:08
Madam Chair, before that, can I respond further just to clear out?
Absolutely. If the Capital Zoning District Commission wanted to file a lawsuit for someone for whatever violation, understand that would be a lawsuit in circuit court because it's a state entity as opposed to your little district court, city court. So that's another, you know, that's a pretty heavy burden on someone who has alleged to be in violation of state regulation. That's a
Speaker 89
36:36
good distinction. Thank you for sharing that. Representative Bell.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
36:44
Madam Chair, I hate to belabor the point, but the more I listen, the more questions come up. And Representative Altus asked some questions that really increase my questions. talking about grass is grass in the city of little rock a city ordinance or a zoning law i don't know we've talked a lot about grass today in the context of zoning and i'm not familiar
with grass as a zoning issue it's typically in a city ordinance and if it's your testimony today that city ordinances are not enforceable in this zoning district i really am beginning to have some reservations about where we're headed with this. Many of the things that we talk about can be
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
37:30
enforced through mutual agreement, and that's what this is trying to do to allow for mutual agreement to cover all of those zoning issues. I don't know City of Little Rock ordinances. I apologize. I don't know. And I certainly don't either, but we've
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
37:42
done a lot of talking about grass today,
and I think City of Little Rock currently has the authority to enforce grass that's not being taken care of properly in this area via ordinance. Maybe the testimony going down the road of grass is
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
37:57
probably inconsistent. Really, the purpose of this bill, maybe we shouldn't talk so much about grass. This
is really about the historical nature of these buildings, as Representative Walker pointed out. It's trying to maintain the historic character of these homes and these buildings. It relates much
more to that than it does to grass. I appreciate that very much.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
38:17
I guess the one other thing that came up that really troubled me is you mentioned that previous bodies have taken this issue up in the past and haven't approved doing this. No, if I say that, that's not what
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
38:27
I meant to say. That's what I heard, so maybe I heard you incorrectly. It passed
with flying colors, with nobody to vote against it, I think, last session when I carried the bill. But unfortunately, we didn't draft the language quite right, and it was an unlawful delegation. And that's why I tried to make the point that we've tried to clear up, or we believe with the AG's office help and the bureaus, that we've cleared up the unlawful delegation.
The state cannot delegate to a city its rules and its regulations. That would be an unlawful delegation. Here we've changed the language to make sure that we've cleared up that unlawful delegation, trying to simply do what we did last session incorrectly. And last session, again, it passed on both sides without much controversy. One
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
39:05
final question, because this seems to be the city. I'm going to hold you
to that, Representative Bell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate your indulgence. This is an important issue.
is it your testimony today that city building code and city zoning requirements are not enforceable in the capital zoning district and that the capital zoning rules simply don't supersede those in that area? I want to make sure I understand that. Ah, Boyd just arrives. I may have really
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
39:40
confused. This is Boyd Mayor. Can I invite him to –
he's the executive director of the Capital Zoning District Commission.
If you mind, don't mind, Madam Chair, I'd love to have him answer some of
Speaker 157
39:56
these questions. Yes, sir. Come to the table and identify yourself, please. The director at Capital Zoning
Speaker 46
40:05
District Commission, Boyd Mayer. Hey, Darren, are you going to run our bill today? My apologies, Madam Chair. No problem. No problem.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
40:13
Representative Bell, repeat your last question. It sounds like this is the gentleman to answer that. Well, it seems like the discussion today has centered around one issue. In this capital zoning district area, as I understand it, the capital zoning district commission rules are in place, and they are the zoning for that area.
Yes. this area is it also subject as a subordinate set of rules to the adopted building code and zoning rules of the city of little rock yes if if
Speaker 157
40:44
something's not addressed specifically in our rules we adopt by by reference any applicable rules from the city of little rock one follow-up Madam Chair,
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
40:58
since we have new information here. Representative Bell.
So, currently in this district, in the current enforcement, City of Little Rock zoning rules and regulations are enforced. We've adopted them, but we
Speaker 157
41:15
don't have any ability to enforce them. But the city does. No, they
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
41:24
don't either. No one can enforce any building code or zoning rules in this
Speaker 157
41:29
area. We're bluffing every day. We have two options.
We can send you a strongly worded letter, and at the other end of the spectrum, we can ask the AG's office to
Speaker 5
41:44
get us an injunction. You do know this is being
Speaker 157
41:47
recorded. Yes. But we have nothing in between. And the city can't do anything either. No, they say capital zoning has authority. We can't do anything. And we don't have any enforcement powers of our own save for injunctive relief. And you can guess how often that happens. We need to have something in between an injunction and a strongly worded letter.
So that's why we're hoping this bill will allow violations of our rules to be assigned to Little Rock District Court, where they can be treated as if they were
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
42:29
any other municipal violation. Representative Overby. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do pass at the
Speaker 29
42:38
proper time. Okay. Representative Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
42:42
How many civil actions have you filed this year or last year or the year before to enforce your rules and regulations? I've been here
Speaker 157
42:51
almost three years and none since I've been here. And Mr. Redenauer has been the attorney for this agency for 10, 15 years, and he doesn't remember any either. So where is the urgency of the problem? Our board is reluctant to pursue that nuclear option of an injunction. and most of our enforcement just comes from the goodwill of our constituents
who want to do right because they're upright citizens and want to do the right thing. And
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:24
to further answer that question, Mr. Walker, someone who violates a city municipal code right now can be cited and they'll go to district court. They don't have to have an attorney in district court. They don't have to expend the money to go to district court. But if the state agency tried to enforce their rules, they would have to file in circuit court where someone would more likely want to have an attorney to prevent them from representing themselves.
But it is, as Mr. Mayer said, a drastic option for what can be a very simple solution by allowing the folks who live within capital zoning to be governed very similar
to those who live outside of capital zoning in the same means as those who live outside of capital zoning. whereas a violation now
Speaker 157
44:08
could only be addressed in the form of a lawsuit this bill would be would allow it to be addressed more like a parking ticket
Speaker 46
44:21
there's a pause I'm gonna assume there are no more questions from the committee at this time
Speaker 63
44:27
is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
Chair
Unverified
44:36
for or or against this bill? If not, I'll recognize Representative Overby's motion. Do pass. All those in favor, aye. All those opposed, nay. Nay. I have to rule the nays have it.
I thought it was going to be an easy
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:57
day for you, Representative Williams. Or remind me not to come back when you have nothing to do. I understand. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
45:10
Madam Chair. Thank you. I see Representative Wilkins in the room. Is he still in the room? Representative Wilkins?
There's an impact statement on this bill. House Bill 1328.
I want to welcome, we have a large caucus in the room today, and your name is the First Arkansas Citizens First Congress. Welcome. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Representative Wilkins, thank you, Madam
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
46:23
Chair. If I could get a copy, I've not seen, I know there are some other members of the committee
that also did not get a copy of the
Speaker 185
46:37
impact statement. Is it on your tablets?
Speaker 187
46:52
I don't know. That will save some time, thank you.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
47:05
Anyone else need one? Did you get what you needed down there, Representative Wilkins? Yes, Madam Chair, I did. You may proceed. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present House Bill 1328. Basically, what House Bill 1328 does is require the Department of Youth Services
to present any changes or modifications of contracts before our administrative rules and regs, before it goes or before those modifications go into effect. The copy that I have here, I guess, doesn't have the additional two dozen sponsors that we also amended the bill to put on.
And, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions. But, basically, that's what the bill does.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
48:31
Questions from committee? Representative Altus. thank you Madam Chair
and Senator Wilkins you know I'm a co-sponsor of your bill and I love you with all my
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
48:41
heart and you're my long time Senate seatmate we sat together for what eight years
in the Senate I'm scared to know what this question is going to be
Chair
Unverified
48:50
but Representative Altus you're recognized for a question we sat together last session anyway
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
48:54
I was wondering why We love each other.
I was wondering why these people fell through the cracks. And like every other state agency in the world has to come before review when they change a contract or have a new contract. Why did these people fall through the cracks, and why do we have to create a new section just for them?
Why can't we throw them
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
49:21
in with everybody else? Well, this is requiring them to appear before administrative rules and regs, which at this time they are not required to do. Well, doesn't everybody else in the world do that, though? Yes. Everybody else, as far as I know, does appear before administrative rules and regs. I'm not sure why this division was not required to do that years ago. But I will say this, Senator. During the last two to three years, myself and several other legislators have met with providers and with the officials from DYS to try to work out an agreement so that things that have become a problem would not be a problem.
And I'll give you an example, and there are people here who will testify and they can give really good details about those concerns. But when a provider has a contract and they have hired staff and they're providing services and then to have a contract changed or modified in some way without even contacting the provider, I think is really, quite frankly,
gross neglect of responsibility and accountability on the part of DYS. And it came to my attention in one of the several meetings that we've held during the last couple of years that that has happened in the past. So this would help us to assure that the legislature is continuing to provide oversight about what's going on at DYS.
Now, somebody might say, well, why does the legislature need all of this oversight? Well, let me tell you why. It's called term limits. And because of term limits, and this is no disrespect to any bureaucrats that might be in the room. I mean, excuse me, I mean, administrators that might be in the room, but the reality is that with term limits,
if the legislature does not make sure that we are looking at everything that is being changed, moved around, manipulated, the next thing we know, we're out of the loop completely. We're in budget voting for something and we don't know what it does. We're in the house on the floor voting for something and don't know what it does. And then we discover later, oh, my God, I wouldn't have voted for that.
I didn't know. So this just adds an additional layer. Someone, no doubt, will come forward and say, well, you know, but then this means it will take 30 more days or 45 more days. I'd rather have six months, if necessary, if that is going to protect making sure that our children get the kind of services that they need from their providers. So this is just simply insurance.
Speaker 196
52:54
And I'm sorry I took so long. MR. Thank you.
Speaker 46
52:58
MR. Thank you. MR. Representative Dotson? MR. Representative
Speaker 197
53:04
Altus just made the motion for me. MR. Representative Walker?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:12
MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. It has been said
that politics make strange bedfellows, and
Speaker 33
53:18
I think that this is a unique concession between you and Mr. Altus, for which I compliment you.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:27
I'm not suggesting that you're a bedfellas, but certainly
Speaker 201
53:30
friends and associates. Representative Walker, I must confess that every now and then over the years, while I was out getting a drink of water or had gone to the men's room, that Representative Altus, back in the Senate, took liberties with my vote. So. Well, you still trust him. Yeah,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:54
absolutely. Well, one of the here, isn't this your concern that when people DHS is the biggest state agency we have. Is that right? Yes. All right. And you have myriad contracts that cover the entire state.
And you're concerned that those contracts may be modified between providers and the state at the whim of an administrator who may or may not like a particular person or who may prefer someone else. That's correct. And when they make those modifications, that becomes arbitrary, without notice, and the person who has assumed some responsibility for developing a service then is injured. That's right. So you want to try to make sure that when persons enter into arrangements with the state,
those arrangements are implemented in good faith. That's absolutely correct. On a continual basis. And if there are modifications, it's to be with notice, good calls, and justification, and an opportunity for there to be some kind
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
55:06
of appropriate review before this body that you are proposing. Absolutely, Representative Walker. as much review as is possible, again, not simply because it inconveniences providers,
but most importantly because the providers are giving the state a service that impacts the lives of so many young people. Now,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:32
what is the justification of the state for causing these agencies and these persons who are administrators, sometimes middle-level administrators, what is the justification that you know of for allowing them this unfettered discretion?
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
55:54
Do they have any? I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not able to really answer why they would want that unfettered oversight. Thank you. I'm just trying to make sure that that oversight is there. And as many of you know, Representative Altus and I are the two longest-serving legislators. We'll be leaving out of here with 16 years, or he 15 and a half, and myself 16.
And what I have experienced over the years, again, Madam Chair and Vice Chair, No disrespect to agency folks, but what I have observed from the time that I came into first the House back in the late 90s and then 10 years in the Senate and then I'm in my second and last term in the House is the institutional knowledge. For example, I served in the Senate with Mike Beebe.
Since the time Mike Beebe was in the Senate, he's been the Attorney General twice, and he's in his second term as governor. We, some people only get to be here six years. It takes years just to find out what you need to do to get a bill filed around this camp. So what I'm saying is let's provide all of the oversight that we can to ensure that the services that are supposed to be going to the youngsters,
I don't want those kids to not get services because I don't want them breaking into my house or into yours. I don't want to be paying for them to be in prison or in jail in coming years. And if we can make a difference in that, then by golly, I say we've done something
Chair
Unverified
57:55
important. I appreciate your fervor on this, Representative Wilkins. I think I've learned more about your relationship with Representative Altus, though. We have several people. Oh, pardon me. We have a couple. I was going to say we have several people in the audience signed up to speak.
Representative Walker, you have a question? Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Madam
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
58:19
Representative Wilkins, for being you and being honest and telling it like it is. And it, too, concerns me that this is allowed to happen. It appears you have more fans
Speaker 46
58:34
than just Representative Altus on this committee.
Speaker 192
58:37
Well, Madam Chair, it's mutual because, hey, I enjoyed your presentation on the floor the other day.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
58:44
I thank you. But, you know, they wasn't going to let me talk very long. But anyway, thank
Speaker 82
58:52
you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. If that's it for the committee, then I'm
Speaker 63
58:57
going to go to the audience. We have several people signed up to speak for it. Valerie Dunn, are you
Chair
Unverified
59:02
present? Come to the table. Identify yourself for
Speaker 211
59:13
the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. Valerie Dunn from Health Resources of Arkansas and the Arkansas Youth Service Providers Association.
Speaker 65
59:23
Ms. Dunn, thank you for being here today. And
Speaker 211
59:29
you're speaking for the bill? Yes, ma'am. First of all, thank you for what you've done for this. The Youth Service Providers Association understands that with passage of this bill, that there might be a slight delay in the funding, in receiving additional funding or the process, but that's okay. It's imperative that there's a transparency
with any division in the state of Arkansas and any provider, and we need some consistency across the state with the other, Or, you know, like you said, all the other areas have to go through this process. We have experienced, as providers in the state of Arkansas, we have experienced multiple times where on a whim the division would just dump some money
in a certain area with a certain provider without going through an RFP process or without notifying the other providers for giving them the opportunity to maybe bid for that money, and this would eliminate that or at least make it a fair playing ground. What we're asking is, you know, like I said, we understand there will be a slowdown in the process, and we're okay with that. We want accurate accounting of the funds.
This would help with that. We've asked for the process of how these extra funds are distributed and have not received that as of yet. We're just asking you to consider to pass this bill for all fairness and for transparency. I appreciate that testimony. Thank you very
Chair
Unverified
1:01:33
much for being here. Are there any questions?
On the committee? No? I'll recognize Jeff Wood, who's here to speak on the bill. Thank you, sir. Recognize yourself. Pardon me. Identify yourself at the end of the table. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Jeff Wood,
Speaker 214
1:01:59
Office of Finance Administration at DHS. Go ahead with your testimony, sir. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I was just asked to come make a few comments on the bill today for
the director. My division is the one that actually processes amendments and changes to contracts. I just want to point out a few things. First off, these contracts are currently subject to the review process, so they do have to come over for review just like any other contract amendment. Secondly, the way we're reading the bill is we have to give 45 days notice before an amendment can be executed, which means you would be adding 45 days on the front end on an amendment because I can't even send it to DF&A until all the signatures are on there. So this would add a substantial
amount of time to the process even for a friendly amendment. And I know on some of these contracts we have 20 to 30 amendments a year just to move money around from different pots based on utilization. And so if there's an additional 45 day process on the front end, then towards the end of the year, last quarter, unless there's some work with the chairs, which I know they've done that in the past, to hear some contracts on an emergency basis. There's going to be a real short time frame on turning these around in an additional time. I'm unclear on the bill whether it has to go through the entire
rules and regulation process, which if that's the case, that could add another 60 to 70 days to the process if it has to be reviewed by the rules committee. The department just wanted to make the committee and the chair aware that we're going to follow whatever the legislation and passes. We'd be happy to do the procedure, but I just wanted to make sure on the front end because this could
Speaker 215
1:03:34
stop us from being able to make payments to providers if there had to be changes towards the last part of the contract.
Speaker 63
1:03:43
Are you open to taking questions from the committee? You're at the
Speaker 214
1:03:46
end of the table. I'm going to take that as a yes. I'm sure I will do my best. I would point out that I'm not directly working for DYS, so
Speaker 216
1:03:53
there may be some individual contract questions that I can't answer, but I'd be happy to get back with the sponsor and the committee members
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:04:03
if I can't answer the question. Thank you very much. Representative Hobbs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Typically, how long is a contract agreement?
Speaker 214
1:04:09
What period of time? Mine can run anywhere from six months, but normally they're a year, a year-long contract from July 1 to June 30 for the next year. Okay, so typically a one-year
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:04:18
time period. So you know in advance of that deadline that the contract needs to be renewed, correct? Correct. Thank you. Are you aware of any contracts that have been changed, even though an agreement has been signed with a provider? We had this discussion previously at
Speaker 216
1:04:34
the meeting. My shop processes all these, and I know I can't utilitarianly change a contract. The provider,
Speaker 215
1:04:40
whoever's on the contract, has to sign that document before I can send it to DF&A. They're not going to allow me to process it through there.
So that part of the discussion I'm unaware of. I just know from my end at DHS on processing contracts, I can't make a change to
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:05:00
a contract unless both parties have signed. But for instance, if DHS sees there's a budget cut, have you not changed contracts with providers even though the annual contract has been signed on? Oh, yes. If
Speaker 215
1:05:12
funding goes down, yes, we have to make a change to the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:05:16
contract. And so at that point, the provider pretty much has to agree, I would assume,
because I'm not sure what else they
Speaker 215
1:05:24
can do at that point. Yeah, I can talk in generalities. I can't talk about specific, the DYS contracts. I know there's some specific statutory language that apply to the community-based provider contracts that I'm not familiar with, but to answer
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:05:38
your question, yes. Okay, and if payment is changed, those providers still have to provide the services that they had agreed to provide, correct? Correct, and I
Speaker 214
1:05:47
guess their only option would be either accept
Speaker 215
1:05:49
the amendment or on a normal contract.
If someone's providing those services and they say, no, we don't want to lower the rate, then the contract would have to be rebid when the contract expired. At that point,
Speaker 216
1:06:01
you could do a notification that they're going to terminate the contract, but they would require to rebid
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:06:07
the contract. So that would be one option. Okay. So at this point, it sounds like the
DYS can make changes to the contract. That would be less favorable to the provider. However, the provider has to uphold their agreement and provide the services for the youth in the community.
Speaker 215
1:06:23
That could be a scenario. Again, I can't speak to the individual DYS contracts. I apologize to the committee. I'm just not familiar with them. But there could be a scenario where I had a contract with a provider. The division said we have to raise this rate. And the provider, in the past, a good example is our net contracts with DMS for transportation. Some of the providers said we just can't do it for that rate. So what we had to do is we had to, you know, they either had to accept the rate and renew the contract or they had to take a chance, re-bid it, you know, come in at a lower rate and roll the dice
that they'd be awarded the contract on the bill when
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:06:58
it was put up a re-bid. And so if I understand correctly, this bill would give some
protection to that provider to be able to provide the services that they have agreed to provide. Yeah. The advantages
Speaker 216
1:07:10
I see from the AHC on this bill is it would give more notice to the parties It's just that it's going to tie the
Speaker 215
1:07:18
agency's hands as far as turning these around without some kind of emergency or suspension of the rules by rules and reg and peer on the back end.
And, two, it's probably going to prohibit us from moving general revenue money around towards the tail end of the year if we're going to do that. I can't really speak too much to that issue. Okay. And again,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:07:40
I mean, it appears DHS has enough employees to make sure those contracts are prepared far enough advance. Do you agree with that? I would agree with that. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 46
1:07:55
Madam Chair. Any other questions for Mr. Wood? Representative Walker.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:58
Thank you, Chairman Lee. Have you been instructed to oppose this
Speaker 216
1:08:04
bill? No, Representative. I was just asked this morning to review the bill and come
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:08:09
over here and make comments. So you basically have nothing to say about the bill other than that there may be some problems with
Speaker 214
1:08:17
it. Not really problems with the bill, just the additional step that's going to add
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:08:21
to the process. In all due respect, then you have nothing to contribute to this one way or another. Thank you.
Speaker 82
1:08:38
All right, then we have another person to speak for the bill,
Speaker 63
1:08:46
Scott Lindenbaum. Did I get it remotely close?
Speaker 229
1:08:50
That's close. Madam Chair, it's Linebaugh. I'm Scott Linebaugh. I'm from northwest Arkansas. I operate an agency called YouthBridge, which works in eight counties of northwest Arkansas.
And one of the things that needs to additionally be said here is providers are in such a shape with DYS changing things the way that they are, all of a sudden changing the performance indicators, all of a sudden changing the contracts, that our boards have gotten to the point where they won't expend big capital expenditures because they can't count on what's going to happen. We get a contract, we get a contract for seven years, and all of a sudden major changes are made in the middle of the contract within the year.
And so we're just asking for a chance to sit there and have notice of it and a chance to be able to speak against it for the changes that are being made. We purposely, years ago, and it was brought through this legislature, set up a funding formula that was fair. all the way across the state that's built on different facets of population, of poverty and et cetera like that. And it's unfair to sit there and switch money from one area to another area without using
that funding formula. And so we think this is a good bill. We appreciate you all considering it, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Representative Hickerson. Madam Chair, if it's
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
1:10:33
in order at this time, and I certainly don't want to cut off anyone that wants to speak, but I'd like to call for the question. May I do
Speaker 113
1:10:43
that? I'm referring to my handy-dandy... Parliamentary procedure notebook. Exactly.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
1:10:50
Immediate consideration. Representative Nichols said that I need to ask for. So that's what I'm asking for.
Speaker 65
1:11:00
Non-debate. Thank you very much. I'm just looking at my handy-dandy list here. It
Chair
Unverified
1:11:05
is non-debatable. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion recognized? I'm assuming your next motion is do pass. By Representative Nichols. All those in favor?
Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations, Representative Wilkins. You've passed your bill.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:11:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. and I look forward to spending some more time
Speaker 232
1:11:32
with you soon. Bye-bye. I do not think... That's not
Speaker 233
1:11:37
directed at Representative Altus. I do not see any other business.
Speaker 210
1:11:43
Representative Holcomb is the only other one I was not able to get in touch
Chair
Unverified
1:11:50
with. He is not in the room so I'm assuming I'll recognize a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? I'm assuming none. There we go. We're adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 5
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 40
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 65
Representative Wes Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 46
Speaker 25
Speaker 82
Speaker 93
Speaker 92
Speaker 11
Speaker 101
Speaker 112
Speaker 63
Speaker 45
Speaker 29
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 99
Speaker 89
Speaker 157
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 187
Speaker 196
Speaker 197
Speaker 33
Speaker 201
Speaker 125
Speaker 192
Speaker 211
Speaker 214
Speaker 215
Speaker 216
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 229
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Speaker 210