House Insurance and Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (20)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB785
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB785”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1439
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1439”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2117
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2117”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2138
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “Hobbs. House Bill 2107, English. House Bill 2117, Hammer. House Bill 2138 Hyde House Bill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB243
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB243”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB259
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB259”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1450
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1450”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1920
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2180 Fielding House Bill 1920 Johnson”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1927
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1927 Summers 1934 Summers Senate Bill 251 Madison Senate Bill 31…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1934
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1934”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2021
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “chairman thank you committee House Bill 2021, Nichols.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2033
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 2033, Fiennes. House Bill 2083, Hobbs. 2085,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2083
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 2033, Fiennes. House Bill 2083, Hobbs. 2085,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2107
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Hobbs. House Bill 2107, English. House Bill 2117, Hammer. House Bill 2138 Hyde Hou…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2143
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…107, English. House Bill 2117, Hammer. House Bill 2138 Hyde House Bill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2180 Fielding House Bi…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2174
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ill 2117, Hammer. House Bill 2138 Hyde House Bill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2180 Fielding House Bill 1920 Johnson”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2180
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…se Bill 2138 Hyde House Bill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2180 Fielding House Bill 1920 Johnson”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB251
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1927 Summers 1934 Summers Senate Bill 251 Madison Senate Bill 313, Madison Senate Bill 739, Hutchinso…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB313
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ouse Bill 1927 Summers 1934 Summers Senate Bill 251 Madison Senate Bill 313, Madison Senate Bill 739, Hutchinson Senate Bill 785 Okay R…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB739
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…34 Summers Senate Bill 251 Madison Senate Bill 313, Madison Senate Bill 739, Hutchinson Senate Bill 785 Okay Recognized?”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 5, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:06
business. We've declared that we've got three minutes. What's
in high? Do you recognize
Speaker 9
0:27
present your amendments? So what have we done in the amendments? Just to concur in
Speaker 11
0:36
the Senate amendments. Mr. Hyde, you're recognized.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
0:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, hopefully everybody remembers HB 1439 dealt with clearing up the definition of occurrence in regards to general liability policies. There was two amendments that we worked out on the Senate end to get out. One of them I think I told most of you about while we were here, and we took care of that one. The other one was at the request of Senator Thompson, and it didn't really change any wording. It moved part of that legislative intent into the codified section of the bill.
I'd appreciate a good vote, and there's no opposition to this. This
Chair
Unverified
1:24
was all agreed upon. You recognize? Motion to the proper time. Okay. Motion. Okay. Anybody want to speak for or against the amendment? you recognize motion do pass mr. chairman okay all in favor let it
Speaker 21
1:42
be known by saying aye opposed no congratulations thank you mr.
Chair
Unverified
1:47
chairman thank you committee House Bill 2021, Nichols.
House Bill 2033, Fiennes. House Bill 2083, Hobbs. 2085,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:00
Hobbs. House Bill 2107, English. House Bill 2117, Hammer. House Bill 2138 Hyde House Bill 2143 Hyde House Bill 2174 Love House Bill 2180 Fielding House Bill 1920 Johnson
House Bill 1927 Summers 1934 Summers Senate Bill 251 Madison Senate Bill 313, Madison Senate Bill 739, Hutchinson Senate Bill 785 Okay Recognized?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:55
Mr. Chairman, to help you clean up your calendar HB 2138 is a shell bill that we stuck in there just
in case the commission or a member of the committee had forgotten something. We can move that to deferred
Chair
Unverified
3:12
list if you'd like. Okay, appreciate you. Representative Westman,
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
3:16
you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 785, it just amends various sections of the Uniform Money Services Act. Many of these provisions make technical or clarifying changes
in an effort to provide clear guidance to the money transmitters and currency exchangers that are regulated under the Act. Some of the other changes are more technical but believe to be non-controversial as the Arkansas Securities Department has received no negative comments regarding this bill. I've got the Arkansas Securities Commissioner, Heath Absher, here to answer any questions if anybody has any. Are there any questions from the committee members?
Chair
Unverified
3:57
Is there anybody in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill? What
is the pleasure? Okay. Okay. Does the motion do pass? All in favor, let it be noted by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you. Oh, no. Is there anybody else in the committee that want to present a bill besides Representative Barnett?
Speaker 48
4:28
Really? He's got a bill? Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. Just a moment, Representative. Wait a minute. It's a controversial.
Speaker 52
4:51
They've already passed. Oh, God. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, God. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Oh, man. Well, actually, right's got to be on the two bills that are not controversial. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
4:58
Representative Barnett, without objection, we have two bills that are not very controversial. And I'm not saying that yours is going to be controversial, but it appears you may
need a little bit more time than we have. You don't think
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
6:17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee. I'm running these today for Representative Darren Williams. These are code revision bills. The only thing they do is clean up a little language, make some clarifications to already existing law.
Chair
Unverified
6:49
I'd be more than happy to take any questions. Okay. Senate Bill 243. Okay. Any questions from the committee members? Anybody want to speak for or against? Do you recognize for your motion? Okay. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. opposed congratulations pass the bill thank
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
7:16
you mr. chairman next if it's okay with mr. chairman I'd like to run Senate bill 259 proceed thank you mr.
chairman as y'all know that the Arkansas check casher law has been declared unconstitutional all this bill does is repeal repeal that law okay take any questions it any
Chair
Unverified
7:34
questions from the committee Anybody want to speak for or against? You're recognized for your motion. Okay. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
7:52
Opposed? Congratulations. You passed your view. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Okay.
Speaker 68
7:59
Okay. Okay. Okay. You're recognized for your question?
Speaker 52
8:08
No. Okay. Representative Barnett, you're recognized to present your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee. And I'll try to do you a favor and at least take up the balance of the time today, because I know I don't have anything else to do until we meet at 10 this morning. And so I do appreciate your patience, and I do want to say that, as you all are very, very well aware, that this bill may be the most vetted bill of the entire session. This bill was introduced early, and there's been a lot of discussion.
We made a presentation here earlier, probably at length, and I think a lot of you all maybe know what's going on here with what we're trying to accomplish. And again, this bill has been vetted all across the board. There's been a lot of people that have had a chance to see it in all shapes, sizes, and forms. And so we've tried to bring everybody to the table and work as much of this out as possible. It is going to have to, a lot of it's going to have to go to interim study,
and we do have some recommendations on that as well. I'll let you hear him a second. But I do want to say that Representative Westmoreland has, I call him my resident engineer, and understands this technology and understands kind of what's going on here in the industry as well as anybody that I've come across in the House or the Senate or here at the Statehouse. And so Bruce has been very kind and generous of his time and his efforts to get involved in this thing
and help us through this process. So Bruce, as far as I'm concerned, has ever been as much a spokesman for this as I am and maybe at some point more so. And so I've got him
here with me this morning as well, so if there's some questions that maybe he needs to address, he's here as well with me. But Brian Vaughn with SWEPCO, and he was properly introduced at the last time,
is here with me as well. This bill has gone from 45 pages down to 9 pages, and let me just kind of give you some highlights here of what this bill does.
As amended, and this has been fully engrossed, I've amended it on the floor, so it is fully engrossed at this point. But
this bill, as it is today, authorizes the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, the ADEQ, to apply to EPA for approval and to administrate a state program for carbon dioxide injection wells under recent EPA Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. It also directs ADEQ and the Oil and Gas Commission and the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission
to enter into interagency agreements necessary for that purpose. No carbon dioxide storage facility permits are to be issued before June 30, 2013. So this is not going to happen until at least two years from now after all of these meetings take place. The legislature will authorize the proper state agencies to provide for a coordinated statewide program for the transport and underground storage of carbon dioxide no later than June 30, 2013,
after interim study. So again, the legislature is still in control here, folks. We're trying to have as much oversight here as possible. ADEQ, the Oil and Gas Commission, and the Portion Control and Ecology Commission will provide a report to the House Insurance and Commerce Committee by June 30, 2012. Trying to give you all something to do here during the interim just in case you all didn't figure that out. So by June 30, 2012, on their progress and proposals for, A, approving of permitting carbon dioxide injection wells under the EPA Safe Drinking Water Regulations,
and, B, for a coordinated statewide program for carbon dioxide transportation
and underground storage. The Utilities Subcommittee of this House Insurance and Commerce Committee will study, Number one, the impact of underground storage of carbon dioxide on private property rights. Number two, the legal mechanisms for the amalgamation of property rights necessary to develop storage facilities.
Number three, long-term liability of carbon dioxide storage facility operators, pipeline operators, and carbon dioxide generators. financial mechanisms for payment of long-term monitoring and maintenance costs of liability claims, the availability of liability insurance as components of a statewide program, notice to affected property owners and other interested persons of regulatory proceedings,
and the need to reform existing laws to facilitate storage of carbon dioxide.
At this time, Representative Westman, I don't know if you want to add anything to this or say anything at this time, or you want to just be here to answer questions, and then I'd like for Mr. Bond to
make a few comments, and then you're all welcome to ask us questions and continue on. You want to make some
Chair
Unverified
13:56
comments? Go ahead. Mr. Westman, I have a question for Representative Bond. Earlier you mentioned that you're going to send part of this bill to interim study.
Speaker 15
14:05
Is that correct? MR. That's correct. There's several issues here that still need to be addressed. So what are we going to vote on if you're going to send it to interim study? MR. Well, there's still quite a bit of meat here in
the bill, and you're going to, if you've read the bill, you'll understand that, and I'll be glad to have either two of these gentlemen help answer that question
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
14:29
as well. I guess my question is, how can we send part of it to Interland City and keep part of it out? Because then we don't have a bill.
Speaker 78
14:36
We're dividing the bill up. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I'm Brian Bond, Vice President of External Affairs with SWEPCO. So what we do in the legislation is we establish a date, a firm date, in which regulations, the agencies, Oil and Gas Commission and the ADEQ are directed to establish actual regulations on how they're going to manage a statewide carbon dioxide management program. So there's that legislation does authorize or basically directs them to do that.
In addition, in the legislation, it establishes requirements for poor space ownership, which is something that's a critical issue associated with carbon dioxide storage facilities. Okay. Proceeding. Representative Carnine,
Chair
Unverified
15:29
you recognize the question or comment? Thank you,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
15:34
Mr. Chair. Let me be sure I understand what, representing Barnett, you're indicating here,
at least it's my understanding, is if we pass this legislation, then there will be a need, obviously, to create additional legislation for the 2013 legislative session. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. That was my understanding of what they were saying. I'm not sure what type of mechanism, Mr. Chair, we need to suggest for the interim,
but that was my understanding all the time, that this was enabling legislation, number one. Number two is that without any question, it's going to require a lot of thought and study by not only this committee, but the legislature and the executive branch. So that was on that basis, I have a motion at the
proper time. MR. Can I respond to that?
That was a question. MR. Okay. MR. Yes, the answer is yes, but, you know, I mean, I will leave it up to this committee how they want to maybe handle the interim portion of it. I was just going to suggest that we do have a utility subcommittee of this committee, and I actually am on that committee. Bruce is, I mean, Representative Westmoreland is on that committee. Yeah, and fortunately, Keith is on that, and Mr. Representative Ingram,
and then I think Marshall is the chair. But I think that there's going to be enough information here and enough discussion that I'd be surprised if joint energy was not invited to every meeting because I know that joint energy has a high level of interest in this bill and I think maybe would even like to take this bill for themselves, if I probably could say that. We'd probably prefer to keep it here,
but we just want to be everybody's at the table and everybody's informed. If you all would
allow me, I would certainly like Representative
Chair
Unverified
17:59
Westman to make a few comments. But before, we have a question from Buddy Level, Representative Level, and I think Representative Viviano has a question. And Kerr. Okay. Representative
Level, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Barnett, I have a real problem
with this bill says that there's no carbon
dioxide storage to be done before June 2013, but then you're going to do studies between now and June 2013, I don't understand why we are asked to pass this bill, when I believe it should be sent to interim study. If it became real important, I guess the governor could be contacted to allow that to be voted on in the fiscal session.
But even with that, it could be voted on with an emergency clause in the 2013 legislature and still be implemented by July 1, 2013. So don't you agree that it might be better if you're going to involve all these people to make the decisions and also promulgate rules, then we certainly don't need to pass something when the rules are not passed yet. Well, if you
read the bill, I mean, I think the bill is fairly directive in nature,
and if it'd make you feel better and more comfortable, if you're concerned that there might be carbon dioxide storage before or right after June 30, 2013, we'd be glad to amend the bill for you to back that off a year or two because, I mean, there's not going to be any storage, you know, anytime soon here. So if that gives you a comfort level, we'd be glad to do that and amend it to back it off. Of course, you asked that question.
I guess I get to answer it. I
don't know how I can put a question. But that would not satisfy me because if you don't intend to put any storage facilities in until 2013, I don't understand why we're
Speaker 78
20:17
voting on the bill today to do it. What we were attempting to do is try to synchronize the timing of having regulations established in June of 2013 within the legislation to allow the time for that study so that these regulations could then be developed
so that in June of 2013, which is prior to that date, no storage could take place, so that it was properly vetted, all the stakeholders had their say, and so that at that time the regulations would be established, which would allow for the permitting of these facilities. So it was
Speaker 15
20:55
more of a timing issue of trying to synchronize that. Yeah, well, I believe we could, I'm not sure,
but I believe we could direct. I believe this committee could direct an interim study done by a subcommittee of this committee to do that.
and then also direct them to have those rules done by June 30, 2013. That's exactly what it does. You just said what the bill does. I don't believe we have to pass legislation in order to do that. You know, we
pass bills every day out of here that does just exactly it. It sets timetables and time dates. I've introduced three or four bills this session, and they've all got, you know, they're futuristic, but they've got schedules and time dates. And this legislature does it all the time.
This is actually very, very common, and it's done almost every day. Representative
Barnett, I have to disagree with you because we do not pass legislation that requires interim study. We send, instead of passing, we send the legislation to interim study and then bring it back with the rules. Because if we pass legislation, then in some ways we could bind the rulemaking process that some people want to participate in.
And it's not, to me, it's not a good idea to legislate an interim study when we don't commonly do that. MR.
Speaker 91
22:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. You're welcome. Representative Viviano, do you recognize
Chair
Unverified
22:33
the question? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Barnett, I have a question
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
22:38
you may or may not be able to answer, but I would also be interested in your opinion. First of all, let me say that you've got a number of co-sponsors here, including myself, so I think it's a testimonial to the fact that this is a good bill, and we appreciate
that. Some of those co-sponsors on this bill, in fact, have filed bills that are trying to address some of the environmental issues with our natural gas industry. So I would be interested in if you think that if any of those pass, that would have any impact on this bill whatsoever in
the future. I don't think so. You know, this is pretty bill-specific.
It deals with CO2, and it deals with really not the capture of it, but certainly the transfer and the storage of it. So I'm not sure if it does or it doesn't, but let me see if we can answer some more of
Speaker 78
23:47
use for CO2 injection wells, we use conventional drilling technologies, And as I understand it, several of the bills that have been proposed are trying to address
some of the issues with fracking technology, which is a different type of technology altogether. Well,
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
24:06
I think maybe some of those bills are kind of widespread and not sure exactly what they're trying to accomplish, and I was just wondering if they may in fact try to apply some of that legislation if it passes to something like this, which is
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
24:32
just like to make a recommendation, Representative Barnett, just pull your bill
down and let's put it in interim study. And what we normally do during the interim is we have five or ten bills and then we vote on them as a committee whether they're interim study worthiness. I think that this one is, so I would just recommend just pull it down, and we'll just pretty much, I mean, I would think that we would all agree to study it during the interim. That would just be my recommendation, just pull it down. Well, I tell
you what, I'm not willing to do that. We put a lot of effort in this.
We have worked this the whole session. I think some of you all maybe haven't really read the bill, but it's actually a very good bill and it's got good consequences. So I'm really not prepared to do that right now. I would like for at some point for Representative Westman to be able to make some comments too if you don't mind, please. Representative Westman, you're
Chair
Unverified
25:33
recognized for comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
25:38
Again, getting back a little bit to the technical side of this bill, it allows a process to capture what whether we agree with it or not what the EPA has deemed as a pollutant we're able to capture that and make a useful product out of it that can be used to recover oil and gas and abandoned wells so from an economic standpoint I think it provides good a good framework for economic development in the state and the intent of the bill is just to set up the framework to begin
developing policy. We had some issues in the bill with obtaining pipeline right-of-ways, underground storage issues that we felt like needed to be pulled out and put in interim study, but we still wanted to get the framework in place so that the main policy could be developed through the different state agencies. So I don't see any reason to wait on the policy side of the regulations of the industry.
Speaker 60
26:50
All right, Mr. Westman. Anybody have a question for
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
26:55
Mr. Westman? Representative Ingram. I mean, basically, I mean, the
bill is just a series of definitions. I mean, I know there's a framework there, but, I mean, it's just defining certain things other than the date that's set. Is there anything in here that we should be paying attention to that we're not other than defining certain definitions of things of carbon dioxide and pipelines and things of
Speaker 78
27:20
that nature? I would say that it does have a definition, legislative findings definition section, and
And then it does specify which agencies will be involved with this process. In addition, it does have a date certain that regulations will be established under the law. And I think that's very important. What we're trying to do and accomplish here is to send a message to the business community out there that Arkansas is aware of this issue, that they know they need to address it. And having it in statute does send a message to the rest of the nation and to those companies
that are looking right now at developing carbon dioxide storage projects. So I really do think part of the mission that we're trying to accomplish here is to let the rest of the nation know that Arkansas is addressing this issue. And I think by having it in statute it carries more weight than it does if it's put into an interim, you know, solely an interim study. All
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
28:27
right. Thank you, Representative Ingram. Does anyone else have any questions from the committee?
I've got a question real quick. What is this going to cost? If we pass this bill out this morning, what's it going to cost the taxpayers to put this framework together?
Speaker 78
28:46
Is there an expense to it? I would, the expense would be the administrative time to hold meetings. so that the very, you know, all the different issues could be vetted at individual sessions. And so there would be administrative costs associated with that.
Secretary Bingle, or Director Bingle, with Oil and Gas Commission, had indicated prior when we had a more comprehensive bill that he could manage that and implement what was going to be his requirements with existing staff. But I'll let him, I would, you know, I don't know if he's here today. He's been here in the other days when we're going to run the bill. But you could ask him that. Representative Barnett,
you're recognized. Okay. What I'd like to do is pull this bill down today.
Okay, Mr. Lovell? Pull it down today. I'd like to have the opportunity to come back maybe next week and further discuss this. That will give everybody a chance to be able to look at it and talk about it. And so if that's okay with the committee, if you'll, I'll just pull it down today and kind of go from there. Is that okay?
Speaker 103
30:07
What's the pleasure of the committee? Okay. All right. Okay. We've got our motion. We'll have to pull it down. Let's then pull it down. Okay. You can pull it down. I do want
to let you all know that I got through in plenty of times, so we didn't go where
the – I just want to be – you all know that we were very courteous and respectful
Speaker 109
30:49
of your time. Thank you very much. Is he here? Oh, where is he?
Chair
Unverified
30:56
Representative Summers, you'll recognize to present your bill, House Bill
1927. And please identify your guests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
31:13
Summers, District 99, state representative. It's actually 1934 House bill. My guest is from Arkansas Association of Counties, Wes Fowler, and I'll let him explain this. We're going to
Speaker 114
31:25
be quick. All right. Let's see how quick you can be. The bill, again, I'm Wes Fowler with the Association of Arkansas Counties, and the bill is to increase the dollar amount on engineers and architects
for public capital improvement expenditures. In the original language of this bill was passed in 1939, and in 1985, Act 321 added $25,000 for any project that went over $25,000. You had to hire an engineer. Then again, in 1993, Act 284 added the $100,000
that you have to have an architect to look over any project. What we're asking to do, because of the increase in building costs, simply to save counties money, it does not take hardly any kind of project to reach $25,000 or $100,000, is to increase those to $75,000 and $200,000. And that basically is all this bill does.
Chair
Unverified
32:47
Representative Hyder, recognize for a
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
32:49
question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Summers, have you all talked to the engineers, the ACERS, I think, and then the American Institute of Architects, the
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
33:02
Arkansas chapter? I've sent word to an engineer and architect in Benton County that's coming up, and, of
Speaker 119
33:09
course, they prefer it wouldn't, but they didn't make any
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
33:21
big issue of it. Well, I mean, would these be projects that would be – if you have a $75,000 mechanical or electrical project
or a $200,000 building project, who would design those? If you didn't retain a professional, I guess, are you going to waive it somewhere else? because I'm not sure in most municipalities that you could get a building permit without an engineer and architect
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
33:51
stamp appropriate on it. With my experience on the quorum court, in Benton County, often we would have projects that, for example, a red-iron type project that didn't require any level of expertise from that standpoint,
but because of these limits, we would have to spend dollars on both architects or engineers and feel like this is a way to help counties save some dollars. A red iron project?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
34:16
That would be a structural project, and that's a public safety issue. I mean, I know you probably have iron people who do some steel work and stuff, and in the course of their career they feel comfortable of, oh, that's just a little simple footbridge or something.
But I don't think we ought to do that. I mean, I know it's an expense, but in this case I think it's a prudent expense to protect the public safety. And I know we do that in the private sector from time to time, and we accept a certain amount of liability when we do those things, but I don't think the government enjoys that same freedom. I think you've got to be very cautious in guarding the public's money
and making sure that it is spent appropriately and that it's not, in fact, a public hazard because there's not even any recourse, I guess, for the public, really. If you build a red iron project and it somehow injures somebody, I'm not even sure what kind of recourse they'd have against
Speaker 114
35:29
the county. They can sue them. Wouldn't you agree? Representative Hyde, if I could, I'd like to try to phrase that or whatever.
A red iron project, if a building is already bought that is a red iron project, those already have an engineer stamp on them. And every red iron building, every manufacturer of red iron buildings already pre-engineers their buildings. So hypothetically, let's say a county wants to build a truck barn. and all it consists of is no electrical, it doesn't have anything, it is just a red iron building,
that particular bill is going to have an engineer stamp on that building anyway. The county judge or the quorum court or whoever appropriates the money would be able to do that. Also, to put that into a little bit further, if they wanted to build this out of a wood truss building, the truss itself is going to be engineered. They may want to use a pole barn building and use sheet iron on it. It would take nothing to make that reach $25,000,
but then we'd have to turn around and go ahead and hire an engineer, even though the trusses are engineered and the safety part of it is engineered. And our major part of this was this was an amount that was set 26 years ago, and it was okay 26 years ago on the engineering side, that same dollar in today's dollars would be a whole lot more probably than even $75,000 would be. And I appreciate
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
37:09
what you're saying, but I probably wouldn't vote for $25,000 today if it was up to vote.
You know, you're talking about a red iron project, and a pre-engineered steel project is different than a red iron project, But along with that pre-engineered steel package that you buy from somebody that has a remote stamp on it by an engineer who's never seen the site or anything else that's usually critical components of a designing project, wouldn't you have a foundation that would go under that pre-engineered building? And I guess just the guys around the shop would design that foundation?
Wouldn't you need a structural engineer and a soils engineer to design that foundation to receive that pre-engineered package? And if you were going to build a pole barn, you know, you're right, you could get a wood truss shop to punch out on their computer a design for wood trusses, and they can, most don't, but they can get you a stamp on that truss design. But don't you think that you'd need a structural engineer again for public and your employee safety to design the walls and the diaphragm to be able to take the collateral or the diagonal loads and the wind loads?
You know, I really appreciate, you know, what you're doing, and if I didn't feel so strongly, I wouldn't be speaking against it. So wouldn't you agree? And that's really all I have,
Chair
Unverified
38:43
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. Representative Westerman, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
38:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to follow Representative Hyde. He covered almost everything I was going to ask. Again, the issue with the foundation, which is just as critical as the design of the structure.
You know, the building may be designed to take the load, but you don't know if the foundations are designed that way or if the foundations are designed based on the soils that are there. And also there's an issue with fire protection and other areas of safety. So I guess my question is how do we know that the public is going to be protected if we just allow people to buy a pre-manufactured or pre-engineered building
and put it up on any foundation or any soil conditions or meet whatever fire code requirements that they deem necessary
Speaker 114
39:48
not sure if I can answer your question in a way that is going to suit you, but I would put it back to our example of a small building In 1985, when this was passed, a $25,000 engineering project was probably a pretty good-sized building.
In today's market, $25,000 won't even get you that red iron package, let alone the dirt work, the foundation, or anything else that goes along with that project. We simply thought with this bill it would just be something that would put it more in today's market and reflect what the original language was in 1985 when the 25,000 and those other numbers were put in there.
Chair
Unverified
40:44
Hold on one second. Representative Somers, you recognize. I ask that we pull this down. Okay. Go right. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Committee. Representative Hamra, you're recognized to present your bill. I think you have some amendments to it.
Okay. Yeah. You go ahead on
Speaker 41
41:18
Hamra. Pardon? Okay, Representative Hamber, while they pass
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
41:36
that out, would you like to explain your amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:47
This is in reference to House Bill 2117. There's an amendment coming around to you that gives more content to the original bill that was filed and explains what the bill is truly all about. The original one
Speaker 135
42:01
was just a point of entry. This is what puts the meat in the bill.
All right. Mr. Lovell, you're recognized. Point of order. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hammer, since obviously 2117 and everything that we've seen so far is the shell bill.
Would you mind passing over this until the next meeting and let us have time to digest your amendment? I wouldn't mind at all. I just really wanted to get this in your
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:24
hands, and that's part of the reason why I sat down here so you have time to look at. So I'll be glad to do that and come back at a later time and give you a better opportunity to be more thoroughly acquainted with it. Thank you. That's a good bill, and I appreciate you doing that, sir. Thank you, Representative. We appreciate
Chair
Unverified
42:40
your patience. You're welcome. Thank you. Oh, is that right?
Speaker 11
42:53
All right. Representative Allen had asked that we move the shell bills down to deferred. So if we're going
Speaker 141
43:05
to do that, I think we probably should announce that
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
43:09
to the committee. Okay. 2083 to 2080. All right. Committee, just one brief moment here before we adjourn. We need to move a little housekeeping here. We need to move these House Bills 2083 through 2180, with the exception of 2107, to the deferred list.
And I would like to have a motion on that. So moved. All right. We've got a motion made. Everyone in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. That is done. Good work this morning, ladies and gentlemen. And we're adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1439
SB785
SB243
SB259
HB1450
HB1934
HB2117
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 5
Speaker 9
Speaker 11
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 48
Speaker 52
Representative Buddy Lovell Chair
Unverified
Speaker 56
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Jonathan Barnett Chair
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 78
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 91
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 60
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 109
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 119
Speaker 129
Speaker 41
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 135
Speaker 141