House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Constitutional Issues Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HJR1001
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HJR1001”
|
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 4, 2026
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
0:00
Okay, the Chair sees a quorum. We're going to start off today discussing House Joint Resolution 1001 by Representative Barnett. As I've told the other presenters before our committee, we're kind of informal. I want to treat this as more of a discussion regarding your
joint resolution. And if you're ready to begin to explain your resolution, Ms. Barnett, the floor is yours.
Speaker 4
0:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee. Appreciate you all in inviting us down. and I'm sure you all have had a chance to read the amended form of the bill that was amended on Monday this week and presented. With me today I have Jack Williams, the author of the bill, the attorney that is very well known this state as being one of the better bond attorneys in the state,
And Jack has spent a lot of time in preparation of this bill, and so he's basically the author of it. So Jack will be able to answer anything that you all need to ask him. And then I have Scott Bennett, who's the assistant deputy engineer, chief engineer. And then back behind us, I have Frank Vozel, who's the chief engineer that's been with the Highway Department for many years.
And then I have Ronnie Burks, Highway Police. And I have, looks like Richard, or looks like Robert Wilson back here, chief legal counsel with the Highway Department. And I understand that Dan Flowers and a couple of commissioners are en route. They're apparently meeting with the senator upstairs or something like that. So anyhow, if you're ready to – I'm going to give some highlights of this, and then we'll just open it up to questions, if that pleases the chair. That'll be fine, Representative Barnett.
Okay. House Joint Resolution 1001. As you all know, it's a proposed constitutional amendment. and all the provisions in this bill are contingent upon approval of the ballot question by voters at the November 2012 election. So if it doesn't get passed on that election cycle, it does not go into effect, of course. It's got a temporary one-half percent general sales tax increase.
The increase obviously does not apply to food or food ingredients, which we've taken those out, as you all know. It authorizes the commission to issue up to $1.3 billion in general obligation bonds. The revenue derived from this program is to be used for a four-lane highway construction or improvements, including adding capacity to existing four-lane interstate highways. Proceeds from the AHTD's portion of the tax are dedicated to retiring the bond debt over a 10-year period of time.
Tax is going to be in place for 10 years. Then it expires when the bonds are retired, which obviously so consequently has a sunset clause, which I think people want. The revenue from this tax is to be divided with the existing highway formula, which as you all well know, is a 70-15-15, which is divided among the state and the counties and the cities. Approximately $160 million of this goes to the AHTD, $34 million of this goes to counties, and $34 million for the cities in new revenue annually for the life of the bonds.
And so as long as the bonds are active, that's the formula. In this bill, we've had the cities have been wanting to have a program similar to the counties for quite some time. The counties have a county aid program, and so the cities kind of want a city aid program. So in conjunction to help out the municipalities in this state, one penny, which is approximately $20 million per year, of the current motor fuel tax,
the current motor fuel tax will be permanently dedicated to creating a state-aid street fund to be used on city streets off the state highway system. This provision will not expire when the one-half-cent percent tax expires. So I think that's a really important aspect of this bill in that the one cent that comes off of the top, which I think they're a 22.5 cent per gallon tax right now.
That would be correct, right? On diesel, 21.5 on gas. 21.5 on gas, 22.5 on diesel. So one penny of that will permanently be dedicated upon approval to the cities, which will become part of the city aid project. And Scott Bennett might be able to
address that if you all have any questions concerning
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:50
that. I do, Mr. Barnett. Explain to me how cities fund their street repairs now.
Speaker 13
5:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Scott Bennett. I'm the assistant chief engineer for planning with the highway department. Currently, the gasoline and diesel tax that Representative Barnett mentioned is 21.5 cents per gallon on gas, 22.5 cents per gallon on diesel. 15% of that revenue annually is distributed to the cities. It's based on population. 15% of that revenue annually is distributed to the counties, and it's based on about a five-part formula.
Some has to do with land area. Some has to do with population and that sort of thing. We call that highway turnback revenue. They can use that revenue for roads and streets, for bridges, and things of that nature. So that's the way, notwithstanding any local taxes they have that are dedicated
Speaker 15
6:56
to transportation improvements, that's the way that the majority of them fund their
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
7:06
road and street improvements. Does this amendment then say it's $0.21 tax a gallon, and now $0.01 is going to go off the top, right, to the cities?
That's correct. And then the rest of it will be by the
Speaker 13
7:24
formula that's currently in place? Currently, of that 21.5 and 22.5 cents per gallon, one cent is already dedicated to a county road program. This would dedicate an additional one cent to a city aid program, and the remainder
Speaker 21
7:41
would be distributed 70% to the state, 15% to counties, and 15% to cities.
Speaker 22
7:48
So what's the effective percentage, then, that the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
7:52
cities and counties will be getting? I'm not a math person. I'm a lawyer. I'd have to
Speaker 13
8:00
look at the exact – it would end up being more like about a, you know, 66-17-17 split instead of 70-15-15. I'd have to do the numbers. Okay. But effectively, it would be less than 70% to the department and then more than 15% to cities and more than 15% to counties.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:22
Does this amendment restrict – right now, can cities and counties turn roads over to the State Highway Department and you have to accept
them no matter what? No, sir.
Speaker 13
8:37
Okay. No, sir. Actually, we work with the cities and counties to talk about taking roads onto our system or taking roads from the highway system and having cities and counties take them over.
But it's a cooperative process right now. There's no mandates
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:56
on either side? No, sir. Okay. Now, if any of the other committee
members, while they're making a presentation, you want to ask a question about that topic, just let me know. Okay, Representative Tyler.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
9:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have one follow-up question to that. The one cent that, if this bill is passed, of the current tax that we have,
what's the, how much money will, at the current rate of consumption, what's the additional monies that are going to go to the city
Speaker 13
9:37
in the decrease from the highway fund? The total money that would be going to the city aid program under this proposal would be about $20 million annually. That's an additional $20 million to set up this program for cities. That $20 million right now is divided at about $14 million to the state.
Six million of it, I'm sorry, three million of it is already going to cities, and three million of it is going to counties, and all of that money would be going to this
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
10:21
of $20 million. And that's current revenue we're receiving today, but it's going to be split differently. It's now going all to
Speaker 39
10:30
the cities. That's correct. All right, thank you. I
Speaker 4
10:35
might add that approximately 82% of all the traffic in this state is on a state highway, 82%.
Now, that formula that we've had, which is the 70, 15, 15, and actually it's 67, 3, 15, and 15, because 3% stays with the DF&A and the funds there. so the highway department technically only gets 67 percent but yet 82 percent of all the traffic in this state is not on a city street or on a county road but on a state highway network highway and so you know the highway department has always tried to be you know very fair in
in giving the money up and of course if you were a mayor of the city or if you were a county judge you'd obviously always want more, and rightfully so. But the highway department has a lot of responsibility, and they've been short on funds. If you've seen the graphs and the presentations that the highway department's made, for the last 20 years it's basically just been flat on revenue, and consequently now we're in a position where we need $200 million of new money every year
just to maintain the existing system. And, you know, that's why we're proposing this. This is something that we feel like is really important for the citizens of this state. This is a jobs creation bill. I tell people that it does not increase the size of state government. Most of this money is going to all go to the private sector. And in this rehabilitation, in this four-lane grid program, a lot of taxes are going to be paid
and it's a stimulus bill and infrastructure is important in any state whether you're Arkansas and even China has realized that building infrastructure in that country and spending money to build major infrastructure there is very, very important and if we're to compete in markets both foreign and abroad an infrastructure in this state that supports business and supports tourism and supports industrial base
and for our citizens is very important. And we feel like it's very important to give the opportunity to the people of this state an opportunity to vote on a major infrastructure bill that creates
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
13:11
a lot of jobs in this state. Representative Barnett, I agree that this is infrastructure and that the states do need to – that is a state responsibility, especially the highways, to have the good roads for all
of our citizens. I do disagree a little bit when not just you but others claim that this is a stimulus, economic development because I think you have to balance that in that you are taking a half cent out of the economy, one hand, and you're spending it with the other hand. And so whatever stimulus there might be, I think you have to realize that, well, it came
from the people and it's going back to the people, but it's not really adding things And because if the people still had that half cent or whatever it is, it would have its own stimulus to itself. So sometimes I just disagree with people that claim that a tax increase is economic development or will generate jobs because you're actually taking the money out of the economy, but you're putting it back in a targeted area.
So I just disagree with the assumption that it's purely a jobs bill or economic development cause, and money does come out of the economy on one side and then goes back on the other. Would
Speaker 4
14:43
you respond to that or agree with that? MR. Well, I would
say that if you have a good infrastructure in this state, it lowers the costs on maintenance on vehicles. It gives people better opportunities for jobs.
It gives better access to health care facilities. It gives people better access to what's best, I think, in the
Speaker 42
15:09
public interest. And I agree with all that. All
Speaker 4
15:13
those assumptions, I agree with. Infrastructure is very important in an economy, and you mentioned economic development, and you do agree that it's very important for economic development. So if you let your infrastructure break down and you don't maintain it
and people don't have good access to educational facilities, to health care facilities, to go to retail establishments, it's much more difficult. You've got to have even a good infrastructure and a good highway program. even for school buses to take kids to school. Any other members having questions at this
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:59
point? Yes, Representative Hobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 44
16:04
Representative Barnett, you said DFA gets 3%. That's correct. Can you tell me more about
Speaker 13
16:15
that? Well, it's got to address that. Well, it's actually the constitutional and fiscal agencies that helps them to support all the goings-on here at the Capitol. So there's 3% of every dollar that's generated
Speaker 50
16:26
that goes to constitutional and fiscal agencies off the top. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
16:34
Representative Slinker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not too good at this, but talk about this one penny for the state, I mean, for the city's state aid. and that will not expire, does that change the, you know, like the 70 or, you know, 1515? Where is it for the counties? I mean, do they have an additional amount?
Speaker 13
17:06
Yes, ma'am. Back in the 1970s, there was a one-penny gas tax that was implemented just for a county aid program. There was a cap put on it at one time. The cap has since been lifted. So there is a full one penny of the fuel tax that is dedicated to a county road program at this time. This is just putting the cities and the counties on equal footing, if you will. There would be $20 million for a city street program, and there would be $20 million for a county road program.
Speaker 56
17:43
Okay, thank you. Right. This part is not a new tax. It's just a transfer
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
17:53
of existing revenue. All right. Could this, since this does include the street aid, then there's, I mean, there wouldn't be anything that would indicate that counties, I mean, that
Speaker 56
18:06
that changes for counties. There would be a little bit that would change
Speaker 13
18:12
because there's 3 million of that 20 million now
is being distributed to the counties, but the counties, again, are already getting $20 million a year for their program, and in addition, the half-cent sales tax would be shared among the cities and counties, so the cities and counties would both also receive additional funding from this half-cent sales tax over the 10-year life of that tax. thank you
Speaker 4
18:45
thank you Mr. Chair Representative Nichols I wanted to add one more thing to your comment for every billion dollars that you spend on highway improvement in this state for every billion that you spend you create 27,000 jobs in this state but if you take that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
19:04
billion from the people how many jobs would they have created with that billion well that's It's
Speaker 4
19:10
a debatable subject, I'm sure, but I'm just telling you that for every billion, it
creates 27,000 jobs, and then for every dollar that you spend, statistics show there's about a $5.50 return on every dollar that you spend as well. But if that dollar comes from the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
19:29
people, then they're not able to turn it over the way they want to
Speaker 13
19:36
turn it over. Well, and the issue becomes you spend that money on infrastructure and you're able to attract more economic development that wouldn't have been there in the first place
and that puts more money back into the economy because they're able to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
19:53
hire more people. We are making a
targeted decision to improve our infrastructure and that will generate economic prosperity, economic development. That's correct. I just think it's somewhat of a false argument that you take tax dollars out of the people where it's not being spent by them and then you spend it over this side and then claim that you have created so much.
Well now we have just shifted it over to where yes, we think highways are important and we want to fund the highway system. I've been around too many economists, I guess, on the one hand this, on the other hand that. So that's just my concern about the arguments on how much a dollar turns over. I would criticize the universities when they do economic impact studies on their campuses of what all they have created with the tax dollars, but it came out of somebody's pocket
already, so I question whether it is that net
Speaker 14
20:57
economic impact. Well, that's true, and I think the issue is
Speaker 13
21:02
instead of just one individual spending that half-cent somewhere, you're combining a half-cent from so many people that you're better able to leverage that money into something that's better for the entire state. I agree with that. Yes, Representative Himes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
21:17
you talk about economic development, are you talking
Speaker 72
21:22
about new business coming in or what are you referring to when you talk about economic development?
Speaker 13
21:31
It could be new business coming in. It could be maintaining existing businesses. I know there are some parts of the state where there are industries that are talking about locating in other states because of the cost of transporting goods and services in Arkansas. So it's both to maintain what's already here and to attract new. But in addition to that, it's better transportation for everybody that's already here.
It's lower road user costs. It's lower insurance costs, which in turn puts even more money back into their pockets that they can put into the economy the
Speaker 72
22:11
way they want to. Well, when businesses look
Speaker 75
22:15
at a place to locate, Do they not look at the tax structure within the
Speaker 13
22:20
state? They do. They look at transportation access and transportation costs. They look at tax rates and those sorts of things. So do you know what
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
22:29
surrounding states, what kind of state tax they have currently and how ours to compare?
No, ma'am, I don't. Okay. Representative Barnett, if you get that
Speaker 4
22:42
information, I would appreciate it. When you get ready to present your... Okay. There are maps that show other states and surrounding areas what their tax rate is on gasoline and diesel. And then some other states, even I think Missouri and some others, get into some general revenue. I think the sales tax on new vehicles, used vehicles, and some other automotive-related services are used to supplement the revenue stream in other states.
Speaker 47
23:09
Let me ask a follow-up question. Are you talking about fuel tax rates or overall? I'm
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
23:15
talking about overall, especially the state sales tax, because I know when I placed an order to California and they looked at our state tax, this is California, which I thought their taxes were high there, and she looked and goes, oh, your taxes are high there. So I think that's something also we need to consider in looking at economic development and trying to attract people to our state. Representative Tyler.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
23:41
This may just be an ignorant question on my part, but Representative Burnett, would you help me understand the difference between, on line 32, page 3, A1, and then on line 3, page 4, B1? You
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
24:05
Okay. All right. Page 3, line 32, A-1, and page 4, line 3, B-1.
Speaker 4
24:12
What's the difference between those two? Here you go. Let's do this. We've got the problem we've got,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
24:37
line item like yours is. Yes, sir. So, would you... Yeah, I just... There's two types of tax, A-1 and B-1, and I just am trying to figure out what they are.
One of them says that it's on, except for food and food ingredients, a temporary tax is levied on all taxable sales of property and services. And the other one says it's levied on all tangible personal property subject to the tax. So I'm trying to understand, do we have a sales tax on products and services, and then do we have a tax on property, personal property?
No, it's a tax on sales. But that's what this says, so help me understand why it should not say something different.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
25:33
Right here. It's an excise tax because the property is levied on the tax, but it is
a sales and use tax. Excuse me. Go ahead and identify yourself for the record and speak
Speaker 101
25:47
into the mic. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jack Williams. I'm
Speaker 104
25:50
a law firm of Williamson Anderson, and I'm the author of this piece of legislation.
Speaker 107
25:54
But that's what it is. Speak into the mic. Excuse me,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
26:04
Mr. Chairman. It is a sales and use tax, not a property tax. Are we referencing what is currently covered by the sales and use tax? Correct. But Ms. Tyler was indicating some language that says goods and services, does it say goods and services subject to the Arkansas state income, state sales and use tax now,
or does it just say
Speaker 101
26:26
goods and services? It's on the same thing that the current
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
26:30
tax is on. Okay, where can you point that specific language to us? Because I'm sure you don't want this to go out to say that we're taxing all sales of goods and services.
Speaker 113
26:48
on page 3, on section 3, concerning the levy, exactly the same way as in the other taxing statutes for sales and use tax.
Speaker 101
26:58
That's exactly the same language. Okay, what line are we looking at? Section 3 would be line 32 through 35 on page
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
27:12
that piece. Where I get less comfortable is on page 4, line 3, and understanding when we refer to a tax that's levied on all tangible personal property. Those words mean something different to me. And what page and line is that on?
That would be page 4 and 5, I mean,
Speaker 113
27:33
line 4 and 5, page 4. That is exactly, Mr. Chairman, that's the same language in the compensating use tax that we now have in the state. So that's exactly the same levying tax language. But
Speaker 10
27:45
would you agree that you? It may be the same language,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
27:52
but it confuses me. Well, one, you reference a 41 law. The other one, you represent a 49 law, I guess.
Both of those laws as amended is what you're referring
Speaker 113
28:02
to. That's correct. I am. And the use tax is on property, not on services. So it's the same language that is in the use tax currently. So if I'm going to go
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
28:14
buy something that is personal property, and there's going to be a tax on that? Yes. So does that mean when I go buy a car? Well, if you
Speaker 113
28:26
bought the car in Memphis and bought it over here, it's a use tax.
If you bought the car in West Memphis, it's a
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
28:34
sales tax. No, I'm trying to figure out what this is right here. I'm trying to put it in my head as when I go and buy something and there is an additional 1.5% levied on what it is I do, what is it that I have bought that I'm
Speaker 124
28:52
paying a 1.5% more for? Well, you're paying a sales tax on the
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
28:56
item that you acquired. And how is that different than the all-taxful sales of property and services?
Speaker 113
29:08
some sales tax on services. I don't know that there is any on compensating use tax. But this language that you refer to on page 4, line 3 through 5, is exactly the same language of the current compensating use
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
29:24
tax. And I think the problem, Mr. Williams, is that all we see is the name of a particular act, and it doesn't say that it's a use tax, and then the other part doesn't say it's a sales tax aspect of it.
And, you know, if there is a challenge to this, you know, in the courts, I would think it might be better to clarify that this is
the use tax according to Arkansas Compensating Tax Act of 49, and then the other one is just the sales tax act. Now, that's just
a suggestion. Well, if you look on the first
Speaker 113
30:06
paragraph of this, it refers to Section 3, and it's again
line 34 refers to the tax levied by the Arkansas gross receipts tax, which is the sales tax, and on line 34 on page 4 it refers to the tax levied by the Arkansas Compensating Tax Act 49, which is the use
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
30:29
tax. And I understand that. I'm just wondering if the voting public, whether they're going to understand that, I don't know what the standards the Supreme Court uses when you just reference another
law, but I think the bottom line is the people need to know exactly what they're voting on, and you might want to consider some type of clarification of that for the voting public. I'll certainly be glad to consider that, Mr.
Nichols. I haven't got any pride of authorship in that particular language, but I thought following The exact
Speaker 113
31:03
taxing language of current statutes was the best way to go. I understand what you're doing because
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
31:10
we have a sales tax and we have a use tax.
But, Ms. Tyler, that was not a stupid question. It doesn't show ignorance at all. It's just common sense. You read it, and it's hard to understand unless you're somebody that deals with sales and use tax issues. As I said, we'll be glad to review this
Speaker 128
31:30
and see if we think we need adding language to that. Thank you very much, Ms. Tyler.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
31:41
Ms. Slakert, I believe, had a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
I may be missing it here, but as you present this in the title
on the ballot, and I know that it's said here that it would end or the bonds could be paid off in full in approximately 10 years, which also that indicates the end of the temporary tax. But with the voters, I mean, we never know what they're going to do, but when we say approximately or is there anything in the bill that really says and states the sunset
clause of ten years or should it should it say that I mean I don't know
Speaker 113
32:29
I'm not well the bill says that the tax would be implemented if adopted on July 1 2013 and it can go for ten years and the reason why we say approximately is because we want to make sure that the tax goes as long as the bonds are outstanding and remember we can't anticipate future events if there were ever any delay in payment of tax for any reason, a tax holiday or a future legislature's suspended
tax for any reason, which we don't anticipate, but that would mean those bonds would have to be outstanding in a little more than 10 years. And we want to make it clear for bond security purposes that the tax is going to be there as long as the bonds are there. But as soon as the bonds are paid off, the tax terminates.
Speaker 104
33:17
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's another reviewer of this legislation. It's called the rating agencies, and we
Speaker 113
33:22
want these bonds to have the very highest rating, and we need that kind of language for that purpose.
We certainly don't anticipate the legislature is going to do anything like that, but if we had some draconian change in the economy, and there was some, for whatever reason, a delay in the receipt of taxes, we've got to have
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
33:46
that kind of fail-safe clause. Mr. Representative Barnett I think we have stopped mid presentation or you have some other things
Speaker 4
33:53
you I just had one line left in
that if all bonds are issued the construction totaling
approximately $1.8 billion could be undertaken on the selected routes over a 10 year period and that's we've pretty well covered that anyhow so that's the gist of what we're trying to accomplish here You all can see by looking at the bill what it would look like on the ballot for or against, and it's pretty well spelled out there as to what it would look like. There's a lot going on in this bill, but, again, it's what you've got to do to sell bonds
and to change the Constitution and to address debt service. Representative Barnett, there's been
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
34:49
Speaker's Highway Program. Is this part
of the Speaker's Highway Program or is this something different? I want to be careful how I'll answer that.
Speaker 4
35:06
he's not here in the room, I don't think. We are live streaming. You're all, oh. I think that the speaker
would say that he has a lot to do with this, yes. This is something that was discussed with Blue Ribbon Commission. It's something that I've talked about personally for quite some time myself, so I feel like I've got some ownership as well in this. But absolutely, the Speaker has his arms wrapped around this bill,
and this is part of what he talked about when he gave his opening speech on January 10th before the House, and he was the first person to sign on to this bill.
So the answer is yes. Well, he was at our committee about
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
36:00
taking his golf cart on game and fish properties, so I thought I might see him here today also. Well, I
Speaker 4
36:11
don't know where he's at.
I guess he trusts that we can handle it. But if you look at the co-sponsor line, he's the second person behind my name,
so that should be an indication. He's the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
36:24
first behind my name. There you go. Representative Barnett, you know, we can only, the
legislation can only send three amendments to the people. Why does yours, why should yours be part of that three over some very worthy amendments that we
Speaker 4
36:43
have seen? Well, I haven't, I haven't studied all the other proposed amendments.
I do have a list of them. I haven't studied all of them particularly, and I know the Senate has 12 to 13, 15 as well. And, again, I haven't studied those. But I think the reason why I would say it's probably of great importance is that we're talking about an infrastructure program that is very important to every citizen of this state. Every citizen uses roads. And I know that the road that you use every day to go to work on or the road that you go to school
or the road that runs in front of your house obviously is the most important road to each individual in this state. But without a good infrastructure program in this state and without keeping our and maintaining our highway infrastructure, we're going to lose some of our interest in this state. We're going to have people not wanting to move here to set up shop and to create new jobs. Infrastructure, again, in any economy, whether it's a water system, a sewer system, highways,
or everybody in this room has a car, and some of us have more than one car. And the trucking community is just, I don't see them represented here in the room, but the trucking community as well uses our highway system for interstate commerce and to bring goods and services to the market. And I don't care if highways affect every single person in the state. If you don't have a car or you don't have a motorcycle, even if you have a bicycle,
you oftentimes use some of the highway infrastructure network. On a lot of the roads now, especially in metropolitan areas, we have sidewalks. People use the sidewalks. People who go to the store to buy their food for their families, they depend upon people to get those goods and services to the market using the highway network system. Even people who, again, don't have a car, they may use mass transit or they may depend on somebody else.
they use this infrastructure that's in this state. And without a good, healthy infrastructure system, I think that it is a disservice to all the citizens of this state. So I think that would be some of my comments, and I'm
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
39:24
sure somebody else would want to add to that. I have heard, I have attended, I attended at least one
of the Blue Ribbon Committee town hall meetings and one of them, they were talking about how manufacturers need
access to divided highways, four lane roads, especially in, represent Cheatham's area. But then sitting next to Representative Cheatham is Representative Roebuck, and Clark County has a four-lane road running right through it. But I noticed the other day that their census, at least for the city, Representative Roebuck, was still
about what it was when I started college down there in the 60s.
And they've had a four-lane road there, good access and all that. So you just got the liquor, that's . And St. Francis County, four lane road, easy access to the four lane road, but yet some of those pockets still are not generating the economic development that you folks say will come with a four lane road.
So I just like, you know, as this campaign goes on, see how that plays out. If you say it's going to do these things because we have a four-lane road, why hasn't it worked in Arkadelphia? Why hasn't it worked in Forest City since they have, in
my view, the four-lane highway access? Representative Cheatham, you have a question? Mr. Chair, I'm
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
41:10
sorry I was talking to my co-chair over here while you. You mentioned CrossFit. My
ear's perked up. But we did not have – did you say we had four lanes?
Speaker 10
41:21
Well, at one of the public hearings I attended, one of the presenters
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
41:27
was talking about how, I guess, George Pacific needs access to the four-lane road that they don't have now. And I know Clark County has a lot of pine trees also. And so I just want to make sure
that the statement that they're making that this leads to economic development about having
a four-lane road when there are places right now in the state of Arkansas that have four-lane access
and they are not experiencing that type of economic development that we're told may be coming. Mr. Chair, I
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
42:04
would now just make a comment. We do not have four-lane roads. Our roads have been improved quite a bit. 82 has been widened, and 425 has been widened with passing lanes for Georgia Pacific. And I don't, Mr. Bolden can probably tell me how many trucks come in and out of that facility every day, but I know from some studies that have been done there that they have actually lost some contracts because of access to interstate highway.
Of course, going to Monroe there is a little easier, but going north is a little more difficult. But we would love, and, you know, I would not, I would never say I'd sell a vote, but if Mr. Barney could tell me we would do a little work early down there in South Arkansas, he might have one vote on this committee
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
42:53
before this thing even gets started. And Representative Roebuck is concerned about Highway 7. I guess I'm concerned about Highway 107.
There's three votes right there. I don't think we'll be doing. But the purpose of this committee, though, is to bring out ideas, discuss the issues, and maybe give you some insights that you might not have had
Speaker 4
43:15
before. We appreciate that, and you've already given us several of those. I'm sure we've been taking a lot of notes here, so I appreciate that very much. But I'm sure, in reference to Representative Cheatham, that Georgia Pacific is certainly interested in good roads and good access to get in and out across it
and on Highway 82 and to get to Interstate 20 in Louisiana and get to Highway 65 and future I-69 in that area, which, you know, is a different discussion within itself. But I think that all those people that we've just discussed would be very interested in a good infrastructure
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
43:56
program in this state. Is anybody in the audience wishing to give us your views on Representative Barnett resolution? Okay. Thank you, Representative Barnett. Are there any other presenters here
on any of the other constitutional amendments? Say none. We are adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Speaker 21
Speaker 22
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 39
Speaker 42
Speaker 44
Speaker 50
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 14
Speaker 72
Speaker 75
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 83
Speaker 89
Speaker 101
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Speaker 113
Speaker 115
Speaker 10
Speaker 124
Speaker 126
Speaker 128
Speaker 130
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified