Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House

Anthologies for not having more current active agenda but doing the best we can lighten session now to keep everybody lined up and ready to go and this is a lot of moving parts for a lot of these bills and so we'll make sure here things at the appropriate time when people are ready to present them so will be taking some bills out of order today without objection beginning with representative Warren if you wanna come to the table you prepared to present house bill fifteen eighty. Okay you're recognized to present house bill fifteen ninety. Thank you Mr chairman and committee members House Bill fifteen eighty is a bill I'm bringing at the request of a constituent of mine who owns and operates a beauty school her parents operated for many years before her and now she's been running it for about the last five to six years she has a student who has excelled in our program she was incarcerated due to a drug convention drug convention the she is cleaned up for life and is doing extremely well. Due to a bill the legislature passed a couple of sessions ago she cannot get licensed as a cosmetologist the sad part of this is that while incarcerated this was of course the prison system caught so that they could be employed when they got out we need to accept cosmetology like we have a few other professions listed in that act so that we can we're teaching our prisons that teach employment that we support Hey we're gonna make it where they can get jobs when they get out of prison so this is a great example of one where she's ready to go to work and we're preventing her from going to work. Members of any questions review warns. Seeing none representative is in with some speak for against the bill. Cinnaminson want to close your bill I am closed and I would appreciate a good vote I have a motion to pass all those any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye. Posed congratulations pastor bill I understand you gonna present house bill A. F. fifteen eighty two as well yes certainly recognized president house bill fifteen eighty two you were passed over eighty one is that correct that's correct okay and see if we can take that to an interim study okay we'll and you're recognized president house bill fifty eight to fifteen eighty two when you're ready thank you Mr chairman House Bill fifteen eighty two is a bill to address a needed change in the amount that an institution of higher education can contract out in a single year the current amount allowed for a construction project is seven hundred and fifty thousand this announcmenet has been constant since two thousand thirteen this bill would change the amount to one million two hundred thousand an increase of four hundred fifty thousand over a ten year period. We all know the what is happened to construction cost over that time period a passing this piece of legislation we're allowing our institutions of higher education to keep up with inflation we have all experienced over the past decade we need to update this and I would appreciate your support there is any questions represent worn. Sentencing was sent to speak for against the bill. C. ninety close real. You closed yes I'm sorry we have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye. Posed congradulations representative warned you crank you Mr chairman thank you Committee this representative in are you here you're recognized come to the table to present house bill. Fourteen forty six. Mr chairman as if it's all right of mission Martin comes down yeah absolutely just if you could sit at the table state your name into the microphone for the committee record. Good morning I'm Mr Martin DHS deputy secretary. Thank you Mr chair and committee the bill that would bring in for us now is dealing with psychiatric residential treatment facilities and really concentrating on children in the state of Arkansas I'm going to give a quick overview on I'm all let miss Martin get into the weeds of it basically this arose out of our work in the mental health group as we were working through this there will have brought to our attention that we need it more bad for Arkansas kids that needed to have this type of long term treatment and that's really what the catalyst of this was and we also wanted to have one. Set a standard for quality care for all P. RTS bids and that's what really arose out of this legislation how it came about and with that I'm gonna let ms Martin get into the details of it and if you have any questions will be glad to answer them. Thank you representative Cavenaugh just wanna say that DHS is neutral on this bill that has no concerns about the bill the bill I she stated really addresses two things both out of state add a state kids in psychiatric residential facilities as well as quality of care oversight on P. R. T. S. as well as a Q. and sub acute residential facilities if you look at section one that is your out of state kids section if you look at lines thirty two through thirty six on page one for P. R. T. S. they will only be allowed to admit an Arkansas resident a child of a parent who is on Arkansas residents a child placed on a by or on behalf of another state a child welfare agency a child from whose facility is being paid for by another state's Medicaid program or a child of an active duty member of a veteran or a uniformed services so and that really does limit that kid limits out of state kids who are placed here by a parent only and that section was meant to address if a parent not another state's Medicaid program run not another child welfare system places if they do not come pick up their kid there have been issues in this state with those kids then either at risk of coming into the foster care system or actually coming into Arkansas foster care system so we would be limiting children placed in a P. R. T. F. if they wanted to be placed by a parent not a child welfare system or not another state's Medicaid program. If you go on down the lines twenty four through thirty six on page C. this is where the quality assurance review piece comes into and this applies not only to peer T. S. psychiatric residential treatment facilities but is a well as well to a Q. and seven Q. those facilities are currently and will remain licensed by the department of health but this is an additional oversight around quality of care these quality of care standards which you cannot see began I will not read them all to you about beginning on lines thirty through thirty six do you and then follow on to the next page a page three lines one three fifteen they are around the quality of care that is provided by the facility I'll just make note that includes trauma informed programming as well as short and long term treatment and the specific guidelines were added do not at do not conflict with current department of health licensure standards or the current licensure seniors for P. R. T. S. that are licensed by R. P. R. L. U. unit which is under the Department of Human Services these added quality of care standards would have oversight from DHS the bill does not know specifically where at DHS but DHS would have the oversight on the quality of care you'll see additionally on line sixteen through thirty six of the bill there is what can be reviewed by this entity at the department of health to determine the quality of care it does include over all review of the treatment structure and so where as current standards review Medicaid clients this review of quality of care would cover not only the end not only the Medicare the Arkansas Medicaid kids but would also really cover the whole facility including the out of state kids as well and then on the last two pages of the bill pages for and pages. Five this is allows enforcement of the quality assurance so there are penalties in place and the Department can see licensure it finds by both the P. R. L. U. P. R. L. you board and Department of Human Services for P. R. T. S. I know I have a lot of acronyms ordered and if that facility is under the Department of Health the Department of Human Services could seek suspensions or fines to the department of health related to their license I'm happy to take questions. President will that you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair smart not just want to clarify something I'm I'm supportive of this bit of this bill will be voting for this bill I think it's a good bill needed for sure I just wanna clarify so the facilities are located in hospitals that are also them subject to Jaco or carpeting on their certification if there is a conflict with this new DHS regulatory oversight of quality of care I assume what behavioral health they would still adhere to the Jayco standard if the J. caused the Jekyll standard would trump FOR overrule the DHS quality standards so they know who they're answering to the bill doesn't specifically address that but the bill does address that the rules to implement this have to be promulgated by DHS so it makes sense that that would be the standard and that would be part of promulgated policy to implement this bill follow up. So just so I'm clear that is the intent of DHS is not to try to over rule Jaco or that licensing that would be our ten if this bill passed thank you thank you. Members of the other questions. C. nine we disincentive to speak yes representative Eubanks recognized for a question. A representative of Cavenaugh are you saying that would be your intent as well so when rules come we can say that it was Legislative intent that. What representative will reach this said yes we're not trying to make it more difficult than what they already experience we're trying to just get a solid one person is going to be looking at everything for quality of care we're not trying to to do anything different okay thank you. Any other questions from committee we do have some Senate speak against the bill. My signature you here. You're recognized comfortable speaking to the. The state's name thank you session for the committee. Thank you Mr chairman members of the public health committee my name is Mike Mitchell represent pinnacle point psychiatric hospital and I have with me Shane Frazier who is the CEO of pinnacle we are not against the purpose of what representative Cavenaugh is trying to accomplish with fourteen forty six. The pedicle Papa point hospital however is not a P. T. E. R. F. but the definition is so broad that it includes a psychiatric hospitals the service that pinnacle offers to children is generally a cute when a child is is is in trouble of behavior early if psychologically they get admitted. When that acute care is no longer needed but they're not ready to go home then they go to a subacute care and our standard room treated there until they're ready to go home but what this bill does is put another layer of regulations that are already applied by the Arkansas department of health which regulates in license hospitals it It is another really needless layer of regulations and with that I will I want to up Mr Frazier to make a statement and then be available for any questions that you have. You're recognized thank you thank you for having us today could you just again to state your home for the committee record with the same Fraser and Fraser the bad turn your motion and after you got it shame spittle thank you reckon. I'd that psychiatric hospitals are licensed and regulated and the same as any other hospital rice and stuff like that Sabin C. M. S. we are. Number seven standards behavioral health standards so that we can function as a psychiatric hospital and the standards listed in this part of the quality of care standards I went through and did check marks by the things that were already providing and being checked on a. Sometimes by annually and and try and release of the joint commission to make sure that we're hearing to the standards that are listed in this bill. Licensed as an acute care hospital. As an unnecessary work from this perspective. Provided the state has a contract with the consolidation for medical. They come in and inspections of care for us heading I'm not certain how that applies to P. T. S. but that is asking that acute care hospitals not be included in this. Because I already being done it's going to add on top of this joint commission and if that hospitals are already going through. Members have any questions for the road I have a question. Yes could you articulate either one of you exactly what you would want to see change that would not include you and then I would also have a five out save DHS on that I think just a simple language to exclude that this but it would cover only P. T. R. S. and would not cover a licensed Arkansas hospitals would be that simple. You have any other questions rose what did I want to it was I wanted to get the perspective from DHS on this very issue and the someone from the just come to the table and answer questions and be great. Thank you I I don't want to. Make the focus to their I'd like to give you some latitude to kind of address this this issue and see if. You know just for understanding sake for someone who's not too adept in this yes the only thing that I would well I'll say a couple things one is the reference to the AFMC survey Mr Frazier is correct that DHS does do a survey I of pinnacle point through a contract with a FMC but that survey is limited to Medicaid clients so the difference of this bill is that the intent is to look at all kids in the office when I really look at all the kids but look at the facility as a whole and for example and I don't have the number for a Q. seven Q. but for example today are as of March fifth there were six hundred MM sorry two hundred and sixty two children out of state and P. RTS I don't have that number on me for a Q. seven Q. but I can I know that they're out of state children in the queue and subacute so I believe that representative Cavenaugh I don't speak for her but I believe the intent is that you're looking at the facility as a whole and you're making sure that quality of care is good for all children that facility not specifically the Medicaid clients if this bill were to pass the test would obviously look at the AFMC contract and to determine how are not wearing additional regulations and working together to make sure not only Medicaid clients are looked at but as well as the facility as a whole including all Alice out of state children in private pay children. Follow up you're recognized for fall so do you believe is the intent of the bill to also include the spam subacute treatment facility is amazing the terminology correctly yes I do believe that that is that is a part of what is being targeted in this bill then it absolutely is I mean again I don't want to speak for representative Cavenaugh is her bill but I know that we have had conversations with her and that was her intent to include acute subacute as well as P. RTS you know the last seven years I've spent being that director of Division of Children and Family Services which children in foster care placed in all of these facilities acute subacute M. P. R. T. F. especially seven Q. and here T. S. they offer similar services meaning they're offering behavioral health services for kids who are no longer in crisis in a key it but need that longer term residential so yes the intent I believe and represent Cavenaugh coming to the table but it was to include acute subacute and the RTS on the quality of care piece. Thank you. Representative Woodridge give a question yes Sir my western Mr thank you do you believe miss Martin that it would be important when these kids are receiving treatment that that we're picking them based on the facility they need either acute care subacute care then P. R. T. F. or residential care that the same quality metrics apply across the board that a child that's going for treatment should have the same expectation of quality standards regardless of whether placed yes with the exception of I do agree with Mr Frazier that a cute they keep setting is a little bit debt or is different than that as seven Q. and the P. R. T. S. setting because kids are going there in crisis there stays are usually two to seven days so that the quality of care as far as what is the treatment plan it is is very different than the longer term setting of it he a seven PM here TS again I'm not a clinician I'm a lawyer but as the DCFS director for the last seven years the seven keep instabilities in the P. RTS facilities as far as what the end goal is for kids to me as being appearance almost forty one hundred children thanks very similar on the in game as far as treatment and care and outcomes thank you Mr members of the other questions for Mister Frazier Mr Mitchell. Yes can I say something I don't want to point out that well well it seems he does focus on the Medicaid kids the joint commission CMS the department of health their surveys focus on the entire facility all kids regardless of payor source. Okay per share that any other questions thank you for testimony represent Cavenaugh would you like to close maybe addresses issues in your closure. Thank you Mr president that yes. Just for closing just wanna clarify we're not changing who does a licensure what we're trying to address is quality of care of kids in the state of Arkansas. anybody that knows me knows that I've had this heart about these kids that they have nowhere to go we have nowhere to treat them. And it's it's a crisis in the state is an absolute crisis what are what we're facing with the mental health issues in our children. The goal is to make sure we have more Arkansas kids in the beds. And that the quality of care of all the kids is consistent and is the same across the board doesn't matter where that bad is that the quality of care and the outcome of the quality of care needs to be the same committee is to have one oversight of the server that they were speaking about with CMS. That they do do that but here's the problem that they don't have any impact on their licensure so while they might have this survey their licensors never impacted by this this will allow their licensure if it needs to be be impacted by some investigations so I mean that that's the big difference is that we're trying to hold people accountable for the quality care of the kids in the state of Arkansas we're not saying that everybody's bad we're just saying at times everybody needs to have a little count ability for what's happening to our kids we have to address this issue and this is my attempt to try to get that done and with that I would appreciate a good vote. Members have a motion I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Sing nine all those in favor say aye. Opposed. And your bill is passed congradulations resent Cavenaugh thank you committee thank you Mr chair. President makes a year you're recognized come to the table in present house bill. Sixteen oh seven. Thank you Mr and colleagues and. Now as I say. Now for something completely different here so this morning I'm bringing to the Arkansas my time environment protection act and an act to repeal the shield outdoor act this act is aimed at trying to reduce light pollution within the state of Arkansas now if you've never heard of Light pollution before a it sounds kind of crazy the first time I heard a light pollution I thought I was nuts to the next time you hear about light pollution you start to think maybe there's something to it. And the third time when you really start to study you realize just what an impact Light pollution has on the citizens of our state. I'm gonna use an analogy to try to help. Do you understand why this is an issue that we need to address. Imagine if you pulled up your county courthouse in around the sidewalk around the outside there were some sprinkler systems and those sprinklers were just tell you know jeep sprinkler had so that when the sprinklers came on water was sprayed in every different direction so half the water when the road the other half the water goes on to log in every day for a couple hours those sprinklers come on have the water goes works intended the other half is wasted going in the street. We will see that waste and we would want to do something about it. Now imagine you go to the quorum court and you're trying to get something passed to have that waste addressed. And the solution is simple putting sprinkler systems that point all the water were needs to go all right. The water company. Signs are presented as is say no those sprinkler heads are you know that costs a little bit more they're more expensive to maintain and so the The you know the effort to put those in is it's not what that the wasted water the waste expense of the water it's not harming anything why bother and that's exactly what we see in our in our state. In just the last year research studies have come out and have shown that people that are exposed to artificial light at night have a thirty seven percent higher incidence of Our susceptibility to keep getting diabetes why is this bill on this committee because unlike that wasted water Light pollution has negative impacts on our health. We were designed whether you believe by nature or as I do by god to live on a planet with a day night cycle our bodies are regulated by light from the sun and at night because of all the light that we're putting into our environment we're eliminating the darkness and unfortunately we as humans we feel like we need to conquer the darkness we need to get rid of the darkness and we don't realize the damage or not only doing to the environment but that we are doing to ourselves the American medical association came out in both two thousand nine and again in two thousand sixteen advocating for public policies to try to reduce and eliminate. Outdoor light pollution OR not only is it a public health issue it's also a financial issue the city of little rock for example I learned yesterday spends two point four million dollars on street lighting itself that energy costs could be cut say by twenty percent thirty percent by using better street lighting that's a huge saving to the citizens of our of our state and so what I'm trying to do it this bill back in I think it was nineteen ninety two Sam Ledbetter passed what was called the shield outdoor lighting Act it was a first stab at trying to To address this unfortunately it's become extremely outdated is been very ineffective and so what house bill sixteen oh seven dollars is it basically it strikes that entire provision out and it creates a new provision so if you're looking at the bill the the main me to the bill is basically pages five through a and all it does is it's a common sense. Effort to try to begin addressing this issue all it says is that when a municipality or county or the state goes to install a new street lighting system so this doesn't touch anything existing so we're installing a brand new system that the new system use fully shielded lights which means all the lights directed down to the ground work needs to be sore not wasting light that that light only needs to be as bright as needed for that application so we're not blinding drivers at night and that it needs to be a light that does not contain a lot of blue studies have shown over the years that is the blue light that creates the problem when our eyes when we see blue blue skies are tells our body we need to be awake and so by eliminating the blue it helps to Solve this issue so whenever it's time to install new system install one that is Efficient install one that is properly designed and over time. It will help to correct this problem you know the nice thing about correcting Light pollution is by doing so you make the environment better you save money and you promote public health One last thought and then all will open it up to opened up to questions is. Actually you might have already sent to a. Members do we have any questions for representing serviceable item you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman representative makes that is Securitas the question I guess but line sixteen on page five we're this definitions but talks about a fixture and it has the initial rating of eighteen hundred lumens or more I didn't see that in the struck language why do we put a looks like a lower limit but why is there a limit on that and what's purpose that sure a I appreciate that question so eighteen hundred lumens as a quick point to about a hundred watt light bald so um what I didn't want to is if if the city puts up like Christmas lights or something I didn't want those captured in this so this makes it clear that we're only talking about the the bright lights and not low water stuff. What's what's in there is a Perry you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman representative makes appreciate this I think you've been working on this for several saline quite a long time yeah so. You mentioned if you have a I guess a structural fixture that needs to be replaced you have to replace it with one of these. But that would basically involve having to replace all of them because they would all come to no no no so they are so so it's not like if one fixture goes out that you would replace it and it doesn't deal with like a structure you know so if there's a wall pack on the side so this is only the only dealing with street light so let's say that you know the the street light on your front of your house goes out just they were business as usual but if they're going to replace all the street lights on your streets redesign install completely new system then you would just bring it up to this new standard as a and how much will this cost that should be pretty equivalent to what we currently have LED technology is what most the utilities are going to now that technology has come down in price is going to continue to come down in price so it's it's cost competitive now the enter G. did ask me to Allow for a surcharge because if the city for example why to put in some lighting that was you say decorative or was a little more expensive that they could go to the public service commission and ask for that difference in a surcharge until the next rate case came out to compensate them for any difference in cost I have a ten percent cap on that anything beyond ten percent would need to be a full rate case so why protect the cities but the same times if the city's requesting something that is more expensive than the utilities need to be compensated for that. So I never heard in the mail heard competitive but we allied in Ventana yeah depends on the fixture I mean you can get a lighting fixture again off I go online and I want to point out is like a hundred Bucks. By the fixture. All right that makes sense so it doesn't matter if you get one of the ones that's not not conform or conform the price is going to be pretty generally the same all right thank you thanks shall. Z. Bentley you're recognized for a question. Thank you chairman thank you representative makes you bring this again so I know I don't want to take a lot of time for the committee but we do have some new members here so can you briefly go over some of the health benefit since this is a public health may just briefly go over some of the help that is why you have struggle why we want to do this I just have to be extensive but I know a lot of new members have no idea what the health benefits are thank sure sure thank you I appreciate that so when we when we sleep at night our our bodies produce melatonin and that's one of the hormones that allows us to offer our bodies to repair itself. And melatonin is only produced in the point when there's an absence of light so and and darkness so there's any light entering your bedroom at night your body doesn't produce the melatonin it needs to get a good night's sleep and so because of that the science is clearly shown the research on this is very well established that people who are sleeping in the vicinity of this artificial light at night have higher incidences of hormonal cancers prostate cancer breast cancer I also leads to becomes a risk factor in things like cardiac events weight gain the believe it or not. And it's diabetes like I said they're just a survey that study that came out the side people that live under these have all thirty seven percent greater chance of having diabetes you know it's it's kind of like you're smoking you puff on cigarettes and chances are you're not gonna get lung cancer but you do it day after day after day after day and the probability increases that you're going to end up with a health problem and that's what this is and this is one of the reasons why I'm why I'm been really trying to push this is you know if I would bring a bill that said you know what we can reduce the risk of diabetes and breast and prostate cancer and it's going to save taxpayer monies normally jump on that chance right that's what this says. Appreciate that question. Richey road you're recognized. Could you be a little more specific to statistics or studies on the reduced risk of cancer. There there's been multiple studies that are done on that have been done on this I'm if you were you know you've got your laptop right there if you Google Light pollution cancer you'll see all sorts of studies that come up on that. And and it not only affects us it also affects all nature wildlife. To the questions committee members represent Wilder to recognized Hey you Mr cemex I have great respect for you and I appreciate you bringing this bill my concern would be can local municipalities or counties or whoever can they do this without this legislation. So the challenge is to the local municipalities actually another bill and another committee to try to address that but because the utilities or call our or monopolies right now the way things set in its we offer option a option be as a city you take one of those so cities right now don't really have the ability to. Do this R. as it currently stands I'll give you a perfect case in point in the last couple of years the buffalo national river has been pursuing a dark sky designation it's an international designation that The US cities towns parks can get buffalo national river became the first location in Arkansas to get that dark sky designation and the city of Gilbert which sits right on the boundary and become is a important location for canoe rentals and things like that they wanted to install a outdoor lighting system dark sky compliant system in order to be compatible with what was going on in the National Park. They are. Approached energy and it took five years and Senator Missy Irvin intervention in order to get that done for the small town and we were only talking I think like ten street light so it's not like a huge system and so the other communities it's very difficult for them if they want to try to pursue the sustainability goals. They just don't have that option available because the utilities and cops I would you know you you take one of these two and a lot of times are very reticent to work with them because you know they. And they they want to do their own thing and so this would. Require them to at least here to these to these minimums. Follow up. You're recognized for follow thanks there so. Again I I don't understand all I know about this from what we've heard today but if this if there is great benefit here them I guess why would there not be an appetite outside of legislation to replace this you would think if this has all the benefits that we're here and we're talking about like this just be a natural transition they would move to this as a group so why would it require I guess legislation to to force the hand if if it's the natural progression sure so as to some to some degree it's it's already happening a little bit naturally because of the move to LEDs but I on one may two points a lot of times. The people that are running the cities are just not familiar with this they just want to install the jeep is brightest lights out there and unfortunately it's to the detriment of their citizens and they are on knowingly harming their community the the best of intentions obviously but there are knowingly harming their communities so that's that's the first the ones that are familiar with this and would like to try to they just don't have the flexibility to be able to do it without a big fight with utilities. Re referred and you have a question. Thank you Mr chair representative makes think this is a great bill thank you Sir but again the question we were talking about the utilities being able to do a surcharge in terms of if they wanted to do some sort of decorative lighting city pine bluff on the north side of town we we have a little decorative lighting by the University of Arkansas at pine bluff in it's the different kind of lighting so I I guess if they did the surcharge the surcharge would affect all the customers right the the the primary customer just probably just gonna be the city from what I understand you would only affect the city it would just affect the city right in it and it would be if the do lighting the to be compliant was a little more expensive than the utility would go to the public service commission provide proof that there is a greater expense for the lighting and then the public service commission would that make a ruling on whether it was allowed or not and then it would only be in place until the next terror fearing okay that that and kind of the economics behind this a little bit and I know you know Mr battles here from and from energy and he may come up with an answer you know some of that little more specifically but. If you're utility and you've got these two types of lighting in your in your buying the non combining the the non compliant fixtures and balk you're gonna get that a little bit cheaper than the than the compliant fixtures. And so at first the compliant fixtures might cost a little bit more but those fixtures are generally going to be much more energy efficient they're gonna require less maintenance and when they make that switch and are now starting to buy these in bulk they will start to realize those savings that they're getting by buying these noncompliant ones and balk and so over time there should be little to no difference but if a city you know if they wanted to you know I can con way around Hendrix College they've got these beautiful ornate lighting structures so if they're installing a new system they want to you know put in something Moro night you know there probably would be loyal legitimate extra cost to it so this would allow the utilities to recover that extra cost. Okay yes one quick follow up just for clarity Mr chairman reconcile I just wanna be sure because my city is considering doing some some work around the university and if they did that it if they did something different when they live and I just didn't want customers of the to have to absorb that surcharge right right and and I'm if it would be allowable Mister chairman Mr Bethel feet the want to help answer the question or not I put on the thank you don't want to but because you're you're more knowledgeable on and I have. See I get issue that question of land is about the okay okay okay okay it was about but I I have been working with them to try to try to get that to where it needs to be. Paragraph Richey period you have another question it the questions from the committee representational strict. Thank you Mr chairman I appreciate you Sir bring this today and and and forgive me if I've missed this. Is this type of legislation something that a lot other states are doing currently I guess is a two pronged question okay I'll just go ahead and throw this out there other organizations who are endorsing this type of thing let Cancer Institute centers after so I'd say the answer your first question Yasser's twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen so there's several of the states that address this amend legislation as far as organizations yes the kind of the the the main organization is the international dark sky association they've been around for I don't know thirty years now and advocating for for this issue the Arkansas natural Scott alliance which is an organization here within the state of Arkansas has been working with me on this and they've got you know hundreds and hundreds of interested our Kansans that are interested in this issue most major medical associations of us at the American medical association and twenty earned two thousand six and again in achieving two thousand nine and again in two thousand sixteen came out with our recommendations that cities and states address this issue photo numerous health organizations have come out Audubon society I I could sit down here for a long time there's been a decrease in the firefly population because of light pollution it disrupts their how they mate with each other with of the flashing the lights you know here in Arkansas well we consider you know stock art dot cutting capital of the world light pollution is a huge problem for migrating birds the city of Chicago every year on top of their come made conference center. When the this time of year when the birds are migrating they go up on a daily basis and Paul dozens and dozens of dead birds off the roof because the birds fly into the city they get attracted by the light neither crash in the buildings are they fire round and round and round round circles until they die of exhaustion. Saul so yes to answer your question the a lot of organizations are definitely involved in trying to work on this issue. The lady when you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman of well representative makes you know you're not talk about this for years and and I love the thing about the savings but you know the question is going to come then you know Some of the utility companies oppose this bill are apple sessions back I think Arkansas rule electric has come on board and is okay with that is that correct so and and I think the the coops are going to come speak here in a minute I'd like that I've been working with Entergy and as far based upon our discussions there okay with the bill I have had discussions with the the co ops over the years at first there was a lot of misunderstanding with what I was trying to accomplish we have hopefully resolved a lot of that misunderstanding made him a little bit more comfortable with where or where we're at but I'd like that I'll wait let them come up to speak on it in in your opinion follow up you're recognized in your opinion what what are the major concerns or oppositions from the utility companies in the co ops and coops I mean I have one in Jonesborough is putting these in on their own and others don't but what are the major objections so I think the of the there there's probably two there there's one on the one is we want to do all we want to do right we don't want to be told from Little Rock what we what we can and cannot do the second one is a lot of times they just want to put in the the cheapest Blue light fixture they can so they can get the most bang for their Buck without regards to what it the environmental impact as. So the The economic impact on these companies and depends on the size and the co ops are probably home but is there anything in this bill that would would limit the negative economic impact on these companies I mean could it be could be a compromise where it's phased in work okay the the only required to spend so much money so so that's that's the surcharge piece that would compensate the utilities and co ops if there were any added expense and again this is only on a brand new installation so it's not you know the replacing street light you know in your neighborhood it's were installing brand new stuff. Well it wasn't exactly my question I'll talk can I have another one you can have a more yeah. say a utility added to replace a large subdivision or I'm about new subdivisions you know it Senate could be a lot of costs to that utility what I'm trying to say is. Can we limit their losses or their economic impact and phase it again I mean would that be an option a compromise right so the the to that point the surcharges to try to address that issue The there's far spacing and that's kind of what I'm trying to do hereby making it only when you're installing a new system or complete system As far as like if I say I don't know how you would phase and part of a project is that makes sense because a lot of times in these projects when they're designing the the like the pole spacing pole height all that has determined by the type of fixtures it's being used and you wouldn't want to have a project where you had half a one and half of another or because that would you know so it's kind of all or none type thing Sorry I I've always been willing to work with them to try to find a way where we can make this happen and do it in a in a reasonable way. Thank you Mr president Wilder to recognize the mysterious makes I'm I'm trying to circle back to our previous conversation about this not being a local control issue you're giving them the ability to make that decision my understanding was there wasn't a path for them to do this on their own but we heard that some co ops are doing it on their own and then I guess my question would be is if again back to my original question if these are better and if they. I guess provide provide the benefits that we're talking about I would assume because it used to do them on their own but the bill doesn't seem to give them the option to do it it seems to mandate that they do it so would it be a better fit to just say this is now possibility to create a pathway the pathway doesn't exist and let them make that decision at the local level was also the pathway does exist they just choose not to take it. That makes sense so you're right there are some moved in this direction organically and I think that's wonderful but there are others that just they just don't want to do it either day either you know most the times when cities go to install stuff. I said they they just want the cheapest brightest thing they can put out there without regards to what the impact is and a lot of times it's just you know it's easier for the Toadies does to throw up whatever because that's what we've always done. To take the time to and make the investment to put up lighting that's beneficial motion there are some that just don't want to do it you know it's kind of like that the the the Solar panel issue. There are some co op Sullivan brace that wholeheartedly and their other cooperative thrown up roadblock after roadblock after bell road block because they just don't wanna deal with that and unfortunately that's the same thing in this issue. The other questions from committee members sure represented banks saying that I do think we have someone here to speak against the bill. You're recognized because the in the table in. State your name to my phone and who you're with and you can proceed with your testimony. My name is Robert chilled senior director regulatory rates in compliance for Arkansas electric cooperative corporation we're owned by seventeen member cooperatives around the state and being member owned and owned by our rate payers we work I'm sorry did can you speak a little more directly in my phone thanks members have actually any testimony I'm sorry can you hear me now that's better thank my name's Robert shields senior director of regulatory rates in compliance at Arkansas electric cooperative corporation were owned by our seventeen member cooperatives citizen center own buyer member rate payers I'm not sure that this bill does It is the best path to maybe a accomplish the purpose that's in center Meeks representative makes of it would like to do a surcharge would raise rates up to ten percent I'm not sure ten percent of what I don't think I'd go up to ten percent but on of anybody wants a ten percent increase in their bill he did mention of. Diabetes and cancer from light from street lighting I guess we all look at our phones at night I hope we're not expose ourselves to that same danger in. With that. This bill also conduct of the government over reach where there's pleasing aspect to it we could actually end up in court over defending ourselves which actually cause more increase to our our rate payers most actions that happened gets utility and end up at the Arkansas Public Service Commission and that would not be the case with this bill. Daniel speak if you speak by phone entered introduce yourself to see within good perceived as yes Sir my name is Daniel retail I'm vice president of engineering for first electric cooperative in Jacksonville Arkansas we serve a large portion of the central Arkansas area surrounding Little Rock have close to a hundred thousand accounts presently from Mountain View or South Mountain View all the way down to the White River area south of State guard in over two Perryville and the lone oak area and the Ben Bryant hot springs village area. Let me speak first about the impact of this bill there was a statement made that there was a misunderstanding of the coops of this bill we have no misunderstanding of this bill this bill is not just a street lighting bill this bill also impacts residential lighting that is the security lightings that rule our Kansans will decide what to put at their home what to put it there born. and our biggest issue with the bill itself is the color rating of the lights. most of you have seen the mercury vapor the blue lights that we had for decades. The federal government decided in two thousand eight that to prevent mercury contamination in the environment that that particular luminaire would be deprecated we can no longer purchase that type of security law. So we transition to the sodium lights which is the only change light that everyone has seen for years I will tell you that our members do not like the orange lights. I have been twenty seven years in electric coop whenever we've had to replace a mercury vapor lights we get a complaint about that warnings like that we stuck up there. When we were given the opportunity to look at LED lighting we spent several years looking at the industry we evaluated many different manufacturers we talk to them about the efficiency ratings of the light the color temperature of the light. And we selected a light that we saw represented the preference of our members which was three thousand excuse me four thousand Kelvin. Which when we talk about temperature we're not really talking about the heat rating of the light we're talking about the color of the light so that four thousand Kelvin temperature is the pure white light the true lie that people like when you see the LED lighting in fact many of you if you drive around it real Arkansas you will see that several of the luminaires have been replaced with these white LED lights that provides lighting to your friends and neighbors. Now The New light luminaires the manufacturers are already adapting to the dark sky provisions that representative makes is concerned about in fact most of them have very little light scatter they don't actually have the scatter that the orange sodium lights have many people is adopted the LED luminaires have stated that is not as bright well It is as bright is just doesn't scatter as far across the yard so a lot of those Light pollution issues have already been addressed within the industry itself let me respond to representative makes statement that the utilities want to do their own thing. We want to do what our members want and our members simply do not want that warm incandescent glow or the orange glow that is mandated in this bill our members prefer the white lights and another statement I will make as far as the cost the bill states that for residential lighting members would have the option to have a different luminaire. But the de facto option would be the twenty seven hundred Kelvin which is the incandescent orange light and I will tell you the lights in here are wider than the light color we're talking about. And so the utilities the co ops to be required to stop multiple luminaires of multiple colors that is color temperature ratings and it would be more challenging for us to keep up with which members have adopted which particular light which particular collar and for us to have different billing rates for those different lights when we adopted LED lighting it was very important to us that we kept the price point the same for member that had a sodium light and wanted to upgrade to an LED light or if we had to replace sodium like that failed we wanted the member to have the same cost on the bill the next month so we found a luminaire that met all the requirements we had about light scatter. And guaranteed that we could justify a rate. The the public service commission that recover that cost without an additional cost to the other members of the coop. let me respond also on the question of bright and she we are not for profit. We are not looking to put lighting out there to make a profit and to raise rates. We want to provide nighttime lighting to our members that's adequate for what they need. And with that I'm willing to take any questions. Resenting Bentley you're recognized for a question. Thank you all for being here so this talk dollars and cents how much more would it cost you as I am here dollars at one point so give me that. What's it going to cost you more to do a light a street light. That complies with this one that does not was surprised. I have not quoted a price difference on color temperature but my expectation is that it would be nominal cost for a different color temperature the cost comes and having to maintain different inventory and making sure when we roll that truck that that member is getting the life that they've expected in requested of us and also the cost comes to our members when they decide I don't like that orange lighter that yellow light that I was told I had to have can I have a white light and then we have to charge them for a second trip to upgrade or replace that light to the light that they preferred originally. Resent Pilkington I'm sorry I didn't follow you're recognized for phone as about as clear to me is mud so there's not really any cost extra you have not quoted it which seems to be very. You surely supported if you gonna come here and testify against this bill tell us how much the price and I would expect you to come with me some numbers and state representative families how to cost mixed number dollars going to because my my my neighbors that live next door because I'm on a coop what shall energy sorry my businesses on a co op and I'm very appreciate what you guys do but again I thank we are I would expect to see I'm not. lease purchase price and force some give me some dollars well if you're asking the price the luminaire I mean the price the luminaire is a hundred dollars or two hundred depending on the size of the luminaire can go up to four hundred dollars for some of the street lighting my point was that for if I were to quote ask for a quote for a different color temperature I don't anticipate that what would be very different as far as the cost of the fixture itself the cost to us into our members comes in the fact that we have to maintain multiple inventories were presently maintaining one inventory and we believe that that inventory represents the preference of our members. So you have to have to I'm sorry chairman one follow up so you sent me to much for you to have two options you only want to have one option not to historically when you look at mercury vapor and sodium lighting we offer to what ages for each luminaire and I can tell you from the billing aspect that was challenging I for one thing there was an up charge to have a brighter light. And so our members were confused often about what they were asking for and what they were expected to pay for that luminaire in the case of LED we purposefully chose to only standardize on one lumen rating one particular fixture and one caller rating so I'm and but I'm saying the cost component is is that truck role of having to change the light to something that the member actually once when we're mandated referred to install something they don't want only with a new picture correct yes we are talking about new luminaires with new fixtures and we're also talking about replacement of existing luminaires presently if we have a sodium or a mercury vapor luminaire that can be maintained by just changing the ball of the call of the land we will change that lamp and will leave the fixture on the pole but if the fixture fails and cannot just it's not just the ball basically replaced we will upgrade that to an LED luminaire at no cost to that member. Thank you chairman for the letter to the president you in you're recognized for a question thank you chairman there is a common you may during your remarks that I'm curious about you said that this is what your members wanted I was curious have you surveyed your members about their preference on on things like this because I'm a call member and I've never been surveyed are asked and so I'm just I'm curious I'm responding to what feedback we get and I can tell you historically our members have complained about the orange light and when we adopted LED lighting and we if someone had an existing luminaire and it was working and they want to get replaced we charged a trip charge to change that luminaire all that was filed with the public service commission and approved and I can tell you is a very popular to upgrade that luminaire from an orange light to appear white LED lights catch okay but the but there's never been a star like survey or anything like that no okay that's all. Richey road you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. As You organization done any type of study or looked into the associated health risks or benefits from artificial light at night no I'm not as far as electric cooperatives no we have not done those types of studies I will make the observation I'm not here really to testify on the science that's been presented but I would just observe that if you look at the finding sections of the bill it references studies from two thousand nine and two thousand sixteen. And I would ask the question if we have known this as a health issue since two thousand nine why hasn't the federal government mandated us to change the caller raiding of the luminaires the way they did with mercury vapor mask a follow up you're recognized. So just so I understand correctly you you yourself in your organization have not done anything to look into the associated health benefits or risks yes or no. No organization has not funded anything look at the health or thank you any questions from committee members. C. nine thank you for your testimony hi Sir will sign up for speak for the bill. Anyone else would like to speak against the bill. President makes you're recognized close your bill. Thank you Mr chairman. so on that that last point yes this is been a known problem since at least two thousand nine in the senior members of the committee will testify I've been working on this bill since that time so in this is I I believe a state issue not so much a federal government issue pursuant to their testimony they did agree that you know blue light is definitely an issue then I agree fully the issue with the phones a blue light at night and that's what we're talking about. Out in the environment all they talked about what the residential light yes the bill does require that the default lighting fixture is a warmer light a healthier life on Laos the resident wants something else that doesn't mean they got to put up the compliant fixture and come back or replace it they can ask the homeowner what they want and install what they want and give me an idea of the color temperatures were talking about in here this lighting here is probably about thirty five hundred Calvin SO three thousand what we're asking for will be similar to an incandescent light we've all driving down the highway and at night and what happens when someone's got those nice bright blue halogen lights it makes us wince right. We were not talking about orange by any means to the human eye is gonna look like out of a slightly off red incandescent The the last point that but I'll make is they said that they would be willing to work with me I think that's great if it passes out here if they've got suggestions I'm willing to work with them but unfortunately in the past they never have been willing to work with me I want exception last year or last election cycle there are quickly Thomas many of you know him was willing to work with me we went and visited a lot of the coops to try to explain the concern but just never got any feedback on how we can improve the bill I said I've I've been trying to come up with a reasonable commonsense way that we can address this. And and I'll just and with this thought. A study came out last year that said our skies are getting brighter by ten percent every year. The brighter they get the more challenging this problem the more expensive this problem gets to become to solve the more damage for doing not only to our environment but the health of our citizens there's a saying that goes you know is it better to plant a tree or is it better to a planner to treat ten years ago. Well there is that if we had started addressing this issue ten years ago it would have been better we would have had fewer people with many of these health concerns the question that I presented to the committee here as do we begin addressing this issue today or do we wait until the future when it becomes even more difficult to facts and with that I appreciate your time this morning as you say this is a fairly robust and complex issue a lot to take in a very short order but I would just ask on behalf of the citizens in for that for their benefit that you would vote in the affirmative on this thank you. Members of the committee I have a motion to pastor discussion on the motion discretion of the road you're recognized thank you Mr chairman thank you representative make sure bringing this to the committee I would say I had been uninformed opinion coming into this having spoken with different groups but one representative Meeks gave me the answer when asked about you know Associated Press to cancer said Hey Google this and I thought you know what I'm gonna do that look it up. Most of you know I have a wife who's fighting breast cancer right now so that certainly piqued my interest and just in the span of about twenty minutes I found several different studies breast cancer dot org one from Harvard another one of the nurses health study over the roughly a twenty year time span. And so. The conclusions of each of these and several others from International Studies was that a greater risk of breast cancer is found in women who live in neighborhoods that have higher levels of outdoor light during the night and so that's not something that I could ignore then was completely ignorant of and so that's why I'll be voting in favor of this bill I I don't know how perfect what changes need to be made but as representative said if it brought a bill on here saying Hey we can reduce the risk of cancer breast cancer prostate cancer would be jumping on it and so I see evidence to that they can ignore it so I'll be voting for thank you. There's any other discounts on the bill represent Bentley you're recognized. I think as a member of this committee going on my ninth year healthcare costs continue to skyrocket or stays on the biggest things that were addressing we remain to be forty eight in the nation and health I think we do simple little things is not right because the cops anymore might be a little difficult to get used to but the benefits to me that's what I would look at the risk outweigh the benefits in this I do believe it does I think we have to start doing something different than what we're doing we can't continue the status quo and say well I'm sorry we're forty eight organised a there I'm tired and I'm ready for the mess to move up and I don't think it's to meet us on the cost difference Mabille inconvenient but I think our cops more than able to do it so with that I'll be a do pass thank you. President of the discussion on the motion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Senate. Thank you. Members represent again do you have a billion like to present. As. Amendment to this bill has been passed out. You're recognized the representatives present the amendment. Thank Mister Committee the amendment just adds senator mark Johnson as the Senate co sponsor and create a good bill right I make a motion that we adopt that amendment. Suppose that's have a DVD pastor Amendment at any senator John I find that because mark Johnson I thought. I don't. Review again you're recognized to present house bill sixteen twenty nine as amended. Thank you Mr shared Committee this this came up from some constituents and also my animal control facility in in Conway just for a little bit of background if it had this has to do just with dogs and cats and does not do with any other type of of animals but as background. If you have a of a bite from an animal the president law which was adopted many years ago if you live in a city that has an animal control facility the anyone just about anyone the the deputy sheriff the the health department of veterinarian a physician whoever can mandate that that and will be confined and and in a community with animal control center they are confined at the at the animal control center okay. whether they're vaccinated animals or not and that's how the original law was written in there confined for ten days that's appeared at times it's pretty standard for for watching these animals animals for the possibility of rabies what this bill does is this just says that if your animal is vaccinated the owner may that may make confined animal at home if you live out in rural Arkansas an or you live somewhere where they don't have an animal control facility that's the way it's done now so it's just making that on the same the what's happening is is animal owners this happened in my community had and animal that bit another person the chief place it taken to animal control center lady didn't have a lot of money well that's it you're that's at the owner's expense so ten days later to to bail that animal out of the animal jails the owner had to pay three hundred Bucks of the animal control people my mayor this chief of police they're all on board with this they don't want to have to confine them there's no really medical reason to come find if they're vaccinated okay it's not for unvaccinated animals and of the spoke with the health department the that a people the health department they're good with it the Arkansas that is associations good with that and that's really about it if there's any questions I'll be happy to answer any of the questions from committee represent Perry recognized for quite. Thank you Mr chairman the representative again so it says the owner may provide proof are the owner will provide proof how long do they have to provide proof what happens now what that what happens now is is if the if if that animal bite someone the health department you you that's when you provide the proof and if it's not vaccinate or you don't have proof vaccination then even if there's no proof of vaccination if you live out in the country somewhere where there's not an animal control center they sent him home health department manages all this they have a lot of different rules and regulations and they come in and even if it happened in Conway the health department will be going by that house to ensure the animals confined appropriately. AT and. The other questions. President Pilkington you're recognized yet just just real quick so if the owner chooses to have the dog at their house in the dolling escapes of by someone again is there any sort of penalty for that or is that just kind of like see I think if the I think we would have that phone is probably the local authorities would have and looking fine they're responsible in the health departures possible for going out and making sure it's confined appropriately okay. Gonzales you're recognized thermistor business include pit bulls. What the section down here that we will nine pimples the state dog. That's that's buried in there the whole. Members of the other questions representing McGee C. nine that he was sent to speak for against the bill saying nine represented here closely though I'm close and make a motion to pass a motion to pass as amended and all the others favor say aye. Post congratulates representative had you pass your bill thank you may represent Graham like repaired present Senate bill three eighteen. You're welcome to go head of the table president Senate bill three eighty. You're recognized. Thank you Sir thank you any Senate bill three eighteen is a bill it does three things The first is the second first this section one amends civil penalty for provisions of state law to eliminate fixed dollar amounts That's essentially what happened is when this bill is referred may made the fixed dollar amount for a penalty of thousand dollars what we're going to do is we want to change that to meet modern standards that will be decided by the Arkansas manufactured home commission and approved by the Arkansas legislature that that's that's the first big piece section two reduces the Commission from eight members from ten members to eight members four of which would be licensee's people who are in the industry and for who are at our public at large and it eliminates geographical restrictions the reality is it's been difficult to get individuals to serve on this board especially individuals who have no connection to the industry and so there eliminating a few things make it easier to get people on to the board so that we can make decisions and section three provides a penalty imposed by the commission that's not abated to subsequent license activity so essentially if you do get a large penalty or anything else at all and more things eleven against you you still have to continue pay that penalty and with that I'll take any questions any questions representative Grambling. Gonzales you're recognized that Mr so we're not raising fees but we're going to allow the manufactured home I was fees as it's penalties so if you of the public line nineteen seventy four is when is when is what is this is referenced and if you were to break one of those laws is a thousand dollar penalty for breaking the law Now just make walls are we talking about breaking what we're so she in I actually have someone come up and speak on that. but it is listed section six ten of the title six of ninety three three eighty three but I'll let them speak more on that okay because I don't look that up thank you. If you could you senator set for the committee section I'm here with JT Harper Arkansas manufactured housing association. And I'm an Aaron how're the Director of the manufacturing commission. You're recognized. The discussion about the change in the ability to assess the fine amount came to the commission from the US department of housing and urban development in their last audit and the increase in the funds would be for violations of the federal standard under federal authority so the Department here doesn't really have any authority to make that change so what they're sending into the statute but this bill would sit in the statute would allow the commission to set the fine amount for violations of federal. Protections. At an amount that the feds requires to set it at and it would be done by rule rather than have to change the law every two years that's the difference. With any other questions VOL if you're recognized yeah so so the feds are setting the the rate not not use that what you're telling me that's correct if there is a we violating federal law now but not having the the rate set it with the feds say. Thanks for the question it is a could you pull that Michael because I can't think of a question it has been pointed out to us that we are not It in alignment with the federal requirement and so in order for us to maintain the federal funding that we do receive which is ninety two thousand change we need to bring our our requirements into alignment with their requirements which are substantially more. There is. Sessions members. Seeing none you are here signed up to speak for against the bill. See now you close your bill I am close I motion to pass a motion to pass any discussion on the motion seamen all those in favor say aye. Those sing nine congratulations remembers I have one more bill that we can run I need to probably come to that of that will run that president leading to my committee chair and for a moment. There is an amendment to this bill would be passed out. Committee The bill at representative Johnson's gonna be submitting is this B. three twenty two by Senator Irvin. Rep. Representative Johnson you're recognized to present the bill so it members the members chat before you this is a bill that was re referred back to the committee came out of the committee without a hitch no opposition which it was just there was some language of this mess that was overlooked so represent Stommel who's in here today asked to be re referred back Senator Irvin had had this amendment language ready as far as I know this is negotiate language with no objection so if it's okay with me to be happy to answer questions on the amendment if there's no questions and make a motion to adopt the amendment. Any questions from committee. Anyone who speak against the amendment for the amendment. Motion on the floor is to adopt the amendment to SB three twenty two any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay. Hi seven you guys listen you're amendment is adopted members this bill was presented Irvin Stommel early in the week I'm just here trying to present the bill now as amended and I would be happy to try to muddle through questions I'm sure there people behind me they can answer questions if there are any. Any questions from committee. Seeing none anyone here speak against the bill. For the bill. Seeing under a close for your bill close rule make a motion to pass as amended as amended yes Sir any discussion on the motion motion is do pass as amended seeing no discussion on favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay as have a congratulations your bill is passed. Members appreciate your patience that we do have a number of things that we're gonna hear the week we come back from spring break I anticipate that Tuesday to be a to a meeting day will probably meet in the morning in the afternoon we have some informational things that we may try to get to to as well the government's council on disabilities asked president tests on the twenty eighth in the afternoon there's several things coming up that are going to take some time on that day I anticipate is hearing house bill thirteen eleven on the Tuesday we come back that's three twenty eight is that right the date for that Tuesday. And then also test but hearing represent fights bill that's been on special order this is twelve thirty four and represent Mayberry's bill eleven oh three I think there be testimony company all those bills and may take a little time so we'll start in the morning I will hear what we can hear and what we get through in the morning don't get too will come back in the afternoon and here the rest of those that afternoon and hopefully have some good presentations from the folks with disabilities and if anyone has any questions you're welcome to call me get with me over the weekend. For the week I have a good spring break thank you meeting