City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House

Your to my left. Of. First up we have representing Pilkington house bill one thousand five. You would introduce yourself and proceed. Thank you chairman fight in committee thanks for let me be here today today resent you house bill ten oh five which is To repeal section five of the acts to one number five sixty eight which in layman's term is we're removing the temporary language that was in the legislation and the sunshine rule that we basically I said we want to last session we so we want to raise the minimum for getting architect from hundred thousand dollars to two hundred fifty thousand dollars part of that discussion we said well let's let's do for two years see our guys go and have city county local meet again in October I think we need to meet in November but will blame it on covid and and and review this and see if we wanted to make a permit or not the committee unanimously voted to make it permanent and and so basically this is just the enabling legislation to remove that temporary language the reason why reading in February and said earlier in January we had some discussions with the architects who had wanted to see some changes but after discussing and I think the simplest and easiest thing to do is just do what we intend to do from the beginning and if there's changes to the article all that they want to propose later on that they can do that and we just kind of keep is what it is which was the recommendation of the city county local committee last November and with that I'll take any questions and ask for a good vote. I do we have any questions. Representing the group you're recognized yes that thank you chairman representative present thank you can already asked answered my questions I know that the arctic Association wanted some language in there to safeguard the public against certain thank you did they come with you can be with any language your where would you and on that date so that some language to add at some eight exemptions but also in my understanding was they wanted to revert the two fifty down to a hundred thousand which you know on which is not what I wanted to do you know the reality is is when this bill was passed if we calculate for inflation we should be at actually be over two fifty but we're not and so I'm just trying to update the law so while having an arbitrary are not sure but having a set dollar amount in the law is an ideal just talking with the various groups who are interested in this bill it just seem like just let's keep it for what it is it's working right now and and if there's something different so they will want to do down the line we can have that discussion but that doesn't belong in this bill this is just simply striking temporary language. Remain at two hundred fifty thousand limit. Yes to the limit was raised during the last session from a hundred thousand to two hundred fifty thousand we sunset it with good faith to to go back and look at this because there was some concern about safety and things like that. And obviously after that we we reviewed it and we decided to keep it at two fifty so this doesn't increase from what it was for the last two years and just keep that at that level not letting it revert back to the hundred thousand. Speaking against the bill with the cruise east. If you would come down to the table and identify yourself and you make proceeds and you do need to turn your microphone. Thank you Mister chairman and thank you very much members of this committee. A. My name is Chris East and I'm an architect with Cromwell architects engineers and officer for the American institute of architects Arkansas chapter. On behalf of a eighty Arkansas I would like to provide testimony the proposed dollar amount threshold change from a hundred thousand dollars to two hundred fifty thousand dollars well seemingly a simple change to keep up with rising construction costs has larger implications. This bill implies that a building permit is not required if the construction cost is below two hundred fifty thousand dollars. During the previous discussions it was made clear that the a this bill had no legal effect on life safety requirements or the Arkansas fire prevention code which does state the need for a permit for life safety review however in practice this dollar threshold results in a broad stroke assumption that anything less than this amount would not need to be reviewed for life safety in order to receive a permit or that a permit is required at all this is an important distinction that needs to be clearly stated and one which request just a small change to this bill request that this bill intentionally include language that states that means dollar amount threshold does not override the need for any construction or renovation to eat here to the Arkansas fire prevention code. Are concerned is not about the dollar amount but rather the effect that architects have on the project the protection of the occupants of buildings within the state by increasing the dollar amount for the need for an architect it reduces the need for architects Review but it does not reduce the need for life safety review. Thus making it much more difficult for. Enforcement and put additional puts additional burdens on the fire marshal's. Fundamentally we believe that architectural services should not be tied to the need for life safety compliance should be tied to the need for life safety compliance and not for a dollar amount however we understand not everybody is an expert life safety code and that a dollar amount as the finite nature which is easily understood by putting a dollar amount to the need for an architect implies that a dollar amount is what's needed for a permit for for life safety review because of that concern respectfully request that this implication for needing a building permit is required is the racket and the dollar amount is specifically tied to architectural services and not lie safety review for compliance of the Arkansas fire prevention code. Speaking for the bill is marked with more. Please identify yourself for the record. Mark Whitmore Association arts opportunities. John Wilkerson accounts municipally I'd like to be repeat everything anyway so I figured if you're with them. Well. Speaking on the bill is the representative Pilkington brought a bill two years ago. What it did was very simply it raised the threshold at which state county judge jurors or mayors would have to get an architect it's a safeguard. And it simply moves the the monetary amount from the nineteen ninety three which is three decades ago two two hundred fifty thousand dollars did so through the years two thousand twenty three so the office stating that. And so we do this all the time other words. The announcmenet for contractor's license goes the amount for building construction jobs are just due to the fact that the construction inflation the dollar in nineteen ninety three hundred thousand dollars will not by what it to the nineteen ninety three so we simply. What represent Pilkington did was what the county judges intended to do as well but this simply raised it monetary that's all this bill does. The architect sociais Asian. Not only last session but this session to file their own bills. Order provide specific language after meeting with them that would enhance this bill. In essence what the bill does what it did in nineteen ninety three would do today. Would tell all seventy five mayors all four hundred ninety nine county of I'm sorry certified judges and four hundred ninety nine mayors there come hell or high water if you spend this much money on a public works contract you've got to get an architect it's a safeguard and that's all this bill does. The architect socialization if they have a desire. Two years ago this year. To create another framework it's additional safeguard. That's their prerogative. But I always like to speak on the bill okay and that's all this bill that. I will make an observation. The fire code the building code. Other obligations exist in other laws they're not negated anyway in any form or fashion by what represent Pilkington simply done two years ago and wishes to continue which are simply raising the sum of what used to be a hundred thousand dollars in nineteen ninety three I wanted to spend two hundred fifty thousand dollars for the last two years and to continue all it does not touch in any way former fashion. The requirement to get a building permit the requirement to meet the fire code the requirement to do any other law because under the law stand alone all he simply did two years ago is to scratch out a hundred thousand which is in effect in nineteen ninety three three days. That's. Protection requirement of an architect that's all it does and we are so we support the bill. Okay you already. All right represented the Dalby you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair I apologize the representative Pilkington I was like sign to be over in another committee meeting so I may have missed this can you just tell me where's the two hundred fifty thousand dollars is it in that. Of. Section five ACT twenty twenty one ACT number five sixty eight because all this is just you know we're repealing that is I mean is that where the is that where the hundred thousands going to two hundred and fifty thousand ninety I'm not against the bill but I can't I'm not following your logic because it's not in this bill other than referring to an order act yes your Oxford what ACT five seventy six five sixty one or two thousand twenty one did was to change the thresholds. For from one hundred thousand to fifty what representative Pilkington is there is all the interim study for two years in October November everybody got back together there would be any objection to this. We all met and what he's simply doing a striking the language this would cause the two hundred fifty thousand to sunset. To go back so all all done for the last two years is to study whether the keep it at a hundred thousand or two fifty what he is striking in his. Bill today or if it were to pass is the sunset language. But that portion of that so he's tried and restarted it we had a meeting city county local Senate city county local in house to the your local in October November just as low requested. There was nobody appeared walks over from the face of the earth that objected to the bill. And all his bills change those Reginald trees that's all that does it remove sunset clause well I'm sorry follow up. The. The sunset law of ACT five sixty eight trick I was at that interim study because I've been on this committee but it just that's what I just couldn't figure out because it doesn't really. You know I can figure out where you're getting that two hundred fifty so thank. Representative Hudson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair in and I appreciate all Walker Mr explaining this could you comment a little bit though on some of the concerns that were raised by the previous Speaker at a in particular there was that there were some issues raised about you know safety issues and and and things of that nature so I just wanna make sure we're not in adversely stepping into something we don't need to. Yes my past the speed rating was on that trip so. We had a meeting that was well after the study was just a few weeks ago with the fire marshal of the State of Arkansas state police basically several fireman recognized must been twenty five or so people. And they expressed concerns and I'm Bills I think John and I removed some of the lawyers and the great. And us in the the chief fire marshal the state in the bears firemen have discussed this and at every opportunity we pointed out that the requirement to get a building permit the requirement to meet the fire code requirement to go through all these other laws exist and that all the representative Pilkington bill did two years ago over will do tomorrow two years now is to change the structural. And if we ask them at the time of if you all have any kind of improvement language I'm receptive to I did not receive any and in that sense I'm not aware of any aspect of the bill that we passed two years ago that we've lived under for two years by the way. Anyway impact to the fire code or building permit or anything that was talked about. If if I may add like I think I'm sorry for his name thirteen mentioned you still have to submit a plan you still have to go through all the fire code safety issues I mean it doesn't change that at all it just raise the threshold from one hundred two hundred fifty thousand dollars. Yes that. If you want to you don't need a building permit or be part. We don't hear. House bill ten thirty one but I would like president thirteen away difficult you know here okay less of a device that we we know who you are but for the record okay thank you senator representing Lanny Fite and Mr chairman I'd like to bring down Ryan Bowman from the property law firm if I could okay shall we come down and that if I yourself. is capital permits round our state. Great represent thank mentorship bill okay house bill thirteen oh eight basically all it does is the half cent sales tax that's temporary is about to go off to the end on end of July to the end of June and the first of June the permanent half cent sales tax for highways will be coming home. And when what this the bill does is just simply in search of amendment one oh one and replacing amendment ninety one and then let me go through this section to section what this is is for counties and cities to do bonding for street projects and say all we're doing is replacing language and we're replacing I have sent temporary say tax with the half percent permanent tax. This section to it talks about the that there is no deduction no transfers or distribution of County I'm constitutional officer fund or the State Services Fund you have in front of you you should have of physical impact statement showing that there's no impact on on on a state revenue. And this section three we replacing language how or where and taking ninety one out and put one oh one in in is just like Amendment seventy five. Section four it is saying there will be no response just like Amendment ninety one and ma'am and seventy five or. And then section five is the emergency clause in there is we have an emergency clause in here is the city or county is going to bond a project. They have to have a three reading of ordinance. It is not some of you all know in here three reading ordinances beach three separate readings and usually three months. and then it's got to go to the voters after that and you've got to have it to the county Clerk seventy days in advance of that. So to get this in a November election would be almost impossible to without putting the merges the calls on here to get this process started. it if you didn't it would be may of next year before you can get a project and with interest rates rising costs arising we talked about that today about the costs arising and that's why we have the emergency clause on. at this time of Ryan have you got. I'm open to any questions. Any questions for me. Senate questions from committee of anybody in the audience here to speak for against this bill. As. Thank you read because the bill I am close road bill. I make a motion to pass. Your motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Scotians discussion on the motion We have a do pass motion on. Thirteen oh eight. All in favor this bill say aye All opposed. Represented by. Thank you. Did you have any other bill I left it up there I apologize. Yes that branch out. Yes I'm Lanny Fite in the. Kevin White with Kevin White with Arkansas legislative audit. Representative thank you may proceed. Okay this is a pretty simple bill last session. We we created and accountability for the restored in nine cities that we had of found out that we're spending revenues for their straight pawn in use in general fund what we did we set up a process and where they pay this back and they paid us back well paying ten percent other general revenue. Well after the bill had passed in this session legislative audit pointed out to me that revenues could come into that general front that were restricted and they could not be taken ten percent out of them so we had to go in and redefine general revenue for this purpose here of in which to set it up and what we were doing this you know because the bill was on here a long time we had a great debate over where it should be in the in the coat. And it went back and forth and I think everybody got happy in the end but what we were doing that we also discovered that how we revenue act of two thousand seven. Which was one time money was all in there so we've eliminated that language in there because it's no it is no longer useful is obsolete land language. Of. Am I missing anything here. Okay be read for any questions Mr. Any questions from committee. General questions from committee. Anybody know audience respect for against this. No no one in the. I am close from bill and make a motion to pass. The motion to do pass Ten thirty H. bill ten thirty eight. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Representative thank you pass your bill thank you Mr. Okay. Represent all. You're prepared to present your bill eight House Bill thirteen thirty five please identify yourself for the record and you may proceed. One of our J. Haak District eighty one thank you Mr chairman a committee I come to you with house bill thirteen thirty five today this is a bill that will allow for cities to have more local control with their city attorney A lot of people look at this bill on and go why do we need this this was actually a bill last session that was passed for cities ten thousand and below representative Cavenaugh got that bill passed last session and this was brought to me by my constituents council members in my district that upon further review of our county and and other counties in the state in the state on the realizing a quorum courts don't have to have elected city attorney and so they in in Bryant are bent or other smaller towns in Arkansas a lot of times finding a and an attorney in those towns is is difficult locally we have we've had to recently but they're just want more control over being able to say who's going to handle legal affairs for the city also this bill was brought to me I talk with representative Cavenaugh and and it's the same language issues outside of the fifty thousand we the the bill that was passed in a last session was for ten thousand this is bumping that limit up to fifty thousand to encompass a majority of smaller towns in our state and I'll prove questions. Okay committee is there any questions. A representative Whitaker you're recognized thank you Mr chair representative up just to make sure I'm I've got this reading the language meant simply it's an enabled it's simply enabling language that would allow any city council that wanted to to pass an ordinance that maybe the appointed position rather than elected absolutely yes Sir so um this is not a little we're not any elected attorney that's currently in office we're not coming in the same not have a job anymore if the city council wants to come in and pass an ordinance then and that's when the appointed position would take place if they do not pass an ordinance everything stays the same and and when you would have elected attorney in that town but it would be up to the city council that time based on ordinances passed perfect thank you thank you Mr. Okay any other questions. Okay saying none and is there anybody here they're going to speak for against. Saying on what solution. I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Casey none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. Congratulations **** thank me. Okay I see of. Representative painter. Is not okay. A representative Johnson has asked to delay his bill also so seeing no other business today we are adjourned.