Public Transportation- House

Property that are dot has and in the say it cost three thousand dollars well when in the the old rules had to go out and get three appraisals in those three appraisals made that little sliver of land may be six thousand dollars so this reduces the number of appraisals that the the individual to have to have in order to purchase that property from R. dot. Eight days got it exactly right we have situations where we have surplus property that works just a couple of thousand dollars but and Senator Ballinger was one that passed the law that required to three appraisals in the first place so he's kind of trying to come in behind and fix to a problem that he created in the first place we we We we in healing knowledge that I mean. the the we've had situations where you know we've we've had people wanting to buy a twelve hundred dollar piece of property but there reprisals we're gonna run seven thousand dollars and and they just couldn't do anything with it so this cuts out on property less than fifty thousand dollars value cuts out the three appraisal drops to one we still have appraisals that are done within the department to confirm the price so it's and you're not going to end up with the a good Ole boy transaction we're evaluating the prices and we don't and it doesn't require that we sell it based on the appraisal so it's it's still transparent and efficient. Any questions or you have questions or any questions committee. Anyone here to speak for against the bill. Seeing none was will of committee representative that you're recognized. A recommendation do pass recommendation do pass any discussion all in favor say aye any opposing Lacson who none graduations your bill passes thank you Mr thank you thank you Committee. Of the representative Collins eight House Bill eighteen forty nine if you're ready you may go ahead introduce yourself presents bill please call any witnesses you got your come up. Well we have a several people here I think probably what we'll do is just wait form and when there's questions that you know people having for various people state police as well as highway department about here maybe you do a real good job there will be any questions I. We'll see about that I appreciate your having me here today committee so this bill you can see is is pretty simple it just says that generally speaking with a few exceptions the left lane of a multi lane highway shall be for passing only so I I know a lot of people might think that's already the law in fact it's a little different what we have struck there at the very beginning of be his motor vehicle should not be operated continuously in the left lane of the multilane roadway whenever it impedes the flow of traffic so that is sometimes called a speeder and Peter law and it kind of gets us part of the way toward where we're trying to go by what is being proposed here in this bill would get this a little further down the road for both safety and efficiency on the roads so it I feel like it's an idea that's been talked about a lot of something that all your constituents familiar with and it's really in my opinion so an idea whose time has come for years the highway department was opposed to it and they are not neutral on it state police is also neutral and they'll be able to talk about how this bill could benefit them the trucking association does not have a position on it so all of the kind of the entities that are involved the agencies that are involved are are all good with the bill there's no organized or if the opposition that I'm aware of but the main thing is that it really is for the drivers it really does benefit drivers out there and not just some drivers but all drivers and I'll briefly talk about why that is Two things that safety and efficiency the safety thing is interesting because you know a lot of people are concerned and aware speeding obviously that is a problem but actually the more dangerous thing can be shifting back and forth from land to land a lot of accidents happen that way and driving in the left lane when it's not for passing forces more people to go back and forth as faster drivers are passing that passing left a pass on the right more lane changes means more accidents so that's kind of the first part of speeding also I'm sorry the first part of why this is safer the other thing is passing on the right itself is dangerous because you don't have visibility back there it's more of a blind spot more crashes and then the third safety thing is road rage eighty one eighty percent of drivers in a two thousand sixteen study reported feelings of anger and aggression when slow drivers wouldn't get out of the left lane we've been there some people are more prone than others to the road rage but it really does it really is a big problem out there because when people get frustrated either because they're someone so ahead of him or because they feel like they're being tailgated they make dangerous maneuvers that leads to crashes the concept of leaving the left lane for passing is why the German autobahn which as you all know does not have a speed limit is so famously said if that is really one of the big reasons that is the case so to me the safety argument is is the strongest and to me stands on its own as a good reason to do this but there's another good reason to do this that I think also it would stand on its own and that is the efficiency when people use the left wearing for other than passing it slows all traffic down again when you change lanes or slowing down to make those lane changes so whether you are someone who wants to go the speed limit or under or even a few miles. Over this will help you no matter who you are no matter what speed you're comfortable driving no one wants to be slow down from the speed they want to drive that of course you know the safety aspect traffic jams also slows traffic down so more safety means more efficiency on its out and I would argue that beyond that efficiency itself has a positive ripple effects both economically because is obviously vehicles with cargo and agricultural products whatever have to make time you may time that helps business and it's just a more pleasant experience to be able to get where you're trying to go smoothly and predictably. So I'll just kind of leave that there and happy to answer any questions and happy to call up the the highway department state police who are both here to provide some additional perspective we have questions from committee. Representative right. Thank you Mr chairman of representative Collins we know now it's against the law but is this just to reinforce or all of its existing. It's a little bit different from the law that's existing so what's currently the laws that motor vehicle should not be operated continuously in the left lane whenever it impedes the flow of other traffic so what we're saying here is that the vehicle shall not be driven on the left lane with some exceptions and the big exception is when you're overtaking and passing another vehicle prefer sitting in the same direction so the short description would be left plan is just for passing now there are other exceptions in here I didn't get into that some important exceptions like if the if the right lane is in disrepair that's kind of one of the big ones because sometimes right lands are not in good repair if that's the case you're fine to drive in the left lane as well under this so it's a little it's a little bit of a of a strengthening and tightening is of of a current law thank you Mr chairman chair you're next on the list. Thank you Mr chairman and the representative Collins course I want the old guys I can remember back in the day when there were signs on the interstate that that wanted you to drive on the R. dot may remember where were you drove on the in the left lane because of the wear and tear on the roads but my question is making the public aware of of the law I noticed back on in the last section the language was stricken. About the posting signs so would we not want to pose any signs of Italy's coming into the state saying that this is a state law in Arkansas the to. with that language is being removed sure no thank you for the question and I will invite or not but I do want to clarify that that striking of C. one and C. two that was an exception to the existing law where are docket designates certain areas as doing kind of what we're doing for all of the highways in this bill so the reason that that C. two was struck about the signs is that we're striking C. one so it's just not no longer applicable they'll definitely be putting up signs that is part of what they do and they'll be able to put up signs that are a little bit more strong and clear about what we need to do I will add there is a fit I got fiscal impact on this no fiscal impact of the state hundred thousand dollars estimated and sign costs and I will be absorbed in the budget by art out saw just wanna let you all know that but they're welcome to come up and and help fill the questions on that in that that answers my question thank you Mr chairman thank you next on list representative branch you're recognized for a question Mr so looking at three OO one a. That is deals with two lane roads that deals with right that deals with one side of the road versus the other side of the road and that's the language I took in here so it would be uniform with enforcement so is it is the need for. The statue to change on B. because the decorating to excessive felt like it was unsafe for what aid deals with really different situation where you're that's like if you're passing someone in on the left side of the highway this is multi line multi multi lane highways where you're going the same direction and it's the left lane is not the left side of the street follow follow so I guess I guess may request for our daughter of the State Police is there. Was there a problem with officers not recognizing that the you know even though thirty one be just as you will impede traffic obviously the conditions of three oh one et would apply if there's if there's you're trying to pass somebody if the right hand side lane this is obstructed I guess I'm not I'm not quite following. Your common sense would dictate. Three one eight talks about when you can drive on the left side of the street so if you draw a missionary line through the middle of the entire roadway the left side of that usually traffic going the other direction that's what three one is dealing with. I understand that would be in bees dealing with multi lane multi use highways have it pretty much says they don't have the left lane if you're going to stop the flow of traffic Majority B. over there is if conditions of three oh one a even though it's multiplying highway would cause you to get over there is. I don't I don't think that's really I think they're really doing two different issues because three oh one B. is only talking about multi lane highways so you're going to stay on the right side of the highway in this situation you know what we're talking about in this three one B. in this bill you're not going to be on the left side of the roadway you're going to be a on the left lane but the same side of the roadway seventy cents okay. Sorry and you guys feel free to chime in if I'm missing anything or. The just from a fortune stab what I major force marks Service highway patrol division commander for the Arkansas state police. I've been at the role for the last five years and I've been the state police for a little over twenty six years of I can tell you that there's a lot of confusion concerning current law would just people understanding it thank our daughters done phenomenal job with those signs are posted I agree with the representative berry that's I think it's a great idea. Of with the statute with elements of this statute is proposed I think represent college done a great job on it it's very clear what they can and can't do spelled out I thank Forsman perspective it'll be easier to enforce. Hey. You're. Yes Sir have you he says five okay a representative let your next on the list for questions thank you Mr I have a question for Arkansas state police just out of curiosity I mean it is this is actually enforced in the state of Arkansas I mean do we actually pull people over and right people tickets for this I mean would it be enforced or is this just something we're doing as an awareness campaign more than an enforcement part because I mean I drive back on I. forty all the time and it doesn't seem like this is something that you know we're enforcing or is it something that You know seems to be you know readily done throughout the state of Arkansas. It is enforced up I got a notice to come over here at last minute ride some data for you on that we do enforce it I agree it is a problem five commute back and forth to hot springs every day sit myself I deal with it as make those traffic stops as well of like say this this language in here as he has written is is more clear as to what someone can and can't do so I think it would help in the enforcement of so. Hey next service represent feeling you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman of representative Collins what is different than. Your language and the names are read on the bill. Yeah I would say that a language like we we Jr Payton repeating the same that I understand what you're trying to do but like. This was a different no two line sure I would say that there's two things that that make a difference of the the current law says the motor vehicle should not be operated continuously in Lapland so continuously. Is a little bit different from just the passing so I think you could say that continuously It shall not be operated continuously somebody could say that they are not operated continuously even if they're not just passing so that is and this is a little bit of a problem the current law because what is continuously what's not continuously and I think these guys would agree it's it's a little unclear what not continuously means but I think what mine is saying is very clearly you have to use it to to pass and then you have to get back over the other piece of the current law that is being changes whenever it impedes the flow of other traffic so again someone can say that they're not impede the flow of other traffic and therefore they can Senator in the left lane however long they want and you couldn't do this under what I'm proposing so of may that would would that be the top of the termination what that you would stop someone if slowing a traffic down or continues the driving in the left hand line what will be proper reason for stopping this person the left line based on this bill vote could be. If you are traveling in the left lane for for continuous purposes or they're they're not getting back over after the pass so both could be what do you do when you got five six because the left line you all all all going down to this speed might be above two or three hours on that what what I do is what. Sir that's what I do. thank you thank you next on the list represents Springer you're recognized for a question. The motion at the proper time okay thank you representative Brian you're if another question. Is there any any provision just because there's a family in stories of this happening figure out I forty and there's not a soul to be seen and you choose the driving maybe the left hand lane because the the trucks I have read it out the right hand lane not that is instructions or giving is just if you go to Oklahoma and there's. One side of the road has convinced some previous maintenance done on it it's got that little red so you when we were left plan because it's a little bit smoother but there's no traffic around with this statute injured or the maybe the previous want to address the flexibility for a a motorist to choose that side just because he's more comfortable with the payment on that side. What an outlet let's say please respond as well but I would I said two things first if the lands are right and that's just repair and so you can be on the left lane and that's not a problem whatsoever under this if they're not rated if there's no notice repair issue then you know you can be in the right lane and no no detriment to you there and the other thing I'd say is that you know enforcement is is done in a reasonable manner in all things and I think you know they'll speak to that and and whether or not. That would realistically be something that would be that follow up I think I can maybe farm a question. We're taking out impedes the flow of traffic. So the old statute if you're on the left hand lane but you're not impeding the flow of traffic I feel like I could defend that if I had to an accord okay citation for I think reasons for removing this and we're not impeding the flow of traffic anymore we're just happen to be traversing the left hand lane because. Because we're comfortable with that payment even there's nothing then this repair the right hand side but it's got that when the written because it happens I thought put of miles on the road my concern would be is. Is we're taking out. The ability for us to drive left hand lane we know when there's no cars for fifteen miles in the direction. Well again I mean I I would just I see what you're saying and that is what this does but if it's got those ribs whatever you want to call on that is just repair and that's accepted under this sow this would only be for a situation where there's not a problem with that right lane and you're able to traverse that right lane just fine and you know there's you saying no traffic but. It is a safety concern to I mean traffic comes at some point and being able to have predictability with where the the traffic is flowing is to the benefit of all the drivers out there and but I'll at the. And a little bit more. It with a traffic officer discretion is there and we would hope that that he or she would use a. and as he mentioned it is an element if there's this repair there that is of a possible exception to that so. Okay we have a we have no more questions committee no one signed up to speak for against the bill would you like to close sure I'd like to close appreciated you know this is something that's been done in some other states including Oklahoma Louisiana had pretty good success with it I think that the comments here are pretty indicative that this is something that's going to be helpful for the state and I appreciate a good vote thank you representative spring you're recognized motion do pass a motion to pass any discussion committee. All in favor say aye opposed same like sign here none congratulations your bill passes. What a. Move the agenda around we're going to without objection rep Senator Flippo he's got a committee meeting he has to go to so we're going to move him up that To upgrade run his bill so Senator which introduce yourself and you may proceed yes Sir thank you Mister chairman and Scott Flippo I'm senator for district seventeen and I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you all this morning so thank you don't have the bill in front it was the bill number again. Five thirty seven okay so five thirty seven is a clean up for a technical correction from a bill that I ran two years ago and what that bill did was it took the the seat the fine for not wearing your seatbelt which is hovering around ninety dollars court costs everything basically dropped into a flat forty five now there is a twenty five dollar you know fine that's associated with just the not wearing your seatbelt and then there's twenty dollars that is depend upon if you get pulled over the city or the county well the reference to the you know the the bill dropped a reference the statute code that said twenty dollars to the city and county which was against the intent of the bill so this is just the clean up to that and it just simply caps the find it forty five dollars now if you can test it and you go to court to enter found guilty the end of the book at you charge you know fines court costs these eccentric cetera however if you just write the check and buy the ticket it's a straight forty five dollar fine and twenty dollars goes to either the city or the county depend upon where you're pulled over. Okay have you taken registers represent feeling you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman of what the impact statement with this and second question of. Was there in a A federal Yes I will do with that no Sir so as long as you leave the twenty five dollars in there that pacified the federal concerns with any federal funding and so as you all I'm sure you know that the General Assembly twelve years ago passed a bill to make it a primary offense because the fed to put about ninety dollars and I we funny online so this does not jeopardize that and anyway as for the fiscal impact I can't speak to it because it was two years ago when I ran it so this is just a clean up which you know what was supposed to be done two years ago well now you know we have anybody from cities or counties here Speak to it but there this agreed upon bill thank you. Okay no more questions no one signed to speak for against the bill century will grow Mr chairman push my bill which will of committee representative Barker you're recognized. I have a motion to passing discussion all in favor say aye any opposing Lacson who nine resolution bill passed. Next a representative Cavenaugh is Porter bill for an interim study so we're going to go to we skipped over represent Johnson house bill seventeen sixty seven so would you introduce yourself you may proceed. Thank you Mr chairman committee members representative Lee Johnson district seventy five in have to have the opportunity presented to her today and transportation for the first time the session resolutions you're the best committee it to the industry on the ground and administer. You may proceed thank you so at this bill sets of the framework for any type of delivery system that some companies are starting use now fed acts in his honor looking at ways to try to deliver packages conveniently and safely to your door you know the pandemic is really shone a light on this opportunity to for the delivery service economy to really step in and make our lives not only more convenient but in you know in the case of these at times where it's difficult for us to get out for whatever reason the USA for one of the challenges with this process is you're currently the the mechanism is you you order something you're not sure when the package is going to show up and so one of the ways they're looking at trying to accommodate that some community some states is with these personal delivery devices these things I don't use or cool very often but the pretty cool these are these are not big devices if you see in there about the size of a of a clothes hamper they operate their set up to to eventually possibly a be able to operate autonomously right now they're offering more like to roam so you have somebody actually physically driving these in the way the concept works is you set up an appointment time for your package to be delivered to your house and then these devices will come to your house that appointment time signal you you come out at a little. Box thing opened you reach and take out your package what backed your house because these things are set up to does not operate on low speeds less than two miles an hour on sidewalks and not run in the streets because they're smaller that there's there needs to be a framework for how we regulate these at a state level This bills laying that framework is setting some rules in place as to how big these devices could be where they can operate it and at what speeds they can operate it you know there's always concerns I know about are we taking away jobs right away needed into this situation where now you're not gonna be able to have a U. P. S. god or your FedEx guy delivering things this is really an augmented process you know this is their I don't ever see a time where all of our packages are being delivered by drones are little delivery devices here that this there's always this is just adding another option and it it is also adding jobs because anytime you have these devices the concert they're using is there coming into neighborhoods and having a pot of these devices may be twenty in their leasing space from a local you know convenience store operator or grocery store operator and so they're stimulate the economy through this leasing operation then yet that people operate in the drive and service the vehicle so you know as it's bringing new jobs in the market I a you know and not really taking jobs away there was some concern about the liability we do have a clause in here for a hundred thousand dollars of liability insurance required to be covered one of that some of the some of the folks had some concerns about that was a little too low we're gonna look at maybe amending that on the set aside to maybe bring that up to two hundred thousand seven hundred thousand this is important now is at the very end of this bill there's some opt out language so if your community that just I look this just doesn't fit in my town we've got a lot of kids running on the street in this neighborhood and we do we just mop my folks in Greenwood for whatever reason don't want to have personal delivery devices in their in their community there's very specific out that language to let you gallon passing ordinances just says look for us this doesn't work in our town so this is never anything that would be for. Spat on any community would just be if the committee wanted to partner with one of these companies and bring these devices into the community this would be the framework they could do that in that I'd have to try to answer the questions of the bank has any any questions from committee. Seeing none no one here to speak for against the bill to like close I'll close my bill Mister chairman okay what's with the committee represents bring you're recognized. Motion motion do pass the I have a motion to pass any discussion all in favor say aye opposed same Lacson who nine congratulations you Mr chairman committee president shall. Representative Richard said you're recognized run house bill eighteen fifty eight introduce yourself you may proceed. Thank you Mr chair and committee Jay Richardson District seventy eight I move do pass. kidding I would agree with you on the committee have the right to do the questions thank you that so members of the house bill eighteen fifty eight is a bill that from my understanding has been run in the past and what it does is it's going to allow cities towns municipalities to have basically to allow them to use cameras is stop lights in my city Fort Smith Arkansas just over the weekend me myself was almost hit two people running to stop a stop light three different times in one day even live in downtown little rock on my way to the capital today had two people run red lights didn't come close to hitting me but they ran I'm going the opposite direction. To me this is becoming more and more of a problem gas to two six that can show what what this means to two people and what is done across the country of but aside from that this bill gives cities need municipalities the option to do that it is not mandating it and what's also change from this bill is of it if city shoes to do this they're only taking pictures of the vehicle and the license plate not the person driving in that's who's responsible in addition of. What was the other for a look at the and I'm sorry. Yeah in addition it does not affect the person's driving record so you won't remove points off of anybody who receives a citation that is run a red light and it also gives cities municipalities not only to use this at stoplights but in the event they have a intersection that has a stop sign or something that like that they can also make those adjustments to add that there of in a nutshell that's what this bill does I see it is beneficial and I'm open for questions. The. The rich the one one one question I have will I'm I'm trying to look to be a real quick for I'd ask you a question and I didn't talk to you about the bill will they published a for the public to see that this to let him know that there's these electronics are going to be there maybe that'll help or have or red lights running situation with a with a does not currently in the bill but I'm I'm absolutely good with adding that language in there this is a notification will be supplied so that people know it is available we're just just just for the public I think that would be that would be a big deterrent I'm I'm not against the bill may be wrong but I think we had something out there to to to notify they're doing that is like you know that it is like someone coming down the road flashing headlights and you know there's gonna be a police officer down there so I think that might help their situation I would use this asking that because I didn't see it represent berry you're recognized for a question thank you Mr thank you Mr chairman and representative bridges I mean I think it's a great bill we're we're kind of behind the times anyway I I've seen this a lot in Washington DC and it's a tremendous tool to deter people you really start thinking when you're up in you know in our nation's capital about possibly you know skipping through a red light because it catches up with the and I I I applaud the you in the city of Fort Smith FOR for bringing this bill because I think it's a great idea and I'll I'll support of a hundred percent thank you thank representative Ryo you're next on the list and we'll yes Sir thank you Mister chairman representative J.. You know we have a sky cam I know you've heard that we've been using that has grants and things you know when the Bible area is this something on the order that in if if you put in place let's just say you put in a four way stop and people run it you don't given tickets you just warning or something I would that work so no it would it would give the city the of the ability to site individuals for running those lights thank you Sir thank you Mr chairman represent hop you're recognized for a question. Bill and my question would be when they so to make sure the person that gets the ticket they they have the photo of who actually was driving so would be my my son or daughter or something rather than the person that's the vehicle license number is with or if they don't take a picture of the person demand they don't keep that picture on file but they know who actually was the driver at fault the bill is designed to only photograph the vehicle and the license plate right not who's driving the vehicle so who gets the actual ticket the whoever's registered to that license plate so if my son is driving I get the ticket that would be correct mmhm. Would there not be a reason why you would want to even if you don't store that photo image be able to tell who actually made the my understanding is when this bill ran a couple of sessions ago that was a I was a big angst of people that want those pictures being taken or even stored and available for others so this remove that piece of it. Thanks in any again I used to live in in Phoenix Arizona and we had just like in DC I mean they took the pictures of the vehicle or what have you and even my daughter I've got several tickets I've had to deal with her driving my vehicle. President to let your next on the list. I understand and and I've looked at this site at our neighboring states do some of this especially in Memphis and it in Memphis at the at one point time they were taking a picture of the person who's actually driving the vehicle that way they would know exactly who or they would assist our be able to find out who actually They needed to take it and I know that they got a lawsuit one time because they took a picture of a prominent politician in Memphis are running a red light and his girlfriend just happen to be in the vehicle with and it got sent home to his wife and and that caused the problem and also because lawsuit. my my only issue with this bill is is that in and that seems to be the issue across the country is you know if I allow my vehicle out to my dad or to you know a relative or to a friend or whatever and they run it or they're going through or they make a bad decision then I'm the one hit with the penalty and so that that's the issue I have with the bill my my question I guess is have you seen anything through other states where they have been able to. Ticket. The person who actually commits the offense as opposed to the person who owns the vehicle and. And not I I guess the state not incur a lawsuit over that. I've not seen that of you know like I said I've experienced the photo cams for for different tickets or what have you the challenge that that I see out there is is identifying the person inside the vehicle so even if it's a family member or friend unless the city municipality has a file that pairs of face to a name I mean I don't then they're never going to know that right so the best way to identify that is by the vehicle and the license plate. The representative very you're recognized thank you Mr chairman and just tack on that the comments of that's what we have traffic court for and you know just as you are the license of the registered owner of that vehicle is required to have insurance they're also responsible for that vehicle so they have to go go to traffic court plead their case and then let him know that it was their kid driving the car not them but in to piggy back on this is something that representative Tollett said it is a it is a privacy issue and as far as you're taking the the facial features the image of a person driving the car and that's exactly why they do just the the tag only I would agree. Another service representantes you're recognized for a question thank you Mr moon just to go back to represent child's concern you know the owners responsible of represent your vision you correct me if I'm wrong but donors responsible for that vehicle and if in the event someone else is driving the vehicle I think the law clearly states that as long as the owner furnishes the driver that vehicle at the time of the incident then the owners relief from that responsibility and that she hopes to the driver of the vehicle and I think that's under current law which would apply here in your situation so would you agree with that I would agree. With that answer some of my questions thank you represented Tosh any other questions committee we don't have anyone signed up to speak for against the bill black clothes I am close for the bill. What's the will of committee represent hop you're recognized. I have a motion to passing discussion from committee all in favor say aye. Any oppose same Lacson hearing none congratulations your bill passes. Thank you. Beijing. Okay next on the agenda is represent Lowery house bill eighteen twelve represent Lowery introduce yourself you may proceed. Thank you Mister chairman and thank you Committee. The bill that I'm presenting I know is causing some heartburn but let me tell you it's not anywhere close to the heartburn that The public in my district are experiencing let me just give you some some background city of Maumelle a past a bond issue about a fifteen million dollar bond issue to open up a third insurance we we like to refer to it as an insurance rather than exit because we don't like people leaving Maumelle we want them coming to Maumelle but it's it's really really relieved a lot of the traffic along Arkansas one hundred which is also known as Maumelle Boulevard. In the process of and this is been probably a ten fifteen year project which included getting a planning grant from the federal government Federal Highway Department invent environmental impact studies in each and every one of these reports there are references to the road being condition in such a way or drawn up in such a way that it not only connects between interstate forty and Arkansas one hundred but it also gives access to a road county road code called short Marcia a road we just read to you from the finding of this was an art dot Document. that one of the purposes of this the purpose in need one of them was to improve public safety by providing an additional access point into and out of the cities of Maumelle and north little rock for emergency services including access to residential areas along short marsh a wrote similarly a federal age to TD document I guess this is Highway Department existing major routes within the project area highlighted existing I. forty along highway three sixty five interchange experiences can Jett congestion in the eastbound direction and this was to open up access please read the wrong wrong cage the highlighting was on the other page improve public safety by providing an additional access point into and out of the cities of Maumelle in North Little Rock for emergency services including access to residential areas along short marsh a wrote. Short Marcia a road in all the metric plan documents are is classified as a class five collector that is a classification that the Federal Highway Department has has put into place it's fairly universal from state to state and and being able to look at arterial roads class five collectors and then also just plain county roads what is happened since access to that we call it white oak crossing it was originally counts Massie road what has happened since the opening of that is a very proud day for all of this is that the county judge in Pulaski County closed off access to short marsh a wrote even though the design of the road all the documents say that this would give access to short Marcia in the residence of Marcia A. in okay Oak Grove the design even included a right hand turning lane painted lines on the road showing a right hand turn on to short Marcia gay the county judge put up barricades. Put up a gate. Even though a majority of the citizens along short marsh a road circuit submitted a petition to the quorum court into the county judge saying that they wanted access to remain open and it had been open for several years while construction was taking place that road has been in existence for many years but it certainly did not have a a destination point that would connect up with counts Massie until this fifteen million dollar project to show you how arbitrary and capricious the decision of the county judge is he has granted to certain members of that road people who live along that road probably some people that actually argued against having traffic along the road he's granted to them keys so that they can open the gate and come and go as they wish basically making this this public road paid for by public dollars making it a public access emergency vehicles when they have to and this would include EMTs Menem's when they have to access cutting through to save if for instance from short Marcia a if you had to go all the way around over to highway three sixty five and then two Arkansas one hundred and Maumelle it's an additional fifteen minute drive which sometimes is critical in terms of emergencies emergency vehicles now they have access to keys as well but they have to get out park up to the barricade get out unlock the gate swing it open. Move through stop again swing it back and lock it back which is a delay of of significant time. I've tried to and I understand that this is a county judges of the authority to be able to open or close roads is it is pretty sacrosanct I know I've heard a note from the chairman his experiences as a county judge of how important that access is or that ability but this is a case where a a road judge really has acted in arbitrary manner. I don't want to penalize the other seventy four county judges because there is one acting in a rogue in road behavior however there's really only one way to be able to address this other than the citizens of Marcia gay and grow filing a lawsuit we're trying to save that litigation costs that what I've done in crafting this legislation is to narrow it is as much as possible. To do two things one to accentuate the importance of maintaining access because the the bill actually says that a county judge could not close a class five collector road within a quarter mile of an interchange with a major U. S. Highway and that would be interstate forty that should very significantly pared down the number of counties that would be impacted. we certainly the looking at the legislation we considered putting in legislation or putting in language that would say that the county judge could not close it without prior ratification or authorization of the quorum court unfortunately we've not been able to figure out a way I've been working with B. L. are figure out a way to be able to do that retroactively you certainly can't we also don't want to file just purely local legislation we can't do that to say Pulaski County judge you have to open up short marsh a wrote we can't do that legislation so the language that's in there it has been narrowed but yet in not in such a way that it is entirely specific to this one project. One of the other things that is happened at that is currently happening that makes it even more important that access to the Oak Grove and Marcia a communities be improved is that the very first charter school in the state of Arkansas was was academics plus charter school it is now known as Maumelle charter school they have been a straight a school both in the elementary school in the high school for a number of years they are now built building a brand new high school campus that is within several miles of this particular interchange one of the criticisms several years back by the Pulaski County school district against the charter school was a charter school had said originally in their original documents the state that they would be a school that would be more diverse didn't the community the community of Maumelle Maumelle is fourteen percent of minority Maumelle charter school is at fourteen percent and so that was the criticism well upon further questioning by the state board of education in the authorizing panel it became clear that one of the reasons why the charter school was limited to fourteen percent in Maumelle was because charter schools do not get transportation funding they did not have the ability to go out into pole or Marcia a Oak Grove and be able to to invite students and now they have a waiting list but they still wanted to be able to tell these folks your students can come to our school and we will come pick you up we enable that senator of English senator David Sanders and myself back around nineteen or skis B. two thousand fourteen provided G. I. F. grant money for them to buy a bus to be able to go out into those areas and they've been able to increase their minority population among their students this road short Marcia a road will give even more access to those other communities for those students to be able to if they choose to be part of the Maumelle charter high school and the elementary school. as I said in my in my initial comments I know that this is a a dramatic step to to try and limit County judges abilities that have been given to me I've been assured that this does not violate the constitution into state constitution in terms of their rights of supervising roads are overseeing roads but it is a very critical issue to my community and and it frankly if it were your community and access especially emergency access was being denied on a major collector road it's not just a simple rural road is a collector road that runs between the a white oak crossing and highway state highway three sixty five and the residents of that community they that street they want the road opened and this bill is one way to be able to do that so I'm sorry five was repetitive but I wanted to give you all of the the background facts and I'm open for any questions representative very you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman and represent Lowery the you know it is a simple bill is easy easy bill but I can't support the reason the reason being is you know we talk about local control and and this takes control away from our county judges we got seventy five county judges and this is a problem that is specific to Pulaski County and I don't believe that is the legislatures of position to be making passing legislation that's going to affect one small segment of our community otherwise we will have to have a. A session eight months long in order to handle all the disputes with and communities such as Pulaski County and I personally believe that the the the the problem needs to be resolved in a court of law I know that as expense on the on the case the community however I just don't think it's a legislative matter and for that reason I won't be voting for the bill thank you of. Representative I have what's population Pulaski County. I'm sorry I real I don't know that number do you know how many miles of road it I'm asking council here I did I do not know that either you know how long this road is that you want to close or you won't open short marsh a road is a about three miles three miles long and you said that he did he put it he put a gate up on that road at the gate up okay with that that took it out of the that's not a that's not a public road anymore then we put a gate at that made a private road for him to but I we've got L. quickly distilled into feeling you're recognized and a limited to respond to that that it is still in the plastic County master plan as a class five collector it is not classified it even as a county road and that's why we we have language in her class five collector or greater use of that road has other roads that come off of it March a lateral month marsh a cut off of so it does have quite a bit of access to it so it's not a private road it is it's got a date on it so that's the Lowery to the statue but anyway if if he says he needs to open at some point he has that opportunity to do that but we're gonna represents the representative feeling great thank you Mr and I don't have my words the sentiment the this is the same as the chair of the Senate but representative there is. I don't want to see. This committed. Become a personal committed as always that bill that's sitting counted bailout of personal issues come to sit and counted commit and I don't want to see this committed brain personal issues to that need to be worked out with the person if the back home so I would advise you to you know somewhere you get with that kind of judging tried to work that is shopping for this this is a personal issue that you want us to deal with. That we should because kind of roles are. Kind of just has total time in over a county road even screed road if you want to go and a claim of street inside of a city he or she can do it but they want to go back Smith having to having to keep it up so they don't so I would just say aye to to to go back to date county judge and try to work that is is it as with the with the county K. it for and I appreciate that and I know there has been that attempt as matter of fact the quorum court actually passed a resolution opposing the closing of that road but of course that also did not have the the strength of power to make the county judge do what was the right thing to do I've tried to write this in such a way that it does not just specifically address this particular road but that it also could apply to any other road any other public road that is closed off that is within a quarter mile of a major interchange. Senate bro you're recognized question. You know what I'm taking and I think I hear a lot of back and forth but had you ever actually talked to the judge yes I I have reason within well I did I tried to reason with them and and he in the conversation he basically through the Maumelle mayor into the bus and said well if the Maumelle mayor wants this opened up that he could annex this area but but he he's going to have to take over upkeep of the road and of course the Maumelle mayor is a friend of mine and said well that's not how that conversation went okay we will not in my mail is very very. Has never annexed involuntarily they only do about voluntary annexation there's a belief that the people along that area would would not mind being part of VOL mail but again it would have to be voluntary and of course the Maumelle mayor also said that the road is currently not up to standard. That even before annexation could take place the county judge should bring the road up to code and and probably more than anything that is the reason why there's this battle going on as these the county judges trying to force the hand of the Maumelle mayor to step up and take care of the citizens were as county judge is not doing that. Follow up. It it just sounds like I'm sorry it just sounds like a personal problem right there and that's what we want to leave the local okay is that the judge had just very had he's a he's a former representative in that correct that is correct that's what I thought okay next on the list represent rate you're recognized for a question I would that I just walked in late so I apologize are we in the question portion of the discussion okay I'm gonna say my comments for the for the discussion okay represent right you have a question. Thank thank you Mr chairman of representative mark the gate that was put up. Was that put up after the problem started or and who put that gave the. The county judge put the put the gate up and it was put up after completion of white oak crossing and and the the meeting of all of the impact I mean the federal study I mean there's probably an illegal exaction suit here as well because federal dollars were taken with the intent of that road giving access to the citizens along short Marcia a road and all the other areas and you know I'd I understand when Yeltsin's say that any of this sounds like a personal thing it's not personal to be in terms of me living on that road I don't live on that road but it is personal to me in terms of the members of my district being denied use of a public road that is paid for by by federal and state tax dollars your tax tax dollars and that's the point where we do have an obligation to step up sometimes when there is that type of that illegal exaction I don't have any more questions at all but I do have a Duggar would who is the local county judge speak against the bill he's represent associates marks County so Doug if you will come up make your comments they would see if the committee it did you have questions registering. Okay. We run that the judge speaking if you've got questions we'll within that there to share of judging may proceed. Duggar went on the loan county judge of in the judge for the past the ten years and for two for expediency of your time and I appreciate you Mr chairman Mr vice chair and staff and all the committee here today I'm speaking on behalf of the legislative chair for all the county judges in Arkansas on the bass business association and I'm speaking on behalf of them when I read this bill. Eighteen twelve. first of all it has a very broad Burbage in it. very open ended a to me one it says the county court shall not close a public access to classified. Collector or heavy use road now who's going to decide whose heavy use I think there's several things that is within a quarter of a mile well that makes it become specific. To a particular situation. And I realize that there's a case by case but has a county judge you make a decision based upon each individual case and the information that you can gather and that sort of thing with all due respect to Representative Lowery and. There is article seven. Section twenty eight is the constitution of Arkansas. It says that it gives authority and discretion to the county judge over the roads that's been in effect in eighteen seventy four. The second thing to happen is that the amendment fifty five. fifty five section three gives that authority to the county judge whether be him or her whoever sits in that seat. And It's the these kind of cases and authority has been debated more than once. It is. in the spring Court. And the court rule and are sculpted in it refers to use the constitution Arkansas seven and twenty eight provides that the county should court had exclusive jurisdictions and all matters related to county roads. And And that's in a Supreme Court case. I think it's. I don't know belabor the point but I think it there's no way. That the legislature can changes by statute because the constitution says that they don't have the authority. So I'd be happy to take any questions any questions for judge or one. Seeing none to very projects testimony thank you Would he's so I had to you want to close a. Members of. I thank you for your patience and I and I do understand the the complexity of dabbling into this area and I I'm certainly willing to you know have immediate consideration and put me out of my misery so. Okay thank you I'd I'd appreciate a move pass we do we have a what is the will of the committee. President Reagan I'd like to make a motion do pass than that have a comment for discussion as well okay we have a motion do pass so we're open for discussion you may go ahead okay well I let representative Larry I appreciate you bringing this bill for those who don't know representative Lowery and I actually both represent the communities about Grover Marcia gay if you look at the law the line the way it's drawn the line goes straight down the middle of highway three sixty five and he's got one side of it and I've got the other and I've heard a lot from the residents of Oak Grove and Marcia gay about this issue in fact when I was campaigning for office and going door to door this was you would think the number one issue that I would have heard from people is maybe taxes or pro life or or or other issues that gained a lot of attention in the legislature but it wasn't the number one concern I heard from these people was the closure of this road and that the people that live in this area feel like they do not have a voice and the points that representative Lowery made with regard to emergency access those are real concerns I believe representative Lowery is made this bill is narrow as possible to limit the impact on on other counties and I think it's important that I state publicly that along with representative Lowery I disagree with our county judge's decision to close this road I don't know of any other way to say it I think it was a bone headed decision I understand the points that have been made by the opponents of the bill and those points are not without merit but I have an obligation to speak up for my constituents and for the people who live in this area and support this bill today. That's the extent of my comments anyone else have come in. a before we take the vote I just of course you know represent Lowery I've talked I've tried getting full this bill down because because of the reasons that the judge spoke on but you know the quorum court and the judge had been presented with a petition already the thank represent Lowery statement he said that the city didn't want to roll because it was not up to standard well maybe that's reason judge close and I don't know but I I disagree with most of the day what I've heard from a committee that I think this is a the county court's decision it's not our decision and anyway so with no more discussion all in favor we have a do pass a motion from representative ray all in favor say aye. All opposed say aye. the eyes on the nose haven't so the Bill failed thank you for a merciful no okay. Of committee we will probably be next Tuesday I just got a couple of texts from that a couple bills will be one will run at this time so and that will probably be our last meeting also please I need every committee member to contact representative Watson we have some business that we need to take care of and hopefully before next meeting next Tuesday so if there's nothing else to if there's nothing else to come come before the committee and I appreciate your time you're doing this your hard work and we stand Jr.