Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1681
Act 812
· 7 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…NDS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING NOTICE OF TERMINATION. HB1681 Vaught TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Vaught | Notification that HB1681 is now Act 812 |
|
HB1889
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…THE STATE ACTION POULTRY FLOCK DEPOPULATION GRANT PROGRAM. HB1889 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS TO A DISPENSA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS TO A DISPENSARY OR CULTIVATION FACILITY; AND TO AUTHORIZE … | Pilkington | Delivered to the Secretary of State |
|
SB563
Act 741
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB563 Irvin TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMI…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN … | Irvin | Notification that SB563 is now Act 741 |
|
HB1562
Act 941
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…ONSERVATION. SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. HB1562 Gazaway CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF AN ORAL LEASE OF FARM…”
|
CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF AN ORAL LEASE OF FARMLANDS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1562 is now Act 941 |
|
SB582
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…USED FOR AN EQUINE UNDER THE OFFENSE OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. SB582 B. King TO ESTABLISH THE STATE ACTION POULTRY FLOCK DEPOPUL…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE STATE ACTION POULTRY FLOCK DEPOPULATION GRANT PROGRAM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1656
Act 1024
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…your bill? pardon? OK. Yeah Senor Bryant Anyone here to run House Bill 1656.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION. | Beck | Notification that HB1656 is now Act 1024 |
|
SB400
Act 933
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION. SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. HB1562 Gazaway CON…”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. | Irvin | Notification that SB400 is now Act 933 |
|
SB466
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RDERS VIA A DELIVERY VEHICLE OR VIA A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW. SB466 J. Dismang TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND…”
|
TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS … | J. Dismang | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1149
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBER AT THE PINE TREE RESEARCH STATION. HB1149 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. Notice: Sile…”
|
CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. | Vaught | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB281
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB281 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING AGRICULTURE; TO ESTABLIS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING AGRICULTURE; TO ESTABLISH THE PRODUCER BILL OF RIGHTS FOR COMMODITY … | Gilmore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB455
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Jr Sen. Jamie Scott REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB455 J. Bryant TO ALLOW REGULATION OF HEMP PRODUCTS BY ARKANSAS…”
|
TO ALLOW REGULATION OF HEMP PRODUCTS BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB84
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB84 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF … | B. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB85
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER. SB85 Caldwell TO PRESERVE PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBE…”
|
TO PRESERVE PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBER AT THE PINE TREE RESEARCH STATION. | Caldwell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
0:00
Good morning, committee and guests. I apologize for being late. We've been working on some bills we're trying to get through. I call this committee of the Senate AGRI, Forest and Economic Development Committee, to order. We're going to hear Senate bills. We're going to try to get through everything. We'll stay as long as possible. I will try to hear the bills that haven't been heard first, get them out of the way, and then come back to the other ones.
I'll tell you what, we've got an agree-to bill. I'm going to back up on that. Senator Irvin, you've got two bills, and you've got another committee to go to. Please come to the end of the table. For many of you here for the fair bill, Senator Irvin has an amendment to the bill. Yes, sir. If you would, please introduce yourself for the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:53
record. Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Okay. You're recognized for your amendment. Thank you. I appreciate Ms. Barbie Washburn who reached out to me to make this change.
And so we're adding, I apologize that got left off, but there's a tri-county fair. Lee County, Monroe County, and Phillips County make up that tri-county fair. They do receive funding as well. So I just want to make sure that we needed to include them. But they're also part of Northeast District as well, whether they choose to be a part of it or not. But we know to make sure that they're listed. And then Independence County, we needed to move them from north-central to northeast. So that's what the amendment. Move to adopt.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:36
I have seconded Senator Stone. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations. You're welcome to present your bill 400. Sure. And let me state to the audience that your big concerns have been met and clarified. But, again, Senator Irvin is going to make a statement on that. You recognize it. So
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:57
I listened to all of the concerns from the members of the committee and the members of the public and tried to make all the changes reflective of those concerns, and those are engrossed into the bill.
So I believe White County Fair came in and wanted to change the review and approval just to review only, so that change was made. There was concern that there was a value to the continuing education piece. I know many people attend a Fair Managers Association convention. It's very, and so we want to make sure that that is remaining and that does remain in the bill, that you provide proof of yearly continuing education requirements.
That remains always with the department. And I'll give you assurances, like that's, we want to continue that. We appreciate the people that put on the continuing education, no intention of ever changing that, and want the fair boards to be able to continue to participate in that. So that's there, as well as the additions that you just saw. And another thing was, like, we wanted to make sure that they can participate in the district fair that they choose, depending on where they live, if they're an exhibitor.
And so that, I think, Senator Caldwell, we had discussed that one, too. So that change has been made. and then with this final amendment that I explained, making sure that those people are included. So I hope we have covered all the concerns.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
3:27
Committee, anyone have a question? Seeing none, I have many people who've signed up to speak for or against. Do you want to pass on that since we've reached an agreement, or do you all want to speak? I will not deny you your right to speak.
Seeing none, Mr. Irwin, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, I really
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:50
appreciate it. Let me just say this. Let me ask, and
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
3:54
I did ask for those who signed up, is there anyone here who did not sign up that wished to speak for or against the bill? Seeing
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
4:03
none now, you're... Okay, thank you. Let me say this. I love the passion that people have for our county fairs. I'm one of those people, and I love that people dig into this, and they spend all their time, and they volunteer to do this.
I love that. We really are trying to make this as simple as we
possibly can for them to continue to do what they're doing. So
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
4:28
with that, I'm closed, and I would appreciate a good vote. Second. Move to pass as amended. Second. Senator Gilmore, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations. Would
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
4:39
you like to present your other bill? Yes. Senate Bill 563 is the next bill brought to me with the Department of Agriculture.
I know that Secretary Ward would have been here, but I think he's on his way
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
4:53
to tornadoes. For everyone's information, Lake City, Secretary Ward's hometown got hit by a tornado two years ago. In five days, my hometown was destroyed, so he is where he needs to be. 100% agree with that. And I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
5:13
think Representative Milligan. 563. 563. So, and actually, Fran Kavanaugh is supposed to be the House member on this bill.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:24
Is anyone else from the Ag Department
here? Patrick, come on up to the table,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
5:35
if you would, in case someone has a... Can I do it? Well, I don't know if you'll let me
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:41
add Fran Kavanaugh is the House. She's supposed to be the House sponsor
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
5:45
on this bill. Is she here? Yes. absolutely do you mind if we make
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:49
a verbal amendment and add her as the i'll add just uh we
normally don't do that but since it's minor we we did it before
where it's non-substantive substantial language change uh so i have a motion to suspend the rules second all in favor say aye all right uh your motion to the rules are suspended your motion is add representative kavanaugh as a sponsor yes uh the motion on that senator dismaying uh senator scott second all in favor of the motion say aye all opposed your amendment passes now you can present as amended thank you the reason why
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
6:31
it's important is because representative kavanaugh has a lot of horses and so i ran this language by her, as well as the department. So I'm going to let you
Speaker 29
6:45
discuss. Thank you, Patrick, for being here. Yes, Patrick Fisk, Department of Agriculture, Director of Livestock and Poultry. Thank you for us allowing to present this bill. This is a pretty simple bill. We've had penalties on the books for years for equine, but they were statutes, criminal
penalties and a lot of the opportunities we had to address issues have gone to the wayside and we weren't able to address some of the very extreme cases that we've seen. What this bill does is it allows us to put civil penalties and also adds further direction on how we're going to address the issue, i.e. those have a veterinarian do a body score. And that's important because if we do
get calls a lot and we have to vet those calls, and there may be a 30-year-old horse that just doesn't have the ability to gain weight or to maintain weight. So this body score will show that the animal is severely malnutritioned and has been abused. So this just gives us an opportunity do to act on it through
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
7:59
civil. No problem with that. I have horses myself. I do have one question and that's three years ago I had two horses strut and killed by lightning and my insurance adjuster
wanted a vet to look at them and the nearest vet, large animal vet I had was two hours away. Now I had a veterinary 900 yards away. He was a small animal vet and he would not come down there and tell the adjuster that my horses were dead so that's fact of life and and and uh so on the vet is this going to be a state veterinarian you're going to subcontract this or how are we going to
Speaker 31
8:33
do we have two veterinarians on staff one is a state veterinarian and the other is our field veterinarian so they're very capable of issuing that or addressing that concern fair enough
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
8:41
senator scott thank you i'm in support of the bill but i'm just asking the question for my own basic knowledge um
is this bill like the fine the five thousand dollars is that kind of in line with what's done in other states for a penalty like this or because i
Speaker 37
8:59
don't know i don't know well it more in lines on what the department penalties are it's to it's up to five thousand dollar fine so it depends on the situation and this would be go would go through the commission and then they will assess that penalty and again it's up to five thousand dollars i'm not aware of what other
states are doing. They also have these criminal penalties as well and they address it that way. So I'm not aware of any other state that's doing
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
9:24
this, exactly. So it can be different depending on case-by-case scenario
Speaker 41
9:28
and situations that arise? Absolutely. That's that's the purpose
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
9:34
of us vetting it. Thank you. Of course, it's true cruelty. I'm for the bill and I assume under 562-103 which I don't know what's what's in there what do you have that or no what what is actually defined as cruelty
Speaker 37
9:48
i mean because what we're looking at as cruelty is malnutrition not necessarily beating a horse or it's mainly addressing not the lack of care for the animal all right so growing up on
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:02
a farm i mean i understand you know sometimes breaking horses or whatever i don't want anything that's ever going to be construed to that does this equate does this thing are we are cattle and stuff already included in the thing or is this just so we're just now doing horses we don't have
anything it's just this could be i see the bill just that yes i just uh i'm very leery of these type things of course if it's true cruelty then yes then sign
me up on this stuff but uh definitely going to have to be some common sense use. These people that work for you at the department. You say
Speaker 37
10:48
Yes, sir. And to address that, yes, we are also very concerned about issues that could get out of hand, and we're going to definitely bring a common sense approach to this. And it's just going to be addressing some of those extreme cases that we've seen the last few years.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:03
Are y'all promulgating any other rules on it? No, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
11:08
questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for this bill? Anyone in the audience wish to speak against this bill?
Seeing none, Senator Irwin, would you like to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
11:23
close your bill? Thank you, and I appreciate the input from you, Mr. Chair. I know you have horses. I do as well, and I had one struck by lightning, too. But we also had somebody that drove by our house, and we had a horse that was like 30 years old, you know, but they called and complained because they just didn't know. So I think it's really good to make sure that you have a veterinarian do the body
score for me was a big bonus to this.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
11:51
I appreciate a good vote. Will the committee? Motion to pass, Senator Scott. Second, Senator Dismayne. All in favor say
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:01
aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations, Bill Pass. Thank you so much. Thank you for your work.
Speaker 56
12:07
All right. Oh, amended. As amended. Senator King here. As amended. As amended. Senator Dispain,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
12:11
you want to run your bill?
Speaker 64
12:21
I will. Pardon? Senator Bryant, anyone here run House Bill
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
12:44
1656, House Bill 1562, anyone here run House
bill 1562. Anyone here to run house bill 1681?
Anyone here to run senate bill 582? Anyone here to run house bill 1889? There it is, man, you're next.
Okay. I'll take a five-minute recess, and we'll be back in five minutes and see
if anyone's here. If they're not, we'll move forward.
Speaker 77
14:17
I'm going to recess for another four minutes. I did that to wait on instead of adjourn.
Unknown speaker
14:47
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unknown speaker
19:17
Thank you.
Okay, we'll come back into order.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
20:17
our tardy representative from the house Ms.
Vaught is here everybody's busy we're in the end run turn your mic on please I do greatly appreciate you taking a moment to let me get here I
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
20:38
was running from transportation, education we're trying to get the bills out and be fair to everybody thank you
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
20:43
sir, I appreciate it If you would recognize yourself.
Dan Vought. And what bill are
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
20:51
we working on? Dan Vought, District 87, and this is House Bill 1681.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
20:56
House Bill 1681. Yes, sir. And
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:59
Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. Okay. I'm
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
21:05
sorry, I'm on your side. Representative Vought, are you going to present? Yes, sir, I am.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
21:12
You're recognized to present. Thank you, sir. I want to start by saying water isn't a red issue, a blue issue, a north-south issue, a rich port issue.
Everyone in Arkansas deserves to have clean water. I've been working on this issue for right at six years trying to tackle this massive issue that we have. I want to thank my speaker and several of the reps and Senator Hester and Senator Josh Bryant for meeting with us regularly, trying to figure out a way, and even Senator Dismain, trying to figure out a way that we could begin to work on this issue in the state of Arkansas.
The speaker talked about every time he would go to a different town, a different city in the state of Arkansas, everywhere he went, the water issue was brought up. It wasn't just in rural Arkansas, it was also in, you know, our bigger metropolitan-type areas also. We have kicked this can down the road and kicked it down the road. I would agree with Senator Hickey, this should have been dealt with with cities and counties years ago.
But a couple sessions ago, we ran a bill that made them do rate increases that they should have already been doing to begin with, and I understand that. When we started looking at this four years ago, this was a $5 billion price tag. And that was in 2021, and the Department of Ag actually did that survey. That same Department of Ag, there's been no changes there, did that same survey and now we're at $9 billion plus in water and wastewater needs in Arkansas.
What happens if we just continue to kick the can down the road? We have schools that may not be able to meet. We have hospitals that might have to shut their doors. We have nursing homes that need clean water. The longer we kick it down the road, the bigger that price tag is going to get. If we stay on the same trajectory that we're on right now, crumpling water and sewer infrastructures in most of the state,
capacity challenges, stifling growth, because this is an economic development issue. I've got Tyson is not in my district but right next to my district in Nashville, and they have been trying to expand their plant there, and they can't because the water sewer will not hold up the capacity of what they need. Of course, the cost will continue to go out of reach for all of these towns and cities.
I have pictures sent to me all the time from some of my towns, water that's like in puddles on top of the ground from where they've tried to patch water lines and patch lines and patch lines, and they can't get them patched fast enough, and they're losing water. And then I get pictures from moms who's tried to fill a bathtub for their child to take a bath, and there's just dirt in that entire bathtub, and it's so sad because the water's not even clear.
It truly is dirt brown water. You can't bathe a baby, wash clothes, and there's only so much water you can boil and drink until it's time for us to say as a state, let's do what we've got to do to
help these areas fix their water. Again, this is not a rural issue or a city issue. It truly is all over the state
of Arkansas. What we've looked at is 50, no, we changed it, 25 million.
I'm sorry. Thank you, Representative Disnane, for helping me with an amendment that would be more palatable. And I appreciate your help with that. We were looking at 50 million, but we have dropped it to 25 million for three years. We were looking at 10 years, but we're going to do for three years. And at this point, I'm just glad we can come to a consensus where maybe we can get something going on this type of project for our state. So we did two different buckets, for lack of a better word to say, buckets of money.
One would be for your high population areas, and one would be for rural small areas. In that 80% for the big communities, that would be $1,200 plus, they would have to have matching, and projects must be shovel-ready. But for those very rural areas where they're not going to have the money to get shovel ready, they can't afford to hire someone to do engineering work, those would only have 20% of the funds.
But all projects must start within that first year. Again, the way we had this structured was this would not go ahead of anything or anybody, okay? So how we had it structured was there was already four things that were taken out of there. Highways would be one, and then there was a couple of other ones that were small ones, and we would go up underneath them. So it wouldn't be a guarantee of $25 million. It would be of what's left to go towards that.
So in some cases, that might be a million dollars. In some cases, that might be zero, just to be honest. So we decided to do this through ANRC, where the rules would be approved by ALC. And the reason we chose ARNC is because they already have this kind of set up and can go through these processes already without creating a new wheel. This would take no general funds at all.
The finance department is projecting a general revenue surplus of around $278.6 million at the end of this fiscal year. In 2025, this fiscal year of 2025, separately from that, we do have other surplus funds that we're not wanting to touch. We're just wanting interest off of, some interest off of that securities fund. Last year, the interest earnings were $368 million, where $285 million was swept into a catastrophic reserve fund because it was left over and unspent.
This fiscal year, we are at a pace for over $400 million in interest earnings. Even with this bill passing, we would have $250 million for the prisons at the end of this fiscal year. Again, we know that we don't need to get ahead of the prisons, and we understand that this is where the prison money would come from, but we would like to get some if there's any left over for that fiscal year. Again, this isn't a red-blue, north-south, east-west.
It truly is a state issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
29:05
you, Committee. I think Representative Bott described it very well. I think one of the reasons I was glad to support the bill and support working towards getting some sort of funding mechanism towards it is because as Act 605 came into play, these water authorities were doing everything they could to comply with the law, and they were doing great, and they were trying to balance the needs of the system and the maintenance of the system with what they thought the ratepayers could pay according to the
law, but to get over that hump, just to get an additional couple hundred thousand dollars to get over the hump to make some of those repairs were just insurmountable for some of our smaller communities, the larger communities that had money available, also just needing that little bump, and I think the program like this fits that bump very well. As far as the revenue source, we left it just any revenues allowed by law because there's still ongoing conversations on what is the best avenue to support those needs and the three years um 25 million a year or 75 million
all a lump request uh out of surplus those conversations are still being had and that's why the window from 10 years went to five years to adjust you know a year on the front end or a year on the back end just to make sure we have time to capture uh in essence what it would be a three year program but just to have a little flexibility of the window so with that we'd be glad to
Speaker 100
30:24
take questions yeah and i think you addressed some of it i had heard three years and it
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
30:29
is five no i forgot i'm sorry all right and this 25 million i don't see this in here now i see it
says the fund shall consist of any revenues authorized so this looks more like a budget bill to me but i understand it's already passed the house so maybe this is appropriate but yeah So where within this bill does it say we're going to put $25 million in it? It doesn't.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
30:58
old language. I'm sorry. It's my fault. All right. And we also made a comment about the catastrophic reserve on those monies being unspent.
Those monies are unspent because back whenever we were struggling to make sure that we had a triple-A bond rating and things to that to make sure that we were getting everything correctly. What we did is, by statute, we made that interest flow back into that fund so that it would grow. Yes, sir. And it's up to the $1.986 billion. Senator Dismay, if I'm wrong on that number, you correct me if you know it, but it's close to $2 billion. Now, have we already done legislation and I've missed it
so that we're going to redirect that interest? No, sir. Okay,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
31:43
so I was just given numbers of different funds.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
31:46
Unless somebody else here can tell me, is that our intent before this session is over? No, sir, not to my knowledge.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
31:52
I know you said Senator Dismang helped
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
31:55
you with the amendment here. I didn't know if that's – No, I misspoke. Okay.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
31:59
Well, and I'm not trying to misspeak either. I was just trying to give
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:03
numbers. Well, you're probably getting confused because we had the other bill also. And, of course, this is hard on me because you and I are friends, you're my rep.
I understand. Some of these places you're talking about are in Jimmy Hickey's district. That's right. But from my standpoint, we sit
here and talk about this stuff, and somebody might dispute me. Without the surplus that we've had last year and this year, this state
is not cash flowing. That's the way I see it. I've been screaming that. I'm going to continue to scream that. I'll have that conversation with whoever wants to. By saying that, I'm not saying that we're in any way, fashion, or whatever not physically solvent.
We have money sitting in every hole in a savings account, and that's by design. But from a cash flow standpoint, if you take what I call recurring expenses that should be an RSA that we're going to take out of the surplus, And, again, we determine what's recurring, obviously. We don't meet that right now. So are we for 100% going to try to fund this?
Normally, if we have something like this and we do this appropriation bill, then we all know that the funding, of course, is if somebody wants to come before ALC and we've got some additional funds that are sitting in a restricted reserve, Then at that point, AOC or whatever would have a vote. We'd have discussion and everything like that, kind of see where our fiscal years have ended, what all had happened. So I'm confused. Are we funding this with this bill?
We're going to have a funding source
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:52
set up? The anticipation is we will fund it. As far as how and what funding, that is still on the table because we wanted to make sure, with as many co-sponsors as I had, but still some struggles to... Which one was me. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I'm still struggling. We wanted to make sure that this program could survive. So in the negotiations, they start zero to $550 million, and where we landed on was something that a program that could succeed
and we could monitor through ALC and get reports annually on how these are using and then in general assemblies in the future they can see if the program is sustainable but in the interim we'll look to see how to best fund up to 75 million dollars for this program okay I'm fine with that but
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:44
I don't know who this we is because in the in the alc i don't see anything here that requires a vote of alc it's
just a report right and that's and that's my problem if we were just going to set this up as a regular regular deal and it's going to come before us to say nope we're we're going to be able to fund x dollars members you all know that we passed this we've ever got everything in place We've got the commission, you know, set up on how we're going to do this, rules in place, how the grant program's going to work. Do you want to do it? Then I'd be fine with that. But just to allow this out here without that is just something that personally I still can't – it's better.
I commend y'all for that. But as far as from – and I don't disagree with this water thing. It's a problem, and I do believe that, you know, sometimes that if we've got these, and a lot of them are in my district, so this is hard for me to say, but my loyalty is for the state as a whole and our money. I do believe those problems are in place, but I am very cautious of where we are with our cash flow, and I would prefer that I see that this comes before AOC and we have a vote of AOC.
to actually say that we're going to take it out of what particular account and how
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
36:19
we're going to do it. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Dismay,
do you have a question? I don't know if we're in discussion or if we're on the bill. I mean, I think I could provide some clarity about it. Number one, this is a statutory bill. It's not an appropriation. The setups of funds are not appropriation. They're funds, two separate things, 51% vote versus a 75% vote. So this is properly done the way that it should be done. so that's not in question.
Funding bills are 51% bills, whether it be RSA or the utilization of GAD or surplus or interest earnings or whatever it may be. Those are funding bills are 51% vote bills. There's multiple ways to do funding bills. Funding bills can directly fund something. We see that often. I would anticipate we'll see a direct funding for the School of the Deaf and Blind in the tune of about $35 million. And we will see other direct fundings. This could be a direct funding which, when we're talking about votes, would be voted by the legislators.
One of the things that I was apprehensive of in the bill as it was originally written, it funded itself immediately with a $50 million transfer. And if you look at the list and just do the vote count that's here, there was more than enough support in just sponsors alone to pass a 51% threshold. Fortunately, they were willing to have a conversation about that and reduce this back down to a funding bill so that then we can have one more conversation about what is the appropriate amount of surplus dollars or interest earnings, whatever it may be, to go into that.
I think everyone's aware that we are currently where we need to be with the catastrophic reserve balance. We also have a billion dollars, give or take, that's sitting in the Arkansas Reserve account. Those are both collecting interest, and to your point, a significant amount of interest, and it may even become more significant as time goes on, depending on what the Feds do in relation to interest rates. So there has been a discussion about what to do with those interest-earning dollars. This is, obviously, they brought it as part of the conversation because the way the bill was originally written,
they were tapping about $50 million out of interest earnings. So, again, this is a funding bill with how those funds are to be utilized and the specifics of that. with a little further in-depth of allowing the rule promulgation by the agency, where they need further details, which would also come to us in council for approval of those rules. But so that's, wouldn't you agree? I would agree. Okay. Thank you. Senator Hickey?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:49
I appreciate the rules. The problem is, is I know the rules are supposed to align with the
statute, and I would prefer to see that that vote would come before AOC. I 100% agree with Senator Disemang as far as capital projects. The school of death, the blind, that's an appropriate use for one-time capital money. This bill here specifically says it's five years. Five years on that is not a one-time capital outlay. That's a multiple recurring expense.
And so that's where I get hung up with. Senator Disemang and I are 100% in agreement on these capital projects. that are, you know, one-time funds. In my opinion, that's what I think those are supposed to be for. You know, we have RSA, we have our recurring expenses, be it whatever, education, DHS, things to that nature. But whenever you get to capital projects, I would just like to say, well, if we do have a surplus,
that those monies that are in surplus, we say that if we have $75 or $100 or $150 million and we want to do the state crime lab, as we've done in the past, we park that money in a restricted reserve account, and then we have it. But to just say this ongoing thing, you know, based upon, you know, something that's not going to be brought before the body, I just personally can't get there on that. But I do appreciate the explanation by Senator Dissemang on the funding part,
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
40:23
or the way the accounts are set up. Senator Kroll? somebody help me understand i understand i think i understand what you're saying but no matter what they can't get money unless there's a 51 percent vote somewhere in with the legislators that's i'm just trying to i understand it's not in here i get where you're coming from but no matter what the money if we're going to give them 10 million 12 million
13 million 25 million some we have to have a 51 percent vote somewhere so i guess my thing is is i agree with him on the us the thing of okay where where's that vote going to be and i agree with you that it's got to be a 51 percent vote give me clarity where that vote's going to happen and that's all i need uh in
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
41:19
in order to utilize any of the surplus funds so essentially jd those other accounts are locked down no one can touch those without a vote of the legislature and we
determine how to utilize those funds and that vote is a 51 percent vote so again if we want to direct it specifically to a project or specifically to an account or specifically to a restricted reserve account we can there is the restricted reserve accounts are new this has not been the policy of the state for a long period of time. In fact, they really came about whenever general improvement funds went away. So it was a way for the legislature to have a say in what was happening
with funds that were unallocated for any specific project, or even potentially, but not always, because we do direct fund many things that don't go through restricted reserve accounts first. But it would allow us to have one more say if a project was not mature enough, or for instance, didn't have a bill that backed it with the potential for rural promulgation that we were waiting on. So that's what we have, in the last several sessions, used restricted reserve accounts for. But that is not something that's mandatory.
And at the end of the day, for any of these monies to be released, we will have to vote on it before we leave this session. And if we don't, yeah,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:50
that's correct. Any other questions, committee? there just just one since I assume we know what we're already going to do here are we looking to just fund this a year at a time are we looking to try are we
looking to go ahead and put a certain dollar amount in that's going to that's going to cover the whole five years in this particular session out of surplus out of these interest funds that again I don't I don't know if that's what's going to happen because that's a that's a new one to me the only now i know i tried to run special language on the prison and the appropriation because of conversations that i had and i do agree we don't really need that money going in there anymore personally i thought that we you know need to be very careful that we have that as additional cash flow uh just for for things that
may may happen to first in the beginning but is it is it
the intent that we're going to just fund a year here or are we going to try to go ahead and fund the whole five years at this time before the session's over because i can't tell i can try yeah that is not determined at this
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
43:56
point do we go ahead and allocate 75 million on the front end do we do i mean because again the general understanding and the reason it's three years is because you may not be able to spend three years
worth of monies in the period if projects aren't where they need to be. And so that's why it says a five-year project or period. But the reason, I mean, kind of the general conversation was not doing this 10-year, 50 million, but somewhere in the $25 million range over a three-year period is the goal. Where those dollars come from exactly, ultimately, that will be up to the legislative body as a whole by the majority of the legislative body. Committee, any other questions?
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
44:40
We have some people signed up to speak for the bill. If y'all would step away from the end of the table, please. Daniel Dawson. Are all three of you going to speak on the same? I know you're from the same organization, Heath Ward. Are y'all going to speak the same subject matter? That's fine. Should I bring all three at one time or one at a time is my question? Very good.
If you would turn your microphone on, please, and identify yourself. Committee, let's go back.
Again, we've got a full crowd in all session. We've been doing three minutes per testimony. Is that the will of the committee? So moved. Second. All in favor, say aye. Mr. Dawson, you have three minutes to present,
Speaker 133
45:35
and then we'll ask questions. All right. Well, thank you all very
Speaker 134
45:40
much for allowing me to speak. And I appreciate Representative Vaught presenting the information about the bill.
She did a very comprehensive job. Please take your name for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Daniel Dawson with Searcy Water Utilities. I'm general manager there. One of the first things she said in her comments was in 2021, the Department of Agriculture did a survey of all water systems and wastewater systems in the state, and the needs at that time were five billion. But then just three years later in 2024, they did the same survey and it was nine billion. And it begs the question, why the difference?
Why did it go up so much? And perhaps there's three things. One thing could be inflation. And we all know there was some inflation during those three years, but that's not the whole story. Another thing is data capture. I know as a manager of a water system, sometimes I get these emails for surveys from state agencies and, you know, I had things to do before I got the survey and time goes by and suddenly the deadline has gone by and I don't have it filled out. But maybe by 2024, more of us were able to fill out the survey.
But I think probably one of the biggest things is just what's happened to construction costs during that period of time. If you tried to build a house or build anything using lumber or steel or whatever during that period of time, we all know the costs have increased significantly. As an example, in 2021 we had a project at our wastewater plant that in concept was about a million dollar project. It was essentially just replacing a piece of equipment. Well, by the time we let our engineers scope it out, and of course, they increased the scope, added a pump station, whatever, that engineering estimate went from one million
to four million dollars. That's when we bid it. When the bids came in we had one bid and it was for 5.6 million dollars. We didn't have the option of not doing the project so we had to go ahead and just and fund it. We accepted the bid and fortunately it was a good contractor and we went on. That's just an indicative of what's happened to construction costs. In our industry a lot of Our equipment is very specialized, it's very expensive to purchase, it's expensive to maintain,
and it's expensive to replace it. And that's just the nature of the game. Our people do a very good job of maintaining the equipment, kind of like firemen in their firetrucks, but you reach the end of the useful life and you go past the end of that useful life and it's time to replace it and suddenly you spend a lot of money. Well, as one of my board members said a long time ago, in our industry, we don't have $100 repairs.
We don't have $1,000 repairs. We have $100,000 repairs. And this kind of funding would go a long way to help, especially smaller systems in our state. Will Searcy benefit? I don't know. We'll certainly apply. Time's up. I do
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
48:42
want to add to your comment about construction costs. Part of this has been caused by the ARPA program under the Biden administration. The cost of laying water lines went from $16 a foot to $68 a foot.
Two years ago, last week, a tornado hit wind, hit our sewer plant. In December of that year, they had it appraised and reinsured. And then the tornado hit, and it went from $9 million to $32 million. So your concerns are very on track. just let you know. Committed, do you have a question, Mr. Dawson? Seeing none, thank
you for your testimony. Thank you. Michael Clayton? Mr. Clayton, your microphone is on if you
would introduce yourself for the record
and you're recognized. No, you turned it off.
Michael Clayton
Unverified
49:37
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Michael Clayton. I'm the Executive Director for North Little Rock Wastewater, we serve the Maumelle, Sherwood, and North Little Rock in parts of North Plasky County, and we only do wastewater side of things. Now, a few years ago, there was a batch of funds for an American Rescue Plan that came to the state for infrastructure, and at the time, it could be used for water
or wastewater or broadband, and if I remember correctly, I don't remember the numbers, But the broadband took a high priority at the time. And so wastewater industry, we had to take a back seat, I believe, on trying to move forward with our needs and our projects. At that time, shortly after that, another round of American Rescue Plan monies came out, which flooded the state of Arkansas and among other states. Every state in the country was flooded with what I call the American Rescue Plan funds,
which created the inflationary pressures with contractors. You cannot find the contractors to do the size of the work that we need in Arkansas. So what we have in our system is a wastewater system. They're aging facilities. It's a decaying system, and we tried to stay ahead of it with our rates to invest back into it in the form of rehabilitation, pipeline replacement, pump stations, and treatment plants. Now, the reason I'm bringing all this up, I really do appreciate the work that legislation you guys are doing
to try to help us with a portion to fund our needs here, even though the needs are quite much more than what you're able to fund at this point. But every little drop in the bucket actually helps some of these entities, And it will help us if we are eligible for some of these funds as the rules come back through there. But I do want to tell you, I'm very much in support of this bill, and I think it's fair. And originally it was a $50 million, which you could leverage $90 million out of that.
Now, I guess it's about $45 million now that's being leveraged using the $25 million approach, if I understand that correctly. And we support the bill, and I don't want to ramble on beyond that, but I'd be glad to answer any questions. But I do thank you very much for the efforts you guys are putting for us. Committee, do you want to have a question? Thank
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
52:08
you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Heath Ward.
Excuse me. Pull it, too. Just pull the bass, too. Got it. Thank you. Introduce yourself for the rest. We'll get in
Speaker 142
52:23
a fight with it. I'm Heath Ward. I'm the Executive Director of Springdale Water Utilities. I'm also the Legislative Chair for the Arkansas Water and Wastewater Managers Association and just would like to tell the committee the association fully supports this bill.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
52:35
Thank you. Questions from anyone on the committee? Thank you very much.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this bill?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
52:48
Senator Wright? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Again, I think back to testimony
of Representative Vought and myself, Act 605 did great things. There's one being considered now in city, county, local to do that for wastewater, just to make sure our rate payers are paying for the adequate needs of the system and looking on forward to the system. I think this is a great bill for a stopgap measure just to help the smaller communities out and other communities to get over those hurdles as those laws play into a long-term effect.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
53:20
So with that, I'm close for the bill. Thank you. Will the committee? Motion to pass. Senator
Speaker 47
53:29
Gilmore? Second. Discussion? Senator Hickey? I'm going to vote against this. Now, I may, heavy on the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
53:35
may, I may vote for the funding mechanism because if I knew exactly what I would assume that I keep hearing this $25 million number or whatever, nothing's in the bill. It's my understanding of what Senator Dismang has already testified in here that that's not been decided.
You know, if I had the specifics of that, then, you know, I possibly could get on. So whenever we get into session and we look at all this and we see how much is
coming out of our general allotment reserve account, what our intentions are with some of our other needs and how this is going to work in with our forecast for this fiscal year, then, you know, I may or may not vote for the funding part. So I want to go on record and say that, that just because I'm
going to vote no here, If I agree with the way it's funding and I think that we could do it within this fiscal year,
maybe a year at a time, I possibly could
be on. So a lot of my apprehension right here is because I don't know what the specifics are of what we're going to plan on doing, and I just don't like going forward with things like that just based on a whim. Thank you. Any other discussion? Senator Dismang?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
54:46
I guess to the committee members, I mean, there's only two of us that aren't sponsors
of this bill. It was originally drafted for $50 million for 10 years and with more than enough votes to pass both the bill and the funding.
And so, again, we look forward to working with you as we figure out what the proper amount is based on everything else that we have going
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
55:08
on. Anyone else? If not, we have a motion and second for do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Bill passes. congratulations. Okay, Senator
King, are you in a room? No. Senator Desminge, you want to run your bill?
Senator, we're doing Senate Bill 466. What's that? Senate Bill
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
55:59
466. Members, we heard a full discussion, debate on this bill the other day. I had some folks in my district and neighboring districts that asked me to give it one more shot, so I agreed to do that here today. I'd be happy to take
any questions on the bill. This is the moratorium allowing for a study to take place before additional windmills could be constructed,
but it does allow for those that are in process, including full farms, to continue being built. Question from the committee?
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
56:34
When you say in process, what stage would that be of beginning? As soon
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
56:38
as they turn dirt. That's the way the
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
56:40
bill reads. turn dirt okay so if they'd sign leases and turn dirt that those would
be stopped that that's correct okay just for clarification no question from committee members we have several people
If you would turn your microphone on. Introduce yourself.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
57:10
Good morning, Chairman and committee. My name is Simon Mahan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We're a trade association of large-scale renewable developers including wind farms, solar facilities, transmission facilities, batteries. We're based here in Little Rock. My family and I live here in Little Rock. We work throughout the southeast from Arkansas all the way over to Georgia where we have a number of solar and wind projects that are currently underway. Y'all heard me a couple days ago on wind energy. I'll do my best not to
belabor it. A wind farm can bring somewhere between $200 million to $300 million worth of investment into a local community. That will include millions of dollars of local land lease payments to the private property owners who are voluntarily leasing their land to be used how they so see fit. We mentioned previously Texas and North Dakota, they tend to get about 40% of their electricity from wind energy on an annual basis, and both of those states are really well
known as popular duck hunting areas, and so we firmly believe that waterfowl and wind energy can coexist between the industries and the recreational use. One of the things in this study I mentioned, or in this bill that I mentioned beforehand, we're not afraid of a study. We think a study could be helpful. There is scant evidence showing that waterfowl populations are harmed from wind turbines. I think most folks agree it's not about killing the ducks, it's about where the
ducks are relocating. And from the studies I've read, we're talking about the ducks are avoiding the wind turbines maybe hundreds of feet, not miles. So they see the turbines, they move nearby to avoid them. One final thought here is if we are going to study the impacts of waterfowl and raptors on wind turbines, we may want to consider opening up that study to all energy sources because similarly there are scant studies regarding all other energy resources
on the impacts of waterfowl and on raptors. And with that, I'm available for questions. question for anyone thank you very much
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:32
thank you good no one else has signed up anyone else in the audience we should speak for against Senator Disman would you like to close thank you Mr.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
59:47
Chairman members again I think this is just as important of a bill today as it was earlier
this week I think if we do not take action and wait for two years we have the
possibility of forever altering uh essentially duck habitat in arkansas and i think that would be the detriment of the state uh it's something that we're known for in fact if i would go see another legislator as far as out as california they would ask about stuttgart arkansas because they knew about our duck hunting and and the risk that this poses and i and i would agree i don't think it's scant evidence i think the only evidence out there shows that it does have an impact With that, I would appreciate a good vote. Motion do pass.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:00:31
Second. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. No. Motion fails. Roll call. Call the
Speaker 161
1:00:43
roll. Senator Dismang? Aye. Senator Dismang, yes. Senator Hickey? No. Senator Hickey, no. Senator Letting? No. Senator Letting, no. Senator Gilmore? Yes. Senator Gilmore, yes. Senator Kroll? Senator Kroll, not voting. Senator Scott?
Senator Scott? Senator Stone? Aye. Senator Stone, yes. Motion fails. We're adjourned. Oh, excuse me. No, we're
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:01:13
not. No, we're not. No, we're not. Time out. I messed up. Senator Bryant has got someone else's name on the
agenda, and I did not see them. - Senator Bryant, please tell me. - House Bill 1889, Mr. Chair.
- House Bill 1889, I almost messed up.
Senator Bryant, if your mic is on, introduce
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:01:41
yourself again. - Joshua Bryant,
Senate District 32. I will be as brief as I can on 1889. This is a patient-focused modernization bill for our Arkansas Medical Marijuana Program. It really does three things. It adds invitation-only tours of dispensaries for the stakeholders. It authorizes the use of a drive-through window for dispensing pre-ordered marijuana, similar to our pharmacy models.
And it reduces the delivery driver requirements from two to one, as long as the vehicle's equipped to GPS tracking and security protocols. So to unpack those just a little bit, currently the legislature and other parties if through invitation only can tour cultivators. And that is a program that's been wildly successful as we try to see further what these industries are doing and how to make them part of the policymaking process. This would just open that up into dispensaries.
It increases transparency for our stakeholders, allowing local leaders and regulators and legislators to tour these controlled, documented conditions. The second thing that it improves is patient access. Medical marijuana patients are typically elderly, disabled, mobility impaired, and entering a dispensary can sometimes be challenging. During the COVID era, we were able to extend that to allow dispensaries to hand through a drive-through window as long as it was pre-ordered and prescription-based, obviously.
And what this would do is allow that model to be installed back into those facilities that can accommodate this. Lastly, it modernizes the delivery regulations without compromising safety. Currently, the law requires that two employees of the dispensary be present and available as they go deliver. Obviously, that in and of itself may have just the conflict of having accomplice, I would say. I'm not saying that that happens. It's very well regulated and monitored with ATC or ABC.
But what this would allow, as long as there's security protocols in place with the GPS, that you could have one employee make those deliveries to the address of a record or the address of the physical where the cardholder is. So that is what the bill does, and I'll be glad to take any questions. Senator
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:04:05
Krook. I mean, excuse me, Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The hairstyle got me. Well, you know, not every
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:04:12
day you get confused with a good-looking guy like Senator Crawford.
Moving right along with that. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. You know, we've had a lot of conversation down here about delivery of,
you know, alcohol and other things. One of the things that I think we always try to do or have talked about, at least, with that is making sure we know who we're delivering to. So is that accounted for in the bill? I may have overlooked it.
Is it going – does the person receiving it have to be the person who had ordered it with the card present? It can't be a 12-year-old or, you know, another spouse, family
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:05:03
member, or whatever. With the chair's permission, I'd like the ATC coming to address specifically that
Speaker 173
1:05:14
question. Thank you. David Potter. Turn your mic on. Sorry, sir. Thank you. Uh, David Potter
Speaker 174
1:05:18
enforcement division. Uh, yes, they have to, uh, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:05:24
Uh, it was my question. Do they have to present it or deliver it to the person, the card holder or the person that ordered the product? They have to,
Speaker 177
1:05:34
uh, fill it out the application online.
Speaker 174
1:05:37
It has to be delivered to the patient or the patient's caregiver. And they have to verify identity for that. That is tracked through our system. Okay. And they being the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:05:47
person that ordered? Yes. The person that orders has to be the one that receives it. Okay. So there's no chance at all that this will be dropped off on somebody's doorstep or handed to somebody
Speaker 174
1:05:58
else? No, sir. No, sir. There's no chance. And you're confident of that? I'm very confident of As far as how we regulate this, we watch the purchases. I've got a whole staff that does that. So,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:06:09
yes, sir. And the same is true when they drive through a window, as would
Speaker 174
1:06:13
be allowable in this. So when they drive through the window, correct, they would have to provide that product to the registered caregiver or to the patient directly. And that was when they brought us this bill originally. That was one of our concerns that we expressed. We did not want that to be delivered to the driver who was not a patient or the caregiver for that product.
Speaker 182
1:06:31
And we've addressed those. Okay. Thank you. I may have a
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:06:39
follow-up. So on the drive-thrus, are we making sure that they don't get confused? Because, I mean, there's people like Senator Gilmore and I that look a lot
Speaker 176
1:06:49
alike. We got that taken care of. Yes, sir. They have to verify it, and that's in our rules now,
Speaker 174
1:06:54
that they have to actually physically verify that that is the patient. And when the patient makes the orders, the way that it works now is they're entering their RIC card,
the registry identification card, it hits their allotment to ensure that they have available allotment and then that employee, the dispensary verifies that that is the person through identification. That's how it's supposed to work now.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:07:13
So when you say it's in your rules now, I'm looking through it. I read the bill earlier, but I'm looking through it again. I don't see it stated in
Speaker 174
1:07:25
the bill, but it is in rule. Yes. So that
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:07:28
they verify the identity of the person. Yes, sir. It is. Okay. we're adding we're adding all of these sections via uh regarding delivery that i don't is that
Speaker 174
1:07:38
so so dispensaries are currently delivering now we've currently i checked this morning we've got 14 dispensaries that are actually delivering and there's restrictions on where they can deliver as
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:07:51
well but the difference in what we do now what he wants to do is that we send two people today and you only want to send one? That's correct, sir. Yes, it's just a minimization of one
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:08:03
person. One with additional security protocols like GPS tracking and other measures.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:08:09
So when you say they're delivering now, is that allowable by rule or is that they're just doing it because it doesn't explicitly state
Speaker 174
1:08:17
otherwise? No, it is allowed by rule, and they cannot deliver to a hotel, a dorm, anything like that. It has to be an actual residence. A residence is defined in there. And again, they have to provide it to the person who ordered it, the patient, and they have to verify the patient's identity upon delivering. And so, yes, we have two people delivering it now, both of which have to have a registry identification card for that facility as well.
And then they also enter all of that information into our tracking system where we know what vehicle that they're delivering with. There's rules on the vehicles, how they can appear, and those things.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:08:58
Okay. Speedy, any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here who wishes to speak
Speaker 193
1:09:09
for this bill? I'm Bill Paschal. I'm here as the Executive Director of the Arkansas Cannabis Industry Association.
I just want to add a little more color to your questions. The delivery right now, it costs dispensaries somewhere between $50,000 and $70,000 dollars to keep a driver on you multiply that by two obviously it's over 100 grand so it's a big expense for a small business and we think that by reducing that to one we can still efficiently deliver but drive down the cost for that dispensary and as senator bryant said we're requiring other
safety measures gps or other electronic devices so but it's an it's a it's a hefty expense so and just just make sure
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:09:57
i'm clear so right now it's two and this would be going to one yes sir that's all with with other yes sir that's
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:10:10
in the audience thank you committee or against Seeing none, Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:10:19
you, committee. With that, I'll close for the bill.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:10:24
Motion do pass. Second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. Roll call. Senator
Speaker 161
1:10:44
Dismang? Aye. Senator Dismang, yes. Senator Hickey? No. Senator Hickey, no. Senator Letting? Aye. Senator Letting, yes. Senator Gilmore? No. Senator Gilmore, no.
Senator Kroll? Senator Kroll? Senator Scott? Yes. Senator Scott, yes. Senator Stone? No. Senator Stone, no. The bill does not pass. All right. Thank you, committee. Is there anyone else here who wishes to
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:11:12
run a bill before I get in a hurry? I didn't mean to do that a while ago. Seeing none, we are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM.
HB1681 Vaught TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM; TO TRANSFER FUNDING FROM THE SECURITIES RESERVE FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB563 Irvin TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST AN EQUINE; AND TO ALLOW A BODY CONDITION SCORE TO BE USED FOR AN EQUINE UNDER THE OFFENSE OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Recess
Reconvene
SB466 Dismang TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION TO STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1889 TO AMEND THE LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS TO A DISPENSARY OR CULTIVATION FACILITY; AND TO AUTHORIZE A DISPENSARY TO DELIVER ORDERS VIA A DELIVERY VEHICLE OR VIA A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - SENATE, Apr 3, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 31
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 41
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 56
Speaker 64
Speaker 77
Speaker 81
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 105
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Michael Clayton
Unverified
Speaker 142
Speaker 47
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Speaker 161
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 173
Speaker 174
Speaker 177
Speaker 182
Speaker 176
Speaker 193
Speaker 195