Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB492
Act 699
· 7 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB492 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELOCATION OF UTI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELOCATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB492 is now Act 699 |
|
HB1606
Act 922
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1606 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERAT…”
|
TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON … | Steimel | Notification that HB1606 is now Act 922 |
|
HB1666
Act 656
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1666 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUNDED CYBER RESPONSE PROGRAM. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1666 is now Act 656 |
|
HB1688
Act 710
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1688 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEA…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEALER'S EXTRA LICENSE PLATE. | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1688 is now Act 710 |
|
SB258
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB258 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY, SAF…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY, SAFETY, AND TRUST ACT. | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB330
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB330 J. Scott TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL; … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB447
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FETY, AND TRUST ACT. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB447 J. Petty TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REP…”
|
TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING SHIPMENTS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO THE … | J. Petty | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB478
Act 738
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB478 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDOM ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE ENFORCEMENT … | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB478 is now Act 738 |
|
SB496
Act 700
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB496 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITS FOR SPECIAL CA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITS FOR SPECIAL CARGOES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Caldwell | Notification that SB496 is now Act 700 |
|
SB540
Act 702
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IAL CARGO TRANSPORTED BY A FARM MACHINERY EQUIPMENT HAULER. SB540 M. Johnson TO LIMIT THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A DRIVE…”
|
TO LIMIT THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS ON … | M. Johnson | Notification that SB540 is now Act 702 |
|
SB541
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB541 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE OF A VEHICLE, IMPLEMENT, OR PIECE … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB96
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB96 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL REGIONAL … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB561
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 03/31/25 @ 2:45PM) Added SB561 Senate Committee on Transportation, Technology, and Legisla…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY PREPRINTED PAPER BUYER'S TAG IN CERTAIN … | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
0:16
I just want to make sure everyone's aware of that, so we'll go through every everything as fast as we can. We're going to start with Senator Bryant and SB 492. And he has an amendment. And anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against these bills, you will have 2 minutes and Ms. Jessica will be the timekeeper over here, so we're going to kind of make this thing go, go fast. I think we all pretty much know where everyone stands. uh.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:51
Senator Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, the amendment that's being passed out,
um, is just some changes that were requested by different stakeholders as part of the bill as far as accommodating some of their asks, communications to be expanded to include limiting without limitation cable services and broadband service just to expand the definition, the railroad wanted to be excluded as a definition of utility. We thought it did go
that that way, but they wanted to further expanded a couple of clerical. issues and then the bulk of it was providing a notice for utility on the withholder of a permit application and then a 30 day cure period as well, if a, if a permit being withheld is a um Used in the in an effort to get the utility to Accomplish its mission. So that's the goal of the amendment, and with that I
would like to make a motion to pass
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:52
the minute. a motion in a second, any discussion. Although in favor say a post same sign. The
amendment passed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. committee. SB 492
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:08
as amended. That's 42 as amended. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. I'm gonna try to as briefly go back for some context Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. Back for some context, back
in March of 2023. I was approached by some constituents throughout North, Arkansas, obviously being a growing area. about some issues completing projects, specifically our do projects due to um utilities holding up progress in projects, and that really was the impact to the construction companies that were delayed in the project that we're having to remobilize, um, but ultimately, what I What I really was trying to make
the case for is it it's the cost of the taxpayer and the cost of the commuter of the time of the delays of these projects, so I started to research a little bit with our dot about reasons for these delays and reasons for these issues, and I was approached by Representative Lanny Fight, who back in last session. Uh was going to run a bill. He never filed the bill because session was ending and so he handed it off to me and said, good luck on this fight because it was going to be a fight and I
would say I would, you know, by the commitment to the audience, I would say this is a very important topic to our stakeholders, a very important topic to the state of Arkansas to make sure these projects move forward in an efficient process and make sure they move forward in a fiscally responsible process. So I went to R dot summer of 2023 and proposed the option of them going to rule, and the rule I pulled up was still on our website. It's dated back from
summer of 2010. Prior to that, various iterations dating back all the way back to the 70s, was still being implemented by the rule. And so my ask to them was, can we accommodate some of these by rule and what the the brief scenario is, it's difficult. Because the stakeholders and the relationships are so they were, they were strained and they were critical to keep intact because the ourdot did not want to upset the utility because they, you know, you can't go contract
somebody else to do their work. And the utility was critical to ourdo because Ardo controls a lot of their permitting processes for working in the right of way. And so that was 2023, summer of 2024, I asked for an update. There was really no movement on it again because of the issues. I asked R dot um that I stated I was going to make this a legislative priority because I think it's it's beneficial to the taxpayer and beneficial to the commuter to make sure these issues get addressed. If there are issues, and what I found is
there's issues and processes. The way things have always been done weren't getting it done. And so December of 2024, uh, the stakehold ers were gathered for a meeting at our. I attended along with Senator Hester and Representative Lindstrom, and we laid out what would be potentially a bill for this legislative session that was not met with a whole lot of joy from the utility community. And I'm not excusing our dot at all uh, for any type of liability for the issues and the processes
that they implemented and have implemented over time, and I don't excuse utility for not attempting to work through those processes as well. I think both sides have equally Equal blame in the situation and not fault, but, but blame and trying to move forward this process. So the bill that RA proposed that was not well received. I heard utilities very loud and clear, um, on a separate sideline meeting. And I said, well, you tell me what you would
like to see in this bill. Go sit off by yourselves and tell me what you would see, and they brought back a proposal that as I went through waiting to see what I would object to. What I found is I objected to very little of the bill. I sat down with RAC. They objected very little. Now there were certain nuances. that we just could not overcome. They wanted ourdot to buy the right of way for their purposes and that's just a a hill that's really too high to climb both constitutionally and trying to understand that process of what that would look like. Um,
are one of the ability to possibly do the work for the utility again, utility that's too high of a hill to climb because who's qualified to do that? So ultimately what we landed on was implementing an agreeable bill to both parties into the processes of which you see the bill that here today. It, it establishes both A statute requirement and then a rule requirement to make sure that parties meet on the same
playing field and understand the longevity of the project, the scope of the project, the needs of the project, the timelines of the projects, the budget of the projects, things that were probably attempted to do and process. But we're not being achieved throughout the life of the project. And therefore, who was caught in the middle, not only was the contractor but was also the taxpayer and the commuter. So Just to just to identify a few portions of the bill.
Beginning on page 3, really at the bottom when negotiating a relocation agreement, the department shall in the first Several lines halfway through the page. It talks about what the what the what the department will do. They will clearly identify known utilities. They were clearly identify their proposed right away timelines. They were clearly coordinate relocation agreement for the work to be formed by utilities. They will include the schedule
for the relocation. They do all this work before they sit down with the utility and then ask for the utility to come back with an answer about a reasonable schedules for completion. every location, final dates when they could begin, when they when they expect to complete and then to submit a monthly progress report. That same type of language is also implemented within the rule. So in the rule that will be promulgated. There's guidelines for what to do, and then of course they can obviously expand that rule as they go through the
rulemaking process. Again, identifying the scope, proposing the arrangements for relocation, identifying right of way a deadline, a process of creation. A plan for a relocation. All these things that should be happening are now going to be placed into not only statute but also into rule. Additionally, in rule to point out the last couple of things prior to going in to where the tension of the bill arises and what this committee will need to decide or the the deadlines for completion or relocation, and
then the last page, page 10 lines 3A, the rules for relocation agreement shall include that relocation agreement may be modified if skipping the, the II either party requests a modifications or relocation agreement and the modification agreement shall be. documented in writing, including updated timelines, costs, and other relevant terms and be approved by both parties. So if you capture the scope of the bill, it is, we're going to establish procedures, timelines, costs, processes.
The tension of the bill lies with what happens when the utility fails to meet their expectations. Or what happens when our doc fails to meet the expectations. I think the bill addresses that in the sense of there's a 30 day progress report, monthly progress report, um, RDA is implemented on on certain projects, head to head meetings with department heads and contract heads to talk about specific issues going on with the project. But what happens if At the end of the day, the
utility fails to do what they agreed to do in writing prior months if not years prior to getting to this point. They did not communicate that to the stakeholders. They did not communicate that to the contractor. They did not communicate that to um Really the, the, the, the taxpayer, which is who's controlling, trying to attempt to control the cost. The provision of the bill is that our dot will have two main abilities. And you can find that on page.
If I can find it. Page 5. Page 5, beginning at lines. 8 If a utility other than a municipal utility system fails to follow the process established in the utility accommodation of rules or the relocation agreement to complete the relocation within a time period stated in the agreement. Again, that agreement is thoroughly processed and vetted. Like there's and plenty of outs, plenty of I couldn't acquire this. I couldn't do that monthly
report. I'm going to fail to meet this deadline. We need to update the timelines. What that, what we will do is be in last 12. We will give the department the ability to withhold. Approval of a permit application for utility work occurring on the right of way of the department or the commission by a utility except for permits requiring to address emergency. So what that means in context is that they already have the permits for the job they're on. They're expected to get the work completed, but if there's another project going on in the state that requires them access in the right of way of the commissioner Ardot. They have
the ability, doesn't mean they'll use it every time. Their intent will be an egregious issue that they need to get the utility's attention. But they have the ability to withhold that permit until they have resolution on the work being uphill because we have timelines in the past that have been upheld or been held up by months if not years waiting for progress to go at a cost to the taxpayer at a cost to the contractor that assigned to the work. And the second was to assess and
collect from utility a civil penalty under subsection E for their failure to comply. That's $500 a day. It goes into the fund that is used to accommodate other utility relocations. Utilities didn't have really a problem with that. They even said we can probably up the cost. The problem I, the reason I want this committee to review the withholding of permits because I, I think I'm over the target by the amount of fire that it's taking. That is really got their attention to say that we, we have to do better. I mean
business by what we're going to do if a utility fails to comply after a months long. long, if not years long process to get them to be on time, on target, and if they're not, just let the department know so they can accommodate and move the appropriate resources or make things happen differently. So with that, with the chair's permission, I'd like to move to have our dot come up here to address any questions or concerns and let them give brief brief statement. That'll be fine, but while they're on their way up here, I do want to
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
13:21
address one thing that you said, you made a comment that you started meeting with them in 23, again in 24, and there was very little differences. That very little differences between all the sides when you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
13:35
started coming together. Yes, yeah, I mean, we started kind of far apart, but we moved back
you'll you'll see that the contention is what I just discussed, which is the withholding of the permits that is, that is hard, a hard nugget to swallow by the utilities. I think it's a critical piece of
the puzzle, um, and I would like for the director of RAT and his legal counsel
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
13:58
to explain for the bill or are they speaking on the bill, or are they going to be
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:04
here to take questions? Which way are you? and take questions. They're obviously for the bill, but again, it's a delicate balance with the utilities and our. Blitzer. Jared Wiley, director of
Speaker 31
14:15
Ardot, and Senator Bryant that summed the issue up very well from our perspective. I just wanted to reiterate that
this process is complicated and complex, and, if you would pull that mic closer to you bet. Is that better? Yes, and it's a complex process that we go through to get projects ready to go to construction. Utility relocation is the last piece of the puzzle typically before we were able to build a road or relocate a bridge or reconstruct the bridge. Um, to, to wait until all right away is is acquired before utilities begin their work, that would add probably another 6
months to a year to our project development process and so we would be opposed to that, but the process is complex. Like I said, and it is about certainty for the taxpayers, certainty for the traveling public, the shorter duration that our work zones are out there on the highways, the safer it is for our drivers, and we want to make sure we mention that today. Um, but, uh, with that, I'll, I'll close my comments and take any questions you have. Good evening, Michelle Davenport. I'm chief counsel
Speaker 33
15:26
with RAT. I just want to speak very briefly to some of the things that Ardot did look at for rulemaking in this area and some of the actions that Ardot had taken to work with Senator Bryant to resolve some of these issues, including the creation of a new position, which is a utility relocation coordinator. He works directly between the department and they're inspecting out on the job because we had some problems with utilities being located in incorrect. locations in consistent plans. So we have someone now on the
ground in each of our districts who works directly with the utilities, and that was something that Ardot was able to do within our own rules and within our own processes to try to make that process more collaborative and work better with the utility systems in the bill, you will see and we worked with all the stakeholders that we knew we could. You'll see that municipal utilities came to Senator Bryant with the proposal that they actually liked the provision. where the department could step in and assist them in moving their uh utilities if they ran
into conflicts and problems, and that's something that Ardo was absolutely willing to do. That was on the table for all utilities if they wish to go that route. The utilities said they were not comfortable with that, so that's why it was originally removed. The municipalities ask us to put that back in to them. Uh, specifically. The other provision that was eliminated from one of the early proposals that had been discussed was a private right of action that if a contractor was damaged in the process of a utility not relocating based on the schedule
that they provided that the uh separate uh contractor would have a right of action back against the utility again. We saw some potential problems with that, and we were happy to remove that in coordination with the utilities and a good faith effort of trying to come to the best proposal. With regard to one of the primary issues here and that's the holding of permits. I think that's something that has been slightly lost in this discussion. Of course this is actions that are recurring on state property. So that is why we have a permit to begin with
is these are actions and activities that are occurring with the property of the state and so the review and the withholding of that permit is actually something that's within the normal course of what a state agency does is they look at the processes and The permits that are out there and how they're going to move those forward. We felt like that was a very simple way to make sure everybody was coming to the table. That has been one of the issues that we identified when we did a very widespread look at the problems that we were facing
with utility relocation, and one of those problems was getting everybody to the table to discuss things early on in the process, and we felt that this would be a mechanism that we could make sure that was happening effectively, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. of the technical
Speaker 36
18:17
nature on the bill. A question from the
Speaker 38
18:21
committee. Was de Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we, will you help me with the most common real
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
18:28
example of where this happens. So is this, is
this a um a state highway expansion situation. It's a two lane. It's going to a 3 or 4 lane, and there's already utilities there, or is this new development in their, their contracting or permitting um utilities that that aren't there yet. We
kind of walk through some of those situations maybe first. I would say Senator,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:52
I think the most common is the expansion or improvements of an existing road, so like in our area 112 is going to be a major project Fayetteville to Bentonville, huge undertaking. I mean, it
goes through decades of growth of K Springs, elm Springs, and so that would
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
19:10
be one in that example, there's power lines going down the road currently
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
19:14
we underground communication underground gas. OK,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
19:16
so the decision is made to expand. And then, um, So So there's, there's obviously a conflict that's been going on right now across the state on the speed to to expand and to move the utilities, uh,
But the, but the permit process, so if, if utilities aren't moving fast enough and meeting their agreements, um. I guess what I was concerned about is this, this is giving the ability or maybe there already is the ability, it's an issue for, to, to kind of have some retribution back, um, and delay other projects and permits if they're not agreeing on unrelated to that that in scope project they can our doc can hold other permits. That, that seems kind of funny in my mind.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:07
Yeah, I think the important piece is this is not like 112 is not thought of today. It was thought of 10 years ago, and that process is a long arduous process to make sure everybody is in agreement, um, you know the process now that agreement may look like an email, obviously bureaucracy of our bureaucracy of utility you have employee attrition coming and going. You've got engineers changing jobs. You've got management leads changing because it is a long process. What this bill proposes is we're
going to now have it in writing, and we're going to have ins and outs exit ramps, on ramps of this process. And the expectation is going to be agreed upon by both parties. If you decide that you want to break that expectation, you have to communicate that if you communicate it, they're going to figure out a way and work through it. The utility communicates back to our, or our dot communicates to the utility. What happens is common very frequently, you know, talk to county judges, Sebastian County, Saline County, White County.
What is very common is there'll be a project just stop. Contractors go away. Machines out there, you know, sometimes running, sometimes not because it's based on hours of running machines on their on their pay apps. But when they asked two months to go by and there's no progress, what's going on, it is typically the response, but the contractor states is we have a problem utilities aren't out of the way yet and it may be they didn't know it may be that they just don't have the capacity to
relocate those utilities regardless what has happened is the meter's still running, the commuters are still being. delayed and nobody is taking any action. And so, is it fair
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
21:49
to say that, I mean, Both, both groups, both entities are and utilities,
they both want expediency, hit the deadline. No, nobody's wanting to delay because everybody's incentivized to get done faster. And so there's a little bit of a hand pointing going on, and so
just I think my last question to share is, is trying to understand maybe which is better, you've got delaying of um. Uh, delaying a permit situations in civil actions, and then you also have on our dot side. Um, I'm sorry, the utility side pointing at maybe at our dot saying, well, you need to get all the right of ways purchased and you're saying that's going to delay us 6 to 12 months. So you see what I'm saying?
There's, there's, there's kind of which one's faster, which
one's not, and which one's appropriate and which one's not.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:43
I think that's what we're debating, and I think that's that's part of the outline of the, of the bill is they're going to tell the utility when they expect to have that right away done utilities purchased, moved, and then the utility is going to answer back, well, if you meet that deadline, I can meet this deadline. And if they can't meet that deadline in the month we're reporting, that's when they say this landowner is causing a because that's a whole different
process of of courts and legal proceedings, but if there's no communication and there's nobody coming to the table, then we have uh millions of dollars of taxpayer money being on the line waiting. And, and just to address the final part of your permit question. These are You know, permits that are being issued being recalled. These are again, these are permits that they will come and ask our.4 about a project they have to improve their facility or to do
other work for their facility that RA will look at and say, what are we doing about this over here and if there's no response, then the potential is they
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
23:52
get with help. Senator Desma. Thank you, uh, how long have the utility coordinator position's been in play, right, how long have they
Speaker 61
24:00
been filled? We just filled those late last year, so they've been in the field probably a
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:05
month or two now, Senator. OK, and then what, what would be the impact? Of Withholding these permits or the approval of additional permits.
Does that not have the same potential to then almost create a chain reaction. I mean, it would appear to me
Speaker 33
24:23
that it would. In this situation, we're looking at things of withholding permits for jobs that have not yet been let to contract. So the focus is on jobs that have been let to contract that we are depending on a schedule certainty that was provided by the utilities, and that's the whole point, Senator Bryant was making about the process is we're going to reach that agreement where everyone
has a schedule certainty. Any permit withholding would be to simply provide a delay if they have enough resources to be able to prioritize their work based on the commitments that they themselves have
Speaker 65
24:52
established. Take AT&T, putting in fiber, how many projects permits do they have pulled that they're working on at one time.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:58
In the state. And would you say? Quite a, quite a few. That that's fine. I think that was kind of my
point. It's kind of quite a few, I mean.
Do you think enough time passed? With what you've done yourselves in trying to better the relationship because it sounds like there was a shortcoming if we're hiring somebody, something wasn't working. Pass to be able to, I mean, is this solution. Absolutely needed or is this something that we're wanting. Because we haven't let the new process kind of play itself out yet. So this this solution helps us when we have a utility company
Speaker 31
25:46
who's not willing to engage with us, so we had a project in Northwest Arkansas a few years ago where utility dug their heels in and they just said, you know, we're not moving, we're not talking to you and that project was delayed by 3 years until the courts had it and then $3.5 million in cost escalation were borne by the taxpayers, so this is meant to be used as a last resort, but it would be a good tool for us to have. The
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:13
last resort portion I get, we're not too far removed from a
very heavid handy or heavy handed Rdot. Um, and that is my concern. contractors signed up to speak for this bill that I think would tell you that there was a pretty heavy hand used by Ardot in a number of different situations. I understand the culture's changed. I understand we have a new commission and I much appreciate the change in direction, but it may not always be that way, uh, again, my concern is that we've not let some of this play out that we've put in process to see if we're going to be able to achieve the results that we want to achieve, but I'll leave it there for now.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
26:50
Mr. Wiley, I'd like for you to expand on one thing you mentioned the Project Northwest Arkansas $3.5 million later. Who
Speaker 31
26:58
was that? Who, who was the utility company, the utility company was named Washington Water. It's a water association. OK, thank you, sir. I'd like to call names
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
27:06
out if we're going to use them. Yes sir. Senator Johnson, thank
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:11
you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wiley, uh, And I'm, I'm speaking
from memory, so I want, I want to clarify. The poster child for delayed
project is probably our I-30 through Sling County. Um I was told, hearsay, I don't remember where that the original contractor had a problem with the utility. And it may have been a mistake they made or something the utility might, but regardless of that, utility delays. I understood where a specific. stumbling block to the project in Saline County. Do I recall that correctly, or can you
clarify where the utility issue, not pointing blame in any direction. The contractor or the utilities, but it was a major consideration toward some of the delay that happened in that project. It was on.
Speaker 31
28:05
Thank you, Senator. To my knowledge, that was not an issue. I'm going to look back at my staff here. No, it was not an issue there. There was an underground pipe, drainage pipe that wasn't utility related. I think that was part of that discussion, but now utilities
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
28:22
were not the drainage is utility in a
generic sense, not as we're using it in this. OK, thank you for
Speaker 36
28:32
your interest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions from
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:37
the committee? I'll get something and I will. You don't mind and I just want to make, I mean, so again, my, my concern is there's no. Intermediary in this situation between the utilities and you, you are going to be the final arbiter of. Whether
or not these get pulled if I'm reading it correctly. Is that, am I misreading it? So
Speaker 31
28:55
there we would promulgate rules and there is an approval, I mean an appeal process that's built in. Michelle can speak
Speaker 33
29:03
to that. We have included in our rulemaking and the administrative Procedures Act, an ability to say if Ardo is not following its procedures or implements any of these actions, and there is a disagreement by the utility. They have the ability to go through an appeals process just as with any other state agency that is working with a permit, and they would go to the administrators procedures Act to have a hearing before
someone outside of the utility section, and that's what's going to be developed in the rules is to develop that process if we can compare it to say, our beautification process or our other kinds of relocation processes. We have a panel in relocation from different parts of the department that evaluate the information and come up with findings of fact that are then able to be appealed to the circuit court. So that's and following the administrative Procedures Act, and that will be in the rules, which would be quite
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
29:53
the process, right? And so, but in the initial step on
the pulling of the permit, I'm assuming all that would get Stayed you pull a torment you're going to work through that process and whatever else happens is delayed there, so. Again, I, I feel like it puts you at a very high position. Um, and, and that's, that is my concern. It's is that language and how much authority we're delegating. Wouldn't you
Speaker 93
30:16
agree or something, I'll stop. And yes, sir,
Speaker 92
30:20
there is um, again, we're working within the
Speaker 33
30:28
state's property itself, and that's the system that the state has set up that all of the utilities that choose to be relocated on the right of way, of course, have to have a permit to perform that work. And so if they have right of ways that are off the highway, this would not affect their work on any of those processes. It would only be a cold and not even a denial of a permit, but a brief hold on any permits on working within the right of way would not stop their. their operations. And just to add, Senator Dismay
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
30:59
part of the amendment was just that that our adult has to provide
notice that this is an option that they're they might exercise because they're not getting any action out of utility, and then if they do say they're going to exercise it, there's a 30 day period for utility to again come to them and saying, hey, per the rules we're going to make this right or better then lastly, just because you're in construction. You work with cities to pull permits, you know, while this authority is not enumerated
they can sort of delay or slow roll things now, and this just provides transparency in order to get the utility because they can't hire a company to move a utility. If the contractor is not moving, they can, you know, cancel that contract, you know, or withhold and do different actions,
but they can't do that to utility. They have to have a mechanism to get them to the table. Good. I'd like
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
31:58
you to expand just a little bit more on the appeals
process. I know you said a notice, sir. Take me through the step before it gets to circuit court. Who, who is going to make up this committee? Are they are not
Speaker 33
32:12
employees or? Under the current administrative Procedures Act, yes, that's how the agency action is set up under the for the entire state when we're dealing with a permit action. So in this particular provision, we have not finished and finalized the rules, the legislature will have the opportunity to approve those rules. What is um Well, under this we were
voluntarily bringing them to the legislature for because it was coming out of statute rather than out of our independent authority that specifically
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
32:39
stated that we're going to approve these. We all are specifically excluded from approval right now. Yes, sir, with, with regard to
Speaker 33
32:49
any matters that are not legislatively mandated, and so we viewed this as requiring us to promulgate those rules through the legislature and legislative
Speaker 65
32:55
process. So we, that is why we said in I apologize. Let me get to that portion of the bill.
And we indicated that the rules we promulgated under 2767, uh, that's. to that. I'm just one moment. And beginning
Speaker 37
33:15
on page 8, line 20 is where we talk about the rules. I'm sorry, that was in an earlier version. This just sets
Speaker 65
33:41
out the matters that they will be approved. Page OK. man. And On page 8, line 17, it just states that the department shall promulgate the rules for the implementation of this section, um, pursuant to the administrative Procedures Act.
Procedures Act is referenced in Page 6, Line 16 to set out the appeal process, but I apologize, that wasn't an earlier version where we specifically say that page again. The APA is referenced on page 6. With regard to the hearing procedures, but it is not. Now referenced under the rule promulgation under page 8 lines 17.
Speaker 37
34:41
It just indicates that we will promulgate those
Speaker 33
34:46
rules. But to to finish your question, we anticipated setting that up exactly like our, um, personal property or commercial relocation procedure under the Federal relocation Act, and we would have a panel of 3 people from the department. They would be department employees who would, you would have someone from the legal division to ensure that they were following the rules and you would have two other individuals. One would be an engineer who is familiar with
planning and but not from the utilities or reloc or right of way section. So they would be employees from other provi uh sections of the department that would initially make their recommendation and have that to the chair for the administrative hearing officer again, yes, an department employee, but then that determination by the administrative hearing officer would then be appealable to circuit court. And I appreciate that, but I've
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
35:35
never had a fair hearing anytime I'm going against the uh, the, the committee that works for the company that I'm going against.
I've never seen a fair hearing that way because they knew who. their paycheck. Any other
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
35:52
questions, Senator Das? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, um, I
wasn't familiar with, I guess maybe the permitting process to uh, when I think utilities, I, my mind always goes to the PSC and think about permits and and overview is. So there's no coordination with the highway commission and PSC. For at all.
And I'm wondering if if maybe that's that's a better solution with two. I don't
know, oversight has there ever been a conversation that way or uh coordination at all
Speaker 94
36:28
with with those two entities? No, sir. Under 2767304. That is the statute that determines
Speaker 33
36:33
the use of the right of way of the commission, and that is the section that allows utilities even to be on state property because the statutes indicate that the right of way, shall be held inviolate for state highway
Speaker 65
36:47
purposes, and this is an exception to that that allows a utility to locate their facilities on department or commission right of way, uh, if they follow the permitting process established. by the department. Senator Love, you had a question? No. Any other questions?
Speaker 8
37:02
Seeing none. We'll go against, yes. We'll start with Linda Lamb speaking against.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
37:18
Which is like 2 or 3. And remember all those speaking for or against the bill, you have 2 minutes. And just so we'll be ready speaking for this next will be
David Foster. So please be getting ready. Please introduce yourself for the record.
OK, pull that mic to you and and push the button down at the bottom. Here you go
Linda Lamb
Unverified
37:56
and pull it down to you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Uh, my name is Linda Lamb, and I'm the in-house counsel for Carol Electric, uh, cooperative. It's uh we're located in Berryville, Arkansas. Um, There's several things that concerned me about the bill and
Senator Dismay pretty much hit on those, um, I think there's a Dure due process problem with the permitting, withholding permitting, and with the R dot uh finding or the civil penalty or whatever they're calling it. There's, there's no hearing allowed for For the utility, it's a, we said you're not following the rules, and we're gonna do both. I think they can actually do both. We
can withhold permits and we can also implement this civil penalty, then you get your hearing afterwards. It's an appeal process. If you look at the administrative Procedures Act, that's not even how it works. It says first thing notice and hearing. So, we're skipping a pretty big part of What a utility, the only power or the only control that the utility would have over this. So
you go straight to the appeal process and you're fighting backwards. You're, you're, you've already been found guilty basically and it says that they're going to issue a show cause order or something to that effect. So that's pretty much a presumption that's already against you that says you're guilty. So I, I'm having, I, I really believe that there is a major due process concern for the utilities in this, and I understand that they're talking about promulgating rules and,
you know, doing things like that. And that's fine, but the rules aren't part of the statute. So The statutes, what we're talking about here. I'm in time is up, OK, all right. Do I need to answer any questions or
Speaker 126
40:05
anything? Do we have any questions? Saying none. Thank you. Thank you. OK
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
40:22
We have David Foster speaking far and then next we'll have Andrew Branch speaking against. Thank
Speaker 128
40:31
you, David Foster with AIPAC Central in Fayetteville, um, yeah, I'm we're for this.
Speaker 129
40:37
We're for this bill and Senator Bryan, I think you worded it exactly through your research of exactly what what the issues are here. I think what this bill does is establishes accountability on both sides of the table. And I think the whole intent
Speaker 130
40:53
here is that we can find a way to get both sides of the table together earlier in the process. We've got a number of projects that that in 2 minutes I can't discuss that we've had major delays and impacts to our company over the past few years, and what I mean goes back as far as 18 years ago we actually gave a job back to the highway department because of utility delays. Um, but on a, on a positive note. I think something this bill can do is to get everybody to the
table early in the process and an example of that is We have the current CMGC job, uh, at MLK Boulevard and I-49 interchange and the utility coordination is under our scope as the as the construction manager of that job, and we've been, we during the investigation of utilities, we went early on
Speaker 129
41:46
to all of the utilities and at first we met some resistance, but during those meetings when we, when they found out what we were
trying to do at that point at 30% plans. 60% plans to get them started thinking
Speaker 130
42:00
about their relocation work. It, yeah, I think it helped improve that process and everything seems to be moving pretty smoothly on that job right now, so hopefully we won't have those issues, but I think that's something that this bill
Speaker 129
42:12
does, Senator Brian. I think it really helps bring everybody together to the table at an earlier standpoint to help alleviate some of these issues. Any questions on the committee? Senator Love.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
42:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when you say major delays, how long are you, how long are you talking? So we've
Speaker 128
42:32
got, we've had two in the past 5 years that have been over 1 year long. Um, and, and what do you
Speaker 130
42:42
mean over a year long? So we actually get started on the job and end up encountering encountering delays that took an actual year to get resolved so that we could go back to work. One of them, we were not the prime, I think Manhattan Road and Bridge was a prime, but it
was uh the Whittington Interchange on 49. And I think in Somebody else can fact check me on this, but um I think it was 3097 days. is what the delay. OK. All right, thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
43:29
That was a shocking number. I think when we get into it, we think about a regulatory thing. You've got to this entity and this entity and then they do it, but, but you guys are the guys in the middle. The contractors, you, you, you bid based on estimated time to mobilize and get on there and tie up your equipment and your employees and all that, so is it, I know it's possible, but do you see often where these kinds
of delays take a job from being on budget and you get it done on time
and you make money and those that you might lose money. Is that? That is exactly what's
happened. So this could actually hurt her employment and hurt obviously hurting getting the highway built, but exactly, exactly. So, you know, two
Speaker 129
44:17
things, it's, it delays the job, and if it delays the job, we have, we have, we have priced out a job based on what our production rates are going to be and the time frame.
So if we bid a job in 2025 and we get the light year, that job that should be completed in 26, may go within 27. But we're still, we're still doing that job on the prices we submitted. In 25 I think it would be done in 26, even if concrete
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:47
and rebar and everything goes up, and, and And, and one thing I would
Speaker 130
44:52
say too is is we're we're for for profit. So if we take a loss on a job due to this, it's going to cost the taxpayers because we're
going to try to recoup that somewhere
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
45:06
else along the line. Would it, would it, would you see a situation or any theoretically or actually where
uh your assets, employees, equipment are tied up waiting on this job to work out so you can complete it. Would it keep you from bidding and getting new business on other things, but because of the commitment of your assets to the former
Speaker 129
45:33
because when these delays start too, you. You don't know, you don't know what that delay time frame is going to be, so you know, we, we have to have a certain number of backlog on our, on our contracts to to keep things moving. So if we get stopped for 2 months or 2 years on a job we have to figure out how we're going to to to correct that. Thank
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
46:00
you. Any other questions in the committee? I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:06
go ahead. Walk me through that utility issue. Who was it? What was happening? What, what delayed it for a year.
Speaker 130
46:13
That one I might refer I'd have to refer to the to the department on that when I wasn't personally involved in that in that job per se, so I don't know if it was. It could have been anything from underground utilities over overhead. It could have been water and sewer. I'm not, I don't know exactly, but Jarrett or his team
Speaker 152
46:30
might know, might be able to answer that. So from
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:36
Just from y'all's opinion, you just know that the highway department told you to stop. Because they were having utility
Speaker 128
46:43
issues, we actually started that job, so we actually had moved out and and and started the project, so the drums are out there. We were, it looked like
Speaker 130
46:50
the job was fully under construction and you start working and you encounter that
Speaker 129
46:56
utility that's in the way that's that now stops you from progressing that project or that that work. So at that point, You've you've got two, you just sit and wait.
Where you have to pull off the job. But you don't know when you start at what that time frame is going
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
47:13
to be. Someone needs to, I'm not sure that I understand because if we were going to map out and we're going to be repairing or doing whatever we're going to do for a section. If I'm understanding
it correctly, we start working and then we learn that there's a utility here, so then we stop work.
Speaker 158
47:27
If that's on the critical path, you have, you you stop
Speaker 130
47:32
or, or if there's a way to skip over that and keep going, but that
Speaker 128
47:38
affects, that affects production and everything else, but if there's a if there's enough utilities, it will actually stop stop progress on the project. I, I may need to understand
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
47:48
the process better at some point then because I don't understand how those would still be there or why you would start Not knowing they were there, there's something I
don't understand, but I think they're nodding their heads in the back, so. OK, seeing no other questions in the committee.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
48:10
Thank you, sir. Charlie Spikes Speaking against,
Speaker 162
48:28
please introduce yourself for the record. Charlie Spakes with Black Hills Energy, um, we worked with Senator Bryant, um, we understand the need, the process. We have two big issues the permits obviously being a huge
one. And then the other issue was adding language that would not start the timeline until we have acquired right away. It's hard for me to give you a timeline. If you know the right of way process, um, I don't know if that's going to take a month. I don't know if that's going to take 3 years to get through the right of way process. So once I get through that process and I know where those utility lines are going to go, it's a lot easier for me to give you a realistic timeline and we've talked about this and they said that would be
negotiated on the front end and then if that's the case, why can't it be clear in the language that that's going to be the expectation. Um, and then I, I guess the the other issue is that, you know, it was said that this is trying to make an even playing field, and it just feels like one of the players gets to be the ref in this instance. So it doesn't feel super even, so there's a lot we like with the bill. We were involved in the start of it in early 2024, and then we got a
cut left behind on what we kind of said whereas our two biggest issues, Senator Brown was also to work with and he worked out a lot of the process with me, but the two biggest issues for us as Black Hills Energy is the permit withholding and then needing language in there that specifically addresses right away and the timeline in that instance and then some of it's like we can't get our right away until our doc gets there right away. We'll go to a landowner and they'll say, well, I'm not talking to you till I'm done
with our dot. Well, in this, it makes us give monthly reports to RA. I don't see where our dot's going to give us monthly reports about how their right of way acquisitions going, so, um, I just don't feel like some of those are one-sided and we want to be helpful and good partners. Thank you sir. Thank you sir. Any questions?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
50:47
Seeing none, thank you, sir. DB Hill or Will, I can't tell. Yeah, there we go. I should know that name. Mr. Hill, please introduce
Speaker 167
51:17
yourself for the record. I'm DB Hill the 3rd, a lifelong highway contractor here in Arkansas and representing
Speaker 169
51:27
AGC and AAPA as well I'm naturally for this legislation, um, I think among other things, this is a fairness issue. Between the contractors and the utility and the highway department. When our doctor lets
it. Advertises a job to be let to contract. We purchased the plans and the proposal. In the proposal schedule. He specific specifications for that job. Among those special provisions for that job are listed the utilities. That are going to be encountered there. They're listed by name,
to contact people, phone numbers and their estimated date of completion. That they have furnished our dot prior to the job being let to contract. We base Our bid. On those special provisions, the plans and the standard provisions. If we see a date of March 31st, 2025. Is a date to complete?
Then our entire schedule is built around when those other utilities all the utilities are gonna be done. So, if A utility or more than one are not moving their facilities, then we are delayed like David was talking about. In synergy. You ask about the delay and why we just can't jump around it. I think more or less is what you said.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
53:24
Did I misunderstand that? Yes, sir, but I, I can restate that for you. Yeah, now my question was, it was trying to understand what caused the 365 day delay or whatever it was, and his response, I mean, was something to the effect that they found a utility which wasn't the way that I understood the process to work. I understand it more like what you've just outlined, which they're identified, there's a schedule for moving and that's not that we would find utility that we didn't know about that. we had a problem moving.
Speaker 169
53:56
I have seen the time when ones were found. That were not recognized on the front end. Granted that is not Common and ordinary, but it's not out of The realm of possibility. So, uh, it also depends on the length of the job about moving around the utility. Um Access to the job.
is how we can get back and forth to it. So, In my mind, This makes the utility. Obligated to finish when they say they're going to finish. The department penalizes us as contractors when we don't finish. On time. Only being fair that, and I
Speaker 173
54:57
think the legislation allows them to Express why they can't be done. I mean, hurricanes, tornadoes, stuff that we know that can delay them, that's fair when they're trying to Get other stuff done. That OK. Any other questions, committee? See no. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
55:37
Brian Bowen speaking against. Please state your name
Brian Bowen
Unverified
55:46
and who you're with for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brian Bowen, and I'm with Summit Utilities. I'd like to first thank Senator Bryant for working with the utilities on this bill to get us, I think, to where we are today, and I'd like to address our primary concern with the bill we echo what you heard from Mr. Speaks. Our primary concern is the withholding of
permits. There are situations in which we may be working on a highway project where there are delays, but looking at another project that would The Highway Department might have an ability to deny a permit in an emergency or safety situation. I know there is an exception for emergency situations that arise in the bill, but we may have a situation where we're doing a line replacement because of a leak that is on our schedule where we're working in the highway department right of way,
and that would potentially allow them an arbitrary basis to deny a permit for us to do regularly scheduled maintenance. on a line within the highway department's right of way, which creates a safety issue for our for our customers and the communities in which we serve. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the committee,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
57:03
the, the previous utility, but I did want to ask this, so.
When you look around, I, I don't know, you might have multiple projects. What? Are you all, do you all have delays and if so, what, what is
Brian Bowen
Unverified
57:21
your average delay look like? I will speak generally there are instances of delays, usually one of the delays that we see is the acquisition of easements for the utilities, which, as Mr. Speke said, oftentimes we're told that private landowners will not deal with us until they've settled with ourAT, which would create a
delay in the process that we see rain or inclement weather in one area of the state may delay that specific project but not affect another project that we have going on. So, so then let me, let
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
57:51
me just ask you this, what, what has been one of your longest delays, you, you say on the job. I, I am not aware of one off the
Brian Bowen
Unverified
58:01
top of my head. I'm happy to get back with you on that, but I'm not aware of any major delays caused directly by Summit utilities. No major delays for
summit. No, sir, not that I'm aware, and I will, I will say
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
58:15
to you I want you to be aware of it because I want to I mean,
Brian Bowen
Unverified
58:19
I want you to answer the question, but I am not, I will say for highway department projects we try and prioritize those as well because we know the importance of getting that handled as quickly as
Speaker 186
58:30
possible, OK. Yeah. All right, thank you, Scott. Thank
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
58:33
you, Mr. Chair. Um, the specific example that you just gave, did you talk to Senator Bryant about that to try to address that specific concern.
Brian Bowen
Unverified
58:44
We have, we have addressed our objection to the withholding of permits with Senator Bryant. Yes,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
58:50
ma'am. In regards to that specific example though that you just
Brian Bowen
Unverified
58:54
gave us. I don't recall if we specifically talked about that, and I don't want to put words in our mouths. We have been working very closely with Senator Bryant, and he is aware of like he stated, utilities objections primarily come from permit withholding. OK Thank you. Any other questions from the committee?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
59:19
Saying none. No, Senator Das. Alright, I Maybe I want both sides to be able to maybe answer this,
but again, uh, For simplistic. Road needs to expand. There's utilities running down the road and I've got to map it out. And so road can expand until y'all move your utilities over, you can't get land next to you from the private landowners. Am I describing this right? That would be a scenario, yes, and in this bill is going to say that RA is going to point the finger at you utilities.
Um, because you can't get the land fast enough and you're saying we're trying. And
this bill is saying we're going to find you. Am I describing that fairly and I want both sides to ask if I'm describing them fairly I
Speaker 188
1:00:06
think that there is the potential for that, but
Brian Bowen
Unverified
1:00:09
I think the bill contemplates that in the negotiation back and forth between the Department of Transportation and the utilities, and I'll let the bill sponsor
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:00:16
in his closing. Get that side as well, but, but you're saying that's a, that's a
realistic scenario potentially where you're doing everything in your power to try to get easements right aways and um And while you're trying your best, this would say that our doc can find you
and civil penalty. Potentially, and that's a concern. It is a concern. I
Brian Bowen
Unverified
1:00:39
think we'd like some clarification around like Mr. Speke said, of exactly when the time starts to toll against the utilities, so some clarifying even worse than the penalty, the thing I think I had the
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:00:51
biggest issue is, is that this also says
that yes on that project we're talking about your delayed, but we're going to hold a project 30 miles down the road as well because we're upset that is yes sir and I want to hear, uh, Senator
Brian, if you wouldn't mind dress in your clothes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:01:11
audience to know, this will be the only bill we're hearing today, but we are going to hear this one out. And so if you're here for any other bill, this will be the only one we're hearing.
And we're ready for Mr. Brian McMillan. We'll see. If not, I guarantee we can get you in. For the next one. Please
Speaker 200
1:01:50
introduce yourself for the record and who you're with, sir. I'm Brian McMillan. I'm a project engineer from McGeorge
Speaker 201
1:01:56
Contracting. Um, I'm gonna kind of give you a real life scenario. This is what project we have now to kind of detail our frustration. With these utility delays. We've got a project in Arcade. It's Arkadelphia bypass. The last utility was supposed to be moved in December of 23. We're probably 4, maybe 5 months out from having all the utilities relocated on that job, and I'm trying to keep myself optimistic that that's actually going to happen.
This is delayed work that was available to us should be available to us last year. We have monthly utility meetings. Since the start. Uh, for the most part, everybody shows up. For the last 3 months, we've asked a utility. To move some existing lines. Of a pole. And they say, yeah, we'll have a crew there Monday. My fault was not saying which Monday are you talking about? Because I have not shown up yet.
And this again, it's just delaying something and the only power that we have. And Ardot has is to beg and plead, please show up. That's all we have. So really this bill is just making the utilities responsible for what they say they'll do when they say they'll do it. So I very much support this bill. Thank you, Senator Bryant, for sponsoring
Speaker 203
1:03:23
this. I hope you consider it. Thank you. Any questions for the committee? Yeah.
Speaker 205
1:03:33
No. OK, well, I'm gonna ask what utility was it? Well, there's several. Well
Speaker 203
1:03:40
I've got them. Let's name them. I've got optimum Archief for water and sewer, Ritter,
Speaker 201
1:03:45
AT&T, uh, I think Summit's out of the way. They did good on their job. This all in the one project you were talking about. Yes sir. Uh, energy, again, they've got to remove their old polls, but they've got to get the lines that are on the polls off first,
then they can remove their own polls, so. There's several that are still in
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:04:08
a way. But if you're still having any problems, they're probably out here in the audience. You can catch maybe get that taken care of. I'll, I'll
Speaker 205
1:04:17
wait till we get outside. Thank you, and so you said that that these utilities were supposed to be moved when the last, you
Speaker 203
1:04:24
know, there's some schedules before, but the last utility was supposed to be out of the way in December 23. So we're.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:04:35
like All right, thank you. Any other questions? Let me, let me, let me verify this because
Senator, so you're saying that in in your because I know you you say you meet monthly, right? You mean mostly as far as and so you've been, you know, once you got the job, you've been talking to utilities, you meet, you meet monthly for utility meeting and
then they continuously, I mean this December, man, that's like 15 months right now, 1215, yeah, 76, 0, so we're talking about within the last 16 months, you've been discussing. The movement of the utilities and this is still not.
Complete they still haven't done. OK. Alright, thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you, sir.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:05:37
that. Mr. John Bethel, Please state your name and who
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:05:56
you're with for the record. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Bethel with Entergy Arkansas, and I will echo the comments of the other utilities before me. First of all, thank
Senator Bryant for he has worked with us on a lot of this, and we are down to just a couple of issues, but those are significant issues that we think are important. The withholding of permits is a is an excessive penalty. We believe there is a penalty provision that has a civil sanction, and we think that is a reasonable part of the process that if if you go through the entire process and you still are out of compliance. A civil sanctions seems to be reasonable, a holding of a permit in another area for an unrelated project prevents work
being done that customers need both for reliability and extending service and other reasons, and it doesn't seem an appropriate penalty provision to do that. The civil sanction does seem to be the more appropriate fit and the other is the timing of when that clock starts and the acquisition of right of way is more often than not, the problem we see is we have to wait for the department to identify what right away they're going to have and then if the department
changes the scope of the project, if they're right of way moves, we have to then move our right of way. during the project, which causes a delay and we have to work with different landowners or the same landowner to get different property to place our facilities because our rights of way generally run parallel to the department's rights of way and so as they expand we expand and as the others said, oftentimes the landowner wants to deal with our first and then with us, and that can cause a disconnect in
the schedule and so that that provision we think is important also is to time the enforcement. Schedule to that and and with that I think you've you've uh heard the issues that are of concern to us,
and I'll take questions if you have any. Any questions for Mr. Bethel?
Speaker 112
1:07:58
Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Don Weaver.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:08:23
I'm Don Weaver, president of Waver Valley Contractors in Conway, and I'm going to talk about Pro y'all are probably all familiar with the Jacksonville New I huh I 57 project in Jacksonville, uh, we started that project notice to proceed, well, the preconstruction was on February 23rd of 23, uh, at that meeting, there were 11 utilities on this job. 7 broadband. companies, energy, water, and
sewer, uh, Uh, the Air Force base had some really critical infrastructure that we couldn't mess with, uh. All of them said they would be completely finished by the 31st of the next month. We're still having utility. Refining utilities now and not that they weren't relocated. They were really relocated wrong, uh, particularly the broadbands, uh, when you're dealing with 7 different broadband, you know,
first off, they can't get out there and just blow and go because they've all got to be in somewhere, the job's 2.5 miles long and there's 10 miles of drainage pipe. So you can imagine how many times we went across water. sir, gas, uh, we did have a problem with uh with the gas a time or two and it's mainly with the depth. It was relocated. It just wasn't deep enough because like right beside Walmart, we had a, we lowered that road 13 ft. And that's a massive
Cut for the water, the sewer, and Walmart and then uh the the The utility companies, you know, we have to, like I said, we have to go off the schedule, the highway department gives us, so it's not only impacting us, it's impacting y'all. Y'all driving through the job every day because we're having, we're finding something, so we're having to move and close down. You may think you've got a familiar pattern through there and all of a sudden the road goes this way or it goes that way and so it impacts the traveling public as much as anything, trying to get in
Walmart at Jacksonville. My God, we, we changed that 10 times. Uh, so, uh, Just, just the, the sheer number of utilities on urban job. It's just mind blowing. So thank you, Mr. Weaver. Any questions for
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:10:41
Mr. Weaver? Senator. So you mentioned most of your problems
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:10:45
on that particular job had to do with broadband companies, um, I mean, and then, and I think when I hear and I've heard other people talk, you know, it's a local water, you know, water in to your utility
that they may have a stronger problem with is that mostly what y'all see are some of the smaller utilities having a harder time, or is it pretty much crop, I mean, it's center point, I'm sorry, summit and energy and AT&T
and some of the bigger players. We had no problem at
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:11:14
all with energy. They were out of the way. We've had maybe one overhead that we've had to wait, but it's not been a
problem. The summit has just strictly been a debt problem. We knew where the pipe was. It just wasn't as deep. The broadband, what their problem is, they contract out
there to, to God knows who to come and relocate it, and there you got 7 broadband companies out there and they've got 7 contractors and then all of a sudden they've got 2 or 3 subs that come out and it just, you know, you can't And they don't give them proper supervision. They don't send anybody out there with them, so MCI or or uh Comcast, any of those guys, they're contractor, it's up to them to try to figure out where to relocate the line so either us or the resident
engineer ends up being there overseer and uh it's hardly ever at the proper depth. It's, uh, it's just when you have 7 of them, it's that's incredibly helpful, I think for the discussion that
Speaker 102
1:12:10
we're having. Yes. Thank you. And like I said, just the traveling public that we, because we don't know
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:12:15
where we're going to be sometimes the next day because we have to move because we encounter one of these, right? Any other questions? Your Yeah. So, so
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:12:26
that particular example that area that 2 mile stretch of road, as you
encounter those problems, what avenues do you have to take to get action so you can proceed with your job. But luckily there was
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:12:40
enough drainage pipe, you know, we had like 4 crews laying pipe, and we just have to move, find a place where there wasn't a conflict and this job allowed us to move, but still it's disrupting the whole flow of the job and not doing it in proper sequence and you're maybe laying a drainage pipe to nowhere. Where there's no outlet for it, and if it happens to rain, you
flood people, so uh it it can cause major
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:13:15
problems. So Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Weaver, I, I'm looking kind of all the players on
this chessboard. There's uh you contractors, there's the customer, the utility, the R dot in some cases a city. Or or county entity road,
whatever, and then of course, you know, the public utilities, energy, and the broadband and the water and all that, but all of those except for you guys have eminent domain, do you not? Well, my point being, they all can condemn the property to get what they need. Now it might be some fight over how much the value to the landowner is, but They have the authority to do that and the contractor
does not. Am I following that
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:14:07
correctly? I think that's correct. The Highway Department has always been really good about a utility that's going to serve a purpose that benefits the community to let them put their utility in there right away. Along with that, if they widen that, it's up to the utility to move and usually still within the newly acquired right away. And uh, but the problem is just through here there are just so many businesses and so little area to put them in, they were on top of each other and so I'm not just asking about 57. I'm
talking about in general. Yeah, we have, we cannot take anybody's property. No, we cannot do anything
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:14:45
like that. So you guys are kind of like I said, you're getting
Speaker 228
1:14:48
buffeted around in the middle whatever they tell us you.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:14:55
Thank you, Mr. Weaver. And we have Lisa like. Speaking against.
Speaker 232
1:15:22
Yeah, please introduce yourself for the record and who you're with. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Lisa Lake with AT&T. Uh, we appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. We appreciate what Senator Brown has done and Ardot, you know, as they mentioned earlier, we met back in December. We've always some concerns back then. So, um, you know, there's been some things I think that
have that were addressed from that, but, uh, I'll just echo what the others have said about some of the major sticking points here are the ability for them to withhold permits in a totally separate part of the state on a totally different job and you know, we've had broadband, I think Senator Dismay mentioned earlier, you know, all the broadband projects that we have. So, you know, we just don't understand why if we need a permit up in Jonesboro to deploy
broadband, but we were having an issue with a job in another part of the state that it would make any sense to withhold that permit. Also, um, I, I know AT&T was mentioned a while ago on a job along with several other utilities that haven't relocated. I'm not familiar with that job, but I do know that a lot of times we're not able to move our facilities until some of the other utilities have completed theirs. So even if we have thought upfront, well, we'll be able to move our facilities in a
specific amount of time, it's dependent on others getting, you know, there's moved and out of the way before we can do that. Also, so a lot of times, you know, if these schedules are going to be tried to Uh, established upfront, uh, you know, we might have some idea of how long something would take, but at the very beginning when we're given a project, you know, we've not done any preliminary work. We don't know what customers uh that we might have to relocate off of those facilities, you know, a lot of
times there's third parties in our duck systems, customers like government entities, hospitals, and we have to do scheduled cutovers with them, so. Now, any questions? Any questions? Senator Love, So, thank you, Mr.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:17:43
So Lisa, I'm, I'm listening in it. Uh, I failed to ask this question to the other utilities, so I, I hear you all talk about the the sticking point really
with, with the permits and withholding permits, um. I, I guess I'm I'm still kind of at a. Out of uh At a loss as to what would bring the utilities,
say we took out the sticking permits. I mean, this is Joshua Brian's right you you
are you saying the civil penalty is, is, is strong enough to actually make a utility move.
Is that, I mean, I'm, I'm trying to get to a place where we can also go have dinner, but uh but um, but. I mean, What, what would make the utility really move, I mean, because if this wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be before us, so I'm trying to get to. kind of your thoughts about that. If not, if not, if not the withholding of the of the. of the
The permits to kind of get some expediency done. What would you
Speaker 232
1:19:07
say? Well, you know, when I spoke with my network director, I mean, that was, I think the permit withholding is the major thing with him. So, you know, we've had a good working relationship with our dot, and I understand, I think as Mr. Bowen mentioned, you know, we anticipate that we would be able to, uh, tell ourdot, well, you know, We can't get our work done
because of this or, you know, some other reason, there's another utility that hasn't finished their work yet or we have some major customers and they are in those lines and we're gonna have to do some special scheduling to to do those moves like in the middle of the night, so you don't take down a hospital and things like that. So I mean, I think we could work with them, but the withholding of the permits and and not always knowing upfront.
The exact date that we can get something completed is problematic. Now if we can go back and say, well, we can't get this completed by date X that we thought we could agree to and we can work through that, you know, that's understandable, but it, it kind of goes back to the very beginning when we felt like there really wasn't a need for this legislation, you know, they have put the um coordinators in place and we feel like we've always worked well with them, and it's
just bothersome to us when you're actually putting in a statute about withholding permits. OK, so
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:20:39
now you heard there, I think there was uh the person from Arkadelphia mentioned that they
had a job that's probably been 16 months or so in the AT&T was one of the, one of the utilities that had not, there was yet to move. So I'm I'm, I'm thinking somebody's probably going to hear about that when you get when you get out of the committee, but
I mean, do you think that that's an acceptable
Speaker 232
1:21:08
time. OK, so no, I wouldn't think 16 months is an acceptable time. I'm not familiar with that job personally, so I will ask our folks about it. If I were to guess what might have happened there. We weren't the only utility. They listed several and my thought is probably that there's someone else that's got to move and finish their completion that there's something else that's probably
holding us up from being able to do our work. That, that's my guess. I mean, that's my hope. I've not been made aware of any thing, you know, from our, from my network director or anything like that that AT&T is totally holding up a job in Arkadelphia. All right, thank you. Thank you, seeing
Speaker 178
1:21:54
no other questions. Thank you, Ms. Lake. Thank you. Speaking for Dennis Gillette.
Dennis Slett
Unverified
1:22:13
And then there were 2. Good evening. My name is Dennis Slett. I'm the vice president of highway construction for Redstone construction. We're based here in Little Rock, um, I just wanted to talk specifically, well, first and foremost, I'm for the bill. Like it provides
Speaker 249
1:22:38
accountability, it gives us better timelines that we can work for and through
throughout the job from when it's been to completion, um, jobs specifically you probably all know about, we were the contractor on West Highway 5 in Saline County and that job went from Reynolds Road toalco Road. And so we bid that job, part of the timeline on that job or part of the specifications is we actually have to bid the number of days. So the highway department associates a value with that day. We have to bid
not only the cost to do it, but the time to do it. And so the total of those $2 amounts is actually who gets the job. So you actually could be higher, but could do the job quicker and you can get the job that way there's less impact to the traveling public. The job gets done a little bit faster. It's an A plus C method bidding is what the highway department uses. Well, my job was a bid in January of 2018, we bid 750 days. It should have finished July of 2020.
It finished in 2023. It took like 3 extra years to complete it and so there were several factors early on. Um, excuse me. The dates that were given in the contract, I think Mr. Hill spoke of earlier, those dates were missed. We waited the full amount of time we could before our contract time started and there were still utilities being relocated and throughout the course of the job, there was utilities that were delayed and
being relocated or needed to be relocated like a Mr. Weaver spoke about there was gas lines that weren't deep enough that were in the way of the pipe and different items, so. Oops. Any questions from the committee?
Speaker 223
1:24:31
Start sending her love first. is. Uh, and, and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:24:40
So what were the utilities that you were having issues with that drug it out that much longer. I think
Speaker 249
1:24:48
everybody on that one was guilty. It was AT&Tnergy, this local broadbands, there was the city of Bryant. Was there anything unique about that job that would cause it to be that way if
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:24:58
every utility I think a lot of urban projects are
Dennis Slett
Unverified
1:25:01
probably a little bit harder because you get less right away. It seems like the job in the rural areas. with the state has more right of way. We have a job
Speaker 249
1:25:11
going on and Highway 270 in Whitehall, the job was 5.5 miles long within the same time frame we've
already built 2 miles, but the road is a little bit more rural, there is more room for utilities. We still run into utilities. I've got an ongoing broadband delay in that job right now that was supposed to be, we discovered it in October, it was supposed to be removed and the line out of our way by January 31st and it's. be relocated tonight, you know, if that gives you an idea. Thank you. So would you say a large part of that would be from the growth
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:25:44
in Benton area versus Whitehall. What's that? The growth in the
area versus the white hole area Whitehall area.
Speaker 257
1:25:53
Well, the project in Whitehall also encompasses down to 365. So once you
Dennis Slett
Unverified
1:25:58
get 5:30 to the other side where it ties into the Highway 365, that area is pretty grown up too, we go through the like Jefferson Parkway, that area is pretty grown up to sort
Speaker 249
1:26:09
of businesses in the same area. OK, thank you, Senator Loves. People my
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:26:22
I speak so so too. So, so let me ask, so you know, when you bid the project, you you you you've been in the days you haven't, you all haven't gone to the utilities as a That at that time had
Speaker 249
1:26:35
at that point, the highway department in that preliminary work and they were given dates back that you that the utility should be relocated and then they should be relocated to the edge of the right of way and at a specific date. So who, who
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:26:49
gives that, that, that time, who gives that
Speaker 247
1:26:54
time frame as to so that you can complete your bid. We're given a a table in the special provision that tells us when those utility are going to be out
Speaker 263
1:27:05
of the way. So who provides that the
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:27:08
highway department does the highway department provides a table. Yeah. OK, so then we need to find out if the highway department gets the table from the utilities to ensure that that kind of jobs with everything because I guess, I guess we, we're just trying to figure out um.
Dennis Slett
Unverified
1:27:25
I think the loop is they're getting those those time frames, sorry, no, no, no, go ahead, go ahead.s aren't
Speaker 249
1:27:32
met. In the large situations, they're just, and there's no follow up or timely follow up, and if they're not met, then there's no accountability. OK, yeah, we just need
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:27:43
to find out who's giving the the time frame dates.
Or that schedule. So that we can figure out what's. What is what? OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. I
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:27:55
appreciate your time. And last we have Sarah Tacker
and Chandra Hunter. Please introduce yourself for
the records, and I am going to limit y'all to 2 minutes, not 4, since there's 2 of you. I thought y'all trying to skirt
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
1:28:44
the system here on behalf of Southwestern Electric. How's that? Excellent. Uh, I don't want to rehash anything that other utilities have said, but there's two critical items I'd like to bring to your attention. The first is I'd like you to consider the implications
on economic development, of withholding permits, often permits in other areas are for customer reliability and in many circumstances they are for an extension of services to other customers. Swetco is located in northwest Arkansas, the area is booming and withholding of permits, which is the section that swepco objects to is going to impact those economic development issues. The other issue I'd like you to
be aware of is that the literature on this topic indicates that utility incentives are much more effective than utility disincentives such as uh withholding of permits and penalties. The incentives are already built into this bill. Promoting communication, having a very detailed relocation agreement and making sure that all of the parties are able to communicate with each other. What Swepko would like to see is lines 12 through 14 of page 5
removed and then they would be able to support this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions. Yes, sir. Page 5. Now, let me caveat. We have not seen the amendment. So as the bill was filed this morning, page 5, lines 12 through 14 is the section on withholding permits. That is the critical fatal flaw. Uh, for Slatko, if, if that element could be removed, then
we think that um certainly this bill promotes really. Uh Promotes items that are in the public interest and so Swepco supports the overall paradigm and um that's really the only sticking point. Ms. Hunter, would you like to add anything real
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:30:44
fast? No, OK, well, I appreciate the way you do that you actually went to the bill in name what You don't like 12 to 14 page
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
1:30:55
5. Thank you so much. Any questions?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:31:04
Say none. Thank you. Thank you. Center right. You're free to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:31:19
clothe and you have 2 minutes. Uh Mr. Chair, thank you, Vinny. I think I, I hope I teed that up correctly, page 5 lines 12 through 14, which is the permit, um, just to address a few of the of the Concerns of, of utilities. I think the bill contemplates a
lot of what they're asking for. Um, when is our right way start? Well, part of that process is are identifies when they're right away acquisition ends. Therefore, the timelines are built in to when do you tell me utility you can accommodate this based on what I'm telling you, and if our doc can't accommodate that, then obviously there is a flaw in the timeline, and that's not on the utility. Therefore, there is no penalty to be assessed. Yeah I also I think it, you know, it addresses change of plans, the
30, 60, 90, and then something happens and they encounter an issue in the in the actual design as the contractors let that this doesn't work. The bill contemplates all the issues that they have concerns with about timelines and right away acquisition. But the main thing is at the end of the day, the reason and I enjoyed working with any utility that came to the table, I think. It was very beneficial because overall the bill is very
beneficial to the public, and it provides things on paper that are generally not provided currently other than it works when it works and it doesn't when it doesn't. But at the end of the day, the reason I wanted to have this conversation with the committee is You know Hey, you can keep the civil penalty in and just raise it. Well, that's if you're fine with paying a $500 and you're fine with paying 1000. That means you're fine with just letting things go on status quo, so I felt it was necessary to have a conversation. Prior to any amendments about
what does get their attention, what, what brings to the table, because at the end of the day somebody is holding the ball. If utility A can't remove because utility B and Ardot receives that information, they go to utility B. Utility B says, I can't move until utility C they go and have that conversation. It's not utility B's fault. Eventually the buck stops and then it's, hey, we're going to assess a $500 penalty and it's going to go into a pot of money of which you're drawing from the well of because that's how the system system is set up, so my concern
is, unless we have the ability for the accountability with some teeth in a bill, there really is no action to be taken except for what the status quo happen and so that's, that's my intent to have this conversation. I think it's important I also think, you know, the hold on a permit is not a forever hold. It's get your ducks in a row, come back to the table, and once you've shown that's what you're going to do, I'm going in good faith, let your permit. Over at this other job and so I
think it's to me it is the appropriate balance in a world that I live in, that if a contractor that is in good faith working towards a goal is getting penalized and losing money. That's the taxpayers' money we're losing based on evidence from the testimony of the contractors that deal with these daily situations. They have to have an avenue for our dot to hold accountability to the utility, not, not to penalize them, just to bring them back to the table. I think, I think that that
accomplishes that um nobody outside of just removing it, um, the other option was letting litigation play out between the a agreed to the contractor and the utility not doing what our dot said they'd do based on what the utility told Rt they do. Back to your question, Senator Love. They got that timeline from the utility. And then the bill contemplates they're going to get that timeline from the utility, so they have every avenue to meet that timeline because it's their timeline. If they don't. Right now there's no accountability. We wait 3 years for the public
and the taxpayers, so I'm going to close for the bill. I'm going to make a motion to
pass with discussion because I'd love the feedback of the bill which you heard here in testimony. OK,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:35:23
we have a motion due pass as amended. Do we have a we have a second with Senator Johnson. Discussion. Serma. So, I mean, my
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:35:36
concern is, and if I'm listening to even some of the contractors and their issues that they're having, they're one-offs. This isn't, I mean, it's a water utility that's only
in one part of the state and there's not going to be anything to withhold on some other permit and some other part of the state. Uh, there's broadband, you know, entities that in a way that we set that up they're only, you know, working in specified areas and so you're not going to withhold a permit on them in some other part of the state and have it done leverage, um, and it's those Gies that we heard over and over again. It wasn't, I mean, I'm not saying there's not issues with an energy or an AT&T or a summit or whoever, but that's not what we were hearing about predominantly. It was about
smaller entities that maybe. For whatever reason and we're having a more difficult time. I'm not, I'm not even sure that that provision captures Some of the biggest problems, you know, then the penalties would go into place, and I don't care who you are. I mean, I think $500 a day and $15,000 a month is not an insignificant amount of money that they could be penalized for not moving forward. Uh, the one thing that I think this bill does that is very, very beneficial. It sets up a process that does not exist, and one of the things we
found when we looked at our dot a few years ago is there were not processes in place for lots and lots of things that they did that they operated in silos. And so you had, you know, I don't know if you call them engineers or directors or whatever doing certain things in one area in the state very, very well, not communicating with anyone else in the rest of the state that things that they were doing well so it could be replicated and so I, I think And I mean even to the point we just now hired someone for the first time to be the liaison
between our dot, the contractors and the utilities. I mean, or that's the way that it was for new positions is the way I understood it, which is Also incredibly beneficial, but none of those things have played out. Um. Again, I think you, you're getting a ton of what you want, if we could remove that language because it sounds like to me, and even in the contractor's discussion, it's understood that if you're operating in a highly urban area with lots of density, it's a much more difficult situation to move the utilities.
Then if you're operating in an urban area. or or a rural area without all the utilities to have to move with the smaller or a wider right away. So again, that's the only I mean, I like what we're doing. I like the fact that we're actually creating a process that did not otherwise exist. I am a little bit reluctant
based on the testimony that we've heard on that 12th through 15th. 12 to 14 on page
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:38:10
5 and I think adding to that discussion
based on that scenario, if you have a company that is financially a
behemoth. That that is that is not a Senator Senator Brown, are you discussing this as a
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:38:23
member or as a as a member, OK you want me back we need Joe here then.
Speaker 278
1:38:28
I'll be glad to. I've already closed. I'm a member now.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:38:37
OK, speaking as a member, I think that what I contemplated was if
you have a, a behemoth of an entity that's in 14 states that is, you know, a billion
dollar company, um, you're gonna accept those. Fees and there's no other draw versus if you're a small rural company and Ardot doesn't have the ability to, you know, hold permits. Maybe that penalty is going to be enough to motivate you, so it's it's an either or based on the circumstances of the job that's having the problems, so that's that was the contemplation of having a discussion and leaving it in there because there was obviously some behemoths were fine with more penalty, and
they'd eventually get there, but they eventually turns. to You know, there obviously is a point where it stops, but what is that? Is that what's acceptable to the
general public and the taxpayers at one month
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:39:34
or is it 6 months? Thank you, sir. If you need more discussion, Senator Des? Mr. Chair. Remember, no, no
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:39:41
questions to Senator Bryant. Understood. I, I think I echo some similar um sentiments
of Senator dismaying that I like the concept of trying to get a
framework. I think on the, um, the denial of permits in a uh outweighted maybe relationship is how I view it. Maybe that's not correct, but um, When I know there's active litigation and lawsuits going on between utilities and RA in these really complex situations, and now this would um It feels like it's heavy handed on, on the page 5 line 12 denial
of permits. It doesn't feel in balance to me with unrelated projects. I think Uh I'm, I'm leaning towards a no vote because of that segment and um Uh, not because of the, I think everything, the civil penalties fills in line, but denial, uh, and especially denial of permits and unrelated projects. So I, I think those are the things that I'm trying to understand and contemplate my mind. Thank you. Thank you, sir. But
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:40:55
Sarama and it was 2 point. I mean, I'm also apprehensive about punishing one part of the state that may be having a project go on with utility relocation because of another part of the state dragging its feet and maybe a municipality, it may be the landowners in that area. I, it's just there's, I mean, it it is does seem strange to me that we would give that authority to someone to say, you know, broadband in your area is not quite as important as us getting this job done over here when it may not be there's just a lot of to given, and that's my.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:41:26
Concerned. Thank you, sir. Any more discussion? Center. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, remind my colleagues a couple things. One, Uh, there's just one
R dot. It's not like there's a lot of utilities, a lot of contractors, and all this, but, and, and they're not just a state agency, they're an independent state agency. Uh, if we want to talk about repealing Amendment 42, and OK,
well that's maybe something that would change some of the things, but they have extraordinary powers because The people 70 something years ago decided we needed to do something to to clean up and make sure that we have the most efficient way to build highways in the state. And so when we, we, we, they do have extraordinary powers and you know, if it were another agency perhaps the the things that Senator Disma brought forth about the, the, you know, the
regular order due process and you know what's the appeal and all that would make sense, but you know they are a unique creature, as is gaming fish.body knows that, uh, that doesn't mean they are totally, you know, unilateral and can do anything they want to, you know. We're still the people's elected representatives, but when it comes to acquisition rightaways and things like this and to get things moving on building the roads that we've traditionally and historically constitutionally even giving
them extraordinary power. So I encourage people to look at this as major progress. Everyone seems to like a lot of the things in the bill, and I think along the way in the future we might find ourselves in a position to reconsider and tweak some of these. as we do on so many other things, but I think it's important because we've seen this, these extraordinary delays like when something runs over a year, there's got to be some incentives and disincentives in the process to get these things off dead center, so I would
encourage a yes vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Dima,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:43:34
just one thing I'd say is you're exactly right. It's an incredibly powerful organization with a lot of
independents. But they're here today because this is not a piece of power that they have unless we authorize them to have it. And so We need to be diligent in how we disperse and we allow them statutorily to have this level of authority. I mean, I just, I have a hard time believing that. Everything else in this bill falls to the wayside without
those three lines in place, you know, I mean that it doesn't achieve. more beneficial outcome than what we have right now in the status quo, which is what you should be commended for and in working through, um, and you know what we would have the ability to come back and if that, if this doesn't work and we don't see satisfaction in the process, then, OK, I mean we have a discussion about what is the next trigger that we allow this powerful agency to have, that is autonomous from us outside of when we're sitting here in this very moment, you know, that's
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:44:36
Thank you, sir. Now I've got to agree with you on that, you know, the heard a lot of testimony today for and against. There was only one of them that came up here and said what their fix would be. And that fix was what was mentioned by Senator Dismay just then. It was lying, I think 14 through 16. Uh,
several other ones. threw some ideas out and stuff and no one was specific as that was. And so That being said, I'll probably be a no. If it's a tie.
Speaker 210
1:45:11
Any more discussion? Senator Love So I've, I've listened to
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:45:19
it in in also being a person that has been on a project like this that is actually had issues with the utility which will name. Will remain nameless, I'm not gonna name any utilities, um, but this is, this is an actual, this is an actual issue and the only ones that end up paying for it. Um, the people of Arkansas.
The reason being is because concrete costs more, asphalt costs more and different things like that. However, After listening to all the testimony and also just weighing um. The withholding of the permits. I think, I think. That may be a step. Maybe too far. Um And I'm in, I'm in support of
this bill, but as it is with those three lines, I think, I think we might need to go back to the drafting table. Now that's up to that's Senator Bryant that it's up to you. You know, I'll be supportive of the bill, but I think that um. Those those three lines. Do hurt the bill and I think it hurts our efforts because we need to make sure that Um, this framework stays in place so that utility companies are held accountable and that the people of Arkansas are not paying for excessive time delays. Thank you.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:46:45
Thank you, Senator Love. The only two we have left,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:46:53
Senator Scott, would you like to say anything? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think um I like the framework and the issue we're trying to address. I'm not gonna act like I understand all the complexities of what's going on, um, some of the issues and concerns I had early on, Senator Dimay got out of some of the people that spoke, um, but I think it's a bit overreaching to me that um and a bit excessive
that you could impact my other potential constituents and taxpayers by limiting their projects, so I feel like. There's gonna be delays we're trying to address the issue with delays and then you could potentially cause more delays and so I don't, I don't see how we're solving a problem. I feel like. It might be solving this problem, but you might be creating another problem for another group of constituents who have ballot rights and concerns and are paying. Tax dollars as well, so that's, that's my. That's me speaking.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:47:48
Senator Stone, you've been awful quiet. You're
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:47:53
good. OK. Thank you Mr. Chair, I can, I can count. That's, that's even though I'm a marine. I learned my accounting skills. Would you like to show us?
And I appreciate the committee showing up. I think this was an important bill maybe not in the top 10 of the session, but definitely one that's that's up there that obviously generated a lot of support and a lot of discussion. And so I appreciate every member
showing up this late evening holding it for dinner, so I'm willing to pull down the bill. No, sir. I'm going to amend the all this. I'm going to, I'm in the bill because I needed to have this discussion. Yes, I agree just to make sure for nothing else for my own sanity that we are pursuing the appropriate and just actions to address this issue, so I guess independently offline I'll take you all one by one and ask if there's any other little tweet. that you may not have brought for discussion, but I appreciate
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:48:50
the committee. I appreciate you doing that and thank you, and I think this is a good deal. I think it can do
a lot of good things for the state of Arkansas. We appreciate you running this and putting it together and hopefully you can get it back to us in a timely manner where we can. Senator Johnson. But we'll let him work on it for a day or so as long as we've been here tonight, we're not going to today.
Appreciate it. And I would like to say before we adjourn that for any contractors out here, utility companies, if y'all don't know
each other since you've been having some issues, get each other's phone numbers if you would. That being said, we're a German.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Ricky Hill
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
SB492 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELOCATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION, CONDEMNATION, AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
SB96 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DETACHMENT BY A REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY DETACHMENT.
SB258 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY, SAFETY, AND TRUST ACT.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB447 J. Petty TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING SHIPMENTS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO THE STATE.
SB478 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS DIESEL ENGINE FREEDOM ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF DIESEL ENGINES.
SB496 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PERMITS FOR SPECIAL CARGOES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT FOR SPECIAL CARGO TRANSPORTED BY A FARM MACHINERY EQUIPMENT HAULER.
SB540 M. Johnson TO LIMIT THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE OF A PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED A SEIZURE.
SB541 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TOWING OR STORAGE OF A VEHICLE, IMPLEMENT, OR PIECE OF MACHINERY; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN TOWED OR STORED.
HB1666 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS SELF-FUNDED CYBER RESPONSE PROGRAM.
HB1606 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON A DESIGNATED PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
HB1688 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF A DEALER'S EXTRA LICENSE PLATE.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB330 J. Scott TO AMEND THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL; AND TO ADD HAND SIGNALS USED BY BICYCLE OPERATORS TO THE WRITTEN DRIVER'S LICENSE TEST AND THE DRIVER'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS - SENATE, Mar 31, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 33
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 65
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 93
Speaker 92
Speaker 37
Speaker 94
Speaker 8
Linda Lamb
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 128
Speaker 129
Speaker 130
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 152
Speaker 158
Speaker 162
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 173
Brian Bowen
Unverified
Speaker 186
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 188
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 203
Speaker 205
Speaker 112
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 228
Speaker 232
Speaker 178
Dennis Slett
Unverified
Speaker 249
Speaker 223
Speaker 14
Speaker 257
Speaker 259
Speaker 247
Speaker 263
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
Speaker 278
Speaker 210