Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate

Uh, welcome to everyone. Got 3 bills we're going to hear today, uh. Representative Vault, are you in the room? Anyone here for Representative? Nunn, Senator Hester. There to be Senate Bill 203. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, I would like to start with, uh, with an amendment and, and I, and I will be first admit it's, it's It's all in the eye they holder, but there's, it's quite a bit and, uh, certainly it's just some name interchanges, uh, word interchanges. Uh, but I would like to amend the bill. I would like to answer as many questions as I can today, and, and if, if this body is not Not comfortable with these amendments moving forward today. I would at least like to try to get as many questions as I can answered, um, because I, I, I think, you know, 8 members on this committee, 35 on the Senate floor or want to support something like this that's so good for the state. Uh, it's also imperative that we, that we get it done right. So, uh, if, if, if you would indulge me by, uh, uh, amending this and let me answer as many questions as I can and then we'll talk about next steps after that. Good. O big part, right. They are letting move, Senator Gilmore 2nd. All in favor for the adoption amendment. Say aye. All opposed. Congratulations. Now you can present your bill as amended if you, if you'd like to suggest can I actually get a copy of the amendment I've had it. I, I gave it up a minute ago. Uh, thank you. Well, members, uh, you know, there was a There was a really exciting announcement last week of the opportunity to get two of these bike tramways, uh, in the state of Arkansas. Uh, and I want, I want to be very clear that we're not limiting to 2 or to 1, hopefully as the state of Arkansas continues to be the, uh, um, the world mountain biking destination that we continue to have more venues, um, more venues come in. Uh, this is a piece of legislation that is, um, you know, it's not identical, but very similar to what, uh, many other states that are being very successful with outdoor recreation, uh, have, have done so if ours is probably most similar to Idaho's, but you can look at Idaho, Utah, Colorado, many other states that, uh, that have done this similar type legislation, because look, we know that, uh, mountain biking certainly getting off a ski lift or a mountain bike lift is inherently dangerous. Uh, if you're going to be on wheels going downhill, you're, there's gonna be some crashes, uh, but we We want to make sure that the people that are providing this exciting opportunity for the state of Arkansas, uh, have some protections, some reasonable protections. I think the first thing I would like to say is it's not all protections. If the people, um, operating, um, these, these facilities act in a negligent way, uh, that they're still liability there. But really the key to this is if you are operating, and I will tell you, like the definition on, on page two. If you're operate operating within the antsy ski lift code. Uh, that's the American National Standard Institute, um, if you're operating within that code. Uh, getting an annual inspection. And operating reasonably, then you will have protections from, um, from From tort protections from getting sued. Uh, look, uh, again, I, I, I can go through all, all that this includes, but that's basically it. Look, we, we're excited about the opportunities for Mena, Arkansas. I mean, it's transformational. What's, what, what we believe will be happening down in Mena, Arkansas. Um, it's another really amazing thing that we expect to happen in Northwest Arkansas, uh, but I will be clear, these could be privately owned. These could be state-owned, right? And I, it, the two that are known, and there could be 5 more that come on after we do something like this, uh, but the one, the one at, uh, outside Queen Molina, uh, State Park outside Meena, that, that will be owned by the state, um, there, there will be one in Northwest Arkansas that I expect will be owned by a private individual or by, by a private company. So like this, I think this is something that we can all get behind, uh, we want more tourists, we want people coming here, experiencing all the great outdoors that, that, that uh the state of Arkansas has to do, um, and that's what, that's what this does. This just says, hey, we want you to come here, we want you to invest in the state of Arkansas, um, but if you act recklessly, if you act negligently, you can still be held liable. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any members have a question, Senator Hester. Give us a few minutes to go through this. No problem, yeah Give us a few minutes to go through this. No problem. I've been trying to do what you've been presenting, so. Senator Hickey, you recognize? Um, uh, Senator Hester, I, I mean, I see that you removed the license licenni at the very end. I guess I'm just struggling. By doing, by doing that, um, let's just look at page 2, 29. And 30 So We currently have it written as outdoor recreation. Operator means the owner or operator of an outdoor recreation area, including So including an agency of the state or political subdivision. So, since we've now removed ye. Do we need Do we need to leave the including in there. Who else, sir? So let's see. No, it's on page 2 lines 2930. And again, I've, I've just seen the amendment. So that's, I'm just trying to go through here. So, so if we remove lane on the last page, on page 10. Who's gonna be left then? If, if it's, if it's OK with the chair, I have, uh, Clay stone with a parks tourism here, uh, you can help answer questions. Stone, you would uh introduce yourself for the record you recognize Clay Stone, general counsel, Parks, Heritage and tourism. The, the including languages in there, uh, because the Senator Hester mentioned this is, there could be state-owned, state operated, or private operated. So when you're defining owner, uh, when you're finding outdoor recreation operator, it's the operator or owner of a recreation. or excuse me, area, including the state or an agency of the state. So whenever we remove license E on the last page, what we're just saying is that licensee. Or, or, so anybody that's not uh Not either last and knee or, or if they're not employed by the state or it's, or one of our political subdivisions, then, then they're gonna have to go another route as far as instead of coming before the claims commit. OK. So that would be correct. We need to leave that there. And I'm sorry, I just, I'm just now, I was trying to read through the amendment, so I'll give you a few more minutes to, to read. I, I've got a couple more. Somebody else has any, that'd be good, but. She, well you're looking, I'm gonna recognize Senator Leadding. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess just briefly, can you describe what one of these tramways kind of like looks like for those of us who might not be familiar, I've heard people refer to it as kind of a ski lift, but that doesn't sound quite like what we're talking about. Um You know, I, I, I should have brought a picture, uh, today, we could probably pull one of these, these are operating all, all across the country. What's unique about ours in the state of Arkansas, I'll get the answer, is, is we plan to be 365 days a year. Most of these that operate are actual ski lifts part of the year, uh, and when the snow goes away, they become bike lifts. So the, the overall main structure is the same. You just have a different, what I would call like a pick up there so instead of what you just said on a different pickup would be a. attached to the lift. Thank you. I know I do have all right, so. Just, just question. All right. So on page 7, where we're talking about the inspectors. That's gonna be up in lines 34567. So right there, we say that, An individual, you know, who is qualified under Arkansas law or can, can do the inspection. But then whenever we get to page 9, we kind of allude that the Arkansas occupational Safety and Health Office is going to be the one that's gonna have the investigators. But it doesn't, it just says that they're gonna make them available. It doesn't say that they're going to be the ones doing the inspection. Is it y'all's intent that they are the ones that are, that are. That they're going to be the party that will always do those. So I wasn't. Here's my understanding of this that is not the case that the, the state of Arkansas inspectors have the right to come on at any time, OK, um, anytime they want to, they can come on and do uh routine inspections, but this would be, it could be even an employee of the operator that they certify that once a year they do a full annual annual inspection of that's what keeps them with their, what they call the anti-certified. OK, and, and that, that's gonna. Your mic's not on. Would you turn that on now just repeat what you said for the record. So, so, so the question was who, who is the inspector and I, I say it's two different groups. One is the inspector of the state of Arkansas from our, whatever, you know, compelling governmental interest, they have the right to come inspect 365 days a year. If they have, if there's concerns or problems, uh, or if they just want to show up and inspect the state of Arkansas has the right to do that, but to keep the ANSI certification, uh, the facility. be the operator. Well, they can do their own annual inspection. They have to just certify that they did an annual inspection, um, you know, I don't know exactly what all that includes other than the ANC standards, um, but they, they will do and they will certify to keep their certification they do. Um, it, it could be in-house. They could hire a third party to do that annual inspection. Very So, so here's, here's just my thought, just brainstorming through it a lot, a lot is gonna rely on this inspection. So, because if that, if that particular inspection is, uh, is not done correctly. Then that could be the contributing factor to what I would, you know, would think would cause something to fail. So, however, with just along the lines of what you said, it could even be an employee. So with this bill, are we actually, uh, Are we making it so that that employee would not be liable. Or, or if they hired some other outside, uh, independent private person. Is this bill also make it where they wouldn't be, where they would not be negligent if they didn't do their inspection correctly. I, I, I, I think it does the opposite. I think it holds them accountable. If you're doing that inspection, you're holding yourself out to be a professional, uh, someone who understands what that inspection, uh, requires. And, and if they do not do that inspection properly according to the ANSI standards, um, then, then, then they would be negligent. And therefore, uh, liable for. Um, you know, litigation. That that's great. And, and where, where is that exactly within the bill? Is that on page 9? Under only if the tramway operator or outdoor recreation operator does, does any of the following. It's an act of omission. Is that, is that where that's included? That that's part of that, yes. This says operator. So, Where does that Where does that extend to their To their private hires if they were to were to hire a private person to come in to do that. How would if, if, are you saying if a private company came in and did an anti-inspection, they were negligent in that inspection. This bill does not provide any Benefit for that inspector. In terms of uh protection or anything. So if the operator We sued Uh, the operator could bring a third party claim against the, the, the person, the company who did the inspection. Even if they were an agent of them or whatever, I mean, that would, well, that's, that's employment matter that I, I can't answer that, but I, I do know that they would have the right to bring a, a third-party action. I just, if we could just, before you bring that to the floor, I'd I, I'd just like to make sure of that. I, I don't want to exclude somebody that's supposed to be doing their job because in their deemed to be a an agent or Contract employee because of the language we've got here that we, that they're able to avoid that by using this. And I know that's not y'all's intent, I just, I just, and again, the amendments kind of got me a little. A little confused. The last thing that I have, did, did someone, did someone talk to you about the contributory negligence and things of that nature. It was my understanding that someone had told me this. I'm not this smart, obviously. Which you all know. But the, uh, That the thing was that they thought that we might have an issue with that particular part of it because, uh, they equated it to a drunk driver. So if, uh, a pedestrian gets hit by a drunk driver. And that drunk driver is, you know, the one that's totally at fault, then of course, that negligence then would be all, all upon them. But they said that they thought that their possibly could be an issue right there because let's just say that the pedestrian themselves and the example they used to me was like if they were, you know, if the pedestrian was 10% at fault. Then, then that would take away all negligence of that person. Did you all look at that? So yes, we did. So if I, if I may kind of back up big picture and then get specific into your question. So big picture what we looked at is These other states that have these, you know, this is, as Senator Hester mentioned, this is, you know, an inherently dangerous activity sometimes, mountain biking down double blocks. I'm not a mountain biker, so I don't understand all the The, the phraseology of it, but it is dangerous. So we start with that, that this is unique, this is not simply somebody driving a car or walking down the street. So in terms of the contributory negligence part, yes, that's in there, but what we did in in the one of the amendments, and I can't see which one it is, I think it's Page 9, 22, we clarified that that defense only applies in a negligence action, so the drunk driver situation, that would be either intentional or reckless. Conduct so you would not have that. Um Uh Defense available if an operator is acting intentionally or recklessly, then that, that. So that corrects that, that part of that amendment, you believe correctly clarifies that it's only for a negligence action. The contributory negligence can, if proven. I mean, this is not a a bar to filing suit or anything like that. If proven that the, that the participant, uh, was contributorrily negligent, and that caused a, that was a cause of his damages or her damages, then if the operator can prove that, that could preclude liability, but it's not an immunity issue or anything like that. You satisfied, Senator Hickey? I don't know what you read, I want to recognize Senator Gilmore, I was listening to Senator Hickey and you turn your mic on, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was listening to Senator Hickey and I totally forgot my question. OK, thank you. OK Yeah, you need to. So So And I'm back on the investigators. 11 other question I have, just the way that we have it written here. So, And I didn't know this until you said that it could be the employee or other possible outside people. So on page 10, the investigators under subsection A of the section may obtain copies of the records of maintenance documents and everything else. And rightfully so. I mean, I think if you're going to do an inspection on something that it has to be all-inclusive to make sure that you understood, well, we main. We had a problem with something. We went out here and did maintenance, you know, they may want to put a little extra scrutiny on that to make sure that it was, was done correctly. But it looks like that under that particular subsection, that would only relate to The investigators and inspectors that were made available under the Arkansas Occupational Safety and Health Office. If we have a If we have a, uh, uh, a private entity that did this, and I, I don't know, I struggle with this employee thing. Of, of, of that. Of that operator. That, I don't, I, I don't know that that's good business at all, but if we, but if we do allow an outside inspector who, you know, is, uh, uh, has no conflict of interest or anything with these folks. I almost think that, you know, we need to put in there. I don't, I don't know if we should say May or if we should say that they should give them their, their maintenance records, just so that those will be available to them, uh, so that, you know, we don't get into some court battle, so if something, if something is related to some repair they did. You know, I think that they should be able to have access to that. I'm just, again, I'm just trying to think through all of this, but Uh I guess that's about the extent of what I got to say. You know, I, I, I will speak to that because, you know, I, the thought is these are such a unique thing, at least today they are for the state of Arkansas. And if someone's going to inspect something like this, you would hope that they would have, you know, It significant knowledge of it. Which is why we went two different directions, right? You, you can have a state inspector come look at something that, and maybe they've looked at some amusement park rides or something, but not having a full understanding of how these works, but the state again has absolute right to come 365 days a year, inspect and look at their, their concerns, uh, but, but, but for the purposes of the ANSI we wanted somebody that has a intense knowledge of this and you, you would hope, look, there's always bad operators, which is what we have to look out for. But you would think the person cares most about this operating safely, uh, is, is the owner and operator because you have a, uh, one bad news story and, uh, it could be the end of it. Senator Gilmore, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, thank you. Um, I think you, you started to hit on, um, I think the question, so I, I'm not familiar with the ANSI, the acronym, the ANSI, but it sounds like there are, um, That's part of a compliance and certification. Can you elaborate on that? Because that may, that may help address some of these concerns as far as the liability when it comes to the operators, um, And how they're going to be operating this and then the inspections associated with that I, I just, what I know is that you'll find this in, uh, some states have regulations for this. I mean, they have, it's, it's more of a regulation or rule than a statute, but they use this antsy, and this is not just for recreational tramways. I mean, ANC, as I understand it, Uh Governs elevators, I mean, all kinds of things that they have national standards for compliance. And, and, and our inspections associated with that. Yes, it's to make sure that whatever it is is compliant with, with the, so there's a code that basically is associated with that, that inspectors will have to go to to look at. So if you Google whatever. You know, antsy, uh, American National Standard Institute ANSIB 77. Do the following, you can find the most up to-date standards for recreational tramways. So whether it's a state inspector or a private inspector or someone who's employed, um, on the staff to inspect, they will still have to adhere to whatever that code of standards is my understanding is adhere to it and also have knowledge of it, yes. Well, I mean, here you'd have to have knowledge, I would presume, but yeah. I, I think that's the exact point. And if they don't, Uh, and they say they did. That's, that's, that's actually in a negligent to, to which they would be. I tried it and and I will tell you that the reason rather than Putting in a bunch of code in that area that we just said with these standards is these standards, as we know, change routinely. Every year, every other year, every 3rd, as, as, as they learn, uh, and you can speak to that. Shay Lewis, secretary of the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. Part of the concept of working with the ANC is that they keep up with these different types of lip lift operations. And so, so they keep up with the trends, the updated equipment, uh, issues or recalls or anything that happens along the way. And so in consultation with other operators we've learned that this was the best way to kind of, they keep the they own the responsibility of keeping up to standard and then the operator. Lives up to that. OK, so would, if I may, Mr. Chair. So, so with that, then the operator would not just inspector necessarily, but an operator would then have to fall under those standards as well. That's correct. OK, that's correct. that question for you on that, and I appreciate that, but, and, and I, I know we're trying to get this done and I'm supportive of it. I just, I don't want to do anything that's unintended right here. So, are you comfortable that an employee that may have that experience of that operator, Do, do you think that's, uh, uh, a far enough reach to be able to do that. I mean, it's, I think we all know that if somebody works for someone, you know, uh, Uh, and their livelihood is dependent upon it that sometimes they may not, uh, uh, go as far as they should. So I mean, I'm just uh, I think it's important, you know, I don't, I don't know how a lot of these amusement parks operate, you know, are their employees actually doing it all or is someone coming in and, uh, uh, you know, that's outside and private that's required to do it. I don't know. It's just, uh, that's where I'm struggling just to, just a tad is more with the, the employee part. of that particular operator because if we're going to require these, I think it was once a year. There was some language there about the preceding 6 months also that I was. Trying to get straight in my head, but, uh, but if we're gonna require these once a year, if we're going to that, if, if we're going, you know, if we're try if we're trying to say that, I just don't know why we wouldn't go, uh, you know, one step further and say, well, it has to be somebody that's, uh, independent. So. A struggle for me right there. And I think, you know, I don't know that you all want to sit down at the end of the table. Maybe you do and say, nope, I'm perfectly satisfied and with the, that that employee of this operator would do exactly what they Yeah, they say, so it's, it's tough to speculate on what could happen, but at the same time, Ownership and operators have to be responsible and they have to inspect their equipment on a daily, weekly, monthly, annual basis to ensure its safety, and that's not unlike other operators or facilities, uh, that the Department of Labor or others look at on a regular basis, so. She's just, it's just from, you know, from my standpoints, whether it, then I can use an industry I was in for years and years, you know, whether it's a bank, uh, you know, they may have a federal bank examiner to make sure that they're not extending credit further than they should because they're making more money or, you know, be it, uh, Uh, you know, any, any host of things from somebody that's in, uh, uh, food service industry, you know, to make sure that, uh, uh, you know, those entities are, Or staying within those boundaries, I think, you know, that sometime that dollar gets in the way of that. So. I do struggle with the employee part. I, and, and to speak to that certainly get that concern. That is why we allow the state of Arkansas to come inspect at any point, and I suspect they will, and I would hope they would. All right? I mean, we, we all want this right. The, the purpose of that annual inspection is for the ANSI certification, um, but look, from the governmental interest, public safety. We want the state of Arkansas labor and licensing to be inspecting as well. Senator Stone. Other states that have tramways like the ski, ski resorts you mentioned earlier, do they have the right to self-inspect there or are they, uh, have to use third-party inspectors. Like. Uh, Senator, I don't recall which states this particular part was modeled after, but this was modeled after other states, and I can't tell you whether every single state that has one has self-inspection or uh requires outside inspection. I can't tell you if every state has a requirement or the bill says that the state inspectors come in at will. So, You know, ours has where you can't have an employee who is who is qualified and certified to do this, but you still have the, the backstop of The state, uh, basically OSHA coming in and making sure that these tramways are operational and that the operators operating according to the the law and the specifications. So you always have the state looking over their shoulder, but even if they do a self inspection, that person doing the inspection is certified. I, I don't know certified, but qualified qualified qualified yes I'll, I'll be happy to use that word qualified to do that based on a, a minimum standard of training. All right, thank you. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Cha. So just to make sure I'm looking in the right spot, and we're looking on bottom of page 9, all the way through 10 and it outlines. Basically, the state can come in, investigate, conduct investigations, inspections. Um And then all documentation. Um Shall be made available if I'm reading all of that correctly, can you go over that and make sure I'm, that that's correct. OK. So that, that. That means all of, you know, Whatever records that exist. would be subject to that, correct? So, OK. I have one more Just center history, I mean, let me ask you this, is we're saying they may, and I don't know if a year is too quick. I mean, should we, should we consider just saying that they, that they will do an inspection on it. Every 2 years, every year. Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm literally sitting here thinking about as you ride an elevator and it's got a, a posting on there that shows that an elevator has been inspected within a 2 or 3 year period. You know, I'm just like, you know, by the state or something of that nature. I just, I just wonder if we should consider that. Just Again, I don't know if it should be May or, or if we should try to say with the, with the, with an entity like this. Um You know, or, or maybe if it wasn't done with an independent third party, they would, they would come in just as a. A little added protection. Maybe, maybe we could even structure it that way, that if they are going to use their employee or something of that nature, then. Uh, and can't provide an independent third party with, uh, no conflict of interest, then, then maybe the state at that point should, should come look. So I would We could consider that. I would, I would, I just, I, the thing is, is I don't, I don't want to do something here, Lord forbid, and, and, and, uh, we get some major catastrophe out there and lose 12 people. I, I just don't want to be a part of it just because we were, Getting held up on a little bit of, uh, uh, inspection right here allowing something a little further than we should. Uh, I, I'm supportive of your bill. No, I, I, I totally get that, and that's where I would say we're, we're not, we as a legislature are not saying go do this or do it in a particular way, this particular bill is just, uh, barely, very narrowly defined as with some, with some tort protections. Like, look, if, if they act negligently, if they do their own inspection and they're not capable or they don't do it well, then. The They're not protected, right? They, they, they, they can and should, uh, Be accountable in court. And so that's where I would go now, you know, like the, the, the purpose of that annual inspection is really just for their antsy standards to say that we, we've, we've looked at this whole thing. We qualify. Look, I can tell you, uh, I'm not sure which one's in Florida, Disney World or Disneyland, uh, you know, forever, they had 0, I mean, for decades up until just a couple of years ago, 0 government officials were allowed on the property, right? Like they did their own inspections, didn't, uh, Didn't see disasters. Right, because the no one, no one has more of a, um, Uh, an interest to make sure it's operating well, then the person who's livelihood depends on it. Ser Gilmore, so just make sure I'm, I'm understanding because, I mean, look, I, I, I don't necessarily disagree with Senator Hickey's request, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand. So on page 7, it says, at least once a calendar year. Right? And then, um, I'm looking at line 3 of 7. And then on page 10, The only May that I see of this may obtain copies of records, which means basically anything's available to them if they deem it appropriate. So, I, I mean, I mean, maybe, maybe there's clarification needed. I, I don't know, but. I mean, I read that to be if you, if you can elaborate on, on, on that line and, and so before you answer that, that would answer your question about having an annual inspection with it. Come back for me. Yeah. If, if I may. Now, well, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This just, this is exact, this on page 7, this is where it would relate to an employee. So this would be as it relates to an employee. So if, and so you could just use an employee to do the inspection. The other part over here where it just says may and it doesn't say that they're gonna inspect. It just said that they're going to be made available, that the occupational health or whoever it is here that that they're, that they're just gonna have those aspectors available. So that's what I'm saying if we're, I just, I would like to see us at least do an amendment that says that if it's not a A private entity that's out there doing this antsy inspection, which will be at the total. That'll be at the choosing of the operator, whether or not they want to do that or not to do it. But if it's not, but if it's not somebody that doesn't have a conflict that's, uh, You know Able to do that, then I would just like to see that, you know, that the state does go out there and look at that. Every so often we could discuss, you know, how often I just. I, you know, my, my concern with that is we have somebody from the state that just goes out, doesn't, I, I'm not, they don't know what they're looking at, right? It's not their fault. They're, they're more than capable. They just, this is new versus somebody that is, that understands the anti-ski lift code, not that the state of Arkansas couldn't get, um, you know, prepared for that. But it's, this, this is new, it's very unique. It's different. Uh, that's why we're, we're very clear here that that individual has to be qualified under Arkansas state law to inspect these. Uh, these tramways. Again, not, not precluding the state, and I know what you're saying is you'd rather them not, instead of saying may, saying they will come annually. I suspect they will come more than annually. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, I do have 1 to sign up to speak. Uh Jacob Warlow. Would you come to the end of the table, please? As I take my seat, I receive a copy of the. Yeah. Your mic is on, so if you would introduce yourself for the record and you're recognized. And, Mr. Chair, really quick, speaking for or against, against. Uh For the record, I on the bill. He's not speaking for or against speaking on the bill. Thank you. Uh, good morning, senators. My name is Jacob Warlow. I am an appellate attorney and a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Uh, I also previously clerked for the Supreme Court of Arkansas from the beginning of 2018 through the end of 2020 and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Senate Bill 203 today. By and large, Even the pre-amendment version of this bill, I think is a really good bill, which speaks to, uh, many exciting things happening in our state, uh, looking at the prior version of the bill, there were 2 or 3 things that I really wanted to uh touch on, uh, suggest changing the first of those was the uh licensee language at the very end of the, at the very end of the bill. Um, I think Senator Hickey has, um, Appropriately Ask questions about whether or not the um You know, what the relationship between any state actor for uh and the operator for purposes of liability would be. One more question I have is. OK. It does appear that in on page 2 of the bill, the language under 1511, 1002. Subsection 4 outdoor recreation operator means the owner or operator of an outdoor recreation area, including an agency of the state or political subdivision of the state. Or the employee's agents, officers, or delegated representatives of the owner or operator of the outdoor recreation area. Uh, I think as long as um the line between a public actor or a state-owned facility and the, uh, a privately owned facility is kept clear. There's not an issue there. Um. You know what Of course, our Supreme Court had a great battle about whether you even could sue the state for money damages and, uh, I think that This would be a, uh, you know, allowing. A privately owned facility or a private actor to reap the benefits or the protections of the claims commission would be a, a step further and not authorized by or not contemplated perhaps by past legislation of the Constitution, but it seems that that has been addressed. The second thing that I was, uh, going to touch on is the language in The language that Senator Hickey was asking about regarding Contributory negligence and comparative fault, um, uh, just so we're clear, the proposal contained in this bill is not exactly how we've done it in Arkansas in the past for purposes of civil liability. We have in Arkansas, what's known as a modified comparative fault jurisdiction. Most people like that. That means that If you are injured in some kind of way, and, uh, partially at fault that Uh, you're, you can still recover as long as you weren't more at fault. Than those who caused your injury. Your recovery would simply be reduced by the uh percentage of your faults. In this instance, the bill seems to contemplate that if the um if the injured person is at fault at all, then they are precluded from recovering at all. Now, I understand with the amendment that there is an intention here to clarify that to where it's just for a negligent action, uh, or just for an action for negligence, um. I, I, I appreciate the intent there. I'm not sure if it's uh effective to address, you know, all the scenarios that uh are, are at least foreseeable here. It seems that there's a, you know, we address this scenario of, well, what if the operator of the lift is drunk at the time that they are, uh, at the time, someone's injury occurs and that that that drunkenness contributed to the uh negligence in some way. Senator Hester points out, well, maybe that's more reckless than negligence, um. Maybe, uh, but I think there are other possibilities as well, you know, if someone's just texting or maybe not paying attention as they're supposed to be, for whatever reason, uh, is that negligent? Possibly should, uh, someone who's harmed as a result of that inattention or mistake, uh, have a right to bring that uh issue to a jury and have them resolve the situation. I don't see why not. That's just me. Uh So that's kind of the uh contributory negligence versus comparative fault or modified comparative fault as we have here in Arkansas. If the uh body was inclined to amend or change or fix the Compared to fault section. Lost my papers here, guys. Give me just one moment. Well, It's simple to do it this way. There is a codified statutory section which sets out the definition of comparative fault or modified comparative fault as we have it here in Arkansas. One could strike through the sections in the proposed bill which set out the uh contributory negligence and assumption of risk language and simply say that if someone is injured, uh, As uh pursuant to facts that are contemplated in this bill in connection to the tramway operations that um And Part A proximate cause of that injury was the person's own negligence that uh the liability for that injury would be resolved through the existing comparative fault provisions we have at the statutory code section setting out the modified comparative fault doctrine in Arkansas. Um Believe Senator Hickey has, uh, appropriately addressed the issues relating to the uh The inspections and I have nothing to add there. That's it for me. You don't have any questions. Saying no, Jake, thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill? Being none, Senator, would you like to close for your bill? Well, thank you members. This has been very helpful. And as you, as you saw her with the amendments that we brought today, our, our posture is, um, this is new. We want to get it right. We want to get it right for the, for the state of Arkansas. Uh, I, I hope that we all agree that that these types of, uh, recreational outdoors are, are something that is a really Significant benefit for the people of Arkansas. Um, our posture again is we want to get this right. We think we've addressed most of the concerns, I think, uh, Senator Hickey, I'm gonna, uh, get back to you, should the body allow this to pass today as amended, it will have to sit on our floor tomorrow to actually be engrossed and wouldn't be voted on until the next day. Uh, I hope to, um, should this body let it, let this out of committee today, I will address, um, Senator Hickey's one concern. I said that you, you said that You'd let me get back to you on. So, uh, and with that, uh, happy to answer, you know, I'm, I'd appreciate a, a good vote which will motion to pass by as a man of stone, seconded by Senator Gilmore. All in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations Bill passes as amended. Uh, Crow. Oh Senator Steve Krall, uh, District 3. House Bill 1278. It requires surveys to take certain action before entering the commercial poultry barn. This came, uh, came to. The House sponsor From the surveyor's lobby, they have had some problems where people have gone on to commercial property and then spread the disease to another one, the intent of this law is to have them contact. The commercial property and act in the proper way in case there is. Is a disease and um it's just commercial property over 5000 square feet, as we all know, when you drive on them, it says the name of the company and the name of the people, uh, the company, the big companies that own these are like they can call our headquarters, we'll get them a cell phone so they can get it taken care of. It is not to restrict their, it's just to, I mean if they lose like a layer lost all their chickens, they had to buy new chickens. They are no longer a farmer. So that I'll take questions. Questions from the committee. I, I just, I have to. I didn't realize this was an issue. So you said this came from the surveyors, uh, association or, they contacted Trey on that. OK. And so, Uh, OK. That's interesting. I, I didn't realize they were doing that much survey and therefore causing, um, These types of issues. I, I, I guess. I don't know what to say other than it's, it's fascinating to me, so. Um OK, thank you. Just, just to calm. I mean, I, I. You're welcome. I mean, as, as a before the meeting, you know, kind of joking around. I mean, I know we're doing surveyors, but there's a whole host of other people that could be transmitting these diseases too. I mean, from, Uh, farm co op that's coming out to the place to put out fertilizer and gets out of the truck to open the, open the chute or whatever they may have to and, you know, and then they go to the next place. So I just, well, it's my understanding that there is a protocol and procedure when you access poultry farms, and they tend to, because they work with poultry farms so much, know those protocols and procedures and do follow those. OK, so you So that where are those, where are those procedures and protocols located? Are they in some rules or they're in, they're in the poultry Federation rules, I guess, something like that. Oh, I that. My name is Randy Thurman. Courtney Shepherd and I represent the, um, Arkansas's surveyors Society. This is Senator, this is not our bill. We are neutral with this. We believe that there's provisions in current law that require surveyors to contact landowners, but with that said, we are neutral. OK thank you I stand corrected. That's fine. Anyone else he looked like you. So is that, is that in rulemaking or is that in statute? I, I was trying to pull up the statute while we were as far as with the The rules they have to follow the other people that might be to get back to you on that. OK. OK You want it? No Uh, no one has signed up to speak for or against it. Is there anyone in the audience that wished to speak for or against this bill. Big no you grow you like clothes. I would like clothes and ask for do pass. What's the wish of the committee? Letting motion Senator Stone had a 2nd, all in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations bill fast. Representatives, you barely stuck back in here. I was hoping we could adjourn, but since you're here, I want to recognize you. I'm so sorry. I'm teasing. I was trying hard. That's fine. Uh, the mic on the, on your right is own if you turn one off, one on. Uh, that's fine. Introduce yourself, please, ma'am, and you're recognized we are looking at, uh, house Bill 1149. You, uh, Representative Dan bought District 87. Sorry, I left a second ago, sir. I needed to go support Senator Dismay's bill and education committee. 6. doing that Oh no, no, I wasn't, I wasn't implying that, sir, I promise. I'm sorry I wasn't trying to imply that. So, um, I'm on an ag task force, a national Ag task force. And this is one of the things that we brought up at our AG task force, uh, some states had already passed it. So what we learned during the pandemic is we don't have enough food supply. Um, and in reality, we really should be encouraging people to grow their own food. We're a right to farm state, um, I think when we have property, it should. This should be like a private property issue because you should be able to grow a garden, feed your family. Sustain yourselves if you want to. Nothing says that you have to. Uh, the municipal league had, um, a little issue that they sent me an amendment for for them to be. Uh, good with the bill. I added that amendment to the bill, and then I didn't have any opposition on the bill. What, what was your amendment on it? Uh, it was exactly what they sent me, um, I wanna say because once it's engrossed, it's hard to tell where that exact um. I'm pretty sure it's line 34 to light to line 8 on the back. It's that whole last section is what they had added. Um, I think they were worried about people maybe growing, uh, tall corn near a sign or something, a sign, and then a stop sign on the highway and not being able to be seen around the so sign. I think they were worried about maybe if somebody grew um, Corn right on the line of someone's property line, they didn't want that to happen. So they kind of put safeguards in there for those kind of things. In a gibble Thank you. So just What does it mean? I don't know if this is defined anywhere, but on, uh, section, Section C, so line 30, the first page where it says, uh, personal consumption or non-commercial sharing. Is that a defined term anywhere, non-commercial sharing sharing I understood that it was, I can't tell you where it's defined at though, but I can find it for you if you need me to, um, But I'm pretty sure they don't want you like growing large gardens and selling it to people for your own personal consumption, especially in those, um, areas where you might have HMOs, I think that's what they're called anyway. I don't live in subdivisions, so I don't understand all those terminologies in rural Arkansas. I live in rural Arkansas, yeah, I've got lots of land to grow a garden. Um, So, so I guess the other question that I have, you know, in, in all seriousness, uh, I guess this wouldn't This would allow plants that aren't otherwise precluded by law, meaning we can't grow marijuana, you said it. I was, I was, I was leading the witness, so. No it does not give you the right to grow marijuana. Hemp. Hemp, yeah, no. Just a vegetable, just a vegetable garden. I mean it could be. I didn't know if it was defined as a vegetable in some way, but yeah, it just says leafy green, so. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, you're my rep. I, I did call you. I, I, I, I struggle with this a little bit, but, but maybe And I'm not for sure yet on the back page, maybe, maybe there's a help there of my concern. My, my, my concern, and as I'm, I'm gonna say million dollar subdivision, but it could be any subdivision. My, my issue is this, and, you know, wherever within, you know, in my area, uh. But it will, any of the larger cities, you have multi-million dollar subdivisions, and, you know, always seems like to me you have, uh, somebody within a subdivision that's You know, wants to pedal a little different way. That's their, that's their choice. But I didn't see anything that would regulate, you know, size of the lot that they could use to grow the garden. So if somebody just said, well, I want to plant my entire yard in this million dollar subdivision. With and I hear what you're saying vegetable garden. I don't, I don't know, also don't know what that would include, because, you know, I know people eat, you know, as you know from our, uh, polk salad, uh, I've heard that people are actually eating, growing and eating pigweed now. Uh, don't understand it, but that's, that's what I'm understanding. So my thing is, is just, I think that would be, would be a rare circumstance, but I just don't know if we needed to have some limits here, that it would be, uh, That it would be of a Particular size in the yard or, you know, I, I do, I do think that's taken care of and that spot because it does say a subdivision of this section does not prohibit the adoption of, of a local ordinance or regulations on a general nature that does not specifically regulate vegetable gardens. So I think they can tell them how we don't, in this subdivision, this is how we do it. We do, um, We do this number of acres by this number of acre or we do it in a raised guard, a raised garden, or but. I think they would be the ones, from what I understand, from the municipal League, that would give them the right to say, we don't want you to do. This massive garden. We, we do, um, Bucket gardens, we do, uh, whatever the garden might be for that area. A lot of people do raised bed, uh, gardens now. That's like huge raised garden beds are. Um, and so I think they would have the right to be able to say that for that subdivision. You're, you're talking about the city board. I mean, I understand that maybe a homeowners or so. I, I assume we're not trying to get around a homeowners association or anything like that. But if, if a, if a subdivision doesn't have a homeowner's association or, or one of those other, uh, entities that's allowed. So, let's just go through that then. If, how, how would they do that? If they're not going to specifically say a garden. If, if, if they, if it has to be so general in the nature that that does not specifically regulate vegetable gardens. How, how are they going to say that it must be a raised bed vegetable garden. The same way they do that your grass can't be any taller than this inches in your yard like they do in my, I had my girls lived in a subdivision for a while, so I understand kind of the rules and the regulations that they say can't happen on subdivision gardens. That's why I was like, at least I could put in a rule that says they can all have a raised bed, or they can all. But let's just, and again, um with, with this, with this amendment, it, it, I, I think that we're at least going the right way. I just don't understand. If I'm sitting on the city board. I've got it, and I want to come up with a, with something that says this. I want to say that you can have a vegetable garden because the law allows it, but it, it needs to be located in the backyard. Uh, it needs to not encompass more than 30% of the backyard, and it does not need to be, uh, unruly in nature. unsightly. But By doing that, I've specifically said vegetable garden. And it's, and if I'm reading this right, it says it does not specifically regu regulate vegetable gardens. I don't, I wouldn't know how to write that, I guess is what I'm saying since we're saying that it doesn't specifically re regulate vegetable gardens, it almost makes it seem like to me that, well, I can't say vegetable garden. So how do, how do I regulate that? Senator Disma. It is the word there that maybe the prohibit would have maybe been. I mean, I could see that it could not prohibit, but you're allowing the regulation, so I, I do kind of understand what he's saying like I don't, I don't um. Maybe the Ministry League who kind of helped develop the paragraph could explain if it does what we think it does or what their latitude is. Thank you. Basically, the way you said that it, it the sentence has got a double negative in there that makes it a positive. We'll see. Uh, John Wilkerson, general counsel John Wilkerson, general counsel of the municipal League. Uh, we added the language, uh, had the effect of precluding vegetable gardens, and then we added that to clarify the non-commercial and sharing. We, as a, as a, as far as we know, cities don't regulate vegetable gardens specifically. So this is kind of a new territory for us. So great questions, but the intent was to say, we're not going to prohibit vegetable gardens and back to the corn stalk and the way of the, you know, the sign or cornstalk blocking the, you know, train track. to get full view that I think that's allowed under this and Fort Smith was in particular, Fort Smith was, um, mentioned by, I forgot who it was, as regulating vegetable gardens, but when you look at their code, what they say is that trees, shrubbery, other vegetation can't go so high to block the, the sign or, or the railroad crossing. So I try, I tried to, to make it clear to that point that we're not going to prohibit vegetable gardens, but again, this is new territory. I've never dealt with this. How, how do you answer the issue that, uh, They may come plant them all in the front yard, you know, subdivision that didn't have a, a subdivision rule in it. And, uh, what are we gonna do about, uh, the people who start calling on that. I, I, I don't know. I mean, I'm, like I said, this is all new. I think what I would, if this passes, what I would argue, and it's, it's maybe a little challenging is to say that we're not, so the city council, I guess would say that you can't have any vegetation in your yard over 2 ft high or 3 ft high or 4 ft high, but you could still have it in your front yard, much to the chagrin of your neighbors, yeah, I mean that's a fair point. Um, I, I, I just tried to, I think the intent was not to prohibit vegetable gardens. Not really the location. to prohibit them either, but you know, you, I mean, it's, it's, here we are gonna tell the cities that, uh, uh, we're, we're gonna let you go out there and Plant vegetable garden plant corn in your front yard. It's a fair point. That's not the intent of the bill. Uh, no, and it's like Senator He be a while ago. We, I'm in favor of your bill. Um, but, but the unintended consequences out there. I mean, I, I, I could see you, you know, that happening and if my mother-in-law was still alive, she'd cut my throat. So I, I'm just trying to stop a problem. I'm, you know, uh, I appreciate it, yeah. Like I said, this is new to us, um, and I've, I, I can take another run. At clarifying this better, um. I think you have a question you don't mind. I think You, you bike's not on. I mean, I think what Representative Volt, you know, is trying to do right here is, and I don't put words in your mouth. I mean, you won't allow somebody, you don't, you don't want a city to say, you can't have a, uh, uh, a maintained vegetable garden. But by the same, you know, located within a inconspicuous area of the yard or something of that nature. I just, I, I'm, I'm just worried that if we don't work this to actually give them a little and them being the city board. A little bit more oversight on how to do it because if they specifically, they can't specifically say vegetable garden. I mean, I, I don't know how you regulate something with, with. By not specifically naming it right now they, they regulate many things including setbacks, you know, you can't build a house on the line, you can't build your buildings on the line, but you can plant a vegetable garden on the line, you know, so there, there's, you know, Causes some other issues and, and you can imagine the number of complaints at the city council mayor's gonna get, but. I, I'm, again, trying to help you out and solve problems. Showing some things are gonna happen. I, I think I can work with this. I think we can make this work. We can pull it down. You pull it, pull it down. OK, let's do that again. I, I think most people here want you to get your bill passed. With within reason. OK. All right, we're gonna pull the bill down. We'll hear it again when you, uh, come back with some work on it. And if y'all need any questions out of us, please feel free to call and ask, OK, good. Thank you. See no other business, we are adjourned.