State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Folks in attendance today and I want to start with an announcement that if you wish to speak for or against the bill, there's a sign up sheet outside the door for you to sign in. And so please do that, uh, if you haven't already done so. And with that, we're gonna begin at the top of the agenda. First bill on the agenda today is House Bill 1050. I see Representative Tosh there at the end of the table, and Representative Tosh, before I recognize you, I want to say that how much we appreciate the work that you've done over the years in this Committee for the last 3 sessions leading this Committee as the Chairman. Uh, you did excellent work and you're a member for whom I have always had the utmost respect and admiration and, uh, it's an honor to, to try to fill your shoes, which is gonna be a tough task. So I just want you to know that, uh. And appreciate you for all again all that you've done so with that Chairman, you're recognized. >> One question, Mr.. Chairman, if you don't mind before I present my bill, I'm just curious, you know, when I was Chair of this Committee, uh, I had a policy that, uh, and many of the Committee Members will, I think recall this that, uh. The first bill that was presented during the Session, we just automatically always passed that bill and, uh, and we always killed the last bill of the Session. So I'm presenting the first so I didn't know if that policy was still in effect or not. >> That policy is not in effect. That's what >> I was afraid of. I was afraid of, well, Committee Members, it's great to be back before this Committee, Mr.. Chairman, I appreciate those kind words. Uh, uh, obviously I have a, a great passion for this Committee and, uh, spent a lot of, uh, ever, ever since I've been elected, I've been a member of this Committee and this is the first time. So, but anyways, my bill today is, uh, what it does, it separates the Poinsett County. Uh, sheriff's department and the tax collector's office. It, uh, uh, right now the, uh, tax collector's office is under the umbrella of the sheriff's office and, uh, you know, across this county we have across the State, we have 75 counties. 51 of those counties have already made that separation where they've separated those, uh, two offices, the tax collector and the sheriff's office. And, uh, the quorum Court passed a resolution. Uh, recognizing that this is what they wanted to do, of course, it takes legislative action to be able to actually, uh, separate those two. So as their representative for that area, they contacted me and asked me to run this regis uh Legislation to be able to separate them. Of course you're looking at the bill, you know that, uh, during the general election of. 2026, then, uh, that'll be when the new tax collector, if this Committee passes it out of here and we pass it on the House floor, then in the general election 2026 will be an election, they will select a tax collector and, uh, I think all of us would agree that, uh. You know that we need to separate these officers for simple fact. We need to share the, the sheriff of this county and like the other counties, they need to be focused on public safety and not trying to collect taxes. So as I said, uh, there's already 51 counties that have done this, uh, and with the blessings of this Committee, uh, let's be number 52 out of the 75. And with that, I'd take any questions. >> Thank you, Representative Tosh. Representative Tosh has explained his bill. Are there any questions? Representative Waldridge, you recognized. Thank you, Mr.. >> Chairman. Representative Tosh, I did have a question. Uh, Section D talks about the General Assembly's involvement. Will this, uh, have any impact on separating those offices? Is there anything that will be hurtful for the county or anything there? Can you kind of explain that portion of it for me? >> That's a great question, Representative, and absolutely I'll be glad to explain it. You know, the sheriff's office and the tax collector's office, it actually started back in uh England around the 9th century, I believe it was. And then when the American colonies came in and then the states, they adopted this where we had the tax collector, uh, you know, and the sheriff and the tax collector were the same. And then under the Constitution, I believe it was Amendment 55, uh, it gave the General Assembly the authority at that time and that was established in 1874, which Arkansas has been under that since 1874, but we've always, we've had the authority since then under the Amendment 55 of the Constitution that we could separate those two officers, but in that amendment, uh, I believe it's Act, uh, 12-12-. 14 or 1202. But under that, it says that we as the General Assembly will establish a uh class for each county and I'm sure that's based on population. And in that county or in that classification, there'll be a minimum salary and there'll be a maximum salary and so what that what that language you're sending that bill does, it's it's reminding points that county, hey, we're gonna pass this bill, but you have to follow the class uh that. Uh, that salary that's specified in that class that's set about, set out by that statute that I just mentioned. So that's just making sure that they follow the guidelines that this General Assembly placed in the place years ago. OK. >> All right, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, is there anyone here in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Wardlaw says he has a motion. Representative Wardlaw has made a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion. Representative Tosh, would you like to close for your >> bill? Mr.. Chairman, I'm closed with the bill Committee. >> All right. There's a motion due passed on the floor. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. First bill of the Session. All right. Next item on the agenda, House Bill 1058. Representative Unger. You are recognized. >> Mr.. Chairman, May I ask Mayor Angela Russell to join me at this end of the table? Yes. Good morning. Mr.. Chairman, Committee, what 1058 intends to do. is basically uh tell State agencies that regulate entities. That they should not tip them off ahead of time that they're coming on a complaint-based inspection. So whatever it is, restaurant, nursing home, daycare center. Uh, if it's complaint-based, you don't give them a big heads up. Um This is needed and actually this sprang from the issues at the landfill in Tawnytown run by Eco Vista and Waste Management where they have been tipped off. They have been told ahead of time. And so they can clean up, uh, if I could ask Mayor Russell to talk about that. Yeah, >> and Mayor, before you begin, would you, uh, please State your name and identify yourself for the record? >> Absolutely. uh, thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. My name is Angela Russell. I am the mayor of Tawnytown currently. I would like to speak to you regarding some of the issues Toytown has been facing over the last several years. Daily we face Ecovisa landfills, trash being blown all over our yards, our streets. Our fills we even have had animals, cows eating bags and dying, ingesting them and dying, gassy odors coming from the landfill, not just odors, gasses that make you sick, your eyes water. I myself have actually had to go to the hospital in the middle of the night. I live very close to the landfill. We have had boat fires where there's tires in the landfill and batteries in the boat. I have pictures. Dead birds, we had hundreds of dead birds, could not understand why. We've had 3 air tests that have been taken showing chemicals above EPA levels. Red dye was placed into a hole and came out in in one of our creeks, Wildcat Creek, that leads to the Illinois watershed. This affects the livelihood of our citizens and myself and my family. I've actually had citizens contacting me last night due to the odors. And it's hazardous odors like I said, eyes burning, throat burning, nauseous. We've dealt with this for 4 years. We've made many complaints to ADEQ, and we could not understand why Eco Vista was continually being allowed to operate the facility with such standards, such low standards. I personally went to the ADQ website and I printed off all of the inspections, all of the complaints from 2021 to 2023. There were no violations in 2020. I, I, I'm sorry, excuse me, in 2020, no violations. 2021, there was 12 inspections, zero violations. 2022, there was 14 inspections, two violations. 2023, 29 inspections, 9 violations. So you're telling me a 609 acre landfill, which they don't use the entire thing, but 609 acres, there was so little. Violations. Why? Why was there so little violations? We come to find out that there was someone tipping off waste management. Some agent from ADEQ was tipping them off. We could always tell when they were coming a week before, and the way that we were able to tell is the dead trees that was on the property. They pulled them up and replanted them. This has been done at least between 5 and 7 times this year. I'm sorry, in 2024. We could tell that the gas plant had been shut down for a couple of days before they got there. We could, we could not hear it running anyway. Whether they shut it down completely, I don't know. I just know that we could not hear it running and we can hear it running from my back deck. There was people out there picking up trash. You could tell when they were coming because everything started getting cleaned. Multiple workers were out there cleaning. There was State agents that. Was out there in detail cleaning up the trash from the roads. My citizens are suffering and I don't know what to do about it and I cannot get help. And whenever I contact ADQ and they tip off waste management whenever they come for their inspections. They're all cleaned up. So I ask you, please take this bill seriously because our, my city is suffering, my citizens are suffering. Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Banger, you're recognized. Thank, >> thank you, Mr.. Chairman. Uh, um, Mr.. Chairman, Committee, thank you for hearing us out. Um, I've had feedback on the bill, um. And had been asked for clarifying language and I am flexible for clarifying language and hearing concerns. Uh, everybody has said it is a good bill with good intentions. It just needs to be fine tuned a little and so in the spirit of that, um, I would like to, uh, not take a vote on the bill. >> Representative Unger, I appreciate that and I'll honor that request. We do have some Committee Members who do have some questions and so while we're here and while there's been a presentation and your mayor's here. Uh, and I think there are witnesses in attendance. Why don't we just go ahead and take those up. So Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question. >> Thank you Mr.. Chair. um, and Representative Unger, I agree with you. This, I think, is a well-intended bill. I think that, you know, I would be willing to help you work on some of the language on this. The couple of questions I have is you guys in your testimony were talking about, you know, feeling like they were being tipped off. You had no like proof that they were tipped off, correct? >> I do have truth. >> So you, I mean you just because just based on the testimony, it just felt like you, you saw you, you, you, there was a complaint and then you just saw people out cleaning things up and it almost, it didn't seem like there was an actual proof that things were being done on that, but you, so you do have proof this is going on. >> I actually do. I know the person's name. And people, the media has asked me for the name. I have not given the name. I will only say the name when we were sworn in in front of a Judge. >> Got you. Um, I, I think that, you know, and leeway, just for a couple of questions, Mr.. Chair, you're, um, I, I think that the, the biggest piece of this that is a bit concerning is just having some teeth in it so that when we do get that proof and, and we, we go and, and, um. You know, put that on the record that we can, we can out some of these people to where that they're, you know, we can, we can get them out of, out of these agencies as soon as possible. I, I, you know, my, my, my, my fear though is that we go and. It's just a bunch of hearsay and we go, well, this guy over here or this woman over here is tipping off waste management or tipping off this person, and then it just turns into a he said she said thing. So I would love to work with you if you, if you don't mind to help draft some of that language. >> Thank you, sir. If I could address those concerns, if you look at paragraph 2. If any person is convicted under this section while employed by the Department of State, he or she shall be removed from employment immediately. Paragraph B. If a person is convicted under this section while holding public office, the conviction shall also be deemed a malfeasance and a malfeasance in office and shall be subject the person to impeachment. And what this comes out of the ethics of the Arkansas employee ethics manual. That it turns out to be a class B misdemeanor and the case is heard in circuit court, so it will go before a Judge and, and I appreciate your concern, but I do believe it has teeth. >> Representative Collins, you're recognized for the question. >> Thank you, Mr.. Chair. Uh, well, uh, Representative Unger, I guess I'm kind of curious about the conviction. Is this a criminal offense we're talking about? And if so, what's the classification? What's the punishment? And if not, why are we using the language of conviction? >> Well, it ends up being a class B misdemeanor, so that gives the Judge some leeway on how much they sentence them to. Um, there needs to be consequences. I believe that the citizens and the taxpayers expect their State agencies are looking out for their welfare. Matter of fact, uh, when I asked, uh, Senator Bryant to help me on the Senate end, he said, uh, isn't this already against the law? And I said no, you would think so. I've been contacted by the media about this. I've talked to 5 or 6 reporters. Their comment has been, hasn't, isn't this already against the law? And I would say, Well, you would think so. So, um, something needs to be done that the status quo isn't working. >> Just to follow up, uh, real quick on that, so is it, it's not stated in the bill that it's a misdemeanor. So I just, I mean, in order for a criminal law to have validity, it, it needs to be clear, otherwise I think we're going to run into an issue. um so that would just be one thing I might suggest is that if we are creating a criminal offense here we need to State that clearly. Just a suggestion. Thanks. Well, >> I would be happy to put that in. I have to say that the, the lawyer BLR that drafted that didn't think it needed to be in there because it quotes Arkansas Code Title 1, Chapter 8, but I'd be happy to, to try to get that in to satisfy your concerns. Thank you. >> Representative Beck, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr.. Chair. Uh, and, and we can get into more details on this maybe offline, but, uh, one of my concerns is, uh, is the line where it says normally, um. That they get advanced notice outside of the normal regular regularly provided to all persons. You know, in the industry it's, it's not uncommon at all for the State to come in and inspect, you know, your. Your stacks to make sure that you're not putting out something you shouldn't be putting out and all that, but normally those are done, you're pretty notified that hey we want to come in and check this stuff like that. So I think that. want to come in and check this stuff like that. So I think that by, by using the phrase all persons regularly provided to all persons, that's kind of putting a big blanket over that and I think in the case of different industries, you know, that we have to be running, it has to be ready for them to do that, so we need to make sure that we provide enough details in there to make sure that we, you know, those who are normally would get a day's notice, uh, to make sure that they're running and up and and they can do the inspection that they'd be. able to do that. So it it just seems like it's a little bit broad there. You might tighten that up. And I actually believe that's what the governor's office concerns were and like I said, I am flexible to tightening up language and clarifying and, and I appreciate the, the feedback uh from all of you. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I spoke with you last night about my concerns about the bill, uh, I still have the same concerns. I think those are some of the concerns that have been raised by other members. Um, my, my question is, you know, like we discussed last night of how you're gonna prove this. How, how are you gonna, you know, at what point are you, you know, this is gonna have to go to a prosecutor that's going to refer it to, to the courts. It's not just gonna come from a recommendation from the city or a complaint from the city, you're going to have to have someone if you're making this a criminal violation. That someone in in the judicial system, it's gonna have to take this matter up. And I mean, good luck with Getting anything passed through that's going to be hearsay without verifiable evidence and someone to say, yes, I was notified and I was told. So I think that's uh a big issue that I see with the bill and how would you address those concerns. I think there just comes some time in the rule of law. Where a neighbor Might have to turn in somebody he knows and I'm, I'm thinking about a cattle rustling case from. 40 years ago that I'm familiar with that everybody knew this family was rustlers. But law enforcement couldn't do anything because it was all hearsay and finally one brave soul stepped up. And they had to do something in this case, you know, I know who told me the name of the ADQ employee. And it would be a very stressful for him. Ah to be compelled to testify. However, there just comes a point. Which is that uh Lexington and Concord where we heard the shot fired around the world. Somebody's got to be brave enough. To step up and do something. Are this what's going on, it'll never stop. It'll never stop. And so, sir, I don't know that I can completely answer your questions because I'm not a, a criminal attorney. And I hear your concern, sir, uh. But the status quo is is killing us. And to follow up on that. As I told you last night, you know, the The issue that you're, you're trying to address is one that I know is vitally important to your community. I, I share in the concerns that they have, but the last thing we need on the books in Arkansas and another law that does nothing that will never be utilized. It may be virtue signal and it's sending a message to shot across the bow to, uh, the offenders and, and to the agency that is uh is is tipping off or giving advance notice, but outside of that, I just don't see it's going to accomplish the purpose you have, uh, another question and concern I have, what would prevent that agency from saying in the normal course of our business and inspections, we're gonna notify everyone that we inspect 24 hours prior to the inspection. How would that affect the validity and enforcement of your rule. Would that be complaint-based or just normal regulations. That's gonna be up to the agency, I would think they're gonna, they're gonna decide and set the terms of how they operate and what they do. So then yet again we come back with another piece of legislation, uh, that we would have to address that they can't give advanced notice and I don't know that, I don't know that we have that authority. So I, I just think it just continues to create. Um, uh, another stack of legislation that's not going to accomplish the purpose that that we want, um. So I, I just, those are the concerns I have uh on the bill, um. And I just don't know how you're gonna address that legislation. I understand and I'm sympathetic to the cause. I would be aggravated too, uh, and I'd be screaming bloody murder as you are. Um. But I've also got a question for the mayor. Um, Mayor, I, I live in a, in, in a community that uh has a large corporate um presence. And it's not uncommon when they have visitors or guests or um anyone coming in from out of town that they clean up, they clean up around their their place of business. Uh, sometimes that's not on the same terms that we would like it because sometimes it might need a little more attention than than where they're giving his attention. But how does that Signal or indicate that they're gonna have an inspection or anything else and maybe just that they're just cleaning up and trying to take a little bit of um uh a little pride of their workforce or workplace for, for the corporate folks that may be coming in or um do you always want to put on a good, a good, a good front. So I don't know how that's a sign of a cover up or some master plot, um, I, I know, I wouldn't think that the appearance of the site would weigh heavily on an air quality inspection. They're going. focused more on what their instruments read and along those lines, um. So Could you, could you speak to that? So whenever we know that they're going to be coming, uh, I'm sorry, we don't know they're gonna be coming whenever we see them start cleaning up. We know that there will probably be someone there. Let me give you an example. Because of the odors and the gasses, there's been trees planted around the property. And the gasses or something is killing specific trees. So they get other trees and replant them and like I said, they've been done several times and whenever they start cleaning up. Gathering all of their workers and cleaning up the lawns and the trees. Within the next week or a few days. Then the inspectors are there, we see the inspector's vehicles there. I live next door. My house is 500 ft from the landfill. I have cameras that is pointed in that direction, so I do know when people are coming and going in that area and I know when they start cleaning up, you can watch and see and um. I don't know what else to say other than it's very visible. There is one more thing I'd like to say. I gave you all of the numbers for all of the inspections. And how many violations was on there in several years. You go to any other business, any other company. And, and I can guarantee you there's more violations at smaller companies there then there is this huge company. I had my own childcare facility. I know how that works. And whenever they would come, you would always, I would always, there would be something minor that I would get a, you know, a write up for. There's not any. How is that? Why is that? final question. You're recognized. Do you and the city are representative Ungar, do y'all get advance notice of an inspection or when they're going to be there. Do you have knowledge is someone talking to you and telling you, hey, we're coming down for an inspection on Monday. No, sir, as a matter of fact, when they were doing the air testing. We did not know about it until 3 days in and the way that we did finally realize what was going on with the air testing is my cameras caught the vehicles going back and forth, and we started watching the vehicles. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate you coming today and sharing. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Representative, I have just a couple of questions. I, I want to follow up, uh. On some specifics in the bill, subsection A. It refers to a public servant shall not provide. And so the bill seems to make some distinction, one that it applies to public servants, but then it goes on. In a later part of the bill when it talks about if a person convicted under this section while employed by any of the departments of the state and then it refers to uh Further in the bill, if the person is convicted while holding a public office, so public servant can has a pretty broad definition, I think, not sure exactly who you're meaning that to apply to, and then you seem to have two classes of people that you're trying to apply this to both uh a public official who holds office and then someone who's employed by a department of the state. And so I guess I'd like to hear your explanation on, you know, how you're, how you're kind of working through that and what you're envisioning in terms of how this will apply to those different Groups of people. And so if you'd like to explain that, uh, you're recognized. The only answer I can give is the bill draft or pull this language out of the employee's ethics manual. And that and that is why it's worried the the way it is, however, I do hear what you're saying, and we will tighten that up. Thank you. And then the last point that I would make. And I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Specifically when you're Referring to someone employed by a department. I think there would be some argument that If a person is employed by a department and they know an inspection is coming. Uh, and again, I'm not sure exactly who you're meaning this to apply to. I think you may have a very specific scenario referring to maybe a department of the state. But let's imagine that you have a public servant, if you will, who's employed by a local water department and they hear that AEDQ is coming to inspect the water department. They get wind of this complaint and so the first thing they do is they go tell the mayor or whomever it is that hey, I think ADUQ is gonna be here on Thursday to inspect. Number one, would they be guilty under this bill. For doing so, and #2, some would argue that they might have some obligation as an employee if they get wind of such notice if they have any loyalty to their employer to in fact tell them that this is going to happen and that we might want to be prepared for it. And so I'd just like to hear your uh your thoughts on that and you know how you envision this bill applying to those scenarios. Thank you. Thank you. My intention was to just drill down on state employees, and I realized that I could have been more clear if let's just say the Springdale Water Department. knew that ADQ was coming and they proactively got busy cleaning up and I actually have full confidence in the Springdale Water Department. Uh, if they started. Taking corrective actions, well, that's exactly what we want them to do. Um And I also say, um, It was not my mean to insinuate. impugn the character of state employees. And that is not my meaning at all. My father was a career state employee. And in my dealing with state employees, 99% of them have been just true professionals, and I think the world of them, but as any organization, it's that 1%, it's that one bad apple that gives everybody else a bad name, and it's the bad apple I'm going after. Yeah, thank you. And again, you just might keep those uh thoughts in mind as you continue to work on this draft. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from the department. It's been a lot of allegations, and I'd like to hear their side of the story. All right, is there anyone here from ADQ? Thank you. If you would, each state your name, identify yourself for the record, and then you'll each be recognized to uh present your testimony. Sure. My name is Shane Corey. I'm the secretary for the Department of Energy and Environment. Bailey Taylor DEQ director and chief administrator of Environment. You're recognized, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a little lead way and ask the department to open any opening remarks to the testimony spin in the hand, and then I would like to ask questions. Department you're recognized. Thank you. I, I'll just say that for all our ent entities within the Department of Energy and Environment. Not all of them, but most of them are regulatory-based, um, we do our job and our role is compliance and we have a lot of inspectors, um, I would say that you know the numbers that the mayor recited to you starting in 2023 is when I became the secretary and we purposely increased our inspections. Because of the allegations around Tawnytown and Waste Management Eco Vista landfill. I would say that, you know, the 29 inspections in a year. That means we were there every other week. Um, I'm not aware of the specific situation that Representative Unger. is alluding to, I would say that I have no knowledge of any of my employees giving improper advance notice to a regulated entity, and if they did, that would be something we would address, um, there are instances where we do have to give entities that we regulate advance notice, um, to make sure that there are adequate people there, a lot of the facilities we inspect are unmanned. We need access. Also a lot of times if we're doing stack tests, if we're doing things we need to make sure that there are people there. Who can operate the equipment so we can conduct an inspection, for example, on the oil and gas side, a lot of the facilities we regulate, we don't actually perform mechanical integrity test on a well per se, but we have our inspectors witness those. So in order to properly conduct those inspections, um, then, then we have to have advanced notice so we can have people there. So complaint based I think is a is a very broad term just to be honest. I mean some of them are complaint based, but a lot of the complaints we get on the DEQ side might be like a senator. Terry sewer overflow and our quickest way to reach out to that person is not to send an inspector but to contact, you know, the wastewater treatment facility and ask them for a report so they can go out and check it out and send it to us. So I, I understand Representative Unger's concerns. I would just tell you I'm not aware personally of any of those situations. If I was, uh, we would definitely take action to re remediate and mitigate those circumstances and. You want anything out of anything. Did, did you have any other remarks? OK. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the lead. So Secretary In your testimony, you said there are times that you would have to give notice. I have no idea what's going on with this microphone. Um, So this bill would hinder those operations as it's written today, correct? As it's written today, I believe so, yes. So Representative Beatty's concerns are valid. I believe so. And so what I'd like to know is in in the mayor made an allegation that state employees actually picked up the trash a while ago in her comments did, it was state employees actually out there picking up trash? No, sir, we don't pick up the notice that was given from state employees to the tiny town landfill inspections were taking place. No, sir, in solid waste inspections are conducted every quarter as Secretary mentioned, we, we did increase that in recent years and so there was no notice, um, the solid waste sites, especially, uh, Eco Vista are operating from 50 a.m. till, you know, well into the evening, so there's no reason for us to have to. Um, call them to make sure that the gate is open or that there are people there, um, now for the air side we, we may have to call and let them know so that the plant operators are there and, and any tests that will be conducted are scheduled. One more, Mr. Chair. You're recognized. The the ones, the quarter meetings, are they done on a calendar? I mean, do they, they know in those quarterly inspections are gonna happen, or do you just show up within the quarter to conduct those inspections. It's any time within the quarter, typically it is around the same time each quarter because they inspect all of their landfills or solid waste facilities within that quarter and so they want to give, you know, those feelings between Springdale, tiny town knows they're coming. It doesn't always have to be in that order and we also switch up inspectors, so it's, it's not always that same week each quarter. It's just sometime it can generally be, um, in the same pattern. But anytime within the quarter I also say that that that's the difference between our routine inspections and the complaint-based ones because when we receive complaints we also dispatch inspectors to do that, so you have your quarterly regular routine inspections occurring plus additional complaint-based inspections. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just for the knowledge, 2 years ago in session, there was a bill brought forth for uh the ability to sue some of these folks, and it didn't make it through the public health committee at that time, so this is not the first stab at this landfill, um, this, this is, this is a problem for that area and uh my heart goes out to those folks that live there, but I, I just don't know that we're taking the right steps to address the issues. All right, thank you, Representative Rose, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just two quick questions, uh. Before you came in today, were you guys aware that there was a concern that somebody in your uh department had shared information. Uh, that may be inspections were coming. Was that new news or did you guys already know that? I would say we've heard that allegation that my understanding is the allegation occurred prior to 2023, um, we are very diligent in making sure that our inspectors don't do that if somebody has done that. You know, we're not aware of it and we are actively trying to guard against those things, uh, my proper notice at least I got you. My last question is when you, when you learn of things like what we're discussing today, uh, a concern that maybe this has happened. You guys have a protocol where you do any kind of like an internal investigation or or a series of questions or anything like that to verify. I would say it's not a written protocol, but yes, we work, I would work with Bailey as the DEQ director, excuse me, and then those inspectors report through a chain. The command, um, solid waste inspectors specifically, we would talk to them, we would talk to their supervisors. So I mean this is a well documented issue, I think in Taneytown. I mean, they're active lawsuits and appeals. We are actively doing air monitoring and uh I mean, I don't think this is new to any, any of us on our side, but um I don't think that I have no reason to believe that any of our inspectors are giving improper notice to the facilities in that area for my Understanding you're saying you guys were aware of this, you've looked into it and you're saying that you, you don't have any record that that's happened, correct, and specifically in 2023 when I became secretary, uh, we increased the number of inspections for a period of time because there was so much. So many complaints, so many of the same people making the same complaints that I wanted to better understanding. So if you're looking at those numbers as opposed to once every month for 2021, 2022, 2023, I think we had 39 or 40, give or take inspections. We have a lot of inspections going on and they're not always the same person, um, so you know we've tried to take steps to have other inspectors looking at the same, the same set of circumstances to see if there was, for example, somebody who was maybe overlooking. things that we shouldn't overlook. We've had other people, independent inspectors that may not cover that area, go to that area with very similar results. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, did you have a question? OK. Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess where I'm coming from is we know there's a problem. We've been hearing about this for years. And in your opinion, you've only been there since 23. But you've been there. A couple of years now. In your opinion, what can people of tawny town. Do To get something resolved. It almost seems like to me the government is the problem here because we just keep hitting walls to where And I don't wanna say you're not believing the people. But something's going on. There should be a way. that if there are dangerous chemicals. Which We know there are, I believe, what can be done to take care of the problem. Sure, and I would say that what we do know that there are chemicals. In the air that are higher than the RSL levels we have done so far since I've been secretary, we have done. 3 rounds of air monitoring and what those have shown us is that it is they also occur in the background levels so we have spent well over $100,000 thus far. We are currently going through an RFQ process to select a bidder to do another round of air sampling in and around the tiny town area. It'll probably be $500 to $600,000 for this particular study that we're going to do, and it is designed to help us identify. where these chemicals may be coming from, but I will also say that even though that those chemicals are higher than RSL levels. We also know that they are background and that they are naturally occurring in some areas, so we have designed a next step working with uh the Department of Health to try to identify. If we can determine where these particular chemicals in the air may be coming from, so I don't, I don't want anybody to think that we're not doing anything. We have continually expanded our monitoring program to try to provide some relief and try to identify, is there a specific cause. What we've seen so far is there's nothing that's pointed that caused specifically to the landfill as you go out further away from the landfill, whether you're upwind, downwind, crosswind, the samples are very similar, so we, we have designed a broader scope of that test. Um, with more monitors and a longer period of time and look forward to doing that as soon as we get through the RFQ process working with the office of State procurement and others so we are continually monitoring this and trying to design a program that will help us identify what can be done, working with along with the Department of Health. OK, if it's a natural thing as you've said, rather than the landfill itself. Well, uh, the state be involved in helping take care of that as well. I would say that if it is not caused by a regulated entity from energy and environment then our role would be somewhat mitigated and it would be some other entity of the state because we are regulating facts caused by the environment from permit holders. So if there's a cause that is identified, I think we have to know what that cause is to evaluate who the proper regulatory entity is, whether it's us or someone else, if there is truly not an identifiable cause, and it's in background areas and it's in the larger area, um, I, I think that we would obviously have to have some input from other stakeholders to try to figure out what the next steps are. OK, but you're committed to do that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Um, my understanding this bill is to protect the person that Representative Unger said, you know, knows that the, the tip-off has been given. I guess my question for you is what is in place currently inside your administration to protect that person if they would just come to you as the secretary and say, hey, we understand this is an issue. We know for a fact that folks are being tipped off what protection does that employee have currently that maybe would prevent The need of this legislation. I'm not sure I understand the question specifically, but I think Representative Hunger's bill is to prevent. The tip off from occurring in a complaint-based situation where ideally there was no need for that entity to have notice. I mean, there are instances where there is a need for an entity to have notice to have proper personnel, but assuming that that if I understand the intent would be we shouldn't give notice to facilities that don't need notice, um, I, I think that's, that's what he's trying to guard against and that's the same thing we try to to make sure that we're not doing as well because if there's no need to give. notice, um, we don't and we shouldn't because there are routines inspections are also surprise inspection. They're also complaint-based inspection, so I think we do a lot of that and in this particular case we rotated inspectors because of the allegation is one in particular inspector has a relationships and gives notice. We have no evidence of that, but we've sent other inspectors to with similar results, so I guess I don't understand, um, if, if the notice is being given publicly that nobody's being tipped off, correct? Correct. But I guess I'm But It's not a public notice. I mean, the allegation is the employee notifies waste management prior to showing up on site. Hey, I'm going to be there tomorrow. So are they supposed to do that or not supposed to do that is what I'm trying to figure out. It depends on the type of inspection they're doing. OK. OK, I guess maybe my question would be better suited for Representative Unger. I don't know, um, my point to that is if they're doing something they're not supposed to be doing, is there a protocol in place for a co-worker to turn them in without fear of retribution or loss of employment. Yes, and I also think that, that, I mean, they're not written but we continually ask and evaluate those scenarios, especially where there are allegations, whether it's in DEQ or oil and gas or any other of our entities within energy and environment, uh, we want to make sure that we are doing things. properly and above board. Thank you, sir. I do have a couple of follow-ups on that when this again along the lines of what I asked Representative Unger and so we're kind of in hypothetical land here, but bear with me. It seems that Representative Unger's bill applies to 3 groups of people. At first it references public servants. And which is a broad term which could include a lot of different people. Then it references employees of The Department of the State and then it references public officials. Uh, like an elected public official would be removed from office, so Are there, are you aware and we all know, I think that the scenario that this bill is aimed at. Are we, are, is there any allegation that there are public officials who are tipping off like an elected public officials that are tipping off. The landfill in this case? So I think that's probably a, a question. Better addressed to the sponsor, but in our specific case, the allegation has been a solid waste inspector in particular, so an employee of the division of Environmental Quality, right? And so, and again, and I don't know if that's happened, if it's happened, how it's happened, who the person will be giving the notice to how they would be notifying or tipping them off, so to speak. You know, I can also see a scenario where an employee of the waste management facility somehow learns, you know, these things go through multiple channels. It want the information winds up, you know, in the hands of an employee of the waste management department. This goes to the point I made earlier. If I work for the waste management district and I find out that DEQ is coming for an inspection on Thursday. Why would I not let my employer know that. I want a tip them off about that because I want things to Uh, to go well. I have some loyalty to my employer. I want to be in my employer's good graces, and one way to do that is to let them know that there's an inspection coming. Why would I not tell them? But I think underrepresentative Unger's bill that would essentially criminalize that person from doing that which kind of puts an employee, because it does mention it, it mentions employees, public servants, and maybe a public servant, someone that works for the waste management division, I'm not sure, but the point is it would put an employee. And again, I'm not sure it's aimed at this specifically, but assuming it applies, it puts that employee in a really difficult situation. Do I tell my employer out of loyalty to my employer that this inspection is coming. Or do I not tell them and You know, incur the consequences of that. So I just think that's something to think through if you got any comments on that, be glad to hear. I mean, I think that you, you've recognized some of the issues. Another particular issue along those same lines is, you know, if you're an inspector, you're an entry level inspector, you're learning on the job in a lot of times, so there are, like I said, instances where you're going to have to notify them of inspection and if this bill passes and becomes law, then there are times when you can't, and if you have a new employee who is trying to figure out an improperly gives notice. Now under the penalties of this provision, you have taken someone who may have made an honest mistake. I mean, it's not a willful or purposeful or knowingly intent required for this. It could have just been an honest mistake, and now that employee is no longer ever allowed to work in state government. So I I I understand Representative Hunger's intent. I truly do, and I think we share the same intent. I just don't know that that the the way that it's written, I think we have a lot of concerns, um, but I think he's agreed to tighten up the language, so maybe Maybe we can come to some resolution, but like I said, we don't disagree with the intent. We don't want people giving improper notice, but we also have to give notice in some circumstances to be able to do our job. And that's a great point about the mental state. Thanks for bringing that up. I've heard. I think some other members make references to that also, so thank you for that. Representative Beatty, you're recognized, and I think this is the last question you guys have been here for a while and I don't believe there's going to be a vote on this today, so there are no further questions, we're gonna move forward after this. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, just one question. One of the repeated complaints that I hear in discussions about the air quality inspections at Tawneytown, um, is that those inspections are done. when I guess the gasification plan is not running. You mentioned that you have a an RQ or a request out uh on a vendor, um, does that contract include uh a condition that those inspections be conducted when the gas plant is running and operating, and if not, could that be added to that request that those inspections only be conducted when that plan is operational. I don't believe it is specifically stated in the RFQ. but um that is something we fully intend to do is to make sure that the landfill is operating at capacity in the proper form with the gasification system working well, you know, my, my concern there, I appreciate your, your willingness to address that. I, I just think that takes away another condition if if something's going on there and it's a problem and that's where it's coming from. Then that's usually easy enough to either identify that that's the issue at hand, or that's why that, you know, um, that those processes go away if we're spending that amount of money, let's make dang certain, uh, that we're getting a good inspection at a time, uh, that could be of the highest concern for the citizens there and let's put this thing to bed one way or the other. Thank you, sir. And we, we do have data that shows that the plant was running during the previous 2 tests. Signing no further questions. There's also no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Unger, if you've got any additional remarks you'd like to make, I know we're not going to take a vote today and so closing for the bill necessarily wouldn't be in order, but if you've got any additional remarks that you'd like to make before we move on to the next item, you're certainly recognized to do that. The Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Uh, I appreciate your feedback. I truly do. I can understand this thing has got some loose parts and pieces. Um, it could be done better. It will be done better. I appreciate Representative Crawford's remark that something is going on, yes, something is going on and you don't need to be a weatherman to know that it's raining. So thank you for your time. I'm closed. Thank you, Representative Under. So we're gonna move on to the next item which is House Bill 1059, so Representative Unger, don't go too far. That's you also. And so you're recognized to present House Bill 1059. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the grace of God, this will not have that much drama, but I'm not a good prophet of my own stuff. 1059. Uh, if I could just give a little background here after I retired out of the navy and went back to Springdale, I became active through twists and turns of fate. Being a volunteer for the National Child Protection Task Force, which involves getting juveniles out of sex trafficking. And through that came to find out that our truck drivers of the nation are basically our eyes and ears of a lot of uh sex trafficking, street walker prostitution, cause a lot of it happens at truck stops. Um Thinking about how, how could we incentivize this. And so what I landed on was not money, but a lifetime hunting and fishing license. I talked to uh the inspector, the uh commissioner at the time, I don't, Mr. Booth, sorry, I'm fumbling for the right title there. Um, he said these things cost us about $1000. Early on, I sat down with uh incoming speaker Evans. And I pitched this idea to him of a lifetime hunting and fishing license, and I said, now there's a price tag per $1000. And Representative Evans said, uh, well, what's a human life worth? And I like that answer. I ran it past the wise man of the budget, Wayne Jean. He basically said the same thing. Um It was uh Flattering to me a uh Judge Fowler and Craighead County reached out to me, who's the judicial ambassador for the National Judicial College and he teaches and trains on judges on sex trafficking issues and uh he forwarded my bill to the National Judicial College and the National Center for State Courts, and that's good to hear and it's possible that Arkansas could be a leader in the nation with doing this. How many tips we get I have no idea. I can tell you there was a young woman from Benton County who has recovered from a truck stop up in Missouri from an anonymous tip just within the last few months, um. We just need to do something. This to me is a step in the right direction because the sex trafficking human tracking trafficking issue, it's just not getting any better. And so I'd like to take a look at this and just try to help the problem and bring these young people home. Thank you, sir. but All right, Representative Unger has explained his bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. Or was Representative Ungar, I don't think there's anybody at this table or at this committee that doesn't agree with trying to, you know, help find sex traffickers, but I, I do, I do have concern with like why the game and fish like why um why not do a tax credit or why not do like a, a, a cash reward for somebody. I mean, why, why the game and fish because what if somebody turns somebody in and they get convicted and they've never hunted or fished. in their life and they say, well, Representative Wardlaw is going to get a game and fish thing for turning somebody in, but I don't get anything. I mean, why, why the game and fish, I guess. I just didn't like the sound of a cash reward. Um, we're proud of our hunting and fishing in the natural state. And uh yes, I get it that not all truck drivers do, so they won't take advantage of this. Hopefully, they'll just turn in the tip, take their lifetime license and frame it on the wall, maybe. I don't know, um. I just say I didn't like the sound of a cash reward. Or even like a tax credit or something along those lines. You know how hard it is to get tax credits it out there. I, I, I, whenever we go after one agency and then the agency goes, when they, they've just said things to me like, why us, right? Where are they gonna get the reimbursement whenever, you know, they, that $1000 goes out to somebody on that, how are they going to get reimbursed on that, out of their budget. They will show us how many they issued and we will find the money to reimburse them and that works for Lane Jean and it works for me. OK, one more, um, Mr. Chair, and then I'll, I'll move on. Um. Actually, I'll say, I'll save this question for her in a moment. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Unger again last night we spoke about my concerns related to this legislation. I agree and echo the comments by Representative Hawke that you're, I don't think you've got anyone sitting at this table or in the in the legislature or even in this room, uh, uh, that does not, uh, despise and and completely understand the evil that is human trafficking and, and, and support the cause of which you're trying to um uh draw attention. And support. Uh, my concerns come back to the words if appropriated, more or less saying if we get the money, um, but nobody's got an idea of where we get the money. I understand you're last night in discussions we talked about, well, it's a $1000 sure we can find $1000 for For the expense, but that's $1000 right now and it's a little probably a little bit more with $1000 with all the stamps and everything else that's involved in, in the legislation. Um So my concern is we need to find that money and, and find the appropriation for it, where that's gonna come from, because when you start looking for for money around this place, sometimes it's hard to find. And you've got to get everyone's uh consensus to get that money and, and everybody's got another use for it somewhere, so you know, have you had any specific discussions with someone of where the money will come from or it's just We're going to find it. I would hate to uh quote Representative Jean out of context, but basically the feel was for $1000 a pop, we'll figure it out. And follow up. You're recognized again we, we had this discussion last night, um, of, of why we just limit this to truck drivers in the state and we wouldn't open it up to, to Anyone in the state, um, uh, to expand that to have a bigger impact. I understand maybe the, the reason for that is the cost and expense. of of the um of of the hunting license, but could you explain just a little bit, uh, because you, you made it clear to me that the bill is only for Arkansas licensed resident operators. Uh, but they could report this crime anywhere. In the country where they're driving and traveling and and delivering so outside the state this would, uh, they could report things and I think you said Maine last night or uh California, wherever they're traveling, uh, is that, is that the intent of the bill so it doesn't have to happen inside the state of Arkansas. It can happen anywhere. Yes sir, it could happen anywhere to go back to what I said before, there was an Arkansas girl recovered up in Missouri and in the world of sex trafficking, a lot of the times the trafficker will get them as far away from home as. Possible to put them in an unfamiliar setting and so there's just no kid, no telling where an Arkansas youth could be recovered. And the last thing is again, I, I, I support the cause. I, I just don't think I can support the bill as it's currently written. Get your money, get your funding, and you'll get my support. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, this is not gonna feel good, but I'm gonna need some leadway again, please. Yes sir, you're recognized. Representative longer, how many coffee shops you ever been to? A bunch. What's the number one thing that happens at coffee shops when it comes to trusting politicians. What do they say? They don't trust us. OK, so you're asking me to trust them with this bill because nowhere in here do you lay out. How we, where the mechanism is and when we pay them back for the lifetime license. Do we pay them on an annual basis? Do we pay them on a bi-annual basis? What budget are we taking it from? Are we taking it from surplus? Are we taking it from general revenue? I mean, you're asking for a whole lot of trust for the number one thing the public does not trust at all, true or false. But we should trust each other true or false the public trust us not much. OK. I don't trust this either. And when you bring a bill to us, it's, I, I agree 100% represented Beatty, it ought to outline exactly how you're going to pay for what you're giving away when you say we're going to pay for it. I mean, it's an incomplete bill in my opinion. So I mean, do you want to pull it down and put some funding in it or show us how you're going to pay it back or when it's going to be paid back. I mean, they've got a budget at Arkansas Game of fish. I mean, how can they budget not knowing when the funds are coming. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of that, I would like to pull down the bill and uh Roger up for the concerns of my colleagues. Uh, Representative Unger, I'll honor that request as you, you're certainly free to pull the bill down, so. However, I will say there are other representatives that had questions it may before you do that, we may just want to go ahead and and let everyone ask their questions and then I'll allow you to do that. I certainly don't have any objection if that's what you want to do. So but, but while we're here and while while we're addressing the topic and there are members with questions. Let's let them ask their questions because they may have some pertinent point that uh for you to consider when you bring it back. So Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative, I, I just want to commend you. I think this is sort of a creative out of the box idea, um, I do have a question of functionally how this would play out. Who, who would be um the person that determines that a particular tip led to a conviction. Who would, who would be the arbiter of that? How do you see that playing out? Well, when I had the conversation with the former director, it was basically they present proof. Of either a conviction or arrest because there are police reports, uh, the truck driver could not make an anonymous report. He would have to, if he called, you know, 911 or whatever have to give his name, address, contact information. Uh, and it would be incumbent on him to stay on top of that, you know, this thing is just not going to show up in the mail automatically. Um The former director said they would figure out the mechanism of how that was going to be rewarded. OK. Um, I, I do have a question for Game and Fish about this if they're if they're here. Sir, if you'd identify yourself, state your name for the record, and you'll be recognized. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Committee Chris Ray, interim director for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and I do have my CFO Emily Shumate here as well. All right, Representative Ray, you're. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I guess I would start off by just asking what is, what is the Agencies's posture toward the bill. Do you, do you have a position or thoughts on the bill? Sure, yeah. First of all, as has been said across the room, we're obviously against human trafficking. We definitely appreciate the spirit of the bill. We appreciate Representative Unger, and those are working uh collectively across Arkansas to reduce and eliminate human trafficking. First, let's let's be clear about that. um, as far as the bill goes again, I think, uh, for us, we're looking at um trying to to better understand the administrative process. We need to work with some other state agencies pretty closely, and then there is a need because we, we cannot give away hunting and fishing licenses for free. That's, that's in the Constitution. There would be a need to have an appropriation and a funding source outside of AGSC filed to help handle the reimbursement. Um, we're certainly more than willing to to sit uh and and work with the representative uh if there's additional information that needs to be put into the bill to make it more palatable for the for the committee. So I understand you, you, you have to charge fees for licenses. That's how you, that's one way that your agency generates revenue to operate. But I guess I'm curious what, what is the additional costs to your agency of one additional person. Having a license to hunt or fish. So the, the product that is most uh recently referenced for this bill as our, our $1000 lifetime license. That's the most expensive lifetime license that we have. We do have a suite of other lifetime licenses, a, you know, a 65 plus lifetime license. We have a veteran's lifetime license, a disability lifetime licenses, which are obviously uh a discounted rate compared to our standard $1000 lifetime license. It also is accompanied by waterfowl stamps, trout stamps. And so on and so forth. Yeah, I, I know, I understand that's the cost of the license, I guess, and I understand you have to charge for the license because you, the agency needs revenue to operate. I just don't see what cost. Issuing one person a license imposes on the agency that you would need to be reimbursed for. Um, surely Let me ask my CFO if she's got a comment on that. No Ma'am, if you would again identify yourself, state your name, and you're recognized. Absolutely. Emily she make, CFO Arkansas Game Fish Commission. And then the The question is, what, what are the additional fees? Make sure that would be incurred in addition to the $1000 to the agency for each license that's um, so the lifetime license, the $1000 would cover um a the full life of the holder, including the fees, including the state issued tags, um, this would not cover as written any federal duct stamps that were required. Now, the there is a. If this is an avid hunter and fisher, um, there may be a cost much larger or not much larger, much further down line of of missed revenue, but that's not something that we're concerned about at this time. OK, I, I guess I'll try one more time. I'm so sorry, um, I, I understand that the agency has to charge a fee for the license because that's one, that's one way that the agency generates revenue and there's obviously costs to running the agency, but in this particular instance, I don't see how there's an added cost to your agency that you would have to be reimbursed for just because there's one additional hunter or fisherman in the state that has a license. Uh, no sir, not above the $1000 the reason for the reimbursement on the $1000 is that in the Constitution we're not allowed to give away a free license also under Pittman Robinson. We're not allowed to give away any free licenses, but administratively, um, we should be able to absorb those are minimal, um, transaction. fees, the rest of it, we would, we would be OK. OK, that's what I was looking for. Thank you. I apologize. All right, I'm You said under Pittman Robinson. Yes. What is that? That's our largest federal funding stream. Uh, it's what funds wildlife frustration and sports uh fish restoration in the state of Arkansas, um, it's one of our, we have 3 main funding streams and it is, it's, uh, one of our pillars. Very good. Learn something new every day. Thank you very much. uh, Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um This is probably mainly for the sponsor. Did someone else want to do gam and fish while they're up, sorry. Representative Anger, thank you for your heart. Thank you for bringing this, um. And we can talk offline, but As I'm listening to this. Maybe you could have something where it wasn't a blank, a blanket hunting and fishing license, uh, like was talked about, not all truckers hunt and fish, so it could be something that could be applied for if. When They found a girl or a boy and um We're taken out of that lifestyle that they can apply for that. The other thoughts in my head were, you know, people like trophies. They like awards. Uh, we could do something like that, even something to sit on their dashboard. So that they know a bobblehead comes to mind. I don't like bobbleheads, but It comes to mind, but just something that they could sit on their dashboard that makes them feel good about what they've done. So just thought I would throw that out and if you want to talk offline, I'd be glad to talk with you on that. Thank you. Representative Hart He's not here. OK. Representative Mayberry. You're recognized. Thank you. Um, kind of following along with Representative Ray's questions because I, I don't think at least I didn't get the answer and this kind of comes, if we could have the game and fish folks back up there. I'm so sorry. I'll wait till you get there so that you can hear my questioning. I, I didn't feel satisfied with the answer that that was given, so I'm gonna ask maybe in just a slightly different way, we understand that um the price on it is $1000 but in reality it does not, it's not like you're having as game and fish to come up with money. For that, I mean, I, I, I don't know what actually caused truly $1000 like is it a piece of paper? I mean, what, what is it? And so what that would lead to is if there, if we continued on this route and you got the lifetime hunting and fishing license and I realized that you're saying it can't be given for free and now as the legislature we're gonna compensate you for it. Do we really need to compensate you for a $1000 or can it be $10? The, do you, do you kind of see where I, I think maybe I misunderstood what Representative Ray was asking, but I think this is what my question had been is the true cost to the state of Arkansas $1000 for this license or is it a piece of paper and maybe a few other clerical things and it is, you know, a half hour of someone's work and really we could just kind of exchange this out for $10 or $20. I apologize. I'm following now. So that is the what what is has the value is the privilege of hunting and fishing in the state of Arkansas. If this was not a lifetime product, it would be 5250 each year that a person is hunting and fishing and so the lifetime license if someone hunts um. You know, is is an avid hunter or fisher that 5250 over each year compounds. Um, the $1000 while it's upfront is if if uh you're someone who's gonna hunt or fish 2030 years, we do end up, um, losing some revenue. What we have to have on just each piece is the paper, there's a gold plate that comes with a lifetime license, um, there is the. Minimum regulation under the code that a license um on the federal side that there's $2 per privilege per year, and I'd be happy to go through all this with you in detail as well, but so that would be $4 per year would be the absolute federal minimum that we could charge now a lifetime, how do you, we estimate a lifetime at 80 years because that's the average lifetime, um. Right now so we can we can work through that formula with you as well and see if if we could come down a little but um not knowing how, how old the, the, the person who's providing the tip will be um what their lifespan will be, um, we can come up with, with a number, but the $1000 is uh the the the cost of the privilege right now, um, on our, our website. OK, thank you for that clarification. I think that's more along the lines. So we're talking like $2 did you say $4 is the absolute lowest per year, uh, for our federal policy or the $4 is the absolute lowest per year that the privilege is offered, so for um times 80 would be the absolute lowest that we could still certify that person as a hunter or fisher for the state of Arkansas and stay clear on our federal regulations but we are talking about a truck driver that has to be a certain age. To begin with, so we're not talking it like You know, an infant, you know, getting this, so maybe even, you know, I, I'm just trying to think how could you come up with a better number so it's not $1000 to the state if this conversation continues. Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I think my question would be also for Representative Unger, um, thank you, Game and fish. Um, Mr. Sheriff, that's OK, um, also, Mr. Chair, for, for clarification, would we need a fiscal impact statement. We we're talking about a lot of money here and about, you know, ongoing stuff. Would we need a fiscal impact statement on something like this. I think it would be advisable when the sponsor brings the bill back because clearly people are concerned about the fiscal impact. That If BLR can prepare a fiscal impact statement on this to try to bring one. I will tell you I asked that question early on and they said because we have no idea how many people are going to apply for this. It's kind of hard to say. I did ask the question and I appreciate that, uh, you might. Uh, you might ask them if they can. You know, with some presumptions, assuming. Or assumptions assuming a certain number of people give us some idea anyway, um, they like to take that approach from time to time, but uh they may can do a little better than that, so. We'll check on that. Thank you. You're recognized and I've got 11 final question. We, we keep talking about the tips and, and getting the tips in my, my biggest question with this whole bill is the execution. Once it gets, once you get a conviction, right, from the tip. How, how are we getting the, the execution to the game and fish because the judges and everybody else, I mean, they're not gonna hand the, the tip guy a piece of paper and say, OK, take this to the game and fish and get your, your lifetime license. It's just not gonna work that way. So we're gonna have to rely on the judiciary system to then send a piece of paper to the game and fish and and do all like there's nothing in the bill that is going to say how this thing is gonna, is gonna work. And so really there once again like Representative Wardlaw has said, There's a lot of moving pieces in this that aren't identified, and I think that if we're going to move this forward, we've got to identify not, not just for the game and fish, but for the tip person and for the legislature who's gonna provide the funds. There's a lot of moving parts in this, and um I, I would just like to see that fiscal impact statement. Thank you. All right, members, I'll remind you that, uh, Representative Unger has asked to pull his bill down and so let's uh try to keep the questions limited. We have 3 other bills that we're going to hear today. And so, uh, I'm gonna recognize everybody that's in the queue, but, uh, after that I'm gonna let Representative Uner pull this down and we're gonna move on to the next bill. So Representative Wardlaw, did you have a question? All right, Representative Long, you're recognized. about OK, your question has been answered. All right, no other members are in the queue, uh, Representative Unger, your requesting to pull the bill down, is that correct? All right, well, we'll honor that request. You can bill is considered to be pulled down and you can bring it back at another time. Thank you. All right, next we have House Bill 1064 Representative Whittaker. Welcome to state agencies. I'd like to say I'm thrilled to be back. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee. I'm sorry we're coming to you so late. I will be brief. Uh, if you had a chance to look at the bill, you see, it's not much more than Two pages of text. The vast majority of which is already current law. The underlying sections. Set forth the only changes I'm requesting, uh, as background. Um, late last fall, I got a phone call from some constituents out in Farmington. Um Who had told me that they had contact with the county clerk's office to request their, uh, you know, get an application for An absentee ballot, uh, because They were over 65 and evidently where the state They had relocated from, uh, it was just standard practice in their law that uh once you reach 65, you could by right. Um, but my, you know, from the safety and convenience of your home. Um, I told them I thought that was already one of the things I'm not a huge. Uh, election law buff, so I called up ELR and they said, in fact, that was not one of the reasons you could vote absentee in Arkansas. So on behalf of my constituents, I filed this simple limited bill that changes nothing except adding people who will be 65 or older on election day. Happy to take any questions. All right, thank you, Representative Whittaker. Representative Whitaker has presented his bill. This time, are there any committee member questions? Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Whittaker, what state was that? Do you know off the top of your head? I don't know off the top of my head actually within a couple of weeks of that, another person from about that same area called me, so they may be talking about different. I have heard from others who are advocates for what they call vote at home, uh, who tell me that the vast majority of states, some 36, uh, allow this, of course that doesn't include. ones had gone the full measure of uh no fault, which we're not asking for here. Uh, but evidently it's quite a number of states and and uh I could get that for you offline if you, if you need it. That was gonna be my next question. I was curious which states those were and if you had that list. I don't have it with me today. OK. Do you know any of them? Not off the top of my head. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Whittaker, a couple of, couple of concerns about your bill, uh, under current existing Arkansas law, there's no uh restriction on who can uh request a absentee ballot, so I, I, I think the first part is designating those voters that have obtained the age 65 is unnecessary. Uh, to designate those specific individuals because there's there's no restrictions on who could apply. Uh, the other concern I have, um, is that this election for absentee ballots good for, I think a calendar year according to the um to the bill so it would be for all elections and then the cost of mailing that absentee ballot out as much as Change of address and folks relocating and moving. Uh, the expense of continuing that for the entire year for all elections in the year, um, I, I would have an issue and a concern with that, um, and, and that would be one of the issues of why I would not support your bill. I said it's for a calendar year, uh, and moves, moves that forward it uh and, and we, we don't, we don't restrict anyone from requesting an absentee ballot right now. So two of my concerns there. The understanding was they certainly could have requested one, but they were being told by the county clerk that they were not eligible to get one, so that the mere ability to request something you can never have makes most would discourage most people from bothering, um. As far as the language of the year, that's uh. was on the Workmanship of the bill drafter if I, if I may inquire what uh what would you prefer that to be? My, my, my preference would be that every time they want an absent when there's a ballot issue or an election out if they want an absentee ballot, they do what they, what everyone in the state has done. And request an absentee ballot for that election. And, and follow that instead of just a blanket absentee that would would be mailed out so per election is is some language you would prefer. Yes sir, I'm certainly amenable to that. Good, good. I'm not, although I, I went the caveat, I'm not sure how much more work that would make for our frontline folks and clerks and, you know, election commissions, etc. so those things that have to kind of be weighed against each other. I would, I would think the amount of work to mail out an absentee ballot's gonna be the same, uh, instead of To blanket the cost it would be the concern for me if, if you have a ton of folks that elect this option and we're sending out absentee ballots that they're not going to utilize, maybe they're gonna come to the polls and vote and we're mailing those out automatically for every election, then that's compounding the expense of operations on the counties and would would drive that cost up and uh so that would be my primary concern, and I'm grateful for your input and following the trend of the day, I'd be, I'm inclined to. it down and get the cha the changes, folks were requesting, um. Although one of the things, one of the reasons I stayed was uh the fact that uh we had folks signed up to speak on it, so if we could follow, follow the example of earlier we could continue the questions for members and allow whoever may be here to testify an opportunity to be heard and I could come back. Another day with amendment, you know, appropriate amendments. And other things that anything else you may request of me, um, I'd just really like to get this done for our seniors. Just a quick follow up, Mr. Chair, is one, I applaud you for trying to take care of your constituents. That's what we all want to do. And, um, I, I think the committee, we welcome to hear anyone that's going to speak in favor of this bill. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Uh, just a point of clarification, Representative Whittaker, so my understanding is that there are two different uh ways absentee ballot applications go in. One is for the election cycle, and that's if you live outside the county and the other is for the year and that's if you are uh in a residential care facility or if you have a disability, so I'm thinking that's why it was drafted to be a year. That's consistent with How we handle the people with disabilities and who are living in residential care, so, uh, would you agree that's probably why that was drafted that way. It wouldn't shock me at all. Thank you. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um It, my understanding is that this kind of places the administrative burden, uh, on the county clerks, uh, did you happen to get any conversation with County Clerks Association or have they issued kind of their, their A statement of belief on this. I've heard nothing from them. Did you guys, so you haven't talked with them. I've heard nothing from them. I pre-filed the bill a month ago. OK, thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Representative Whittaker, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, has the Association of Counties reached out at all or and would you mind if we brought them to the table just to get their take on this? I've heard from no one who opposes the bill, and I've not heard from the association. Mr. Chair, I have no objection to having anyone who wishes to speak speak. Mr. Sher, would you mind if they are here, if we could hear from them? It's French. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Lindsey French with the Association of Arkansas Counties, um, the clerks Association has not taken a position on this bill, hence the reason I've not reached out to you. Um, the only concern that I have heard from one or two clerks is that the absentee um application is already 2 pages and uh a concern that adding one more thing could make it longer and add an additional page to the mailing. So if that could be addressed, I think that would be appreciated, but that's only. Concern that we've heard and again the clerks haven't taken a position, so we have not either. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. I was seeing no further questions. And also, uh, Representative Whittaker, you said that there were folks signed up to speak for or against the bill. We don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against this bill, at least on the sign-in sheet that I have. Is there anyone here who who has signed up to speak for or against this bill? If you're here, speak now or forever hold your peace. All right, sing no one. Uh, Representative Whittaker, is it still your desire to pull the bill down and do some work on it? Well, it sounds like it needs it and I'm always eager to uh bring a bill that actually accomplish what I want to and That our fellow members can believe in. It's a blessing to be on the very first day. It gives us some time to actually do some good work of fashioning a bill that will make everybody happy, or most everybody. All right, well, if that's your request, then I certainly am happy to honor that and allow you to pull it down and we'll bring it back at a later time. Thank you for your forbearance. All right, thank you. All right, next we have House Bill 1075 Representative Ray. You are recognized. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I was momentarily contemplating just not running any bills this session after uh the last couple of hours, um, but I do have house Bill 1075 today, which uh I believe is a pretty simple, narrowly tailored preemption bill that would prohibit local governments. From banning the use or sale of lawn care machines based on the type of fuel or energy source that they utilize. I've had several people reach out to me about this bill, curious as to what prompted it, and I'll try to answer that for you. As strange as this may sound, there are well over 100 cities in the country, and that number is increasing, um, that have banned the sale or use of gas powered lawn care machines like mowers, weed eaters, leaf blowers, snow blowers, things of that nature, and they enact these sort of heavy-handed. Government prohibitions because under the auspices of fighting climate change. But of course these policies needlessly meddle and with the free market, they infringe on people's individual freedom. The unnecessarily limit consumer choice, and they harm small businesses that rely on these sorts of machines, uh, to earn a living. And so, in short, I would argue that it's really just not any of the government's business what type of lawn mower or weed eater you're using. Uh, thankfully I'm not aware of any local governments in in the state of Arkansas that are doing this and so this bill is admittedly somewhat preventative in nature, but one thing that we do know is when policies like this take root in other states, they often don't stay there. Um, they try to be exported to other states and so, uh, this bill would prohibit that from happening in Arkansas. I think this is a good pro-consumer, pro-free market bill uh to ensure that government is not meddling in an area of the economy that they really shouldn't be meddling in in the first place, uh, and picking winners and losers in this sector of the economy, so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions about the bill. All right, Representative Ray has presented his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Right, seeing no questions, is there anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill? Aren't seeing none. Representative Ray, you're recognized to close for your bill. OK, uh, I'll just close by saying if you've ever wanted to um proverbially or literally tell the government to get off your lawn, uh, you can vote for this bill and do that. Thank you. And I, with that, I moved to pass. Representative Ray has closed for his bill. Uh, what are the wishes of the committee? Oh, he made a motion. He's, he's on the committee, has made a motion to pass. All right, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Y's have it. Congratulations, Representative Wright, you've passed your bill. Next we have House Bill 1138, Representative Torres. And there is an amendment to this bill, so before we get started, we're going to pass out that amendment. All right, it looks like everybody has a copy of the amendment and so at this time, Representative Torres, you are recognized to present the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, uh, the draft amendment, uh, changes that you now see are two section 73A of the bill and the language require recertification of the person with a disability once every 6 months as opposed to the 4 years. As it stands. All right, Representative Torres has explained the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment, Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Oh, OK. Any questions on the amendment? All right, seeing none, is there a motion? Representative Mayberry, you're recognized for a motion. Representative May Berry has made a motion to approve the amendment. So the discussion, seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, congratulations, the amendment has been adopted. Representative Torres, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you. Uh, House Bill 1138, uh, this proposed legislation allows for physical therapist uh to be added to the list of persons. to certify disabilities for parking permits, license plates, and placards. Currently, physicians uh nurse practitioners and physicians assistants are on that list, uh, we did run this as an ISP in public health and had no objections at all. Uh, this bill aims to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities by involving an additional healthcare professional in the certification process and establishes clear certification requirements for both permanent and temporary disabilities, reducing the administration burden for individuals with lifelong conditions. Uh, this bill shows commitment to support individuals with disabilities in Arkansas and uh there are 37 other states in our nation that have physical therapist as an additional certifier. And with that, I'll take any questions. All right, thank you, Representative Torres. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a good idea. Thank you for bringing the bill. I, I was actually just kind of curious about the contents of the amendment. I mean, so are we changing current law to say that if it's a temporary disability, you need to certify every 6 months instead of every 4 years. That's correct, sir. What's the rationale for that change? The rationale is temporary isn't 4 years, and a lot of parking spots are being taken up. By folks that no longer are considered with a temporary disability, uh, so in my conversation with um Mr. Tommas, the executive director of disabilities rights of Arkansas. He suggested that the 6 months would be an ideal time frame for people to be recertified with a temporary parking pass. So, OK, so you're understanding is that Disability rights advocates are, are in favor of a shorter For temporary disability. Not not permanent if it's permanent, there's no recertification requirement at all, nor is there under current law. That's unchanged, so we're just that's correct. OK, thank you. You bet. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the same concerns and, and probably should have addressed those on the amendment side, um, but was somewhat hesitant because for some reason I read that as 6 years until I focused in and saw the months, but I have the same concerns, uh, that not so much with those that have are are taking advantage and and taking places but more on the burden on Arkansans that truly are disabled, uh, and then putting that burden back on those individuals. to go back to their physicians or their healthcare providers to be recertified to maintain their parking decal. Uh, because I, I mean, I, I have some that probably aren't, it's not a permanent lifetime disability, but it definitely lasts longer than 6 months and to go from 4 years to 6 months, I think maybe a little restrictive on on that side and, and that causes me some some concern. I, I think there's somewhere between 6 months and 4 years that would be more acceptable, and I, I don't know if other members feel that that same concern or issue or not, uh, but That would be my concern on this issue. Can, can you address that? Well, um, in my conversations with physicians and so forth. If you have like a knee replacement, you know, that's a temporary deal and they're saying that anywhere from 3 to 6 months, probably less than that, probably 4 months on average. They're no longer uh disabled. They're able to, you know, move freely and I mean meet the requirements uh that are stated in this bill to be able to not be disabled, uh, and then the. uh was someone with a heart condition, uh, that doesn't meet or does meet the standards for a certification are typically 9 months is when they would come off of that. So 6 months is kind of in the middle of those two scenarios that are prominent in our state. Follow up based on based on on those issues, uh, again, some of my concerns, that's, that's two different cases of of medical conditions and the timing of that, I would, I would assert that they're probably some medical conditions that last longer than 6 months, longer than 9 months, they're gonna be somewhere in that range of a year to 18 months, provided on the treatment that they receive and so I mean without going in and then identifying a health condition with a time. Approval suddenly have a bill that's going to become expansive, uh, to those um those conditions, my, my concerns again are that going from 4 years to 6 months, uh, I think that would create a burden on some of our some of some of our disabled um um Arkansans that that need this parking pass, and I would like you to address that. Well, of course, I'm not, I'm not a physical therapist, but Mr. Chairman, would it be permitted for me to have a physical therapist join me and answer these questions that are out of my realm. Is there someone here that you're aware of? There is. Uh, I don't have any objection to that, sir. Just, uh, identify yourself for the record if you're here representing any particular organization, please make that known and then you'll be recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Arthur Holbert, I do have a doctorate in physical therapy and not really representing any organization. Other than I've had constituents ask for certification, um, and, uh, was not able to do so in the state of Arkansas, um, basically like you said, from a 50,000 ft view, this bill makes it easier for people who have trouble walking to get certified. Uh, I'll talk about 30 seconds and I'll specifically answer your question, uh, basically, as you guys know, physical therapy is an entry-level doctoral profession for over 100 years, physical therapists, their job has been to help people. With uh deficit to mobility says canes, walkers, cranes, crutches, people with oxygen strokes. And in the state of Arkansas, people have been able to access physical therapy since 1997, so for 27 years without having to go through their physician, so it makes sense to add physical therapists as a certifying provider. Also to in Arkansas, uh, as part of the compact states. So basically states compact states all across America, your Arkansas license works in other states. So many, like he said, many states across America have already approved this legislation. Uh, we live on a border, so you can an Arkansas physical therapist can with a compact license go to Missouri, Tennessee, Louisiana, and already do this to certification. And basically the job for physical therapists to get people where they don't need handicap parking passes, right? So like Representative Torres said, there are many conditions. I mean, it doesn't disrupt the long term disability, such as I have two family merged with end-stage MS at a total care. This bill does not prevent them from losing their permit disability because they are total care motorized wheelchairs, what have you. Uh, with this bill does in some ways it frees up some of those parking spots from people that may not necessarily need them. If there is a point, someone could have a knee replacement, total hip replacement. Someone could have a a short term deficit that within 6 months clears up, and if not, then you've added more individuals that can certify appropriately for 6 months at a time, and if it's permanent, nothing changed. If it's temporary, it can be renewed by more professionals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, Representative Beatty, did you have a follow up? A, a question for staff on the proper procedure. We wanted to reconsider expunge a vote and and reconsider the amendment that we voted on what would be the proper? Um Proper motion. Well, my my feeling is that the amendment has been adopted and so at this point, I, I would be very hesitant about considering a motion to try to undo the adoption of the amendment. If you don't like the bill as it's been amended, then, you know, we certainly could ask the sponsor to pull it down. We could vote it down today. We've got some options, but I, I don't like the idea of trying to undo an amendment that's already been adopted today I understand that. So uh my, my request would be do something about this amendment, pull it down, amend it, do something about the 6 months or. Yeah I mean I don't have a problem with physical therapist issuing the um the special plates and certifying that. I do have a problem with the 6 months, and I feel like there are probably some members in the room that may have the same concerns. So I would ask that you would pull it down, address that, uh, that amendment, and again, I'm sorry that I didn't raise those issues uh when we were addressing the amendment, so I would, I would request if you would consider doing that. Thank you. we go, before we go there, we've got other members with questions, Representative Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do like to attend the bill and I can can heck a lot representative Ma he said as far as I think the idea of having physical therapists do this is a great, it's a great idea, there does seem seem to be some question about the the 6 month issue. So my question is this, and I Don't know the answer to this when one of those uh Ha, I guess things that hangs on the mirror and the license plate or whatever are done are they dated as to when they expire on that, on that tag? Does it say like June 15th is is the expiration date. So with that said, just a suggestion of a possibility might be that someone could, whoever's issuing it could issue the proper date for the diagnosis for the person. In other words, if I think the person's gonna need this for a year, they would put a year expiration date on that if it was a 4 month or even I think he said some 90 day things they could put that on there and that way, you know, you'd be maximized, you'd get what you're wanting too as far as clearing out those, those. Spots as soon as possible, just, just a suggestion. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir, and, and forgive me, I used to be a legislator in Oklahoma, so I have high regard and respect for what you all are doing. Would it be possible for a committee member to amend an amendment and then that be voted on if the 6 month is too restrictive to be 2 years. And go back to the 4 years and, and forgive the question. certainly no problem there, uh, so we don't accept oral amendments. Amendments have to be in writing, and it would be possible for him to I suppose amend the bill as it's now been amended bring another amendment, but that would have to be prepared at the bureau. They have to bring it over here. We could recess, we could come back, uh, I mean, we've got some options available to us, uh. So, Let's, let's think about that. We'll let staff think about that and um. But we do have some other members in the queue with questions, so before we Do anything along those lines. Let's, let's let all the members ask their questions would be my feeling about that. Thanks, sir. All right, thank you. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you very much. I need to explain by going to 6 months, you're actually expanding the amount of time that someone can have a temporary tag. Right now it's 3 months. Go to the DFNA website and you can only have the the temporary tag for 3 months. This amendment actually expands it to 6 months to allow for, you know, whatever it might be, we've talked to Wayne Hambrick, who is over this area. I don't know. There's someone from DFNA here or if we could get Wayne physically here, um, to discuss this bill. Um, I, I would appreciate that because this actually expands it and I, and I want members to think about this. If we're gonna say and you wanna go to where it's 4 years. That allows someone who has a a knee replacement or you know, had a car accident and you're using crutches for a little while or whatever, whatever that might be. And we know that that is only going to be very temporary. You're allowing them to use a handicap tag for 4 years. When they won't need it. From someone who struggles to find handicapped parking spots, all the time and even here at the Capitol. That's not right. If it's gonna take longer than 6 months. Then by all means let that person go back and apply again for another 6 months extension. Right now they have to do it every 3 months. So you're actually giving some benefit of the doubt that it might actually take 6 months. So I please, uh, would encourage members to keep it exactly as it is. Or if you would like someone from DFNA to clarify, but that I'm looking at the website, we've had conversations with the guy who's oversees all this and right now it's 3 months. All right, thank you, Representative Mayberry. I'm not sure that was a question, but we do need to try to keep these things to questions, but there was an excellent points and I appreciate that. Uh, I do see a witness here who's asking to be recognized and so I'm gonna do that. Seems to have some relevant information on this topic, so if you would state your name and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Alicia Austin Smith. I'm the chief counsel for the revenue division of DFA. We were thankfully by staff presented a copy of this amendment. I do think that it's amending the wrong section of the code. I don't think that we're amending what we're intending to amend this amendment would actually amend Arkansas Code 2715308, which regards special license plates and certificates and what Representative Mayberry is referring to. Is section 304, which actually regards temporary special certificates, so I think we're talking about two different things here. The temporary special certificates are only valid for 3 months. So what we would request is, is the ability to actually score the amendment to the bill. We've issued a fiscal impact statement we would love to be able to issue a fiscal and amended fiscal impact statement on the amendment and make sure that we're actually scoring the right section. All right, thank you very much, um, you might remain at the table in case members have some questions for you. We do have some other members in the queue. Representative Rose, did you have a question? Uh yes, I recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lots of good discussion this morning, uh. One of the things that uh was crossing my mind with maybe the potential challenges if, if we are shortening a period of time versus lengthening, uh. Would you agree with me that one of the benefits of this bill is that you're expanding who is able to, and this is uh. Agency or bill sponsor, but the bill is expanding who is able to certify or authorize those placards to be used. That's correct. So it's not just that you got to make a doc a doctor's appointment, but if you're currently going to a physical therapist, nurse, the physician's assistant, etc. that the list of people who can authorize these in the first place or to reauthorize that is a much easier person to get in front of now, correct. And it uh Last thing I'll say is this is somebody that you'd likely be seeing regularly already during this period of time that you fall into this category, is that correct? Do do we agree on that? Yes, OK, all right, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is for our resident PT in the room. Uh, what's the average time you work with a client, whenever you're just, I mean, just on average over your career, what's the average per month, weeks, um, it depends on diagnosis, but I think that's a fair question. It's usually 3 times a week for 4 weeks, depending on the diagnosis that's typically how it goes. The goal, if you look at the, the bill as written. It's basically people have difficulty walking more than 100 ft without an assist device without having to stop for breathing. A lot of times those are the, the typical patients that come to physical therapy. And your goal is to get them above that. So in essence, you're going to free up a parking spaces for that, but typically 3 times a week, 4 weeks if you're dealing with someone with special needs in a school setting. Sometimes you work with people years. I mean, sometimes you work with people for 12 years, K through 12, for someone with special needs, and those are two different situations completely different, but it's usually very short, 3 times a week, 3 times a week, 4 weeks typically. So, so when we're sitting here talking about amending the time. In your experience, 6 months is still a long period of time to give a temporary license. 4 years is really, really long to keep that going and we're taking a parking spots from people that actually would really need it, correct? OK, that's all. I'm done. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Representative Oldridge, you're recognized. All right. I'm gonna try one more time. Representative Long. You're recognized. I was wondering when a person does do the recertification, just how, how much trouble is that? Does it take a long time? There's a lot of paperwork because they're just kind of a simple uh simple thing to take care of. As it currently stands, a couple of pages. Thank you, Representative. The longest time it takes is getting in a referral to get in for your doctor's appointment. To get the script done. That's the longest thing, but in terms of the paperwork itself, it's a couple of pages. Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So does it take, uh, You mentioned the code that we were referencing the wrong code. With the amendment that's been laid out, is it the right code or not? Thank you, Representative. That's what we'd like to dig into because what we're, what the amendment appears to change is a 4 year recertification process, downgrading that to 6 months, but then the, the testimony seems to be about the temporary, you know, for a temporary injury, and that's in a separate section of the code where it's, it's just a 3 month certification at this point in time. So that needs to be redone before we vote on it. We would, we would certainly like the opportunity to issue a physical. for this amendment. OK, thank you. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, we already kind of asked the question if the, if we'd be willing that the sponsor be willing to pull this down to make that amendment or if we if we cross that bridge yet, so I think he indicated that earlier. I'm going to give you an opportunity to do that if you'd like to. I do have a question for DFA. You, you referred to that you'd like to issue a fiscal. Um, I, I've take it you're referring to a fiscal impact. Yes, sir, we issue a fiscal impact statement on any bill that affects not just the revenue of the state, I know, I know that's the general thought, but also anything that we actually administer. So because this would affect our section, for example, if, you know, Wayne Hamrick was referred to, if his motor vehicle section would have to issue titles more frequently or placards more frequently, then that might actually affect our administration and our costs there. So we would like to score the actual amendment. to the bill. I see, OK, because it's removing, it's taking it back to 6 months because we do have a fiscal impact and I should have noted that for the members there is a fiscal impact on your desk associated with this bill that shows fiscal impact 9 that was issued by DFA but you think the change from 4 years to 6 months will have some fiscal impact. Yes, as it as it's written, these individuals would be coming to the revenue Office more frequently. All right, and you also used the term earlier that you were going to score this bill. By that, did you mean? fiscal impact or is that have some other meaning? OK, all right, just making sure. Mr. Chairman, I, I have a little quick update here. In my conversation, I'm not with Mr. Wayne Hamrick with DFA driver Services, uh, he stated that 6 months would not be an issue, a simple system change form and website update with minimum staff training. OK. Well, we may give them the opportunity to verify that. That sounds like they want that. I'm not disputing you at all, and I, I certainly I take you at your word on that, but if DFA needs some time to confirm that, then I'm happy to give him that Representative Rose. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just wanted to make sure I had a, a good understanding. I've heard a couple of prevailing themes um from sponsored DFA and some other representatives at the table. I think at one point it was that it's currently at 4 and we're wanting to change it to go to 6. But Under a different bit of code, it is actually 3 months and this would be expanding it to 6 if it was written slightly differently. Was, did I interpret that correctly from DFA? Thank you for your question. So we're, we do not appear to be amending that section of the code that stands at 3 months right now. So the sponsor, you, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly. Were you wanting to Expand it from 3 months to 6 months where it's not currently written, or were you wanting to go from 4 years down to 6 months, the way it's currently written. Yeah, well, initially I didn't know that that was a different part of the code because it's not I did not. I did not, because that, that part of the code isn't in this bill. It's my understanding. So I, I think we're talking about two different areas of law, uh, and my thought because I, I'd heard the website was incorrect. Um, and in my research with them, they said that uh the 3 months was not correct, OK? It was the 4 years and then in my conversation with different people that I've already mentioned, they thought that 4 years was too long for a temporary permit uh for recertification because it's taken up too many parking spots throughout the state, so not knowing that this other portion of the law is there, then I'm happy to make that adjustment. um Yeah, appropriately. Yeah, I, I, I think I was just trying to make sure I understood your intent, um, I'm, I'm, I'm not inclined to disagree with the 4 years to 6. I know some other members are, and I, I can be supportive of that line of questioning, but I would certainly be in favor of the expanding it from 3 months to 6. So if that's what's happening, I think that kind of would address a lot of the concerns at the table too. Representative Burs, I agree with you. I think I would too. Thank you, Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like. To ask for some clarification. I'm trying to kind of shake the rust off like everybody else. So the 4 years is that part of current statute? It looks to me that that's added language in this bill. So It struck language because I'm OK, I see the struck part now and then it's added back underneath it, correct? OK, thank you, sir. Yes sir. All right, any other questions? Seeing none Representative Torres, did you, you made a request earlier to pull it down to do some work. I'll pull it down and work with DFA to get it crafted just right and bring it back, sounds like we're real close, just needs a little work. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. There were some folks signed up to speak for the bill. I don't know, are they here? I'm fine to wait OK, anyone else who was signed up to speak for or against the bill, like to be heard today. All right, seeing none, that was the last item on our agenda. I want to remind you all that Representative Beck said this committee was going to be fun, so I hope you I hope you've experienced that today. With that this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.