30 Crossing cut from suit over road spending

LITTLE ROCK — A coalition of downtown neighborhoods and residents has dropped 30 Crossing and one other state highway project from a lawsuit saying money was illegally spent on those and a host of other road construction jobs.

The $1 billion-plus 30 Crossing project, which aims to revamp the 6.7-mile Interstate 30 corridor through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock, has drawn the ire of the coalition as well as litigation seeking to halt it.

In addition to replacing the bridge over the Arkansas River, the project will expand the corridor to as many as 10 lanes in places from six. Work began on the first phase in September.

The I-30 project in Pulaski County and another one on I-30 in Saline County were the only projects initially included in the lawsuit the coalition filed in November that sought to halt work on both until the Arkansas Department of Transportation could “clearly demonstrate” that the projects could be “conducted and completed” in compliance with an Oct. 29 ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

They also asked that work be stopped on the projects until the lawsuit could be decided at trial.

The state’s high court ruled that Amendment 91 to the Arkansas Constitution prohibits the 0.5% statewide sales tax collected under the amendment to be used on highways wider than four lanes.

That decision came in an earlier lawsuit seeking to stop Amendment 91 money from being used on 30 Crossing. Amendment 91, approved by voters in 2012, underpins the department’s $1.8 billion Connecting Arkansas Program, an initiative that targets work on regionally significant projects, including 30 Crossing.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mackie Pierce in December refused to stop work on 30 Crossing, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have evidence to justify halting construction.

The coalition filed an amended lawsuit in January to include nearly a dozen other road projects in which the coalition identified at least $780.4 million that it said had been illegally spent on the projects.

The amended complaint asked that the money be repaid to the Arkansas FourLane Highway Construction and Improvement Bond Account.

The Transportation Department and other defendants have sought to have the case dismissed, arguing in briefs and during a hearing Monday before Pierce that the latest lawsuit was precluded from being heard because the matter already was decided by the Supreme Court’s October decision.

The attorney for the coalition, Richard Mays of Little Rock, who specializes in environmental law, said in a reply brief that he was withdrawing 30 Crossing and another completed widening project on a section of Interstate 630.

“Plaintiffs agree that those two projects are covered by the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court in Buonauito v. Gibson, 2020 Ark. 352, 609 S.W.3d 381 (2020), and its aftermath on remand to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, 16th Division,” he wrote.

Another issue in the lawsuit is whether Amendment 101 to the Constitution is separate and distinct from Amendment 91. Voters approved Amendment 101 in November. It extends the 0.5% sales tax in Amendment 91, which is set to expire in 2023 after 10 years — making the tax permanent.

Mays and the Transportation Department’s chief counsel, Rita Looney, sparred over how the new amendment should be interpreted.

“The only change in Amendment 101 is making the half-cent sales tax permanent,” Mays said, meaning that spending under that amendment would limit work to roads of four lanes or fewer.

Among other things, Looney said it is premature to consider Amendment 101 because no money will be collected for another two years.

“Plaintiffs are seeking an advisory opinion on a constitutional amendment,” she said. “They are seeking a legal determination on a future event.”

Pierce said after the hearing that he expects to issue a ruling before the end of the week on whether to dismiss the lawsuit.

“We can either move forward or you can move forward with an appeal or whatever is appropriate based on my ruling,” the judge told attorneys for both sides.