House State Agencies Committee
January 29, 2025
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:00:01] This meeting of the State Agencies Committee is hereby called to order. The chair sees a quorum. First item on the agenda is SB 56. Senator Dotson. Dotson We've got Dotson here. Couldn't resist.
Senator Jim Dotson [00:00:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:00:18] you're recognized.
Senator Jim Dotson [00:00:19] Members of the committee, Senate Bill 56 is a very simple clarification. If some of you will remember a few years back, we put all of the administrative rules into six roughly equal sized groups, with one of those groups coming up every two years for a review. The governor was charged at the time in that law with assigning the various rules to those various groups. So say DHS is coming up in one group and Corrections is coming up in another. So once every 12 years they all get looked at.
Well, one of the things that was not clear within the law was the governor could amend which cycle certain rules were in. Say they were in group number two, there's a new administration and they want to put it into group number five. That's completely fine if they want to readjust that. However, it wasn't clear whether or not if they extended beyond that 12 year cycle, they could just keep getting kicked down the road.
And so what this bill would do would clarify that, that, yes, the governor may amend which group cycle rules can be in, but they have to be within a 12 year time frame. They can't be extended indefinitely, forever, and never get reviewed. So that's the essence of what the language here in front of you is. More than happy to answer any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:01:53] Senator Dotson has explained the bill. Are there any committee questions? Seeing none, Senator Dotson, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Jim Dotson [00:02:05] I'm closed and I would appreciate a good vote.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:02:07] All right. What are the wishes of the committee? Got a motion do pass. Representative Meeks. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator Dotson, you have passed your bill.
Senator Jim Dotson [00:02:22] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:02:26] All right. Next item on the agenda, we have House Bill 1121. Representative Long. Representative. Long, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long [00:02:52] Thank you, sir. Wayne Long, District 39. Good morning, committee. Appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill for you before you. Just a little background on how I came across this bill. I was at a conference last year and they brought up the story of a lady named Geraldine Tyler. She's an 83 year old lady that was living on a fixed income in Minnesota. And she got behind on her tax payments for her condo. She owed $2,300 and couldn't come up with it. And it broke down for a while. And the $2,300 eventually turned into $12,700 in taxes and fees and penalties.
So the county, Hennepin County, seized her property and sold it and kept the whole $40,000. They didn't give her her equity back. This case was taken up by the Pacific Legal Foundation, and they took it to the Supreme Court. And in 2023, the court ruled, of course, that was a taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, you can't take property without just compensation, and they didn't compensate her at all.
So I reached out to that foundation and asked, you know, is there anything in Arkansas law that would do this? And they do a bit of research and they came back saying that this particular part of the statute would do that. It's a little bit different case. And in this situation, the state could take the property and assign it to a different state agency or give it to a school district, that type of thing. But in the same manner as the case in Minnesota, the person doesn't get their equity back. They basically lose the property completely.
And I thought that was just unjust. And I hate injustice. And that looked like something we could easily clarify. I reached out to the Land Commissioner's office and they have someone here to kind of back me up on that. But he's fine with doing this. I think they're kind of working on trying to clear this thing up so it's not a problem in the future. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:05:05] All right. Thank you. Representative Long has explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:05:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess I'm a little unclear, and I read this language that you're striking, but you're saying that this language allows a taking without compensation?
Representative Wayne Long [00:05:25] Yes, sir.
[00:05:26] And that's a taking like under the law? Because it doesn't really seem to me like it's doing anything with the process of a forfeited property. It's dealing with after the property has been forfeited and then where it goes, how it can be transferred to another entity.
Representative Wayne Long [00:05:48] My understanding of the law was that since they don't have to sell the property, they have no equity to give back to the person that had lost the property. So they're taking the whole property, complete value, and reassigning it to a government agency or a school, that type of thing. So there's no money to give back to-- we're not cutting a check from general revenues to pay the difference.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:06:14] So if somebody has to forfeit their property because they didn't pay taxes on it. And then the commissioner of state land sells the property, then they give money to the delinquent taxpayer?
Representative Wayne Long [00:06:28] They have two years to request the money, the difference, their equity be given back to them.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:06:37] Okay. But they still owe on their taxes, right? Are you saying that it's net of the taxes being repaid the taxpayer?
Representative Wayne Long [00:06:43] Yeah, the state keeps the tax part and just refunds the equity in the difference between what they owed you and what they were able to sell the property for. And this bill just basically stops it from being donated. The only way to get rid of the property in this scenario would be the state would have to sell the property, state gets their cut and the property owner gets the remaining balance.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:07:12] Okay. And last question for the moment. If you could just direct me, do you happen to know where in code that sets out what happens if this gets struck? I mean, how is the property handled or disposed of under current law?
Representative Wayne Long [00:07:27] I don't know where in code that is, but my understanding is that basically they auction the property off at this point. And so whatever amount of money it brings at auction, then they are able to keep the taxes and pay the rest to the landowner.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:07:45] Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:07:49] Thank you, Chair. Would you mind, Mr. Chair, if we had the Commissioner of State Lands or a representative come to the table?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:07:54] Not at all. Is there someone here from the Commissioner of State Lands Office ? State your name, identify who you're representing and you're recognized to-- actually, Representative Hawk, if you've got a question, you're recognized for that.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:08:09] Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is, Representative Long, who's making the valuation of the property? Is it a bank? Is it an assessor? Who's making-- you said that when it's sold, is it going to auction? Is that how we make the value of the land? What does the process of that look like? Either one of you. It doesn't matter.
Peyton Murphy [00:08:30] It would go to auction. If it was not donated under this current statute, it would just go to auction, sir, pre-market.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:08:37] Before we go any further, just identify yourself.
Peyton Murphy [00:08:40] Yes, sir. Peyton Murphy. I'm the general counsel with the Land Commissioner's office.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:08:44] Okay. So the way we do things right now, how does this differ from the state lands perspective? How does this differ from the way that we're doing things right now?
Peyton Murphy [00:08:58] The current law authorizes the Land Commissioners office to, instead of auctioning off a tax delinquent parcel, to donate it to a state institution, and that could be a school or city. Most of the time, it's been cities. We don't do it a whole lot. I think I noted about 57 parcels over the last 10 years. This would require us to sell it at an auction to establish the price.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:09:29] And so if there were any tax delinquent issues on the property, the state would get those taxes and then the property owner would then get whatever was left over?
Peyton Murphy [00:09:37] Yes, the property owner could-- I think in the case of Tyler versus Hennepin County, I forget the exact figures, but the property they owed, I think $12,000, $15,000 in taxes. The state sold it for around $40,000, if I remember right. And the lady did not have the opportunity to claim that excess. And the opinion on this current law is that by donating it, we eliminate any possibility of there being any excess. So that's why we're wishing to do away with the ability.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:10:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:10:13] Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:10:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Representative Hawk kind of went down the road that I wanted to go down. I guess, just so I understand correctly, if I own my home but I'm delinquent on taxes, it's going to go through this process of a forced sale, the state will collect their tax portion, then you're going to give me whatever is the remaining balance there?
Peyton Murphy [00:10:35] Essentially, yes.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:10:36] Okay. So there's nothing there that sets the valuation of that. It can sell for $5,000 and I'm going to get $5,000 less the taxes from my home. Other than currently it's being donated to, I assume, for lack of a better term, nonprofit such as a school or something community driven?
Peyton Murphy [00:10:55] Yes, that's right.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:10:56] Okay. Okay. I may have some additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:11:02] Representative Beaty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:11:10] Just trying to understand because I understood the case that you mentioned from Minnesota with the lady and $2,300 and then growing the penalties and up to 12,000 and then there's a sale and she couldn't get any of the equity. But I really don't see how this-- I mean, has there been an instance of this happening in Arkansas?
Peyton Murphy [00:11:41] We have donated parcels. I'm not aware of any of those having ever been--
Representative Howard Beaty [00:11:45] I'm not talking about donating parcels. I'm talking about where an Arkansan lost equity in their property because of a transfer by the state at a commissioner sale on foreclosed property.
Peyton Murphy [00:12:02] I can't cite specific examples, but if we've donated parcels that mgith could have otherwise been sold, there is potential there that they would have sold for more than the taxes owed. I don't know that we've ever received a challenge on this.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:12:20] And then follow up question. On in the process of foreclosure, there has to be a valuation of the property most of the time. So there are some market valuation, some appraisals that go into that foreclosure process. Are there steps taken on that side or is it just strictly based on the amount of taxes that are outstanding and you go down that path?
Peyton Murphy [00:12:46] Well, this is not really a traditional foreclosure. It's just a tax delinquency auction. So the opening bid is the amount owed in taxes and goes up from there.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:12:56] I'm just having a tough time seeing the need for this because it's such a one off issue. And the fact that this would this cost the state of Arkansas more money on a tax foreclosed issue where the state's going to suddenly now have to bid on property at a tax delinquent sale if it's property that could be useful and benefit the state.
Peyton Murphy [00:13:23] We're already selling a lot of parcels, so having a few more is not going to cost us a significant amount of money. Now, whether it disadvantages entities trying to obtain those parcels, I suppose it could, but they still they have other means by which they could obtain those parcels if need be. They would just, according to Tyler versus Hennepin county, they would have to provide just compensation under the Fifth Amendment in order to do so.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:13:52] Final question. Land Commissioner's Office 100% okay with this repeal of this language?
Peyton Murphy [00:14:00] Yes, we are.
Representative Howard Beaty [00:14:01] All right. Thank you.
Peyton Murphy [00:14:02] Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:14:05] Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:14:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I've got two questions, I think. First one is what is the determining factor of how you decide whether we're going to donate this or whether we're going to auction it off? What's that determination? Because you said you've done it like 50 times in the last ten years.
Peyton Murphy [00:14:26] Yes. There is an application process that a city or a local government would apply to receive a property like this.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:14:38] So property comes up, it becomes available and the city just says, I want it. So they apply for it, and then you all just randomly choose whether you're going to do that or not?
Peyton Murphy [00:14:49] Essentially, yes.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:14:51] Okay.
Peyton Murphy [00:14:52] I wouldn't say it's totally random, but, you know, there is some judgment there.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:14:58] Okay. And so that sounds like that by making that decision, you could be creating this situation that he's trying to stop here. My second question is, by repealing this, you would no longer be able to donate land. Could you be stuck with parcels of land that nobody wants because it has no real great intrinsic value and no one's willing to pay for it? My hope was is that you were going to say no one else wanted it, and so just to get rid of it, we decided to donate it. But that doesn't seem like that's the case. If you had land that no one wanted to buy, now you're stuck with it and you can't donate it if we repeal that. Is that a potential issue that we could be stuck with land that we necessarily don't want to be stuck with because we don't have the ability to donate it?
Peyton Murphy [00:15:49] At any given time, there are parcels that we don't really have bids on. Now, eventually, after parcels have been on our books for so long, we drop that starting bid to $100 and that tends to generate interest. But for the most part city lots move pretty good. A lot of the stuff that stays on our books for a long time ends up being undeveloped lots in planned communities, those sorts of things. So we have a pretty good success rate in selling lots.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:16:19] All right. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:16:23] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:16:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real quick, and I was just talking to Representative Beaty about this. Can you give me the process on how this works? So let's say the property that's being talked about to be donated, there's a mortgage or lien on the property. There's taxes owed on the property as well. And so you go to auction off the property and there's proceeds, there's equity in the property or whatever. So is the process, the state gets their money and then the mortgage or the lien on the property, they get it. And then the owner then gets whatever is left over.
Peyton Murphy [00:17:00] If we have the lien attached to it, yes, that would be right. The owner would prove they had ownership at the time and they could get those excess proceeds.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:17:14] Representative Mayberry. Okay. No question. Representative Rose.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:17:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. By design, what I'm understanding, I'm not well versed in collection of land and properties and those things, but by design, the state's looking to collect taxes owed on these properties, not collect land in nature from taxpayers, correct?
Peyton Murphy [00:17:44] That's correct. Our goal is to collect the taxes and to return that property to someone who will put it back on the tax rolls, basically, so the county can collect on it.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:17:56] The land collection or property collection, this is a last resort to collect what is due. Correct?
Peyton Murphy [00:18:05] Yes.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:18:06] It is not the thought process of, well, ultimately, our goal is to take people's property, right?
Peyton Murphy [00:18:12] No, we try to sell these properties.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:18:14] So I guess what I'm getting at is the state is not due the properties. The state is due the taxes.
Peyton Murphy [00:18:21] That's correct.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:18:25] Representative Long, my understanding of the nature of this bill, the property owner who is finding themselves in a position where they can't pay their taxes, is the concept to protect what may be the majority of their personal wealth, which is the equity in their property?
Representative Wayne Long [00:18:43] That's correct. And also protect the state from basically having to be involved in another lawsuit, because clearly, from the decision in 2023, I think it was a unanimous decision by the court. It just takes one person to say you're unfair to you are unjust taking and we're off to court. And it will be like years of litigation when we could just eliminate this part of the law and avoid that problem.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:19:12] From the Land Commissioner's office position, if this remains unchanged, if this legislation doesn't pass, is the door open for property owners who have equity in their property that surpasses the taxes that they owe, does this leave the door open for that equity just to be left on the table and for them to not recoup it? If everything were to stay exactly as it is?
Peyton Murphy [00:19:40] If a piece of property was donated, yes, and they didn't have that opportunity. We didn't sell it for max value, I would say yes.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:19:49] Okay. That's all. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:19:53] Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:19:55] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my question is for the Land Commissioner's Office. So by repealing this language, would you all still have the ability to donate a property?
Peyton Murphy [00:20:09] Not under this. There's another homestead type thing that we're hoping to address separately, but under this law we would not have the ability to donate a property.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:20:20] So my question would be, for those properties that belong to someone with no next of kin, who does that go to then if we can't donate it?
Peyton Murphy [00:20:29] Eventually, if it's never claimed, it goes to the county.
Representative Wayne Long [00:20:34] I believe they have two years to make the claim. And after two years, then it goes to the tax district.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:20:40] Okay. So there's a separate statute, though, that will allow that transfer to the county?
Representative Wayne Long [00:20:44] Yeah, that happens, I think, automatically after two years.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:20:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:20:50] All right. I have a question. Are there ever any instances where a state agency, department of the state-- I think that's what this prohibits, is a transfer to the state, right?
Peyton Murphy [00:21:02] Yes, or local government entities.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:21:04] So it's any governmental entity, state, local, county, city, etc.
Peyton Murphy [00:21:09] Yes.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:21:10] Okay. Are there ever any instances, in terms of the state of Arkansas, where we want or need some of these properties?
Peyton Murphy [00:21:19] That's possible that there are. But I would say this, this doesn't touch the ability of a government to use its powers of eminent domain. They just have to justly compensate.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:21:29] Sure. All right. Fair enough. Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:21:33] Thank you. Just sitting here listening to the discussion. Having served on the Audit committee, we came across several instances where cities violated Article Five of the state constitution, which says that a city or county government cannot give away property or its belongings for free, essentially. I remember a case where the city of Vilonia donated a used fire truck to a local volunteer fire department, and they got dinged for that as a violation. By the state donating land to government entities, does that create a violation of that constitutional provision? Are you familiar with which one I'm talking about? And technically is this law, as it stands, actually a violation of the Constitution because it allows for us to transfer assets to these other entities at no cost?
Peyton Murphy [00:22:38] I don't know that I have a good answer to that. It's not something I've thought about or looked into, so I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:22:48] Are you familiar with what I'm talking about, though?
Peyton Murphy [00:22:49] Somewhat.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:22:50] I'd just be curious because it may be this is already a violation of that amendment. Or I may just not have the details right. I'll just throw that out there. Food for thought.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:23:00] All right. Representative McElroy, you're recognized.
Representative Mark McElroy [00:23:03] Thank you, Representative Long, for bringing this bill. I understand where you're headed. In my district over at Helena, we have a lot of burnt out properties and subsequently the taxes don't get paid on them. And it's my understanding if this goes into effect, in the past, they've been donated to the city so they could clean them up. Will this prohibit them? In my understanding, that's what it is going to do, keep the city from being able to be donated to and clean it up.
Representative Wayne Long [00:23:39] Yes.
Representative Mark McElroy [00:23:43] Ooooh. Sorry.
Representative Wayne Long [00:23:44] Short answer, Yes. But I think the more important question is, are we violating the Constitution by doing that? Clearly, we are, according to that unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. I really don't think we have a choice in the matter. Somebody will challenge it, will go to the court. We'll have to defend it and we'll end up losing because they'll say we've already decided this case in 2023.
Representative Mark McElroy [00:24:14] I understand. And I agree with you. It needs to be changed. But, you know, that's one of those unintended consequences, I think. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:24:24] Representative Wooldridge.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:24:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I was done, but I wanted to follow up on Representative McElroy's question. So that was ultimately the question I was trying to ask, too. But my understanding from you was there was a separate statute in place that after a period of time it would go to the possession of the county or the city. Is that not correct?
Representative Wayne Long [00:24:46] After two years.
Peyton Murphy [00:24:50] I might clarify. That is the excess proceeds of a sale. Not the property itself.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:24:57] So that's different than the question I was asking. So what's the impact this would have like on land banks and things like that? Because my understanding from the question I asked was that there was a separate statute that would allow that property when there's no heir to be transferred to a local municipality or county.
Peyton Murphy [00:25:15] If we had sold the property and, suppose we had a couple thousand in excess proceeds and no one came along to claim those proceeds, the proceeds themself would go to the county. And the property would be in the possession of whoever purchased it.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:25:35] Can I have one more, Mr. Chair? So back to my question from a few minutes ago. If this law is repealed, you no longer have the ability to donate the land, but you still have the ability to sell. So you're saying that the property would be sold. If there's no next of kin or anyone to give that money to, after a two year period, the money would be given to the community, not the land.
Peyton Murphy [00:25:59] That's correct.
Representative Ryan Rose [00:26:00] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:26:05] So to follow up on Representative McElroy's question and Representative Wooldridge, if there were a burnout situation, taxes hadn't been paid, Land Commissioner gets possession of the property because the taxes haven't been paid. They would maybe in some instances want to donate this to the city so the city could clean it up and move on with it. They're not going to be able to do that under this bill. Is that right? They have to sell it. Am I misunderstanding that?
Peyton Murphy [00:26:33] Yes. We would have to sell it. Now, the city still has, you know, powers of municipality as far as cleaning up and assessing liens and everything.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:26:45] Yeah. Okay. Good point. Representative Clowney, you're recognized.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:26:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, you mentioned that this is a constitutional issue, that this is a taking. Obviously, the definition of a taking is, it's not that the government can't take land, it's that the government can't take land without just compensation. So my question for you is, are there other states, are you aware of other states who allow, to avoid the problem that Representative Milligan and I think Wooldridge and Gazaway are concerned about, are there other states that allow the donation of land and have some other mechanism for compensating those families if the land wasn't sold? In other words, to avoid the constitutional problem, it's not they avoid the taking, but it's that they provide the compensation.
Representative Wayne Long [00:27:28] I'm sorry, I know there's 14 states currently that, like Arkansas, still have the ability to unjustly take the equity of the property. But I don't know the specifics on how the other states are doing it. I'm sorry.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:27:47] Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:27:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we keep going, we're all going to have a question. You know that, right? It just builds and builds. My question is, can the language be changed to where those burned out houses and different things, that that would still be able to give that to the cities rather than taking away the donation part of it altogether?
Peyton Murphy [00:28:22] So I think we would run up against the same problem potentially. And a city still has the power of eminent domain. It's just they have to pay for anything they take.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:28:44] So I guess your answer is no in changing the language.
Peyton Murphy [00:28:52] I would say so. I think we would be faced with the same problem potentially.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:28:57] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:28:59] Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck [00:29:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer to have more of a process as far as when this transfer happens. But as it stands right now, what would keep to the Land Commission from just saying, okay, we're going to sell it to the school-- let's use a school as an example-- we're going to sell this thing for a dollar?
Peyton Murphy [00:29:23] Well, you know, after they have been on our books for so long and haven't received any bids, we do drop it down and start the bidding, I think, at $100. And I suppose those entities could bid along with anyone else.
Representative Rick Beck [00:29:39] So is there something that would prevent, law, the Land Commissioner, from saying, we're going to sell this for a dollar, and thereby, in effect, more or less donating it, I guess?
Peyton Murphy [00:30:01] I don't believe we could do that because it's more or less a donation. It's kind of a case of sham consideration, I guess.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:30:17] Like Representative Crawford said, this thing just keeps building. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:30:23] My last question, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So currently, if it's sold now above-- you said the starting bid is the taxes, correct?
Peyton Murphy [00:30:32] Yes.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:30:33] So if this thing goes up, it's a high priced piece of property under current law and it sells way above that tax, where does that money go?
Peyton Murphy [00:30:40] First to cover any taxes or any liens that we may have on our books for it. And after that, the money sits in an escrow account to be claimed by the former owner.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:30:53] Okay, so what happens if it's not claimed?
Peyton Murphy [00:30:56] Eventually, it would go to the county when unclaimed.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:31:00] And that's the two year window, correct?
Peyton Murphy [00:31:02] Yes.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:31:03] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:31:06] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:31:08] Final question.I won't ask any more. Kind of along with Representative Crawford, I think the heartburn for some on the committee is, you know, if it's a burn out or something like that where the land's just sitting there. I know that like in my district, Bryant, I can identify five properties right now that are just sitting there that I know there's taxes owed on it and a house burned on it and nothing's been done. It's an eyesore, right? My question would be I think you could probably get a lot of support for this bill if there was a clause in here that said something to the effect of, if it didn't sell at auction and nobody wanted to buy the property but the city wanted it, it could still be donated. Could that possibly be an option for this bill?
Peyton Murphy [00:32:04] Possibly. I would kind of be curious as to what some other states did to that regard.
Representative Wayne Long [00:32:09] But under the current law like we have now, it's like you said, there's burnouts all over the place. It's not doing what you want right now. This way at least we avoid getting in a lawsuit later. Because in my area, you see the same thing. You see these houses just sitting there in disrepair or burnt down. And that's under current law. So I don't really think that's--
Representative RJ Hawk [00:32:36] But there's no taxes being paid on those current properties. And so from a legalities, they're not doing what they should as an Arkansan to pay their tax bill. And so at that point, if they're not doing what's right, it goes to auction. And if nobody at auction wants it, then at that point you could say, well, the city does. So they want to do it to clean it up and do with whatever they wish. If the people aren't willing to pay their taxes, why don't we just allow for the donation to the city to take place?
Representative Wayne Long [00:33:05] I think, like Representative Meeks mentioned, there's prohibition against donating property. I think if the city can't come up with $100, they probably are not really serious about trying to clean up the area.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:33:18] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:33:21] Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:33:23] You know, when a preacher says finally, you think they're done, but they're halfway. This is truly my final question, though. You said that if it sits in an escrow account waiting to be claimed by the property owner, and if it's not claimed, that in two years it's donated to the city or the county?
Representative Wayne Long [00:33:41] The county.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:33:43] So if it's sitting in escrow waiting to be claimed by the property owner, why are we walking this bill back? Aren't we repealing this to give the money back to the property owner?
Representative Wayne Long [00:33:54] My understanding currently, that's if it goes to auction. Then there's money to be had. If the state basically just gives it away, there's no money sitting in escrow for the taxpayer or the former owner. So we're just trying to get it where everything would be auctioned and nothing would be donated. Because it's the donating part that, you know, if you donate it, you have no money left to give the just compensation for the taking of the property.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:34:23] Right. But couldn't that be a policy change within the Office of the Land Commissioner because they're making the arbitrary decision to donate or sell, correct?
Representative Wayne Long [00:34:32] I don't know how arbitrary it is. I think they're deciding based on whatever criteria they've got set up for that office.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:34:42] Okay. I thought Representative Meeks' question around that, you said that there was a decision that was being made internally whether to donate or-- and I think he used the word random. And you said I don't know how random it is. So my question would be, if there's already a mechanism in place that this goes into escrow and it's waiting to be collected by the property owner, could the decision internally, without us repealing or creating new law, couldn't a decision internally be made that we're no longer going to donate? We're going to let these things sit in an escrow account? And that would solve your problem.
Peyton Murphy [00:35:15] The properties themselves are not sitting in an escrow account. Nothing goes into an escrow account until the property is sold at auction. Now, yes, I would say the Land Commissioner does have judgment whether to donate a parcel under this law. I counted 57 parcels in the last ten years that have been donated under the law. Does that answer your question?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:35:50] No, sir.
Peyton Murphy [00:35:51] Okay. I'm sorry.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:35:51] My question, I think, that it would be yes or no. Could the Land Commissioner's office make a decision that we're no longer going to donate land? We're going to put everything through an auction. We're gonna let it sit in an escrow account. It can be claimed. And if it's not claimed in the two year window, it goes to the city or county. Would that not solve the issue that we're trying to solve?
Peyton Murphy [00:36:10] You're saying the land itself goes to the city or county?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:36:14] No.
Representative Wayne Long [00:36:15] I think I may understand the question. And correct me if I'm wrong, you were wanting not to change the law, just make it a matter of policy for the Land Commission. Right? Well, my argument is the current Land Commissioner is not you're not really interested in doing this. The next one might. If the next one does, there's going to be a lawsuit. It will ultimately go into the court system, which it shouldn't have to. The citizens shouldn't have to challenge something that's already clearly been shown to be unconstitutional. This law is unconstitutional, and that's why I would like to repeal it. That's basically it. We need to get rid of this unconstitutional law to protect the citizens and also protect the state from litigation.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge [00:37:05] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:37:07] Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:37:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, would you be willing to pull this down, kind of check into the constitutionality of it and bring it back to us?
Representative Wayne Long [00:37:22] No, ma'am.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:37:23] Pardon?
Representative Wayne Long [00:37:24] No, ma'am.
Representative Cindy Crawford [00:37:24] All right. Thanks.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:37:26] Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck [00:37:28] Thank you. There are a lot of great questions coming out of the committee. And I don't think anyone here has an appetite for the state taking someone's property. And I don't think that's the case at all. But I think the striking of everything is a bit blunt. It's too much. Maybe there could be some procedural things put into this section that, you know, make sure that in every way we try to give the landowner what we could, through an auction or whatever, whatever means. I don't know what.
But it just seems like this is a bit blunt and maybe we could tweak it a little bit and bring it back and say, these are the steps we're going to take before we get to that final catastrophic thing where we're just going to, we got somebody that will take it. We will donate it to them. But to make sure that they understand what's going through the process and it's very transparent to everybody involved. That's my suggestion.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:38:30] All right. Representative Long, there's been a great discussion here. Appreciate the questions by the committee. Representative Long, there's been a couple of requests. I'm not asking you to do one thing or another. You're welcome to go forward with your bill today, if you want to do so, you're recognized to close. If you'd like to pull it down, I'd also honor that request. So I'll just leave that decision to you. But it looks like there's no more committee questions. And so with that, depending on how you want to proceed, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long [00:38:59] I make a motion do pass.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:39:02] All right. There's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. I should have noted that. There's a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? A lot of questions. No discussion on the motion. All right. Seeing no discussion on the motion, there's a motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? No. The no's have it. Sorry, Representative Long.
Representative Wayne Long [00:39:29] Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:39:30] Thank you. Next bill is House Bill 1078. Representative Long, up again.
Representative Wayne Long [00:39:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Believe it or not, I know I put the other bill first because I thought it would be the much easier bill to pass. This bill is basically the same bill that I brought in the 2023 session. On the House floor, it got 84 votes. Basically, I didn't know until the election, I guess in 2022 that we didn't have a runoff for state representatives and state senators.
If you don't have a runoff in the era we're now with third parties getting more and more votes, you could technically end up with someone with 34% of the vote having a plurality, as it is now, and be elected to represent 66% of the people that don't vote for that person. To me, that just kind of didn't sit well with me. You should at least have a majority of the people in your district voting for you if you're going to represent them in the House or the Senate. So I brought this bill. It basically mirrors what we do in the primaries currently, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:40:57] All right. Representative Long has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Clowney, you're recognized.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:41:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, I should have asked you this before. I just didn't think of it. I see you have put in language here that all polling sites in the district that the two candidates have to be open for the runoff as well as the general. Does that apply to early voting sites as well?
Representative Wayne Long [00:41:21] Yes, ma'am. That was my understanding. In fact, I didn't have that in there in 2023. It was pointed out to me that could be confusing for voters. It's like, you know, you've got to track down a new place to go vote.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:41:33] So I'm just curious more than anything else. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:41:37] Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:41:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we know what the cost of a runoff election is?
Representative Wayne Long [00:41:45] No, sir. But to me, to have good elections that people believe in, I don't think there's a cost that's too high.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:41:58] Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am curious what the cost is. Maybe is there someone signed up to speak on this bill who could answer that? Or if not, could we bring someone to the table from the Secretary of State's Office?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:42:10] There was no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone here from the Secretary of State's office that might be able to help answer Representative Collins' question? There we go. Ma'am, if you would, identify yourself for the record and you'll be recognized.
Leslie Bellamy [00:42:32] Director Leslie Bellamy from the Secretary of State's Office, Director of Elections.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:42:39] Thank you. Do you happen to know what the cost of administering a runoff election is?
Leslie Bellamy [00:42:46] The cost of runoffs are typically higher. Honestly, it's hard to put a cost on it because every county differs by how many polling sites they have to have open, by the amount of races they have. So runoffs typically are costly because there's not a per vote if you even it out that way because they're not a high turnout. But I can't give a standard answer for a cost because every county's cost differs.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:43:18] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:43:23] And Representative Collins, I think the Association of Counties, since the counties are kind of responsible for conducting those elections, may have something to add here. No, they weren't. That is a request. I don't think they were necessarily expecting this. But I do think that they may have helpful information. So, you're recognized.
Lindsay French [00:43:50] Lindsey French, Association of Arkansas Counties. Can you repeat the question?
Representative Andrew Collins [00:43:56] Sure. Do you happen to have an idea of what the average cost of administering a runoff election is?
Lindsay French [00:44:02] I do not have that information. I will say, from what I understand, this is already the law in primaries, correct, which from our experience is where most of the runoffs take place. And we don't anticipate adding this to the general would add a lot of extra cost. And the clerks and counties have taken no position on this bill.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:44:28] Okay. Thanks.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:44:33] Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question.
Representative David Ray [00:44:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Long, I'd like to--
Representative Wayne Long [00:44:47] I'm sorry.
Representative David Ray [00:44:47] That's okay. So when I think about should we have a runoff in general elections, there's probably not a perfect way to do this. But there's two competing thoughts that I have in my mind. And I'm trying to decide which is the fairest way to run our system. So it's problematic if somebody wins the general election with less than 50%. Right. But it's also somewhat problematic that someone prevails in a runoff in which the turnout is maybe one third of what there was in the general election. So can you kind of, how do you square that in your mind which of those sorts of things is more important?
Representative Wayne Long [00:45:35] Well, you know, in the runoff, I believe it takes a little bit extra effort to go back out and vote. So I think it's the people who probably really care the most and probably will be more informed voters. So I don't know if that answers your question. And also, I didn't mention earlier, but currently, justice of the peace, they have a runoff for general election. They have runoffs for municipal races. Pretty much except for the constitutional officers. There is runoffs for everybody except us, state representatives and state senators, which to me, being a kind of a representative type situation, just don't have a good feel for it that you don't have at least a majority of people in that district wanting the person to be their representative.
Representative David Ray [00:46:28] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:46:32] Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:46:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Long, can you cite an example of when this was needed in any past election? Because, I mean, I'm just going through-- I was looking on Google of an election in Arkansas that would have needed this in the general for either a Republican or Democrat general election.
Representative Wayne Long [00:46:52] Well, the only two that comes to mind was in 2022 in northwest Arkansas, where there was a race where neither candidate got over 50%. And also in Conway.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:47:03] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:47:10] All right. Seeing no further questions. I did note earlier there was no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. I've since been informed Seth Mays is here and would like to speak against the bill. So Mr. Mays, you're recognized. If you would, of course, state your name and any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.
Seth Mays [00:47:34] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for missing the sign up earlier. My name is Seth Mays. I'm the executive director of the Republican Party of Arkansas. Really our opposition, in as much as it's opposition, we haven't had any conversations with Representative Long on this bill, the party or our party attorneys. But to the point that I believe was raised by Representative Hawk, when we look at examples in which this would have made a substantive difference, we don't see that there is a great excess of races that are close to the margins. The hypothetical example that was given in which a candidate for the state legislature would get elected office having received only 34% of the vote stipulates that the second major party candidate also gets around 33% of the vote, and then a third party candidate gets the final 30 to 33% of the vote.
You all have run for office in this state. And I think you know there is no third party candidate usually even close to double digits, but certainly not bringing home a third share of the vote. The example that was given in Conaway, of course, is Trent Minner and Steve Magie a couple election cycles previously. That race, as you all know, had a recount that was involved. There was a libertarian candidate. I think a lot of folks assumed that if a libertarian candidate was not in the race, that vote share goes to the Republican candidate. Similarly, if a Green Party candidate was not in a race, those votes would go to the Democratic candidate for office.
I would just note that in this state and nationally, there is very little evidence to suggest that third party candidates would have voted for a major party candidate or else that would have been their first election. They typically sit election cycles out. I don't think you can look at a third party candidate's vote share and just grant that automatically to a major party candidate. Likely we get into a runoff again and we've got a third of the turnout and those third party candidates are staying home. You have fewer people opining on who is actually the state representative for that district.
There could be other concerns that Director Bellamy or others could address, too, as to the certification of elections. County boards of election commissioners have certain dates in which they need to certify the elections in a general election. And again, if we're in a primary in March or May, depending in a presidential or gubernatorial year, you've got a lot of months until the general election, at which point the election's actually resolved. If we're in the event that we have to have runoff elections in the month of November, getting those candidates certified, I'm not exactly sure, again, what what those deadlines are, but that's another concern. Ultimately, I just don't see that there is a great problem in the state, again, of races at the margins or evidence that the outcome of those races would be different if this law were to go into effect. And it's the conservative caution of our attorneys to caution against changing election laws. So we're not exactly clear that we're solving a problem that existed in the first place. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:50:25] Thank you. Mr. Mayes, Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray [00:50:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what you're saying. I guess my question would be, you know, this proposal was brought two years ago and it passed out of the House with pretty overwhelming support. I guess I'm just curious, did y'all not have these conversations when the bill came through two years ago? And if so, why were those concerns not shared at that time?
Seth Mays [00:50:55] I don't know that the concerns from our lawyers at the time weren't shared at that time. I don't again recall having any conversations on this subject of runoffs or not. Again, two years ago, we would have been closer to the outcome of that Minner-Magie race, and perhaps folks just hadn't had time to properly digest what could have changed or not changed if the structure of that election were different. But I don't recall having any conversation with members last session about this bill either.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:51:26] All right. Any other questions by the Committee for Mr. Mays? Seeing none, Thank you, Mr. Mayes, for being here. Chris Madison, also, I've been made aware, would like to speak. I'm not sure either for or against, but has some information for the committee. And so I said I would give him the opportunity to do that. So, Mr. Madison, if you would state your name and who you're here representing and then you're recognized to speak to the committee.
Chris Madison [00:51:54] Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Chris Madison, the director for the State Board of Election Commissioners. And the question was asked about the runoff costs compared. I can't speak for a general election, but I had an example we just had before the last board. For example, Crittenden County in the primary had requested reimbursement from the state for-- they asked for 78,000. We approved 70,000 for reimbursement for the primary, and then they had a runoff. And I'm trying to verify what races were in the runoff where they requested an additional $35,000 for the run off costs. So I thought that would be an example that might help inform the committee with that question. And let's see. I'm still waiting to find out what the races were in Crittenden County, but it was roughly half of what they had initially asked for was the cost of the runoff. And that's for just a county race, not one that would extend outside the county. And with that, I'll take any questions or just try and provide some help.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:52:52] Thank you. Mr. Madison Are there any questions from the committee for Mr. Madison? Seeing none, thank you for your comments. All right. Seeing no further questions and no further people who have signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Long you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Wayne Long [00:53:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question had been brought up earlier about having enough time to get everything done. Of course, the local races don't seem to have trouble getting it done. I worked two years ago when we wrote this bill with the Secretary of State's office, the election division in particular, and also at that time the State Board of Election Commissioners to make sure there was no unintended consequences. At that point, we went forward with it.
Like I said, it got 84 votes last time. Unfortunately, at the end of the session, I wasn't able to get it out of the Senate before the end of the session. So I thought I'd bring it back again this year. And I wanted to run it today because I thought it would have plenty of time to work through the process this year. And with that, I guess I'm closed for the bill and make a motion do pass.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:54:10] All right. Representative Long has closed for his bill. He's made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The nos have it. Sorry, Representative Long, the bill has failed.
Representative Wayne Long [00:54:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:54:35] Next on the agenda, we have House Bill 1135. Representative Achor. You sure you want to do this?
Representative Brandon Achor [00:54:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank Representative Long for warming up the committee. What we have before you today, colleagues, is a clean up bill from a bill that was passed and successfully signed last session, which authorized the Department of Drivers Services under DFA to create a digitized driver's license. That original bill had a requirement of a $10 fee for anyone who chose that option. This bill, after DFA has done procurement and operationalized this, has realized they have the funding in their vendor fund. They no longer need the requirement of the $10 fee to operationalize this by February 1, and so this removes the requirement of the fee. It also expands this from just driver's licenses to ID cards as well. And with that, I will answer any questions.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:55:41] Thank you, Representative Achor. Representative Achor has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Long, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long [00:55:48] Representative Achor, when I was reading the bill, I noticed it specifically states in the bill that a photograph of your driver's license is not usable. I guess, is there a particular reason for that?
Representative Brandon Achor [00:56:02] So my understanding is that a photograph is not scannable. So the barcodes that's on the back of an actual driver's license allows for real time and basically real time connection to the DFA and driver services.
Representative Wayne Long [00:56:13] So the policeman, basically, he's scanning the barcode when he's running it?
Representative Brandon Achor [00:56:18] When he takes a hardcopy license. And this is an option for convenience. If a law enforcement officer still wants to require the individual to produce their hard copy, they still have to produce their hard copy.
Representative Wayne Long [00:56:31] Okay. Thank you, sir.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:56:34] Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:56:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So two questions. And the bill, it says "Shall," the $10, to pay the $10. So they can still charge the $10 under this if they choose to do that, correct?
Representative Brandon Achor [00:56:48] Yes. So it actually allows them up to $10. So anywhere from 0 to 10 should this become any sort of cost burden. And my whole initial point was that this doesn't cost the department any money. And so far they have sufficient funding to keep it at 0.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:57:02] Okay. And could you define what a digital driver's license ID card is? What's the difference between a regular one and a digital one?
Representative Brandon Achor [00:57:11] So digitized is the term that's used. And what that is, is essentially the barcode that you see on the back of your driver's license is a accessible of a digitized driver's license. It's just produced on a hard copy. So it's that same real time relay between the servers and, I guess, records they keep over at driver services to produce and give real time status update of that license. So it's a scannable, I guess, scannable barcode for lack of a better word, that relays the same information that's found on the back of your license.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:57:49] Okay. All right. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:57:52] Okay. Are there any further questions by the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, Representative Achor, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Brandon Achor [00:58:10] I am closed for my bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:58:12] Representative Achor's closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Meeks has a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Ayes have it. Congratulations, Mr. Acho, you passed your bill. All right. Next, we have House Bill 1138. Representative Torres, you are recognized.
Representative Randy Torres [00:58:47] Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel a little bit more encouraged now. I want to thank this committee. Of course, House Bill 1138 was proposed last week, and I drew it down to make some clarifications on the bill that was causing a lot of confusion. But the purpose of this bill really is to add physical therapist as additional professional to the list of those that can certify someone for a disability and consequently a handicap parking pass or tag and so forth. During that process, we had proposed an amendment because of some confusion in the language in the code that stated four years was temporary. That's what really messed us up. So the amendment was to make that six months rather than four years. We have corrected this copy and that will be in the next amendment that I'm not sure if you all have a copy of that yet. But my request, Mr. Chairman, is that we expunge the vote for that first amendment.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:00:07] All right. And thank you for that, Representative Torres. And I did talk with the Bureau of Legislative Research about what the proper procedure would be in order for Representative Torres to present his new amendment to this bill. And they said it would be that we would have to expunge the vote by which the previous amendment was adopted. And so, of course, Representative Torres is not a member of this committee, so he can't make that motion.
So do I see a motion? Representative Beaty makes a motion to expunge the vote by which the previous amendment was adopted. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Ayes have it. The motion to expunge carries. And that previous amendment has been expunged. Now there is a new amendment. Has that been given to the committee? All right. The staff is going to pass out the new amendment that Representative Torres would like to present. After it's been passed out and you've had an opportunity to review it, I recognize Representative Torres to present the amendment.
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:18] Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:01:21] Yes, sir.
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:21] Would you permit me to have Miss Alicia Austin Smith come up with me? She's the DFA chief counsel.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:01:29] Yes.
Representative Randy Torres [01:01:30] Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:01:52] All right. Everyone should have a copy of the amendment. Has everyone had a chance to review it? It looks like everyone has had a chance to review the amendment. Representative Torre, you are recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Randy Torres [01:02:02] Thank you. So this amendment basically deletes the line that created a lot of confusion. And so we're deleting years for a disability that is temporary in nature. And we're just ending that paragraph or that sentence with just years. And so that should clarify the purpose of the certification for a, I would say a, mid term disability.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:02:35] All right. I know you have a witness there with you. I anticipate there are going to be some questions by the committee about the amendment. If you would, just state your name for the record and who you're here representing.
Alicia Austin Smith [01:02:48] Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Alicia Austin Smith with DFA.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:02:53] All right. So Representative Torres has explained the amendment. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Collins, you are recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [01:03:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you guys aren't doing anything with regard to the duration in between when you have to be recertified. Is that because the other section of code that Representative Mayberry was referencing already? Is it three months, and that's what we want to leave alone?
Representative Randy Torres [01:03:21] Yes, sir. That's correct.
Representative Andrew Collins [01:03:22] Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:03:26] All right. Are there any other questions by the committee? Would you like to make a statement-- I know the witness was there about the amendment-- before we vote?
Representative Randy Torres [01:03:38] I'm ready to close.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:03:39] Okay. Very good. Then you're recognized to close for your amendment.
Representative Randy Torres [01:03:42] I close and would appreciate a good vote.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:03:45] All right, so there is a motion by Representative Beaty to adopt the new amendment. So any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor to adopt this amendment, say aye. All those opposed. The amendment has been adopted. Representative Torres, you're recognized to present the bill as amended.
Representative Randy Torres [01:04:05] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Again, this proposed legislation allows physical therapists to be added to the list of persons to certify disabilities for parking permits, license plates, placards. And really, that's the only thing that this bill is going to do, is it's going to help Arkansans with disabilities get through the process of getting a parking permit much easier. And with that, I'll close.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:04:34] All right. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry [01:04:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say thank you to Representative Torres for working through this process, and thank you, Alicia, for working on this. I think there was some confusion because it very clearly was stating before four years for disability that it's temporary in nature and that was going to change kind of the whole meaning. Just a side note that your main purpose of doing this was really to make sure we had physical therapists. And I totally agree.
The patients probably see physical therapists more than they see the doctor. And it will make it easier. So, thank you. Just a side note. And I guess I have to figure out how to turn this into a question. But if any member is looking to clarify some of this, because as we looked more into this, it's kind of confusing the way that the law is written, because really there's three different ways that you can have one of these permits. And one is a permanent disability.
And then to clearly state that there's a long term disability that's four years. And that there's a temporary that is three months. And it's just kind of not very clear wording. So I don't know if there's a request maybe if someone wanted to work on that. I guess that's how I'm going to turn that into a question. But thank you.
Representative Randy Torres [01:06:09] Thank you so much, Representative. I think that's my next item to do is bring another bill back that will clean all this up and make it more simplistic.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:06:26] Any other questions by the committee? All right. Seeing none, Representative Torres, you're recognized. I'm sorry. We have two people who were signed up to speak for the bill. Mr. Arthur Hilbert. If you would state your name and any organization who you may be here representing, and you will be recognized to speak for the bill.
Arthur Halbert [01:06:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representatives. My name is Arthur Halbert. I'm not representing anyone. I have a doctorate in physical therapy. And I guess if I represented anyone, it would be the patients that have asked me to do this for them. Simply for me to say that I can't legally in the state of Arkansas, but I can in Missouri and Tennessee and in Louisiana, because Arkansas is part of a compact state.
So I'll just say for over 100 years, physical therapists have been considered mobility experts. These are the ones that people go to for issues with their walking and mobility using canes, crutches, walkers. I work with people with strokes, heart issues. Physical therapy is an entry level doctoral profession. In the state of Arkansas, our patients have had direct access since 1997, 27 years. And like I said, as part of the compact state, Arkansas physical therapists can legally do this in other states under their current license. I would just ask for a yes vote on this House Bill 1138 to make it easier for patients to be able to get needed parking passes.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:07:59] Thank you, Mr. Halbert. And any questions by the committee? Seeing none, Thank you for your testimony. We also have signed up Christian Adcock. If you would again identify yourself and state any organization you may be here representing and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.
Christian Adcock [01:08:15] Good morning, Mr. Chair. Committee. My name is Christian Adcock. I'm with Disability Rights Arkansas, and we're in support of this bill. I've been with the DRA for about 11 years, and one of the sort of recurring themes that we see is that architectural accessibility, physical accessibility, barriers, whatever you want to call it, it's one of those things that doesn't seem like a big idea until you have to pay attention to it. And then it can mean all the difference in the world. And so any bill like this one that tries to simplify and make it easier for people who need these resources to get them is something that we're going to support, especially in a state like Arkansas, where you have areas where there's a physician shortage, increasing the options for people with disabilities to get the resources they need to live independently and work and be part of their communities, it's invaluable. And that's all. Thank you.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:09:11] Thank you, Mr. Adcock. Any questions of Mr. Adcock by the Committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Seeing no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill, at this time, Representative Torres, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Randy Torres [01:09:27] I'm closed and ask for a good vote.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:09:28] Representative Torres is closed for his bill. He's not a member of this committee. So do I see a motion? I see a motion. Representative Hawk and that motion is to do pass as amended. All right. There's a motion on the floor to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye? Those opposed. The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Torres, you've passed your bill.
Representative Rick Beck [01:10:38] Next up, we're going to hear Senate Bill 18. And with that, Representative Gazaway, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 18.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:10:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there is an amendment to this bill that we'll start with. Has that been passed out to the committee? Okay. This amendment is simple.
Representative Rick Beck [01:11:03] Give us a minute. We'll get that passed out. I think everybody's got a copy of the amendment and I think, Representative Meeks, you have-- I have a motion do pass for the amendment. So with that, all those in favor. Is there any discussion? With that, all those in favor? Any opposed. Representative Gazaway, you are recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:11:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple bill. As many of you know, we recently gave the attorney general some authority in matters where Legislative Audit refers items to a prosecuting attorney for investigation, which they routinely do. Sometimes the prosecuting attorney doesn't take those matters up. And we this legislature recently authorized those matters to be also referred to the attorney general for investigation in certain circumstances if the prosecutor wasn't going to act. And so the current law imposes obligations on the prosecuting attorney to make reports to Legislative Audit about the disposition of those matters. And so what we're saying here is we're imposing those same obligations on the attorney general, who, if that matter is referred by the prosecuting attorney to the attorney general for them to investigate or look into that, they also have to make those same reports to Legislative Audit that the prosecuting attorneys have to make. That's all the bill does. Happy to answer any questions.
Representative Rick Beck [01:12:57] Are there any questions? Representative Mayberry.
Representative Julie Mayberry [01:13:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General's office is all good with this, did you say?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:13:15] Yes, absolutely. They are.
Representative Rick Beck [01:13:22] Seeing no other questions, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:13:27] I'm closed for the bill and would make a motion do pass as amended.
Representative Rick Beck [01:13:33] I should have said there's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. So with that, we have a motion do pass as amended. All right. All those in favor say aye. And opposed. Congratulations, Representative Gazaway, your bill was passed unanimously.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [01:13:54] Thank you, Committee. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no further items on the agenda, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.
