House Agriculture Committee
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
0:00
to the committee and to everyone in the audience that came to see us have our picture or photograph made. But we had a miscommunication this morning with our photographer. So, once again, we're not having our picture made. So, if you want to take off your clean tie now and save it for Friday, put it back in the refrigerator. No, we are scheduled again at 8.50 Friday, which is a novelty in itself.
I don't believe we've had a Friday meeting yet, have we? But it looks like this Friday we will. So please put that on your calendar that at 8.50 Friday we will have our committee photographed. We actually have some bills to run today. and the first bill that we're going to call up is Representative Patterson and he's going to have a bill regarding the practice of forestry in Arkansas. Representative Patterson.
Speaker 5
1:18
In the name of John Shannon, he's in charge of the Forestry Department. And if you have any questions on this House Bill 1307, we'll be more than happy to try to answer them for you. But this acts regarding the practice of forestry in Arkansas and for other purposes regarding the practice of forestry in Arkansas. And basically, it's just a clean-up bill that will change the way they put your people on the board.
And if you have any questions, we'll be more than happy to try to answer them for you. It's the
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
2:14
fastest I've seen you move in a long time. I'm sorry, but sometimes you know how freshman legislators are sometimes. They get a little confused. I just had to throw that in, Representative.
Speaker 7
2:23
Go ahead. We'll be more than happy to answer
Speaker 8
2:25
any questions. Mr. Shannon, do you have any comments you'd like
Speaker 11
2:28
to make about this bill? Well, a couple of foresters have asked me how is this going to affect my work on the ground, and the answer is it will not one bit. They won't know if this bill passes or fails. This helps govern the board, and you folks may know me as Director of the Forestry Commission, but Governor Beebe asked me to serve on the Board of Registration for Foresters, and they've asked me to present this bill. so
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
2:51
what you're telling this committee is this is just good government at work
Speaker 11
2:55
yeah the only reason i'm before you is we had the law required a federal forester to serve on our board and and we've had one for a long time and that federal forester received a note from their ethics advisor saying he you know you can't serve two masters you can't work for the federal government and be required to serve on this board so that caused us to just take a look at our enabling legislation and recommend instead that the Society of American Foresters nominate a forester, you know, won't be a federal forester.
And that's really the only reason I'm here before you
Speaker 17
3:32
today, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. Do you have any comments or questions? Representative Gene.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:41
I just have a motion at the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. All right. Representative Meeks. Yeah. Just a quick question, and forgive me if I'm just not knowledgeable on this subject. It says here that one of the members shall be from the faculty or whatnot at the University of Arkansas at Moralton School of Forestry. Is that primarily because they are the only forestry school in the state?
Speaker 11
3:59
I pray it says Monticello. Yes, it does say Monticello. I'm sorry. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'm just seeing if you're on your toes this morning. I was about to say we need an amendment already, yes. I think back when the board was established many years ago, there was a two-year program at Hope, and you could get a two-year technical degree in forestry at Hope, and that's been gone for a long time now. So that, I mean, that law doesn't change. I just want to clarify, the forestry school in Arkansas is at Monticello. Okay.
Speaker 23
4:27
And that's the only one in the state right now? Yes, sir.
Speaker 17
4:29
Okay. All right. Thanks. Did I see another hand? Somebody else want to ask a question? Seeing no other questions, Revenue Gene? I'll make a motion. Do pass. we have a motion do
Speaker 26
4:46
pass all in favor say aye opposed like group into Paris you have passed your bill thank you mr. chairman thank you committee
Representative John Burris
Unverified
5:04
members next we're going to move to house bill 1367 by chairman Brown mr. Mr. Brown, when you're at the end of the table and situated, you are free to recognize to
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
5:20
explain your bill. MR. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. This may be, in my four-plus years of being in the state legislature, this may be the shortest bill that I have seen. It consists of a total of five lines with about seven words underlined, which means
we're changing seven words. I would like to introduce sitting beside me is Stanley Hill with the Arkansas Farm Bureau to answer any technical questions, but as you can see on this one-page bill, it's permissive language that for the district levy boards throughout the state of Arkansas, we are saying that they can go from $5 anywhere up to $50 to pay their directors per meeting. That's all this bill does.
Speaker 30
6:07
Stanley, would you like to make any comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Stanley
Speaker 32
6:18
Hill with the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. Purpose, as the chairman just mentioned, is to increase the amount of compensation for directors and assessors of levy improvement districts. districts, and it basically brings it in line with other districts that are identified as irrigation, drainage, and watershed improvement districts.
They are already at $50, and, again, this brings the levy districts on an even par with them. MR.
Representative John Burris
Unverified
6:48
Thank you, Mr. Hill. Members, are there any questions?
Speaker 34
6:54
Representative Jean. This is basically for education. How many different levy boards are there in
Speaker 32
7:03
the state? MR. I don't have that answer, Mr. Jean. My understanding is there's really no clearinghouse that collects that data.
I did visit with the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission on yesterday. They are not a clearinghouse. The records are basically retained in the county courthouses generally with the collectors. They're the ones that are responsible for the collection of the fees related to the drainage districts, and there is no state entity that has the control or a number of districts that are out there.
Speaker 32
7:46
right now are $5 throughout the state? That's what the law has prescribed, and just to further information on this subject, the levy districts in Arkansas were primarily set up between 1905 and 1915, and so this
dollar amount reflects basically what was put in place at that time and it has never been raised the state's
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
8:20
never been no updated or changed as far as we know that we just felt like that it was time to uh... yes more in this uh... twenty
first century thank you thank you mr chairman okay thank you representative gene representative link
Representative John Burris
Unverified
8:31
this obviously sounds like common sense and everything sounds real practical just to make sure i don't
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
8:37
go home and read in the newspaper that passed a bill that cost the state a million dollars. Give me an idea of how much money we're talking about.
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
8:45
This money actually is coming from the levy districts themselves. The landowners are taxed according to how many acres they have in that levy improvement district, a very nominal fee. But these board members' per diem is paid from that. And it's permissive. We're not saying it has to go to $50. They have permission now to go anywhere up to $50. And the money – okay, so we're not appropriating any funding.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
9:16
Not at all. We're just allowing them to pay that if they deem it necessary. That's exactly right, Representative. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
9:27
you. Thank you, Representative Link. Representative Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Brown, is there anyone opposing this bill?
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
9:33
The way I understand it, when Farm Bureau gets on a bill, nobody opposes it. Is that correct? That has
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
9:41
been said. I just make sure that if you're talking about a per acre fee and if you've got 200 acres in a levy board district.
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
9:46
Well, that's a fee to the farmer. Am I right? We're not changing anything there as far as the amount of the fee or whatever is
set up for the individual acreage, you know, for the levy board district. That is not, we're not having anything to do with that. So there's no increase in appropriation then? No,
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
10:01
sir. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think I'm happy with that. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Smith.
Representative John Burris
Unverified
10:07
Representative Lenning. I'd just like to make a motion at the appropriate time. Okay. Thank you, Representative. Representative Collins.
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
10:17
I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to scratch too deeply, but just to help me. So this is from a cash fund account, the way we determine them in the budget. budget. And then just a little footnote, the income tax top rate was set in 1929 at $25,000, and it stayed the same, although there's been some indexing, but just as a curiosity. So this comes from cash funds, which are paid for by fees that are outside of what we're
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
10:50
doing in general revenue. MR. Just for your information, Representative, fees are collected from the landowner inside
this levy district improvements are made to to levies that hold back water from maybe overflow streams and whatever they have an ongoing uh projects is to improve that levy district some of that money a very nominal fee as you see is taken out and paid to directors that make those decisions as to where that money is to be spent they are paid up to now five dollars per meeting
And we're asking for permissive language for them to be able to pay up
Speaker 26
11:27
to $50 per meeting so that maybe they can get some reputable people on those boards. All right. Thank you. Thank
Representative John Burris
Unverified
11:38
you, Representative Collins. I wrote my name down on the list. I was going to ask you a question. You kind of transitioned to it. This is unrelated in some ways, but as you mentioned, we've had a lot of problems with levy districts in the past, A lot of them that have been dysfunctional, local boards and different things like that that just aren't doing their job.
Is there any problem with them collecting per diem or any sort of payment as a result of the job that they're really not doing? Is
Speaker 55
12:07
that a problem at all out there? I really don't see that
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
12:13
as a problem. What you have is, yes, some living districts have gone defunct, but mainly because they were very small districts. Small acreages were included in those. they didn't get enough money taken in to make any improvements whatsoever. Some of them had been absorbed by larger districts.
Say one stream had run into another river. And so, you know, the tributaries were taken in as under one umbrella. No, Representative, I don't see a problem with that. But this might
Representative John Burris
Unverified
12:44
maybe. It could. Thank you, Representative Ratliff. okay thank you representative meeks just a quick question on the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
12:55
on the fees who sets those fees is that determined by the board or is that set up by state so if it's determined by those local
boards in order to pay for this increase on this payment those boards could then choose to increase the fees that they're charging the folks in their
Speaker 32
13:22
district or how does that work MR. As far as the amount that a landowner pays into their levy district, generally it's set. Now, what I found in the current statute is the per acre charge is 25 cents per acre.
If they're paying based on annual property tax assessment, it cannot exceed five mils on the dollar. Well, who sets and determines that fee, though? Is it the local board?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
13:57
It is the local board. So the local board, in order to meet this additional compensation, can raise the cost on the landowners in that area if need be? And, again, they can already do that.
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
14:25
right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Representative McCrary. I would just like to respond. You know, we're talking about levy districts. We also have drainage districts, and we're forming more and more irrigation districts. And it's farmers taking care of farmers. It's not the state of Arkansas taking care of farmers. It's we're voluntarily creating these districts, taxing ourselves to do the job that needs to be done,
whether it's flooding, which is irrigation district, whether it's drainage or whether it's irrigation. And these are very necessary. They serve their purpose. What happens, I've been on Balmater Drainage District for 20 years, and I'm sure a lot of farmers think that we don't do anything but you wait until there's a drainage problem and they all come see us and then it's a different story thank you for allowing me to make that comment
Representative John Burris
Unverified
15:19
thank you Mr. Smith thank you Representative McCrary I see no other questions is there anybody in the audience to speak for or against the bill Representative Letting you have a motion I believe I'd like to make a motion to pass thank you members there is a motion do pass. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee.
Speaker 64
16:34
Darrell Little will come up here from the plant board, please. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Speaker 66
17:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Darrell Little, Director of the Arkansas State Plant Board.
Speaker 5
17:07
This House Bill 1171, an act to repeal the Arkansas Mold Investigator Lasting Act, and for other purposes, an act to repeal the Arkansas Mold Investigator Lasting Act. Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that sometimes we make good laws and sometimes we make a mistake. And I feel like that on this particular law that we need to do something about this. And I've worked on this for a lot of hours and trying to do the best things possible for the state of Arkansas, for the citizens of the state.
And I thought about trying to redo this existing law. and I think that personally I think when we do sit down and redo this that I think it needs to be done with everybody that's involved throughout the state on this. I don't think just one or two groups need to get together. I think that there are several organizations that need to get together to do this properly for the citizens of Arkansas. Well, I'd like to tell you that there's some of the people that wants to repeal this law.
The Arkansas Association of Real Estate Inspectors, they're not there for us doing away with this. Arkansas Pest Management Association members wants us to do away with this. And the Arkansas Realtors also wants us to do away with this. And the current law has created a lot of confusion. It's not something that's easy to understand. And right now there's only about 25 individuals that has a license to do this.
And the way it's set up, there's no really meaningful enforcement standards in the law. And that's not what we need. Right now, the people who can do the work, they can also do the work to repair the damages. And we don't have any law set up where there can be an oversight where the state agency can come back and check them. And we need some rules set up where it doesn't matter who does the work,
we need to have authorization to come back to inspect it for the citizens of Arkansas. We don't need something that we go out there and somebody can do the work on the house, and then they can leave, and we don't have any recourse at all. So that's kind of how I feel about this. I think that it needs to be done away with, and I think the different groups need to get together and draw up a good law that's good for the state of Arkansas instead of one that's bad. So I'm more than welcome to take any type of questions.
Speaker 29
19:59
Mr. Little, do you have any comments you'd
Speaker 65
20:03
like to make before you take questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 68
20:09
Again, I'm Darrell Little, Director of the State Plant Board. Two years ago when I was approached about this issue, frankly, I stated we don't know anything about mold at the plant board, and we don't. We don't have any expertise in that area. And I was in, and the original bill was drafted where we would issue a license if an individual met specific criteria, and they could go out and do an inspection, but they were prohibited from doing the remediation work.
Now, the remediation work is where the big money is and all of that. And I said, well, if all we're doing is issuing a license and the person is prohibited from doing the remediation work, then we can do that. Late in the session, the bill got hung up and it was amended and it got away from me and passed with an amendment that allowed remediation.
And from my perspective, from a regulatory standpoint, that really is kind of a deal breaker for the plant board. And I know the General Assembly knows the plant board is going to carry out the laws that we have that are given to us. But here we're in a situation where we issue a license. We have a person with a state license, and we have absolutely no control to do follow-up inspections or any expertise to do that kind of work.
We issue license to tens of thousands of people in the state, seedsmen, fertilizer dealer, pesticide users, all of those, and we follow up with sampling and inspections to make sure the consumer gets what he pays for. I just don't feel comfortable issuing a license and then not really having any enforceable
regulations to follow up and make sure consumers are protected. And I would also like to add, and this is for those of you who have, who sat on the rules and regs committee in the interim, the plant board followed through and drafted regulations that essentially followed the law. A lot of it was just verbatim from the law and submitted those to rules and regs. And they've never been reviewed. They would be passed over.
That tells me that there are members of the General Assembly that probably recognize that there's
Speaker 70
22:59
a problem here. But I'll be happy to answer
Speaker 5
23:04
any questions. Mr. Chairman, can I say that they did pass over those rules for two years, and so really they never did act on the rules about that for a certain issue. But I'd like to say that in the past, when I buy and sell a house, I have a lot of trust.
We've got it in the rules now that the home inspectors and the pest control people cannot say the word mold. It's against the law for them to say that. Well, personally, if I buy or sell a house, I trust my termite people. And I've got a person that works for me that I would ask him, say, do I have any termites or do I have any mold in that house? And I honestly believe everything that he tells me. He's a hard worker. And then we passed a law that people, the hardworking people that across the state of Arkansas cannot even do their job now.
And I don't think that's right. So after saying that, I'm open up for any type of questions that somebody would like to ask. Thank you. We do have a couple
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
24:07
of questions as of right now. Representative Smith. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
24:14
you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Patterson, for bringing this bill up. I've got a couple of questions. First, I have a comment. Mold does cause health problems, do you not agree? What does the current law cost me, the homeowner, the way it's written right now, if you can give me a figure?
And then what determines, or who determines, rather, what kind of mold I've got in there anyway if somebody says I have mold? How do we determine that? Can you
Speaker 68
24:45
answer that, please? Well, Representative Smith, certainly mold is a health issue in homes and buildings, public buildings and structures. I don't really have a feel for the cost that it would. There are probably some home inspectors and some other individuals in the room
who can answer the cost issues. issues, but I know if you limit the field, you limit the number of people who can do this work, it raises the price. But I also know that there's a need to make sure the people have the training to do the work. Well, is it fair to assume
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
25:25
that that might cost me as much as $3,000 to $4,000 to have an inspection on a home that I might be interested in purchasing?
Speaker 70
25:34
I really can't answer that. I don't know, Mr. Smith, but I'm sure there are people here who can. I can tell you one
Speaker 5
25:40
instance that someone wanted to know if there was mold in the house in my area, and they told them they had to
Speaker 75
25:46
get someone out of Memphis, Tennessee. So to have this law that Arkansans are required to have inspections by
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
25:52
somebody that's called a mold inspector, he still has to go out to an outside lab or an outside entity to determine if, in fact, there is mold and what kind of mold there is. Is that what you're saying? Isn't that what you're saying?
Representative John Burris
Unverified
26:06
Yes. In many instances, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
26:18
Representative Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Patterson. I appreciate the many visits we've had about this
bill and this legislation. And I want to make sure that I'm clear on several points. One, is there, and maybe direct this to Mr. Little, is there a requirement put upon the citizens of Arkansas to do any of this as far as a mold inspection,
or is it something that's a contractual voluntary agreement between a person desiring to
Speaker 68
26:58
do this? Mr. Edwards, from my perspective, there's
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
27:02
no requirement. There's no requirement. Okay. Now, if you will look on page 1, line 31, where it defines a mold investigator,
and you read from 31 to 34, The way I read that is we're talking about a person who, for a fee, performs a service of examining residential or commercial buildings to confirm or refute the presence of a source of mold. Now, there's nothing in that, and if there's another part of the bill, help direct me to it,
because I'm just asking questions to learn. Where does the remediation portion come in? Did that come in? Is that something you put in your rules? Number one, there's that. And then number two, I want to also concur in a statement that Representative Patterson made. I have a lot of regard for the people in the termite protection industry in this state.
They've assisted me a lot in ways beyond finding termites. As I shared with Representative Patterson, I have a home that has a very difficult way to get around to certain parts of it because of the way the pier and beans are laid out. And had it not been for an extremely efficient and caring and careful termite inspector, I would have never known about a water leak or I would have known about it after a lot of damage had occurred.
Now, I don't see that as being in the main, the principal purview of a termite inspector, but it was something that I learned because I had that privilege. So that's a long way around the block to ask two things. Number one, are we certain that if a termite inspector and the performance of their duties of looking for termite infestation, and if they see something that they suspect is mold, Are we saying that the fee that we pay for that termite protection contract,
that that's imputed to be a fee for mold services? Mr. Edwards,
Speaker 68
29:42
I think that that is the way our board interpreted it, and it was certainly the intent of the original sponsor of the legislation. And I
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
29:52
want to touch on that. And I'm not going to try to be a law professor today, but I do think it's important for all of our members. Intent, the Arkansas Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, they don't look at intent in interpreting our law.
They look at the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words. So my question is now, where does the remediation come in? Because I don't see that word
Speaker 68
30:23
in there. Yes, Mr. Edwards, in the original bill, the way it was drafted, there was specific language. But I'm talking about, is this what we're dealing with right now? Yes, it is. And that language was removed. Okay. And when that language was removed, it essentially allowed remediation.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
30:42
It allowed remediation? Yes. Okay, but I'm talking about the
definition of what a mold inspector is. I mean, it
doesn't talk about remediation. Am I correct? Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Now,
my final question, because I do appreciate Representative Patterson for indulging me in a lot of my questions, and I mean that sincerely. And also, Darrell, I appreciate you, because you also indulged me
with a lot of my questions previously, and we shared most of these same comments I've shared with both of y'all. Now, is there a way, because I'm a believer if there's a voluntary system out there to provide some protection, you know, I'm for that in the context that we're dealing with. Is there a way in this session that this bill could be amended in such a way that it could meet the concerns that both of y'all have expressed?
And if not, why, given we still have 20-some-odd days left to file a bill?
Speaker 86
32:00
Mr. Edwards, there is a bill being drafted at the
Speaker 68
32:07
present to form a committee and bring all the parties together to study this matter.
If the plant board continues to be intimately involved with mold inspections, we would need to come up with a fee structure and personnel and the means to put a person or two on the
ground to follow up on some of this work. And I'm not sure that there's time for that.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
32:59
But then does that make it a, are you talking, does that, what you're discussing, does it turn it into more of a requirement versus what it
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
33:12
a requirement today. I know it's a requirement that your entity has to do the licensing, but I'm speaking.
You don't have a fee
Speaker 68
33:26
structure today? No, sir. Okay. Well, I say no, sir. There's a license fee, I believe it's $150, so for the 25 license holders we have right now that pretty much covers the expense of processing applications, reviewing credentials, the license, but
Speaker 95
33:52
there's certainly not enough revenue for an adequate follow-up inspection
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
33:59
program. MR. Those are the questions I have at
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
34:05
this time. Thank you, sir. MR. Representative Stewart. MR. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. So really, in reality, this law is not really in effect because we haven't had any rules or regs
Speaker 68
34:21
put out to put the law in effect, have we? Well, I'm certainly not a lawyer and an attorney, but it's my understanding that the General Assembly Rules
and Regs Committee reviews regulations, but they don't approve
Speaker 68
34:41
law is in effect. It's been passed. The regulations essentially restate the law. So, in essence, yes, they're in effect. Well, it looks like
Speaker 99
34:51
there's quite a bit of questions surrounding the
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
34:56
whole thing. And your first comment said that the plant board doesn't really understand or know much about this.
Kind of worried me a little bit. That maybe we're premature in doing this and we're not really ready to do it. But I would think that a good interim study with all the involved parties could come up with something that would be workable to all the interested parties and to better provide a service to the citizens of Arkansas that I don't think we're getting right now. Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
35:35
Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Representative Patterson, thank you so much for bringing this up. I'm a small government guy, so when somebody brings a bill that says we want to eliminate a law, I get really excited. Also, Senator Madison and I don't agree on every single issue. But at the same time, I'll share with you that where I come from in Fayetteville, this is a devastating financial issue.
I know personally at least three different people that have suffered six-figure losses over this issue. So in the creation of a law, the first thing some wise folks, maybe Mr. Chairman, have told me is, what problem are you trying to fix? And the problem is somebody walks into somebody's house and says, oh, look, there's some stuff over there. And instantly, the value of the house drops $200,000 overnight with no recourse for the homeowner.
So while I agree that in some respects it sounds like there's too much regulation here and it's too restrictive, in other respects it seems like the current law is not restrictive enough or we don't have it in the right place and there's some things that need to be changed in it, My question is, if we eliminate this thing today, what about the problem that's out there with regard to those homeowners? How do we deal with it if we can't amend this thing while we're in interim study for two
years or three or however long it takes?
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
37:15
Thank you. Is there other questions by the committee? If not, then we'll go to the audience. Mr.
Speaker 26
37:24
Chairman, he wanted to answer on that. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. You go right ahead. I thought he
Speaker 55
37:29
was making a comment. Go ahead, Representative. In
Speaker 5
37:34
the first place, just for somebody talking about a place having a substance or not, I've been buying and selling real estate since I was 18 years old,
and I don't believe that would knock down the value of a home just by talking about it. But now if we start tagging the houses and saying, and I know of one in my area that is tagged because it had a water leak for a long time, large two-story house, and nobody took care of the problem, and it's a disaster. I mean from top to bottom. And everybody in the town knows that what you need to do is just dispose of the whole house. But I don't want these disasters to happen.
I don't want us to have tagged houses across the state, and that's what I'm doing here, trying to get this bill repealed, because I'd like for the whole group to get together and sit down and try to do the best thing for a state of Arkansas. I
Speaker 9
38:27
don't think we're going to have a problem. I'll gamble for a few months, something of this law not being in effect, if we need to, to get it done properly. But I've been here longer than you have as far as passing laws, And when the two years is up, your first two years, you'll look back, and there's one or two things you wish you'd done different.
But, I mean, you can't worry about all those things sometimes because any way you vote on a bill is not going to be there. Somebody's not going to like it back home. So when I took on this project here, I knew that some people would not like this. But I'm just trying to
Speaker 5
38:59
do what's best for the whole state of Arkansas, for the citizens, and I don't want those tagged houses. I don't want people getting that position. And so that's why I think we need to get everybody together and try to come up with the right solution, you know. So I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 26
39:16
We do have one other question. Representative
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
39:21
McQuarrie. Representative Patterson, don't you agree that if we don't repeal this bill that it will not cause all parties to get together and work together and get this solved? So it's necessary. Is it necessary for everybody to repeal it and everybody to get together and get to work on it as quick as they can to solve it? I think that would
Speaker 71
39:42
be a good solution right there. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
39:47
Any other questions by committee members or responses? If not, then we will go to the audience now. And let me tell the audience that we have quite a few people signed up for or to speak against this bill. and I ask that you please keep your comments as brief as possible but tell us what you want to hear. If you have not been in one of my committee meetings before I will tell you that I will not accept repeat performances.
If somebody is going to tell me about a house that has mold I don't want to hear about the house down the road that's got mold either. If you've got something new to say I definitely want to hear it and this committee wants to hear it. With that understood, we'll start with the against. I believe it's Manuel Barnes. You're recognized. Mr.
Manuel Barnes
Unverified
40:55
Barnes, if you'll recognize yourself, make sure your microphone is on.
MR. Yes. Good morning. Appreciate your service. My name is Manuel Barnes. I have, for the last 20 years, been doing environmental consulting with a private group. Historically, when Mr. Clinton was governor, I was chairperson of the Environmental Protection Planning Interagency Group when I was with the Corps of Engineers right down the street. I noticed in the paper this week an old project of mine that I studied for the city of North Little Rock, retrofitting Murray Dam with hydropower.
We did a fishery study there. I came to the legislature two years ago when this law was passed. I came in about the third quarter of the aspect of the law. And I believe that the law as it stands is a good step in the right direction.
I would recommend with the concerns over the law that it be studied over the next couple of years, year, whatever period of time is necessary. Aegis and Atoka, another consulting firm, one of the 24, 25 licensed inspectors that meet the criteria of the present law, are willing to serve on that committee. If you so form a committee, we would love to participate. But we believe that Atoka and Aegis believe, and I think you have a letter, that was presented to the representatives on this committee that the present law does
serve the citizens of Arkansas well. The assets of homes and buildings and the human health concerns. I had major problems with hospitalization with my youngest of four daughters because of mold back in the 80s. Immune system strength varies, and I would very strongly recommend that the law continue.
I think it's had a first year of being in the field. Our company has worked on 600 to 700 jobs over the last 10 years that pertain to mold. We do a lot of other environmental work throughout the United States. Actually, my fees did not change before and after the law, did not change 10 cents. And in terms of mold investigators being restricted from being involved in remediation,
just like any of us going to our family physician, I would strongly recommend that you consider allowing investigators to also be involved in remediation because they're very knowledgeable. Mold situations in homes are very complicated. Mary Lennon of the University of Arkansas, Dr. Lennon, will also give testimony. I could talk way too long. A lot of people in the room, I'm a commissioner with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. They know me to be long-winded. I'm going to cut myself very short.
I appreciate your indulgence. Representative Lindsay and I have worked together on some important projects I hail from northwest Arkansas so a southern Arkansas boy yields the floor thank you sir Mr. Barnes would you take questions if
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
44:38
there is any absolutely does anybody on the committee have questions for Mr. Barnes if not Mr. Barnes thank you for your testimony thank you next on the list to speak for the bill is Anita
Nita Rothgeny. I hope I pronounced that correct. I'm
Speaker 107
45:07
table and recognize yourself. I'm Nita Rothgeny. I'm from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I've been a home inspector for
Speaker 108
45:13
11 years, and I've done mold sampling for 10. I have a stack of manuals about this tall. I've been trained seven times in mold sampling. All I do is pull mold samples. The bill, as it's
currently written, forbids me to do that now. It's something that I've been trained to do. I've done for a long time. All I do is pull the sample and send it to a certified lab. The results come back. It's given to the homeowner or whoever, you know, commissioned me to do the work. It's a small part of what I do. I'm mostly a home inspector, but let me tell you who my customers are. My customers are the couple who's buying their first house or someone
who's buying a house and they've had mold issues in the past, someone who has asthma or is immune-compromised in their family, and they want to know if, before they lay out all this money for this house, they want to know if the house has a mold problem. They want some air samples pulled. As a home inspector, I can tack a small fee onto my home inspection fee that I'm charging already, and I can pull those samples while I'm there.
I can send them to a lab. Two days later, they have the results. and they can decide whether or not they want to purchase that home. It's a big factor in, you know, in making their decisions sometimes, especially if they've had issues in the past or family members with issues. Another one of my customers may be someone who's bringing a new baby home. They want to make sure they're not bringing that baby into an environment
that's going to cause problems for the baby. You know, probably eight of ten samples that I pull aren't a problem. The house isn't a problem, but the people want to know. They need that security. Another thing is elderly. A lot of times when someone retires in their home all the time, they don't know why, but they're having more health issues. So they get it in their head that they must have mold in their house. So they want samples pulled to see.
Nine times out of ten, they don't have anything, but they feel better. And doctor referrals. I had a lady in Manila who was having a lot of problems, and she had me pull samples. This has been several years ago, and when she got the results back, she had them pulled at the office where she worked because that's where she really thought the problem was, but then she found out it was at her home. and what was growing out in her cultures at the doctor's office was exactly what she had in her home
so she could connect that to what her health issues were. And her doctor said he was very pleased. He said, I wish everyone would do this. I'm not telling people how to correct their problem. I'm not really investigating the mold issue or trying to find the source or what the solution is. I'm just letting people know if they have a problem or not. And it seems to me that the more people that are out there pulling samples on a house, if someone wants it done, the more problems that the actual mold professionals are going to have to work on.
I have, you know, in the past, I've had mold remediators that have sought me out because they knew that I had been doing sampling for a long time, and they said, hey, I want to know you. You know, I know that you come across mold problems from time to time. I would like for you to, you know, know that I'm out here doing this work. So that they're getting referrals, you know. I mean, I can give people a list of people that do that work. But right now we fall under the category as being mold investigators
just because we're pulling a sample. That's like saying you have to be a doctor to pull a blood sample. You know, a phlebotomist can't do it. They're trained to do it, but they can't do it anymore because the doctor is the one that analyzes it, so they've got to be the one to pull it. We can do for, you know, $250, $200 to $500 mole sampling that if you get one of these 25 people that do it,
you know, it's going to cost a lot more than that because it's not a big part of our business. It is just something we do to help people, and it's something that people need to know. They need to know. I don't try to go in and remediate a house. I've already got a job, you know, and we as home inspectors want to be able to help people. We don't want to have to say, well, no, I'm sorry, I can't pull a mold sample for you.
Well, so-and-so told me you didn't. Well, no, I can't do that anymore. The state says, I can't do it. Well, haven't you been doing it a long time? Oh, yeah, I've been doing it a really long time, but no, I can't do that anymore. You'll have to call somebody out of Memphis or Little Rock. It's probably going to cost you, but no telling, over $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 to get your mold samples pulled, something that I could do for $300. You know, it's not fair to the consumers in Arkansas to have to pay those kind of prices for, it's just a sample.
The lab analyzes it. I don't have to be a scientist to take samples. I'm trained to do that. And I guess that's all I
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
51:17
have to say. Thank you, ma'am. Would you take questions? Sure. Representative Edwards.
And I apologize at first. Can I get your name again, please? Anita Rothkerry. Ms. Rothkerry, first of all, I truly appreciate you being here today, and I think you've done an outstanding job of explaining the issue.
And the reason why I missed your name initially was I was going around and talking to other people. For purposes of trying to fix what appears to be the issue today, The law as it currently stands excludes employees of insurance companies and adjusters from being called mold investigators. If the law was amended for now to exclude home inspectors, pest control operators,
that would alleviate the concern that you shared with us, would it not? Most of it. The
Speaker 108
52:19
only other concern that I know of that would be left would be as a home inspector, it's my job to tell people if they have moisture issues or water problems or leaks or whatever. And, you know, I mean, not to be able to use the word mold or even refer to it hardly
is kind of ridiculous. If we suspect a mold problem, generally it's put something like a mold-like substance or something like that. I mean, and pretty much if it looks like mold, most of the time it
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
53:01
is mold, you know. And taking a tack from my colleague, Representative Collins, I mean, homes
for many Arkansans, a home is going to be the largest asset that you have And I think when there's a program, the option, and we're talking about private contractual relationships because you provide a service, do you not?
I mean, no one makes anyone use your service. You're contacted. You provide a service of trying to give an inspection of a home. And I'm just wondering, Representative Patterson, if the option of maybe considering an amendment on that point and then doing the study to consider some of the finer points that might alleviate some of the problems
that you've mentioned to me and also what I shared, and I haven't shared it with the committee, but as I've shared with you and I just shared with Senator Sample, another option idea I had to expand the opportunities for people who could do this. Under the GI Bill program that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs administers, They have courses that they certify for payment of GI Bill educational benefits to help veterans get a job, you know, work.
And there are numerous mold identification courses that the VA has signed off on as being quality courses, and they're open to veterans and non-veterans alike. I'm just saying that the VA has, you know, signed on. But Representative Patterson, I mean, you mentioned to me that having such a small number of investigators was a hindrance. If we opened it up in a way for now, do you think that could eliminate some of the immediate concerns?
Speaker 9
55:16
I think it could eliminate some immediate concerns right now. But you said, you know, going through the VA, it's got programs, and that sounds like a good deal to me. And also getting the home inspectors involved, getting the termite people involved. See, you've come up with three things right here just within a few minutes, you know, and it sounds like a great deal to me. But we're adding a little bit more to this bill, but we're not doing the bill correctly.
Speaker 5
55:49
We're not getting everything. We need to put dotter I's and cross her T's
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
55:55
on the whole thing. And I don't, I think you're correct again. But I know with what you're
Speaker 9
56:00
saying there that I believe, like a lot of this group, a lot of them would be happy doing that, you know. I'm just trying to find a
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
56:11
way that, I know we all like to seek perfection. I'm just wondering if this might be, would you think this might be an option for us to consider something that would be workable as we pursue the perfection, if you will, with an interim study.
Speaker 9
56:24
We've got, you know, we've got an option on the table to repeal this law. And if I thought we could come up with the right combination between now and the two weeks, I would be more than happy to do that. But the man that runs the state office here says that he doesn't think
Speaker 5
56:43
that office can come up with the right solutions in the next two weeks. Let me interject here. Let's speak to
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
56:49
the subject. The subject is to repeal this law, not to what we can do to correct.
If we repeal this law, then we will do something to try to make a better law at a later date. Okay? Let's stay on what we're talking about, and the subject is repealing the mold law. Okay? That's fine with me. Any other
Speaker 50
57:11
questions, Representative Edwards? No, sir. Okay, sir. Representative Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
57:17
I just want to ask the inspector, under the old way, what would be your standard home inspection fee as a general rule, and what would you think is the price for mold analysis
from being somewhat associated with that business? Could you answer
Speaker 108
57:33
those questions, please? Yes. You know, my average home inspection is going to be $275. If someone wanted mold sampling, which I do not push mold sampling, it's just something that if someone wants it, they'll usually ask for it. And I can tag onto my fee, it's usually less than $200 to have the sampling done in a house.
If I am called out just to sample a house for mold, it's going to be more than that. it falls between $300 and $500. But if I'm already there, I can pull the samples
Speaker 111
58:12
while I'm there, and I don't have to tag that
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
58:16
extra fee on. Okay, thank you. And one last question, if I might. Do the lending institutions require, and I believe they do, require home inspection? Is that not
Speaker 108
58:26
correct? No. They don't require it. They're getting to where they do some, and certain bankers will from time to time.
But as a general rule, they're not requiring it most of the time. Well,
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
58:37
in reference to what Representative Collins had stated, it sounds like we should have something like that just to protect the individual investor. Would you not agree?
Speaker 108
58:46
A lot of states right now, it is law. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Do we have
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
58:56
any other questions for this witness? If not, thank you, Ms. Rothkerry, very much for appearing.
Next on the list, against, and I hope I pronounced these names halfway correctly, Ms. Miriam Lohman, or Mr. Miriam Lohman? Ms. Miriam. I'm sorry, doctor. That
Speaker 38
59:17
should have been put on the list. It wasn't on mine. I apologize to you.
Speaker 133
59:27
Please recognize yourself. Okay. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate it.
Speaker 134
59:35
I appreciate being involved in the process. I am Dr. Miriam Lennon. I am a Ph.D. medical microbiologist with more than 28 years of experience in occupational environmental health. I worked for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for six years, and I am the author of the method that is currently used for sampling for mold in indoor air, for sampling for mold and bacteria in indoor air.
I have assisted in the revision of the indoor air guidelines by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. I am not a building inspector. I'm not a home inspector. I'm not a pesticide applicator. I'm not a mold investigator, for that matter. I have no vested interest in this. However, I do have two compelling interests.
One, for the public health, and two, for the consumer protection of the people of Arkansas. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. I mean, I think this law is a step in the right direction. I urge you not to repeal it, but I do suggest and I strongly recommend that it be studied and amended as appropriate. I wish to point out to you that the sampling from mold is a high and sampling and interpretation
of the results is a highly complex issue. You can pull a sample. You can take the sample using basically a cookbook method. You can send it to an accredited laboratory. Mold identification is difficult, but an accredited laboratory can usually identify it to genus, not to species. However, the real problem is interpreting these results, and it takes a qualified, knowledgeable
person to interpret the results because what you see in terms of results may be very different from one house to another, from one building to another, and it may or may not, what you collect may or may not indicate that there's a mold proliferation problem in that building. It requires the ability to interpret these data in order to make that assertation. It's my belief that, and this is where me and my colleague, Mr. Barnes, differ a little
bit. It's my belief that it is best if the investigator, remediator, be somewhat separated to prevent a conflict of interest. That's what I had initially suggested when this bill was presented. However, I would be happy to sit down with a study group, with a committee should you decide to appoint one to discuss these things with my colleagues and to revise this bill
or this law so that it would be acceptable. I would like to point out to you that there are requirements for people who do as best as sampling, to do asbestos inspection, certification, and remediation. Those people have to be licensed at some level, and there are multiple levels of licensing. It's also true that people who do lead abatement, lead sampling, et cetera, those people also are required to be licensed
or shortly will be required to be licensed and certified. There are multiple certification bodies. Some of them are credible, some are not. The two that are basically the gold standard are the Indoor Air Quality Association and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Both of those bodies have certification processes that will give you a choice in the level of certification so that this lady here who only takes the samples and does not attempt to
interpret them, she takes the samples and sends them to the lab, she could certainly be certified at the technicians level. There are a great many possibilities with this law, but please don't repeal it because when you do, you leave a vacuum. And as it is, anybody who wishes really can call themselves a mold inspector or a mold investigator and go into someone's home or into someone's business and perform the sampling
either correctly or incorrectly, can interpret the data correctly or incorrectly, and this has real health implications. If you sample incorrectly, you can create a health hazard where in fact none existed before. People have torn down homes, you know, million dollar homes, because they found a little patch of mold in the basement, which could easily have been remediated, but people get really frightened, almost to the point of hysteria, when they think there's mold in
their home. That's the reason you need somebody knowledgeable to interpret the results, and again, I would urge you not to repeal this, but to, in fact, concentrate on improving it. And I'll be happy to take any questions. MR. Thank you, Doctor. Representative Stewart, do you have a
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:05:29
question? MR. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor, I think what I understand you to say is this kind of needs to be a tiered process that a home inspector or a pest control person could be trained to be a technician to take
samples. MS. Absolutely. or interpretation stage where it requires more education. I think this bill requires 20 hours of microbiology. And I'm a biologist, but I only took three hours. I don't know if you can even get 20 hours at most colleges. But then you need, after that's been investigated and interpreted, then you've got to go to the third stage, which is the mediation stage. And there I'm looking at probably a contractor or somebody that's going in there
who has been trained to, after this has been interpreted and said, this is what you have, they have to go in and say, and this is what we have to do to take this out. That's correct. And the current bill doesn't do any of that. That's correct. So it's got flaws, and we need to address that in some way in order to make a package that's doable for the citizens of Arkansas. Because I think, like you said, we could have situations where they're taking a house down and it could have been, you know, fixed very easily.
Speaker 134
1:06:47
I would, again, recommend that, you know, perhaps the committee be appointed to study this, to very carefully revise it. I believe that if you repeal it, it will leave a vacuum there and that more people will suffer, you know, health damage, property damage, what have you. because they don't have a viable alternative for assessing the risk in their homes.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:07:21
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, based on your opinion, from what we've heard, the plant board doesn't feel comfortable in being the enforcement agency on this matter. So in your opinion, what would be the best state agency to provide the licensing and enforcing of this type of act? I can't answer that. I don't know.
Speaker 134
1:07:51
It's clear that the plant board is not comfortable with it, and for good reason. But there is bound to be a state agency somewhere, or perhaps within a state agency, even the plant board, you could set up a special group as an advisory group to the plant board to help them to review these applications and to ‑‑ there's also a pretty good set
of guidelines that's provided by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the IAQA to, you know, to criteria by which you do evaluate these applications. So I think that what has happened is that the plant board has just kind of been set loose with this and they're not comfortable with it, but I think there are things that could be done fairly quickly and fairly simply that would make them a lot more comfortable with
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:08:55
it. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Doctor, thank you so much
Speaker 141
1:09:08
for coming and testing today. Next on the list, speaking for the bill, Dan Balton, is that correct? Please recognize yourself.
Dan Broughton
Unverified
1:09:26
My name is Dan Broughton. I'm a licensed home inspector, and I'm also a member of the Arkansas Home Inspector Board. I'm also a qualified FHA inspector, and I have been trained in indoor air quality for the past 10 years. I'm also the education chairman for the state of Arkansas on the state board. I've been a registered and licensed home inspector for over 12 years in the state of
Arkansas. I have conducted in excess of 3,000 home inspectors, have been trained in every aspect of the home building process. I've also been hired and testified as expert witnessing in dozens of court cases. I'm in favor of this bill in repelling the act. Originally, I was involved with Senator Madison in its formation a few years ago. And like Mr. Barnes said in his testimony, it kind of got away from a lot of people
because what the intent was was to properly train individuals that are entering the crawl space of a home, regardless of your profession, and making comments on water intrusion problems. In some cases, individuals that have entered this crawl space and have seen water problems and have identified substance that looks like mold and have come out and made comments that your crawl space is covered in mold, mold has a problem with causing house property
loss, causing potential health damage, but we can repair this house for excess of $12,000. Well, being a homeowner and you're faced with this large expense and now the scare of having mold in your home, you have no avenue and you hire that person to make this large investment in repair. Well, by some individuals that have entered these crawl spaces and made their comments, these individuals are not properly trained in what water intrusion problems are.
It's not necessarily where we have a mold problem in our country. It's we have a water intrusion problem, and a byproduct is mold. I agree with what Dr. Lund had said about qualified trained people. The Indoor Air Quality Association has been replaced by the ACAC Council, which is the American Council for Air Quality Training. They board certified individuals that could have the capacity to be a mold investigator
as an industrial hygienist, a microbiologist, a certified indoor environmentalist, environmentalist or a certified indoor environmental consultant or to have 20 college hours in microbial studies. As one representative said earlier, he had a few hours in his studies. As a home inspector, I also have been trained and qualified in drawing indoor air samples, providing the avenue for a homeowner to find if they do have a mold problem.
These mold samples that are taken are sent to an accredited lab by the ACAC Council. They are the entity that tells a homeowner if you have a mold problem, what the species of this mold problem is, what the quality of this mold problem is, and they give them advice on what to do. These are also microbiologists and industrial hygienists. The next step for a homeowner is to hire a qualified abatement company to enter the home
and correct this mold problem. As a home inspector in Arkansas, and there are approximately 200 home inspectors, and there used to be a few dozen home inspectors that provided this mold sampling service, whether it was air sampling, carpet sampling, or it was a swab sample. samples are not interpreted by the home inspector or the sampler that draws these problems. I again agree with what Dr. Lund said, that these should be interpreted by a qualified
individual. My application has been accepted by the ACAC Council to take a test to become a certified indoor environmentalist. These are problems that need to be addressed in the people of Arkansas, but by leaving this bill intact, it has taken away a service that dozens of home inspectors offers to the general public of getting a starting point of how to remedy a problem of the house they live in or a house that they are planning on purchasing.
By the qualifications of the individuals that are now licensed in Arkansas by the present bill, it has put a large financial burden on the few dozen home inspectors that were qualified to draw samples in the beginning and now cannot do it in fear of violation of the Arkansas law. I've had dozens of clients in the past that have called me and said, you know, we're getting ready to buy a home. We have a small child that has asthma or allergies to a certain species of mold. We'd like you to draw samples so we know where to advance.
Upon the evaluation of these samples, they have found that there have been high levels of certain types of mold that their child was allergic to, it has now given them an avenue to approach on how to remedy this problem. By having only a few dozen individuals presently that are qualified in doing this type testing for individuals in the state, it has put a burden on those that are qualified and it has taken away a readily available asset to the people that could just normally have samples
drawn. I think by having a committee appointed with a lot of the entities that are involved, home inspectors, remediators, plant board, all individuals or professions that enter a crawl space or certain parts of the home should be afforded this avenue of education. And by having a committee that can remedy this problem and come up with an avenue or a new bill that will allow us to provide the people of Arkansas with a safety factor. As of right now, I feel that there is no safety factor for all the people.
With 75 counties in Arkansas and 25 licensed entities that can go out and sample, that's putting two or three counties per individual, and it's the timeframe that it takes to even sample, do the remediation, and then clearance sampling, you're taking away a lot of time with the people. You're also adding additional funds and expenses to families that whereas if there were more people that are qualified in properly doing this interpretation would be now available to the people. And that's
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:16:25
all I have to say. And if there are any questions, I'll take some time.
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Baldwin, for your testimony. You're welcome. Let me take time out for about 15 seconds here, and I see we have a delegation from the Bergman FFA Club here, Bergman High School. Welcome to our ag committee today. Let's hope. And you're to know that you're welcome back at any time. Okay? Thanks. Seeing that we have no other person
Richard Kirkman
Unverified
1:16:55
signed up to speak against the bill, the next one
for the bill is Richard Kirkman.
Speaker 148
1:17:10
Good morning. My name is Richard Kirkman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members for allowing us to speak. I am currently the president of the Arkansas Association of Real Estate Inspectors, and that's on whose behalf I speak today. We support the repeal of this act, and that is we are for House Bill 1171 and the repeal of Act 1467.
We believe that the consumer is not well served under this act because of the restrictions placed on home inspectors in that we cannot legally report that we observe what might be a suspected mold growth. I can tell you that Arkansas home inspectors observe parts of homes that are not regularly viewed by homeowners, and we enter spaces that are rarely, if ever, entered by homeowners or buyers.
And if a home inspector observes what we suspect may be mold, the current act prevents us from stating or even implying that mold may exist at that house. The current act provides up to a $1,000 fine if a home inspector advises a prospective buyer, or even the homeowner, that the possibility of mold exists or for conducting any mold
sampling. We believe this puts us in a catch-22, in that if we report what we observe, we stand to be against the law and to have a possible fine. And if we don't report what we observe, then we are in a position that possibly we could be sued by the buyer for not giving them that information. The requirements of the current law, as you have heard today, allow very few persons to
be licensed mold investigators. The list I pulled off the website yesterday lists 29 licensees. of those are from out of state, Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. So that leaves only 23 in the state of Arkansas. And as Mr. Broughton pointed out, that's a large state with 75 counties. That's over three counties per investigator if, of course, the work was divided equally.
So it is our position as the Arkansas Association of Real Estate Inspectors that House Bill 1171 should be passed, that home inspectors be allowed to report to a consumer what we observe and not have to use language that they don't understand or language that's legally defensible for us so that they understand what might be in their home and that we be allowed to conduct mold sampling.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:20:33
Kirkman. Is there any questions, Mr. Kirkman? Representative Link. We do appreciate your time coming here and talking to us, giving us your professional advice. Something I didn't hear you mention I've heard a lot of folks talk about is their willingness to come to a table and come up with a solution. I think most everyone sitting at
Speaker 148
1:20:51
this table would agree with me that we need something. I agree that we need something. The home inspectors currently have the standards of practice and code of ethics that were approved
after appropriate public hearing by the Arkansas Home Inspector Registration Board. I think something similar needs to be approved, because I am also a consumer in addition to a home inspector. I do not conduct sampling like Anita and Dan do, but I believe that the consumers do need to be protected. And our association or me individually, I would be more than happy to participate. What we're looking
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:21:26
at here is obviously a decision to find out if we want to,
as this committee approves, whether we go forward without any bill in place or if we go forward with the bill that's in place until we come up with a fix. Why do you
Speaker 148
1:21:47
think we should go forward with nothing in place? It appears to me that before the law was passed, for example, I could do sampling, and I did on occasion. Now I can't do that. And when I did it, I didn't charge anything.
At the time, it was relatively simple for me to do. In terms of fixing the current bill or getting a new bill, I have seen homes, from my experience as a home inspector, that people attempted to fix. And a fixed home is never as good as a home that's built correctly the first time. Now, I'm not a representative. I'm not an attorney. Which is
Speaker 152
1:22:29
possible and which is better for the citizens of Arkansas, I don't know. Representative Meeks
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:22:38
Yeah, just a quick question On average, prior to this law going into effect How many inspections or mold samplings would a general home inspector do in the course
Speaker 148
1:22:53
of a year? Wow I'm sorry, but I don't know I did it on a very rare occasion and usually it was by a relocation company that asked me to do it on their behalf. Sir, I wouldn't know. I don't offer the service.
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:23:13
Thank you, Mr. Kirkman, for your testimony. Thank you. Committee, we have just two more people that would like to testify today, so bear with us, okay? Next on the list is Mark
Speaker 55
1:23:28
Hopper. Mr. Hopper, if you'll have a seat and recognize yourself, please, sir, and
Mark Hopper
Unverified
1:23:32
your own. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Hopper. I represent the Arkansas Pest Management Association, and I own a pest control company in North Arkansas. I appreciate the time to speak and to answer any questions that you have.
I'll try to be brief. probably more than any other group represented here. We're probably in more homes during the year than any other group represented here, just from the nature of our work. Probably the majority of you have termite contracts on your home, and we're in these homes, you know, at least once a year. Our customers rely on us to tell them what we find, whether it's covered under the termite contract or not.
If there's an issue, they rely on us to let them know what's going on. The language that we're allowed to use now, if any, is very vague and ambiguous. We don't feel our customers are well served with this. When we do a termite inspection for a real estate transaction, we are required to report wood-destroying organisms, not just wood-destroying insects. And so when you get into this part of our business, that vague and ambiguous language
becomes much more important. And so, you know, we feel that this is we're not able to report what we find in a very clear manner here. We do and we are as an industry, as an association, very willing to sit down at the table with all the interested parties and come up with something that we feel serves our customers better. Something needs to be done.
We do not believe that Act 1467 or the mold investigator law is the thing, and we do strongly vote or we encourage you to vote for House Bill 1171, and I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you, Mr. Hopper. Does any committee member have
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:25:34
a question? Representative Liddy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If
Speaker 51
1:25:39
I wanted to go become a mold investigator, what would stop me? What would I just need to go get certified?
Speaker 159
1:25:48
I guess so, yes. So you could go get
Mark Hopper
Unverified
1:25:52
anybody? We could go right now. We could go basically to college in about 20 college hours and become a mold investigator. So the only obstacle is
Speaker 51
1:25:59
we just somebody would want to make the effort? Is that what you're?
Speaker 158
1:26:03
The effort and the money, the time, yes, sir.
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:26:08
Okay, thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you, Mr. Hopper, for your testimony. The final person on our list today is John Shannon.
I don't believe Mr. Shannon's here. So that concludes all testimony. Representative Patterson, are you ready to close for your bill?
Speaker 5
1:26:34
Well, yes sir, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to close for the bill. If you don't, after
Speaker 9
1:26:38
listening to all this, and I want to thank the men and women that drove up here from all over the state today, that's for this issue and against this issue. And I wrote the bill up to repeal this, and that's what I want to do.
Speaker 5
1:26:54
But after listening to all the different things that's gone on in here today, If you don't mind,
Speaker 9
1:27:02
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pull this bill right now and meet on this next Wednesday and give
Speaker 5
1:27:10
us a little bit of time to get our heads together with this group of people that's in here and with the plant board and just see if there's anything that we can come up between now and Wednesday.
And I'd like to finish this next Wednesday, if you don't mind. Reverend
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
1:27:30
Patterson that is your prerogative if you'd like to pull your bill I would like to pull
Speaker 5
1:27:34
my bill and have it on the agenda for next Wednesday that is done thank you Mr. Chairman anybody else
Speaker 38
1:27:43
on the committee have anything for the good of this meeting if not we stand adjourned
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1307
HB1367
HB1171
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Speaker 11
Speaker 17
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 32
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 55
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 64
Speaker 66
Speaker 29
Speaker 65
Speaker 68
Speaker 70
Speaker 75
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 95
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 99
Speaker 9
Speaker 71
Manuel Barnes
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 108
Speaker 50
Speaker 111
Speaker 38
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 141
Dan Broughton
Unverified
Richard Kirkman
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 4
Speaker 152
Mark Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 51
Speaker 159
Speaker 158