ALC-Executive Subcommittee

Auction sales which was brought forth due to legislation if we will have County Board come up and present. This board if you. Good seating recognize yourself You're recognized president. Thank you Mr chairman I'm Kelly board chief deputy commissioner of state lands in the most recent session we of the legislature passed ACT four four seven of twenty twenty one is included in margin C. clause so it went into effect March twenty fourth. What is included in that bill essentially will start July one for our office it gives us the authority to create a website to do online auctions four three four two of our three types of auctions we have an in person auction occurs in the county that's not impacted it will still occur in the county then we have property that doesn't sell in the county goes to a post auction sale that is impacted when do that online. And allow people to bet on that property and then there's also after two years if that property doesn't sale we're allowed to do in negotiated sale in other words the two year period requires you to pay all the taxes and fees do after that two years if we think it's best to get that property back on the tax rolls we're allowed to lower our negotiate a lower priced in certain circumstances that also will current online auction you'll see several changes in here that have to do with changes of a name before we call it the in person auction house the tax delinquent property auction with the post auction sale in the Goshen shall stay the same we also are going to require people that bit on the property to be domiciled in the United States should stay home of record in the United States that's the same with the military does it he can be in Afghanistan but your home of record may be right here in Arkansas so all of the documents the legal documents that deal with your right here coming from Arkansas absentee voting so for we don't want people outside the country being able to buy this tax delinquent property because we have no way of notifying them. In the event that they quit paying their taxes were required by law to notify by certified. certified mail and we can't do that so we're going to prevent them from being able to buy the property in Nashville that's what all these rules do Mr chairman. Members are there any questions for discussion. Richmond Dotson you're recognized. Thank you Mr I noticed that you have in here earnest money a hundred. Shall be paid as part of the bid I guess is that only after you've been you've bid on something and been awarded the bid or is that just for the opportunity to bid that's an excellent question refuted Dotson it is actually only to the successful bidder can you decide you want to buy a piece of property you'll make a bit on our system that will open up the property for a thirty day window at the conclusion of that thirty day window at eight o'clock on the thirtieth day the building will cease if you're notified as successful bidder we will already have your credit card information your credit card will be debited for one hundred dollars for some reason you don't pass we still keep the one hundred dollars as earnest money but there's only one person at that pace that right now would exist today we taken by mail we may have ten people bid on the same piece of property. And we have to refund all those other people so this is going to save the Commissioner state lands and an incredible amount of time and effort the last three or four months we've been selling a lot of most often auction property and also an eighty or ninety checks a week refunding people their money and sixty to seventy of those checks just regular as clockwork are because two people been on the same piece of property right now you can't do that under the new system will be able to so it just as. That hundred dollars you're saying will only be debited after the first thirty days is done to the successful bidder only so everybody else their money stays completely in their possession until until that award is either major or. That is correct operating on this great thank you. The other questions. Seeing none of without objection to proposed emergency rule is reviewed and approved in the review and approval shall be effective at twelve oh one AM on Saturday may eighth twenty twenty one thanks for being a ritual thank you Mister Committee. Committee will now have the the. Department of agriculture State Plant Board the emergency rule on usage and application requirements for class H. pesticides specifically die camera and Senator Kim Hammer you're recognized that it if there will be a question time if there's further questions On this issue Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you Mr the administrative rule subcommittee met this afternoon on may six at one thirty PM in the subcommittee made no recommendation to of the executive committee be glad to answer any questions thank you any questions for Senator Hammer. If not the. All right We have a Scott Bray director of the State Plant Board Presenting Mr brave you got further. Information. So I I do not have anything further in the shows when we give a brief description of the proposed rule. Okay members would you like to. Your father hi thank you probably heard it the it it if I if I can add something to it you know every time I I come wait Hodges chief counsel for the department of agriculture every time I come before court or a legislative body I try to anticipate the questions and issues that might arise and there's always something that I simply can't anticipate on the one thing I did not was that you might have some hesitancy about the proposed rule because of the Supreme Court opinion that was issued earlier today and so let me just briefly addressed that if if you have hesitancy about the proposed rule then you would have to have hesitancy about the current rule because it was adopted by the same board and I will also say that the. Current rule the rule that is in effect now that was passed by a majority of members who are in the positions that the Supreme Court ruled today were unconstitutionally appointed the rule that we have before you today was passed by a majority of members that are constitutionally appointed so if there is a challenge to either one of these rules rules that we have the rules that we have in front of you today is more likely to survive a challenge and I think that probably adds to the emergency a fact of it. Okay Senator Hickey you're recognized I'm outcome it with that I don't know that aspen I expect the agree with that because Legislative intent would what I was in reference to that bill was actually just went into effect and you all are that particular board has made it after after that was so that was the reason that I was in reference to that. I would like to have a follow up. I've had some other people that actually have have delved a little bit further into their mid administrative procedures act and what I would like for you to do is to tell me how he owes rule is based on the best scientific technical and economic or other everyday evidence available as far as this new one that you're coming up with because what I was told is at least the on the previous rule that you all had used some scientific evidence to do it and now that we just kind of cut these in half it appears that those are just arbitrary as far as the buffers so if you could open to that I appreciate it Sir. Be happy ten thank you for the question First of all just I don't know how well you can see this but I'm going to to see the the highlighted portion of what I am showing you this is a provision from the administrative procedure act in their own hands over on the top of the next page those are all of the things that a board is required by the administrative procedure act to take into account when they adopt a rule science is one of those things and and in fact in that entire section highlighted section of things that I just showed you that aboard every board the because this is the administrative procedures act has to take into account science's mention one time and as Senator Hickey pointed out the provision where it's mentioned says an agency shall not adopt amend or repeal a rule unless the rule is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific technical economic or other evidence and information available concerning the need for the consequences of the alternatives to the rule and so the board did consider science because the what the. A proposed rule was what we notice to the public that the board might be considering was the federal label in the EPA considered. Tons of scientific reports and studies to adopt the federal label with the June thirty cut off date and so their label is based on science and the plant board also has a separate statute that says that they will also follow the guidance of the EPA so even if they had adopted just the federal level that would be guided by science and so pulling it back to make some further considerations that was based upon the best reasonably obtainable evidence and information available part of that was science part of that was information from many many farmers who say how it actually operates in the field everything works if you'll follow the light and so. Senator that's the that's what I would have to address their okay just one more piece okay Mister of. Could you explain to me the science in that how we would however still requiring a certain distance from public land in another distance from private land would you give me that. Scientific evidence of value all come up with that part. Interestingly it It is interesting and and what I can offer you there is that once again the buffer zones that the board did vote on our larger than other states the rationale behind the one mile buffer zone around the research stations as I said sometimes you do a compromise to get the best rule you can passed and additionally because the board does consider research from the university of Arkansas to be important and in fact the board rule one registering a product whether a product can be registered for use in Arkansas says that the board will give primary consideration to the research done by in State University scientist so they thought that the university needed that extra protection when it so when it comes to whether a product should be registered in the state that they could have some good research done by the university. That's bothersome to me but I do appreciate your measurement question. The questions from committee. Seeing no other questions thank you for being here. We with any other questions without objection the proposed emergency rule is reviewed and approved in the review and approval shall be effective at twelve one AM on Saturday may eighth twenty twenty one. I have an objection. I have a motion to for a division of the vote. Okay Senator Hickey I will need your motion to not approve and. The. Statement is formerly. Yes my motions not to approve it is based on the same motion I made and rules which I'll try to restate again but it's based owned Legislative intent of I believe that Legislative intent. Actually points otherwise because in the in the session that we just came out of. There was a restructuring of the plant board and that passed the Senate that passed the house and it's also been to the executive branch now I understand that that's not became wall yet. But we're saying Legislative intent so with that action I say that Legislative intent is it that board that is sitting in place right now is not the way it is not the way that the legislature deems that it should be. And they've made this they've made that this ruling on may third. After that Legislative intent. In addition to that and I understand that maybe this is not a basis but I think that will have to consider it is there was a Supreme Court ruling today that also would along with the same same thing that we pass the in the session. In addition to that I would have to say that I don't I don't think that the administrative procedures act been as been followed as far as the science specifically as it relates to these buffer zones I believe that all the point to item B. one to say that that was also not quality. So I will go with Legislative intent. And not following the administrative procedures that thank. User of the discussion on the motion in we will have to have. Three hands. Okay I will represent a recognized representative Dotson. Thank you Mr chair I just was going to speak to the motion regarding Legislative intent on the law that was passed during the session I did pull it up and there was a Senate amendment that was put on there that added a section to the DO not codify. Basically saying that the current members the state board it not basically saying exactly saying current members the State Plant Board shall serve out the remainder of their terms are not required to be replaced to meet the changes of this act. I think with that DO not codify. Language that kind of speaks directly to Legislative intent the current Plant Board. Making those decisions and without an emergency clause on the act they still have the full authority to make those those rule changes so I would say this does not violate Legislative intent. It is the discussion. No other discussion call for the vote. Divide with the Division Howson for first. Represent Dotson. Represent Shepherd. Represent Canada for. Represent Wardlaw. Field in the. In the House. The direction having failed the rule reviewed and approved in the review and approval is effective at twelve one AM Saturday may eight twenty twenty one. Is there any other business with the committee. Let me take this opportunity on behalf of the the council to the cochairs in both committees today thank bill our staff for putting this together in a short time this week it also thank everyone who has presented today and for the information this committee is adjourned.