City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (3)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1808
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1808 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF UNSANITARY CONDITIONS. | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB581
Act 898
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/16/21 @ 7:40 p.m.) Added SB581 House Committee on City, County, and Local Affairs Monday,…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAYORS AS PERSONS WHO MAY SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB581 is now Act 898 |
|
SB647
Act 907
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…W CONCERNING MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF UNSANITARY CONDITIONS. SB647 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ANNUAL AUDITS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ANNUAL AUDITS AND PROCEDURES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB647 is now Act 907 |
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 6, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
We'll call the meeting to order. Chair sees a quorum. If you'd like to sign up and speak today, there's a sign-up sheet out in the hall. I'd ask you to sign up now. Okay, first bill up today is House Bill 1808. Representative Womack, would you please come up and identify yourself? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Richard Womack, State Representative, District 18. And
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
0:18
I have a guest today, if it pleases the chair. please identify yourself with the record if you would my name is paul calvert okay thank you uh
Speaker 1
0:34
uh you have an amendment i understand i do yes sir i'll let you present your
Chair
Unverified
0:38
amendment at this time uh it's it's uh
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
0:41
very simple members it just changes uh really two words in two places in the in the bill that's basically a typo kind of let us get it handed out to everyone
Speaker 9
0:51
here Is there any questions on the amendment?
Chair
Unverified
1:23
Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion at this time. Okay, Representative Collin, I do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, may
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:41
I present your bill as amended. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. This is, I'll let my guest introduce himself, and I'm honestly going to let him, he has a great interest in this from
a personal perspective, and I completely agree with his viewpoints.
So I'm happy to let him explain the
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:59
bill today. Please proceed. Thank you, Chair. Again, my name is Paul Calvert. So this
bill was brought up about a couple weeks, two, three, four weeks ago. And the Municipal League had some concerns about it, and so we pulled it down for a while to try to maybe address some of their concerns. And so I was working with John Wilkerson, and we had some nice conversations, and he was very cordial, and I appreciate his efforts to try to work with us,
but in the end, Municipal League just couldn't come up with anything they would work with with it, so we decided to go ahead and present it anyway. So having said that, I do appreciate John Wilkerson working with me on that regard and his kindness and gentleness in that regard. So let me start off with, I kind of want to sort of apologize in advance for kind of dumping my story on y'all, but I think you all need to know about some of the foolishness that is going on. I brought this idea for this legislation to Representative Womack because I have been getting hammered
by the city of Conway with illegal liens against my properties and false charges against myself and also abuses against my tenants. Over the last two years, since the beginning of last session in 2019, the city has been abusing their power to illegally file cleanup liens against my properties without a court order by simply having a hearing quote-unquote in their city council meetings. State law requires them to give the property owner at least 30 days notice before the hearing. State law also prohibits them from holding
property owners responsible for the actions of their tenants. Also, as I understand the state law, these liens are only lawful on vacant properties. My attorney attended one of these so-called hearings at a city council meeting, and he requested a formal hearing with witnesses. His request was denied. They voted, and they filed the illegal lien without a real hearing. So far, they have filed three of these illegal cleanup liens against different properties and about a dozen false charges for alleged code violations against me that they know I am innocent of. I am fighting them in court. There is a jury trial scheduled for some time in
May. Instead of enforcing their codes against the people who actually are guilty, they have decided to charge property owners who are the victims of bad tenants who are littering trash and junk on our properties. Again, state law makes it very clear that, and I quote, a property owner shall not be held responsible for the actions of his or her tenant. That is found in 8-6-406 of the Arkansas Code. But that isn't the only issue. City officials are also violating the rights of our tenants. The first time that the city did a so-called cleanup on one of my properties, they
took something that was valued by my tenant. They apparently classified everything as trash, so they didn't make an inventory list of what they took off my property. They didn't have a warrant. They just came and started taking stuff out of the yard. I asked code enforcement for the names of people who they allowed on my property, and they didn't give those names to me. They still haven't. At another property, my tenant was poor, and her car was having problems, so a friend of hers was attempting to help repair it for her. I think her friend
ended up breaking it worse, unfortunately. So my tenant was slow in getting it repaired. She might have been waiting for her tax return money so she could afford the repairs. Code enforcement thought she was taking too long to get it fixed, so they had it towed and they took it from her. It wasn't even a junk car. It was like a 2003 Volvo. It was a pretty nice car with leather seats and whatnot. Anyway, code enforcement officer basically stole her car because she was apparently too poor to fix it as fast as he thought she needed to. This really offends me. Government should not be empowered
to take possessions from poor people simply because their possessions are deemed unsightly. If a rich person wants to avoid living near poor people who have unsightly cars or too many bicycles, the rich person can move to a home in a homeowner's association where they can keep poor people out. Okay, I'm going to start with the bill itself. The first substantive part of the bill starts in line 34 where it specifies that a city shall not have any authority to take action against the property owner unless it is clearly a health and safety issue for other people. So this should help out poor people who are having their property taken simply because they are poor. When my
tenant's car had problems, she was using a bicycle to get around. She was poor, so she would collect old used bicycles that she could use for parts when her bicycle had problems. She had at least one or two children, maybe a couple grandchildren who lived with her, and I assume some of them had bikes too. Collecting used bicycles or other items for parts is quite normal and understandable for poor people. She mostly kept these extra bicycles and bicycle parts in the backyard. At one point, code enforcement came and took a bunch of stuff out of her yard, and they threatened to do it again. I don't know what they took from
her, but it offends me that city officials are being empowered to essentially steal from poor people simply because they're acting like poor people. Rich people have the luxury of being able to throw clutter away because they can just go buy new stuff. Poor people often save broken things because they might be able to use part of it to fix something else. How many of us have had parents or grandparents who would save bent nails in coffee cans or peanut butter jars? Even after my grandparents gained middle class status, they still acted like
poor people because their life experience left such a strong impression on them. I try to be lenient with my tenants who are poor and struggling. It is very offensive to me that I should be punished because I choose to be lenient with my tenants. It is also very offensive to me that city government is allowed to essentially steal from my poor tenants simply because they're acting like poor people. Okay, the next substantive part of the bill is on line 11 on page 2 and in several other places, where it raises standards and requires the city to actually set a court
date for a hearing before being allowed to file a lien against someone's property. Currently, the city can have a hearing in their city council meetings. Let me tell you about my recent experience with one of these so-called lien hearings. Last week, the city of Conway voted to file a lien against another one of my properties after they claimed to have picked up some stuff that my tenant had left outside a rental home. They sent me notice for the wrong time and place for the hearing. So I was unable to attend the hearing because I showed up when the notice told me
and the hearing was already over and the doors were locked. I watched the video later where they conducted a very pathetic hearing, quote unquote, for placing a lien against my property. The meeting was not open to the public. No evidence was presented at the hearing. The address of the property and the amount of the lien was declared and they asked if anyone was available to challenge the lien while the doors to the meeting were locked. and they very casually voted to file the lien against my property. The whole process took about 45 seconds. It was an embarrassing excuse for a hearing.
My legal recourse for this illegal lien is to file a lawsuit in circuit court within 45 days. I think that cost about $225 just in court fees and service fees. The lien was for about $186. This is a mockery of justice. The third substantive part of this bill starts at the top of page 3, where several lines of code are deleted and replaced to clarify that a property owner shall not be held responsible for violations while the property is rented out. This is to protect property owners when tenants either cause code violations or when they don't inform the property owner that the problem exists.
The next section, starting line 11, page 3, makes it clear that a tenant can be held responsible only if they cause the violation in question. The last substantive part of the bill reduces the amount that a city can impose with a special priority cleanup lien for lawn mowing and trash pickup from $1,000 down to $100 per year. Sorry, if we don't pass this bill or something like it, my tenants will likely continue to be mistreated by city officials because the city actually had codes
to support these cruel actions against my tenants. I want to protect my tenants from abusive local city governments. I think this bill will help to protect my tenants from thug code enforcement officers like we have had to deal with in Conway. And I
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
10:16
appreciate your consideration. I would be happy
Chair
Unverified
10:19
to answer any questions. Committee. Representative Bryant, you recognize for a question.
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
10:24
Yeah, a couple areas of the bill that I found a little bit problematic was just the vagueness of serious threat to health and safety of the public
outside of the boundary of the property at issue. I guess inside of the city limits, obviously property values within a subdivision are a serious concern to property owners. As a property owner that leases property, I'm sure, if you drive through and you see vehicles stacked up in a yard, they're not unsightly, but they're killing the grass, and there's excessive, you know, with this language, where would we draw that line? Where can a city draw the line between health and safety versus
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
11:11
just unsightly? I think you'll find that term health and safety used regularly throughout the law and especially in a lot of occupational licensing things. That's kind of a legal standard the way I understand it. But, you know, I think it really at the core of your question is what is the proper role of government? You know, are they to be concerned with private property values or are they to honor the liberty of the person that worked and paid for it? You know, if it's not a pretty clear public health and safety problem, is it really the government's job? I think that's more the core of what you're asking, if I'm reading it correctly.
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
11:44
Follow up. Follow up. I guess I'm looking at all cities have zones. So the
city's role is not only safety, but it's also keeping good neighbors to a point. So if they zone an area residentially with those zones becomes
restrictions. And I know for myself, I've got a choice to move into a zone, move into a properties association, or move out and not be regulated by those zones. So I guess
that would be one of my concerns of the bill is just where is the line in the sand between you make a conscious choice to buy it within the regulated zone versus choose not to yeah well this
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
12:29
this doesn't alter the city's ability to have those ordinances i mean those are all still
Speaker 33
12:34
in place it doesn't really necessarily affect those it just kind of i think sets them at a more reasonable
Chair
Unverified
12:43
line any representative kavanaugh you recognize thank
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
12:46
you mr chair i guess where my concern is
is myself as a property owner and i lease to tenants i'm ultimately responsible for that property. I'm the owner. I'm the one that collects the money off of it. I'm responsible for that. This bill takes that responsibility away from me and puts it on the person that's leased it. That's not proper. I'm the ultimate owner. I'm the one that gets the benefit out of it. I should also be the one that actually is responsible for it. Do you not agree?
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
13:19
No, I don't. I mean, I would agree that you do get benefit, but so does the person that lives in that property. And really the way I see it now is you're punishing somebody that did not do the crime. This will make it where whoever committed the offense is held responsible for the offense they committed. Follow up, Mr.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
13:40
Chair? Yes. As the owner, I get the benefit. I take the responsibility. I'm the one that pays the taxes. I'm the one that's held responsible.
I don't have to own it. And I'm getting a benefit because I'm charging the people to lease it from me. And because I do that, then I should be ultimately the ones responsible. I mean, and that's my biggest issue is you take that responsibility away from the owner and you're going to put it
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
14:10
on a tenant. Thank you. Yeah, I completely understand. I think we might just disagree. I just think it's probably immoral to hold somebody when you know that they're not the one that committed the offense to hold them responsible for it on the first line.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
14:28
Representative Rye, you're recognized for a question. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Richard, there's two things that I, maybe I'm wrong, but there's two things I think I've found with this. first of all, is this not a local issue? You know, only one thing. And number two, Representative Richard, where it mentions going from 1,000 down to 100, boy, Representative Richard, I don't
know if you could clean up some of these yards for $100.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
15:01
Yeah. Thank you, sir. To answer your question, it is a local
issue, and this does not take local control away. This simply kind of shifts where you have that discussion and puts it in a circuit court. But it doesn't change any of the local ordinances or prevent them from
Speaker 33
15:17
passing them. Representative Bryant, you're recognized for a question. Yeah,
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
15:24
as far as the passing over this to the circuit court, if the bill is trying to make the leasees
or the third parties responsible for the issues at the property and the city's wanting to send a lien of judgment to a circuit court, who ends up fighting that battle with the city inside the court system? Well, whoever was named in the case. So it would be the property owner, because the lien has to go against something of tangible value, so the property owner would have the lien. So wouldn't the property owner have to go fight it even though we're telling them it's not their fault, it's the leaseholder's
Paul Calvert
Unverified
16:04
fault? Well, I think, I think that part of the issue is that so, so
there will still be cases where a property owner who's not leasing property that actually live in the house, they will still be in violation. Perhaps they've got a car that's leaking oil and it's actually endangering the health and safety of their neighbors. And so they, they have the car towed or something of that nature. And this would, this would require the city to go to circuit court rather than just having their little rubber stamp committee in their city council meeting, if that makes sense.
And so it can still apply to property owners, but if it's a tenant that does it,
Chair
Unverified
16:48
then they need to actually go against the
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
16:52
tenant. Okay, Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Along the lines that Representative Bryant was talking about, if you're saying that you can't go after the owner for these fines. You have to go after the tenant. But the tenant doesn't have any ownership of the property. And the city has to put a lien against the
property for cleanup or for whatever they have to do. You're null and voiding the city's ability to do that because the tenant has no right of ownership. So there can be no lien possessed.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
17:24
No, it doesn't undo. You can absolutely do the lien. It just takes whoever commits the offense and puts them
first in line to start dealing with it. When the liens fall, to your point, it is the property owner, and that's the responsibility that you were talking
about earlier that you accept at that point. It just makes your first order
go to the person that actually committed the offense. Follow up, Mr. Chair? Yes.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
17:51
I think there's a conflict in those two statements because you're saying that the tenant is responsible but then you're going to say that you're going to put the owner as the person with the lien when you're saying in this bill that it's not the owner of the property that's responsible.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
18:07
Which is exactly how it works today so we're not changing any of that. I mean today the owner is still the one that has the
lien filed even though they didn't commit the offenses.
Speaker 1
18:23
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Representative Golfer, you're recognized.
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
18:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Womack, I know that you said that cities still have the ability to create ordinances, but we also have new language that an action shall not be taken against an owner of a property for violating one of the ordinances. They're on page one. So I'm just wondering if cities have ordinances
but then can't bring an action. They can't. I mean, I read that as not being able to give
Speaker 65
18:53
a notice or a fine or a fee or any other kind of action against that property owner. Can
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
18:59
you tell me if I'm reading that right? Yeah, I just think the bar there is that
Speaker 1
19:06
public health and safety bar is the the nuance difference okay any other questions seeing none we have several signed up today to speak for and against speaking against is amy
fields and if you would come to the table identify yourself and tell me who you
Amy Fields
Unverified
19:30
represent Good afternoon. My name is Amy Fields. I'm the city attorney for the city of North Little Rock. And I've been with the city of North Little Rock for about four years. For 14 years before that, I was with the city of Little Rock. So I've either been a city attorney or worked for one
for the last 18 years. In that 18 years, one of the biggest issues that our mayors and our elected officials face from the citizens in our cities is the condition of the neighborhoods. They want to live in clean neighborhoods with cut grass that comply with our property maintenance ordinances, which we're allowed by law to pass. I have, over the last 18 years with new administrations,
and I have a new mayor right now, had to explain to our officials that our tools are pretty limited in what we can do. We can issue citations, which we do. At points, the property gets in such bad condition that we after giving the seven day notice clean up the properties ourselves whether it's a weed lot or a vacant and abandoned property and go
through the process and I looked up the statute this statutory scheme for the placement of liens has been in effect in some form since 1943 it is one of the few tools that we have to keep our neighborhoods maintained which is in the interest of all of the residents of our city and is of great interest to our taxpayers our residents everybody that lives
there has a huge impact on property values this proposed bill completely takes away one of the biggest tools that we have it makes it more difficult and is really almost unworkable um i don't know and i wish that i had talked to our code director to find out how many weed lots we um mow during mowing season but it's a lot of them and um this bill as proposed right now
what we can do we have an ordinance that says you can't have grass over eight inches tall if you do we can give you a seven day notice if you don't mow the grass we can mow the grass and go through the lean process under this proposed bill every single weed lot would have to be considered by a separate ordinance before you could give the notice to the property owner An ordinance is required by law to be read three times. If the readings are not waived, we could be looking at a six to three month process before we're even permitted to give a notice to the property owner that they need to cut the grass or clean up the rubbish or abate the conditions that have brought the property out of compliance with the city's codes.
the bill provides that a city has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is a serious threat to health or safety that's a whole new standard that's never existed before beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal standard and and again to representative bryant's point what is a serious threat to health or safety if we have a weed lot that is unsightly and
out of code is that a serious threat I don't know but if it's not we can't do anything about it under this proposed bill. The liens are subject under the law as it exists to notice in a hearing to the property owner in front of the governing body of the city. If every lien has to go to circuit court,
the cost to the cities, both in filing fees and time to enforce what we have lawfully done is burdensome to the city's $165 filing fee and wait to get into circuit court at the discretion of the judge's docket and the burden on the staff of both our code enforcement departments
and our legal departments to have to take every lien to city court after we've already had to have an ordinance for this particular property. It makes for cities with limited resources it creates a situation that makes it in a lot of cases unfeasible to really do anything about properties that are out of compliance with our codes that we are allowed by law to pass.
The way I read the bill, I agree with what some of the representatives have said, that there is not a recourse against property owners if it is leased property. We have a A lot of landlords in North Little Rock, some of them are good, some of them are not so good. Ultimately, if you own property within an incorporated city, it's ultimately the property owner's responsibility to make sure that the property remains in compliance with the codes of that city.
And this takes away the responsibility of the property owners. and we see in our city that tenants come and go and by the time that you could issue them a citation or notice they're gone and there's no finding them and once again the city has no recourse and the hundred dollar limit per year for grass cutting liens like i said we've got a lot of weed lots that we cut multiple times a year. And $100 doesn't even cover the administrative costs
of the filing fee if you have to take it to circuit court to get the lien certified. And there would be, it would be more expensive to put the $100 lien on the property than it would be to get it to circuit court to get the lien. On behalf of the city of North Little Rock, I
Speaker 73
26:55
respectfully request that you all vote no on this bill, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Chair
Unverified
27:02
Okay, we have one question. Representative Bryant, you're recognized. Thank
Speaker 74
27:08
you, Mr. Chair. I've got a few questions, if you'll. Okay, let me rapid fire.
Speaker 76
27:14
All right, just go ahead. I've never done this
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
27:18
before. I'm a little nervous. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony on that. How do cities,
since you've worked for North Little Rock and Little Rock, how do they typically handle grievances like
Amy Fields
Unverified
27:38
to yours? Typically, it will go to the mayor's office.
And I can speak more to North Little Rock because I am the city attorney there. and at Little Rock, I was just on the staff. But typically, it will go to the mayor's office. The mayor will assign someone to review what has happened and will speak with code
Speaker 73
28:02
enforcement officers and determine what has occurred. Okay. Whenever you, and just speaking
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
28:11
of the city of North Little Rock,
that's what your experience is at, Whenever you have a violation, code enforcement finds a violation, is it required by ordinance or statute to send a certified
Amy Fields
Unverified
28:26
letter to the property owner or just the address of violation? To the property owner if they can be identified. And otherwise, it has to be done by publication. And there are two different avenues. You know, the city can issue a citation.
This bill particularly deals with the city having to clean up property themselves, and that's where we get into the lien situation. But if we are going to cut somebody's grass, we will notify the property owner based on the assessor of the collector's websites, the property
Speaker 73
29:07
owner of record by certified mail. Okay. And last
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
29:13
question, just because dealing with liens and you're an attorney,
so it may be out of your specialty, but it may be in your wheelhouse. If you have to go represent yourself, not you, but a citizen, represent yourself in a circuit court. Right. Obviously, you have the right to do that in person, representing yourself. Right. If a structure has a mortgage on it. Right. Do most mortgages require representation to defend
Amy Fields
Unverified
29:47
their interest whenever a second lien is being presented in circuit court? Because we certify our liens in the city council, I have not confronted that situation.
If the city is seeking a priority lien, which would give it priority over existing mortgages, then the mortgage company would have to be notified of that and would be entitled to representation. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none,
Speaker 1
30:14
Ms. Fields, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Speaking for the bill, Bill Jones. please identify yourself with the record if
Chair
Unverified
30:27
you would and yes sir may proceed my name is
Speaker 89
30:32
william jones i'm with the arkansas state landlord association and i'm a landlord in fort smith arkansas i didn't think i didn't think i would need this when i left the house this morning but i'm glad i grabbed a copy of the law and i would like to start off with an 86406a it is unlawful to drop, deposit, discard, or otherwise dispose of litter upon any public or private property in this state or into any river, lake, pond, or other stream or body of water within this
state. Follow down to B, it says, however, I'm sorry, the person is the owner or tenant in a lawful possession of the property and the litter remains upon the property and the act does not create a public health or safety hazard, a public nuisance or a fire hazard, a property owner shall not be held for the actions of his or her tenant. That's currently in law. That's the law of the land.
What I would ask this committee to consider is, is this a good law or not? Do the people who have agreed to accept the right to live in my home also have the responsibility to keep it clean? And I would argue absolutely they do. I didn't deposit the trash there. I didn't park a car on blocks. I didn't let an animal scatter debris in my yard. I didn't let the grass grow up. Now, I do have some responsibility in that
if I see one of those conditions, my responsibility of documentation in Fort Smith is to call code enforcement. They are a, and this sounds a little, this may sound a little blunt, but they're a tool. From my perspective, they are a tool of enforcement. I would ask code enforcement to go make contact with my tenant and say, Mr. Smith, your grass is too high. It's violating the code.
would you please do something about that they have documentation they normally take pictures they'll verify the code and they'll send me a letter they've made contact with the tenant they know very well who the violator is and then the process builds from there now in fort smith just like across the state they go after the person who can pay if they assign a contractor to a property that hasn't been cleaned up in a timely manner the cost of that contractor
for instance if it's if it's simply cutting the grass it could be three or four hundred dollars for a lot that charge will inevitably be applied to my real estate tax and i will pay that from my perspective, they are coercing me into that payment. If I want to keep my property, I'm forced to pay that on behalf of my tenant. I'll take any questions. Okay,
Speaker 1
33:49
seeing no questions, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
Speaking against House Bill 1808 will be Alan Scott. Please identify yourself with the record and who you represent. Thank you
Speaker 93
34:06
Mr. Chairman my name is Alan Scott I'm the mayor of the city of Bryant. As was pointed out by several representatives I think this is a bill that is not very good. For one thing it does take away local control somewhat. Does it do what's really needed and
necessary? I think not. And to point out a couple of things, as was brought up several times, what does a serious threat to health and safety mean? Does that mean when you have tall grass and it allows rats and mice to grow and spread to other properties, is that a threat to health and safety? I think that probably is because they do spread disease and they're not good and they get into other people's houses and cause damage as well, whether it's a vacant lot or a house. Is it all perfect? No, but keeping the lean power at the city council level allows the amount of
the fine to be determined by the elected officials of that city, not by the judge. This allows them to be a little bit more responsive to the situation as well, and I agree with several representatives. I think it is the property owner's responsibility for that because they are the person of record for that property. As was pointed out by the lady from North Little Rock, renters come and go. Sometimes we can find them, sometimes we can't.
If they cause the damage, I think it would be the responsibility of the person owning the property to seek restitution from that person. And it's the city's responsibility, if they have to clean it up, to seek restitution from the property owner. uh by leaving again by leaving this at the city level it allows for cities to stay flexible on these issues the way code enforcement works in my city is if they see a violation they they put a notice most of the times it's on the door of the property owner if they can't reach somebody at
the property because it's actually happened to me when I was on city council once I got a little notice pinned to my door saying you need to do this okay I didn't realize it was a problem I got it done. And within seven days, no problem. They also send a certified letter saying you have so many days to get this cleaned up. And that is usually after receipt of that letter. So it's not from the date of the violation. So generally that notification lasts for a couple of weeks. After that, a lot of times my code enforcement people will try to work with them. I know at
least one property in my city where my code enforcement officers went out there and helped the lady clean up her property. She was a property owner. She was not a renter. So that's a little bit different situation. But they actually helped her clean it up to get to a point to where she wouldn't get that violation and have to come to court. As we know, in the past year during this COVID pandemic, court has been closed for several months. And what that would do, if this is at the circuit court level, is that would delay the collection and the enforcement
of all these these things associated with that. So basically another specific situation in the city of Bryant is where we had a subdivision a few years ago that went into bankruptcy and because of that the person who owned the property could not maintain that property like they should so the city had to go in and maintain that property on probably two to three times a year, we wound up mowing a bunch of lots and we had to put liens on that property. The company
that came in after the bankruptcy was over and took over that property, they've just now paid off those liens. If it was a, if it was a renter, I don't think that that would have been possible. As was pointed out, you have for a lien to be effective, it has to be on the property. And I think that's the only way by law that it can be done. I'm no lawyer, so don't quote me on that. So basically with that, I would entertain any questions, and I would respectfully ask that you
Chair
Unverified
38:07
vote no on this bill. Okay. Representative Dalby, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
38:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm right here. Yes, ma'am. Just out of curiosity, what are the amounts of the liens, like if you go and put a lien on someone's property?
Speaker 93
38:20
It depends on what it is, and generally it's for the cost of the cleanup, whatever it happens to be. Like for mowing the lots that I was talking about on that bankrupt property, for each lot, the lien was about $30 of mowing. Follow
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
38:36
up? Yes. As I understand, the circuit court has a jurisdictional limit as to how much the damage has to be before you're allowed to go into that court.
I'm kind of forgetting exactly what it is. It may be $10,000, something like that. I definitely don't know. But I'm not asking, but my question is, do you ever have any liens that exceed $10,000 that would actually fall within the jurisdiction limits of the court? In that one
Speaker 93
39:00
situation where the bankruptcy occurred, we wound up collecting $43,000 in liens over a period of, it's probably a period of five years. One more. Yes. But that would be the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
39:09
exception and not the rule, correct? It would be
Speaker 93
39:11
the exception, not the rule, yes. Now, the other places where it might be that big is if you had to, or close to that limit,
would be if you had to go in and tear down a building or fill in a pool that's just sitting there stagnant and causing nothing but problems because a lot's been vacant for years, and we've had that situation as
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
39:30
well. But on your basic rental property, your liens are not going to be $10,000 or more,
Speaker 93
39:35
correct? No. At the most I've ever seen in the city of Bryan, it's maybe
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
39:41
a couple hundred. Okay, thank you. Okay. Representative Rye, you're recognized for a question. Yes, a question for you, especially since you're a mayor, you know, we heard the law that was, you know, discussed, you know, a few minutes ago.
But what, you know, it was speaking about grass and all that kind of stuff, but it basically got down to littering. Now, where I've got a problem here is what about anything that could be out there in that yard or lot or whatever was not litter? What if it was other objects that you had
Speaker 93
40:13
to clean up? Well, then that can be a problem. As it says in the very last page of this bill, there's limits to other things, such as demolishing structures on property
and $15,000 for hazardous waste environmental remediation. Now, in the 1990s, I worked in environmental remediation, and even then, you couldn't clean up a property for $15,000 if there's environmental issues. So that's a totally different problem with that whole law, But, you know, but that's not part of this. And as far as littering, yeah, I mean, it's pretty easy to pick up some litter, I think. Any
Speaker 1
40:51
other questions? Seeing none, Mayor, we appreciate your testimony.
Thank you for allowing me to. Okay. Paul Calvert, you were signed up or you through? Okay. Okay. Okay, speaking against, we have the environmental director of the city of Fayetteville. Peter, I'm not going to even take a stab at
Speaker 88
41:19
it, okay? Nearing Garden. Okay. It's my second time here.
Speaker 109
41:26
Yeah, I'm the Peter Nearing Garden environmental director of the city of Fayetteville. So City Fayetteville has several code sections that require minimum standards for sanitary conditions on private property, similar to what you've heard from the cities of Bryant and North Little Rock. Those include keeping grass mowed, removing garbage from yards, repairing dilapidated structures, and dealing with stagnant pools of water. We enforce these codes to protect the health, safety, and aesthetics of our community, similar to what you've heard from other communities.
But what I really want you all to understand is the approach that we take in Fayetteville to reactive enforcement of those codes. Some might assume that the police or code enforcement is patrolling the streets looking for grass that's too tall or trashing people's yards, and that's just simply not the case. Nearly all of Fayetteville's code enforcement actions start because of a citizen or neighbor complaint. They see the issue. They report it to us. then that starts the process of notifying and working with the proper or first it starts the
process of going out to verify that what the complaint complaint has reported is actually true if we find it to be true then we begin the process of notifying the property owner and working with the property owner to correct the violation depending on the violation the type of violation that can take some time but one of the things that the city of Fayetteville does is offer low income assistance through our community development block grant program to those property owners that have trouble affording correcting that issue. We heard earlier about problems with folks who
don't have enough money to deal with these cleanups or issues. We offer a program to work with them and get them money to help them deal with that structure that may need a new roof or may need some other repairs to it. And again, we're willing to work with them over time. And it's only in the most extreme cases where we issue a fine to a property owner. So hopefully you all can see that we take a reactive approach to enforcement and we work with our property owners to try to
minimize punitive enforcement in the city of Fayetteville. We believe that our approach is fair and it's appropriate to maintain the community's accepted standards of property maintenance. So therefore the city of Fayetteville strongly opposes this bill. We're not alone in opposition to this bill. You've heard from the cities of Bryant and North Little Rock. We've also been in contact with our neighbors in northwest Arkansas. The city of Rogers and the city of Springdale both share our concerns and have authorized me to let the committee know that
they oppose this bill. So we would respectfully request that you vote no on HB 1808 and I'll be glad to answer any questions that you all might have.
Speaker 1
44:16
Any questions? Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm
Chair
Unverified
44:22
showing that we have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anybody here that... Okay, seeing none, Representative Womack, you ready to close for the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
44:38
I'd like to make just a few
a few points, then I'll turn it back over to Mr. Colbert. As the attorney said, those weed lots are vacant, so in those issues, they'd be dealing with the property owner anyway. The city, as you heard in their testimony, can still write these citations. As far as the cost to the cities to file these liens, I think that's a bogus argument because they have the attorneys on staff anyway. They're paying their salary. They've got to be doing something. They could be doing that. the 15,000 for environmental hazards is in existing law today that's not part of this law
that's that's the way it is today that's nothing that we touched or changed so if it's not not adequate it has nothing to do with this piece of legislation the cities can still file a lien they just have to do it in a proper forum and the last thing dash 406 says a property owner shall not be held responsible for the actions of his or her tenant and i think that's just a just a
common sense position to take and so i would uh appreciate a good vote after mr calvert's comments
Paul Calvert
Unverified
45:50
so thank you committee mr calvert you may identify myself again only the representative if you
Speaker 1
45:58
can close here in this bill. I apologize. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Okay. You're closed? I'm closed. Okay. All right. What's the wishes of the committee? Hearing
Speaker 113
46:12
no motion, it dies. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Yes,
Speaker 63
46:19
you're welcome. I appreciate it. All right. Senate Bill 647.
Speaker 119
46:23
Senator Dispain. Please identify yourself with the record, and you may proceed. Jonathan Dismang, State Senator, Senate District 28. Members, so
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:51
this bill was actually brought to me from a constituent of mine on a CPA firm
in Searcy. he does some work for water and sewer system providers in the state and so we have on the books that you have to have an audit if you exceed a certain threshold and so I contacted and his point was is he represented someone that had about 1,200 you have to go by meters so it's not actually climbed by 1,200 meters he said I could look through every single one of their transactions in three days he said if I can do the agreed to procedures which audit allows then that's about a $1,500 charge. When I do an audit, it's about $8,000 to complete that audit.
And so, I mean, my point to him was, you know, you're asking me to run a bill that's going to cost you money. He said, yes, but it's the right thing to do. And so that's really where this bill came from. I called a legislative audit who's in charge of kind of administering the alternative procedures or even the audit, kind of that you report the audits to, talk to them. They're actually the ones that suggested the $2,000 limitation for both. We were only seeking it for water. They suggested for both water and sewer. And the agreed to procedures, just to make
sure we understand in talking to Roger, Norman director of audit, they can adjust that to based on the number of folks that are being serviced. And so if they feel like they need to have a different set of agreed to procedures for someone that has 1,500 units that are being served versus 1,000, they have the ability to do that. And I think they're here to testify to that fact. But again, this would just help some of those entities save money, which then, with the way they're structured, would actually save our constituents money. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Chair
Unverified
48:34
Questions, committee? Yes, Representative Palk, you
Speaker 121
48:42
recognize? So we have several small areas in my district, and the bill was originally for $750,000. And so are there precautions for between that and $2,000? Because some of these smaller ones are the ones that are having more financial difficulty and trouble. And for someone to be able to see that early on would protect those users as opposed to,
I agree I don't want to charge them more than needs to be charged, but who would
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
49:13
be overseeing to make sure this is done? Audit is going to develop the agreed to procedures that then are required to be performed by the entity, the CPA firm. And so, yes, there will be, you know, a set of procedures in place that's developed by legislative audit that those accountants will then follow. So there is a backstop there. It's just a difference in what you have to attest to when you're providing an audit. For instance, you pay for that, and it's not necessarily needed that that is done for all levels of industry.
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
49:43
so Representative Bryant you're recognized I just motioned at appropriate time any other okay Representative Holcomb you're recognized
for a question well thank you Mr. Chair Senator my line of question was basically the same thing Senator Hawke asked I know we were we worked with Senator Clark on this task force with small water systems had lots of problems with not taking care of their water system not charging the right amount. Actually, people just really didn't know what they were doing.
That was my only concern. So I just want to make sure that we're covered to not have chaos in those small departments since we're moving that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
50:25
number up. Absolutely. In the small department, you're going to have issues with oversight. I mean, there's nothing you can do about it. I mean, if you're only processing so many transactions, it doesn't make sense to have a full team of accountants doing your work. And so you're correct. Those are places you're going to have issues. But we're also aware of what those issues routinely are, and that's what you base agreed to procedures on to some degree.
So I think we'll have the backstop needed, be able to save some folks some money, and hopefully save some
Chair
Unverified
50:57
of our payers some money. Okay. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Are you through? Okay, wouldn't you? Okay, Representative Bryant. Oh, hold on. Let me take back. Got
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
51:08
Representative Bryant. question here. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
51:14
I just wonder, do you think that this bill will also maybe help with situations out there, sir, where we have folks that are not
even responding to the audits? Do you think this would help with
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
51:27
that? Well, I mean, I think to be providers, they've got to respond to the audits or should be having the audits conducted or they should be, you know, if they're underneath the thresholds that are set today, then they would be utilizing the agreed to procedures. So I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. I do think this will help those providers again just with some cost. Some CPAs probably won't be really happy about that but I believe that audit will you know have good agreed to procedures in place
and I think we'll have the coverage that's needed and strike the right balance. Okay
Chair
Unverified
51:58
any other questions? Seeing none, does anyone in the audience want to speak against this bill? For this bill? You ready to close? I'm closed. Okay. Representative Bryant, you're recognized. I have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 1
52:24
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Okay, next up is Senate Bill 581. Okay. Representative Collins, if you would, identify yourself
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
52:41
with the record and you may proceed. Andrew Collins, I have another Mark Johnson bill for y'all. I know the Johnson-Collins collaborations are very popular. This one actually should be very popular, especially with your former mayors. So it just lets former mayors of certain size cities who have served a certain
number of years solemnize marriages, marry people, already is allowed for former JPs and county judges. So this just puts parity in there. Happy to answer any questions. Representative Brown, you're recognized.
Speaker 74
53:15
Mayoral terms, cities of the first class are four years and the city of second class. They're all four years. So after basically two terms, they can do it in perpetuity.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
53:32
Yeah. Okay, Representative Kavanaugh, you recognized? Why do we need this bill? Why does, I mean, in reality, why does an ex-public official need to be able to do a marriage? There's plenty of public officials that are serving that can do it. Why do we need this
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
53:55
bill? Fair question. Senator Johnson said in committee that he had had some
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
54:01
former mayors come to him and request this to be allowed, that it
was important to the constituents of those mayors. It was something that meant a lot to them. And Senator Johnson added that this was a
Chair
Unverified
54:20
pro-marriage bill. Representative Dalby, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
54:27
I think in some cities, you could have a city council form, and they choose among their members as to a mayor. So are we talking about elected mayors, appointed mayors?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
54:40
What are we talking about? We're talking
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
54:44
about any mayor, as current law says, current law allows any mayor, and this would also allow any
mayor, whether elected or appointed, just former. Okay. Representative Perry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Collins, can you look at amending that to add, like, former state reps can marry people,
too? Thank you for that question. I'll bring it to Senator Johnson.
maybe next session. Appreciate it. Okay.
Speaker 5
55:14
Any other questions? Seeing none. Is there any? Oh, excuse
Speaker 1
55:23
me. Okay. Okay. Is there anyone want to speak against the bill? For the bill? Representative Collins?
Chair
Unverified
55:30
Close for the bill and I'll move to pass. Okay. Have a motion do pass. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. Aye's
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1808 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF UNSANITARY CONDITIONS.
SB647 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ANNUAL AUDITS AND PROCEDURES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS.
SB581 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAYORS AS PERSONS WHO MAY SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 19, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
Speaker 65
Amy Fields
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 74
Speaker 76
Speaker 71
Speaker 89
Speaker 93
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 109
Speaker 113
Speaker 63
Speaker 119
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 121
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 5