Insurance & Commerce- House

And so it essentially very summarized the first thing it does is it bans falls communication by chiropractic provider and it means gifts of any kind so essentially they're not allowed to use a fictitious name they're not allowed to give you know give cards in lieu of taking services they're not allowed to procure a that they work for an insurance company or anything like that or that they have to use this or that the patient has to use a certain. Chiropractor in order to actually receive services that are paid for and the second thing it does is it requires registration of the procure by the chiropractic physician on an annual basis the information required to be on record a full full legal name of the procure a copy of the ID address and phone number. And third thing it does his it states that the procure shall develop a training program with specifics grips and keep record of all employees that were trained and then also keep records of all solicitations for a period of five years the fourth and final thing it does is it kind of updates the violation section and any violations results could result in payments to chiropractic physicians by insurance or other payers being essentially retirant a revoked and it also makes any violation a deceptive trade practice. So that's essentially what the bill does in a nutshell and I'd be glad to take any questions thank you representative gray for that presentation committee are there any questions. Saying no I'm sorry represent right go ahead. Yes represent wrecking kind of describe what what the problem or the challenges you're trying to solve with this bill with issues yet so what happens a lot of times it is and I don't see it in my rural areas as much as the more urban areas is you'll have a procure they go they've essentially scouring records police records they find accidents then they'll call the people that were in accidents and they'll say you know Hey. Does your back hurt is this higher does this well I've got a chiropractor be great for you to go see essentially they're referring to one chiropractor guaranteeing services offering gifts if they'll go see that certain chiropractic provider decision what we're trying to do is say. This is a legal practice but you got to do it ethically that's what we're trying to say. The S. it's it's a I mean essentially the consumer protection bill and I ran a PBM bill I don't remember ever and one every session I think people are tired of me running them at this point but and I added regulation and I've always been pretty strict about I don't want to I would never I had regulations to the books unless I think it's it in the best interest or safety of my constituents and so for me this is a little bit of added regulation the regulations are already in statute I'm just adding to so it is a little bit in addition to but I feel that it protects my constituents from from sensually false and deceptive trade practices. Thank you represent gray represent what did you have a question. I have a question I have a motion at the appropriate time as chairman okay thank you for that let's hold on that for just one moment any other questions from the committee. Okay saying none is there anyone who would like to speak against this bill. Saying nine as anyone who'd like to speak for the bill. Okay represent great would you like to close for your bill and I'm close bill is also want to say and I know there's no one here to speak for against but to my knowledge no one has contacted me in opposition of this bill but I'm closed thank you Mr thank you and we have a motion or you're recognized your motion represent wooden. The motion to do pass Mister chairman. Thank you that an appropriate motion we have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion committee. Okay saying no saying no discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed nay. Congratulations you pastor bill Redeker thank you Mr chair committee. Okay resolution would you like to present. Committee we are going to turn to on the agenda H. B. fifteen sixty nine. Chairman with your permission I'd like to call Leo Houser at absolutely Mr Houser please come to the table. And even though most of us know you would you introduce yourself for the record please Sir. The German medicine committee members I'm the legal house or a local council for form of the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers association. Thank you. Resemblance term you may present your bill thank you. Aleix. Imagine you're at the pharmacy you pull out your coupon for your very expensive drug that you're excited the met with your doctor and they have advised that you need this specific drug you pull out the coupon and you find out oh wait a second this coupon doesn't quite work you've got to jump through this hoop that hoop this hoop that who because there are all these different accumulators and problems with this coupon normally pull out a coupon in the coupon is what it says it means what it says that's not the case. And the PBMs of decided we're going to pocket the money instead of you pocketing the money towards your insurance deductible this bill corrects that we have a number of supporters now twenty six different groups that are supporting this Susan G. Komen arthritis foundation the American diabetes association but the number one supporter. Our our constituents and the patients that need this help five states have already passed this law sixteen states are working on it now that should tell you how important it is to the customer with that I'll give Mr house for a few minutes thank you for that Mr Houser per se. Term Lowery German Maddox and committee members good morning and thank you for the opportunity to come before you today on behalf of former in support of House Bill fifteen sixty nine to give you just a quick sense of forms presence in the State of Arkansas right now there are three hundred and eighty two clinical trials being conducted in the state sixteen of those just around COVID research and development of vaccines farm has a presence here with our constituents and my fellow citizens of over thirty eight hundred people and the total economic impact they provide to the state is a little over a billion dollars a year. I'm from a of the state perspective it may be interesting to note that the industry paid last year two hundred and eighteen million dollars in rebates back to the state Medicaid department that essentially cut the spend the state had on the prescription drugs by fifty one percent. But to the point of the bill this bipartisan legislation is going to help patients acts have better access to their life saving medications and protect your constituents from a costly and rather burdensome practice called accumulator adjustment programs. Health insurers have traditionally allowed manufacture cost sharing assistance coupons to help patients pay their deductibles and out of an out of pocket costs unfortunately instead of allowing this assistance to help patients afford their medicines health insurers and PBMs have begun using what is known as accumulator adjustment programs AAP's which prevent manufacturer coupons from being counted toward a patient's deductible and out of pocket expense and leaving the patience to bear the additional cost. H. B. fifteen sixty nine addresses this growing problem by simply requiring health insurers to count all payments made by patients either directly or on their behalf toward their deductible and overall out of pocket maximums unless a medically appropriate generic equivalent is available and that's one point I would like to stress because you may have heard that there there's a concern that if passed this bill could cause a an explosion in the use of new or more expensive medicines well first of all I will stipulate to that happening according to evidence of one percent of the time that's how often that does happen right now but to be very sure that this remains focused on the patient and not causing an explosion and costs in two parts of the bill Page four and again on page five language has been amended AM that will required that. This this this bill will not apply for cost sharing of prescription drugs if a brand name drug as prescribed and. There is a medically appropriate generic drug available so if the brand name as prescribed and a generics available the coupon doesn't count unless the prescriber wants to go through the additional effort of getting prior authorization or getting it approved by the plan. This this bill does not do anything to prevent the plans from doing what they do to control their costs they can still do stepped therapy they can still do prior authorization all this says is if the patient shows up with an item of value provided by them or for them it should count toward their out of pocket expense. Of far as representative Lundstrum mention five states have passed this bill sixteen other states have it filed in twenty twenty one. And for the patients with the rare and chronic diseases like. Rheumatoid arthritis epilepsy and cancer these coupons can make a huge difference in their ability to obtain and afford the medicines. Again I do appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee I'm here with representative Lundstrum and the groups that support this bill and with that I will be available for any questions. Thank you Mr Houser for that well I do believe we have some questions about the committee represent fielding I believe you were first. Thank you Mr chairman of revenue loss to go back to what you said about the coupon what was the problem with. The cable once you're ready to check out of five by this drug and you said the queue that is a the pharmacist not taking that Cuba who what is from the Cuban. Well the pharmacist is very willing to take the coupon the problem is instead of it being applied towards your insurance deductible and using it the coupon for your benefit the coupon is being kept for that PBMs benefit and that's not what the coupons for. Mmhm the all right thank you thank you Mr chairman. Thank you president fielding representative Boyd you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and I have two questions if I'm allowed of the the first one is for Mr Houser and. It's been awhile since I've watched it so I'm using some round numbers so let me just use that cabbie out before I start so. Yeah I heard that an allegation that the others threats that costs would go up if this legislation was implemented in presumptively on the citizens of Arkansas if those costs go up so. In Congress a few years ago there was testimony about an EpiPen and using round numbers as best I recall it was six hundred dollars for the EpiPen it basically retail the manufacture kept roughly two hundred dollars for their part so that left four hundred dollars it was testify the pharmacy got about twenty dollars the whole seller got. Five dollars in somewhere in the process mysteriously there was ballpark three hundred seventy five dollars so knowing that and then we would potentially then use that coupon to add to the three hundred seventy five dollars and now I might be four seventy five why would costs go up I mean I'm just struggling do you have any insight into that what you mean where's that where's that money going that's going to drive up costs is what I'm trying to say there's already seemingly more money going to somebody that's not even the manufacture and this this process. We you raise a good point and again from what I've seen in the press that's all I could ever say about the the EpiPen situation I don't represent them like you I I watch that movie press what I will say is that the if there needs to be more robust conversation on the issue that you raised about where part of the funds go where the money is wind up I think that might be of a great next step for trying to understand better how the the product and the flow of funds occur our concern is that the the coupon which goes to the patient and then through for example your pharmacy and eventually is process by the insurance plan and the PBM if that is not being applied to the patients copayment deductible just as if they gave cash a credit card any other instrument of value then we feel that that is not fulfilling the intent of the manufacturer's coupon which is to help the patient. You're recognized for a follow up represented board it was it's it's a second question but to represent a luncheon with that's okay yes so representative Lundstrum I just wanted to clarify so if if you had a can if you had a friend and you gave them a hundred dollars to help them fill their prescription would you expect that that hundred dollars would help go to the meet their deductible and and help make that more affordable and so on and so forth precisely thank you. Thank your for the board represent wooden you're recognized for a question. Thank you a representative owns them in this is the same group. We had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to help our for Mrs. Yes Sir it is in order to control by the two or three of. Major companies in the country yes Sir so with other words with our consumers. Who are suffering illness and sickness go into a store they're told their coupon will not be applied to their deductible yes Sir is that correct yes Sir. Thank you Mr chairman. Thank you represent wooden. Any other questions by the committee. Okay saying none is there anyone who would like to speak against the bill. Sure anyone else would like to speak for. I'm sorry would have to work. I apologize there is someone signed up to speak against Mister Smith please come up and introduce yourself please. Good morning Mister chair committee my name is Derek Smith I'm an attorney with the Mitchell Williams law firm here in Little Rock Arkansas and I represent America's health insurance plans. Thank you Sir you may proceed. Thank you. Mister chair committee America's health insurance plans is the national association whose members provide insurance coverage for healthcare and related services. Through these offerings a hip improves and protects the health and financial security of consumers families businesses communities and the nation. A hip is committed to market based solutions and private of public private partnerships that improve affordability value access and well being for consumers. They have opposes a fifty House Bill fifteen sixty nine and a representative Lundstrum dot biz is about this as well as Mr Houser we oppose it because it prohibits copayment accumulator programs and because we believe of the bill will decorative Lee impact the cost of access to high quality healthcare services for Arkansas residents. A quick description of how the coupon process work so let's consider a six hundred dollar brand drugs. For that drug a drug maker maker may offer a three hundred dollar coupon. With the patient paying the other three hundred dollars so the pharmacy keeps the three hundred dollars from the patient and then sends the three hundred dollar coupon back to the drugmaker for payment. Health insurance provider does not keep the coupon about in any way instead the drugmaker simply plays itself back the three hundred dollar value of the coupons. Now the rising costs of prescription drugs has been an ongoing concern for all payors including government programs large and small employers labor unions public employee health programs and individuals and families to purchase coverage on their own. Drugmakers offer copay coupons for brand name drugs under the guise of helping patients afford their medications instead what these coupons do is mask the true made nature of the cost of brand name medications from the patient while shifting the financial burden to everyone else in the system. They encourage many including those are high deductible low premium plans to offer more expensive brand name drugs which undermines innovative health benefit designs that are aimed at keeping healthcare costs low for all consumers. Furthermore coupons are not freely available drug makers only offer coupons to patients with certain plans for NARAL choice of drugs and only until those patients health plan deductibles are met when patients reach their out of pocket maximums insurers for taxpayers pay all future calls as a result health insurers have this would be got establishing the scope on accumulator programs to both increase transparency of third party payments and to protect consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs of the federal government even considers copay coupons to be in illegal kickback if used by enrolling in Medicare Medicaid their position is that the copay coupon induces a patient to use a specific drug with the rest of the cost picked up by taxpayers the same is true in the commercial market copay coupons drive consumers to use specific drugs usually higher cost drugs and then with the cost picked up by all policy holders. The tools this bill seeks to prohibit allow consumers to see true price and price increases of the medications this is especially important because drug makers raise prices on existing medications sometimes multiple times a year and sometimes by double or triple digits without patients ever knowing the cost is going up. These tools help promote generic drug competition which exerts downward pressure on drug spending helping to stabilize health care costs for all consumers now I appreciate that Mr Houser and representive Lundstrum of indicate that an amendment to their bill sausage and Eric issue and we have discussed it and we agree that their goal is to solve this generic question. Our position is the language in the bill now does not address that the language in the bill now says that the copay coupon prohibitions or accumulated put prohibitions in the language only apply if the prescriber believes the drug to be medically necessary and there is a generic equivalent. If a drug is medically necessary well first of all we don't believe prescribers are in the business of prescribing drugs that are not medically necessary so just the basis of the prescription overhauls the alleged amendment now I believe we're going to try to work on that after or later I would prefer that the Committee consider the legislation after a final amendment has been approved. But I think we will be able to address that concern. Now prohibiting copay coupon to cumulate ours And allowing drug makers to distribute copay coupons without oversight eliminates any incentive for drug price contained. Rather than protecting consumers from high drug prices copay coupons or yet another way for drug companies to insulate themselves from public scrutiny instead of lowering costs for all consumers by reducing the actual price of the drug they target specific populations with advertising and vouchers when it comes to unaffordable medications the problem starts with the price of the drug. Copay coupons only fuel egregious out of control drug pricing and hide the true price from patients. Eight it stands ready to work with legislators to ensure continued access to safe and affordable medications and by leveling the playing field to foster true competition among branded generic manufacturers based on price thank you. Thank you for testimony Mister Smith there are questions of the committee of believers of Allen was in the queue for so reserve Alan proceed with the question thank you Mr chairman of this bill you mentioned that hopefully you all will all. Come up with a green Amendment is that something that you all have agreed upon is that this is something that you all talking about we spoke last evening and to make sure he wanted to know my intent on the generic drug the intent is if there is a generic drug that is equal to what the doctor prescribes that is perfectly fine that is in the bill now their concern is that the language isn't clear I've asked for language if I get the language and it's something that we can work with yes if we need to run another bill if they want to run another bill that's fine the bill I'd like to keep running but if there is some language that make the bill better I think a wise person always listens to that. And moto two. so my ears are open until I think that would be a wise thing for me to listen but I do want to keep running the bill as I think it's too late in the season and I do think this addresses the generic issue so we're going to keep moving forward if there is some language that we need to add I will certainly certainly consider that okay so Follows you're recognized so right now There's a state don't have language right now you don't have lands right now so so how can that be an amendment. There can't be an amendment without language so so I I guess what you're saying that you're not willing to amend the bill to put the language in there. Thank you although he said that if we can one of the bill we can run of a bill to address that thank you to say it that we late in the session. I'll open to options okay so. Where do we go well the option is if we get good language. If we get good language I can always add an amendment on the Senate side and come back. but I haven't seen any language I can't make a decision without that but I know he is working on it I I have to I have I think he's a person of goodwill so I I have no doubt about that okay thank you represent balance we we have others or will put you back in the queue the okay thank you represent Boyd you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair So Mister Smith pastor Mr house with the same question I I need to hear from you as well because you coincidently brought up six hundred dollars and I thought that was interesting because we did have the same break down about where that six hundred dollars how is divided. so again the EpiPen example which is a highly public example in Congress and I'm it's been a few years so I'm I'm estimating I'm I'm going a recollection but again it's six hundred dollars roughly two hundred dollars was kept by the people who manufacture by the time all the money was spread out in you know you play this game you play that game and you know this happened at the cash register but things happen behind the scenes in all the money was shared and distributed. Appropriately. Two hundred dollars will roughly one to the manufacture twenty went to the pharmacy five went to the wholesaler where did the other three hundred seventy five dollars ago did your insurance industry somehow collect that were awarded it magically go. Representative board I'd love to have this conversation with you I I honestly don't know the answer to that question wasn't prepared to address that but I'm happy to have a conversation with you. Obviously or in public. Thank you represent Wooten you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. Let me get a clarification here. Of a copay is one thing deductible there's another. So if the if if of a consumer. Brings in a coupon and they've already says for other deductible there's no element. Is it. This is it the coupons the relevant as it relates to the deductible is that correct. If the consumer has already satisfy the deductible and comes in with a coupon that is that what I'm just wanna make sure. It is a relevant to the done okay in our so what that money the follow up yes Sir you're recognized. Is. I'm having trouble understanding it sounds like to me you know what your problem is not with us in this bill. Your your problems with the Drug companies this section upon say it cannot be used for a co pay or deductible reduction visit Cuba until the consumer that. No representative it doesn't. All right one more you're recognized. So. Really again I ask you the question is your problem not with the drug company and what we're trying to do here is to rectify the situation where our consumers or be into coupons have been the the coupons have been a way of doing business for a hundred years. In one form or another. In the merchant has can say no or yes most all of them so hundred percent say yes but but is your problem not with the drug companies is not with the consumers is not with this bill. Thank you representive I think. The consumer who has met their deductible will not come in with the coupon. Because there's no point once you've met the deductible the health plan covers the entire cost and and and and drug manufacturers are not providing coupons to consumers with met their deductible yes we do have concerns with with with pharmaceutical manufacturers and we think they all should I mean the simple statement is a consumer should not need a coupon to afford their drugs. What would you repeat that. That's the last part is that I said I think we all should be concerned with the pharmaceutical manufacturers in the high cost of their of their products simply a consumer should not need a coupon to afford their drugs. Thank you Mr Smith. Thank you represent's Allen you were back in the queue did you want did you have another question thank you reserve Ferguson you're recognized for a question. is the pharmacist required to accept the coupon if the drug is not on the PBM formulary. In other words if if the drug that the coupons for is not on the formulary had is that work. Represent Ferguson I think that question may be best answered by a pharmacist I I don't know. Okay maybe you guys can speak offline letter. I can have just. Thanks a. Where you finished represent Ferguson. Okay thank you resent brown you're recognized. Thank you okay thank you. Committee is there any other questions for either of or for Mister Smith. Okay saying then thank you for testimony Mister Smith thank you Committee. Is there anyone else would like to speak for the bill. Saying nine is or anyone else who would like to speak against the bill. Okay saying nine and no one else the signed up represent once or would you like to close for your bill. Thank you colleagues. We've heard a lot of different things today but when it comes down to it is the customer when you walk in. The grocery store or the pharmacy or anywhere. And you have a coupon. You expect to use that coupon you don't expect an accumulator to be means tested or have a shell game applied to you you expect to get to use the coupon on the drug that you and your doctor decided. We talked about generic drugs everybody uses them they're good. That's in this bill. If there's needed language will address it but until I get the language we need to run this bill this is something our constituents need. We've addressed all those issues. We don't need a shell game to guess where and what it's going to be applied to today imagine your grandmother or some member of your family being told well if then if then if then and when that's not what a coupons for. And with that I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you represent Lundstrum she is closed for her bill. Represent a motion so would someone like to make a motion at this time. We have a more represent Boyd you're recognized to make a motion. Motion to pass. We have a motion do pass on the floor that is an appropriate motion is there any discussion on the motion. Represent Boyd. so there there was a question I want to try to address it while I'm talking on on the motion here of the coupons are very complex and different coupons do different things some coupons cover the drug entirely in in rather than a physician or nurse practitioner giving you a sample that might give you a coupon that's one example of one of course it was already discussed and testimony if it's Medicaid or Medicare you can't do it because people have to. The law there are laws that prevent that so these are only people who have commercial insurance that were there for cash paying customers where they're affected by the coupons so it all coupons have their own contractual terms just like a contractor the PBM or anything else so some of them will help offset the cost no matter what some of the coupons will offset the cost if it is a covered item on the insurance plan some coupons have a maximum value either way so it'll take sixty dollars off for. Three hundred dollars off it it all depends I plan to vote for this because it's really in my view the complexity of the system and all the moving parts within it that is driving up the the price of drugs and with this you at least know where the benefit is going and you can see the benefit is going right here to this patient right now and that to me remove some of the complexity of the system because otherwise where's the benefit going and it's again another hidden part the nobody knows where it is thank you. Thank your senate board represent eleven you're recognized for discussion. Thank you Mr chair spent a lot of time researching on this bill offending quite interesting is I've had these coupons or these discount cards been given to me before by by my physician and in the two things that really took took up interest to me and this was number one is what was the intent of of of the giving of the card of the coupon from the manufacturer one I felt like it was for my benefit to help me offset the cost of rising prescriptions as Mister Smith so whether we stated the rising costs should not be borne by by the consumer's own of prescriptions that we need but also for the fact is I believe that the issuance of those were also for the benefit of the pharmacy. it it's the same thing is handing them money. For for their service and for the products that they are providing and as old as I work through the the the chain of how these things flow number one are consumers were not getting the full benefit of the use of these coupons of these discount cards but also. That pharmacy was not collecting that amount of money and when they went to submit that card back into that plan to get reimbursement they were not getting the full value of that reimbursement as well someone in the middle was keeping that money into me that was not the intent of the manufacture providing that discount coupon to me are consumers and for the benefit of the pharmacy providing the service to us so I support this bill. Thank you represent eleven represent what you're recognized. Well I fully agree with the representative board and and eleven it it's very apparent that the complexity of the situation read as tears solely with the insurance companies and what they will or will not do is is permitted by the FIA of. The the the stories were in the mess that we're in today. Overall the healthcare in this country we've got three major companies that are covering that are handling the PVM business and that is absolutely rolling and everyone of them compete against our small town pharmacies. you tell me what's fair about that. Your price is controlled now they're telling only came to coupons. Well I've got news for medical work in Arkansas. It didn't work on the other bill it was fall or the Supreme Court and they found in favor of the pharmacist in this state. So we have a golden opportunity here to say we're not going to stand for. I will say no we're going to take care of the grandmother the grandfather the young child the the her mother gets of the mother gets a three hundred I've got a young I've got a young girl in my districts have five major surgeries. And I guarantee you she better not get a coupon code or a local pharmacist can be till we can't take it. They don't have the money. The baby has stepped up to help. this is kind of a thing that we need to stay in the. And so it we're we're just not going to tolerate its role. This is real thank you Mr chairman. I think our support the bill thank you represent would resume Gazaway you're recognized for discussion. Thank you Mr chairman I just wanna thank representative Lundstrum for bringing this bill is an excellent bill I couldn't have said it better than what representative wouldn't just said I absolutely and one hundred percent completely agree with everything representative wouldn't just said I've had local pharmacist in my community for years we have contacted me about this ad local pharmacist in my community contact me about this before I was even in the legislature just as an attorney if there was anything that could be done they felt it was so wrong the way they were being treated by these. A big national corporations and the mergers between the insurance companies and the Pharmacy benefits managers in the way that they emerge now they make it almost impossible or local pharmacist to be able to operate the local community pharmacist and enough is enough and this is an excellent bill I fully supported thank you. Thank you represent Gazaway any other discussion on the motion saying that I would like to add one thing I would like to add that to the issues brought about an amendment I have full faith and trust that if one was needed and necessary represent Lundstrum would do that and I think this is a good bill and a great star saw but also be supporting this. See no more discussion we have a motion do pass on the floor from representive Boyd all in favor say aye. Any opposed nay. I seventh congratulates new pastor bill thank you colleagues. Members I want to I want to thank my vice chair for bailing me out while I was trying to wait out the rain storm. The lightning drove me inside so we're glad we're here of we have a a bill now Senate bill one eighty four it's represent I'm skews me center urban's bill and I believe representative Tosh is going to present for her. If you identify yourself for the record then you are welcome to To present. Mr with your permission I'd like to have a It was actually in here from the department of labor have her come to the table and. You would ma'am just. Have a seat in divisive to the chairman in the committee for the record against. I'm Denise Oxley general counsel for the department of labor licensing. Mr chairman committee members of the the the bill the Senate bill that I have before you today let me just give you a little history about it and twenty seventeen I was approached by the pawnbroker's association warning to establish a Commission for a for their group at that time they were under a lead to the Arkansas law enforcement training academy so we worked on legislation to establish that border that commission said that they're better request and Now in the twenty twenty one station Senator urban contacted me and she was looking at a lot of these boards and commissions that were enacted and tried to remove them from the books and the course of the respective centers my bill in twenty seventeen she asked me what I thought about it and I should you know I agree with you have been monitored is well they are inactive they met twice is twenty seventeen they have no manage other meetings they pass no regulations or anything to help the pawnbrokers association I have a letter from the president of the pawn brokers association saying that this commission is in active in and no longer needs to be in existence we have plenty of laws on the books and the they or pawnbroker's are heavily regulated through but I believe it's code eight and twelve of the criminal code so there's no need for this board what I gave them the opportunity they didn't take advantage of it and so what we're doing is simply abolishing this board and with that I would take any questions. Members of there any questions representative Brown. Thank you Mr chair The representative. I do the pawnbroker's have to pay a fee to this commission or any kind of. Did you know to my knowledge they they they're not to they are regulated as for as requirements. Reporting back in for you know as for law enforcement goes but you know they wanted to set this up with that have to be this commission would give them a license and even Broadway some rules for and they just were unsuccessful in doing so so the you know there's no need to keep the committee keep this board but does your question if you have any comments so that means there's been no license issued no rules passed no appropriation bill ever. Thank you very much thank you. Thank you members any other questions. Okay we've got a motion at the appropriate time is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. Day one wish to speak for the bill. K.. Representive Tosh you're welcome to close for your bill and then we'll take representative Lundstrum is motion okay thank you thank you Mr chair and committee members and I appreciate being here before you okay. Represent Lundstrum. Okay we have a motion to pass now members as their any discussion on the motion. If not all those in favor of the motion do pass signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no congratulations you passed your bill. I had I may have missed a dive is represented Wardlaw. Here okay we're gonna pass over that bill hopefully he'll be here Vice chair Maddox is going to run Senate bill one eighty five for Senator Irvin. Thank you Mr chair could I could have a guest come to the table introduced himself place absolutely. For Mister chairman mame state gun barber with the department of labor licensing. You're recognized president represented Maddox thank you Mr this is a very very simple bill and I mean at this time we like to we like those. The colleagues this bill is a true clean up bill dealing with obsolete language you'll have absolutely no financial or other impact on the regulated community the general public or the board that is my testimony and have someone here to provide further clarification. You're recognized Sir thank you Mister chair back in two thousand three the home inspector licensing board was created under that statute there was language that provided that the secretary of state provide assistance should the board have trouble getting it's basically it's feet underneath itself in trying to establish itself the board's been in operation for close to twenty years now back during transformation that language from secretary of state was changed to department of labor licensing. Being under our umbrella now that language is no longer longer needed because it is understood that the Department labor licensing is responsible for the home inspectors Board they are not in any kind of financial trouble but if they were to get in any financial distress it would be our responsibility to assist them. Okay thank you members of there any questions for representive Matix or the witness. If not it is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. For the bill. Not representative Maddox you're invited to close for your bill thank you Mr chair clothes for my bill and I make a motion to pass okay we have a motion do pass on the floor is there any discussion by members. If not all those in favor of the motion to pass on this bill signify by saying aye any opposed say no there's none congratulations representative. Thank you committee. Members we are Going to stand in recess for just a brief moment representive Wardlaw is on his way here to present his bill and I will give them enough time to catch his breath. Maybe even dry off and they will take up that bill so we're it we are just in a momentary recess. Yeah. yeah I had that I had to park legally. And I'm loading zone. So. Chamber members so we are Page. We are now back in the. Since I didn't gavel out I can't gavel back in so members we are going to take up represent Wardlaw is bill. House Bill fourteen sixty seven thank you for our hope you're not too winded getting over here I converse okay. Members of Congress back to order representive Wardlaw you can begin your presentation thank you Mr really easy real simple I usually try to run seven rated these a session and couldn't find any the session run except this one but total repeal the statute of deregulation. Statue was set up in the eighties to collect money for fun to help with basically similar to like nine one you can read the name of the statute it was life. it's adequate it was voluntary no money in it it's never been used this just gets rid of it out of a statute. Happy take any questions. Members of there any questions for represent Wardlaw phone companies brought me this by the way so they're wanting it removed okay. Seeing no questions to turn to the audience is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. For the bill. Representative you're welcome to close for your bill I'm close Mr and I appreciate a good vote okay representative board. We have a do pass motions there any discussion. Representive reading. I think between representative Tosh is bill and representative Wardlaw bill we may get out of this meeting have eliminated more pages code doing that and so that's a win it's always a good thing okay. Okay any any further discussion. Members you have it. Skis being. You have a do pass motion on the floor for house bill fourteen sixty seven all those in favor of the do pass signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no and there's none congratulations thank you thank chair and sorry committee I had to run from the other building thank you guys thank you very much. Okay members we are now to our special order House Bill fifteen sixty three representative Gazaway. You are a. Welcome to present I think you have an amendment to. Discuss your I'll just. Let you tell us what's going on. This was being. These are already out okay. But this is being distributed. Okay. Members you have a summary of the amendment that. Represent Gazaway is bringing to you this morning. Representive as you know we have spent quite a bit of time on this and so and that this see you have your witness back if we can. We've got point we've got time but if we can be as concise as possible appreciated so you're recognized to present absolutely thank you Mr chairman Committee as we begin you'll see and should have just received an amendment to this bill this amendment is the product of many conversations that took place between the time that we ran the bill the last time and today with landlords and many other interested parties I think it makes the bill that you saw last week significantly better we've adopted several of the suggestions and changes that were made to us I have a reflective in this amendment and so with the chair in the committee's permission I just ask the amendment be adopted before I launch into a discussion so I make a motion to adopt the amendment okay members we have a motion by representative Gazaway for his amendment his bill all those in favor say aye. Any opposed. And there's no opposition so you're now free to explain to us The Amendment or the bill as amended thank you Mr chairman. And you should have received also several hand outs one of the handouts that you will have received is from the Arkansas Health Center for health improvement that's an explanation about their position on the bill and I don't expect anyone to try to read all that right now but that just makes clear that the Arkansas center for health improvement is supportive of this bill one of the other things that you should have received is a copy of a or a as a document that's three pages long subtitled H. B. fifteen sixty three March seventeen changes. many of you may see that has highlighted portions on it and what happened was when the amendment was prepared because those discussions were happening Friday and the weekend and Monday to have a fully engrossed bill but today was not possible and so when you when you look at the amendment of course it's just add this delete that it's very difficult to see how that fits into the overall context of. The statutes and so what you see there is a but with the three page handout is what the bill would look like if it were fully engrossed and it tracks the changes in the highlighted portions so that makes it easier for everyone to see what changes have been made and how they fit in context with the statutes that were amending. And so I think that would be helpful for the committee to look at is and follow along with as we discuss some of the changes but overall let me just say that again the amendment that you have in front of you is the product of of many discussions that took place over the past week and this weekend both with legislators and landlords to attempt to accommodate many of the positions that that they wanted to see. as part of the bill this amendment takes the bill down to three pages and I believe results in a very reasonable bill that will establish an implied warranty of habitability in balance the interest between landlords and tenants. as a result of the discussions over the last week let me tell you what we have done number one you may recall in the bit the last bill that was presented to you that there was at the beginning of the bill a very extensive new eviction process and some of the landlords didn't like that eviction process and so we took it out so all of that language with the new addiction process has been stricken and that leaves landlord's where they currently are and many landlords that we heard from said we're okay with that you know we like the civil addiction statutes that exist we like the unlawful detainer statute. that exist we like the failure to vacate statute that exists we utilize all those now we don't feel like we need an addiction process so that was stricken. The next thing that you'll see and this was the result of again conversation with the legislators there is a particular senator who suggested that if the tenants behind on their rent they shouldn't be entitled to these remedies. And I understand that position because I think the thought is you know it's it's a. It is quite audacious for someone to say who hasn't paid the rent several months to say Hey I think once you come up here and fix this for me and from a landlord's perspective I can see why don't you pay your rent if the pager route maybe I'd have the money to fix what you'd like to have fixed and I think that was a. A young meaningful change the result of a you know suggestion of a of a legislator and so you'll see that that's been added to the bill one of the other things that we heard was you know how this affects mom and pop landlords how this affects grandma and grandpas who own just a few units here and there to try to plan for their retirement and so we added a provision that says landlords who have four or less properties are excluded. From this bill. So again that was another concession that we made you know at the request of landlords and legislators that we heard from. We had a language that clarifies that if the tenant disables the smoke alarm or a CO two detector and so that was part of the bill. And those are provisions that when we talk to the partners of such as children's hospital and those who are particularly concerned about health and safety Arkansas center for health improvement for instance smoke alarms and CO two detectors are some of their primary concerns. And so you know it but in conversations with the landlords they said you know we have tenants who will take the batteries out if their battery enabled smoke detectors who on Holcomb and so we had a language to make it very clear that if the tenant disables the smoke detector or CO two detector then the landlord has no duty in that instance. we took out of the repair and deduct part of the bill so a lot of the discussion last time we were here centered on that remedy of if a tenant wants to be able to make the repair themselves in the deducted from the route so long as it doesn't exceed one month's rent you know that was a provision that we had the last bill that was the source of a lot of controversy we took that out. And then we added some language on the pest control you know one of the things that we heard from landlords was it appeared that that pest control provision was going to set up a monthly obligation because the way it was worded in the last bill was It it was worded in the last bill that if there was a. Trying to remember the exact language the the landlord had to have measures in place to control an infestation so measures in place to control sounds a lot like a pest control contract. And. The real heart of that issue in the crux of that problem is if there's an infestation okay so number one an infestation I'm not talking about a mouse in the house if you mice in the in the closet I'm not talking about someone saw a cockroach or to we're talking about an infestation if there's an infestation under the new bill the landlord only would have a duty to take care of that if it materially affects health and safety so again it has to be a serious infestation and in response to what we heard from the landlords. that doesn't apply if the infestation is caused by the occupants and so we heard landlords who got up here and talk about. Tenancy lead to inefficient state line around you may remember that and so we added the you know to make it very clear that the that this thing about controlling the past doesn't apply if the tenant caused the problem. So again. In a hope you can see that that we're trying to work in good faith here and then we added that language to clarify again that excuses the landlord permittee duty if the condition on the premises is caused not just by the tenant because that was always in the bill if it was caused by the tenant a licensee someone who's on the property with the consent of the tenant but we added it to say any person if any person other than the landlord or agent causes the problem with the property. Then the landlords not responsible and you know there was some suggested language that it just said out of landlord's control and with that's kind of covered further on in the bill or we talk about fire casualty that causes the destruction of the premises at but that out of the landlord's control is so ill defined that there is too broad we thought but we made it very clear that if the condition on the property that causes the issues caused by any person. Other than a landlord or agent the landlord is not responsible. And so those are the the main changes that the bill makes them happy to kind of go through them one by one but again I think those address a lot of the main concerns that we heard from landlords the last time that we were here I think that that gives us a fair and balanced bill one that still has meaningful protections for tenants and brings the state of the law for tenants up to where it should be in twenty twenty one but also balances the concerns that we've heard from landlords many of which were legitimate concerns and that we tried to take into account here and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Members of a representative for a you're recognized. Okay thank you Mr chairman so I know you spoke to this at length representative Gazaway but I just want to. I just wanna confirm in the simple as possible way this section on here dealing with insects rodents etcetera pass. Your interpretation of this is that it does not require landlords to carry a pest control contract is that is that what you're saying. We'll see the other that's my interpretation of it I mean the way the intent behind the way it's written is the premises are not invested in again infested by rodents insects and Berman so as to materially affect health and safety okay so it would have to be really bad before this provision even applies and then it still doesn't apply if that infestation was caused by the occupants and so we we try to make that very clear it you know again the language that I think the the landlords were concerned about that they felt like imposed a pest control requirement was the recall the languages said measures in place to control and that language seems to suggest that there would have to be a pest control contract that's been taken out and I think this clarifies that okay it could have another another question yes you're recognized on page I guess on page three near the top when it discusses the terms but number three they're item three the landlord shall not re rent the premises until the premises comply with eighteen dash seventeen dash five oh two. Who determines if the landlord has complied with that is there some government entity that is going to inspect the property to determine that it's and compliance or how to the House that determined. I don't think so I don't I think it's just a statement that's there for the purpose to say. If there's a problem that requires the tenant to move out that was so bad that the tenant had to move out that before you try to read it again that you fix whatever problem that was again I mean we could have written in specific language to say you know subject to the approval of local code enforcement or whatever I mean we didn't do that the purpose is just to say that if the if the condition was so bad that the tenant had to move out then. Your fix it you have to fix it before you can run it again and that that reminds me of one other change this is not in specific response to your question but I want to say this to the committee. One of the other remedies that we added for tenants in the situation this was at the suggestion of a landlord was that. You know occasionally something will happen with an apartment or a rental unit the cost so much to fix that the landlord can't fix it. it is not the tennis ball but the tenant can't continue to live there if it's that bad and this was actually suggestion from a landlord that if it's if we're faced with that situation that the landlord would give the tenant one month's rent. In return their deposit so that they would be out on the street homeless and without the ability to rent a place because that's how many tenants often find themselves in that position if the only remedy for instance as we've heard was well you can move out. Well if you don't have money to go put down on. You don't have money to pay the new deposit for instance we're the first month's rent. Just moving out really isn't much of a remedy of in fact it would cause some people to be homeless and so you know there was that was actually a suggestion from a landlord that if the because the repair is so high that it can't be made. Easily then the tenant can without but the landlord gives the tenant of their last month's rent plus their security deposit back so that they won't be homeless and will have the ability to go find a new place. I know that wasn't in response to your question but I want to say that while it was on my mind do I need to get at the bottom of the Q. or right now there's not a. go ahead and ask your questions okay just a little bit lower on that same page when just under and and the network goes back to yellow. Expo when it talks about retaliation and One of the things that a landlord cannot do and I don't think anybody's in favor of retaliation in the circumstances but. I'm interested in how this is worded. one of the things that is prevented under retaliation is increasing around. I know that often as just a matter of due course. Landlords will periodically increase rent sometimes if for no other reason than to keep. Keep pace with. Inflation with with consumer price index What it how would you know how would you know if rent was just being it was being raised in a retaliatory retaliatory way or if it was just being raised in about nine way or in a way that made sense with the. You know the value of the property and what it should be priced at. Right you know one of the provisions that we included in that section I want to try to specifically answer questions but one of the provisions that we put in that section to try to help the landlords in the event that there was you know some unfounded frivolous allegation of retaliation you'll see in section C. if the tenant engages in conduct described in section a with subsection a which is you know making a complaint about. Making a complaint to a governmental entity or whatever with no factual or legal basis for the conduct any conduct by the landlord described in subsection a in this section is not retaliatory and so you know we want to make it clear that if if attendance just making this up with no factual basis then. Then it's that they will not be considered retaliatory but in response to your question which is in a regular rent increases and that's not uncommon you're you're absolutely right landlords regularly have a schedule to keep up with inflation increased rants of maybe ten or fifteen dollars a year but whatever it may be to keep up with inflation I think that would be very easy for a landlord to prove that they have a habit of doing that you know it's one of those things that will always be subject to analysis it's kind of a case by case analysis I think if you have a landlord you know if you have a tenant for instance who complains to governmental entity and the next day the landlord sends a text of the tenant and says by the way your rent just increased to INR fifty dollars a month starting now. We'll I think there's going to be a fair argument that that was retaliatory if if on January one the rent goes up by fifteen dollars a month as it has in previous years or if it's you know adjusted to yep it has been raised in several years but it's only adjusted in an amount that would be consistent with inflation I think attendance gonna have a very hard time making an argument that that's retaliatory. So I again I think it's a case by case analysis You know I wish we could legislate for every scenario but we can't and you know I think again we've done the best we could that retaliation section. And I realize I'm going beyond maybe what no I appreciate it is there are nice but the retaliation section was a lot of words in the last bill it was it at at least an entire page maybe more and so in the discussion about how we can make it better you know we've limited it to three paragraphs where it was an entire page you know let's just generally prohibit retaliation it's one of those things you'll know it when you see it and if a tenant complains frivolously about it then you know we make it clear that there there that is not retaliation in that instance so we we really try to work on that section. Represent Gazaway limit of what we're. You were just talking about the cost to repair exceeding the that section there of bottom of page two in your summary of the cost of repair exceeds the value of three months rent. Whose estimate would that be would that be of the landlord the landlord has a repair and they have big knowledge or they recognized that it is going to exceed three months rent is that their estimate or is that the estimate that is given to them by the tenant. So I always understood that and if you read on to the next page the tenant there is entitled to see the estimate for repair so I took that to mean that the landlord would get estimates for the repair and if it exceeded three times the tenant you know it if the there is some dispute about how the cost of the repair the land the ten it would be entitled to see the estimate which means that the estimate would come from the landlord is the way I understood that to read but we can clarify that if we need to but you're saying if I'm reading that correctly if that estimate that the landlord is DO you I thank you characterized it as of repair that may be beyond their ability to in in a short term but this triggers an immediate it says they must notify the the tenant if that repair is more than three three times of. Is that even if the landlord is willing to make that repair that they have to release the tenant from that from that lease. Not the way that I understand that and I will say the landlord must notify the tenant within fourteen days of the delivery of the written notice in the written notice that we're talking about there is the one from the tenant to the landlord where the tenants you know puts the landlord a notice Hey I've got this serious problem in my rental unit and I'm letting you know. So the landlord has to notify them after the tenant has put them on notice I'm not sure that's specifically addressing your questions and any getting kind of race of the the question of who is it that's dictating then that the repair is going to be three exceed three months rent is it the tenant in their notice to the landlord that they have this repair need or is that the landlord's response after they receive the notice so I understand that the way this statute is written and again on the next page where it says the tenant is entitled to see the estimate for repair I mean obviously if it was the tenant getting the estimate for repair you would have to say that they have a right to see it because they got so I mean it contemplates that the landlord would be the one who gets those estimates and determines whether or not it exceeds three times the right now fester boster may have a better explanation of that the million not. Well let her respond she like K. you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair do I need to identify myself for yes please if you. my name is Lynn foster and I am a retired law professor at UA little rock thank you this this remedy for tenants was added at again the request and suggestion of landlords and so the way that it's attempted to work here the way it's intended to work is that this would apply if this if we're talking about a major repair and the landlord did not wish to make the repair so it allows them to get an estimate for the repair and then go to the tenant and offer the tenant the choice of of of leaving terminating the lease and getting a month's rent okay I payment and I guess that's the question I have because there's not anything in there that says that the landlord does not want to to make that repair it just says that if the estimate exceeds three months rent then the landlord has to release the tenant from the lease given one month's rent plus your security deposit back. So the trigger is not the landlord saying I don't want to make the repair the trigger seems to be that if the estimate exceeds three months rent I think we could fix that just by changing the word must to may make the landlord may notify the tenant and the tenant may terminate the lease okay all right of blaming the move on to the Q. representative Lundstrum you're recognized next and then representive within and Brown. I'm. Representative Gazaway you and I have spoken in you know my my frustrations with this we had a twenty page bill we had fourteen pages of amendments now we've just been handed four pages of amendments. and I honestly don't know where to start but I'm going to try and. One of the issues on Page three line thirty and it talks about the landlord shall not re rent the premises I've I think representive right head on this just a little bit but this is a big deal there's what government entity is going to come and inspect the property. To make sure that there's a compliance and and I want you to hear the big the big concern in my in my question. We're setting up. At an opportunity here to grow government on the backs of landlords and tenants and have a habitability code where they come in and check habitability in between a trainer and that's going to cause rents to go up on the back of runners and and I'm really concerned that this is this is opening up all kinds of problems here. And and I want to know where did this come from. What is this. So my understanding is just that it's a statement. That if the premises are fit for habitation to the point that a tenant had to move out that it should be before they tried to re read it otherwise. you know we're not solving the problem with which a habitability bill aims to solve which is that we have fit and decent housing in the State of Arkansas that meets just the most basic minimum standards that we set forth in the bill and if you just let people. Tell the tenants to go on and then ran it to somebody else. Without you know at least some incentive for them to fix it then we're just perpetuating the problem. Degree but you're making two assumptions that I don't think a true one that must tenants must answer very very professional and know what they were looking for and and aren't gonna rent something that's a piece of trash and landlords want to have a piece of trash I realize there's a bad landlord out there I mean everybody's got a band landlord story but I'm worried if before opening up. Of a government entity who decides. I'd like to and the questions answered service sites so again we didn't write that into the bill we could have we didn't. this is rules and rags will decide. I don't imagine there would be rules and rags that would be developed around this bill but You know my thought is just again the the purpose of that provision is not to involve code enforcement don't think it would we just want to insure that before its rebranded that it up back up to those minimum standards and again we're talking about the most basic standards ninety eight that are in the bill which I think for the most basic standards that anyone should expect and twenty twenty one I would representative Lundstrum Lynch go and put you back in the queue how may of representive brown you're recognized and then representive would thank you Mr chair to follow up on representative raise questions and maybe I'm reading too much can as maybe I'm being too optimistic on page one. Under B. five. Small letter be down there towards the bottom of the page says that basically the landlord will and make sure that the. I think that's what starts appear to be the landlord who is the owner more than four dwelling units or who has a partial legal or equitable ownership interest to to to whether through in more than four dwelling unit shall ensure the premises are not infested by rodents insects and vermin so as to ministerial affect the health and safety of occupants unless the infestation is caused by the occupants I took that to mean that if the tenant comes in to rent a particular property that they look at it they examine it and if it is not infested. And infestations are pretty obvious it is not invested on the day that they bring it. Then if it becomes infested afterwards most like you the it's due to neglect by the tenant that's how I interpreted that or I can't imagine what a landlord could do after that that would cause an infestation of maybe an act of nature might you know open up the roof and all the squirrels come running in but then you then you end up with fleas and things in the attic but that that's how I'm interpreting that am I wrong. No I think you're correct. Okay thank you representive. Reserve follow up on that now okay representive wooden. Thank you Mr chairman. President I guess what I commend you for trying to do here but have What will the current good land owners or landlords be forced to do now that they're not doing that yet is not substance the as it relates to the the Rowlandson of the they're doing a good job so what are they going to be exposed to now. Thank you representative wouldn't. what I've heard from a lot of landlords and and the good landlords that you talk to that you described. Many of the good landlords say if this bill passes it would affect me at all they don't feel like that this this would have any impact on them they already make sure that the standards are met we have a lot of good landlords in this state bass majority landlords in this state try to do the right thing I don't think this imposes anything on good landlords and would likely affect them at all it does give the tenants some remedy in the event that they're dealing with a place that is just not fair. And so it changes things kind of in that regard but as far as you know obligations on a landlord to do certain things I don't think it imposes any. And again I think for most the good landlords of this passes it wouldn't even affect. You're recognized. It the way the ownership is spelt out how does it affect the investment bankers and others to. Own these large properties allow of city were several have been sold with simply a little rock and but yet they have stockholders is that is this going to make the liability spread out among all the stockholders. So that is good question I don't think that it applies to. Liability in the way that we would not normally think about it. it doesn't make them liable in tort so for instance a landlord is not liable in tort and state of Arkansas unless they take on a duty like you know if they expressly say that their lives they're going to be liable to fix something and then they don't but other than that there's already statute on the books for tort liability says landlords don't have tort liability. other contractual liability that you know that already exist in the lease so any time a a tenant and a landlord enter into a lease that's a legal contract and there there is some liability if a landlord breaches that contractor the tenant breaches that contract there's just a you know there's the potential for contractual liability that already exist anytime there's a lease so it doesn't change anything in that regard the only thing that changes is is that they would have to ensure that those premises meet these minimum standards which again. I don't think are are that much quite honestly thank you for of a we'll put you back in the queue representative representative flowers. Thank you Mister chair may I please make a motion to limit debate to three minutes on each side where we have not gotten into the debate period yet but you can make that motion I've. Okay it will it would only apply to when we get into the force yes for sure okay so you still want to make the motion of yesterday's okay in your motion is I would like to make a motion to limit debate two three minutes on each side three minutes total total on each side yes. Okay we have we have a motion members And I don't believe that that is debatable. It's not debatable so but the members we have a motion And it and I'm just will I'm gonna just say That that probably because there are some here signed up to speak against their three minutes is not going to be able to match up with all the for debate that you're hearing right now so we will go ahead and put it to vote all those in favor of limiting debate to three minutes per side signify by saying aye nine eighty opposed say no no. The notice haven't. Roll call we can roll call the police. Okay we'll to roll call on the motion. Thank you. Let me just remind you that it does take two thirds of a quorum to limit debate so that's why I made the call that I did but we can still go ahead and do roll call. Okay. President of Murdock. Okay. Represent Murdock first yes. Representative building yes president building votes yes representative Ferguson Deborah Ferguson. Representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative. Representative Hodges was CS representative Lundstrum. Representative one service No representative Kenneth Ferguson. Representative Kenneth Ferguson both yes representative Boyd of representative for votes no. Representive flowers. Yes representative flowers foods yes. Representative brown. But. Representative Alan. Allen this is represented Gazaway. The representative Gazaway this. Represent Gazaway those yes representative Pilkington. Representative Pilkington represent Penzo the representative Penzo votes No representative wouldn't know representative wouldn't votes No representative council. Representative Connie votes yes representative Richardson representive Richardson does yes representative eleven. Representative Devin that's No representative ray. That would represent Raveonettes now. This is. This section. You have already voted. I can't get back on. The the motion limit debate fails will return back to the presentation Mr chairman if I could I make a motion yes you may I would like to make a my I want us to have lunch and I know we've heard a lot about this bill already I like to make a motion to dilemma to limit debate to fifteen minutes on each side I felt three minutes was not quite enough but I think fifteen minutes on each side thirty minutes total would be fair okay that we motion is is in order and again like the previous motions not debatable all those in favor of limiting to fifteen minutes per side signify by saying aye. Any opposing no okay The motion to limit debate to fifteen minutes per side does does pass again though to to be fair we want to make sure that we've evenly split that into continue the presentation of the I may have to start counting it against the for so if you will go ahead and and wrap up. The members that you that also includes our questions to the the presenter and the witness at the table that we're kind of put their thumb on the scale on the the for today. Okay of representative of flowers recognize you for your motion so now we are to representative. Richardson. Thank you just real quick why did you choose for you know you could of four dwelling units just why you chose it well that that was a product of those discussions with landlords I think for is recognized as. You know if you get more than four is kind of a commercial what is it in all in a lot of places if you have more than like a quad plex then it's considered a. If you have a quad plex in some places are more than that it is kind of considered a more. I can't get the term but it's a different type of unit this country to a little bit differently than people that say rent single family homes or duplexes or triplexes but you know at some point also when you cross over four units you get into five six seven and some people on dozens or hundreds you you're dealing with a different type a landlord and a small mom and pop so it was really just a compromise when we got to for. And. Thank you representative Richardson you need to follow up. No I didn't during office okay representive Lundstrum up to follow up on representative Richard since question we're talking about habitability here it needs to be on the four representative Gazaway you've spent a lot of time on this and while I don't like the bill I don't think that's any secret the if it has to apply to everyone we should apply to all of habitability is something that you're willing to sacrifice your time for It seems kind of disingenuous to apply the law unevenly and unfairly. So I've heard that concern to from other landlords it's just we're in one of these things with that with as with any piece of legislation I can't make everybody happy I have landlord to say it's unfair if you applied to grandma and grandpa's who just have one or two units that they're trying to build for the retirement on I have people who make the same argument that you make which is if you do people with more than five this way you ought to do everybody that way I understand it I get I get that concern I'm not dismissing it I just can't satisfy everybody and so that's kinda where we got with that which. Okay I would agree and thank god you're recognized in on page two you said you're gonna delete and add the smoke alarm smoke detector solely battery opportunists not code most. Now you have to have one one at least hard wired I think this points to another issue most owning and must code enforcement excuse me must code enforcement every town has code enforcement mind mind you have to have one in every bedroom one in the hallway and some and even the garage have taken even hiding a few extra just to make sure that nobody takes the batteries out so I can sleep at night. So. Again this points to another fallacy in this bill I'm I don't know how you would answer that will it if you're talking about just batteries and is not just batteries it's if they remove the batteries or otherwise disables so in a lot is you know in a lot of apartment complexes now they required under code that the smoke detectors be hard wired in and tenants will on hooked on from wires and so you know we had a we try to make it so that not just if you took the batteries out but if you took the wires or any way otherwise disabled it that that's the tenant's fault landlords not responsible so. I'm a motion right. Represent wooden you're recognized. Gazaway. You you've made an effort of thank but have have all of the people that were involved seen these amendments as they're written and given to us today. I can't say that they have it was just one of those things where we had meetings on Friday there were discussions over the weekend including Monday and you know give sense to get sent to the bureau it was too late to get it engrossed into the bill is filed on members own has set on the calendar for number of days I did forward this has been forwarded to some of the folks who were involved in the discussions but to say that they've had a long time to review it I can't say that they have. Of a quickly yes you're recognized the the who's going to enforce this the. And in your larger cities but when you get out in the hinterlands who's who's gonna who's gonna be responsible to check into it and and are they legally qualified to understand I mean I understand if you know if it's rolled and filled and all that as no hard who's going to enforce this. Yes of those say little rock pine Love the force me is federal right you know I think the attorney general's office for one. This is one of the number one complaints that they get our landlord complaints so I think you know maybe if they took some interest in getting involved they probably wouldn't probably be very rare for them to get involved but I think that would be one option and then the other is is just the tenant through. you know some kind of court action I suppose but beyond that I mean there's not going to be you know some statewide. code enforcer this going to go around it's just it's just going to be on the books that you're supposed to meet minimum standards and if the tenant has a problem with it it could play out in court or I mean I suppose the Attorney General could get involved but I can't say that that's going to happen. Thank you represent thank you Mr representive rated you want back in the queue. I did but I'm I'm gonna pass okay representative representative brown. I'll be very thank you Mr chair When I am asked about a bill that is getting this much attention on something that I am not. Very very comfortable with I ask other people in the. Good friend of mine who is in the real who does have rental properties said that all of the problems that you read about in the paper are generated in Little Rock and that people like him who have rental properties pay a fee for some license or whatever they have each year and that the problem in Little Rock is that there's absolutely no enforcement regardless of whether these things are in code do you have a response to that. Thank you representative brown that's a great question I've worked in this area for several years now and I regularly speak to tenants landlords tenants advocates and I can tell you that these problems do not occur solely in Little Rock they occur all over the state they occur with the most frequency in the places where the most people live so that would be the cities and towns in Arkansas little rock is the largest city so you know you are going to see the most problems there but this is by no means a problem that is unique to Little Rock I actually read through every single eviction case that was filed in Arkansas this year and I can tell you stories from tenants who have responded to the courts that live in Jonesborough that live in Texarkana the live all over the state and they have problems they have infestations of rats ceilings fall on their children when they're in bed they ask for repairs they don't get repairs for months so you know I know that everybody in this room who is a landlord is a good landlord that's really not who this bill is aimed at at all and we hope that good landlords will not be affected at all by this bill but there are bad landlords and they are in every part of Arkansas not just in Little Rock. Thank you okay that response thank you. Members where we're going to move to the of for and against and that you have a follow up. Okay thank you we moved to the for and against we're going to take the against first of. From my account of those who signed the and we have three speakers for three against of since the motion was fifteen minutes in total for sides I would just ask you especially if you're one of the first calls to please be respectful of the fact that there will be two other witnesses on your side so we're gonna move to the against them I'm going to take Sylvester Smith. If you'll identify yourself for the record and then We will we'll try and give you a notice maybe at the four minute mark okay thank you Mr my name's Sylvester Smith and I am here speaking as an attorney who represents landlords of this bill I will admit is much better than what we saw previously however I the best reason for you to take a hard look at it is that we're in the midst of a pandemic and tenants have had lots of help they have four thousand dollars a month unemployment I think that real sentence assistance programs funded by the federal government employees of it very little help and I can tell you to the CDC evictions efforts by individual judges to slow evictions their landlords ahead receive within a year I had a case just last week where there was nine thousand dollars in rent owed the judge asked the tenant ma'am did you get unemployment pandemic unemployment yes how much was it four thousand dollars a month how will you get it several months did you pay any on your rent no I didn't know that it was forcibly evicted however however there's so many other stories where landlords just struggling there was another the recently got hold their property at forty thousand dollars in damage. And so this bill at this time it's just going to be one more gallon of water dropped on these landlords that already drowning and I just sincerely asked the General Assembly to consider the timing of this message now I agree people I have safe place to live when I was a kid I lived in a house where we have to chase the rain when it rained outside the house it rate inside the house we chase with pots and Trask and so I understand and we do need something here this is not the solution. Additionally just from a legal perspective I've got some concerns about the liability limitations there are landlords can be sued in Arkansas under narrow circumstances and I am concerned about how the Supreme Court under their power over four mended eighty will look at this I'm concerned that they'll look at the same way they did but tort reform we pass and Huckabee Administration and say it's an improper over reach into the area and so that may open landlord's up to tort liability you didn't attend this whole concept about not re letting until you address these issues I can tell you who police that trial lawyers and so let's say that there's an issue the landlord and repair properly they relate it someone else gets hurt they're gonna ask for punitive damages. And so now I I normally defend landlords I don't sue them and so that's something that that you need to be concerned about should take a firm look at another point is this whole concept of the retaliation there are some judges in Arkansas who are very good judges and they operate based upon the spirit of Sullivan and sometimes it works out well for me and my clients sometimes not so we'll I'm concerned about how those Sullivan added judges will interpret this final process provision that prohibits retaliation I think you're gonna see a lot of vixens denied I think you can see a lot of tennis without the hold over and I think you'll see tenants walk away without any sorts of obligation to the landlord and so. I just want to say this to preserve the time for these other folks that came here and and what the opportunity to speak there's a lot of conversation last time about the fact that attorney's fees back rent landlords can collect that Professor foster she reviewed all those cases she probably saw about eighty that my staff and I did I'm one of the five largest landlord lawyers in the state and I can tell you we only collect back rent or attorney's fees about five percent the time because landlords don't evict people they can pay rent the big people can't pay that adage is true you can't get blood out of a turnip about how much the turn it might really want to pay or how bad the judge feels about it so I really ask you to just consider these legal implications that maybe we haven't thought about and also just Foundation only to look at the timing of this in the midst of the greatest recession of our lifetime thank you okay thank you very much that was right at the four minute mark representive flowers I believe you have a question for this witness. S. thank you Mr chairman of the night I hear your concerns and I'm speaking as a landlord myself it is I guess I would ask in and I'm kind of building on the point that represented Lundstrum made earlier and that is most tenants you know know what what they desire to live in our in our professional and then you have people who take what they can get who don't have the money and we're really dealing with that. And we're also really dealing with people who don't who aren't good landlords and with or without this some of the issues you mentioned what happened with or without this bill this bill is meant to. Incentivize people to do better for the ones who do horribly now and take advantage of people that said. what would be appropriate to stave off the bad behavior and you know what we could you support is there something you would so you you take these have ability requirements that do agree our common sense and you stick them in the unlawful detainer statue that you have right now as a defense as a defense to paying any damages and so if I try to evict you and you're able to come to court and say that I didn't provide a place that was worthy of being paid for then you don't have to pay those damages I I I think that and maybe the the judge is able to give you a little extra time to stay or something of that nature but to create an informative Act path to the courthouse by the tenant for these measures I I think in this time in this economic environment is just not good public policy that would landlord's hurting so bad follow up. Yes you're recognized so. It again if we're dealing with people who can't pay their rent or who are in low income housing. Are you suggesting that you wait until. That that the the remedy is for them to not pay rent and then risk using this as a day of habitability as a defense rather than the standard and do that where they would have to seek the cost of an attorney and I guess so that's a question based upon your saying that it would be the trial lawyers. Who would be creating or or implementing. I don't know becoming some sort of ad hoc. Of. Oversight entity but how could that be done with who who's going to pay a lawyer a pair retainer on you know my place is infested or I can't you know afford to pay rent at three fifty or four hundred dollars a month and my landlord won't make my place a foreman dry so landlords don't have any access to free legal services tenants do his best attendance in the situation you just described I see about forty percent of cases I litigate there's a legal aid lawyer that represents the tenant and that doesn't cost them anything and so I believe legal Lakewood defend Clinton it's in those situations as they are now when they say judges landlord and entitled to one time because he didn't meet the hand habitability standards so not a private lawyers legal aid those are trial lawyers ma'am they they are they are litigators they are well trained and every now and again on a Blue Moon I lose to the and I'm not ashamed to admit it because they are the lawyers what the trial lawyer come it was it was it was in the guard to you're in my house there's a hole in the floor whatever I fix it it's a list I didn't fix it correctly next it comes along they get hurt they sue me they ask for punitive damages because I knew the place was had this whole I didn't fix it correctly and I should have under this new statute and so now the doors potentially open for me to have to pay punitive damages because well the first things that they're going to asking discovery is did you have problems of this place before and what you do to fix and so I think that's something that had to thought about and I don't mean to take up all the time no that's all right thank you you're just answering the question all right we will now move to the fore and I believe the first name on that list you Mr yes thank you. Barbara persons. Miss Parsons of fear in the overflow area. We'll give you few minutes. This was I believe online so she may not have been able to make it today about given another moment. Is there is there anyone in fall of overflow. There was not okay let's of. I move on to the next a person Laurie Evans with indivisible Little Rock in central Arkansas the sevens in again if you'll just keep in mind that we have fifteen minutes total for the four speakers. And I'll I'll give you a notice after you've gone about four minutes just to let you know okay. Please identify yourself for the record. Yes I'm Laurie Evans with indivisible little rock and central Arkansas Mister chair representative of thank you for this opportunity to address the committee today indivisible just if you if you're not familiar with us we are grassroots activist group that registers and educates voters we also advocate for more just and inclusive public policies with our sister chapters in northern Arkansas individual has some two thousand members and a statewide we do support H. B. fifteen sixty three. We've heard how in two thousand seventeen the State Legislature enacted half of the model residential landlord tenant act giving rights only the landlords and giving responsibilities only to tenants we've heard about tenants who will abuse additional leverage of course while the vast majority of landlords responsibly provide beneficial livable properties whatever small percentage about apple tent tenants there are there's about the same small percentage of that apple landlords people being people. And while the any of the potential costs to landlords of such balancing legislation is easily quantifiable as we've heard it's really hard to quantify the costs of not passing this bill fortunately that's what these discussions aimed to better understand some of your rent landlords and realtors with and with today's meant that amendments your business perspective that has brought been brought to bear to shape this legislation now if I could just ask you for just a moment to take off those business path let's put you know put on your legislator had and rivers where the one where you represent not just landlord interest and maybe not just all of your constituents but also the state of Arkansas is greater economic growth interest. We agreed that families need state safe stable healthy places to live. What tenants pay for their safe housing but who pays for unsafe housing in Arkansas it's not just tenants and landlords who pay for unsafe housing children pay for unsafe housing employers pay taxpayers pay you pay let's look at just one of the things we all pay for when children live in unsafe housing increased health care costs to the House. A two thousand seventeen UAMS service learning project surveyed Little Rock renters who were receiving healthcare related to poor housing problems such as rodent infestations Leding filling septic issues rotting floors and walls participants reported breeding more reported more breathing and respiratory problems and increased allergies not surprising about forty percent of asthma episodes are triggered by the household president of contaminants such as from mold and rodents Adam attacks triggered by poor housing quality make children more likely to miss school or struggle during the school day and there's a significant correlation between general housing quality and the probability of graduating from high school so insured living in unsafe housing can put children on the wrong track and help keep them there. A study in the American Journal of respiratory and critical care estimated that the average twenty year per capita cost due to uncontrolled asthma for our Kansans with two thousand two hundred and nine dollars a continuous drain on our state's economy due in part to unsafe housing. Our students our schools need alert students our communities and local economies need qualified help the workers we all gained when we reduce the indirect costs of unsafe housing and improve children's health growth and well being. Everyone in this room which is there are no bad apple tenants NO about apple landlords but there are both. I said just a cost benefit analysis of this bill that weighs the potential added cost to landlords against the overall public health benefit. But benefits of ensuring minimum safety standards for children and families and rental properties respectfully we ask you to vote yes on H. B. fifteen sixty three thank you. Thank you are there any questions for this witness. If not thank you very much. We'll now move to the against and Call on Mr. mark barrier with phone or county landlord association. Thank you. There are a eleven minutes left again so again I think there's one other person wants to speak against the you can have half the time if you'd like. Okay and assuming this is on okay yes go ahead identify yourself that when my name is mark per year I and them with the phone or county landlord association past president for two years I also have I'm with the legislative committee with our state landlord association as well as I do have a real estate license and actually serve on the phone or County Board of realtors legislation committee as well and first one is thank representative Gazaway I know he's working hard on this they're they're really trying to put this together we. I bring a unique perspective I also own a property management company and through that property management company we represent little over three hundred fifty properties in seventy six different land owners property owners and through those owners we're responsible to keep up with these properties for them some of these people became accidental landlords landlords through the Great Recession. They were they had a property that they had to move they were upside down on the property they couldn't sell the property and rather than become part of the victim society of having to deal with of a property to give back to a bank they chose to turn it into a rental property and we took over those properties for them they are in on very tight budgets as well the tight budgets of we have individual landowners are business owners who don't have four oh one K.'s they don't have any type of savings that they're putting back for retirement so this gives them an opportunity to invest in real estate and give some of property that they can manage as well and they're not is schooled with all this information the that has been brought to the table here and of I've got a veteran that I just took over a property for this week and she served for our country she's got a unit that the property is not being maintained by the tenant and they have not paid rent in over a year and now I'm having to go in and try to help her because she doesn't even understand the steps of what it takes to evict a tenant of this nature the the financial obligations that are hitting a lot of these landlords and run into this situation is poor for all of them and that hurts that hurts all of us they're not making these uninhabitable properties they're not forcing this to not have a stab of habitability standard they're not doing that these tenants have an opportunity to inspect these properties prior to moving in they have the ability to look at him have a prior to ability to look at him prior to leasing those properties this bill unfortunately there's so much changes in here that we've seen that we're just getting our hands on this I have no idea what I have to this means honestly and and then to try to put it. To what the bill was already run that had so many pieces taken out. There's so much financial obligation that we recognised through whether it was the rodent infestation that was probably not something that that the landlord brought to the table. They have no problems with keeping their properties up if there's an envelope of this property to hold its to keep it habitable they plan on doing that but there's so much in this bill that will add on to having to defend themselves from. Who knows what kind replications that the tenant might decide I don't want to one of the things I read in this and I didn't understand we said that the if the tenant moved in. They wouldn't have a place to go and we could end up leaving them. Homeless but it is I'm reading this it says that the landlord wouldn't be giving them their money back until five days after they vacate. And I'm not exactly sure how that works that if I vacated. Then and there's no proof that they'll vacate if I give them money prior to. it's financially it's taxing on all of these owners and they're not rich their their ability defend themselves and hire an attorney on their own to try to handle these things is not well they're not in any they're they're not. It is I think there's a misconception on the fairness of this bill to keep it fair between the tenant and the landlord if so much is put more on the landlord side to defend himself so with that I I just like to see if we could it in any way shape or form give us more time to look at this we're not against making sure that the bad apples maintain good habitability standards and give the tenant the opportunity to leave if they're not happy with the standards that they're in it and they became that way while they were there that was the envelope that they moved into. Then have the the remedy to move and and they should have that can. Thank you thank you very much of members of there any questions for this witness. If not thank you very much for your testimony and that still I believe that leaves us about six minutes for the last against Speaker of four we will take. Caleb Alexander the McKinsey Macon sick our Kansans for stronger communities. They get it right okay if you'll just for the record identify yourself so that the pronunciation is even clearer than what I said. Can everybody hear me. My name's Caleb Alexander mackenzie I do in fact on the board of our Kansans for stronger communities I've never testified in this building for or before the legislature so forgive me if I sound kind of nervous this is a first for me beyond what I do with Arkansas infrastructure communities also volunteer with a local homelessness advocacy group and service provider some of bring a little bit of that perspective here today. I respectfully to the gentleman that just testified he just asked for more time. Arkansas has the distinct displeasure of being the only state in this nation who has not solved this problem yet. Where it every every other state forty nine other states and a couple other territories have already figured out they don't need more time. Last week we heard from a mother. Whose son died. Should have more time. We're helping write this bill I spoke with several parents whose children had died due to carbon monoxide poisoning they don't have more time. We have the opportunity to solve this problem. We are a little bit about the. An option to stick this in the unlawful detainer statute that we have. Tenants represent the less than five percent. The people who get represented less than five percent of tenants get represented by that many don't qualify the state saw such a need that they set up legal aid their Supreme Court did to reach out help impoverished tenants too quick to answer questions who bears the price of that is the taxpayer we don't fix this we're gonna continue to pour more more tax money in providing legal aid for tenants we don't we don't need to keep wasting tax money on this today. We don't have time. the unlawful detainer statute is is set up to fail The tenant must respond to that in five days and we we talk about people who are. Who don't know the law on the landward side too many tenants are lawyers they don't know the law they have to respond in five days after either get a hold of a lawyer or they have to get a hold of legal aid or they have to figure out how to run there's their their own case pro bono they have to set up a deposit in the court to do that so that not only are they worried about having to find first month's rent and last month's rent and a new deposit so that they do not end up on the street they now have to pay into the courts eight a nother cost that set up. That's more money. That's more of an incursion that's more homelessness. We we've set up a pipeline by being the last state to pass a bill like this we serve a pipeline to homelessness I mentioned earlier that I worked with a non for that nonprofit service provider it's called the van Two weeks ago three weeks ago we had a major ice storm in this state we had about twelve inches dumped in my backyard I spent seven nights in a row. At the Arkansas state fairgrounds opening up an emergency warming shelter. I spent seven nights with one other person one other volunteer speaking with comforting talking to over a hundred individuals who had no other place to go who are at risk of dying. A couple of those individuals who I got I had the privilege and it is a privilege to spend that night with them to talk to them. Confided in me they said. I've got a place to stay I could actually be at right now and so I said ma'am are you here and they said because my place doesn't have heat. Because my place has holes in the wall but I'm paying three four hundred dollars a month to a landlord and they will not fix it and I've asked them to repeatedly and I'm scared if I press the matter that I'm going to get a victim I don't have a place to go during the day. So I'm here not. Desperate people. In desperate situations will act desperately that is something I've preached and preached and preached for the last five years when I quit my career as a a training coordinator for the National Guard to go back to law school which is actually helmet professor foster. We talk about ten it's being able to look into a place to see whether or not they can live their whether or not it will meet their standards when you're standards are life and death you have nothing to meet. When you're standards or freezing to death on cold nights you have no standard to me when you're standards or lack of shade lack of lack of shelter you have no standard to meet there are phenomenal landlords in the state I do not miss merchant the people that this bill will affect or not in this room they have not testified we we in this bill we've costly heard will go ahead and do this and it doesn't work out we can amend it later well something doesn't work out you can amended later. We don't have time. The people in the state who are poor all over the state not just here in Little Rock when I go to visit my parents over in Perry County when I go to state court to visit people when I when I take and I I meet people who finally ready together homelessness and they say yeah man I I live up in Northwest Arkansas live I you know I grew up around a little flock can you come can take me home I put in my car to take him to the House. In a walking those houses in the conditions are not **** better than the conditions that they just left and they are paying rent diligently to live in those places that's what we've created in the state by not having once you have ability that's how we as our Kansans have failed. And so what we are asking you all here to do today. Is to reinforce our dedication to our taxpayers to the poorest among us to cut off the flow of homelessness in the state to ensure that we don't have does not have to rely on as somebody else put it a a new lawyer defense fund or a a way of pipeline make attorneys money should never go to that it should not have to be in the. Unlawful detainer statute we can prevent that we can curtail all of that today so as a member of a board member of archangels for stronger communities and and that the people that we represent. As a person who goes out to the streets of southwest little rock north little rock and everywhere else and I speak to people who. Who are living in those conditions because they were evicted and who don't don't have a place to live because they do not feel like putting the money that they get the limited funds they have to work to place that. Is not habitable as I speak to parents who have buried children. As I speak for parents who are concerned that they are going to bear their buried their children we would ask you to pass this bill out of committee. I thank you thank you members of there any questions for this witness. Okay thank you very much for testimony. Yes and and next to Mr Jones with the landlords Association of Arkansas. Thank you Mr chairman committee my name is William Jones and currently I'm the president of the Arkansas state language committee of. As you all know we've only recently. See these changes and I've been feverishly trying to put together some. Some coherent notes and thoughts I want to start with with the just a brief description of. Of how I run my business like to diversify. I've got some. Low in property what I would consider low in property that rents for very cheap I've got some high and property that rents for what I would consider very expensive and I've got some scattered around the range so if my tenant who pays a high rent loses his job. I have something for you. If I come across someone who's homeless. And can't afford anything I have something for him. That just. Gives you an idea of the segments of society that need to have that ability that need safe housing. And has been previously stated most of the landlords in the state provide that. the intricate was specific statements that were made for units was chosen because five and more is generally accepted in the state of Arkansas as consideration for a real estate professional therefore they have other considerations for those people Mr would not believe asked about the liability and exposure for for corporations and stockholders the bottom line is anytime you allow tenants. Additional avenues of abuse. Costs will go up. The cost to me. Trickle down to the cost of my tenants in the former friend the fact that I'm here today. I have the luxury of being here I save money and I can pay my transportation and take it off work and come here. But if I had to come here every day I'd be looking at all my units to see who could best absorb. Raises and rents. To allow me to continue to come here. So everything that we do directly relates to. The cost of the tenant. Now a couple of couple quick quick notes in the bill it was noted. About pest control and I had a text that. They use the the fee the figure of two hundred fifty million additional costs. In my costs are not that high if I was if I was required to. A pest control on each one of each one real unit in the United I'm sorry each unit in Arkansas I think that's about two hundred fifty thousand and hundred dollars roughly as needed for twenty five million dollars in additional costs. one of the statements that I would that I expected to see more frequently used in the bill was at the time of occupation. The landlords typically have a set of standards. That they will allow somebody to come in open the door and have an infestation fall on their head. So what they do is they go in they take care of these things prior to listing something for rent. So any anytime that I see there requirements on the landlord for specificities it should apply to the tenant. From the moment they take possession. To the end of their Tennessee. I think most of the things that I have that I have in my notes have been said I won't burden the the Committee with. with anymore. Any more time. Are you back to the floor okay. Thank you very much members there are the you have any questions for this witness. But not thank you Mr Jones. We have a no additional speakers signed up for or against but we do have a little bit of time left for Speaker who wants to speak on the bill he said he has comments both for and against so Mr Calvert. You're recognized. Please identify yourself for the record. Thank committee So as I've talked to in order in the state and and had experience myself I think one of the biggest issues that we have is the courts are too slow both for attendance and for landlords and so if if a landlord has a has a tenths tearing up the house and not paying rent. A couple months weighted fight in the courts does not fast enough it just isn't and if it tenant has a problem with the landlord not fix the Merion or water heater. A couple months is not fast enough they need it fixed like tomorrow. And I try to do that with my tenants myself as what do for a living as is the real property. But sometimes you've got landlord's for whatever reason that won't fix stuff if they've got a good pain tenant and the landlord won't fix our can't fix it and there's no recourse for them effectively outside of maybe filing a lawsuit for breach of contract but it might take them a month or two to get in court and that's not fast enough and so I I think though that we need to figure out a way to speed this up get access to the court in a timely manner I don't know how to do this if we set up a maybe a us a special landlord tenant court but I appreciate representative Gazaway is at efforts on this I know he's worked hard deal with all of us crazy people and But that we need to speed that up and so. I don't smile too much. I have one other issue I think that that can tend to drive. Landlords to be overly aggressive with their tenants and that's that some of the local governmental bodies. Our unlawfully holding landlords responsible for the actions of the tenants and so then the landlords have a tendency to turn around and retaliate against attendance and do things against their tents that they really shouldn't be doing and I think that will sometimes drive landlords to be abusive and just be overly aggressive when many of us would like to be lenient but were afraid of the city government county government and. I've I've literally been prosecuted by the city government for stuff that they knew my ten instead and Manston can be really aggressive towards tenants when that happens I want to be patient I want to be lenient but when the city is breathing down my neck and threatening me with fines are actually finding me and prosecuting me it's it's hard to know how to how to keep on being patient because that's wrong and. That's miscarriage your time is is expired thank you for your testimony. Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized to close. Thank you Mr chairman committee at first I just wanna say thank you so much to everyone on this committee for taking the time and to pay attention to this very important issue I think in and noting how important this issue is it be good for me enclosing to emphasize that Arkansas is the only state in the country that doesn't have an implied warranty of habitability. And so I think in that regard I mean we need to be serious when we consider the issue that's before us we are literally the only state in the country that doesn't recognize this and to all of the landlords who expressed concerns I hope that all of you on the Committee see that I have worked hard to try to address those concerns taking those into account we've amended this bill significantly to make it a good bill and for the landlords who have argued that some have you know somehow this is going to be the end all landlords again every other state in the country has at this guy's not falling yet and that's like with many pieces of legislation we see people come and speak against every nearly every piece of legislation that's proposed in a legislative session and we pass it and the sky doesn't fall the sun comes up again and and everything is fine and I I predict that if we pass this piece of legislation for good landlords they wouldn't even know it passed it would not affect them in the least and again and what it does however is it balances the rights between tenants and landlords in the State of Arkansas which are severely out of balance currently. it's a fair bill it's a good bill we need this bill and I'm asking you to pass it and with that I would make a motion do pass as amended. Members we have a motion on the floor to pass as amended amended is there any discussion by members. If not the the vote is on the table to do pass all those in favor of the motion do pass signify by ordinance as amended yes do pass as amended signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. So eyes haven't. I see and hear one voice to see one hand or two hands okay at C. two hands of we will roll call. Represent represent Murdock. Hi yes representative building yes yes representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Hodges. Yes representa Lundstrum. Now representative Kenneth Ferguson yes yes representative Boyd of now representative flowers. Yes representative brown will now representative Alan. Yes representative Gazaway yes yes representative Pilkington. Representative Pilkington. Representative Penzo. Now represent a wooden. Now representative Clowney. Yes representative Richardson yes representative eleven. Representative eleven representative ray. Now. Representative Maddox yes yes. Represent Gazaway there are eleven vote your bill does pass out of committee. Thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Members thank you for sticking in there with this and we will