Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Can deal with fairly quickly in front of you you have your calendar you'll see Ann and a large amount of bills today but two of those. One's gonna be real short and one's going to be skipped over told either Thursday or next Tuesday so affect we're doing five bills today on a Tuesday you'll also notice that we only have two bills on Thursday but if you're the kind of likes to record keep we just talk to representative Ladyman and senator Dismang is going to carry house bill eleven fifty six on Thursday so we have three Bills this Thursday. All righty staffer we ready. I can barely got anything else do you want to prep this shall I prepped the members all right members you have heard it you probably look at H. B. sixteen sixty two as a brand new bill that that was the bill we spent over an hour on Thursday the Senate bill version. And I have asked Senator Davis if she would be willing to present quickly maybe answer questions if they need to be there. But the reality of it is we've already hash this out and by doing this she has agreed to let the Senate bill that you voted on set still because this bill is one that had in cycle okay so with that preparation. Senator yes this is house bill sixteen sixty two. And senator Davis you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chair and as he stated this is the exact same bill that we've already and debated discussed in her testimony to you last week it was just one day ahead in the process so we're trying to move forward with this one and rather than the Senate bill at this time. I have several motion at the proper time do you have is yours a motion Senator tale. Thank you. Senator since it is a proper motion if they really want to go there so we let Senator Teague ask questions Senator Teague. You're recognized for a very brief questions you have the cumulative waste of time of seven of us so Senator Davis would you agree this is a bad bill. Okay I thank you all right motion I think I heard Senator Ingram. good with your motion do I have a second I have a second from Senator Irvin we it's been moved and seconded that house bill sixteen sixty two. Come to vote and I assume you're closed I didn't do all the steps so all in favor please say aye same sign opposed. Your bill passes we've got all the paperwork give us one quick second get all the paperwork because we're moving pretty quickly and I'm gonna ask Senator Irvin. You're gonna skip over your bill the next one on our agenda is that correct do you have with comment yes yes I'm gonna have an amendment and engrossed the bill so it'll be ready for the committee so that'll come I believe you had mentioned to me perhaps Tuesday but you'll shoot for Thursday if possible okay with that all we have to be Tuesday that's correct. All right Senate bill three eighty one Senator Elliot you are recognized. Okay if I bring up bread because what to the table that's a policy I read and hear if possible have them introduce themselves okay part of the presentation all right. Please introduce yourself and then we'll have Senator Elliot begin thank you Mr brand consort Director the Arkansas crime information center okay Senator Elliot you're recognized present your bill I thank you Mr chairman committee members this is a bill that's that's been out there for awhile and I didn't I deliberately left out there but this to see if somebody had anything to say about it nobody has at this point but here is what brought me to this bill I happen to represent I don't know if it's still the case or not I know for many years the zip code I live in in one of the ones in my district obviously I've seen so many issues where our people are struggling because we do we have or have had anyway I've been checked in the last year so the highest number of individuals who have an intersection with law enforcement and some kind of way and I've seen people for example try to get a job at a dollar store or some other store or some other place and so the company will do a background check say it's Joyce Elliott who strives are applying for the job they will do a background check and many times it's correct but too many times there is information that is not correct that adversely affects the person who is B. and who's been checked out and there's just been no recourse for this for the individuals who are being affected by this and so to make sure I was not and not just making up stuff I checked in without Mr consortium to find out from the standpoint of the crime information center who keeps information is this a problem and so he's taught me with me about this and has information I don't have that he can share with you about this issue and and what we've done in the bill is create a cause of action for people who are adversely affected and given a what they must do they must apply them some. Make contact themselves that this information is incorrect about me the entity that's being contacted has a responsibility then to reform to Bob respond to that and it has time to remove the incorrect information and if they don't then that's where the cause of action comes in so that's what the bill is all about. Mr because what. Do you have anything that Mister Cozart. Thank you for sure yes Senator Elliot contact number she said to ask if this was a problem and I claim this is a very serious problem that if the minute continual problem at a C. I. see and we we get calls several times a week from people who've either lost a job or they're been terminated from a job or did not get hired because of a commercial background check that the employer obtained that information was incorrect that if had if they had done an official state background check that is initiated state police information that should not have been released pursuant to Arkansas law would not have been but these commercial companies don't I mean there's they see it they release a lot of sealed records that by law should not be sealed so we check to make sure that we are we have the records correct we do explain that the we haven't released anything improperly the only advice we can give at this point is to maybe go back to the employer and see if they would redo a state background check official state background check through the state police but again they've already seen some information they should not seen it's like trying to unring a bell so how do you convince them that you know this new record that doesn't show that sealed records you as is true so it's it is a concern it does happen we get these calls fairly frequently okay. Committee members to have questions. Senator Ingram you're recognized for a question with this with commercial website of credit checks if you're just run a credit check with that that fall under this no this only deals with criminal background checks just criminal by okay thank you. Centerman you're recognized for a question. So okay so if if it's a commercial website that deals with criminal background checks other photographs Blake are using other photographs like there. I mean is this. So you have the ability for to obtain. Different documents under freedom of information. You may have an ability to post those is that what you're saying is it's and correct information that they're posting what they're releasing what they're posting in it personal Senator there's no photographs involved in background checks so what they're releasing is they're they're obtaining copies of criminal history records and you under Arkansas law once a record has been sealed it is no longer available to the public so these companies traditionally are are publishing that conviction that has been sealed and should not have been released And criminal information basically if your permission I see it is it is specifically exempted reformations they can't just get it those those no photographs of these companies are just putting out information it under Arkansas law is prohibited from being released to the public. Okay. Any other questions committee members. I guess I have one I see the punitive damages listed there him on the line to and that the question I have is what's the court of hearing does that go to civil court if someone is injured or held to be deemed. Punished or whatever order they go to get. I don't even know the right word you've got something on your website that's preventing me from finding a job. Who do I go to have oversight to get towards these punitive damages well center this is this bill is creating a civil cause of action so you're gonna have to sue these companies in circuit court representative images so it is going to circuit court or the circuit court as a civil case and until you know ten to detain a judgment against this company now granted you know ninety four plus percent of the company's gonna be out of state senator any graph to work or to get a judgment how they register that judgment another state and follow those laws to collect that judgment but it's it's all on the civil side this is not a criminal proceeding and with and follow up if that is the case what prevents them from doing that now. is it the calls that has to be proved that they're labeling your name. There is there is nothing right now senator that would prevent somebody from trying to file a libel lawsuit but there is no specific name cause of action yeah and sometimes the damages in your may be minimal other than that I would are quite this a lot to perhaps the. Cause of action against the collection agencies who were you know that the. Your damages may be small but the the fact that you know the it doesn't quite for allow for attorneys fees and punitive damages may get some attorneys involved what would normally do that so the basic answer circuit court hold FOR ruling their punitive damages are defined by this bill and that's the process yes okay senator rand question no I just clarification because I and the reason I ask questions about the photographs is because I've actually seen not you know to where people's mugshots have been released on different. Websites or within publications so that's that's why I asked that question if they're if they're getting I'm sorry if they're getting mugshots I they may be getting from the booking agency that the law enforcement is not arrested and booked in that may be where they're getting and they're not getting M. A. C. I. see or the courts right now I mean that's why I asked the question because I had seen that before so okay thank you the other questions committee members. Is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for this bill. Or against this bill. Seeing nobody any final questions for the sponsor. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you they maybe addresses but on page one line thirty six. Through one. You use the phrase including legitimate news gathering organization publication or aggregator. How do you define that definition because sometimes those things referenced in there don't always put out accurate information and I'm just wondering with that exclude them from the same penalties that we're going to assign against a commercial website operator. Yeah it would it would exclude them because we're not going to them for the background checks. And so. Thank you. Okay any other questions. Seeing none. Senator Elliot would you like to close for your bill I am close Mr chairman that's for a good vote and so we have a motion from Senator Elliot I assume yes you do do pass in the second serving with the second. On Senate bill four four six all those in favor of the motion. Three eighty one I'm sorry three eighty one sorry in one two four five nine Russian. Senate bill three eighty one we have a motion do pass all in favor please say aye. Same sign opposed your motion has passed Senator Elliot. And we will move on to Senate bill four four six Senator Bledsoe you're recognized. Do we have the full force of. Senator Bledsoe we have one person for informational is that your witness you want to bring her to the table with you now do you want to wait till questions this thank you okay saves time to introduce them now right. Okay. If you please introduce yourself for the record and then senator Bledsoe you can begin. Thank you. Yes having massive problems okay hi I'm Elizabeth and I'm deputy director with the division of Medical Services at DHS okay very good you're recognized Senator Bledsoe. Thank you Mr chair and members of the committee of. I have to give you a little bit history because this is just an amendment to Senate bill ninety nine which is now ACT ninety seven of which we passed several weeks ago and of the Senate with thirty five votes went to the house and passed with ninety six votes and at that time both in the house in the Senate when we explain the bill people want to know does that include Arkansas works and so at that time I had to say no and when it was in the house it was several people that have sever the representatives ask for this amendment and so here it is today it is is you can see on line one I'm sorry on the second page a line one is with a of this a. part of the law the law Arkansas law is a sudden chest chapter that includes Arkansas works as a whole. And then of on line twenty this is about the federal law and the it is also saying that it Arkansas works is included so because the name is changing it hasn't changed now but it will be Arkansas home and they will be included. Okay and that's the bill that's the bill but it's really an amendment. Any questions of the committee Senator Dismang you're recognized. Do we expect that they have any change in premium costs or anything or any increased cost to that or we did this is named change only in. A short so we don't expect any direct financial impact in but there could be an increase in premium indirectly I we just we can't anticipate that but we don't anticipate any direct financial impacts Medicaid Medicaid is excluded from this low overall. Follow granted. Medicaid's excluded but they are home program will not be excluded correct because there that yes that's correct or not but but we don't we have that analysis and no an estimated impact that that would come through that the carrier's adjusting of premiums and so no we have not been able to do that okay what what is the discussion I don't know so what is discussion and with the carriers and so far as to what they anticipate happening with premium cost I have not had that specific discussion with them I can. We we should thank our staff you might want to pull another microphone because no longer do we have three we now have for life bikes in the room so each of you can take your own microphone and we can we can be more productive in that manner so that what I was going to say is that under Arkansas works not everybody is included as you remember stepped therapy is called fail first as well and it's when a physician prices of prescription of it and use it for something like a very painful form of arthritis or something like that and they go to they take the prescription from their doctor they go to the pharmacist and the the president the prescription and he says I can't feel this your insurance company is not compatible or if they have another medicine that they want you to try first and sometimes it's not just one medicine that may be another medicine as well and the on the Senate floor at I didn't say the name and I'm not at liberty to say the name but someone we all know has a very painful form of arthritis in it has been eight years that they have tried to get the prescription that they feel would be the best one for that for them and that is the physician who gave him samples to a certain point that now there are no more samples so for that particular physician so anyway this just says you have a in stepped therapy you have an appeal process and the it doesn't it has to be a within the time period and this is just including Arkansas works in it and the few people that that have that situation. The other questions committee members. See non is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill. Seeing nobody are you closed I am okay. Senator Bledsoe has indicated that she is closed for her bill. I need a motion Senator Ingram. What is the will of the committee. Duke motion do pass do I have a second. Senator Elliot on the second. Senate bill four four six U. for the motion all in favor please indicate by saying aye. Same sign opposed your your motion has passed senator Bledsoe thank you thank you so much. It with the committee's indulgence we're gonna call Senator Dismang to the end of the table but you might want to get both of his bills together because Senator Solomon I don't believe is in the room and I think we worked out that will hear both of your to bills back to back is that still correct in your thoughts yes Mister chairman and you want to start with Senate bill five eleven I think that'll be the easiest job okay let us begin with Senate bill five eleven you're recognized that this is just a good government bills tracking at quite a bit of what I would call obsolete language plus the three people in the state of Arkansas on a five hundred dollar. The that they have to pay this information already collected by securities elsewhere so it's duplicative and and really doesn't have much of an impact at all with that. I try to take any questions I see Senator Teague with the question first I don't understand what it does and what these people understand what we're doing but these people do that that the about me not either so but I know there's only three of them I think securities can help that we need to bring someone. I think that especially licenses was so it to but yeah please identify yourself and you may proceed with the question anti can't hear any an attorney with the Arkansas securities department these are entities who are selling CD's for foreign savings and loan so a savings and loan located in Memphis. They have to have the specially licensed under our savings loan act to sell to an Arkansas consumer. And there's only three companies that are doing this now in Arkansas. N. as senators DISMANG did point out. It really only collecting information from them every year that were already getting there are at an securities filings because their own security broker dealers said it's the promotion that we don't necessarily need. You follow until why do the bomb out of state what I mean it is better interest rates better eighty eight I talked with one of the the company's about this for awhile they weren't sure why these particular people are buying it it's not many at from the Committee I talk with the you know they said a few clients that. Had a relationship with the foreign savings and loan and wanted CD's from them said they weren't even sure why they were being purchased and and when we say four and we're talking about out of state not a country that is correct okay thank you Mr chairman. Other questions committee members. I have a question that might come. And that's kind of where I was on the bill to we're trying to deal with the situation that must be a problem somewhere and the problem being. Are are we trying to allow whenever we seek owed being scratched through it usually solving a problem but I couldn't like Senator ninety get to the base of the problem I think it's something that is rolled around kind of unchecked for a number of years I'm not sure what this is all put in play it's not highly utilizes information started being collected they do other business that requires them to disclose the security department in in a way this is just to the state making extra fifteen hundred dollars that it is in this there need if you're just gonna boil it down and so striking this out doesn't take away any enforcement they have for review they have for awareness that someone exist it just is striking language that applies so very few people it doesn't seem like it should be necessary code. That's correct if I can follow up on that it's not anything that we use our risk profiling when we examine these companies that we still will have the ability to look at that one around examination it's basically them filling out the exact same application every year and given us five hundred dollars because it's you know C. C. arty yeah at four Max form why it is not any new information they're not even disclosing to is how many cities they sold at their born savings loan during that you're just re clarifying where that we can find information on them okay. Committee members are there anybody in the office and any other questions. Anybody in the audience for or against this bill that would like to speak. Seeing none no more questions. Senate is buying would you like to close for your bill in closed session do pass motion do pass that was second with Senator Ingram with regard to Senate bill five eleven you've heard the motion all in favor say aye. Same sign opposed. Your bill has passed thank you Mr chairman let us then. We're going to jump over four seventy five and go to Senate bill four seventy and there's I believe I have a hand you already have it in your bags your. Members if there's several handouts that are gonna be in from you in ways in a way that's just to save time you can read it come on your own Walmart home depot and then toy we have companies have also submitted a letter just kind of with things and problems they see in and hopefully how this helps lead to a solution so you have those in front of you think we also have someone signed to our signed up to speak for the bill and so we'll get to that two people but with that I do want to just. If you don't mind you're moving you're recognized by your bill members I don't wanna complicate what we have right here this is a fairly simple bill in what it does it requires six basic pieces of information that every business already have so that's the name to be collected by a marketplace facilitator of a third a third party seller the name address email phone number tax ID and bank account information it requires the facilitator to verify that information in addition it requires that the name address email and phone number be part of a clickable link if you're going through the the facilitators website again and there's even provisions in the bill we can get into the weeds much you'd like to have those individual seller ever mindful of that we make sure that we're not listing someone's home address or even if they have a warehouse on their private residence we don't list that in it so then it boils it down to if it's not a business but a personal residence just the state and country that the business or the individuals located in and so you know what is this bill needed and what is going to competition you know for me when I look at it it provides some consumer protections and what I mean by that is I think we all have a right to know or should know where who were doing business with me about buying a product from someone in Montana California Arkansas or China or Indonesia I mean I think you should have the bill is the ability to know that this is going to require disclosure of where that sellers located at second I think it's a fairness issue for a small business owners and what I mean by that is you know they're competing in the New World that involves these market places and as third party sellers you know they're competing against companies that are selling stolen goods they're selling goods are counterfeit and I think that puts them at a disadvantage when they're trying to to run a. A legitimate business selling legitimate products to people here at home and then third I think it provides an additional tool for enforcement requiring all this information to be collected will help with various issues that are Attorney General looks into that would include price gouging which I think we all have experience at least three family members of price gouging through the pandemic in the hoarding and that sort of thing that was going on but then also as if someone has a patent and it's being infringed upon it allows the Attorney General had to step up in locating that person getting that **** down in making those individuals hole with that that's just a very quick summary the bill I will say this this is being considered in other states in some ways for me was personal you mean is we went to the pandemic you would to Walmart or wherever it was in you can find Clark's wipes or toilet paper or paper towels in the sort of things and so then you turned online and and third party vendors had those items for sale online at exorbitant prices will you know in excess of what what is allowed by state law the reality is what I found out was that there was really no way for the Attorney General to trace back those third those permitted third party sellers this would again give them the ability to do just that with that members I'll be happy to take any questions. Committee members to have a question I have one but I'm let members go for Senator Ingram you're recognized for a question what would be a typical penalty under the deceptive trade act that the attorney general's got for somebody found in violation. Well that is a brilliant question that I should probably have the answer to and I'm going before the president on the floor if this committee allows it allow find those out for you. A well I guess my question is I had to. But along that same lines it's got to be considered the same offenses non online at some level somebody doing deceptive trade things audience that should probably be the answer the deceptive trade whether it's online market or what to Senator Ingram to question my second question that I must do we have any other questions of committee members. My question is the onus is on the people doing the website to document the said information requested six things I believe you said that all needs to be on them to put out there in the absence of them out there a complaint could be filed with the Attorney General to try and find them because I'm not sure how to your point they're going to find and if they don't do it Seoul are they the oversight in this I guess is the in in so we we talk to somebody I mean I've had some conversations been I know one of the points made was well this is a lot of red tape is going to prevent mom and pop up for may be able to set up his third party sellers in my mind this is all basic information that these marketplaces still daters have to have to be able to transact with these entities no matter how big or how small they are but as far as how this information and would be obtained from the AG or elsewhere first I think it allows the AG did not have to go through the process is obtaining the information from the facilitator now it you want to be available you want to make sure it's happening but if that name address email or phone number something that they can go find out for themselves make phone calls it It again I think that it helps speed up the process and provides an additional tool that doesn't otherwise exist well maybe maybe I allowed Brady too much instead of going straight to the question somebody's doing scrupulous. Activities they're probably not listing the six items so we still have that issue the AG can't find them but now the AG has something they can hang their hat as they perceive the is that the this would be required for that information be kept which again I think every facilitator will tell you something that they're already doing they just don't want to be told that they have to do it again this is very minimal in nature you can't conduct business without these things and it is also mindful of that information being disclosed public that has to do with the personal residence and one thing I should have said is you know increase that definition of You know who the who who is not exempted in that two hundred transactions and five thousand dollars a year to meet both of those thresholds qualified to to enforce that information. Senator Teague you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman you know they're all kinds of issues with the state lives and that we have the authority to require this of facilitators that are out of state transaction in Arkansas yes Sir I believe that we would be I mean we already requirement it really wouldn't be that much different than our sales tax issues that we've had that are not consistent from state to state soon those people don't pay sales tax either if this will help assist with that if the if a what would like to pursue some of our out of state sellers that are collecting but not remitting sales tax. Thank you Mr chairman. But okay do you have questions okay Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question. To the point that you just mentioned. Seems like I remember every time I've asked DFA about how many dollars were collected in taxes they can ever penned down the number. For online sales let's that's correct so how. How do we anticipate that this is going to identify never seem like I saw thirty million somewhere maybe I was looking another piece of legislation against them this wouldn't distance specifically speak to the tax collection or anything like that in this particular bill. But it would help. It would be another tool to box identify who they are right yes Sir. I wish you maybe consider put something on here that requires DFA to separate out what the dollar amount is because if we can't find it you know that I mean if they can't seem to find what it is maybe this be a good way at least get a snapshot picture just offer that up as a suggestion I think we've been role in that around for about ten years now trying to figure out how to force them to break that out for you thank you to say yeah okay thank you Sir. Centerman you have a question you're recognized so and this is just this is also consistent with what's on the secretary of state's website like when you have a franchise tax they have to if you search for business in good standing or whatever it may be you're gonna see the same basic information that's out there again you know what's made available to the public of course your tax ID number your bank could you know information is not made available to the public but it just it for this purpose is verified by the facilitator mark place the sole trader right okay. Any other questions from committee members there anybody in the audience and we had several people had handouts but does anybody in the audience want to speak for this bill. Okay we have to you want to invite them up yeah. I don't care who goes first but feel free to take turns. Mr good if you would identify yourself and for the record and then you may proceed. Yes Sir Mr Sher good afternoon my name is Steve good on the executive director for the Arkansas grocers and retail merchants association or county today and ask that the this committee in the Senate would to consider this bill online marketplace transparency that SP four seventy would give us basically boils down to about four points it's a consumer protection issued online marketplaces have been extremely instrumental during COVID nineteen processes that this COVID nineteen crosses in helping consumers continue to receive essential goods while sheltering in place unfortunately because of that there been some items that were sold that were counterfeit or expired or exploding batteries or goods stolen from local businesses and this online marketplace protection would identify the sellers of all of those to allow a law enforcement and others it needed to go back on them to get the individual's of soul this I can give you one quick story about an online fraud deal that was not involving consumer protection other than a loss of money I had a family member that bought a pair of uggs it was not available during the Christmas season anywhere except that this one online place and the others did not ship will on a normal time frame there this particular brand of of uggs boots and most of the ladies in her will know who what I'm talking about or about a hundred ninety nine dollars this particular family member got a great buy on these uggs that were ninety nine dollars and was very proud of our efforts in securing such a great deal however in February when these uggs rolled in they were spelled correctly UGS but that was about the only thing that was proper on that particular fare but it's there was really no recourse for that family member to go back and and collect you know the proper money or the pair of of boots this also is a consumer products are. Protection as well seventy one point six percent of the third party sellers on Amazon's marketplace come from non United States company selling direct to American consumers if you use Google and you go back and you Google the story Arkansas counterfeit toys you'll see in twenty seventeen one of the most popular toys in that Christmas season was a toy call fingerlings I think it's channel eleven has a story for a grandmother again wanting to make sure that her grand child got the proper Christmas present went out and bought from an online company and when this particular toy came in it was immediately apparent that this was a counterfeit choice Counterfeit toys pose a huge problems because counterfeit toys don't go through the same stringent testing that those that are a legitimate toy makers put out and you'll see some of that information and the choice association of America's handout that I gave you over two thousand listings for toys that were on a a previous market place listing lack the proper warnings and Health wrist to children so again it's a consumer protection it's also product protection in that small legitimate businesses cannot be counterfeited I have an anecdotal story of a a board game maker who again because of covid his business was impacted he's not in on the major on lines on the you know with the walmarts the Amazons the targets the major he has to sell at a minor market places but he started noticing that his board game that he made was being marketed by someone else and it was an ultimately a counterfeit board game and so again it hurts small businesses are trying to do things right and and that with that story I will lead you that small businesses who are legitimately trying to do things correctly will be sales tax permit ours to Senator hammers point. Small business owners our our skews me online sellers that are not trying to do things right the state will ultimately lose those online sales tax dollars. I'll leave you with this organized crime is also becoming involved in online marketplace items I will tell you that it's not something that I could partake of and you'll understand why I want to say but one of the biggest things are stolen out of retail stores right now as a product call rogaine and again you'll you'll understand that I don't use that but that shows up on online market place yes ma'am I got you. Related is going to admit to it all of that I don't use it yes Sir but you know it yet that harms legitimate businesses baby formula is another one that the groups of organized crime will come in and wipe out retail locations of all their baby formula and you know some baby formula cans are twenty thirty dollars for a can of power and so again you'll see those items then show up on online marketplaces with no way to track who that third party seller was thank this bill makes sense for consumer protection consumer product safety small business protection and sales tax collection to Senator hammers point. You're recognized for questions Senator Irvin. So when you say organized crime so they're coming in and they're removing all of the products to create the demands well I mean they've come in and they'll still and then go online and cellum so they'll still in from the legitimate businesses and then try and create their own online market place that product yes man or will reclaim times the same some yes yes but some of the okay if I can I live rate to that so you know what we had a problem with awarding obviously any thought at the time that you were fighting or competing findings of the right word but maybe some did but no you're competing with your other help your customers on buying these products will come to find out that's not necessarily what was happening in a lot of cases those items were being bought up for resale on a third party in a as a you know for third party seller in it Mike said interview this originated for me it you know thinking about how do we do something about hoarding and price gouging what we just went through and then come to find out there was some you know federal legislation is being worked on in the in form act it was adjusted some here Taylor so from what Arkansas on this but you have. Mr good or have you completed your test yes Sir Mr are there any other questions for Mr good. Thank you for all my time today I appreciate before I go to one more speak for it is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak against the bill. Seeing none speak for the bill. Struensee please identify yourself at the end of the day. Thank you Mr remembers the committee Michael Lindsay director public affairs and government relations for Walmart so I'm very pleased to be here speaking in support Senate bill four seventy we see this important piece of legislation that will increase transparency and accountability in online marketplaces and it sorely needed to address the concerns the one counterfeit goods here in the states to protect to protect consumers US department homeland security's estimated that counterfeit and pirated goods not represent more than five hundred billion dollars in global trade in US alone there are thirty three thousand incidents of the border patrol catching attempts to bring and stolen or counterfeit goods into the United States. Some of these things are just falsely labeled some of them are Cooper substandard but none of the meet the US regulations and rules but the brick and mortar retailer retailer and an online retailer we have one of the largest online third party marketplaces on the web today we believe that this bill the proof that requires seller disclosure verification requirements are the best practices that all market places should follow your needed to empower consumers and law enforcement officials to help reduce fraudulent sales still does not harm the law abiding small sellers but rather makes it harder for bad actors to compete with us lawful so sellers who deceive and defraud their customers here in Arkansas federal state laws are already in place and forced the same laws against us Berkom order retailers is we're not asking for anything different for online retailers and I'm proud to work for Walmart here in our home state of Arkansas we have fifty thousand associates the call Arkansas home of a hundred thirty stores we have eleven distribution for filament centers and so but we releasing impact of organized retail crime here in the in our home state I'll give you just a few examples with arguments in there okay which is a really interesting sort of hot hot. Good example at all but that's. Well maybe. A little bit more your speed or more the study the committee high electronics phones vacuum cleaners the Dyson vacuum cleaners or really targeted what's also kind of an unusual aspect that we see a lot of organized retail theft is flea and tick products that are rather expensive when the coming off the shelf but they can be resold that they're easy to talk to steal to hide and we find a lot of instances of those being resolved on lines in Arkansas last year we had a hundred forty I'm separate instances to where we see in organized retail team still from Walmart here in the state hundred fifty so it's not a small problem it's a massive problem here. And what I just use one example on open up for any questions is that one specific example there was a organized retail criminal team that it thought Walmart in five states Arkansas being one of them is sold over two hundred fifty thousand dollars of phones apple electronics using proper some tools again the cases that multiple people working this these events to to still this merchandise when online sold online thankfully we're able to when those phones are activated we're able to then go back in track and see whatever so they're sold all across the country from a stolen from our stores here in Arkansas so all across the country we're able to thankfully prosecute those but if a seller opens up with the opens up an online shop sells all this material they can vanish and be gone with just a few clicks of a mouse without this information the US is third party marketplaces need to collect and verify so we think it's it's something easy that marketplaces can do but also the bricks and mortar retailers and we think it's something that's really important for customers and and for the state to be able to to provide this so we are very much in support of this bill okay. Thank you for your testimony we have questions Senator Irvin you're recognized so if somebody steals like flea and tick medicine right from Walmart is there any ability for you to try and then it shows up on an online market place is there any ability for you to track to see if that's your product or not a person for that specific product we can't determine if that is from our our stores are not what we can do is we can it will will notice if for whatever reason we've seen a run on flea and tick products being stolen in our stores in Arkansas we we were pretty sophisticated and then searching market places for what what's all the sudden popping up on market place is being for sale this if it's flea and tick powder if it's some sort of product that we're seeing this bike and we can then search the market places to see if we're starting to see also an upset upsurge in availability of that product in these other location selected gives the first hint of maybe that's where it's going I thank okay. Thank you. Any other questions Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question thank you really kind of hesitated Davis is just because I don't sound dumb but. You know you've got you got shrinkage controlled sure divisions the bar codes that are on there are they useful at all as far as tracking what leaves the store that doesn't stand through the check out stand no we don't have that. As far as I'm aware and I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn for asset protection for our security folks but as far as I'm aware there's no way that we can track if they can get it passed our OB observable view and get out the door there's no way for us to track electronically okay our thanks. I still have the question that we're putting together and it may be for Saturday's main or for you but I kind of would like your opinion representing Walmart at the end of the table. We're asking people. To document who they are when they're in an online marketplace they've already proved their unscrupulous I think they're still going to be out there and we're setting up a system that allows. Probably an Avenue for Attorney General to feel better about pursuing them. Do you in the industry have any idea. What would be even a better way for them to find those folks I didn't make one cabbie ought to that question I attended a seminar on cyber security and it took an interesting turn in that they talked about the prescription medicine business that is fraudulent. And how many of those there are people who set up and tyre pharmaceutical operations the match the marks in the others but there fraudulent and the code on the the bill or it might say mark as a nam is an announcmenet it's got rounded corners or whatever so my question is I think we as a state and as the Attorney General probably need all the guidance we can get from the elite who tracked people who. Do fraud against their business do you have any comments and advice now they were doing that in this bill this bill sets that up but I think the next step is taxes collection and how do we help our Attorney General find them and educate the market place that they don't have this and insert corner. You don't use this buyer beware do you have any comment to that the only comment that I would add is that died under percent agreed and appreciate your comments I do know that the company offices of a large company we have we do have a lot of expertise in trying to manage and and push back against this sort of activity I'm not that person unfortunately but I would like to connect you with them and have those discussions in the future because I know that we have a lot of ideas and thoughts based on years of experience in trying to combat the Senator Dismang would you like to comment yeah and I do think it's part of education so that if this bill does pass to know what you're looking for I mean for me personally I'm going to go on line to you know market place facilitator I'm I'm looking for is specific information before I buy it from you know I want to make sure it's not if it's a third. Number one I'd rather not buy from an independent third party seller because I think there is risk that goes along with that that I'd rather not bear but you know this bill does require some bold lettering in the links and that sort of thing that if we educate the consumer you know look for this link click on this link and this is going again tell you worsen these people originate in the same way I mean I want to buy you know from my neighbors mean if the if I have the choice to buy products for five dollars or four dollars in ones coming from China and one is coming from Arkansas I guess what I'm gonna spend the extra dollar this helps me be an educated consumer I've you know get to support you know fellow Americans really but again I think it yes there can be an education piece that goes along with this on the buyer beware essentially you pass this bill senator is mine you probably have three to four other bills that are going to require all of any other questions for the witness. C. nine thank you for your testimony Mr Lindsay. Do you have any questions five questions for the sponsor. Seeing none are you close for your bill close. And motion do pass from senator Irvin do I have a second Senator Ingram with the second. Senate bill four seventy a motion to pass do pass as in front of the committee police say aye. Same sign opposed. Your bill has passed. Okay we're gonna move into one last bill we've had a very good day with getting through the bills that were in front of us Senator Solomon are you ready to present if you would present at the end of the table committee members I believe you have a hand down. and reception over the amendment but there is a handout correct. That your his hand out is in your packet. And you are about to receive an amendment that goes with this bill. And we'll get all that done first so we're not interrupting you Senator Solomon so bear with the second. Whatever yeah. Okay as everybody found the hand out. And Senator Solomon I know we've got some people to speak on your bill but I assume you want to present your bill before we have them come. Thank you okay let's talk to the amendment first please present your amendment and its you're recognized to present the amendment you know we are met first of all you all this started about eight or two five ten months ago when I was contacted by local builder who had a close to ten million dollar project that we couldn't ever quite qualify for when I start digging into this and I ended up. very few meetings with the ad saw people finally they came to meet with me on Thursday of last week. Maybe two weeks ago I think on the fourth we met. and they had some questions about the the the board because this bill does two things one it reconstituted the board and to re structure the money. so this what you see before you are there comments that they wanted to added to the bill that primarily resulted and how we reconstitute the board. Shall be glad to let you look through that but these are their comments that I agreed with. Bobby glad to answer any questions about it but again it was a result of us working together and their attorney to clarify those board appointments and positions. Committee members I'm gonna let you have a minute to review that amendment it is two pages so we don't want to hurt anybody here I apologize I should have tried to have it Put the bill for god hereby really want to try to get this bill before the committee in if there is a need to go back and straighten things out I'll be glad to but I think there was one ad for board. Left the meeting they were okay with all these changes. We just realize one committee member didn't have the amendment yes so to be fair is leading have amendment with that as well. Are there any questions wall Senator Hickey is reviewing the amendment from other committee members. Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question. Thank you Senator Solomon for bringing the bill arm on the office is on the amendment looking at that last section five. Ford says that we use that terminology substantially equal did did don't have a discussion about what what the folks met sure buy something here when we look at the bill it divides right now the the board distribute some money as they choose so they can send a hundred percent or ten percent to wherever they want to send that back if you look at the the one says our law the handout that you have to take on the second page at the bottom table B. you'll see that Congressional District one gets almost ten and a half percent of the money this over a three year period by the way of the tax credit. Congressional district it's twenty seven percent. District three kids forty five percent. In district four gets fifteen percent so the board makes that determination what the bill does it say that they will distribute that money first by congressional district in an equitable manner. So it's impossible to go dollar for dollar or penny for penny you just yeah that's never going to happen so that language is what allows a little bit of discrepancy if there is a little bit of variance and how those that supported invested language at the tourney came up with to make sure that you know somebody gets fifty cents less than somebody else we don't end up in court fighting over the ward over a small amount of money I'm just curious because I want to I was wondering if the potential equal is That there is something there about not having used the word out equitably a substantial equal kind of have a a legal connotation to it somehow that. The board that the attorneys came up with and if we need to amend it to to be more are clear I don't have a problem with that again the attempt is to make sure the money is distributed by congressional district in an equitable manner equitable the first time and the attorney didn't think that was the best word. Yeah I can kind of see that and in a way because. If this. Equitable that that means when I look at this chart for example it is obviously and we're just going by a congressional districts very on equal. But if it were substantially equal then we would have that wiggle room to to maybe not have everybody exactly right but somebody might be a little bit more equal than somebody else Senate again if the if the committee decides of a better word I'm in that's an easy change I'm very willing to make that I don't know if there is I'm just I'm just trying to work my way through it sure because if something is equitable. To me it would mean or now let's take a look back at what we did last two years and how and saw you somehow on equal it has been a court equitable to me would need you to go okay now we need to fix this on this year because we've obviously done way too much and one direction so I don't I'm just fumbling in putting that through my head that may come up as we discussed the bill yeah yeah because that's that's a part of what we'll be talking about in the bill follows okay I appreciate you Sir Senator Hickey are you ready to. Okay anybody else the more time with the amendment. I know that's not really the right thing to do. I have Senator Ingram with a motion to adopt the amendment do I have a second Senator Elliot with this act and all in favor of adopting Amendment I guess we don't have a number yet to Senate bill four seventy five police say aye same side opposed your amendment has been adopted let us move on then Senator Solomon you're recognized to present Senate bill four seventy five as amended thank you Mr chair and I'll try to be quick on this and give you a chance to back questions but what it does it distributes the money in an equitable manner I know you like that word senator and equitable manner between the four congressional districts to reconstitute its the apso Board to me there from real performance issues there yeah I'm I was disappointed with my I have a board member I called them up and ask them why Northeast Arkansas District Court was only getting ten percent of the money that's a problem for me and I'd like to have somebody that would represent my board better my district might affect I want to hire the got people over in district four three three this also allows for equal represent three four I'm sorry. You or your support to. So by the way folks when we do reconstituted board if somebody wants to re appoint the board member that's there this bill doesn't prevent that so although it reconstituted the board it does allow our doesn't prohibit board members that are there from being reappointed the last thing it does is allows for equal representation in the appointments between the governor's office the Senate and the house here we've talked frequently about how the legislative branch has continually our power is diminished and one of the places we have passed that power to is boards and commissions that some of them to become more powerful than the legislature and I think this bill here represents that when this money is being distributed like this we don't know we don't find out we don't have direct supervision over although we do approve it we kind of lose track of that so this would allow those appointments to be made in by each of the three branches what's the problem you know I met ten months ago with the board and talked about and said folks I do not want to write legislation I want you to come up with this within the board you can change by your rules I set out on our listen to a couple board meetings and one of the board members said and I pretty much quote this is not political we don't want you guys get involved pass the word along to them that everyone of them was a political appointment and these are tax dollars invokes it is political and it's about us being in control of this hi ask for the data I've got three folders the stick a hundred and sixty pages worth of data because apple has multiple programs this is just three of them I chose these three because they were the most in my opinion gregis been the easiest to go to I do. Didn't want to run legislation where I was wrong or made an error and the costs and there or in lots of ways or if I'm going to mess up I decided on three things. I met with secretary Preston because this does fall under the secretary's purview he we met and talked in the knowledge that the ad for program particularly this low income housing project does have some problems I think that's pretty close to the exact words that he used to ask me to send the bill to him I'm not a money bill but this bill to him and that he would they would review it I did send that to him he never got back with me it finally heard to another person that I was disappointed he called me up and said I'm sorry you're disappointed what you talked to Mr Scroggins or to former senator David Sanders who runs another program yeah I did call this is Mr Sanders program is not in here but it's. May come if the board if the committee thinks it's worthwhile I have senator Sanders for the outcomes of the program that he runs he said they don't keep on hustling tell me who you meet with the several we don't track we meet with I said we'll send me your P. and L. statement your profit loss statement so I can see where your money's going he sent me to two numbers this how much money we get this how much money we spend I told Mr Preston that Mr Preston said I'm sorry. What we can do better but I never heard back still don't have any outcomes for but that's the same thing I'm saying all of these programs four I did meet with Mr Scroggins who is the executive director and was told to meet with them again I didn't know why I want to meet with them again because I still didn't have any outcomes other than the numbers that I have for all these programs and the distribution of money that you have in your report it's pretty much the same this is this covers the nine percent tax credit there's a four percent tax credit and there's also a low interest loan so those are the three programs this bill deals with. Again folks I've been working on this for ten months I think it's time that we change this the legislature regain some control one of the things in the bill that allows for if we distribute that money by congressional district and some district doesn't apply that money immediately rolls back into the pool for the districts we don't wanna leave money on the table even for one year. If the few comments and I'll close. You know what I'm. Ask the the. I have four board and Mr Scroggins it they could push that date back for this current award so that my people had a chance to apply fix is about twenty million dollars in projects to my David my district but we haven't qualified for and it's a re wrote the the application we still would have qualified for I ask you push the date back and when I met with Mr Scroggins he said I'm sorry today is the last day for that to happen to this continually gets pushed back this about twenty million dollars in my district that we could use to create a what the rollover is three times that that's a lot of money in some of our rural areas it's really important to have that that happened so I'm disappointed with the with the response of the board I think it needs to come back under the purview of the legislature I think we need to distribute that money in an equitable or what's the other word I'm I'm. Yeah we distributed better I'll be glad to answer any questions. Questions from the committee I've got a question but all the further members but I got one. Senator Solomon. I. You and I visited old on this bill a couple different times and you had mentioned and we agreed there's two major facets to this bill there's the committee board make up and there's the spending issue you also voiced the term if there was problems with certain things that you would be willing to entertain getting it right as you said in both areas if we need to do it as separate several of my question for you is this board has predominately been low housing and there was used to be on page three line item five I believe it is line item thirteen. Well let me find my thing again I had a marked down it's worth says at least one board member it's what got scratched out at least one board member has to be a professional in the low income housing and as I look at the new appointment makeup of the board. I don't see that same requirement and I have a fear that the border bad for the is not going to have expertise in low income housing and I know some people might consider that a blessing in disguise or what have you I personally don't I think that's a tough market place to play in and I'd like to have somebody who knows that market place probably glad to add that I I think so you may want to visit on a hold up your bill but I think that's as you and I talked I went back and re read that bill again and I noticed that it comes out with the the exiled and the appointments don't appear to work at demand that requirement in the new appointments. It is not in the amendment either I'll be glad to make that I would I don't I hate to disagree with the chair no that's not even though they have these people in there now look what they're doing yeah well as you and I jokingly said district three we love what they're doing but I get the point of the bill I'm really disappointed in the way my district is come out of this and that this is the expertise that they have but again I've Mr I'll be glad to add that but I think that's the only expertise that I would need I mean the others are going to be political appointments as you to find and I'm okay with that but I think it's some level someone should be appointing somebody that knows the low income housing market because that's where most of these tax credits Richard I think there's some more that have someone from elderly an elderly appointment that's not in the new bill to would you like to see that added we have all people on there also like I mean I would I would defer to the experts what do they need that board make up to focus because these are contractual the appointments they end up dealing with our contractual. Situations and you do understand contracts in those industries where that is the elderly care or the low income housing so I would defer to someone else but I think getting a board of appointed people that someone may know somebody doesn't necessarily put the right expertise on that committee Senator Elliot you have a question. Yes it's a services of we have a we're gonna have a twelve member board here and if we're going to a point where we're going to specify one of them in the local I. low housing low housing expertise. Generally what is something that might not be all that popular and everybody else would like to do something else It I think it would be a good idea for to be more than one voice. Because if we and I don't know that it makes sense to make it three that's just to move to committee so maybe One of the ones that if we did it by the president pro tem and the Speaker. We can get to we said one of which must have expertise you know in a low income housing sure and you know the bill does not preclude. Making those appointments you know I I I know I tend to want to trust the appoint tors and let them do that but if you want to see that our okay well my experience has not been point towards if you want something specific like that but is not. So that is one of the table with you after this. Language that would be fine I don't want to committee just you know if the committee has talked about that as well I want to be fair about it not make a suggestion somewhere else that's why making it out loud right here and now that I but I I have experienced so many times if you don't have a second or somebody else to help you talk it through you're just talking to the wind okay I'm sure okay Senator Hammer you have a question you're recognized. What. Thank you share what you know in in your comments you talked about the representative for. Your area the way I'm reading the bill unless a mission it is this doesn't. Say anything about the appointees have and be from congressional districts are we just going to let it be picked from wherever or is is that addressed anywhere in here I thought I thought we did that but. Is it in the manner. Can somebody help him I'm on the. I take that back I'm not set up in the very first two pages are at. I see it mentioned I mean I see the structure on page two but it doesn't say unless I miss that's what want help with is I don't. See where it says anything about coming from the respective. Yeah. One. Okay got it they have to live in the congressional district. How do you. Photo credit. How do how do you see that to. With the number of appointees how do you see in that beach being distributed across the districts with three different entities being able to pick and choose so they'll get one from. Each one will have a chance to get one from each district is that where you're going with it. Yes. Okay all right thank you. Other questions committee. I have a comment that you might want to also consider because I think you agreed and and the elderly statement is it is yours to decide or the experts but I would also like Page three line ten. Really nine and ten that doesn't show up in the bill anymore since you struck today and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing in your mind as sponsor but I have a feeling that the existing board and its. Perceived adequacy that you're stating. We as senators have currently the right to confirm them and and I think in the new bill as amended we don't have that right anymore so you may want to consider that if you're going to add another amendment to the bill you see what I'm talking about under Indian I can't find anywhere else that you still have Senator Tucker my back I haven't thought of that's why I came to the Committee I know you all have good insights into this I think it's a. And taking the thinking was that the Senate gets to a point three are for I guess it is then House gets to a point for that I agree there needs to be some oversight there by the falls on a not for change of justice okay. Anything else from committee members. Senator Solomon do you want to pull this back call this and get it amended and bring it back to us Thursday we have room on our calendar for Thursday. Yes I would be interested I see that that four people are here if they have some comments that we might also need to change I think it didn't committee members of mine here at our class reunion would be appropriate since witnesses are here so perhaps we we go ahead and proceed through that is the if are you are we done first of all as follow the process here senator they do have another question again this is just for the committee I guess I was trying to remember if when we have appointments that are broken into those three. Three as we have here I would normally had to affirm those when it's done that way I just I know we do if there when the governor points but I don't remember if we that we have on it the governor the progenitor. Remember those the former bill is you can we confirm all the appointments but they work by the government what yes Sir by the governor that's been staying I know German requested by the governor we do but now we are changing and maybe just something to check into how we traditionally affirm those when it's one well if the president pro tem appoint somebody. That that may be why that was taken out Senator L. Eads point but it really strikes me that I'm not sure I want to give up appointing someone from my district who's going to serve in that capacity and low income housing okay structure I'm sorry I just said just which check on the ask if anyone has any questions over the distribution of the error by okay with just distributing that money by congressional district. Okay thank you thank you Committee will pull back and look for each day here and while you're at the table we can at least hear testimony from the folks that showed up at our meeting so do we have anybody in the audience wants to speak for this bill. Anybody against this bill please proceed forward identify yourself for the record. I don't see. Mr Scroggins. Brine's guardians on president Arkansas development finance authority for could I'd like Matt Barker by the vice president general counsel to be able to speak as well. You're recognized our of our reservation on the bill is is are we achieving the goal with using the congressional districts to achieve the goal is there meaning that you know you think of of. district for its Southeast Arkansas which by the way man are both from but you think of in Southeast Arkansas but it course it goes all one along the southern part of the state and all the way up into fable right east of a fable Springdale Rogers and then. And also I guess the first congressional district I think. If you think of that is is in northeast Arkansas and it goes all the way over into into Mountain Home so when you consider those congressional districts and you try to match that up with what we consider to be a housing need it's hard to it to me it's hard to align those and it is probably not the best way to do it I understand the concern that you have about with with the last three years but I'd also like to point out if you don't have to go too far in the distant future I mean distant past to realize that it was essentially reversed and there's this this where those tax credits go who are somewhat cyclical meaning that there's there's needs that are there that are identified with the studies and and then as those qualified allocation plans try to address those needs then the developers who are looking at a look at that qualified allocation plan to make their plans accordingly so it is my point being is that. Yes if you look at the at the window of the last three years what we provided the information to Senator Solomon and I wouldn't dispute at all I'm just saying if you take a longer view of that it's not quite as is is disproportionate is it seems although I think he probably district for probably still is on the short side of it if you look at it strictly as a. As a pro Ratta kind of distribution that was the that was the main thing I think we did visit was Senator Solomon and agree that the amendments that we made or a good clarifications I would like to point out that I think the the inmate may not handle it all but affordable housing was added into Page two line thirty five on the amendment I think we saw that yesterday or this morning that when you're talking about the the board members affordable housing was there but we can clearly we can try to help and clarify that because we agree that that the the the the expertise of the industry knowledge or the history or experience of someone on the board that has to knows about affordable housing in those requirements because those are all subject to federal law and there is pretty complex so having someone that understands those is pretty important we agree with that. with that I'd like Matt to come up and and see if he would have any other additional comments that I might ask but we have several people in the queue to ask questions okay it's probably on your testimony Mister Scott okay so I don't want to confuse the matter referred if possible so Senator Hammer I recognize you first for questions Senator Teague you're next thank you is there a correlation requirement by the federal government as far as how the money is distributed based on census numbers. I don't think there is I think the federal government pretty much tells the stage you develop this qualified allocation plan and and it here to that plan but they pretty much leave it up to the to states to decide how to distribute to the the tax credits and am able before we we I think man we might have an answer that but I need you to identify yourself for the record to help answer that question first. Thank you my name's Matt Barker I'm general counsel to Absalom and also vice president charge of multi family housing to low income members a housing tax credit areas my one of my primary responsibilities federal law does require the stage to take location project location into account in allocating the credits no clarification what they mean by that so it's unclear whether the man of geographic equitable distribution around the state whether it means you should locate the projects near a library or a grocery store we we take those all those things into account but federal law does require consideration location but it's it's unclear what they mean by that. Follow Mr follow granted thank you So I'm looking at the handout on page two. It gives the population by district which provide a hundred ten thousand point spread between the lowest and the highest district. And yet the distribution of funds based on the table be on two and three shows up a pretty good disparity. Are there. Are you saying that. The project locations are what is driving the numbers or is it a population that there's such a disparity in the in the distribution of funds to the nine percent well all the tax credits or allocated of according to of the applications that come to us we publish a qualified allocation plan has were required to do under federal law the talks about what sort of features and so on we look for in in giving awards of allocations of the credits and then private developers decide where they want to put the projects. there's no requirement. I don't know how we would I don't know how we could required they did that a developer propose a project in a particular Groeschel district certainly by saying we we were going to allocate credits across the districts we would encourage applications from from various areas but the awards are largely driven by what applications come in to us and so if. If. and then the we score the applications by Published criteria and highest scoring applications are awarded the credits so if you don't have a private investor interested in going anywhere the district's. You don't you don't have a word parked the money that's correct okay thank you. Senator Teague you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman we service first I live in Nashville which is Southwest Arkansas is still in district four not just south East Arkansas is in district four but and I can't believe there's not a need always in district four for projects so The representative senator Farkas Sullivan I would state that you might put a provision in there that request the board go out and seek projects when they don't have one that's worthy of the because I I think that makes sense from a respond to the trying to answer the question ten months to do that and I ask that very question of the board and Mr Preston Secretary Preston secretary Preston one time said they didn't have time to do that also there can be a anywhere or to to a ten thousand dollar cost of filling out those applications are very complex so why would one spend that much money to fill out an application when you never receive the money so when secretary press and and the gentleman just now said some people don't apply one can see why they wouldn't apply if there's a big costs that you incur one would see why you wouldn't apply if you're not gonna get the money and I when I brought that to secretary precedence it why aren't you doing outreach and I have Senator Sanders that party doing out region going to minority communities going to other communities teaching them and saying they have that money and the answer the only answer I got was that they didn't have time but they didn't have the people to do that so I volunteered to do that in about fifteen minutes had three bankers about four five builders and a couple mayors ready to sit down and hear that. So so I think we could put it in the law and helpful make that decision anyway I appreciate I wouldn't you agree Sir yeah thank you Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair this kind of follows along with us Senator Solomon comment because I've dealt with a lot of people who wanted to apply or did applied it was almost like or Darwinian endeavor this is a survival of the fittest whoever has the money to make the application whoever maybe was even a part of the new about what the the qualifications would be in the application and that's one thing I've heard a great deal of discussion about and disclosure that the qualifications are written in such a way that you almost I'm not going to get some of the people apply that we would want to see apply and if you could write the qualifications and include folks who are from a diverse background and putting together those qualifications. But generally that's not what's what happens you write the qualifications and then here it is everybody without having had a diversity of voices is that something you can fix. I think definitely one of the things we try to do is to get that input from the interested parties that are in this and and we try to record those comments and questions and and provide those to the board in their deliberations each year wondered Fortner developing the qualified allocation plan for the following year and then when we. Then when we see what when when people come to you and say I can't even get past these qualifications it these are either too stringent or maybe there's some of the way this could have been done and what they're telling me they come back it's the same thing year after year after year so somewhere and I'm having a hard time believing the folks who were trying to get the money are you know are are not doing the best they can to have input and so that's that's why I think you should we should always come we're doing something like this just ask ourselves one question who is not at this table. They are not at that table that's been outreach really matters who is not submitting applications from I don't know which one of these districts and maybe that's when it really matters for outreach because otherwise people that I know have gotten so you can turn down they just don't even try anymore. To draw the distinction between the nine percent low income housing tax credits and the four percent low income housing tax credit I I I think that most of those comments that were we're hearing today are in relation to the competitive around which is the nine percent tax credits and mentally is the most it is it's one that provides most of the funding for its most lucrative call it that way and and it is a competitive around and generally you get way more applications both in number and dollar amount then you're able to award so every year there are going to be people who are upset and disappointed that's that's just unavoidable because of competitive around. one of the things that we do we do with the four percent tax credits is that it's not a competitor around meaning that you don't have a specified application date you don't have a specified date in which an award is made its on going. And as far as the tax credits themselves are concerned it's a time limited meaning that that the nine percent credits there's a there's a federal women on or with a four percent credits there is no federal limit on the amount of tax credits that are awarded to or to a project now there is a limitation because those four percent credits have to use tax exempt bonds to finance at least fifty one percent of the project so there there might be a little bit of a limitation there but in normal times that in itself is not really a limitation out because it uses taxes and bonds usually has to be a larger project in that that's a whole nother issue. but I guess I didn't want or draw this distinction between those two programs because I'm I'm guessing that most of the the comments that you're you're receiving in hearing and and or or in regards to that competitive around and there's just not much way to avoid upset and disappointed people in those Mr does get one more clarification on the law so I understand where you talked with a nine percent to four percent so that's not a problem don't you write the qualifications for the nine percent and the four percent do you right to the right the qualifications are FOR those qualifications come from someplace else no they they come from a DFA that's right right so you're right in the qualifications and so how do you ever look at a check out of who's getting these time after time after time. And and what does that look like where is it going and if it's if you find something consistent that perhaps you think you don't like or you would like to have a different outcome you would have the ability to look at your qualifications as I know people have made the request to have happen and see if you could do something to substantially equalize things that's that's I we don't have to comment on that I just think that's something that's really important because it was the same thing over and over and over there may be something to think about the qualifications and that's what I keep hearing from people just. Okay I know Senator Hammer is a question I guess I consider myself in the queue I'm an engineer and my question is about data versus relevant data I think what this really comes down to is perhaps you have data that says this many people. Or ward contracts tax credits it's under a in these districts but what I think I'm hearing is I need relevant out because if eight people got. Check for tax credits. Out of ten people that applied as opposed to I'm using bad examples I understand sixty people got picked out of a hundred people applied in another congressional district that to me is the relevant data how many people are applying it what percentage are we trying to to to do something and I don't know that that that exists but I think we're gonna need that data because we're seeing data we're just not seeing relevant data to say the answers moved that over because we're all different I mean even and in our own individual congressional districts low income housing in my district might hit Fort Smith a lot different than it does Hackett that Sir so I kind of think we need to hear about relevant data I E. the applications and the numbers that were selected if we're going to do it in a congressional district of some sort does that that exists is my question. May I think it does okay It and you correct me when I go wrong is it for for instance last year I think there were twenty six applications for twenty three million dollars worth of tax credits and you have to multiply by I'm Tom at nine percent round two by the way okay in in you you multiply those by ten for the tax for the. Undersecretaries. So we had approximately nine million dollars that we had available to allocate and I think it went to ten maybe eleven applicants of the twenty six and nine million of the twenty three million that was overlay that with if you will with relevant out of the twenty six what was the mix of the twenty six applicants and I understand Senator Solomon is concerned that certain districts are not even trying because they may not be there that may be a educational process of those that we need to do but if you at twenty six applicants. The the relevant data is those eleven what was the make up what was the percentage in each of these districts the percentage a somewhere short of half of them were in the northwest part of the state and some where around half of them that were allocated were in the northwest part of the state one thing to that that will we have to consider or actually we don't have to consider so much as the developers have to consider it is is that these these projects have to have long term financial viability right and so when you're looking at let's say areas that have a declining population then as you're developer and you're looking out there seeing that that your your long term five financial viability may be a question because I think those those applications they generally assume a slightly higher increasing amount of operating expense then you do and an incremental increase in the rental income so those and then occupancy rates go into that as well so. I think they they have to take a look at that in trying to plan out and put together and what they're looking at the Q. A. P. to see what they think is being directed by the the Q. A. P. as we approach the bottom there are I don't have any quite Senator Hammer you have a question. Okay well what I want to do Senator Solomon you agree to go trying to mend a couple things perhaps we can see this Thursday the chair would also ask the perhaps the three of you get in to close small confined closet and see if we can't find some harmony before we come back here and someone has to pick yea or nay and perhaps you can give us better solutions to figuring this out but I'm going to take this and table until Thursday as the chair I think I'm doing that with the senators blessing are there any last comments from any committee members. There are polling down he's gonna bring it back Thursday it'll be on the agenda it'll be on the agenda Thursday table full table in my bill that you're right it's probably the wrong terminology he's going to re present as amended on Thursday if you get all of these paperwork done otherwise we'd offer that to you the following Tuesday before we go on break so it's not committee I appreciate a lot of good suggestions and I'm that's why I want to bring it up but we need to move on this stuff we had ten months for this gentleman to come to the table and find a solution and I hate to see us to lay this again there are tens of millions of dollars that you're district could be asked act could be active in your district right now that's a lot of money for the people there and we need to have a resolution thank you very much committee thank you Mr Mr and and to our witnesses if you will you have more to add after the discussions for two days we can real real. We offer the microphone at the end of the table thank anything else for committee members. I have a motion to adjourn I don't think I need a second because all give that we are returned. Yeah.