Public Transportation- House

Bill 1475 Representative Joey Carr. Representative Carr, you may proceed, uh, Joey Carr, District 34. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I have, uh, Bill 1475 and what's going on here with this is, uh, in the past, our dot has gone to the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. They got approval through them, the the Department of Public Safety on the use of green lights they've since realized that they needed to just to get it in statute to close up any gaps just in case. Uh, anything would arise in the future, but the reason for the green lights. Is uh green lights are high visibility during fog, during rain, during snow, and when they're out there plowing, they don't want anybody to run up on them. The yellow or the amber lights. Uh, they're highest visibility level is during the day and then they also have the white light so they just want to get in statute, uh, with the green because that way there's a high visibility in whatever road or whatever weather conditions there are while they're out there maintaining the roads and in the construction areas. So, uh Uh, with that, this is to focus on their roadway construction and maintenance vehicles, and I would entertain any questions if anyone had any I understand that uh DOT brought this to you, is that correct? All right. Representative Richmond, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very quickly, I would suspect that there's other states that have made this change or, or has this implemented? Do we have any, you know, information about how that's worked out for them. Yes sir, they have good success. You can just tell me from there. I don't care. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? All right, seeing none, represent car, you wanna close? Uh yes, sir. I'm ready to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would, uh, entertain a motion do pass and appreciate a good vote. Thank you, sir. motion pass. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say I opposed. All right, congratulations to Bill passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, next on the agenda we have House Bill 1486, Representative Burkes, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair, esteemed members of the committee, uh, House Bill 1486 is intended to improve and standardize the market value determination for surplus property held by ROT ROT holds two kinds of surplus property, one is capital assets. That would be property that they've acquired to put a shop or an office or something like that on back in 2021, uh, we changed the law so when they want to sell that instead of getting 3 appraisals, they only have to get two appraisals to understand what the market value is. that property they want to sell this bill deals with right of way property when they have surplus right of way property, the law still required 3 appraisals. We didn't get that changed back then, so we're just changing that down to 2 simplest bill you'll ever have. Happy to answer any questions. OK. Any questions from committee? Mhm Representative Hawke, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Burke's, um, as somebody that's in the real estate profession. Why 2? I mean, like, is one appraisal not good? I mean, we, we do, we do appraisals on homes. We do appraisals on commercial. All of our appraisal appraisers are licensed. I know we were at 3, is there a reasoning for two appraisals is the is the first one just not good enough? Or is that like a, a state law that, that, I mean, or is it like a state recommendation that we have to have a second opinion. I can certainly get our up here to answer those questions, but I believe that because they're holding in the public trust. Um, it's just. The appearance of absolute honesty. I, I believe that's why they would ask for 2. That's a very good answer. She's the best. Thank you. Are you satisfied? I, I just, yeah, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Any other questions? OK, everybody, anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none, you ready to close. I'm close. Thank you, sir. OK, what's the will of the committee? I have a motion. Pardon? OK, uh, wait, I got a question. Punch, punch it again. You Can you just speak real loud if we can't get it to work? There you go. I got you. OK, now, you recognize. Well Hit, hit it again. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're good. All right. I get the, uh, uh, the reason potentially for two appraisals, but at the same time, the person, uh, that's gonna be giving the appraisal, do they have the right to purchase that property or bid on that property. So notice is given, uh, to the public about, uh, the availability of the property and I don't know whether the person who does the appraisal is allowed to bid on the property. Any question? Response from the members. I have a representative from come to the table that's maybe it's maybe it tell us whether it's a public auction or kind of how that works if you would. Kevin Wyatt, division headed right away with RA. Um, the way this works is. We don't necessarily actively market these properties. It's an interested buyer that comes to us wanting to buy it, um. There have been instances, not very often, but if there is more than one interested buyer, we could, we could, there's a variety of ways we do it. We could do it by auction. Usually we, uh, ask them to obtain the appraisal of the property, whether it be 2 or 3 depending on the type of release it's going to be and they, they provide that to us. It sets the market value and the sale is, uh, executed from there. OK. Right. So, on this, on this process that, that, you know, I can better understand now. So if I were the one giving the appraisal, And I was the one potentially wanting uh to to. Have a third-party purchases for me, would I be able to do that? You see what I'm, you see where I'm kind of going here with this and RJ can probably speak to, to this as well as where I would be somewhat concerned if we're, uh, dealing with a hand to hand transactions potentially. I don't know that. I've come across that happening. Understand, I understand your question, but, uh. Well, I might interject that having the two appraisals helps solve for that problem because if you do have an appraiser who's trying to do something underhanded and give a lower appraisal just because he wants to buy the property. You've got the second backup evaluation given to you and that would, of course, raise a red flag in Ardot's mind. Right, and I can understand that, um, you know, I'd like to hear RJ's thoughts on, on that if possible. I Representative Hawke, thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I agree with Representative Steinel and the fact that, um, everything that we do, um, we put up for the public to know and and I, I get what you're saying where somebody may just come along and say, I want to buy this. To me, um, I don't worry so much about the appraiser because they, they have a board that they have to, to go to that they're certified that they're going to do things and with the second appraisal, I, I get that, but I do have a little bit of heartburn in the fact that We are not gen, the public doesn't know they can just call our dot and say, I want to buy this right away, right? Like this is just some random person that rolls in and, and call, and they know the, the process and they call Ardot and say, hey, we want to be able to purchase this, this right away right here, is it for sale? I think that there needs possibly a, a, a policy or procedure put in place that if somebody comes along and says, we want to buy this, we need to give a uh uh a two week. 3-week, 30-day, whatever notice to the public to say this is now available. There is a notice requirement in the statute. Um, so again, if you want to speak to that process. Yes, sir. Thank, thank you for that comment, but, uh, there is a process in place in the law, there's a, a notification the previous owner is, uh, notified. The there is a. Uh, 21 day. Notification on our website. There is also a one-time notification in a newspaper either in the county that the property's located. Ideally, or in the statewide paper if they don't have a newspaper in that county. So does that, let me ask you, so, Does, if they put a contract on this property, right? So, because usually the way that or they put a LOI on, on the property to purchase if, if you put that notification out there, do you then, let's say somebody in the public says, well, I want to put a bidding on this property. Are they then allowed to or because that LOI on the right of way is in place, they're not allowed to. We're just notifying that it's gonna sell. Yeah, let's have Michelle Davenport come to the table if you can. Shell introduce yourself then you. Good morning, Michelle Davenport, our our, uh, chief counsel. Yes, we have had situations where if we receive any comment or notification, that's re-evaluated and that's again why they would have the opportunity to also have two appraisals to establish a market value to bring it back. So we've had very limited, honestly, this doesn't happen that frequently. We want to make sure we're protecting the taxpayer in all of those ways, but it's not always tangible if this is a very small right of way that's being given back. maybe a corner was cut that no longer has drainage needed there. You're talking usually about very small acquisition areas in the surplus property portions. Capital assets are sometimes larger process and larger properties, and we have sent those to auction at that time, but we do put public notice out and in addition, there's a 3rd step that's also, all of these are approved by our commission before they are entered into. So it's not a traditional land sale where you have a contract to sell. They show interest to We evaluate that, determine if that right of way is still going to be needed for transportation purposes in the future, once that's determined and said, no, this portion could be then so then we enter into our public notice procedures. So then we're going to put it out in the paper on our website, then it's still going to go before a public hearing before our commission and say this is the land we are wishing to transfer. So we have to have commission approval then before we release any of that right of way and then landowners could come at that time as well to raise interest in that matter. And these appraisals that are being done with the 2 if we change the law, those go to the commission as well for them to review as well, correct division that's prepared that says, we believe this to be adequate compensation. And one other thing that we do also, this is something that's required in the federal uniform relocation Act. We always, for any art appraisal, we have the appraisal and then we have it reviewed by and a reviewing appraiser. So we wanted to keep that process consistent here by still having an appraisal that's reviewed by another appraiser or a second appraisal to ensure that process is complete and thorough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That clarifies, uh, my questions and, uh, motion at the proper time. OK, we have one more question. Just one more, uh, clarification. So the original owner is notified first. Did I catch that in that? That is correct. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from committee? Motion do pass, uh. Well, hold, hold up for just a second. Any, anyone to speak against the bill for the bill, anything, uh, have, have, are you closed? Yes, sir. I have a motion do pass representative Stein any discussion all in favor say aye. Any polls seem like I'm hearing none. Congratulations, your bill passes. Uh, just for your information, we have a, we have a light agenda right now, we'll continue to meet just on Tuesdays, uh, won't worry about Thursday for a while unless our docket picks up. So with that, if there's not any more business come before the committee, we stand adjourned.