State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

The agenda is SB 56, Senator Dodson. Dots and we've got Dotson here, couldn't resist, so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're members of the committee, Senate Bill 56 is a very simple clarification if uh some of you will remember a few years back we uh We put all of the administrative rules into 6 roughly equal sized groups with one of those groups coming up every 2 years for a review, um, the governor was charged at the time in that law with assigning the various rules to those various groups, so say DHS is coming up in one group and Uh, uh, you know, corrections is coming up in another so once every 12 years, they all get looked at. Well, one of the things that uh was not clear within the law was the governor could amend which which cycle, um, certain rules were in, uh, say they were in group number 2, there's a new administration, and they want to put it into group number 5. That's completely fine if they want to readjust that, however, um, I wasn't clear whether or not if they extended beyond that 12 year cycle, they could just get keep getting kicked down the road and so what this bill would do would clarify that that yes, the governor may amend which group cycle rules can be in, but they have to be within a 12 year time frame. They can't be extended indefinitely forever and never get reviewed. So that's the essence of what the language here in front of you is uh. More than happy to answer any questions. Senator Dodson has explained the bill. Are there any committee questions? Seeing none. Senator Dodson, he recognized a close for your bill. I'm closed and I would appreciate a good vote. All right, what are the wishes of the committee? Get a motion to pass Representative Meeks. Is there any discussion? Seeing all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. I have it. Congratulations, Senator Dodson, you passed your bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. All right, next item on the agenda we have House Bill 1121, Representative Long. Representative Long, you're recognized, sir. Wayne Long District 39, um, good morning committee. I appreciate this opportunity to bring this bill for you before you. Um, just a little background on how, how I come across this bill. I was at a conference last year. And uh they brought up the story of a lady named Geraldine Tyler. She's a 93-year-old lady that was living on a fixed income in Minnesota and she got behind on her tax payments for her condo. Um, she owed $2300 and couldn't come up with it and it rocked on for a while and the $2300 eventually turned into $12,700 in taxes and fees and penalties. So the um the county uh Hennepin County seized your property and sold it and kept the whole $40,000. They didn't give her her equity back, um. This was a case was taken up by the Pacific Legal Foundation, and they they took it to Supreme Court in 2023, the court ruled, of course, that that was a taking under the Fifth Amendment, you can't take the property without just compensation, and they didn't compensate her at all. So I've reached out to that foundation and asked, you know, is there anything in Arkansas law that would do this, and they do a little bit of research and they came back saying that this particular part of the statute would do that. Uh, it's a little bit different case and um. In this situation, The state could take the property and assign it to a different state agency or give it to um a school district, that, that type of thing, but in the same manner as the case in in Minnesota, uh, the, the person doesn't get their equity back, but they basically lose the property completely and I thought that was just unjust and he didn't hate injustice and that um. Look like something we could easily clarify. I reached out to the land commissioner's office and they have someone here to kind of back me up on that, but he's fine with doing this, uh, I think they're kind of working on trying to, you know, clear this type thing up, so it's not a problem in the future. I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you, Representative Long. Representative Long has explained his bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, I, I guess I'm a little unclear and I read this language that you're striking, but you're saying that uh this language allows taking without compensation? Yes, sir. And that's a taking like under the law, because it, it doesn't really seem to me like it's doing anything with the, the process of uh a forfeited property, it's dealing with after the property's been forfeited and then where it goes, how it can be transferred to Another entity, but my understanding of the law was that um you know, since they don't have to sell the property. They have no equity to give back to the person that had lost the property, so they're they're taking the whole property is complete value and reassigning it to a government agency or or a school, you know, that that type of thing. So, so there's no money to give back to, you know, that we're not cutting a check from general revenues to pay the difference. So if somebody has to forfeit. their property because they didn't pay taxes on it. And then the commissioner of State land sells the property. They're giving, then they give money to the delinquent taxpayer. They have 2 years to request the money, uh, the, the difference, their equity be given back to them. Um, OK, but they didn't, they still owe on their taxes, right? Are you saying that it's net of the taxes being repaid to the taxpayer the state keeps the tax part and just refunds the uh the equity or you know the difference between what they owed and what they were able to sell the property for. OK, and this bill just basically, you know, stops it from being donated, uh, the only way to get rid of the property under this scenario would be the um the state would have to sell the property. State gets their their cut and the the property owner gets gets the remainder remaining balance. OK, and last question for a moment, if you could just direct me, do you happen to know where in code it sets out what happens if this gets struck. I mean, what is the other, uh, how is the property handled or disposed of under current law. I don't know where in code that is, but my understanding is that, you know, basically they auctioned the properties off at this point and you know, so. Whatever amount of money it brings at auction and they are able to um keep the taxes and pay the rest to the to the landowner or property owner. Thank you. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you mind, Mr. Chair, if we had the commissioner of State lands or a representative come to the table? Not at all. Is there someone here from the commissioner of State lands office. So if you would, uh, state your name. identify who you're representing and then you're recognized to uh actually Representative Paul, if you've got a question, you're right for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My, my first question is, so like, who's making Representative Long, who's making the valuation of the property. Is that a bank, is it, is it an assessor who, who's making you said that when it's sold, is it going to auction? Is that how we make the value of the land. What, what is the process of that look like? Or either one of you, it doesn't matter. It would go to auction if it was not, if it was not donated under this current statute, it would just go to auction, sir, free-market, before we go any further, just identify yourself. Yes, sir. Peyton Murphy. I'm the general counsel with the land commissioner's office. OK, so, um, the way we do things right now, how does this differ? I mean, from a state lands perspective, how does this differ from the way that we're doing things right now. This current law authorizes the land commissioner's office to Instead of auctioning off a tax delinquent parcel to donate it to a state institution. And that could be a school, city, most, most of the time it's been cities, um. We don't do it a whole lot. I think I noted. About 57 parcels over the last 10 years. Um, this would require us to sell it on the free at an auction to establish the price and so if there were any tax delinquent issues on the on the property of the state would get those taxes and then the property owner would then get whatever was left over. Yes, the property owner could, I think in the case of Tyler versus Hennepin County, I forget the exact figures, but the property they owned, I think 12 15,000 in taxes. The state sold it for around 40 if I remember right, and the lady did. not have the opportunity to claim that excess, uh, and, and the opinion on this. Current law is that by donating it we eliminate any possibility of there being any excess, so that's why we're wishing to do away with the ability. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wooldridge, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think Representative Hall kind of went down the road that I wanted to go down, I guess just so I understand correctly, if I own my home, but I'm delinquent on taxes, it's gonna go through this process of a forced sale. The state will collect their tax portion, then you're going to give me whatever is the remaining balance there. Essentially, yes. OK. So there's nothing that that sets the valuation of that it can sell for $5000 and I'm going to get $5000 less the taxes from my home other than currently it's being donated to um I assume for lack of a better term, nonprofits such as the school or something community driven. Yes, that's right. OK. OK, I may have some additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Just trying to understand because I understood the case that you mentioned from Minnesota with, with the. With the lady in $2300 and then growing the penalties and and. Up to 12,000 and then there's a sale and she couldn't get any of the, the equity. But I really don't see how this I mean, has, has there been an instance of this happening in Arkansas? And you say 10 times we, we have donated parcels. I'm not aware of any of those having ever been parcels and I'm talking about where in Arkansan. Um, lost equity in their property because of a transfer by the state at a commissioner's sale on foreclosed property. I can't cite specific examples, but Having, you know, if we've donated parcels that might could have otherwise been sold. There is potential there that they would have sold for more than uh the the taxes owed. I don't, I, I, we've never, I don't know that we've ever received a challenge on this and, and, and then follow-up question on In, in the process of foreclosure, there has to be a valuation on the property, most of the time. So there's some market valuation, some appraisals that go into that foreclosure, uh, process. Um, are, are there steps taken on, on that side or is it just strictly based on the amount of taxes that are outstanding and, uh, and you go down that, that path. Well, this is not really a traditional foreclosure. It's just a tax delinquency auction, so the opening bid is the amount owed in taxes and goes up from there. I'm just having a tough time seeing the need for this because it's such a one-off. Um, issue and, and the fact that this would this cost the state of Arkansas more money on a tax foreclosed issue where the state's going to suddenly now have to bid on property. Um, at, it attacks delinquent itself, it's property that could be useful and benefit the state. You know, we're already selling, you know, a lot of parcels, so having a few more is not gonna cost us, you know, a significant amount of money. Now whether Whether it disadvantages. Entities trying to obtain those parcels, I suppose it could, but they still could they have other means by which they could obtain those parcels if need be. They would just, according to Tyler versus Hennepin County, they would have to provide just compensation under the Fifth Amendment in order to do so. Final question. Land commissioner's office 100% OK with this repeal of this language. Yes, we are. All right, thank you. Thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so, uh, I've got two questions, I think. First one is, what is the determining factor of how you decide whether we're going to donate this or whether we're going to auction it off. What, what, what's that determination because you said you've done like 50 times in the last 10 years. Yes, there, there is an application process that, uh, you know, a city or a local government would would apply to receive uh a property like this. So, so property comes of become available in the city just says, I want it, so they apply for it and then y'all just randomly to choose whether you're gonna do that or not, essentially, yes. OK, um, I wouldn't say it's totally random, but uh, you know, if there is some judgment there. OK, and so I it sounds like that by making that decision, you could be creating the situation that he's trying to stop here. Um, my second question is By repealing this, you would no longer be able to donate land. Could you be stuck with parcels of land that nobody wants because it has no real great intrinsic value and no one's willing to pay for it. My, my hope was that you were gonna say no one else wanted it and so just to get rid of it, we decided to donate it, but that doesn't seem like that's the case. If you had land that no one wanted to buy, now you're stuck with it and you can't donate it if we repeal that. Is that a potential issue that we could be stuck with land that we necessarily don't want to be stuck with because we don't have the ability to donate. it. At at any given time there are parcels that we don't really have bids on now eventually after parcels have been on our books for so long, we dropped that starting bid to $100 and that tends to generate interest but for the most part, You know, city lots, uh, Moved pretty good. A lot of the stuff that stays on our books a long time ends up being undeveloped lots and planned communities uh of those sorts of things. So we, we have pretty good success rate selling lots. Alright, alright, thank you. Like Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real quick, and I was just talking to Representative Beatty about this. Could you give me the process on how this works. So let's say the, the property that's being talked about to be donated. There's a mortgage or a lien on the property. There's taxes owed on the property as well, right? And so you go to auction off the property and there's proceeds, there's equity in the property or whatever. So Is does the process the state gets their money and then the lien gets there, you know, the, the mortgage or the lien on the property, they get it and then the, the owner then gets whatever's left over. If the lien is attached, if we have the lien attached to it, yes, that would be right the owner would prove, you know, prove they had ownership at the time and they could get those excess proceeds. Representative Mayberry. OK, no question. Representative Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chair. By design, what I'm understanding. You know, not well versed in. Collection of land and properties and those things, but by design, the state's looking to collect taxes owed on these properties, not Collect land in nature from, from taxpayers, correct? That's correct. Our goal is to collect the taxes, uh, and to return that property to someone who will. To put it back on the tax rolls basically, so the county can. clicked on it. The land collection or property collection is like this is a last. Last resort to collect what is due. Correct. It is not the, the thought process of, well, ultimately our goal is to take people's property, right? No, we, we try to sell these properties. I, I guess what I'm getting at is the, you know, the state is not do the properties. The state is due the taxes. That's correct, um, Representative Long. My understanding of the nature of this bill, the property owner who is finding themselves in a position where they can't pay their taxes is, is the concept to protect what may be the majority of their personal wealth, which is the equity in their property. That's correct. And also protect the state from basically having to be involved in another um lawsuit because clearly, you know, from the um Um, the decision in 2023, I think it was a unanimous decision by the court, um, it just takes one person to say you're unfair or unjust taking and we we're off to court and take years of litigation when we could just eliminate this uh part of the bill or the part of the law and uh avoid that problem, uh, from the land offer, uh, land commissioner's office position. Uh, if this remains unchanged at this legislation doesn't pass. Is the door open for property owners who have equity in their property, um, that surpasses the taxes that they owe to just leave the door open for that equity just to be left on the table and for them to not recoup it if, if everything were to stay exactly as it is. If, if a piece of property was donated, yes, and they didn't have that opportunity. We did, we didn't sell it for max value and I would say yes. OK, alright, that's all. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think my questions for the land commissioner's office, so by repealing this language, would you all still have the ability to donate? A property Not under this there's another uh homestead type thing that we're hoping to address separately, but under this law, we would not have the ability to donate a property. So my question would be for those properties that belong to someone with no next of kin, who does that go to then if we can't donate it? Eventually, if it's never claimed, it is ches to the county. I believe they have 2 years to make the claim, and after 2 years, then he goes to the the tax district. OK, so there's a separate statute though that will allow that transfer to the county. Yeah, that happens, I think automatically after 2 years. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, I, I have a question. Are there ever any instances where a state agency uh Department of the State, I think that's what this prohibits is a transfer to the state, right? Yes, our local government entities, so it's any governmental entity, state, local, county, city, etc. OK. Uh, are there ever any instances in terms of the state of Arkansas where we want or need some of these properties. That's possible that there are, but I would say this, this doesn't touch the ability of a government to use, you know, its powers of eminent domain, they just have to justly compensate right, fair enough. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh, just sitting here listening to the discussion, um, having served on the audit committee, uh, we came across several instances where um cities violated article, I think it's Article 5 of the state constitution which says that a city or County government cannot uh give away property or its belongings for free, essentially, uh, I remember a case where the city of Bologna donated a used fire truck to a local volunteer fire department, and they got dinged for that as a violation. Does this by the state donating land to government entities, does that create an art a violation of that constitutional. Provision. Are you familiar? Are you familiar with which one I'm talking about and, and does, I mean, technically is this law as it stands, actually a violation of that, of the Constitution because it allows for us to transfer assets to These other entities at no cost. I don't know that I have a good answer to that. I, it's not something I've thought about or looked into, so I would. I'm not sure I have a good answer for that familiar with what I'm talking about though somewhat, yes, OK, I'll just be curious because it may be this is already a violation of that amendment or I may just not have the details right. I just throw that out there, food for thought. question Alright, Representative McIlroy, you're recognized. Thank you, Representative Long for bringing this bill. I understand where you're headed on it in my district over at Helena. We have a lot of burnout properties and subsequently the taxes don't get paid on them. And uh If my understanding, if this goes into effect in the past they've been donated to the city so they could clean them up. Well, this prohibit them in my understanding that's what it's gonna do, keep the city from being able to be donated it to and clean it up. Yes. Oh. Sorry, short answer, yes. But uh I, I think that's all. I, I think the, the more important question is, uh, are we violating the Constitution by by doing that, clearly we are according to that uh unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. I really don't think we have a choice in the matter. We'll, we'll be somebody challenge it and to go to the court. We'll have to defend it and we'll end up losing because they they'll say it's like we've already decided this case in 2023 I understand and and and I agree with you, it needs to be changed, but you know, that's one of those unintended consequences, I think. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I was done, but I wanted to follow up on Representative McIlroy's question. So that was ultimately the question I was trying to ask too, but my understanding from you is there was a separate statute in place that after a period of time, it would go to the possession of the county or the city, is that not correct? After 2 years. It's 2 years. After 2 years. So I'm sorry, I might clarify that is the excess proceeds of a sale. No, not the property itself. So that's different than the question I was asking. So what's the impact this would have like on land banks and things like that because my understanding from the question I asked was that there was a separate statute that would allow that property when there's no air to be transferred to a local municipality or county. If we had sold the property and suppose we had a couple 1000 in excess proceeds and no one came along to claim those proceeds, uh. The proceeds themselves would go to the, the county and the property would be in the, you know, in the possession of whoever purchased it. Can I have one more, Mr. Chair? Yes, so back to my question from a few minutes ago, if there is, if this law is repealed, you don't, you no longer have the ability to donate the land, but you still have the ability to sell. Yes, so you're saying that the property would be sold if there's no next of kin or anyone to give that money to after a two-year period, the money would be given to the community, not the land. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So to follow up on Representative McIlroy's question and Representative Wooldridge, if there were a burnout situation, taxes hadn't been paid, uh, land commissioner gets possession of the property because the taxes haven't been paid. They would maybe in some instances want to donate this to the city so the city could clean it up and. Move on with it. They're not going to be able to do that under this bill. Is that right? They have to sell it. Am I misunderstanding that? Yes, we would have to sell it. OK. Now the city still has, you know, powers of municipality as far as cleaning up and assessing liens and everything, but yeah, OK, good point. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um Representative Long, you mentioned that that this is a constitutional issue, that this is a taking, um. Obviously the definition of a taking isn't, it's not that the government can't take land, it's that the government can't take land without compensation. So my question for you is, are there other states, are you aware of other states who allow to avoid the problem that Representative Milligan and I think uh Wooldridger and Gas we are concerned about, are there other states that allow. the donation of land and have some other mechanism for compensating those families if the land wasn't sold. In other words, to avoid the constitutional problem, it's not they avoid the taking, but it's that they provide the compensation. I, I, I'm sorry, I don't, I know that there's 14 states currently that are, you know, like Arkansas still have the ability to unjustly take, take the, the equity of the property, uh, but I, I don't know the specifics on how the other states were doing, and I'm sorry. Representative Crawford, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We keep on, we're all gonna have a question you know that, right? It just builds and builds, uh, my question is, can the language be changed to where those burnout houses and different things, uh, that that would still They would still be able to give that to the cities. Rather than taking away the donation part of it up. Altogether. Yeah You think so? I think we would run against run up against the same problem potentially, uh, you know, and the city still has the power of eminent domain. It's just they have to pay for anything they take. So I guess your answer is no. We think in changing the language. I would say so. I think you, I think we would be faced with the same problem potentially. OK, thank you. Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I would much rather, I would prefer to have more of a process as, as far as when this transfer happens, but as it stands right now, what would keep the the land commission from just saying, OK, we're going to sell it to the school, let's use school as an example. We're just gonna sell this thing for $1. Uh Well, you know, after they have been on our books for so long and haven't received any bids, we do start drop it down and start the bidding, I think at $100. And I suppose those entities could, could bed along with anyone else. And so. Is there something that would prevent law, the, the land, the land commissioner from just saying we're going to sell this for $1 and thereby in effect more or less donating it. I guess. I, I don't believe we could do that, uh, because, uh, you know, it, it's more or less a donation. It's kind of a. case of Right, thank you Sham consideration, I guess. Like Representative Crawford said, this thing just keeps building. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. My last question, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So currently, um, If it's sold now above, you said the starting bid is the is the taxes, correct? So if this thing goes up, it's a high priced piece of property under current law and it sells way above that tax. Where does that money go? Uh, first, to cover any taxes in any liens that we may have, uh, on our books for it and after that the money sets in an escrow account to be claimed by the former owner. OK, so what happens when it's, if it's not claimed, eventually it just cheat to the county went unclaimed. OK, and that's the two-year window, correct? OK, thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Final question, I won't ask any more kind of along with, uh, Representative Crawford. Uh, I, I think the heartburn for some on the committee is, you know, if, if it's a burnout or something like that where the, the land is just sitting there. I, I know that like in my district, Bryant, there's, I can, I can identify 5 properties right now that are just sitting there that I know there's taxes owed on it and a house was burned on it and Nothing's being done, it's an eyesore, right? My question would be in, I think we, you could probably get a lot of Support for this bill if there was a clause in here that said something to the effect of, if it didn't sell at auction and nobody wanted to buy the property, but the city wanted it, it could still be donated. Could, could that possibly be an option for this bill. Um Possibly I, I would kind of be curious as to what some other states did to that regard, but. But under the current law like we have now just like you said, there's burnouts all over the place, you know, it's not doing what you want right now, uh, this way at least we avoid getting in a lawsuit later, uh, you know, because in my area you see same thing you see these houses is sitting there in disrepair or, or burnt down and Uh, that's under current law, so I don't really think that's, but there's no taxes being paid on those current properties and so as from a legality, they're not doing what they should as an Arkansan to pay their their tax bill and so at that point if they're not doing what's right, it goes to auction. And if nobody at auction wants it, then at that point you could say, well, the city does say they want to do it to clean it up and do it with whatever they they wish. If nobody's wanted, the people aren't wanting to pay their taxes. Why don't we just allow for the donation to the city to take place. I think like Representative Meeks mentioned that there's prohibition against donating property. I think if the city, you know, can't come up with $100 and you know they probably are not really serious about trying to clean up the area. OK, thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. You know what a preacher says finally you think they're done, but they're halfway. Um, this is truly my final question though. You, you said that um. If it sits in an escrow account waiting to be claimed by the property owner and if it's not claimed that in 2 years it's donated to the city or the county. So if it's sitting in escrow waiting to be claimed by the property owner, why are we walking this bill back. Aren't we, aren't we repealing this to give the money back to the property owner? My understanding currently that's if it goes to auction, then there's money to be had if, if the state basically just gives it away. There's no money sitting in escrow for for the uh the uh the taxpayer or the former owner, uh, so basically we're just trying to get it where everything would be auctioned and nothing would be donated because it's a donating part that uh you know, if you donate it, you have no money left to give uh the just compensation for the taking of the property right, but couldn't that be a policy change within the office of the land commissioner because they're making the arbitrary decision to donate or sell, correct? I, I don't know how arbitrary it is. I, I think. They're they're deciding based on. Whatever criteria they they've got set up for that office. I, I thought Represented a Meek's question around that. You said that there was a decision that was being made internally whether to donate or to and I think he used the word random and you said, I don't know how random it is. So my question would be if there's already a mechanism in place that this goes into escrow and it's waiting to be collected by the property owner could a decision internally without us repealing or creating new law couldn't a decision internally be made that we're no longer going to donate. We're going to let these things sit in an escrow account, and that would solve your problem. I mean The properties themselves are not setting in an escrow account. Nothing goes into an escrow account until the property is sold at auction, uh, now, yes, I would say the land commissioner does have judgment whether to donate a parcel under this and and. under this law. Uh We've I counted 57 parcels in the last 10 years that have been donated under this law, um. Does that answer your question? OK, I'm sorry, my question, I think that it would be yes or no. Could the land commissioner's office make a decision that we're no longer going to donate land. We're going to put everything through an auction. We're gonna let it sit in an escrow account. It can be claimed and if it's not claimed in a two-year window, it goes to the city or county. Would that not solve the issue that we're trying to solve. You're, you're saying the land itself goes to the city or county? No, I think I may understand the question. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong. you were wanting just not to change the law and just make it a matter of policy for the land commissioner, right? Well, my, my, my argument is the current land commissioner's not, you know, not really interested in doing this. The next one might. If the next one does, there's going to be a lawsuit and then ultimately go, you know, through the court system. Which it shouldn't have to uh the the the citizens shouldn't have to challenge something that's already clearly been shown to be unconstitutional. This law is unconstitutional and that's why I'd like to repeal it, um you know that that's basically it, um, we need to get rid of this unconstitutional law. To protect the citizens and also protect the state from litigation. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Crawford, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Long, would you be willing to pull this down, kind of check into the Constitutionality of it and bring it back to us. No, ma'am. Pardon? No, ma'am. All right, thanks. Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh. There are a lot of great questions come out of the committee and, and, and I don't think anyone here has an appetite for for the state taking someone's property and you know I, I don't think that's the case at all, but I think the striking of everything is a bit blunt. It's, it's too much. Maybe there could be some procedural things put into this section that, you know, make sure that in every way we try to give the landowner, uh, what we could do an auction or whatever. What remains. I, I don't know what to, but just seems like this is a bit blunt and maybe we could tweak it a little bit and, and bring it back and say these are the steps we're going to take before we get to that final. catastrophic thing where we're just gonna we got somebody I'll take it, we'll donate it to them, but, but make sure that they understand what's going through the process and, and it's very transparent to everybody involved that's My suggestion. All right, uh, Representative Long, uh, there's been a great discussion here. I appreciate the questions by the committee. I was in long, there's been a couple of requests. I'm not asking you to do one thing or another, you're welcome to go forward with your bill today if you want to do so, you're recognized to close. If you'd like to pull it down, I'd also honor that request, so I'll just leave that decision to you, but uh. It looks like there's no more committee questions and so with that, uh, depending on how you want to proceed, you're recognized. I, I make a motion to pass. All right, there's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. I should have noted that. Uh, there's a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? A lot of questions, no discussion on the motion. All right, seeing no discussion on the motion. There's a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed. The nose habit. Sorry, Representative Long, me too. Thank you. Thank you. Next bill is House Bill 1078 Representative Long. Up again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, believe it or not, I, I, I put the uh other bill first because I thought it would be the much easier bill to pass. Uh, this bill is basically the same bill that I brought in the 2023, 2023 session, uh, on the house floor got 84 votes, um, basically, uh, it, I didn't know until 20, the election, I guess in 2022, that we didn't have a runoff for state representatives and state senators. Um, if, um, Uh If you don't have a runoff in in the area we're now with third parties getting more and more votes, um, you could technically end up with someone with 34% of the vote. Having a plurality as it is now and be elected to represent 66% of the people that don't want that person. To me, that it just kind of didn't sit well with me. You should at least have a majority of the people in your district voting for you if you're going to represent them in the House of the Senate. Um So I brought this bill. It basically mirrors what we do in the primaries currently and um. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. All right, Representative Long has explained the bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just, I should have asked you this before, I just didn't, uh, think of it, you. I see how put in language here that all polling sites in the district of the two candidates have to be open for the runoff as well as the general. Does that apply to early voting sites as well? Yes, ma'am. That was my understanding and in fact that I didn't have that in there in 2023. It was pointed out to me it's like that could be confusing for the voters. It's like, you know, you got to track down a new place to go vote, so just curious more than anything else. Thank you. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, do we know what the cost of a runoff election is? Uh no, sir. OK, but uh to me, uh, there's to have A good elections that people believe in. I don't think there's a cost that's too high. Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am curious what the cost is, uh, maybe is there someone signed up to speak on this bill. Who could answer that or if not, could we bring someone to the table from the Secretary of State's office. There was no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone here from the Secretary of State's office that might be able to help answer Representative Collins's question. Right Did There we go, ma'am, if you would identify yourself for the record and you'll be recognized. I'm director Leslie Bellamy, uh, from the Secretary of State's office. I'm the director of elections. Um, thank you. Do you happen to know what the cost of an administering a runoff election is. The cost of runoffs are typically higher and honestly it's hard to put a cost on it because every county differs by how many polling sites they have to have open, um, by the amount of races they have, so it, it's runoffs typically are costly because there's not a per vote if you even it out that way because they're not a high turnout. But I can't give a standard answer for a cost because every county's cost differs. OK, thank you. And Representative Collins, I think the Association of Counties since they're the counties are kind of responsible for Conducting those elections may have something to add here. No, they weren't That is a request. I don't think they were I don't think they were necessarily expecting this, but I do think that they may have helpful information, so. You're recognized. Lindsey French Association of Arkansas Counties. Can you repeat the question? Sure. Do you happen to have an idea of what the average cost of administering a runoff election is oh, I do not have that information, um. I will say from what I understand this is already the law in primaries correct, which um From our experiences where most of the runoffs take place, and we don't anticipate adding this to the general would add a lot of extra cost and the, the clerks and. Counties have taken no position on this bill. OK, thanks. Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative Long, I'd like to OK. Yes. I'm sorry. That's OK. Um, so when I think about should we have a runoff in in general elections. There, there's probably Not a perfect way to do this, but there's two competing thoughts that I have in my mind, and I'm trying to decide, you know, which is, which is the fairest way to run our system, so it's problematic if somebody wins the general election with less than 50%, right? But it's also somewhat problematic that someone prevails in a runoff in which the turnout is maybe 1/3 of what there was in the general election. So can you kind of How do you square that in your mind, which of those sorts of things is more important? Well, you know, in the runoff, I believe, you know, it takes a little bit of extra effort, you know, to go back out and vote, um, so I, I think that's the people that probably really care the most and probably will be more informed voters, so maybe that answers your question, um, and also I didn't mention earlier but um you know that currently you know justice of the peace, they have a runoff for general election, they have runoffs for municipal races. Um, pretty much, uh, except for the constitutional officers, there's no runoffs, for there he's runoff for everybody except us, you know, state representatives and state senators, which to me, you know, being in a kind of a representative type situation. It's just um I guess just, just, just have a good feel for it that you know you don't have at least a majority of people in that district wanting the person to be the representative. OK, thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Long, can you cite an example of when this was needed in any past election because I mean, I'm just sitting here going through, I was looking on Google of an election in Arkansas that would have needed this in the general for either a Republican or Democrat general election. Well, that comes to mind was in, in 2022, um, in the Northwest Arkansas there was a race where neither candidate got over 50% and also in Conway. OK, thank you. All right, seeing no further committee questions. I did note earlier that there was no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. I've since been informed Seth Mays is here and would like to speak against the bill, so Mr. May you recognized. If you would, of course, state your name and any organization you're here representing. And then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for missing the sign up earlier. My name is Seth Mays. I'm the executive director of the Republican Party of Arkansas, uh, really our opposition in as much as it's opposition, we we haven't had any conversations with Representative Long on this bill, the party or a party attorneys, uh, but to the point that I believe was raised by Representative Hack when we look at examples in which this would have made a substantive difference. Uh, we don't see that there's a great excess of races that are close to the margins. The hypothetical example that was given in which a candidate for the state legislature would get uh elected office having received only 34% of the vote, stipulates that the second major party candidate also gets around 33% of the vote, and then a third party candidate gets the final 32, 33% of the vote. Uh, you all have run for office in this state, and I think you know there is no third party candidate, uh, usually even close to double digits, but certainly not bringing home a third share of the vote. The example that was given in Conway, of course, is Trent Minner and Steve McGee, a couple election cycles previously, uh, that race, as you all know, had a recount that was involved. There was a libertarian candidate. I think a lot of folks assume that if a libertarian candidate was not in the race, that vote share goes to the Republican candidate, similarly, if a Green Party candidate was not in a race, those votes would go to the Democratic candidate for office, I would just note that in this state and nationally, there's very little evidence to suggest that third party candidates. would have voted for a major party candidate, or else that would have been their first election. They typically sit election cycles out. I don't think you can look at a third party candidate's vote share and just grant that automatically to a major party candidate, uh, likely we get into a runoff again and we've got 1/3 of the turnout and those third party candidates are staying home. You have fewer people opining on who is actually the state representative for that district. There could be other concerns that Director Bellamy or others could address too. As to the certification of elections, county boards of election commissioners have certain dates in which they need to certify the elections in a general election and again if we're in a primary in March or May, depending on a presidential or gubernatorial year, you've got a lot of months until the general election, at which point the election's actually resolved if we're in the event that we have to have runoff elections in the month of November, getting those candidates certified. I'm not exactly sure, again, what, what those deadlines are, but that's another concern. Ultimately. I just don't see that there's a great problem in the state again of races at the margins or evidence that the outcome of those races would be different if this law were to go into effect and it's the conservative caution of our attorneys to caution against changing election laws or we're not exactly clear that we're solving a problem that exists in the first place. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Uh I understand what you're saying. I guess my question would be, you know, this proposal was brought 2 years ago and it, it passed out of the house um with pretty overwhelming support, I guess I'm just curious, did y'all not have these conversations when the bill came through 2 years ago, and, and if so, why, why were those concerns not shared at that time. I don't know that the concerns from our lawyers at the time weren't shared at that time. I don't again recall having any conversations on this subject of runoffs or not. Again, 2 years ago we would have been closer to the outcome of that Minner McGee race, uh, and perhaps folks just hadn't had time to properly digest what could have changed or not changed if the structure of that election uh were different, but I don't recall having any conversation with members last session about this bill either. All right, any of the questions by the committee for Mr. Mays. All right, seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mays for being here. Thank you. Uh, Chris Madison also I've been made aware, would like to speak, uh, not sure either for or against, but has some information for the committee and so um. said I would give him the opportunity to Do that. So Mr. Madison, if you would state your name and who you're here representing and then you're recognized to speak to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Chris Mattisson. I'm the director for the State Board of Election commissioners, and the question was asked about the runoff costs compared. I can't speak for a general election, but I had an example we just had before the last board, for example, Crittenden County in the primary had requested reimbursement from the state for 7, we approved, they asked for 78,000, we approved 70,000 for reimbursement for the primary and then they had a runoff and I'm trying to verify what races were in the runoff where they requested an additional $35,000 for the runoff costs, so I thought that would be an example that might help inform the committee with that question and let's see. Uh, I'm still waiting to find out what the races were that were in Criney County, but it was roughly half of what they had initially asked for was the cost of the runoff, um, and that's for just a county race, not one that would extend outside of the counties and with that I'll take any questions or just try to provide some help. Thank you, Mr. Madison. Are there any questions from the committee for Mr. Madison? Singan, thank you for your comments. All right, seeing no further questions and no further. People who have signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Long, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the, the question had been brought up earlier about um having enough time to to get everything done, of course, the local races don't seem to have trouble getting it done. Um, I worked, uh, two years ago when we wrote this bill with the Secretary of State's office, the election division in particular and also at that time the uh state Board of Election commissioners to make sure there was no unintended unintended consequences. Um, at that point, uh, we, we went forward with it like I said, we got 84 votes last time. Unfortunately, it was at the end of the session and I was able to get it out of the Senate before before the end of the session. I thought I'd bring it back again this year and I wanted to run it today because I thought that would, um, would have plenty of time to work through the process this year. And with that I guess I'm close to the bill and make a motion to pass. All right, Representative Long has closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The nose habit. Sorry, Representative Long, the bill's failed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Um All right, next on the agenda we have House Bill 1135, Representative Acer. Sure you want to do this? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Representative Long for warming up the committee. Um What we have before you today, colleagues, um, is a cleanup bill from a bill that was passed and successfully signed last session, which authorized uh Department driver services under DFA to create a digitized driver's license that original bill had a requirement of a $10 fee for anyone who chose that option. This bill after the after DFA has done procurement and operationalized this has realized they have the funding and their vendor fund. They no longer need the requirement of the $10 fee to operationalize this by February 1st and so this removes the requirement of the fee. It also expands this from just driver's licenses to identification cards as well. And with that, I will answer any questions. Thank you, Representative Baker. Representative Acer has explained the bill and any questions by the committee. Representative Long, you're recognized. Representative Dyker, um, when I was reading the bill, I noticed it specifically states in the bill that a photograph of your driver's license, uh, is not. Usable I guess is there a particular reason for that? So my understanding is that a photograph is not scannable, so the barcodes that's on the back of an actual driver's license allows for real-time and like basically real-time connection to the DFA and driver services so the policeman basically he's, he's scanning the, the barcode when he's running when he takes a hard copy license and uh this is an option for convenience if a law enforcement officer still wants to require the individual to produce their hard copy, they still have to produce their hard copy. OK, thank you. sir. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so two questions, uh, and, and the bill, it says shall the $10 to make the $10 so they can still charge the $10 under this if they choose to, um, is that correct? Yeah, so it actually allows them up to $10 so when you go from 0 to 10, um, should this become any sort of cost burden in my and the whole initial point was that this doesn't cost the department any money and so far they're out there, um, have sufficient funding to keep it at 0. OK. And um could you find what a digital driver's license ID card is to what's the difference between a regular one and a digital one, so it's a digitized is the term that's used and what that is is essentially the barcode that you see on the back of your driver's license is a. accessible of a digitized driver's license. It's just produced on a hard copy, so it's that same real-time relay between the uh servers and I guess records of keep over at uh driver services to produce and give real-time um status update of that license, so it's a scannable um I guess scannable. bar code, for lack of a better word, that relays the same information that's found on the back of your license, OK, alright, thank you. OK, are there any further questions by the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill. All right, seeing no one. Representative Baker, you recognized a close for your bill. Uh, I am close for my bill. Representative Baker is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Meeks has a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. As Abbott, congratulations, Representative Baker. You passed your bill. All right, next we have House Bill 1138, Representative Torres, you are recognized. But thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I feel a little bit more encouraged now. Um I want to thank this committee, of course, House Bill 38 was proposed last week and I drew it down to make some clarifications on the bill that was causing a lot of confusion, uh, but the purpose of this bill really is to add physical therapist as additional professional, uh, to the list of those that can certify someone for a disability and consequently a handicapped parking pass or tag and so forth, uh, during that process, uh, we had proposed an amendment because of some confusion in the language and the code that stated 4 years was temporary. OK, that's what, that's what really messed us up. So the amendment was to make that 6 months rather than 4 years. We have corrected this copy and that will be in the next amendment that I'm not sure if you all have a copy of that yet, but what we need to my request, Mr. Chairman, is that we expunge the votes for that First Amendment. All right, and thank you for that Representative Torres, and I did talk with the Bureau of Legislative Research about what the proper procedure would be in order for Representative Torres to present his what he has is his new amendment to this bill, and they said it would be that we would have to expunge the vote by which the previous amendment was adopted and so of course Representative Torres is not a member of this committee, so he can't make that motion. So I do I see a motion representative Beatty makes a motion. To expunge the vote by which the previous amendment. was adopted Is there any discussion on the motion? See down all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah, it's habit the motion to expunge carries and that previous amendment has been expunged. Now there is a new amendment. Has that been given to the committee? All right, the staff is gonna pass out the new amendment that Representative Torres would like to present after it's been passed out and you've had an opportunity to review it. I recognize Representative Torres to present the amendment. Mr. Chair Yes, sir. Would you permit me to have uh Miss Alicia Austin Smith come up with me. She's the DFA chief counsel. Yes, thank you. All right, everyone should have a copy of the amendment as everyone had a chance to review it? All right, looks like everyone has had a chance to review the amendment. Representative Torres, you're recognized to present the amendment. Thank you. Yeah, so this amendment basically deletes the line that created a lot of confusion, uh, and so we're deleting years for a disability that is temporary in nature, uh, and we're just ending that. Paragraph for that sentence with just years. And so that should clarify the purpose of the um certification for a, I would say a midterm disability. All right, I know you have a witness there with you, uh, anticipate there are gonna be some questions by the committee. About the amendment. If you would, ma'am, if you would just state your name for the record and who you're here representing. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Alicia Austin Smith with DFA. All right. So Representative Torres has explained the amendment. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Collins, are recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So you guys aren't doing anything with regard to the duration in between when you have to be recertified. Is that because the other section of code that representative Mayberry was referencing already, is it 3 months and that's what we want to leave alone. Yes sir. That's correct. Got it. Thank you. All right, are there any other questions by the committee? Uh, would you like to make a, would you like to make a statement, though I know the witness was there about the amendment before we vote. I'm, I'm ready to close. OK, very good, then you're recognized to close for your amendment. I close and would appreciate a good boat. All right. So there is a motion by Representative Beatty to adopt the new amendment so any discussion on that motion. Seeing that all those in favor to adopt this amendment, say I. All those opposed. Congratulations, the amendment has been adopted. Representative Torres. You're recognized to present the bill as amended. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, again, this proposed legislation allows physical therapists to be added to the list of persons to certify disabilities for parking permits, license plates, placards. And really that's the only thing that this bill is going to do is it's going to help our Kansans with disabilities, uh, get through the process of getting a parking permit much easier. And with that, I'll close. All right, are there any questions by the committee, Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say thank you to Representative Torres for working through this process and thank you Alicia, for working on this. I think there was some confusion because it very clearly was stating before 4 years for a disability that is temporary in nature and that was going to change kind of the whole meaning, um, just a side note that uh your, your main purpose of doing this was really to, to make sure we add physical therapist and I, I totally agree that doctors actually see, I mean the um patients probably see physical therapists more than they see the doctor and it will, you know, make it easier, so, um, you know, thank you. Um, just a side note, um, and I guess I have to figure out how to turn this into a question, but if any member is looking, you know, to clarify some of this because as, as we looked more into this, it's kind of confusing the way that the law is written because really there's 3 different ways that you can have a One of these permits and one is a permanent disability. And then to clearly state that there's a long-term disability that's 4 years and that there's a temporary that is 3 months and it, it's just kind of. Not very clear wording, so Um I, I don't know if there's a request, maybe if someone wanted to uh work on that. I guess that's how I'm going to turn that into a question, but thank you, you bet. Thank you so much, Representative. I, I think that's my next little item to do is, yeah, bring another bill back that will clean all this up and make it more simplistic. All right. Are there any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing none, Representative Torres, you're recognized to, oh, I'm sorry, we have two people who are signed up to speak. For the bill. Mr. Arthur Hilbert. Yeah, thank you so much. If you would state your name and any organization who you may be here representing and you'll be recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. um, representatives, uh, name's Arthur Holbert and not representing anyone, uh, I have a doctorate in physical therapy and I guess if I represent anyone, it would be the patients that have asked me to do this for them simply for me to say that I can't legally in the state of Arkansas, but I can and Missouri and Tennessee. And in Louisiana because Arkansas is part of a compact state. So I'll just say for over 100 years, physical therapists have been considered mobility experts. These are the ones that people go to for issues with their walking, and mobility using canes, crutches, walkers, work on people's strokes, uh, heart issues, physical therapy is an entry level doctoral profession and the state of Arkansas, physical therapists have had direct our patients have had direct access since 1997, 27 years. And like I said, it's part of the compact state, Arkansas physical thera can legally do this in other states under the current license. So I'll just ask for a yes vote on this House Bill 11:38, uh, to make it easier for patients to be able to get needed parking passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holbert. Are there any questions about the committee? See no, thank you for your testimony. We also have signed up Christian Adcock. If you would, uh, again identify yourself and state any organization who you may be here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee. My name's Christian Adcock. I'm with Disability Rights Arkansas. Um, and we're in support of this bill. I've been with DRA for about 11 years and one of the sort of recurring themes that we see is that architectural accessibility, physical accessibility, barriers, whatever you want to call it. It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a big idea until you have to pay attention to it and then it can mean all the difference in the world and so any bill like this one that, you know, tries to simplify and make it easier for people who need these resources to get them is something that we Going to support, especially in a state like Arkansas where you have areas where there's a physician shortage, um, increasing the options for people with disabilities to get the resources they need to live independently and work and be part of their communities, it's invaluable and that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Adcock. Any questions of Mr. Adcock by the committee. See and thank you for your testimony. Seeing no one else to speak for or against the bill. This time Representative Torres, you're recognized to close for your bill. I close and ask for a good vote. Representative Torres is closed for his bill. He's not a member of this committee, so do I see a motion? I see a motion Representative Hawk in that motion is to do pass as amended. All right. There's a motion on the floor of do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Saying none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Ya's habit, congratulations, Representative Torres, you've passed your bill. OK. This is, uh OK, next, next up we're gonna hear uh a Senate bill 18, uh, and with that, uh, representative Gassway, you're ready. You're recognize and present your bill, or Senate bill 18. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there is an amendment to this bill that will start with. Has that been passed out to the committee? OK. This amendments, go ahead. Gives a minute and we'll get that passed out. that. The. Alright, I think everybody's got a copy of the amendment. I, I think, uh, Representative makes you have. With, with the rest I will make a pass to make that, uh, so we have a motion to pass for the amendments. So with that, um, all those in favor, or is there any discussion. Alright, with that, all those in favor any opposed. Represent guys why you are recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a Very simple bill as many of you know, we recently gave the Attorney General some authority in matters where legislative audit refers uh items to the prosecuting attorney for investigation, which they routinely do. Sometimes the prosecuting attorney doesn't take those matters up, and we, this legislature recently authorized uh the those matters to be also referred to the Attorney General for investigation in certain circumstances if the prosecutor wasn't going to act and so the current law imposes obligations on the prosecuting attorney to make reports to legislative audit about the disposition of those matters and so what we're saying here is. We're imposing those same obligations on the attorney general who if that matter is referred by the prosecuting attorney to the attorney general for them to investigate or look into that they also have to make those same reports to legislative audit that the prosecuting attorneys have to make. It's all the bill does. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Alright. Saying now Representative Maybury. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General's office is all good with this. Did you say that? Yes, absolutely they are. No. Seeing no other questions, uh, you recognize to close for your bill. I'm closed for the bill and would make a motion to pass as amended. I, I should, I should have said that there's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. So, uh, with that, uh we have a motion to pass, uh. Uh. As amended. Thank you for that. All right, all those in favor say ah and pause. Congratulations, Representative Gasway, your bill is passed unanimously. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. All right, seeing no further items on the agenda. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.