ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

Ladies and gentlemen, if we can get everybody in our seats, we'll, uh, try to get this Call this meeting to order if, uh, everybody would please, uh, rise. We're gonna let, uh, representative, uh, McClure is gonna lead us in prayer. All right, we're gonna start out with the report una communications from, uh, personnel. Represent Richmond, if you would chime in there. OK, we'll get, we'll let him get logged in. He has a report for us. Get you on there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The personnel committee met yesterday, the 22nd, and held the Act 796 report, all position eliminations, all agencies that included position eliminations. The committee did review the agencies listed and adopted the executive recommendation for those agencies. I move adoption of the report at the proper time. I have a motion. Do I have a second? All right, I have a motion 2. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? No. Motion accepted. All right, we're gonna move down to, uh, Budget request. And um are we going to audit finding on your budget requests, Cathy, I'm gonna, uh, recognize you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna be presenting the budget today for the Veterans Affairs, they could come up to the table if they're here. If I could just go ahead and get y'all to, uh, state who you are and who you're with, that would be good. We'll get that out of the way. Punch those buttons. Cherry Bullock, Veteran Affairs, CFO. Kendall Penn, secretary for Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. Wayne Ruthven, chief of staff, Veterans Affairs. All right, Miss Cathy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathy Schmidt, Bureau of Legislative Research. We're starting on page 315 in your manual, uh, as I said, this is the Department of Veterans Affairs Administration and Shared Services. This is for the secretaries of appropriation, of this Veterans Affairs Assist Arkansas veterans, their dependents and survivors in securing their rights and benefits under federal and state laws, the department. services these activities through training, um, and testing of county veteran service officers and provides financial assistance to counties to defray their salaries and expenses. They also provide housing for veterans at 2 state veterans' homes and provide interment in the state veterans cemetery. The first appropriation, which is general revenue funded is for the Secretary of the cabinet, and you'll see on page 317, the detail of that appropriation. One thing I'd like to draw your attention to is there's a letter on your desk today from Veterans Affairs, and this is a supplemental or revision to their current budget request and I'd like to explain that to you and show you how that's going to impact today's, uh, request. On that letter they are asking for a single appropriation bill to combine all positions currently in the Veterans Affairs Appropriation bill. There is a salary section for the secretary and then there is a salary section for the main, uh, personnel. With the Veterans Affairs and then there is a salary section for employees of, uh, veteran's child welfare and disabled veterans, uh, and what they'd like to do is combine all of those into one salary section. They also would like to combine uh this appropriation which is section 2 in their bill along with the appropriation for the following operations into one appropriation section. These are both general revenue funded appropriations and so, um, they are just wanting to combine that for more, uh, flexibility. So the first appropriation, as I said, would be for the secretaries, um, position and OK. Go ahead and do that now. Does anybody have any questions on the letter? If not, do I have a motion to adopt the letter? I have a motion and a second. A discussion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? No. All right, letters adopted. You may move on. And that first appropriation is for the secretary and the appropriation that goes along for the secretary's position. That's the one on page 317. There are no changes to that. Next we have um we'll skip over to page. 3:21 and this is the Department of Veterans Affairs. You'll see on page 322, they have 8 appropriations, uh, they have 4 that they're not requesting to continue and at the bottom of that page you'll see their funding sources. The first appropriation, as I said, is their state operations appropriation. It is a federal, it is funded by general revenue, and this is to help uh dependents and survivors and securing their rights and benefits. and this is uh the appropriation they use for supervising the activities, providing training and testing for county veteran service officers, and they note that they are currently 90 veteran service officers, uh, most counties have, have at least one and several of the counties have 2 to 3, and then there are 6 district veteran service officers who supervise these individuals on page 324, you'll see the request and the agency is requesting uh increase in their conference and travel, and that would be to provide additional training for our county veterans service officers of that 49,594, part of it is being reallocated from operating expenses and $6000 from promotional materials. So that would reduce their promotional materials from uh 10,000 down to down to 4000, but talking to the agency that they think that that would be plenty at this time. The executive ation provides for the agency request and the discontinuation of one position. And um, so that request on page 324 again is executive rec is for agency requests and discontinuing on one position. The next appropriation is for their veterans' homes, uh, they had 2 state veterans' homes, one in Fayetteville and one in North Little Rock. These are both long term skilled nursing care facilities. They're primarily funded by private room and board payments, private insurance payments, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements and also the per diem that's paid by the VA. This is found on page 325. The changes that they're requesting in this appropriation, they'd like to reallocate appropriation from various line items to conference and travel for professional fees and capital outlay, and that would be to better align uh their appropriation with actual estimated expenditures, um, the executive recommendation provides for the agency requests in addition, reclassification of 9 positions and discontinuation of two positions. And the associated salary and match with that. In the professional fees on this on page 326, um, noticed an increase in what their uh actual is this year and even what they've had, uh, budgeted in the past and this is due to the fact that they have been notified by OSP that their pharmacy fees and expenses which they've been paying out of operations should actually be paid out of professional fees, so this will be uh moving that appropriation so. It aligns with where that needs to be paid. Uh, that's that appropriation. The next one on page 327. This is the appropriation for both of their cemeteries, as I mentioned, they have a cemetery in Little Rock and a cemetery in North. East Arkansas, sorry bird Eye, thank you, um, and this is cash funded by burial fees, um, they are requesting a reduction of regular salaries and matching, um, and this would align with their uh payroll cost, uh, they are wanting to reallocate $2600 in appropriation for operating expenses to conference and travel, and again this would be, uh, to better align these uh expenses with the actual estimated expenditure. needs and then restoration of their capital outlay, um, and in this case it's $125,000 and that is for broken and our end of life outdoor equipment for those two cemeteries, um, the next appropriation which you'll find on 329 and 3:30. This is, uh, the state appropriation for veterans cemeteries for both of the cemeteries. It is funded by general revenue. They are requesting a reduction in this in regular salary. and personnel services matching to align with their payroll costs, and they're asking for an increase um in to establish a new line item, it would be $50,000 in a line called Cemetery realignment and maintenance expenses and uh this would allow for some VA ground maintenance, uh, to maintain, uh, those grounds, that is the request the executive recommendation provides for the agents. and in addition to that, the reclassification of one position. Next is military funeral honors. This is for the, uh, uh, fund that they use to provide um honors services for veterans' funerals and it's funded by special revenue that they receive from the special military license plate. Uh, it is currently set at $45,900. There are no changes being requested uh by the executive and the, uh, by the agency and the executive provides for that request. page 333 334, you'll see the Northwest Arkansas State Veterans Home. Uh, this is the state matching funds for construction of their in the process of wanting to build a new facility in Northwest Arkansas. They have had land donated, um, and they have uh gone ahead and made an application with the federal VA to fund that project, um, they received $15 million. 2020 July 2022 from the restricted reserve fund transfer that would be the state match part of this request. It had to be put up front, um, unfortunately we have not reached a point with the federal government in order to fund this, but they want to continue with this appropriation if and when uh the federal. Um, determination has been made to fund this new veteran's home. Then on the next set of pages, 335 and 336 are the federal appropriation for this same thing. This is for the federal matching funds that they are requesting from the federal government for the new veterans home and it is set at $30 million and again they want to continue this request if and when that federal determination is made to fund that project. The executive provides for that agency request on page 337 is, uh, North Little Rock Cemetery expansion. It's a federally funded expansion program, um, they have received some additional land which was provided to them from Camp Robinson, and so this is the federal funding, said at $2 million that would be used to help expand that the executive provides for that recommendation with no change from the agency. request. They then have 4 appropriations that they are no longer requesting, um, and those are seen on page 339 through 342. And those are all of the appropriations for Veterans Affairs. We have lined up. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, first question is going to be on. 341 as far as the, it looks like you're not asking for any money for the. Uh, suicide prevention training, can you give us an explanation about that, please. Yes, sir, in, in the, uh, during the last year we had to, uh, Let me back up to 2021, we had, uh, got a grant, uh, program passed in the last biennium. That uh created a grant program for county VSOs, uh, one of which did not come with money associated with it. And so to perform some of the, uh, the fulfill the requirements of the grant, but also to fulfill the requirements of the training, we had to go out to the US Department of Veterans Affairs and get a grant which was for a veteran suicide, uh, training that we then, uh, had to match up with the appropriation we've sent. After this upcoming biennium, we've been able to, uh, reallocate funds across all of the various call centers and we should have money, uh, sufficient money to conduct training for this, uh, upcoming bidium. And so, is it your Um, position then that you have what you feel are adequate resources to meet that need, whether in training or in actual response time. Yes, sir, we can, we can accomplish all of our statutory requirements uh for this upcoming biennial. OK. And then the second question on the, on the county veterans service officers. Um, do we have any gaps in the state where you're lacking and are we? Uh, able to retain those that we have sufficiently or is the funding appropriate for what they're compensated for. So in in terms of the county BSOs, the county judges fund those positions and we provide a grant that uh supplements uh the funding that goes in there. We have currently, uh, 2 counties that do not have a BSO assigned uh Arkansas County and Phillips County, uh, we're working with county judges right now to try to uh encourage them to hire somebody, uh, for those positions, but we have sufficient money within the grant programs that we run to help supplement. of their cost. How, how much is in that grant program? Do you know, right off, so it's, uh, roughly $220 million for each grant. I would have to go back and dig for that. OK. And last question, do you ever anticipate we're, we're getting a new veteran's home in Northwest Arkansas, understandably so. We've got the one here in Central. Do you feel, and do you do any analysis of the population of veterans that you would ever see that a home would be justified in southern Arkansas somewhere to take care of the needs. the veterans in southern Arkansas. Yes, sir. I mean, so, you know, our plan is to uh uh as we go through the grant program with the VA to look for, uh, where the needs are around the state, uh, part of the, uh. The criteria that the US Department of Veterans Affairs looks for in terms of the grant as the population density of veterans in a given area. And so, uh, they look at not only uh Southern Arkansas, but they also in that particular case, look at what veteran homes are available in Louisiana, Texas, and, uh, and Mississippi and all, all those have a catchment area that, you know, plays into their calculus. So, uh, right now, I think probably uh just based off of, uh, where we see the next best opportunity to be competitive for a grant it's probably in and around the Jonesboro area. OK. Thank you. Represent, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm over here. Um, thank you for all you do for our veterans, I think my parents are veterans, so I really appreciate everything that, that y'all do. I kind of just have two questions. I noticed on several pages on the conference and travel expense. It's way greater than what you've spent in the past. Can you tell me why it's so much greater than what. You've actually spent. Yes, ma'am. So, uh, We went uncovered on that particular account as, as I mentioned here with Senator Hammer a moment ago, uh, over the last two, over the last 2 years and so, uh, where, uh, last for last year we actually did a conference that uh provided training on veteran suicide prevention, but as part of that we also included uh VSO training, uh, now that we have actually gotten our, uh, funding aligned with the various call centers. Associated with our budget, uh, we're we're, we're actually just spending the money out of the call center where it should be spent out of. OK. And then my my one more question, sir. Um, my other question is, which I think is great, but, uh, y'all on page 326. It's the positions. It looks like you had 146, you were budgeted for 267. Are we, are we gonna hire more people to help out with veterans' needs. Or is that just, there's a safety net or is it around federal dollars. So ma'am, the majority of our vacancies right now are the medical professionals associated with each of the veterans' homes and uh both central Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas and, you know, as, as is common across all state agencies right now, the pay scale as it currently exists does not uh support being able to recruit folks into those specialties. Uh, we are anticipating that upon the governor's, uh, pay scale to be released at some point later, uh, that we would be more competitive for, uh, uh, medical professionals and be able to fill those vacancies. Thank you for clarification. Thank you, sir. groups in college you recognize. Thank you. And actually, on that same page there are 326, um, so you mentioned that in professional fees, uh, some had to be added to that appropriation because it needed to be more properly housed there, uh, where did it come from? So I mean, I see where it was added into the appropriation, uh, from 812 to 1, 176, but where did it get taken out from if it was just being moved? So we had, we had previously been paying that out of the operations, uh, account and show me if you could where that is. So we did, we did not reduce the, uh, the, the appropriated number for the operations account that's uh uh. Still a cash funded account for uh the homes and we will be, uh, utilizing that for the various expenses associated with running the homes. So this isn't really a, a reshuffling, it is an additional appropriation. Yes, OK, sir. All right, the next question I have for you is on the same page regarding the fund balance. I see that we have a, you know, $6 million fund balance. It looks like the plan is to increase that by about 10 million per year. Yes, or so, uh. a peculiarity of the, of the method methodology for which we, uh, generate revenue for the home. So, uh, there is no general revenue associated with home, uh, operation and maintenance. So all of that comes from remittances either from, uh, the federal government, the US Department of Veterans Affairs from Medicaid or in some cases, uh, through payment back from the veterans themselves, uh, to the extent that when we first came on board in 2023. Uh, we were within that cash account for both of the homes. We were tottering on the brink of insolvency. Uh, we quickly jumped in, uh, gathered control of the expenditures that were going out and increased focus on how we generate revenue and by doing that, we went from being on the verge of insolvency to now generating about uh Uh, a 5 to $6 million a year profit for uh for those homes, and I say profit, that's money that we would then turn right back around and used for uh facility maintenance and upkeep and improvements, uh, but with the anticipation that now we would have another home up in Fayetteville, uh, that would, uh, you know, once it's constructed and completed and filled up, and we would basically double uh our uh income. of those two homes and thereby Increase the amount of money that's available in the cash account. Well, I suppose I guess I understand that. I'm glad it's not insolvent, and I'm glad you're able to bring money in, but it seems like it should be spent on something then, right? Well, so, uh, as an example right now, we're uh currently getting ready to even though the, the, uh, uh, North Little Rock home was only opened in 2016. We're getting ready to replace uh the uh HVAC for all of the cottages out there and And right now we don't have the uh uh the bids in to support uh uh how much we will actually spend, uh, we're, we're guessing it's going to be somewhere between 2 and $5 million to replace that. So I mean, we've got plans and thoughts about how to spend it in the future. I don't have the, the contracting back uh documentation to back up or exactly how much that will be, but it's not in the budget here, uh, those, those numbers are not. We would have, we will, we will come back for the appropriation for that once we get the, uh, the, uh. The contract numbers, but you do plan on doing it in, in fiscal 26. Uh yes, sir. We, we're currently, uh, have the request for proposal out on uh Uh, the The various vendors and we don't have a dollar figure associated with it yet. OK, I'll get up. Thank you. Representative Bentley. Thank you, Chairman. Just, um, over here, most of my questions have been answered, but just we quickly we have um, any idea of what the federal response is going to be or timeline for the Northwest Arkansas home. Well, yes, ma'am. So we were, uh, anticipating uh coming out uh on the grant list, uh, at the end of this last federal fiscal year that ended in September, uh. In fact, we on the last day of September, we got the list and we were, we did not make the cut. uh, the grant proposal uh is still an active grant proposal at the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We are working with, uh, our congressional delegation uh to uh hopefully increase our standing with the US Department of Veterans Affairs, uh, during this upcoming fiscal year and so we anticipate getting the grant by the end of this. next September. Thank you. Let us know if we can help with that. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Or just fill you were up and you, you pop, yeah, yeah, hold on, I'll get you back in there. All right, you're up. Thank you to take this opportunity to say thank you. I know we're supposed to be talking about budget, but one of the reasons that I support your agency is because of the great work that you do. Um, Gina is a godsend. I want to say that as well. Uh, so many times our veterans can't get anybody to respond. And uh one of the veterans was having had been wrestling with just trying to get a home. He'd been approved and couldn't get it done. And I said I'll call Gina. And it got done. Uh, one of our veteran's widows. could not get a settlement we call Gina, and we got it done. I know that there that we want to talk about money, but money well spent is money that is being utilized for the purposes it is intended. And I just want to thank the veterans. Uh, administration under your leadership and the prior one for just being there for our veterans, because at the end of the day, that's the most important thing in the world. And so with that, Mr. Chair, would you agree? Thank you. Mhm Yes, I agree. Reps of gluten you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too, uh, one Senator Chesterfield comments, but we have the responsibility also to be good stewards of what federal money, state money, or private money, whatever. My questions deal with the first one, are you merging under your letter business area of 365, the disabled veterans, uh, 380. welfare veterans Affairs, all into the department of veterans and Affairs, you're gonna have you, in other words, you won't have uh 4 business areas, you'll have one, is that correct? Yes, sir. OK. Uh, my next question deals with, uh, your funding, um, balances. Uh In the actual on the sheet on page 26, 326 for veterans' homes. It shows 27 million or 28 million roughly, um, For inner fund transfers. What interagency, uh, I N T E R. So what, where, where was that money sent? So, so the, the figures we have here are actually 27,000. Yeah, 27,000, I'm sorry, 27,000. What, what is the interagency transfer and it was 27,000. Where did it go? Yeah, so, so it was uh part of the uh uh. COVID directors authorized leave reimbursement that we provided uh to uh the Department of Finance and Administration was part of those, it was a federally funded program back in the height of COVID. So the COVID money, you were repaying it or or Yes, sir. OK. The next question deals with the uh Total funding, you had uh Actual expenditures of 31 million. Uh, you had budgeted 50 million, then that goes up to uh 2026, total will be 61 million and then almost 70.5 million in 27. What why are we increasing or what, why is that being increased. Um From the 31 million that you actually use to, to, to almost doubling it or it is more than doubling it. Yes, sir. With the anticipation of building the Rogers home, which. Uh, can you speak up closer to the mic. Thank you. Yes, the of the new home. We anticipated more federal VA reimbursements, Medicaid, Medicare. And natural inflation in OK, are you going to use that 70 million? Hopefully if we get the new home building and fill it up, yes, sir. OK. The next question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, deals with the uh September 5th report on regarding your employment. You authorized or have authorized 307 positions, you have 177 that are vacant and 93 of those have been vacant over, uh, 2 years. 177 is 58% vacancy rate, almost 60% of your where are those positions? What makes up the totality. that. So the, uh, again, the majority of our vacant positions right now are all medical professional positions in the homes and so Uh, we have sufficient, uh, you know, contract care to cover down and make sure that we are providing necessary uh coverage to adequately run the home, uh, but again, contractors uh It's paid, uh, differently than manpower and so right now we just have the uh the, the huge manpower vacancy. Well, and I appreciate, like I said, like the services that you provide, but if we've got a 60% vacancy rate, are we meeting the demand of the veterans. Yes, sir. I mean, in terms of uh the standards of care that we provide at each of the homes. I mean, why do we need these positions then if you're meeting the needs, why, why do you need 60%. How many of them are funded, uh, budgeted. So, uh, for the Go ahead. So they're currently, those positions are currently filled through a temporary staffing agency that The temp agency is more competitive with. You know, other hospitals and everything, that's how we're filling those positions right now. Well, I understand. But 52% of the, of the 177 have been back in over 2 years. Yes, sir, and so, uh, just to kind of give you some sense of uh scale. So, when we first came on board, we did a, uh, a quick survey up in the Northwest Arkansas area. Uh, for what it costs to, uh, hire a, uh, a brand new RN off the street. So Arkansas, by, by the pay scale enacted at the time, Arkansas provided $32 an hour for a brand new RN, uh, an off the street hire in a civilian market would expect $42 an hour, and because we couldn't pay $42 an hour, we ended up paying $68 an hour for a contract. So, I mean, that's, that's the kind of uh uh. Difference that the upcoming pay scale is uh built to address those positions that are vacant, are they nursing positions, nursing physics. Will these nurses participate in the $5000 bonus that was approved by ALC last week. So, sir, that, that bonus, I believe was for uh uh DHS. We have a similar program coming up that will incorporate a bonus like that. OK. But let me ask you this, is that not a short term solution to the long-term problem, it is, and, but the long term problem we hope to have addressed once the uh the new pay scale comes out, so you're paying uh Are you hiring any traveling nurses? Yes, sir. A lot of, a lot of how much an hour are you paying for them? 78. So, right now, uh, we pay for contract nursing, we pay $67 an hour for an RN. $50 an hour for an LPN. And $31 an hour for CNA as compared to state salaries of $38 an hour for an RN $24 an hour for an LPN in $17 an hour for a CNA. You make the point that I wanted you to make, and that's we've got a major problem throughout the state. We have, we have nurses that are making half. Uh, and full-time basis in hospitals and ins like your facilities that are making half of what they're making, uh, could make with traveling nurses, but they're paying a penalty because they work at a local hospital. And I was, I was just, you know, I think that's unfair. One more question on the uh travel that that representative Va brought that I need to hurry up, move in, let you pop back in. We've got you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. Senator Love. Thank you Mr. Chair, and I think I'm a pick up where, uh, representative Wooton left off because I'm listening to this conversation. I've been listening to it for the last week or two. This makes no sense what we're doing. The agencies are contracting. For nurses, it's not that the, it's not that the position is vacant per se because you still have to contract with the nurses. And so we're spending more, you know, we should just. Increase the the the rate of pay. But then we get in front of, we get the agencies in front of us and I know I'm on a tangent, but this is just this is making me pull my hair out. And it's it's like we, we sit up here and we have the same questions over and over instead of just fixing the problem. And this is just frustrating. So I digress, but. I hope we can please fix, I hope we can please fix this problem because it makes no sense that we continue to feel the nurses positions like nurses through contract. And then it's like we have this high vacancy rate? But we're still paying them. It just makes no sense, so, alright, I'm not gonna ask you about that General Pen and first of all, thank you for what you do. Uh, now, uh, but I am, I am going to talk about county veterans service officers. And the, the, the, I, I want to try to figure out where it is it in here in the book, the County Veteran Service officers because I'm on page 324. Is that where you're paying? Veteran service officers out of. So, so we, we, the, to clarify, we do not provide, uh, well, that's what I'm getting to. I'm getting to you, you're trying to steal my thunder. Don't steal my thunder yet, alright, so County Veteran Service officers are paid out of what funds? Well Well, so they're your match. You're a match for County veteran service officer. Turn your bike on so we hear you. Do we Yes, do we not know where we're county veterans services officers are being paid from they're out of, out of, um, 224 and their HEA 2206. Which is the What page is that? 324. OK, I'm, I'm on the right page, right, because when you, when you were talking with Senator Hammer. I thought you said 220 million and I was like, not 220 million, is it 220,000 that you were trying to say? Yes, sir, if I said a million, I misspoke. OK. Now, how much, how much of that rate, how much of it per county? What are we spending per county right now. So, uh, in, in general terms, so yeah, in general terms yes sir so we have two different grant programs and so the first grant is provides uh supplementation to the county budget for expenditures associated with the uh with the office of the county DSO so office supplies, printer paper, things of that nature. And we reimburse, uh, at the rate of $1 for every $2 spent up to a maximum of $484,800 a year. And then uh the second grant, uh, provides a uh an incentive for the county BSO, uh, to achieve uh certification on the use of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, uh, IT system, the veterans benefit management system and, and that uh reimbursement is at And then uh the second grant, uh, provides a uh an incentive for the county BSO, uh, to achieve uh certification on the use of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, uh, IT system, the veterans benefit management system and, and that uh reimbursement is that uh is that the rate of a maximum of $4000 a year. OK, so next the county can get about 95 to $9800. Yes, sir, and so that money while it's designed for the, the VSO office in the individual. I mean it. In practice, it is actually a deposited into uh the county general fund and the county judge then decides how to disperse it out. OK. I'm just trying to, what I'm trying to figure out is this, is that, do you think that amount as of 2024 is a sufficient amount to to reimburse the counties as a match. To ensure that. We have veteran services officers where we need them. I have not heard any complaints from the counties at this point. OK. So then, if, if the counties have an issue, they need to start complaining. Yes, sir, that would be, that would, that would probably be a, a, a good first step. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'm trying to get you up, Senator Hammer. There you go. You're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you go back and tell me that 60%, um, Occupancy rate, or what, what's the occupancy rate on both the homes, please. Uh, sir, in terms of, uh, uh, absolute numbers of the, uh, veteran home uh census for North Little Rock is 82. Uh the Fayetteville home is 47. Now the, uh The uh the upper limit for both homes is uh 96 and 92% respectively, uh, when we first came in, uh, we went up to Fayetteville had traditionally had uh problems for the last, uh, I'm not sure how many years, long time. Yes, sir. So we went up and did this an assessment of that facility and uh. I'll be quite frank, I mean, while the, uh, while the, the level of care is sufficient while we meet all of the standards that the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the senator, uh, the center for uh Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of Long-term care here for the state. I require of us. In fact, when you go up there and look at that facility, you walk away from that place with the, uh, feeling that it is an institution as opposed to a home and uh. We, our first thought was to go up and recommend to the governor that we shut the home down, but we found out that having the home uh gave us greater standing with the Department of Veterans Affairs, uh, for the new grant that we are anticipating getting. And so with that being said, we decided that the next best solution was to uh cap intake and uh uh at the, the or the Fayetteville home and used the North Little Rock home to prop the Fayetteville home up, so that's, that's the, uh the reason for the discrepancy in numbers. So it was a, it was a, a conscious decision on our part, OK? And you're saying you're bringing in 5 to 6 million, uh, use the word profit, um, For both homes or is that, that total all together that's, that's total right now the two are bringing in 5 to 6 million, not each one bringing in 5 to 6 the two together, yes, sir. OK, so when you model it out and you get everything done that you want to get done, you would hope that you could be at the closer to the 96 and 92, as you get the home in Fayetteville fixed and built and all that. Yes, sir. And so, uh, and with those both with both homes up and running at full capacity. Uh, we would expect a pretty significant, uh, revenue stream that we could then begin, uh, thinking about doing things like building new homes and not necessarily rely upon the state legislature for the match instead being able to generate that internally what I'm thinking is that, um, and I heard you talk about air conditioner portion of that has to be in order to get it maintained or keep it maintained so you don't let it get in condition it got into up there that you inherited. But your long-term model based on your projected profits, how much of that would be earmarked to go toward, uh, paying the staff comparable salaries that I understand we would have to come in and do some adjustments to allow for that. Uh, are you modeling that out so that we can get off the contract and get onto, uh, salaries that will lower the The turnover. Yes, sir, just, just by increasing the number of state employed nurses, uh, at the facilities allows us to decrease the number of uh contract nurses, which is, is a savings, a net savings for the, uh, uh, for the cash accounts to run the homes, but that is in your model and What's, what are we looking at 3 to 5 years out before you think that would become a reality. I mean, just, just with the, the rate of uh activity that goes into contracting through the state system. I mean, if we got the grant in today, we would not expect the home up in Fayetteville to be or, uh, Rogers to be constructed probably within a short of 5 years. All right, we'll have some offline. Thank you. Thank you, chair. All right, ladies and gentlemen, this, this is starting to run real long and I know yesterday we didn't get finished because we question, question, question, please combine your questions down if you've already heard it, don't ask it, uh. Limit to 2 for now and if we have time, we'll come back. We have to be out here by 11:30 and we'll have a hard time making that if we keep asking 10 and 20 questions. So, uh, we're gonna go on next, but please try to condense your questions if you've already heard it. So bright, baby. I'm having trouble with this. Thank you Mr. Chair. Over here to your left, gentlemen. Um, just real quick, just talking real quick about the, the uh new home up in Rogers, not to be caught flat-footed. We've got appropriation, obviously, 15 million from, from our restricted reserve. We've got the request in to get the 30 million from the federal government. We've got a, a land donation that's approximately valued at $6 million. It expires in 2025. Do we anticipate getting another award or do we anticipate asking the donor to extend their gratitude or you gonna need to come to us and ask for money to purchase land. So, sir, right now, uh, uh, in terms of the land we're currently uh re-engaging through Representative Womack's office with the Walton Family Foundation, uh, to have the reversionary clause and the deed, uh, extended out into the future. Uh, we are also anticipating, uh, getting, uh, that grant. We spoke with Senator Bozeman's office, uh, last week, and they are still actively engaged with the Department of Veterans Affairs to try to get, uh, money allocated off of this last list that was just released, uh, but failing that, then to uh ensure that we make the grant for this next year. All right, perfect. Thank you. What Represent Tosh. Over here to your right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick and, and maybe I misunderstood, but I thought a while ago you said that there was already a state veterans home in uh in Northwest Arkansas and this money that's, uh, you're trying to appropriate now, I think, trying to keep up with the total sounds like it's close to between 40 and $45 million. My question is simply this, you already have one in Northwest Arkansas, and we've got other parts of the state. I'm from northeast Arkansas. We've got a lot of veterans up there and I'm just curious as to why there's already one there in that part of the state, but we're putting this type of money into a new one while other parts of the state have never had the first one. So I'm just curious to the logic behind that and I'm sure representatives from Southeast, Southwest Arkansas would feel the same way about their area as to why those are not being strategically located. As the need comes, uh, and the money as we look at where we're gonna place the money. Can you address that? Yes, sir, so when the decision to, uh, to apply for a new home in Northwest Arkansas was made back in 2021 or 2022, uh, it was, uh, the, the grant request was submitted as a replacement for the facility that's up there and, and the VA manages replacement request versus new facil uh brand new facilities where none previously. existed on a different scale. Uh, but if, if you go up and look at the facility there in Northwest Arkansas. So we, uh, We initiated that facility back in 2006 and instead of going and building a facility, uh, that could best be utilized as a long-term care facility. uh, what we did was we released, we leased a wing off of what was the old Washington Regional Medical Center, uh, there on, uh, uh, the what is now the UAMS campus right next to the the VA hospital. When you go in there and look around, as I mentioned earlier, I mean, the facility meets all of the standards of care, but it is a terrible, terrible facility and needs to be replaced. And so, you know, does that, you know, answer the specifics of your question, I'm not sure, but I'm telling you that that facility as it currently exists, I would not want to go there as a aging veteran and spend my uh remaining years there and I'll make a quick follow up then. If that's the plans, are there any long term plans for other parts of the state because, you know, we've got veterans all over this state and that's, uh, that's quite a reach for them as far as the ones from Northeast, southeast, southwest to go to uh Northwest Arkansas or even the Little Rock. So are there any long term plans to try to accommodate those veterans in the other parts of the state. Yes, sir. Uh, so our, our veterans commission, which is the advisory body that provides uh. Input for all things veteran across the state of Arkansas. They've already started considering that, uh, as, uh, one of their projects to determine where and, uh, when and what order, uh, we should look at uh building. New facilities as we go into the future, uh, Northeast Arkansas right now is probably the next big, uh, mass of veteran population and then from there uh we consider what comes next. OK, thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Lenning Thank you, Mr. Chair, to your left, um, with respect to the, the home in Fayetteville. I believe you said that once we received the grant, we're looking at about 5 years to get the new facility constructed and open and, and residents relocated. So it sounds like we are at least 6 years away from that under best case scenario, that is my uneducated rough guess about how long it takes to contract a major facility like that in the state of Arkansas, you do seem optimistic that we are going to make the cut this next time, if for some reason we don't, is the plan to just keep reapplying? Is there a plan B, sir, from, from our perspective right now, we would continue to apply up until, you know, either the legislature or the governor's office decides that that is no longer a a a thing to pursue. was, as we have all noted, the conditions there at the Faville home are pretty rough. I hear from families very often. Are there steps we can take in the meantime to continue to improve. Conditions at that facility. There, I mean, we have, uh, money within our cash account to do any kind of upgrades that we think are necessary for the safety and the care of the veterans, uh, the. The peculiarity of that facility is we lease it, so I'm hesitant to spend a lot of money on cosmetics, uh, that I'm then gonna turn right back around and give back to my landlord when I finally do move out. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course the lady had hit it in here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, got to, I'll try to be quick on this, but, uh, Representative Tosh. Uh, his question, I wanna kind of expand on that a little bit. Uh, we have a veteran's home there in Jonesboro, about 12 houses and uh uh operation center. It's not a long term final, uh, center. Is there any funding going to that facility. It was built by the city, but are y'all funding any of that? No, sir, we don't find it. Do you fund anything like that anywhere else in the state. It's a short-term thing for veterans. No, we don't. OK, thank you. One other question. Going back to the nurses and I'll try not to repeat what's already been asked, but um, You know, uh, Senator Love, I I understand what he's saying and this is a difficult problem. It would be as hard as pulling his hair out, I think, but Uh, or maybe more difficult. I don't know, but, uh, but here, here's my question, OK? Where are we spending the money? What line item are we spending the money to contract nurses in. What line item in the budget. and Temporary staff is currently coming out of 02 operations. So there is a line item in the budget that we're spending money out of for that. OK, why don't you all come to us and transfer that money from that line to salaries. And hire more people. What, what's stopping you, I, I think I know the answer to this, but what's stopping you from doing that? Sir, it is the pay scale. We, we cannot attract people as it stands right now. It's the pay scale. So how do we change the pay scale? Sir, I believe that's part of the budget, uh, the governor's package that she intends to send forward later uh and when will that be released? I would defer over to the governor's office for that, sir. Well, I totally support the governor on what she's doing, but we actually approved the money here. It doesn't have to come from the governor, and I think most everybody up here agrees that we need to fix this problem. And we need to fix it quick, and I believe that we would be willing to make a change if we don't get a change from the executive branch. And again, I'm not close to what the governor's doing, but this needs to be fixed and needs to be now, it is crazy what we're doing. So, thank you. Senator Stubblefield. Did you kill it? Hi, OK, hold on. Thank you Chairman, uh. Gentlemen, how long have you been using uh not using competitive bidding on these uh contract procurements that fit certain criteria. Sir, we, uh, we put those uh uh contracts up for bid. I mean they're all competitive bidding in line with state law. Well, the audit findings said, said that you didn't. Yes, sir, so we, we have since fixed that. That was, uh, uh. 28 before 2023. How long, how long ago it was, it was before 2023 when we came on board, we, uh, looked at all of our, uh, Uh, contracting processes and have put improvements in place. The final, uh, we just, we just went through an audit here, uh, last month in all of those findings are gone, so you, you do use competitive bidding and all these right, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I'm a little I'm right here in front of you. Sorry. Thank you so much. I'm a little confused, um, about your answers, uh, to, uh, Representative Tasha's questions, so the Northwest Arkansas Veterans Home currently understand the situation. Are there plans then to just go to one after you build, or are you going to maintain 2? No, ma'am, we will, we will turn the, uh, facility that we are currently in back over to UAMS and we will consolidate into one facility in Northwest Arkansas. OK. Is there anything in your appropriation and have you done any design work or soft design work, construction management plans, architectural engineering. Have you done anything like that to be shovel ready when you get the green light and the federal money. Have you done any planning? We have considered doing that kind of planning and here's, here's our dilemma. I mean, we could spend the $15 million that we've. Currently got in state mat sitting aside in the restrictive reserve to do that, uh, but it, I mean, from where I sit, it looks like gambling on the, you know, the, the federal government to provide the money at some point in time, so I, I would hate to spend $15 million and then two years from now, come back and say, you know, the federal government has just got, you know, has decided not to run that grant program anymore. So do we have any way of getting a deadline or should we as a legislature tell you if we don't have the federal money by this date, which is one year from now. Or 2 years from now, that we will scrap this idea. And we will seek to purchase what we're leasing and make the improvements there, because, because we're, this is kind of, I hear everybody complaining and, and asking these questions, and for me, it's time to make a decision about it. So if you haven't done anything, then you're, you know, even if you get the money, federal money. You're still gonna have a, a year or more of design work and all of that. So, And, and you don't really have, do you have anything in your appropriation. Um, to be able to do anything like that, any preliminary. Design work. Do you have anything in your current appropriation and you haven't really we don't have anything in there. So capital outlay that I read on page 326. You've got the capital outlay of 313 is that primarily then capital outlay for your Little Rock home or North Little Rock home. Or What's the, for the veteran's home, I'm looking on page 326. Is that so that you have an increase of capital outlay to, from, we spent 17,760 on capital outlay, budgeted 140, but the request. Is 3:13. So So are we having any, are we, what are we using that money for? Is there a plan or? So yeah, it's just, it's for a general upkeeping uh management of the facility and replacement of various IT equipment. OK, equipment so that could be either location ma'am. OK. Alright, well, I, I think, you know, probably a good opportunity. To Group with legislators, particularly from that area. Um, but I mean, it's everybody across the state and, and figure out a plan of action because we can't just keep waiting and not dealing. It's just not, in my opinion, it's not smart and it's not, I can, it's not smart. And we need to be an active government, taking care of these folks that we've made a promise and a commitment to take care of. And so, let's do it. And let's figure it out and let's put it on a deadline on there and if we need to do that legislatively, I think that this body should start speaking up legislatively. And say, this is what we want, this is what we expect. These are the timelines. You either move or we go to another plan. Thank you for the question. I Senator Chesterfield, you recognize motion at the proper time, Mr. Chair I move executive rec I got it all in favor. And you oppose? All right, Miss, Miss Cathy, you're up again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're now going to go to uh disabled veterans service office. This is, uh, continuation of one of the parts of Veterans Affairs, uh, let me see, it's on page. 3:18 in your uh book, uh, this is a small portion of the VA. This is for us offering assistance to veterans, um, with their benefits and is primarily supported by disabled American Veterans Service offices, they also provide transportation services to veterans for outpatient appointments. It's a 3 27,000, uh, um, excuse me, it's a $41,000 appropriation. There's one position. There's no changes to this and the executive recommendation provides for that request. Any questions? Have a motion, a 2nd discussion, seeing none. All in favor say aye. Any posed? Motion carries. Final appropriation, Mr. Chairman, is found on page 343, and this is for Arkansas Veterans Child Welfare Service and other division of theirs uh to assist eligible minor children of honorably discharged veterans, um, who are deceased or medically incapacitated if eligible, they can assist with basic living expenses up to a maximum of $500 a year. They're requesting this is to discontinue one position. There were uh Previously two positions for this program, um, and they would uh take the decrease in salary and match and allow them to put more into their grants and aid for the actual individuals they're trying to assist, and that would be $65,742 added to the grants and aid. The executive provides for that request of deleting one position and increasing the grants and aid, and that's all for Veterans Affairs. 7 Hold on, I got one person lined up to speak. President Wooten short and quick. If you're depending on the federal government. For assistance. You're wasting your time. In case you haven't heard, and the rest of my colleagues haven't heard. The federal government is broke. And reckoning that he is coming. And we're gonna hit, we're gonna get hit extremely hard. Because we've gotten to the point to where we rely on Washington. And we needed to take care of our own and we need to take care of our veterans. And Washington is not doing it. I hope that's very clear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, I do. Have a motion, have a second, all in favor, say aye. And your post? All right, motion curious. Thank y'all. All right, we have Game of fish up next. All right, if I could ever get everyone at the table to announce who they are and who they're with, that would be great. Uh, good morning, everyone. I'm Austin Booth, the director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. In which she made CFO Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Chris Ray, chief of staff, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Coleman with the Bureau of Legislative Research, um, and members, I'd just like to point out this budget manual will be in this uh little booklet right here. Uh, quick reminder, Game and fish is a constitutional agency, so there is no executive recommendation for this, uh, budget request today. Everything our reference will be an agency request. If you'll turn me to page 3 of the manuals, we'll go over some quick totals real fast. Uh, this year 26, the agency is requesting 197. Roughly $197 million in fiscal year 27, about $200 million. Uh, that's uh an even $20 million from fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26 and another $3.1 million after that for skier 27. Uh, there are only a few changes within the agency with the first of which is on page 6 of your manuals. This is the operations appropriation for Gaming fish that's funded by Conservation sales tax, license sales, and federal revenues. Uh, so, This appropriation totals out at $153 million roughly for fiscal year 26, uh, and you'll notice that's the same number as Fiscu 25, but there are some moving pieces in there that we'll need to go over, uh, $156 million roughly for fiscal year 27. Uh, the first change we need to talk about is regular salaries, um, on that lineup you'll see increases of around $1.5 million in fiscal year 26 and $3.1 million in fiscal year 27 to provide 3% merit-based raises each year, the biennium along with additional 95. 00 $0 annually due to the reclassing of 11 positions. Uh, secondly, we have some extra help increases of $141,000 for each year of the biennium to provide extra part-time labor for operations and recreational shooting divisions. Along with those salary and extra help changes there are personal service matching increases of $374,000 in fiscal year 26 and $745,000 in fiscal year 27. Uh, the next change is on the operating expenses line item with increases of $2.7 million in fiscal year 26, just under $3 million in fiscal year 27, uh, this increase will cover maintenance of facilities and wildlife infrastructure, computerized maintenance management systems, deer management, waterfowl conservation, recreational shooting and systems security. On the next line item, we see conference and travel increases of $67,000 for both years of the biennium for continued staff training. Um And there is a $515,000 increase to professional fees for survey design. Uh, work related to construction, real estate matters, and boundary marking and maintenance. Uh, the commission is requesting $5.5 million less in Fiske year 26 and $5 million less in fisk or 27, uh, then the $22.7 million authorized for 50 or 25 and the construction line item. They requested $17.2 million for fiscal year 26 and 17.7 million and 27 will be used for hatchery improvements, lake renovations, and public access improvements. Um Let's see, there's about a $3 million decrease in grants and aid appropriation, that's due to reallocations within the agency. Uh, and lastly, the capital outlay line item contains 3.1 million and $3.2 million dollar increases in both years of the biennium respectively, uh, for equipment, fleet, land purchases, and land improvements. That's the operations appropriation. Next we'll look at page 8. And uh this is the gas lease revenue appropriation. This appropriation is funded by gas lease revenues and is used as needed for natural disaster response, gas lease grants, and one time commission needs. Uh, there is no change to this appropriation. It's an even $5 million for each year the upcoming bi-ann, the same as fiscal year 25 authorized. Um, page 10. We can find the conservation partners program grants. Uh You can see the continuation of $150,000 total for this appropriation and this, uh, this is used. To pass donation dollars to uh Arkansas Hunter's Feeding the Hungry. Page 12. We have the Black River Settlement Appropriation, uh, this appropriation is funded by Black River judgment dollars and can only be used to mitigate hardwood timber destruction and Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area. Uh, this is just a continuation of $13.25 million for both years of the biennium. Uh, Nextly, on page 14, same thing here, just a continuation of the fiscal year 25 appropriation at $6 million for marine fuel tax program, uh, this appropriation is funded by a transfer of gas tax revenue from our dot. Uh, the program is used to improve and increase access to waterways across the state. Uh, and lastly, on page 16, uh, the commission is requesting a new fund source dedicated to Green Tree Reservoir renovations and other wetland habitat restoration throughout the state. It appropriation will be funded by federal revenue, conservation sales tax, and license sales revenues and the agency is requesting $20 million in appropriation for both years of the upcoming biennium. And Mr. Chairman, that concludes all the appropriations for Game Fish commission. All right, we have questions. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank y'all. I'm over here. I have to move so you can actually see me. I really have just a few questions, but I want you, if you don't mind, and I'm just doing this to put y'all on the record because as you know, we've had a lot of crazy rumors going around about the Hatchicoon land down around my area and, you know, there's been wild rumors that game and fish tried to take it and all this stuff, and I know that's not the fact, and If you don't mind, if you could speak to that about that it's not y'all trying to take the land and because I'm all for holding you accountable when it's not you doing it. I'd like you to have the chance to speak to that. Thank you for the opportunity, ma'am. Uh, The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission manages roughly, uh, 3.2 million acres in the state of Arkansas that is public land. And that's a wonderful thing. That's one of the things that makes Arkansas so great. In addition to that, we have 96,000 miles of rivers, um, and oftentimes the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is left in the very difficult position of adjudicating where the property line is when we're not the landowner, uh, we have, uh, outstanding law enforcement officers through Out the state that's similar to Arkansas state troopers are simply there to enforce what the speed limit is. In this situation, enforce where the property line is, uh, and often times when we deal with some of that cooperatively managed public land that's owned by the cops or the commissioner of of state lands in the case of rivers, uh, where the property line is up to the courts, up to United States Congress, uh, it's not up to. The Arkansas Game Fish Commission, uh, which is a very long way to say that we are not after anybody's land in northeast Arkansas. We never have been. Uh, we're just trying to support our game wardens the best we can in enforcing what the property line is. OK, I appreciate that because I know there's been some wild crazy stuff, you know, being said around that area. But, um, with that, I do appreciate you saying that and I do have one question dealing with the projects that you have come. coming up, whether it's the wetlands or whatever it is. Do you mind getting us a list of staff so that we'll know what projects that y'all actually have on the table to be working on. Yes, ma'am, we'd be more than happy to provide that list. Thank you. Senator Irwin. Thank you. Quick question on the Maroon marine fuel tax program. Is that, are, are you using this, these funds in a way to help increase access to marine fuel along rivers, lakes, specifically where? Yes, ma'am. Uh, as you know, we, uh, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in partnership with RAT. We've created about 450 access points all across Arkansas in all 75 counties, uh, since this program has been around. So when we look at where the revenue comes from, i.e. marine fuel, uh, we are 100% looking to every part of the state trying to get more motorists out there, uh, so this is access. To, so, boat ramps and that sort of thing. OK, ma'am. Is, do you have flexibility in that program to create or help, um, Fuel stations, for example, along the Arkansas River. take that. I don't know if you have the, uh, the, I'm I'm asking if you have the authority within the appropriation or language within the appropriation to, to do more than just provide like boat ramps and that type of access, but when you think about like being able to navigate all the way down a river like the Arkansas River, you would need more fuel access points, not just boat ramps. Absolutely. That's a great question. Our current agreement, um, Limits us to things that improve access for recreational use of the water, but that is something that we definitely can, we'll look into with AR dot to help, uh, that would feed the fund, uh, definitely something we would be encouraged to look at with them in the federal side of that. I hope you would, um, I, I would just encourage you and I'd love to, to work with you on that because I really feel like our river, our Arkansas River is an incredible resource that we're really underutilizing, um, in a lot of ways. So I'd love. to really have conversations with you guys about that. And then the last question I have is on page 16, that 20 million, is that your wetland, uh, habitat renovation, is that probably, is that primarily the Lake Conway. Area or project or no, ma'am, uh, Lake Conway will, will remain in 259, uh, under our Capitol construction with that operations account, uh, the GTR and wetlands appropriation is really targeted towards these, uh, major green tree reservoirs, uh, with very high cost, OK, thanks. I just wanted to know where that one was located. Thank you so much. Represent you. Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm, I'm confused about the number of employees you're authorized. Well Yeah, let me say that first, the report I have shows that you're authorized 6044 positions. You book shows 634. And you show that you're employing 605. So, Which, which is, I mean, Good. Do you employ 6, 1st of all, let's deal with the authorization. Are you authorized 644 or you authorized 634. Yes, sir. We are authorized 644. The 6:34, I believe, is on the actual column, that first column of page 6 that um re references a snapshot in time of how many positions were filled at a certain date, um, but we are authorized the 644 and that's what we're asking to continue. The next Area, I want to call a particular attention to my friends at DFA. On page 3. Of all things, we have interest. Income Now You purchase it 1.5 million, you actually took in, I, I'm assuming 2.8 million. An interest, is that correct? But the important thing is that you showed. The interest, and I want to commend you for that. I don't know whether you heard about the questioning or whether you just did it, but either way, you're to be commended for that. In my opinion, Thank you. Humble opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Because OK. Last year you Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so in previous years, Director Booth, thank you for being here. In previous years, um, I was presented with a document that had, uh, deferred maintenance up to about 300 million. given that was before your time. So is that the case in, uh, has that been worked through, uh, where are we at this point? Sure. Uh Well, the short answer is We have A continued but improving pro uh problem with deferred maintenance, uh. I don't think you were, or anybody else would expect for any state agency to move quick enough to tackle $300 million in 3 years. I is that an accurate number? I mean, it was around 300 if I remember correctly. Is that, uh, somewhat accurate? I would say that in the range of 250 to $300 million is reasonable, uh, however, what this agency realized was that we were underperforming when it came to Capitol construction, um, execution, uh, that it's one thing to have a deferred maintenance or infrastructure problem, but it's another thing to, to even be capable of doing the work necessary to fix that problem, uh, and so if you look at our, our Capitol construction execution, uh, at, at the end of FY 21, we were, we were putting down about $5.7 million in capital construction projects, uh, if you go to the end of FY 24, uh, we put down close to 16, uh. So we are trending in the right direction when it comes to addressing that backlog, and I, I am very confident that FY 25 will be the best year we've ever had. OK, and, and so where would that be in your in your budget, where would that those monies be to tackle some of that deferred maintenance that in capital outlay, where, where is that? Uh, that will mostly be, uh, in the 259 construction budget and also that's on page. That will be on page 6. Yes, sir. And then also on page 16 in the GTR and we on habitat renovation appropriation. OK, thank you. Yes, sir. lady, you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, You know, our, uh, recreational income is growing and in order to keep that growing, we need to expand our facilities. I know maintenance is important. You have to do that, but, you know, if, if we wanted to expand or, or build a new lake, maybe a flood control or whatever, uh, is there money available for that? Do you all fund that? Do you fund studies for that, uh, if I wanted to build a lake up in northeast Arkansas, I want to get funds for that. How would I do that? Ah, we would love to work with you or any of your constituents or uh any of the local leaders, uh, within your part of the state to see to see what they have planned, um, I, I will say that one of the best ways that we can meet the future demands for, uh, outdoor recreation in Arkansas is to take care of what we've got right now, um, so we want to see outdoor re grow, uh, and we certainly want to serve your, uh, your part of the state and if there's a right way for us to balance growth with fixing what we have, then we'll certainly do it. But any new facility like that, whether it's in Northeast Arkansas, anywhere in the state would be a consortium of different agencies, is that what you're telling me? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Senator Chesfield, you have a motion or you have? OK, I got one more then I'll come back to. Senator Hammer, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, do you know how many out of state hunters we have and what we charge in the way of fees, equivalent to what our folks are being charged when they go out of state. Um, relative to the cost, sir, uh, we increased our non non-resident license fees and calendar year 23, uh, right before the beginning of fiscal year 2024. Um, and at this time, when you compare, you know, apples to oranges with what our non-residents are going to, sorry, what our residents are going to chase in surrounding states, uh, we are close to the highest, uh, in our region. what we charge non, uh, non-residents. We did see a revenue increase from that fee increase, uh, on the non-resident side, but we saw a decrease in the number of products that we sold, which tells us that uh that we are in the green when it comes to revenue, but we'll probably starting to price people out. OK. And then the same thing when it comes to infrastructure, does that include, and I remember past discussions, does that include like the uh fish hatchery up at, uh, Heber Springs. Is that part of the infrastructure price tag you gave a while ago. Well, it, uh, so we've completed the renovation of our only trout hatchery, which is on the Spring River, which is outstanding operational, uh, this fiscal year. The hatchery in Heber Springs, uh, is owned and operated. by the federal government, uh, but our infrastructure projections do include the renovation of two other Arkansas game and fish hatcheries. So could you send a list of what the infrastructures are, are aligned with the price tag that you gave just so we could take a look at that before general session, please. Yes, sir. OK, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, it could be distributed to everybody, please. Thank you. Representative Woolridge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and, uh, thank you, Director Booth. I wanted to also, uh, piggyback a little bit off of Representative Kavanaugh's question. I appreciate you clearing the air on that. I am a little bit confused though, and I guess I'm asking you to educate me on the boundary lines. How is that determined? Is that off the high water mark or you said something about that it's established in Congress. Uh, well, under Arkansas law, the ordinary high water mark is, uh, has been defined by the court system, um, as A physical feature, um, that is basically in layman's terms, where the water is for most of the year. Um, so we don't set that property line, um, that's up to the court system, to the Army Corps of Engineers. So I guess as a state we just honor whatever that is set up by the core. Uh That that's been one approach, yes, sir. OK. Thank you, sir. Chestville, do I have a motion for agency request? Uh, yes, sir. I do have a motion for agency requests. a second. All, if I ever say I. pose now. All right, motion carries. Thank you all. All right. Next up, uh, DFNA assessment coordination. All right, we're starting back where we left off yesterday. We have moved on a little bit, so we've got about an hour to hear some of this. If y'all would, you would state your name and who you're with and uh we'll proceed. Jim Hudson, secretary of DFA. Andy Babbitt, DFA. Melanie has slip DFA. Adam Penman, uh, legislative research. All right, Adam, I'll let you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our we are starting today on page 136 of your manuals. This is for DFA assessment coordination division. This agency exercise is general and complete supervision over the valuation assessment and equalization of all locally assessed adm taxes in Arkansas. Adam, can you pull that mic just a little closer. Right. And the local officials and employees administering those in all 75 counties. You can see on their appropriation summary on page 136. They're funded primarily by real property reappraisal, fund balances and adorum taxes are. They have 4 total appropriations, 3 of those have changed levels and total agency is requesting 19.6 million for FY 26 and 27 and the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Our first appropriation on page 137 and 138. This is the real property reappraisal program. Where the market value of real property located within the counties of Arkansas is re-approached every 3 to 5 years for taxation purposes. And special language provides funding for this by proportional transfers from the public school fund, the county aid fund, and the municipal aid fund. Up to $14.25 million you see those percentages broken down on page 137. And agency is requesting to continue appropriation the amount of 15.75 million each year of the biennium. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Oh, forgot there's also a special language that provides for a transfer of funds from miscellaneous agencies up to $1.5 million and that's how they arrive at the 15.75 million total. Page 139 and 140, our next appropriation, this is the county assessors continuing Education. Funded by the county assessors continuing Education Fund with $600 assessments collected annually from counties. And then these proceeds are used exclusively for operation of this program. Agency is requesting to continue appropriation in the amount of $60,000 each year, the biennium. And this includes a change. Uh, a reallocation of $7500 from operating expenses line item to their conference and travel line item to better classify expenditures related to agency sponsored conferences and seminars, and the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Our next appropriation on page 141 and 142. This is the operations appropriation for the agency. This is utilized for personal services and operating expenses of the division with funding provided by general revenue and transfers from the Advilorum tax fund. The agency is requesting appropriation the amount of $3.8 million for FY 26 and FY 27. And this includes a transfer in of one position from DFA revenue division and a transfer out of one position to DFA revenue division in both cases, the agency states this transfer is needed to better utilize positions within the department. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency of Quest and the reclassification of one position. 143 and 144 are. Last appropriation for this section. This is cash operations. This is their cash and treasury account. This is funded by proceeds from the sale of property assessment and appraisal publications along with tuition collected from private citizens who enroll in assessment and appraisal courses. The agency is requesting to continue appropriation in the amount of $55,000 each year of the biennium, and this includes a reallocation of $5000 from their professional fees line item to conference and travel expenses line item to align with projected conference and seminar costs. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for assessment coordination division. All right, I have some questions. Let me go ahead and get those up. Represent Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here. Uh, my question's going to be on 140 and 142, um, in particular, um, when it talks about the continuing education, who's actually doing that training. Assessment coordination, um, does that training themselves, but they outsource the trainers. OK. So is this. $22,000 the amount of the outsourced fee. The actual spend, is it the outsource fee, that's gonna be part of the training, the trainer cost, part of the, um, they also buy books for the classes and then also potentially some travel for the non-state employees who attend. OK, so, you know, I'm gonna go down. They got a fund balance of $415,000 based on their spend, that's over 18 years' worth of fund balance. So, We're hitting the counties for a $600 a year for that correctly? Am I correct in that? Correct. OK. Why we keep charging them if we have such an excess of funds. Representative Kavanaugh, the $600 is in law, so if there was a need to change that, it'd be up to the General Assembly to make that change. OK, so what you're saying is if I want to change that, I need to get a law drafted. Yes, ma'am. OK. And on 142. Um, it's very similar. It's got accessor school for 239,000 and then it's got assessors, education incentive for like 129,000 on the actual spend. What are those? Assessor school and it's 142. Yeah, 142 says assessor school and assessment education incentive. I'm just trying to see how they relate, ma'am. Uh, my apologies to the, to the committee, uh. Director Collier is actually doing the assessment coordination annual training today in Springdale, so she couldn't be here. This may be something we have to follow back up with you on that. That was scheduled well in advance of the JBC, uh, committee getting, getting scheduled. I believe that the assessor school is for new assessors to get them up to speed on how to be an assessor, but we can circle back with you on that. OK, so if you can, so that might be different than the uh. that's cause continuing education and you think the assessor schools for new assessors. If you could find that out and get it to staff. I appreciate it. Thank you. Senator Hammer, you recognize. Thank you. My questions are gonna be on page 136. Could you just And, and maybe you gave me the explanation. I just didn't latch on to it, but The, um, if I'm reading this right, As we get As we get down there, the excess appropriation out in 2627. It Can you give me an explanation of that, please? We're we're not sure, but we are depleting the uh the cash, the cash fund balance. You know, I think one of the things that we're seeing in the assessments is that they're getting more expensive to do the assessments. And so it is an area that we're gonna be watching in the next biennium, um, to see if we need to adjust funding we can transfer GR into that. We do have a pot of GR we can draw from on that, so it's not quite as as dire as it looks like on this piece of paper, but the, the balance is coming down. And the, and the reason it's getting more costly to do the assessment is what. Well, the, you know, all counties are are using uh different service providers to do that and so it's just, it's just more expensive to conduct the assessments. Do we, we reimburse the counties for that. We do. That's the whole purpose of this program. Maybe this isn't The, the right question to ask, but Would there be any reason to try to bring it all under one if there's if there's discrepancy in cost, some counties are costing more than others because of the population or because of the service that they used to do the assessing. Well, it's, it's probably a combination of both, I would think. I mean, you, you have more densely populated counties with a greater number of parcels, so it's just gonna take a greater level of effort to do reassessments in Pulaski and Washington and Benton County, there may be some other counties in the state. All right, but it's on your radar screen as far as watching this. It is we are. OK, thank you. Represental you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna go back to. kind of Representative Kavanaugh was at. So Secretary, is there, when they're at the schools, is there certain rules and guidelines that they're taught. I'm gonna give you an example. Um, can we use real estate sales from border states, or should it be within the state of Arkansas that we're looking for our new assessments to be under. So to to answer the question this way, the, the training is detailed, it's technical, it's very specific as to whether or not that fact pattern is one thing that they actually incorporate into the assessment. I don't know the answer to that. We can get back to you on. Second question is, is there a cap? So say Sevier County does an assessment and they want to bump it up by 40% when they do our assessments, just because, say, Ho Chi Town is much higher reality than what it is there in Arkansas, which is in Oklahoma. Border town to us, um, is there a cap or can they go 100% more on real estate assessments? Can they go 200% higher on real estate due to a town that's near them, that's assessing much higher constitutional capital. Representative Volt, there is a, there is a cap. I don't recall off the top of my head what it is, 10% is what we believe it is, so. Thank you. Represent Wooten your record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question deals with uh We're the and secretary Hudson, this is before you went over to TFA. We had a $10 million. pay out. For COVID Drugs. That we never got, never received. Do you know what the status of that case is to that procurement procedure on that. Where are we and has it, has it ever been turned over to the prosecuting attorney. Uh, Representative and I'm just looking back at Paul Gehry to see if he has any recollection on it and he was not sure what, what you're referring to. Maybe we can have a conversation, you can, you can school me on what that is that this first I've heard of that was brought to the attention of the ALC, um. In 20. 2, 21, 22 that we paid out $10 million for a whack at it. I'll take a whack at it and we'll see where we get it. Um, so there was a payout under the CARES Act. Uh, it was split between DFA and UAMS and then there's been some, uh, continuing legal uh. Emotions back and forth we ultimately did have a small settlement for part of it, but part of it is still under litigation at this time. OK. So, you're familiar with it. Yes, sir. And it's it's currently legally activity going on in that it's not involved in I guess the legal expenses are in the budget. Um Yes, the, the, as I understand it, I think it's a combination of the Attorney General, uh, is representing DFA along with some of the maybe our legal is involved a little bit with that. Representative and jump back in. I'm sorry, I, you know, I didn't recognize the name, um, and I was trying to figure out assessment coordination. This, this is outside assessment coordination. Yeah, this is, it's a yes, sir. This is, this is still subject to active litigation, um, I do. get reports on it periodically. I can tell you that we have not lost sight of it, and we are chasing it. OK. The next question on the same matter is, have we done anything To be sure that we don't pay a head. For something like to China. $10 million. That we don't pay before we receive it or, or we require uh a bond to be posted for half of it or whatever we pay this. It's beyond my imagination that nation is to how a state agency would pay $10 million to prove the payment of $10 million to some company. 5000 miles away in China in the midst of a pandemic. Can you answer what we take any action against or to find out why that happened. Well, again, speaking back to the the situation is subject to act litigation, I will tell you, uh, at least on a go forward basis, you know, under, under my, uh, oversight, you know, we're gonna follow procurement law and we're going to pay after we have receipt of goods. I, I don't I don't want a backseat drive, you know, some of the decisions that happened a few years ago in the middle of the pandemic because we're on. It was almost like a war footing, you remember it was, it was just wild wild west in some respects, but that should not be our ordinary course of business. It, it should not be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, let me proceed with this current budget, um, We have, uh, You have 528 vacant positions in the total Department of DFA. Is that, um, what makes up that? Most of those, sir, would be in the revenue division, uh, those would be. Uh, individuals working in our state revenue offices, uh, administrative support personnel and then also individuals and child support too to make up a bulk of that appears to be the case, sir. Yes, sir. 124. Is that correct? That's correct. This, OK, 8% of your Of the 528 or over 2.5 or over 2 years old. Why, why would we be maintaining those 42 positions. That's 80% of your total vacancies. Yes, sir. Well, we do, you know, obviously we want to staff up as we can as we're able to fill the positions, uh, in the, uh, the revenue services, particularly because those are customer facing positions. And so to the extent that we can get them filled, then we can cut down on, on wait times, but pay is an issue obviously for these, these are very, very low, very low paid positions. Um, you know, every time that we comes time to look at a surrender list. I am very exacting the conversation. I want to be able to surrender positions if we really are not using them, but I do differentiate customer facing positions from General back office. I'm quicker to surrender the back office because we can figure out to be more efficient that way, but customer facing, I'd rather get the positions filled if we can. You, you may not, can answer or you may want Mr. Brooks to answer this question here. The budgets that we've looked at and that we've seen. The actual expenditures are the actual amounts. And I just, I'm on page 142, just as an example. They have, they actual was 2.9 million. The budget was 3.8 million. Do we have a parameter that we allow them to, I mean, tell them that they better not be. I mean, I don't understand being uh a million dollars over a budget for 2.9 million. I mean, do they not know what their expenses are, or are they not budgeting? Are they not looking at it, or are they just sending information over here to satisfy us. And that's just, that's, and that's within your department, but it's throughout state government. I don't understand why we can't budget more accurately. We know we've got 3 years or 4 years of expenditures to look at, to come up with a per month average to come up with a budget, and I don't understand why so many of them are a million, 5 million, 6 million off. I believe in most cases where you see the variant. across the board is on the salary line where you have unfilled positions and you're having salary savings. I think that's, that's most of it, I believe. I'll look back at Mr. Brick and see if he's, yeah, true too. They're, they're budgeting fund balances in there as well. OK. Well, your boils down to inadequate budgeting, in my opinion, and retention of fund balances that, you know, I, I agree with Representative Kavanaugh, uh, 10 years, 15 years of budget balances in these agencies. I understand the Department of Education sits down here and have $700 million in fund balances. And funds and, and that's just totally uh in it, just, there's no. There's no reason for that. Well, yes, sir, I think what I'd say is, um, for those of us who've been over here before, um, we, we know the areas of interest and the areas of concern, and we share them too. And so as we review the proposed budgets as an executive branch, we asked the very questions that you're asking, and we want to understand if you have a high fund balance, what is the plan for bringing that down either by, you know, reducing the revenue coming in or more effectively using the fundal to fund operations. So it's an area of concern for the administration as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Senator Chesterfield. I move executive rec. Of motion, have a second, all in favor say aye. All right. All right, Adam, next one up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next appropriation is going to be DFA Management Services Division. The appropriation summary is on page 147. The agency provides assistance to all state agencies and management and of their funds while exercising certain agency statutory controls. You see they're funded primarily by state central services, federal revenue, fund balances, and general revenue. There are 16 total appropriations. Four of which have changed levels other than salary match. And If in the interest of time we can we can go over only those that have those change levels. The agency is requesting 121 million in appropriation for FY 26 and 27. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. OK, we can go for. First appropriation that has changed levels is going to be on page 156. This is the agency operations appropriation. This is funded by state central services and provides for operations of the management services division. The agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of 20.9 million for both FY 26 and 27 and their agency request you'll see on page 155 includes the following changes. They're asking to transfer 11 positions to DFA revenue division for better utilization and supervision. They're asking for a to reallocate $100,000 from the operating expenses line item to extra help. Each year of buying in for assistance during peak periods. They're asking for a decrease of 57,000 in operating expenses to better align with anticipated expenditures. They're asking to decrease conference and travel expenses by 238,000 each year to better align with anticipated expenditures. And they're asking to continue $100,000 in capital outlay each year for expenditures related to necessary asset acquisitions. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request a reclassification of 10 positions, the discontinuation of 3 positions and the associated salary and matching appropriation. Our next appropriation with change levels is page 157158. This is information technology. This is through the DFA Office of Information Services. And is also funded by state central Services. Here the agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of $46.3 million in FY 26 and 46.4 million in FY 27. They included this includes the following changes they're asking to decrease their information technology services appropriation by 5.3 million each year to better align with anticipated expenditures. And of that 5.3 million. They would ask to reallocate 3.7 million. In FY 26 and 3.8 million FY 27 to their ASIS billings line item to cover anticipated increased costs associated with system licensing and support. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. The next appropriation is on page 161 and 162. This is statewide payroll paying. This provides authority for the disbursement of personal services of state agencies by consolidating to one federal identification number for all state agencies. And the actual expenditures are reflected at the individual agency level. The agency request includes a decrease of $50,000 to better align with anticipated expenditures and the executive recommendation provides for the agency requests and our last appropriation with change levels. This is on page 179 and 180. This is the family violence prevention Services grant. This was through DFA Intergovernmental Services. It was a this was a federal grant program. And the agency is requesting to discontinue discontinue appropriation each year of the biennium because these funds were through the CARES Act. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for DFA Management Services Division. All right, we have some questions. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my first question is going to be on page 150, um, and it's dealing. With the crime, a victim of crime justice assistance. And we've got the grants of $15.5 million. What type of grants are those? And also the other part of that question is gonna be, um, We got funding of 16.1 million from the feds, but we're, look like we're anticipating the 30 almost double that. Are we really anticipating double of that? Are we gonna get a windfall that We need to know about. Norris Smith, Department of Finance Intergovernmental Services. And I'm sorry, can you repeat your question? Yes, on the victims of crime Justice Assistance, we have the grants and AIDS item and it's like $15.5 million. What type of grants are those? Those are grants to um providers, these are a nonprofit organizations that provide services to victims of crime. They meet a certain criteria of um programs that are serving victims who've been either domestic violence or human trafficking, uh, different sets of victims who've been victimized by crime and uh Ver victims of Crime Act fund those organizations. OK, can we get a list of those grants they've gone out to, I'd if you could get that to staff, I'd appreciate that. And the funding. Yeah, I'll take that one, so the, the, the funding hit a peak level, um, from the federal government, uh, in 2021, I think it was, it was during COVID. And so it has been in a steady decline. Uh, from the federal government since then. Um, we have plussed it up, um. Annually just to, you know, make the difference up there best we can. We're carrying a little bit of a balance right now. Um, it is an area that we're discussing in terms of the governor's balanced budget, what we would do, you balanced budget or, you know, some other one-time funds. You know, it, it, they do good work. I think this is another one of those, you know, conversations we have to have where the federal government is stepping back. And you know what is the state's, you know, obligation to step in and, and bridge the gap and how much of the gap I think before we've given, when I think it was JPR we had a meeting about it and their funding had been cut and we stepped in and gave additional funding because the feds, they got a bunch of one-time money for COVID and that was able to help with certain things, but when that money went away, and actually they're getting less than they originally had gotten before COVID. Is that, that's, that's correct, I think. And then. Either that the funding stream, this is, this predates COVID as well. I mean, it's, it's a program that's been around for a while that is primarily funded through, uh, court costs and assessments for cases at the federal level. And so, um, there have been just fewer cases at the federal level for various reasons, I guess. Uh, and so those, you know, those balances are not quite as much. It is an ongoing conversation with the congressional delegation about their read on whether or not the federal government will come back in and uh and reinstate some of that funding. We just don't know if it's gonna happen or not. OK, and this is also along the same line as on page 166. This is a child abuse. and neglect programs, and that is all GR money. And I think like last time we gave away 2 point, we used 2.3 million of GR for it, um, and we're showing that. We're still the funding is still only gonna be 2.3 million, but we're asking for appropriation of 5.2. Is there a reason why we're, we're wanting an appropriation higher than what we think we're going to get in GR and I just don't understand a little bit, this is your? OK. You know, I, I mean, I think we're keeping it there in case more money is made available to us and so we have appropriation available to be able to do it, given, given the nature of the program to kind of have that powder there and be available to us as well. still at the original level. OK. So it's, it's not that we're anticipating, uh, a big increase in the GR. We're just hoping that maybe we find a windfall, and if we do, we've got the program available and the appropriation ready. OK, thank you. Ripsson College, you recognize. Thank you. So on the victims of crime Justice Assistant state match, um, on 160. Uh, it looks like we spent nothing. Um, I just, um, I guess I just want to understand that. So this says that it's a required state match obligation for the federal appropriation where we did get funding. So why do we not spend anything on the match if it's. I mean, what does it matching and are we, I assume we're following the requirements, but I can speak to that, so on the Victims of Crime Act match, the matching is is usually provided by the recipients of the funding and in the event that they are short, then we could supplement, um, but over the past few couple of years, probably since COVID, um, they have received a waiver, a federal waiver for the match, so it hasn't been needed since the match was was not required. Or or it was away for a period of time, but match itself is normally provided by the recipients of the funds. It's, it's not provided by general revenue. It's like cause it just it says general revenue is the funding source here, but you're saying that the recipient of the funds, like the nonprofit provides a match. For the vocal programs they they normally do. We have an appropriation in case the state has a requirement to meet match, but the um programs themselves normally have um in kind match available, so usually if there's not a need for the state to uh uh pay the cost of the match, we can get in-kind match through the organizations themselves. So we would step in if the organization does not match the mandatory. That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, page 174 is where I'm going to be asking my question from, um, it looks like we're budgeted for $100,000 for domestic violence, uh, shelter grants, but we didn't spend any. Money of that budgeted money, can you kind of explain, I know we have these shelters around the state, or I pray to God we still have them around the state. And, are they not, do they not know about these grants that they could be applying for, or what's the situation? The domestic violence shelter grants, they are issued out. It's usuallybi annual because of the funding level, so we uh coordinate with the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence for um coordinating with the local shelters to award the funds too, but it's mostly done by any you just because of the level of funding so it allows them to have a a slightly larger subgrant than they would if we just did it, um, annually. If that answers your question. Yeah, I think so. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Hammer, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. On that list of, uh, provider groups on the domestic, um, Is it, is it under your jurisdiction to monitor, monitor them to make sure that the services that they are living aligned with the intent of the grants that we receive. Yes, sir, it is. OK. Um, I'd like to get a copy of that if you don't mind of your review of those or we'll talk offline to get a copy of those reviews. The on page 158. Under the information technology. I'm, I'm trying to seem like we had a discussion here this week, maybe last week about, uh, information technology and some contracts, maybe they went through review that we awarded in order to provide some expertise service, I would call it. Am I remembering that correctly and is that the, the contract services when it comes to information technology. Or is that all reflected in the total fund increase that's being requested, um, for the funding source down there, is that, are they any way tied together? Am I just like living in another land. Yet we are IT contracts. I think what you're referring to is a different agency that was before you, uh, maybe an Apers that had some contracts, uh, for project management services. We didn't have anything last, last review. We did bring an IT contractor too over previous months for our, uh, upgrade to ASIS. OK, so again, so then the justification, if I'm reading this right, state central services you requesting increase from 2029.5 million up to 46 and some change million. Am I reading that right? And if so, what's again the request for that. We're actually decreasing the appropriation. Go ahead. So, so Senator Hammer, the overall net effect of some, some movements between commitment items is ultimately a decrease. Of appropriation from our original last biennium of 48 million to 46.35 million this time. It's an increased sir, relative to actual. For the previous, uh, fiscal year, we are expecting to have more projects in the pipeline and the upcoming biennium, but we actually think that we're gonna need less appropriation than what we currently have in order to get those done. OK. All right. Thanks for that explanation. And then the last thing is, uh, page 156. On state central services again. Um, if I'm reading this right, you're actuals 185, you're budgeting 2024 to 2021, then you go down to 19 and then you go back up. Just, uh, Why, why the fluctuation in the numbers across the line up through 2026. I'm reading off page 156. Funding stores, state central services. It's, it's actually trending down and if you, if again, if you set aside the actual and you look at budget. You know, for current fiscal year through the biennium, it's, it's relatively flat. OK Let me get offline with you about it. Thanks. All right, Senator Irvin. Thank you, just page 157, it says that you have a decrease in information technology services appropriation of 5.35 million for each year of the biennium to better align with the anticipated expenditures. And then the next bullet says of the 5.35, 3.7 and FY 26 and 3.8 and FY 27 is reallocated. But, so where are the other 2.15 million, uh, coming from. Because. I don't understand why it's a decrease when it's actually an increase when you separate the two out. So, Senator Irvin, if you'll take a look at the, uh, page 158. This is, I'll just kind of walk you through. If you look at the budget for 24, 25 year, uh, on information technology, you'll see that, uh, $5.35 million dollar decrease, part of that, which is, and again, I don't do public math very well, uh, 3.7 million. Uh, for the 25, 26 year was moved, uh, down to the ACES billing line item. And then, uh, then it was uh 3.8 for the 2627. So it's really the net that is the decrease. The net is 2 million, I think if I did the math correctly. But, OK, so I just don't understand this reading right. 3.7 plus 3.8 is exceeds 50.35. Well, it was a, it was a, uh, 5.35 million each year of the biennium. So, so. OK, OK. So it wasn't total. Chris. it's OK. I, yeah, that's just the way that's written is really confusing. I think it was probably just needs to say something different, whether you say, so then it would be 10 point. 7 OK, OK, then, yeah, that needs to be. Just write it correctly. Thank you. Understand. Thank you. Senator Chesterville. I'm an executive rec, and then I'd like a question. Hold on, I got a question real quick. No, no, no, my question is, when we don't finish this by 11:30, we're coming back down here. We're going to go, we're going to go to 11:30, they'll finish what we don't get today either tomorrow or next week. Oh, so we're not coming back this afternoon? Well, special language pales in comparisons at 1:30 today, yes. Special language pills in comparison to the great work of the budget committee, so I thought. It's I'll have a motion at the proper time, Mr. Chair. I think Senator Hickey was just telling us about special language and Senator Hammer, you have another question. Let me get you back up. All right, you recognize I do and All right, you recognize I do uh I wanna call out Senator Hickey, help me in case I go around on this, but I want to go back to 158 and the answer you gave a while ago. And also on 156. And the state central service line. Taking 156 1st. It's 185 in the 2324. 24, 25, it's 21, 276 that goes down in 2025. Then he goes back up in 2026. Are you asking Why the fluctuation, and I, your answer a while ago was it's going down, but Unless I'm reading the numbers left to right, it looks like it's eventually going to be up. Could you give me your answer again? because I thought you said. It's going down. I'm sorry, I thought you're looking at the total line when we talked and I said it was relatively flat, um, but if you're looking at the state central service line. Yes, I, I was asking questions about the state central service line. I, again, I thought you were looking at the grand total. Because it looks like y'all are asking for more out of state central service which comes right off the top, and that's the same on page 158, you're going from 29.5. And you're going up to 46,040 which if I understand right, since state central service comes right off the top and I'm trying to understand why such a big jump. A small jump on one, on 156, but that's a big jump on 158, where you're asking for money off the top. In excess You know, Senator Hammer, I, you know, I'd like to get back to you on that. Just make sure that I understand the explanation myself. And at the end, you know, this is. We look at the actual span in 185, you know, we're not. Really projecting to change anything different from what we had previously appropriated. We spent less, obviously, the, the state central services line, I think is just a plug more than anything else, but I'd like to get back to you on that and make sure I can give you a correct Complete explanation. And well, and maybe somebody else somebody maybe you or somebody can help me understand if you're going to page 158, if you're asking for 46 million of state central service, and that's the amount that you're appropriated. You, you have first shot at getting that money taken off the top. Through the state central services. And Are we giving you, and I'm asking because I'm trying to understand, are we, does, are we automatically going to give you that authority to spend up to that amount or what's the, what's the limit as far as what you can spend if you're gonna get all that off the top. So On page 158, the state central services you see there. Ultimately is the figure that would fully fund our appropriation. However, I think if you look back, we're fairly, uh, frugal and we really monitor our expenses. We do have projections on the estimated spin from, uh, from the information technology area that We better align, um, And, and we can show you how we, we believe that fund will be spent. But, uh, I'm sorry, go ahead, I don't know if I've completely answered your question, but, but the Obligation Of the funds Of state central services. is not The 28 749, well, the, the 29,500. We are obligating out of state central service as though you were going to spend it that 46 million. Am I correct on that? Uh, let me, let me see if I can explain a little bit, maybe a little bit different nuanced take on that. State central services will fund in this case, this particular appropriation up to what our actual spend is. So, as is the case of anybody funded from state central services. It's imperative upon the secretary of that department to monitor the spend and to make sure those funds are utilized appropriately. Typically what we see from state central services is all the agencies funded from that are fairly frugal and mindful of the taxpayer dollars and spend the funds, uh, what I'd consider probably appropriately in efficiently, um, and so we very rarely reach, reach those maximums of the appropriation. Senator, you're, you're correct, Senator, in the sense that for state central services funded agencies appropriation equals funding. It's right, so, so that's different, but, but let me let me finish my thought here. If you, if you look at the state central services line. The 46 carries a cross over. The current year. You know, we're appropriated at 46. The actual spend in the previous year was less. But we're not asking for more. But am I wrong in saying that that state central services money. I tied up where you spend it or not, it's tied up because you're being given authority up to 46 million and, and if that's true, my question is, why wouldn't we shorten those numbers so it would free up more state central services money to do other things other than just leave it in there. As Uh, as caution because your, your grand total is 28,749, but you're still asking us to obligate 48 million out of state central services or 46, right or wrong? Uh, in, in 24, we were actually, if you looked at the 24 schedule, we were actually at 48 million. They just didn't spend that much. What's that? Well, obligated, the central services, there's not a limit on that obligation. Central Services has plenty of funds. It's a matter of how much is being spent. We, we weren't tying up funds that would have gone somewhere else. I know we got to get out of here and get on, so let's do this, Mr. Chair, um, Just flag it for me if you would, and we'll have offline conversations, but go ahead and put a flag on my name, would you please? All righty. I'll go to, uh, Senator Hickey. We find you here. Just, just a question if you have it in front of you then since on on these same lines. So what would be your 22, 23 actual. Do you actually have that, although it's not in this manual, or were you at, were you at 29.5 or less, or did you increase in 23, 24. Yeah Again, it's not here and I don't know if you have it. So Mr. Babbitt, that's fine with me. I, OK, I'm going off of memory here, so, um. To the best of my recollection, the 22, 23 year would have been in line with the 295 appropriation. Um However, our spend would have been less than that. It's the best of my recollection. Moving forward, knowing that we're going through the ACEs upgrade. We've got some additional licensing costs along with some additional IT needs. That's when we requested the increase in the 24, 25 year to the 48. Coming back, looking at our actual spin now we believe that based on what we're doing and what we're seeing in cost, we can reduce that somewhat overall. Does that help out? I don't know because, you know, you know, I appreciate you all, but the thing is, I, I, I sit down here and I hear y'all say that you're, you're reducing your overall. Appropriation, but the thing is, the Senator Hammer is uh, is saying this is fully funded. So it's, it's not like that we're just doing an appropriation for this. Uh, and then we're only funding a certain amount through RSA since this is out of state central services, it could be funded up to the 48 million. So I guess my question to you all is, is you spent, you actually spent In the state central services up there. I'm just gonna look at that one line item, 29,500 in 2023. Do you anticipate that you're gonna actually spend more than that? Is that y'all's intent? So yeah, Senator Hickey, I think that if this is a different line item. You know, I think looking back is a good proxy for looking forward, particularly when you have staff intensive appropriations that's not what this is. So these are project intensive appropriations, particularly on the IT line. You know, I can't tell you how much of the 46. That we would actually spend at this point, but we will spend more, I think, than we spent last year because we have more IT projects coming online. And then that's fair. So I guess, I guess that's just the, uh, transparent answer that I'm looking for and maybe what Senator Hammer was, Senator Hammer, I don't mean to get into your deal here. It's just whenever we sit down here and say that, you know, well, our overall appropriation is less, but whenever we're increasing or we have that money available in state central services. I mean, we're actually doing it with this one, we're actually doing the appropriation and the funding and the funding in one failed swoop at different than this other stuff, so I think it was a good point he was making, it's a fair point and, you know, not to get too much in the clubhouse conversation, but I've had that conversation with the team that we have to view state central services appropriation the same way we have an RSA conversation. Super. Thank you, sir. Senator Uvi. Thank you. Um, I moved for, um, executive recommendation and then I also would ask that we get a report of state central services. Uh, what is funded out of that, and then what appropriations moving forward beyond this one, we're gonna be looking at so we know what that. Amount's gonna be you do get a state central services report every single month with uh, the ALC packet. Oh, then never mind. Thank you. We look at that and if you think there's something that's not on that that you'd like to have more information, let us know and we'll, we'll get it to you. OK, thank you. I have a motion. a second. Have a discussion on the motion, I take it, or y'all pull back. No discussion. OK All right. Well, if favor say aye. Can you pose? Alright. Motion security. We're gonna move on to one of the small ones, I think, uh, the next line is child support enforcement. We'll do that and then we're gonna call it a morning on this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, child support enforcement, they only have one appropriation that's on page 187 with their summary on page 188. The agency is a federal and state effort to collect child support from non-custodial parents and they establish and enforce orders to collect child support. This is funded through a combination of federal funds, general revenue, fees, federal incentive payments, and state share of 10 of collections. As you can see on page 188, the agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of 77.9 million for both years of the biennium. And they request includes the following changes. They're asking to continue $100,000 in capital outlay for replacing equipment that is beyond repair or has become obsolete along with upgrades to facility access control and alarm systems that are needed in several field offices. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request and the reclassification of 4 positions. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for child support enforcement. I have some questions here. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just really two quick questions. What is data processing and equipment that we're spending almost $10 million a year on. We'll have a child support team Please state your name and who you're with, please. Robert Williams, DFA Officer Child Sport Enforcement. Robert Hallmark, DFA Office of Child Support Enforcement. You're recognized. Sorry, could you repeat the question? Yes, the data processing and equipment, you're spending almost 10 million, 9.68 million a year. What is that? The, the bulk of that expenditure is for the um service contract with uh Prote Solutions for the operation maintenance of our Arsis child support Information System, uh, the remaining part of it, uh, is for IT equipment and supplies. OK, so we've got a vendor we're paying. The majority of one vendor we're paying the majority of this too. That's correct. OK, I'd like the name of that vendor and how much we're paying them, and why do we need to increase it to 13.8 million when we're spending 9.6%. Why do we see the increase? The, uh, the vendor is Protect Solutions, um, and that, uh, contract was awarded through uh competitive process, um, and they have been the, uh, the vendor for our child support data system for um, uh, the entirety of its creation, they, uh, were the ones that built that system for us and they continued to operate and maintain it, um, the cost for that contract has increased somewhat during the last, um, uh, renew. of the contract, the, um, uh, the cost of individual per hour cost for the services has increased as um along with uh rates of all IT services, um, you know, across the country, and um and so the cost of that and then uh we've got, um, you know, other ongoing maintenance and equipment replacements that occur. So we're we're projecting it's gonna cost us an additional $5 million a year, we don't anticipate spending. exactly that much, but, um, how much do we anticipate? That's what I'm asking is you're asking for $5 million over what your spend is on one line item for data processing and equipment. And you're telling me the majority of that goes to one vendor. And I'm like, do we, why are we increasing the majority of that to one lender, almost $5 million. I'm. Hopefully, Robert will keep me honest on this one. Generally when we do these IT contracts, we bid them out competitively, and there's a maximum per year. And so what you're seeing here is the maximum potential that we, we could spend, however, again, under uh under uh OCSC we only spend up to the amount that we actually need on that contract. So in this case, what you're looking at is a 9 point, uh, let's call it 9.7 million was what we actually needed. to spin to maintain the system. However, our contract, assuming there are certain, uh, the 13.8 could, would take into account if the federal OCSC changed rules or made a requirement that required extensive changes in our system that that would pick up that cost. Does that make sense? OK. OK. We've spent 65, a little over $65 million last year on this program. How much child support did we collect for custodial parents. Uh, for federal fiscal year, uh, 24 that just ended. We collected about $266 million. OK, but we don't, OK, so in 24 to the 65 that's been spent, you're saying we collected 2024. Was that right? 266266, OK. And one final question on the intra uh agency transfer of $10 million. Where did that go? That is the uh internal transfer of the tan of collections and the fees that are generated uh from collections back into uh uh deposit back into operations. OK. All right, thank you. So it came from TANF. Partly, partly did part of it where the rest of it, part of it come from, uh, account, account fees, uh, for those which we're collecting child support for. OK. All right. Thank you. Senator Hammer, you recognized. Thank you. The, uh Hit again on the 10 of where does it identified in the budget, which, which one is it? Where the 0NF money is going. It's coming in at the interagency fund transfer line, I believe. OK, and that's coming from. Where And is it strictly tan of money. It it's um part of the collections of the child support collections. And that are deposited into the uh the uh State uh account. What? Go ahead. reimbursement for TANF benefits that were paid previously to a family, and then when we collect the child support for that period of time from the person who was obligated to support the children and that money is retained to reimburse the tan assistants. OK, I just know there's been a big conversation about Tan since it got switched over and maybe some over obligations, commitments, and they're having to, you know, kind of re-evaluate all that. I just want to make sure this is, this is money. It's kind of like. Paid out but then paid back is it replaces it, right? This is reimbursement for prior assistance that was paid to a family. And then. Uh, Jim, I wanted to ask you a, a quick question and Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask staff for something, and this kind of tags on, I think maybe what Senator Irvin was talking about a while ago, that report you mentioned that we get in ALC and the, um, state central service money. Was that just for DFA or was, or is that for all agencies that get state central service money. No, it's just the all, the whole fund itself, it shows inflows and outflows. For the whole fund, so I should be able to look and see how much state central service money is Budgeted, but then how much is Actually spoken for. It's not a budget document. It shows the cash flow for the fund. Every single month. OK, can I, can I address staff, Mr. Chair. OK. What, what I'm trying to get to is, so taking the illustration a while ago where it was like, Uh, you know, 185 or that other bigger number, and I can't find it right now, but, uh, the bigger number where it was 29.5, and then They're, they're going to be allowed to have up to 46 million for what they explained. To me, that's a, that the, the difference between the 295 and the 46. Could we find out or could I get what the total number of all agencies that are allowed to access state central services money between the difference of what they're actually is and Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes, sir, that, uh, state central Service report is pretty, is pretty good. Um, I will definitely have a copy for you right away. Matter of fact, we have it online. You can look in here and see what it is. It'll show all the agencies that are in state central services. It'll show their appropriations. It'll show their expenditure today, and it even has a column that will show if we're projecting a deficit or if we're in or if we're at this when you add up all the totals and we are not projecting. deficit as of the latest report, but I, I can sure get that to you. I think you're gonna like it. OK. All right, thank you. Thanks. Senator. Thank you. Real quick, where are y'all, where is your agency housed? Where are you located? Our main office, central office is at the corner of 4th and Main in downtown Little Rock, and we also have uh 26 field offices throughout the state. The, the Little Rock, um, the office that serves Pulaski and Perry County is co-located with our central office. OK, because yeah, we have 7 of your 775. People that work in this agency or department. Are they all regulatory IT is that, I mean, This just seems like a lot for this program. So the 775 is our authorized positions, our staff tends to run around 650 in the vast majority of those are frontline workers in our 26 field offices serving customers. OK. Yeah, I had 769 was your actual positions for this year, I think, um, OK, I was just curious. And then is there, is the, does this require a statement match? Is this a tan, did the tan? This does require state 1/3 2/3 fed state match and then any program income from the, um, like the tan of collections or fees. We also pay 2/3 back to the feds, so it's a 2/3, 1/3 match. OK, thank you. And so very quickly, I mean, I think this we don't talk enough about the Office of Child Support Enforcement because it's kind of behind the scenes, but you heard the numbers that they collect. A significant benefit for Arkansans. They have attorneys who initiate the cases, they get the, the enforcement orders for child support, and then they have the caseworkers who are working with the custodian. OK, we are out of time, rips of loot and I'm gonna give you one question and we're done. One would you clarify for me, um, What did you collect in child support? For the uh federal fiscal year that just ended ended, it was right around $266 million. How, how much? 266 million. OK, OK, that's what I wanted to clear. Thank you. Hey Nordin. Motion for executive rec motion. All in favor say aye. OK, just a quick note, special language 1:30 day in the same room. Tomorrow, uh, at. 9 o'clock, we'll be talking about military department and the Department of Transportation, so please show up with all your questions and what and oh yeah, that we'll continue on because we're gonna have to stop you today, so as soon as we finish that we will y'all are on continuency I guess what I'll call that this will continue when we can.