ALC-PEER

Everybody could go ahead and take their seats and know the clo clock on the back wall is still light. We'll get that fixed at some point, but if you Members chair sees a quorum, uh, hey, before we get started, just 11 thing to keep in mind when we get to the reports, if you can go ahead and be looking at those as we're moving through the agenda. If you've got any questions, have those ready. Uh, but other than that, we're just gonna move through the report section, uh, like I said, we'll take questions, any questions, concerns, or if you've got an agency you want to bring forward on report, that's great, but go ahead and start getting in your mind ready for that. All right, with that, we'll turn it over. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're in section B. These are the various temporary appropriation requests. The first item is a letter from the Department of Commerce, Economic Development Commission, uh, this is 37.5 million in appropriation and to establish a new appropriation section. This will allow payroll rebate payments to businesses on a financial incentive plan. This is supported by general revenue. Uh, Mr. Chair, B2 is being pulled by agency requests. We learned that this morning, so we're gonna move forward to B3. B3 is on page 3. This is a letter from the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism Division of State Parks is for $2.5 million in spending authority. This is to allow payment of increased operational costs and supported by the conservation sales tax. Number 44 is on page 4. This is a letter from the Department of Public Safety. It's for $25,000 in appropriation. This is to replace network equipment. It's supported by a transfer from their shared services paying account? B5 is a letter from the Department of Military. It's for 1.6 million the spending authority. This is to allow the agency to match the federal cooperative funding agreement to maintain armies around the state and Camp Robinson buildings is supported by general revenue. B6 is a letter from Education Division of Elementary and Secondary education. It's for $201,000 in appropriation. This is to make enhanced student achievement matching grants and special education high cost or occurrence payments to school districts as outlined in adequacy and supported by the public school fund. B7 is a letter from the Department of Education, division of Higher Education, for 3 million in appropriation. This is to fulfill scholarship needs for the military dependent scholarship program is supported from uh fund balances within the higher education. grants fund. Mr. Chair, those are all of the VT requests. All right, thank you. We'll go one at a time if you have a question, go ahead and hit your, uh, mic. Any questions on B1, 2. 3 4 5. 6 or 7. All right, seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? I got a motion to adopt B 1 through 7 are approved items B 1 through 7. I've got a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Section C. Miss Sher we're in section C, these are the American Rescue Plan Appropriation requests. There are 4 requests on the agenda and all are state awards. However, none of the awards are for new money. The first two are connected through a reallocation and any sums you see in the requests are for appropriation to spend funds that were previously awarded. So looking at C1 and 2 again, these are connected. They're for DHS division of Asian Adult and Behavioral Health, and DHS was awarded funds last fiscal year for supporting evidence-based behavioral health models that's C1. They also received funds for capital improvements at the Arkansas State Hospital, that's C2. DHS has found that 2 million for evidence-based health uh models in C1 will be better spent on secured restoration at the state hospital in C2. Simultaneously, they also need 887,000 in appropriation to complete the spending of remaining funds for the behavioral health models in C1. For C2, state hospital item. This request is to spend $2 million they are requesting to reallocate from C1 to make further reallocations from various line items to grants and aid in C2 and to receive additional appropriation to spend the remaining funds for what they were already awarded. Clear All right, moving to seat 3. That's on page 7. On page 7 to C3, this is DHS Mental Health and Substance Abuse. This is a reallocation again. They would like to move 10 million from professional fees to granted aid to make a sub-grant to a partner with experience building programmatic models. Uh, this is for the award that was made for mental health and substance abuse services that will address gaps in services and on page 12 is C4. C4 is page 12. This is a request from the Department of Public Safety Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. This is again a reallocation. It's to move 940,000 that was approved for construction at the Northwest campus and use these funds at the Camden campus. Uh, Pierre approved a similar request in May for fiscal year 2024. This share, those are all of your requests. All right, thank you, Ms. Do we have any questions on C1? Or 2. Senator Hickey. All right, you're recognized for C3. I think that the the work, yeah, I guess just for, for the department. have anyone from the department? DHS If you could just recognize yourself for the committee and then you're recognized Senator Hickey to ask your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairs. Oh Are they finished, Mr. Chair? Waiting their mics weren't working, so hold on one second. Are you good? Yes. All right, and then Misty Eubanks, deputy secretary of operations and Budget DHS. Oh, OK, um, my, my question is this, and I'm well aware there's no new money that you're just, uh, moving line items, but my, I guess my question is, And I've and I've tried to read what you've, what you've written here that you're gonna try to, uh, do a sub-grant with a partner. So you're moving it from professional fees to a grant. What is the reason for that? Is it easier to do the grant or I'm just I'm a little confused why we'd do that if we were if we'd normally do a contract, so what if y'all could just give me the details of why that, I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. I'll start and then my colleagues can fill in. So, you know, through all of our American rescue plan funding since it's one-time funding, we have done grants, just to make it very clear that this is not an ongoing contractual agreement. So that's consistent with what we've been doing, but just time wise, because of the funding source, this money has to be obligated. And given to another vendor by December 31st, or we have to send it back. So it's consistent with practice, and it's good because we're short on time. A So, let me just ask this though, because I just, I wanna keep everything up, up in a board so or up and above. So, Is this gonna be like a sole source? You've already got someone picked or do you have the grant qualifications or how are people applying to do this? How are we doing that? Just to, just to make sure that things are doing being done the correct way. Absolutely. So last year, the department had put out a request for information asking vendors to let us know if they'd be interested in doing this type of secured restoration service for us. We had one applicant. So we were choosing to go with that applicant. I just. Oh, I'm sorry. I think I'm getting my grants mixed up. You're talking about the statewide crisis or the secured restoration. I'm talking about the 10 million here which would be the, it says to building a programmic model. Sorry about that. We have a lot of grants and moving money today. So on that $110 million that's allocated to build the statewide crisis continuum. We do have a plan to use a university partner. So, and then in that grant, as it's currently drafted, which will come before you guys in November is the plan. Um, we're mandating that the majority of the funding be put out for a more competitive application process to Arkansas Medicaid providers. So whereas the partner will be building kind of the programmatic, the design, we are requiring that they put out, um, applications for a vendor to come in and run the statewide hub, which will oversee the phone lines and the dispatch, and then another vendor to come in and do the, um, co-responding mobile crisis teams. So if I, if I'm understanding this right, and I'm, I'm having to ask here, so we're gonna have one of our state universities you're talking about, they're actually going to have the initial thing, but then are they going to put out an RFP? For the, for the actual work, is that what you're telling me? because the timeline because they have to spend the money, um, it would be effective January 1 of 25 and the money must be expended by September of 2026. We are going to mandate they put out a request for application, um, and run it similar to how we did the construction renovation art grants. And have a, um, competitive application process. A competitive application process is so is that gonna follow our procurement laws since this is under a grant or not? So it follows procurement laws in terms of how we operate grants. The way we did the, um, the $200 million for the renovation and construction projects for when we ask providers to bid on therapeutic community property and and do apartments for us. How we handled that was we did a 3 person blind panel to make it completely fair to those applicants and then we had a scoring rubric. That we posted prior to the application deadline. So the vendors that bid knew what they were being scored on. And so we're going to require that it's a very similar, it's a similar process, um, because we felt like that was a very fair way that we handled that money and the providers seemed also to accept the way we did that. I appreciate the information. I don't know if I quite uh been real comfortable with that. Uh, we may get some more information between here and Friday. I appreciate the, uh, information though. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, thank you. Do we have any other questions on C3? All right, seeing none C4. All right, Senator Hick. You wanna, we're gonna move through with this? Are you wanting to hold something or what was your? OK OK, got you. All right, yeah, so if y'all don't mind, make yourself available, uh, for further questions on this, but, uh, with that, uh, seeing no further questions, what's the will of the committee? We got a motion, uh, to approve item C134. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor signified by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Section D. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in section D, these are the infrastructure investment and Jobs Act appropriation requests. Uh, the first item, the one is a request from Agriculture Division of Forestry for $7,711,000 in spending authority. They have a grant from the USDA to replace radios and establish vegetation management demonstrations at Poison Springs State Forest and Hot Spring State Forest. The next item D2, this is on page 3, D2's, agriculture again, this is again the division of forestry. It's for $45,000 and spending authority. They have a grant from the USDA to do uh invasive plant removal on public land. The next item is D3. Page 5 is D3. This is another request from agriculture. This is for 90,147,000. They have a grant from the EPA to address emerging contaminants in drinking water. The last item is D4. This is on page 7. D4 is a request from the Department of Finance and Administration. This is for $5 million in spending authority. They have a grant from the Department of Energy to improve the resilience of the electric grid against disruptive events. Mr. Chair, those are all the IIJ requests. All right, thank you, members. Do we have any questions on D1? D2 D3. Or D4 All right, seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? We've got a motion to approve items D1 through 4. We've got a second any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries Section E. Thank you, Ms. Sher. We're in the section E. This is a reallocation of resources for the Department of Human Services, uh, for flexibility, special language allows the department to make 4 reallocations, um, in a fiscal year to respond to changing client needs and to make most effective use of the resources authorized. This is the first reallocation for fiscal year 25. On the last page is a table showing all transfers. The first section of that table shows transfers within divisions, and they are for they are all for the division of age and adult and behavioral health services. They are requesting to move 100 million from the drug abuse prevention and treatment line to operating expenses, and that's to support increased expenses associated with nursing at the Arkansas State Hospital and Arkansas Health Center, uh, 2.7 million from nutrition services to operating expenses to pay for training and client services for adult protective services, 2 million from mental health grants to professional fees. As for UAMS psychiatric contract with the state hospital and the health center, 500,000 from the mental health grants line to capital outlay for the purchase of specialized vehicles and equipment at the state hospital and health center. 158,000 from the aging projects Grantline to older worker program for the cost of that grant program and 36,000 from the mental health grants, uh, to cash appropriations for the state hospital and health center for client expenses. Uh, the only other transfer positions, and that's the second to last section of that table, just one position transfer. It's between the division of Asian adult and the secretary's office, and that's to enhance division's aging programs. Let share those are all the transfers. All right, thank you, Senator Hammer, you're recognized for question. Thank you, can we get the agency to the table, please. Missed EU bank's deputy secretary DHS. Renee Eicher, CFO for DHS, Melissa Weatherton, um, director of Medicaid Specialty Populations. All right, Senator Hammer, thank you, thank you chair. I just want to make sure I understand y'all are asking permission to move money from one category in order to take care of needs in other categories, is that a fair characterization of what we're doing here? Yes, that's correct. OK, so some of the areas that it's being moved out of, um, Like the mental health block grant, that's 2.5 million. That's part of what's being moved to another area, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. OK. I'm just wondering, the movie of the money. How it was that going to adversely affect where the money is being moved from and how is it going to benefit where the money is being moved too because mental health, for example, is such a hot topic, and I wonder is You know, if We're, we're being asked all the time to fund mental health. Um, needs and just help me understand how moving from one pot to the other is going to benefit and not hurt where it's being moved from. Yes, Senator, it currently what we're asking to move is unfunded appropriations, so it won't hurt the program. We, we've got appropriation, they're sufficient should we receive additional funding in the mental health space we'll be able. To There's enough appropriation there for us to be able to spend. New funding should we get it? OK, so all you're asking for is just move the appropriation levels over to these categories where you have needs that you don't have sufficient appropriation for, for the money that's coming in to take care of and that's what this is all about. OK, all of them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Sher. All right, thank you. Any other questions on E1? Seeing no what's the will of the committee, we've got a motion to approve. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor signify saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries G1. Thank you, Ms. Sher. We're in section F. These are restricted reserve fund transfer recommendations. Uh, the 1st 1, F1 is a letter from the Department of Education division of elementary and secondary education. This is a $500 million transfer is from the school safety set aside account within the restricted reserve fund. It's to make school safety grants, 50 million is what was allocated to this set aside, so today's request will zero out this account. The next item is F2. This is a request from the Department of Education, division of Higher Education. It's a $12 million transfer from their set aside to provide startup and initial distribution of scholarships from the Teacher Academy scholarship program. Again, 24 million is what was allocated for this set aside. So today's request will be half that allocation. All right, thank you. Members, any questions on F1? Senator Hickey. All right, got a question for Department of Education. Hey, and by the way, if y'all are hearing that ringing, that's just in your own ears. whatever Now y'all can't unhear it. It's awful. If you could just recognize yourself for the committee and then Senator Hickey, you're welcome. Good morning, Courtney Solis Ford for the Department of Education. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. Jerry Keier Department of Education. OK, thank, thank you all for coming down. uh, Mr. Rogers, Greg. Of course, our staff had asked you some questions because I was, I had some questions on that. That was me that was asking. So, Uh, I want to know like the 500 million, of course, how, how, what you're planning on using it for, and you'd put the $35 million would be allocated on schools based on the size and student enrollment of each school. Is that, is that on a pro rata type share? Or is that your intention? Um, yes, sir. So we're gonna do it similar to we distributed the 1st 50 million, um, in that based on the total size of the school district, there will be like a scale multiplier, but then there will also be a per student amount based on ADM. OK. And then there was going to be an additional $15 million. Do you want to kind of discuss what your, uh, intent is with that. Yes, we have distributed all of the formula, uh, portion of it is what we're calling it. Um, we've set aside the 15 million to specifically target some schools that maybe are not at, have not met all of the tier one requirements or even possibly the tier 2 requirements. We obviously have some schools and districts that are further ahead than others and so. So we wanna make sure that we keep aside sufficient funding to make sure all of our school districts are at least at a basic minimum level of safety. Um, we're also considering, um, some of that funding for if districts want to opt in to a communication system like an emergency alert system that we could do some sort of statewide procurement of that. I guess, I guess that's where my question is, is it your intent though, to make sure that everybody has met these priorities before you try to go into a procure. on this, uh, uh, emergency network system or I, I, that's my deal is timing, uh, what's, what's our intent there and if you do that, you're, you are going to put that out for an RFP, is that correct? Yes, absolutely. We want to again make sure that our districts are at that, at least have met tier one first, um, and then it would be an opt-in. So if. I. Sorry, um, if, um, you know, if a certain amount of districts wanted to opt into a statewide procurement, we would do that on their behalf, but yes, we would go through the RFP process for that. OK. So you don't, you don't know how much it's gonna take to, to get all those schools up to priority one though of the 50 million, you don't know how much is, how much you're planning on doing for that. You're just lumping it in as a as a lump, 15 million with the first initial round, um, we had About 90 schools, um, 95 schools that, uh, were not at tier one and so we prioritized funding to make sure that they all had, you know, sufficient locking mechanisms, communication systems, and fencing, um, and that took about 100 million, so we're trying to estimate about the same set aside for that, the 2nd 50 million. OK. All right. Thank you for that. All right, center hammer. Thank you, Ms. Sher. The, um, The, the one thing I wanted to ask what the department's position is that You give this money out in the form of grants to the various schools in different schools may have different ideas as far as what they feel is best as, you know, with security system. But there are those that are coming into the state that are trying to do something holistic to where all the schools are on the same system, um, and so I'm, I'm wondering what's the department's position as far as if you give grants out to each individual schools and they, they're all using different programs. Um, is that a better approach than maybe a statewide consistent approach to where schools are all using the same program, so there's consistency across the state. Senator, are you talking specifically about like the emergency communication systems or emergency alert systems. Either that or new technologies that's coming on board where you can overlay into a current software program, you know, and, and enhance the ability to detect weapons sooner than later, and some schools may buy into that, some schools may not. I'm just wondering if we're going to give these grants, we're pretty much going to leave it up to each individual school if they've met the, the requirements, um, is there not a certain point where then they would have the ability. To decide what they'd want to do beyond that and what's the department's thoughts on each school being able to do what they want to do beyond that. Yeah, so, um, a school district has met all of priority in one and 2, then they can, um, ask for, uh, approval to do other types of security measures such as weapons detection systems. Um, I, I think it's important to allow these school superintendents to make the best decisions for their districts. They know what works in their district. They know what their needs are. Um, some districts don't feel like weapons detection systems is a priority or something that they need because it's not an issue that they're seeing in their district. Um, and so we are working with every school district, um, Mr. Kiefer is our director of school safety who works very closely with each district to help them make the determination of what's best, what, um, what options might be out there. For them, um, but again, going back to the communication system, that's where we feel like a consistent approach statewide would be beneficial, um, I don't know if Mr. Kiefer, did you have anything you want to add on any other statewide systems or? So I, I agree with Ms. Elis Ford, uh, a little, a little closer to the mic if you don't mind. Thank you. As far as a statewide system, the emergency communications would be one of those things. Um, there are other, I think, one of the things you're talking about is, um, like open eye. T type of AI. For weapons detection. Those type of things do fall under the, the third tier that they could, uh, choose for themselves. Now, like other reporting systems, and when I say reporting systems, I can get a lot bigger and, and I'm talking about more of the emergency reporting systems, those we would consider as more of a, a statewide priority rather than an individual. If that makes sense. It does, and I'll just finish by saying this, the You know, if the total at the end of the day by every school system picking their own system once they get above the required tiers is going to cost more than a unified approach if we were able to do. Something that could be utilized in all the schools is gonna end up costing us less. Have you given any thought or consideration to that when you run the tally. One school may pick this program and it costs this much money they're going to take grant money to do that no school picks something different. It's going to cost us much money. Have you put any thought into if we were to agree on something that could be statewide implemented once you get above the basic tier system we might actually save money while achieving the goal of safer schools. Yeah, I think we, we're keeping a close eye and monitoring where we're at with all the school districts and certainly taking that into consideration. OK, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna ask you a question at the appropriate time. I'll go back to the previous one. It's gonna be directed to you as chair of budget at the appropriate time, please. Thank you. All right. We have any other uh in Chesterfield. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning. Uh, at one time there was a statewide system, is that correct? There was a statewide, um, panic button system, yes panic button system. How many schools currently have that system? Wow We don't have that information that I'm aware of. Well, how does one get to know. What we have. Uh Is each school supposed to report to this gentleman what it has and is that on them to report it or are we going around to make sure that they're telling us what we need to know. They report to us on, um, the identified priorities from the school safety commission, so we have those broken down into tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, and they do report to us on tier one is, I guess that's supposed to be the big dog of them all, is that right? So tier one is electronic access controls, a visitor management system covers for vision panels on classroom doors, locks for all classroom doors, temporary door stoppers or blockers for doors that need additional security, numbers on classroom interior and exterior surfaces, intercom and communication systems to allow two-way communication, Tobar exit devices to replace crash bar exterior door egress and they're about 90. with that. There are about 95 schools that school districts that have that, that did not have 95 schools did not have that, but we have now with the, the funding we had left from the first round, um, met that. We have met that because when I went to Fort Smith and Bli and Hot Springs and Marvel. It went off the police were there, the fire department was there. It was something to see. It's a shame that we have to do that, but all of that was present and uh the children were disciplined. As to what they were to do in case of a of of an attack. So our goal then is to make sure that every child is trained as to what he or she is to do. Every teacher is trained and that we're gonna harden those schools so that They are safer But what do we do about the ghost guns that might be able to slip through? Is that on the radar screen as well, because I'm hearing a lot about them. Mr. uh, security guy. So the AI, uh, software that Senator Hammer was referring to would be one of those things that would be able to pick up on that. And what it does that you put your cameras throughout the school inside and out, and the, the AI software will pick up on body gestures as if you're drawing a weapon, pointing a weapon, and that could be a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle, um, and then that system can automatically notify, uh, the school and law enforcement. Now, that separate. Piece of software then the emergency communications. OK, but we're on it. Yes, ma'am, we are looking into those things. Yes, ma'am I hate that we have to do this, but it is a necessity, um. Mr. Chair, we were on that system ourselves. Are we still on that system? You're talking about the. You know, something happens, somebody failed or something, we had somebody the panic button is that what it's called, yeah. I'm not sure. Because as I look at this building, it's it's awfully easy to just enter. And so I, I'm wondering what we're doing what we're doing for ourselves, not just our schools. Thank you and thank you so much for taking my, my questions. Greg, I don't have one for you this morning. All right, uh. Senator Hickey. Yeah. Just, just one more. So, and, and a lot of people, more than me, of course, were involved in this, a lot of legislators, whenever you all are having meetings, was this notification system, was this, was this discussed at that time? Like the, the panic button alert system is being referred to is this. And again, Mr. Rogers sent it to me. The possible procurement of a statewide emergency notification system. Yes, it was discussed, um, and again, there are differing opinions on and which one is the most appropriate one, which is why we want districts to make that choice of either what's best for them or, um, opt into a statewide system, uh, but yes, there was discussion by the commission on of that. So if you had a statewide, if, if you don't mind just to explain it to me a little bit. I mean, my thing is, is I just, and I think you all are gonna do this, but from my standpoint, you know, I know deterrents and detection of weapons to me, I think, unless I'm missing something would be, uh, you know, Something that I would prioritize maybe more than somebody notifying somebody, you know, after, after something's already come into place, unless it's something I'm missing, so what, what exactly is that? What is a statewide emergency notification system. Um, well, I'll, I'll start and then Mr. Keefer can jump in, but there are different types of systems where, um, either there might be an app on your phone or there are some where teachers wear something around their neck that if they press or, you know, push on that, um, it immediately notifies local law enforcement, um, when we refer to a statewide system, just being that every school is on the same system, um, that it could notify more than just local law enforcement, it might go to, um, Uh, state police, um. Fair enough. OK. That, that explains it. All right, thank you. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? All right, seeing none, I think we're gonna take this up. All right. We've got a, uh, motion. Uh, I think he's got something on the previous item, correct, Senator Hammer? Oh, OK. All right, Senator Hammer. The grant money that's in this request, if a school is not at the Tier one system and they asked for the grant money, are they going to have to use it to at least get up to the tier one system or is this money and is this money specifically for schools that are not at the tier one system. So every district will get a base amount of funding. Um, they do have to use it in, in order, so they have to show us that they've met all of tier one before they can move to tier two and tier 2 before tier 3. but yes, districts who have not met Tier One schools that have not met Tier one, we are specifically looking at those to make sure that we get every school up to tier one. Do you know what the cost if 95 are at tier one, do you know what the cost is if all the other schools needed to get to tier one, how much we. would that be? We We don't have specific amounts, um, and, and I just want to reiterate, like when we say 95, we were talking about individual schools, not districts that are not at tier one, so all of our other schools are, have met tier one. those 95 that did not meet tier one schools, we have already started directing funding to those and so we should hopefully be at every school across the state, uh, meeting tier one soon, um, but it, it's hard to estimate just because there are so many different items. Within each tier and that cost differs based on the campus, so it's really hard to estimate. And when you say schools, are you talking about school buildings within a district, or are you talking about districts, schools within a district, so school buildings, campuses. Of which all of them that are out there, we only have 95. That 95 buildings that don't have this system in it, is that correct? Just for clarification, we had 95 districts that reported to us that they have not met priority one. That came from that 1st, $500 million grant. So that's districts from those 95 districts we had about 350 school buildings within those districts that have not met priority one. Did you say you had money set aside. Or that there there's there's another funding source for them to get those 95 districts up to tier one level. It was what was left from the original $500 million grant. And you know, is that enough to get them all up to tier one or is that just a hard number to pin down. So it, it, it is a hard number. We had approximately $1000 left from the original $50 million grant, that's focused toward priority one schools, these 350 buildings. What they requested. And that's why it's a little bit hard to, to pin down because the request, uh, they didn't get, some schools didn't get official quotes. They just made up, not made up, but they just estimated themselves and so that number came close to 25 million, but that is a very rough estimate based on the what the districts. Estimated themselves. OK, final thing if any of those 95 schools asked for any of this money knowing that there's other money out there that could still be accessed in order to get it. You guys are gonna filter that so that if they get this. Those, so we can get everybody to tier one, either using the balance of that money or those schools being able to apply for this money and then from there everybody else can build up. Is that the way it's gonna play out? Yes, sir, um, the Safe Schools unit is working directly with those 95 districts, uh, with that allocation of the 10 million and as, uh, if we get approved for this next. Uh, 50 million, we will continue to work with those 95 districts to move through that 10 million left and then help them prioritize into the next grant. I really thank you all. I'll take a look at a statewide system that, and I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not getting anything out of it, but a system that detects metals weapons before they could ever get in the building because if you can stop them before they get in the building, you minimize the damage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, Senator Chesterfield. I thought I was so tier one is the lowest level? What's tier 2 and tier 3 looking like? I mean, so tier one is the, the absolute most basic things that we want every school district lame when I hear number one, I think, oh, this is really, everybody's got this going on, but it's not, it's the lowest level, yes, those are the first priorities that we want every district to meet. And then once they have met those basic priorities, then they would move on to priority too. So what is which is 2 and 3, what's the highest 34, what is the highest? 3. So what does that look like? Because I thought I was ready to make a motion, but now I find out I don't understand any of this. So, priority 3, is your more advanced safety, um, considerations, physical barriers including um low walls around the entire many schools are at tier 3? Any of them? OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mickey. So the information that we have, we had 140 school districts meet priority one, OK. 106 meet priority 2 and 33 me priority 3. And ideally, all of them should be a 3. Yes, ma'am. Ideally, but If they just get to one, we'll feel better. Is that what you're saying? No. That's just the that's the start. That's just where we're pushing them at least to get to the minimum. But the idea would be 3. Yes, ma'am. Now I'm understanding Mr. Chair. And I will make a motion. I've got one more, I think. All right, Cinder Hickey. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. So I got another question. So we've had this money available. This money is just available to these districts. And based on what Senator Chesterfield has and what what you've put here we have districts, have they not even applied? Why, why have they not done their job? Are they just being lax on this? What, what's going on with that? Because if we, if we have this money, if we have this money sitting here that they apply for, are they having to put up a match? What, what's the reason that they have, they have not mettier one. So with the initial 50 million, uh, again, we set aside around 100 million, so but with the 40 million that was distributed by, um, the size of the district, you know, some, some schools had a lot more that they needed to purchase to, to get to tier one, and with the funding available, they did the most that they could, um, the cost, of course, varies based on the size of the district and so we're, we're working with the amounts of money that we have available. Um, And some of them just were not able to complete all of priority one with the funds that they received. OK, do you now may I continue, Mr. Chair? OK. Do, do you have any districts that are not even trying? Let me just put it that way. Do you have any districts that are not even trying that to, to at least do this? No, sir. OK, so they're, they're all actively engaged, uh, you all are trying to get the money. They're not just dragging their feet or anything like that. No, our, our school safety team is working closely with some districts, um, maybe on prioritization and directing the fund to certain, even within say tier one, you know, this last round, we prioritized locks and fencing even among the other things in tier one. So we are trying to help districts who maybe Aren't sure which are the best ones where to direct their funds when you have limited funds, of course you have to prioritize and so our school safety team is working with those districts on, on making those best decisions. Well, I'm glad that here they're not dragging their feet. Thank you. Alright, thank you, Senator Kroll. Yes, uh. In referring to your answer to Senator Chesterfield, is our goal to get every single school eventually over the next few years to a priority 3, is that what we're? Our, our end game is. Ideally we want all of our schools to be as safe as they possibly can. Um, of course, these funds are limited and so I, I can't say that we'll be able to achieve that with this additional $50 million but we are getting every district as safe as we possibly can. Would it, if I may have a follow-up, would it be safe to say that you're probably going to come back for more money to enhance priorities 2 and 3 this next year. I think that would be a conversation we would have with, um, legislative leadership as to whether that's something that was Uh, desired for us to do. OK. Thank you. I mean, and just to make sure we have the full picture in the states. I, I mean this in the states, the different school districts prioritize these safety measures with their own funds. I mean, I'm aware of districts inside my own district that made school safety priority number one before the start of, I think, 2 school years ago, so I. They, they have a responsibility on their own. We're trying to help the best we can through one time funding because a lot of these things are one-time cost, um, but it's gonna be up to the districts to make this a priority just like it is paying teachers or whatever else it may be that it's, they have to set the priorities of how they spend their dollars. All right, we have any other questions? That's correct. All right, Senator Love. Like you're sure, I just when, when do we anticipate that that every school will be in tier one. Do we have an anticipated time frame? Or we just or we just We just kind of dragging this out or or are we saying, hey, by You know, A deadline you have to be a tier one. I mean, our intent, it would be as quickly as possible, um, just because of the, the number of schools and, um, working with them, getting the funding out, and then procuring some of these services. It's really hard to give a deadline, but, um, I mean, I would, Safely say no later than the end of this year, we would like to have the end of this school year, we would like to have every school at tier one, but I, I can't. Make that guarantee. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. Do we have any other questions on F1? Or F2. All right, seeing none, we've got a motion to approve items F1 and F2. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none. All those in favor signify saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Senator Hammer, you are recognized. If you light your mic up. All right. Thank Ms. Sher, back on. Back on item E. Where we allowed them to move the appropriations. From one category to the other. And I'm asking you as budget chair. In, in the budget that'll be. Dealt with through the budget hearings, will that automatically adjust in their request when they come before us or is that something that we need to watch because they're asking for. Reduction of appropriation in one area in order to increase appropriations in another area that it would be up to them to make that request. I mean it would be an executive wreck or a, you know, a legislative wreck would be the final outcome of the bill, but. I mean, you would think that they've seen what's happening and then they're they're going to shift priorities if they need to, but I don't know the answer if it's. You know, if this is an ongoing thing or just a one-time change that they needed or if they're no longer going to prioritize where they had the $10,000 move or I'm not sure at this point. So it does not happen automatically off of what we're doing here, no. OK, well, that's what I want to know so because would we need to watch this so that they don't keep the same level of appropriation in one area, but they also have an increase in appropriation in another area because of what's being done in here, is that just something we need to keep an eye on? Yeah, I mean, yeah, we can bring it up and probably something that we can ask during, or we can ask during the budget hearings when the DHS comes forward. OK. All right. Thank you. have any other. Questions, well, we'll move on. All right, G1. Thank you, Ms. Sher, we're in section G. This is an appropriation and or fund transfer requests. Uh, this is a letter from the Department of Health Minority Health Commission, they have special language allows the commission to make an appropriation transfer to their promotional uh promotional items line item, uh, that's after approval by ALC. The commission requests transferring 20,000 to perform broad outreach and awareness to minority communities as charged by their legislation. Our members, we have any questions on G1? All right, seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? We got a motion to approve. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor sign I was saying aye, I opposed. Motion carries. All right, items for review, Section 8. Thank you, Mich. We're in section 8. This is the cash fund appropriation request. Uh, the first one is a letter from the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism for division of state parks. This is for 3.38 million in appropriation is to cover costs of our reservation and point of sale system and to do a comprehensive redesign of their website. It's supported by revenue from visitation and sales. H2 is the next item. This is a letter from Education Division of Career and Technical Education for 7,750,000 spending authority is to pay for expenses of their adult diploma program. It's supported by a grant from the Department of Commerce. H3 is a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's for 710,000. This is to pay operating costs at the Veterans Cemetery at Birdeye and supported by a grant. All right, any questions on H1? H2 Or H3. All right, we got a motion review 2 discussion, seeing none, all those in favor signified by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. I won. Thank you, Ms. Chair. We're in section I. These are budget classification transfer requests. The first one is from the Department of Commerce, insurance department. It's a $26,000 appropriation dollar transfer. This is from operating expenses to conference and travel. This is to correct their budget, uh, to move appropriation to the proper line item for hosting a conference. Number 2 is Secretary of State Capitol Police. It's a $750,000 appropriation transfer. It's from operating expenses to capital outlay, and this is to purchase a new weapon detection system for Capitol Police. I think I got a question on insurance department. And it's just really $28,000 conference. Where is it? What is it? What are we doing? Uh, Mary Davis, CFO for the insurance department. And this is for an IDay conference. It was here in Little Rock, um, that pays for the hotel, for the food, AV, um, all those kind of expenses. OK. Were there other vendors associated with it at all, or is it just strictly? Informational and y'all put it on. Jimmy Harris, compliance director at, uh, insurance department. The IDA conference, uh, we organized, uh, it was a continuing ad event for producers in Arkansas. It was heavily focused on the property insurance market, uh, trying to get information out to the stakeholders in Arkansas about The state of the market, what we're doing to help improve that market. Uh, I, you know, I think our first one was about 25 years ago, Commissioner McClain, uh, expressed a desire to bring it back, uh, to, to, like I said, to increase our communication with the stakeholders, uh, uh, in Arkansas. But as far as 28, yeah, we had about $15,000 worth of, uh, sponsorships and ticket sales. We charged $100. Uh, uh, per ticket, uh, for, uh, for attendees, uh, to cover the costs for, you know, lunches, the, the facilities, uh, and then, uh, we provided them, uh, free C, uh, any producer that was there. So the total cost was 41,000. No, the total. No, the total cost was, um, less than this. It was like 23,000 I think, but we moved a little bit more because we plan on doing this annually and hotels, um, typically make you pay a deposit to hold a day. So we just moved more so that when we're doing our planning for next year, we have that ability to pay the deposit for the next event. So what are you you're providing lodging, we're not paying just the hotel like the, the meeting rooms, the Navy equipment, the food, we're not providing lodging. What happens with the 15,000 that's collected through the vendors. It goes to pay for the conference, the total cost of the conference is how much? 23,000. All right, then the net cost to the state is. 23,000 so and then 15 off of that so we're at 8. All right, and you're asking, and so this 28,000 is also going to allow you to spend the $15,000 that you collected too. No, that the, the 15,000 is in the 28. That's what I was, yeah, OK. But you don't really need 28,000, you're doing that for next year. 23 and some change to pay for the conference that we had this year and then whatever extra to pay for a deposit for next year when we're planning. Um, The deposit money will probably grow. Our intention that we have like 15 people I think attend this year. Our intention is to grow that, to make it bigger. Um, so we're just trying to provide some wiggle room with that deposit money to, to allow us to get a venue that will hold the conference for next year. 150 people costs about $23,000 we're asking for $50 or 5. 5000 more in appropriation than you need because you're trying to make sure you have a big enough space for next year. That's just what I'm following. OK. And then we haven't done this in twenty-something years. And why didn't you get the appropriation change before you had the conference? I missed the deadline that was on me. I should have had it done before we did it, so we're coming back to correct it. Um, they were paid out of an '09, um, GL because we had to pay it before the conference. This is just to correct that to move it so that we can use that. Money that we did accumulate, um, from the registration fees. So. All right, thank you. Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and I realized that Conferences cost money. The thing that's troubling me is they don't, there doesn't seem to be anything that the hotel is doing. Because if you have so many people, there ought to be some comps. That come with that conference. Is the hotel offering you anything? Like a free meeting room, you're gonna have 150 people. What is the hotel giving you? Because when I play in conferences, I anticipate that at least some of the rooms are gonna be free that they're gonna come the rooms or they're gonna come some maybe or something. So what are they doing? The hotel are you shopping hotels around? Are you gonna stay with the same group? And what are you asking in return from the hotel, if you bring a 150 member conference to them, what are you anticipating the hotel giving to you? The hotel did offer us discounted meeting rooms uh offered us uh a discounted block of rooms. Uh, we did pay for some speaker rooms. There were, there were 4, insurance commissioners from out of state that flew in to present at the conference aren't taking advantage of us. OK, thank you. I appreciate it. Motion at the proper time. When was the conference? September 25th and 6th. The only thing I would say is it's very odd how you've made the request and maybe DFA wasn't aware when they were making the request or I don't know what's going on, but everything is in the sense of we are going to do something. Everything I read says we're going to, not that we did. And so it's just Odd to me, if we didn't ask questions, we'd have never known that this would already happened and we were fixing a problem. After the fact. So I don't, I don't know who did what or why it was written the way that it was DFA, were you aware that this had already occurred? No. OK. How in the world, I mean like. Essentially this is an audit finding, right? Because you did something with funds that you didn't have the appropriation authority to do. And then now you've come back and asked for it and everything in writing if you were to review it says we're about to do this. Not that we did it. I'm looking at, so this is October 4th. It says insurance department is hosting. In being future. All right, so the department is hosting. If I look at that, that's dated. That's y'all's request on the 19th had it already occurred. The 19th of September. No, it hadn't occurred at the time that I turned in the paperwork. OK, when did, I thought, when did you say it occurred? The 25th and 26th of September. So you made the request 5 days before. The conference, OK. I'm not sure it seems like a very expensive conference to me. It seems like something that all of these people should be paying for because they're getting, they're continuing education and, and I'm not sure how we're not washing out. Anyway, but we're not washing out. We, we still have an additional cost to the state to be able to host the conference, but maybe we'll be able to work through that in the future and, and raise the appropriate funds, especially if you're allowing vendors to come and advertise. I mean that typically is who pays for the majority of these conferences from what I understand. So maybe it's the first year and we just didn't know what we were doing exactly clearly by the way that this has happened, we didn't know what we were doing, uh, but maybe we'll, we'll improve our ability to, to hold conferences. All right, uh, Representative Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here to your right. Um, kind of hone in. Was it a good conference? Did you have a good conference? Uh, yes, uh, in the conference, we, uh, uh, had a chance to engage with producers on surplus lines requirement. Uh, we engaged on uh different resiliency programs in other states. Uh, it was good to hear from other commissioners. Uh, we heard from, uh, NAMA, uh, we heard from the reinsurance Association of America, uh, uh, we, uh, we heard from uh uh commissioner of uh of insurance in Louisiana and Alabama, uh, and they, they shared their experience with uh the property insurance market in their states, uh, which is, uh, pretty closely aligned with ours. OK, well, that's, that's good. I, I, I think we're all interested if it was a good conference or not. You originally said that this Purpose of this conference was to inform the producers of what you're doing to improve the property market in the state of Arkansas. And, and what I heard is you listened to a lot of other people talk about what's going on in, in, in, in their states or in their arena. I think what I would ask, uh, following up on what you said is I think the ratepayers in Arkansas would be interested in knowing what you're doing to improve the property markets in Arkansas. And I think the members of this body would be interested in knowing what you're doing to improve the property markets in Arkansas. So, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna ask that by Friday's ALC meeting, we get just a, a one pager. On exactly what the insurance department is doing to improve the property market, uh, In the state of Arkansas and property insurance. Yes, sir. Thank you. One question, I, and I just, this is what I'm confused on. Why do we need the extra appropriation above what the actual expenditure was, wouldn't you just do that in your next. I mean you'll, I mean Senator Hammer's point, you'll do that in the budget hearings, right? You'll, you're gonna lower one appropriation and increase another. But why do you need it now if it's not going to occur this year. The the deposit for the hotel will. Typically occur. Months before the actual conference. So depending on timing since we're gonna start planning for the next one now, um, we anticipate paying that deposit before the end of this fiscal year.all this last deposit. I would have to look well before September date. That's what I was trying to ask earlier, right? OK, so you'd already expended the money before you made the request to DFA to have the Flip in your appropriation. The deposit was only $2000. The actual expense to the hotel was taken, um, With them the day before the conference. So it was just a timing issue and I, I do apologize. I know I, I messed it up. But it won't happen in the future. Well, I mean, I think the whole thing needs to probably be considered, uh, Senator Gilmore, are you off? All right. All right, Ser hammer. I've got a question on J3, so if you want to finish up, I'd like J3 questions, please. Yeah, we're still an I, but I will, I've got you down. All right. All right, do we have any other questions on, uh 1 or 2? Any objections, see no objections. These items are reviewed. All right, Jay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're in section J. These are the miscellaneous fatal grant appropriation requests. The first item is J1. This is a request from the Department of Public Safety Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. It's for 138,000 appropriation. They have a grant from the Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health to improve collaboration between behavioral health and criminal justice, funds will be used for a crisis intervention coordinator and for training. Next item J2 is a request from the Department of Public Safety. This is for $31,900 and spending authority, they have a grant from the US Department of Justice to enhance state victim compensation payments. Funds will be used for training, marketing, and administrative costs of the program. J3, uh, this item has been pulled by agency requests so we're going to skip over J3. The next item is J4. This is a request from the Department of Commerce Insurance Department. It's for $356,000 in appropriation. They have a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services to add year 2 funding for the senior Medicare patrol. J 5 is a request from Commerce division of Services for the blonde. It's for $11,500 appropriation. They have a grant from the US Department of Education to continue independent living for older individuals who are blind services and J-6 is also a request from Division of the blind, it's for 1.27 million. They have a grant from the US Department of Education to continue vocational rehabilitation services. Share those are all the MFG requests. All right, thank you. We're gonna do these one at a time, uh. hammer, it's pulled. Do you still have questions on J3? OK. We'll do J 1 and 2, anyone have a question, seeing none, or we're going to move to. Center hammer. J 3. And I know y'all pulled it, but my question is this how much coordination are you having with DHS because the maternal health issue is uh up in front center conversation and I'm just wondering for the size of the grant, are you engaged in conversations with them so we're not duplicating efforts, but actually harmonizing and that's all I need to know. Yes, uh, and that's part of the reason why we pulled it to make sure we are fully aligned, uh, with the goals and objectives of the governor's uh strategic committee for maternal Health. Uh, I don't think the summary properly or fully conveyed the goals of this grant. Um, The eligibility for this grant was limited to the regulating entity responsible for implementation and enforcement of comprehensive health insurance coverage, and, uh, coverage of preventative services, which in our state and most other states is the insurance departments in those states. Uh, so that's, that's why we applied for it. That's why it's at the insurance department, but yes, to answer your question, yes, we, we're going to make sure that there's no duplicative efforts and that that we're fully aligned in support with healthy moms, healthy babies. OK, thanks for the explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, I've got a question on J4356,000 federal appropriation. It's 2nd year of the program. How many, uh, I guess. Cases have y'all worked through? In the first year. Um, I don't have that number with me, the, um. Project manager couldn't be here today, but I can get that to you. Any ballpark ideas because there's how many, if I'm looking at and it's a pretty You know, I mean someone's, there's $111,000 worth of salary. There's a $1,277,000 worth of operating expenses, and there's quite a bit going on. I just wondered if it's meeting objectives or what we're doing because we're not adding new, or we're not adding new positions because this person existed in the first year because we're repurposing someone that's already there and they've got another task in addition to um, last year was the first year of this grant, we added 3 positions and those are coming up in our biennial budget to Adam, um, completely. So this is just continuation, um, of those three positions and adding the 2nd year funding and it's all these three individuals do for the department. Yes. Yeah, I would like to know if someone, if you can just give it to staff, how many cases we worked last year or in the first year of the program. So how does that work? I mean, is there a number that our folks need to know about back home and how, how are they made aware that the prome exists. If you're in the. Program. So they do a lot of outreach through conferences, um, events that they attend and their sub-grantees. They also have a website and I believe a 1-800 number, um, and we originally moved this grant over from DHS because they work alongside with the two other insurance grant programs that we have. So they attend, um, conferences and events together to kind of spread the word that this is out there, um, and to target those Medicare beneficiaries and their families. OK, that will be helpful. So if that person can tell me how many contacts they've received that's actually resulted in a case for what they're going to, that would show the value of them actually going to the events because I don't think anybody's going to the website that don't know exist, uh, or if someone can give me a hit on the website, I'd love to see that too, but just want to make sure we're actually, we have a program here that's doing something besides paying salaries. We get that. All right, perfect. All right, we have any other questions? All right, uh, sorry, are we on, are y'all all on J4? All right, I'm gonna Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that you've pulled it. But what is of concern to me is when we start talking about seniors, I only hear about websites. And as a as being a senior, I'm not going on one. How then do we access the information or are you working only through individuals to get to those senior citizens. I think a lot of that falls on our sub-grantees we have, um, 11 currently throughout the state that work with Medicare beneficiaries to um give them this information. They also help them like applying for Medicare and those kind of things that happens through our other grant. Um, so we're disseminating information through them on this program and we are currently working on adding the AAA's, um, to help us out through this program to get information out to them also to share with me the name of the entities with whom you are working because I'd like to see how many folks they're interacting with and if they are using a multiplicity of of of of avenues in order to get the word to seniors, because we have come to believe that if you don't have an email address. Or you can't access a website, then you don't get any services. And so many people who are older don't use any of that. So I want to know what are you doing to specifically reach out to those individuals because as you know, we don't have internet access across the state, right? So what are the, what are the plethora of, of, of avenues that you're using in order to make sure that the information is getting to to a senior citizens. I can get that to you. Thank you. Why, why did you say the and it's not a director, but whoever, what's whatever the position is called, whoever's running the program were, they weren't able to attend because of what reason? She's at an outreach event today at an outreach today. All right. Senator Hammer. Thank you. This, this 100% federal funded, is that correct? That's correct. Do you have to provide a report to the feds for that accounts for, uh, your statistics, your data that justifies receiving this money. Uh, yeah, we do. I, I'm not sure if it's quarterly or semi-annually, but I can get that to you also. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend that gets sent to you and pushed out to the committee because that may provide some Insight because it is 100% federal funding, I would think there would have to be some statistics that you have to, you know, give to the feds to show and justify why you ought to continue to get this money. Is that, is that fair? OK. So I'd like to make that recommendation, Mr. Chair. I'm not a member of the committee, sorry. Is there any issue with holding this item over? Is there anything in jeopardy if we do, there's a lot of questions and I, you know, what's going to happen is about, you know, there's going to be some limited responses and then everything else is gonna be just between a member and this individual. I think it's probably best to be in front of the, clearly, there's a lot of questions and y'all aren't the people to answer them, so. Um, I think that's where I'm headed. Just J4. And is there going to be an issue? Is there a timing deadline, anything that we need to be aware of? No, I think we're fine. All right, I think we're, are we all done? Insurance department. All right. And then I'm gonna go back. Representative fight, you are recognized, and I believe it's J2 is what you said? J2. So that's going to be public safety. We've got anybody left? You could just recognize yourself for the committee and then representative fight, you're recognized to ask your question. Karen Perry, CFO, Department of Public Safety. Yeah Lisette Yang, Crime Victims Operations Board administrator? Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, how does this overlap if it does at all with the crime reparations Board. But the services offered there. Um, I don't quite understand your question when you mean overlap, what do you mean? Uh, I just noticed that this mentions particularly marketing materials, um. And administrative cost of the program, so I'm thinking marketing materials might be some of the same materials that the Crime reparations Board would be using, and I just wondered if there was any, uh, connectivity between these two programs. I noticed this is VOCA funds So, um, the, we checked with the Department of Justice with our vo administrator in Washington and actually we could we realized that we couldn't use the funding for marketing materials. Other than brochures and uh information cards that we already give to providers and to victims or, or the community. So we are not able to actually use any money for any other things that we wanted to purchase for outreach and education such as like magnets with their with their with their number or um or um any other things that we would do that we could pass around when we do a training, for example. So right now we're just limited to do more. Brochures. I think to answer your question on the board, the board oversees the program for crime victims, and this is just a federal grant and we just needed additional appropriation to be able to spend 4 brochures. So I don't know, do the board members use the brochures or? Now, the board members don't use the brochures. This is this is strictly something that we give around to the community shelters, uh, victim advocates, uh, law enforcement and people to educate them about the services, not the services, the the program and the reparations that we can do for crime victims. All right, thank you. All right, do we have any other questions? All right, seeing none, is there any objection to review reviewing items J1, 25 or 6. All right, seeing none, we're gonna pass over their review. We're gonna pass over J4. All right, Section K. Thank you Miss Sheer on section K. This is Palan holding account transfer requests. And there are 4 agencies requesting 722,500 in appropriation for regular salaries and personal services matching, uh, all-site performance increases benefit increases and other salary adjustments, the largest request is by DFA for 540,000. All members, do we have any questions? On the pay plan request. Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Sher. Can we get uh Whoever's Presenting this Um, James Hudson, I guess, or I think probably DFA would be DFA. And if you could just recognize yourself for the committee and Senator Hammer, you're recognized for question. Good morning members, Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA. Morning, Senator Hammer. Morning, sir. Are, are these for the boards and commissions? Am I understanding that right? Like it says dietary licensing board seat board of Optometry. These actual board positions that we're looking at. These increases for. Sorry, Senator Hammer, I thought you're gonna ask me about my department. On the other ones, um, yes, there would be staff members for those particular boards. And are those, so this is an increase in salaries for those board positions. Am I understanding that right? this is appropriation only that would fund salary increases for those those staff members that's right. All right, and where I'm going with this is I'm thinking about the other piece of legislation where we said that if they uh maintain an operating balance of 3 years sufficient to meet their needs that they would reduce the fees collected from the members that are paying into those boards and commissions, and I may be all wrong on this, that's why I'm asking. I want to be straight on it, um. So this would directly impact the balances that they would carry. Uh As boards and commissions. My, in my down the wrong trail or am I thinking right the increase in appropriation will allow them to spend down more fund balances. Yes, sir. OK, but again, I would say that if you look at the reason for the transfer, it's ordinary course of business increases that are coming through. They just didn't have an appropriation to be able to fund the, uh, the increases they're expecting, but these are, this, this is being requested for the purpose of giving. Increases in salaries, right? Correct. So what I'd want to watch for is, are they increasing those salaries. At what rate are they, is this cost of living raises or is it, uh, would it be, would it be above what we might expect like a 3% cost of living raise or? I'm being rescued by the appropriate people here Senator. Do you want us to ask you questions about your 540,000. Absolutely. You wanna talk to Matt first. Senator Hammer, these are This goes back about 6 months ago where we had several uh board director positions that were open. We were having a hard time filling them, so we upgraded them to a higher grade. And their appropriation. We're just matching that appropriation to fund that, uh, salary when we fill those positions and when we did that 6 months ago they go through personnel or OK, but it's coming out of the fees out of their fund balance, so I mean we would have done this, this, this, this also covers like their performance evaluations and all that. We're not just giving them a raise. This is, this was, goes back to trying to fill those positions and upgrading those positions where we actually hire, and, and get the position filled. OK. All right. Thank you. Run. All right, members, we have any other questions on K 134 Senator Gilmore. No, I was just trying to catch my brother before he left. We, we enjoy them as much as you do. All right, so, uh, that brings us to monthly reports. Do we have any questions on the reports. Centered Hickey. Uh Just L7. Medicaid trust fund. Just recognize yourself for the committee and Senator Hickey, you are recognized for question on L7. Uh, good morning, Janet May, DHS. Jason Cowan, Medicaid CFO, thank you. I won't, won't keep you long. I told you you'd get tired of me. Of course, as you know, we did legis legislation actually special language for this report that you all prepare. So you, you began the report way back or give us numbers from, uh, way back, but as far as the beginning balance on 2025, we started about $579 million in that account. And after 3 months we're down to About 5:40. About 5:49, just right under 549. So we've dropped about $30 million for a quarter. So. Of course the way I look at that, it's $120 million a year. This is not an RSA. It's just coming out of this fund balance. Is there anything that I'm missing, uh, As far as multiplying it out, we're By, by the quarter like that? Is that what y'all are anticipating that we'll be down? They were spending about 120 million more a year. Then we're bringing in Um, I'll start and Jason will, um, chime in. So it's not a uniform quarterly number. So a lot of those transfers are tied to very specific provider fees that are governed by acts for payments. So those can happen at different times during the year that was built into our AOP and so while it may look like $120 million every quarter. I can't guarantee that it's going to be that every quarter. We, um, anticipate spending some of the trust fund, but not at at that current rate. OK, so how much if, if you annualize it, what do you all estimating then? And it was, it's $30 million a quarter, so basically 1010 million a month. So, uh, the way that we have it kind of in our forecast plan right now, we'll probably end up spending about $225 million between soft drink tax and the restricted sweep GR money and then, you know, on top of that, the reoccurring transfers from the provider fees that are coming through those accounts. is, how, how much are your debits going exceed your credits. So in other words, how much more for the year are you anticipating that you're going to spend. Over and over and above what you're bringing in. Because when I annualize it out for the quarter, it works to 120 million and you're telling me that that may not, that I may not get annualize it out that I may not be able to extrapolate it that way. So what are you all, what are you all estimating? You're estimating it's gonna be positive for the year or negative? It's gonna be negative. I think it's going to drop, uh, about 200 million this year, 225 million is what I'm expecting. The, the burn of the balance over what we would collect. and I would just follow up. I would just follow 120. Yes. And why would that be? We've, uh, since the FMAP amounts have decreased. We've seen a, uh, uh, a bigger increase to the state share need for federal on the state matching funds for, uh, the changes we had. You know, a 0.86 F map drop for, uh, count or federal fiscal year 25. So that's, that's caused about a $93 million swing in just the state share. We've seen, uh, that kind of put a strain on the rate that we're spending on state share. Can you, can you back up, because I'm, I'm gonna bet most members probably don't know what you're talking about as far as the change because I don't think that's that's been. Pretty new to most of us. I mean, I didn't know about it until our staff just told me before this meeting. And so there's been a change in the FMAP rate. So the FMA rate changes every October 1, and we, it can go up or down, and that is, we have multiple match rates for the Medicaid program. The rate we're talking about is the is the medi Medicaid or medication assistance percentage that pays for the services on the claims. It, on 9:30 it was 72% of federal nitrate on October 1, it went to 71.1. All right. And so there's been a change in the FMA rate and so, so members understand that's, you know, that's our match rate with what we put in versus what the feds put in for Medicaid, um, and then generally, that change only impacts the traditional Medicaid population. So if you've been here long enough to have gone through the expansion, those percentages will stay the same no matter what our other FMA rate changes do at what now? That is true. Our expansion, um, match rate is 90/10, that is. Set in statute that will not change. Our administrative match rate is also fifty-fifty, and that will not change. Can we do things to alter that 9010 by putting people in what would have been a traditional program that are currently in the 90-10 match on accident. Maybe it's intentional, but can we, can we shift people back to the traditional, you know, we had existing programs and so if I remember right, at some point, everything frozen time was considered traditional and everything else that she picked up was considered new and we shifted people from what was traditional into the new plan, which then allowed us to have the greater match rate because they became eligible for that and they didn't need the traditional. OK. And if you don't know that happened, then we probably need to sit down and talk because that's a concerning thing for me. But we did everything we could to put people in the 90-10 match rate at the time it was 100% and so through the eligibility every year, we will, we look at every eligibility category that is available and try to put beneficiaries in the most beneficial category for them. I, I would like to sit down and hear a little bit more about what you just described, because we do cascade through the benefit packages. Find the best for them. The newly eligible starts at 17% of the federal poverty level and goes up through 138 for the adults 19 to 64. That is who I think of in the expansion category one-off programs that may help a specific population in traditional Medicaid that then became covered under the 9010. Because they were covered under insurance, at least that's the way that it was explained to me back when we did it. and follow up just to just to make sure I'm not missing something that you're describing. OK. All right, sounds good. And, and then I would like to, um, further clarify with, um, Senator Hickey, the, um, budget, we monitored every week and it does change every week. We pay claims every, every week. And so we are just now 12 months out of unwinding and so We are looking at our, our barn and how we are spending. So, um, I'm cautiously optimistic or. Neutral maybe you have to be, I don't know that I am the, uh, May I continue, Mr. Chair. Since you jump, appreciate the clarification on that. Mine's back to the other, so. With this F map that you're talking about, the numbers that we have then for. July, August and September that you've provided. Those, those don't have any of the increased FMA in them, in them then yet, right? OK, so that's the reason that, that you, sir, are actually telling me that it's going to be more than what I was annualizing out. So which is like I say, just from a straight. Budget standpoint, unless we can rework some stuff or, or things to that nature, we're gonna burn through the Medicaid trust fund and A little over 2 years. If, if nothing changes and you may not want to stay there, but I mean, we're showing 548 million right now. And if we're going to spend $220 million a year more, then that's a Fairly easy, uh, calculation. So we are looking at the budget every week. We are looking at things that can be changed. We are, um, anticipating ending 25 in the positive, but we are working with DFNA and working with our budget preparation to come before y'all for 26 and 27. How are you planning on, how are you planning on ending in the positive when I just heard that it was going to be in the negative by 220. I guess I'm lost now. What, what she means by that is that we plan to spend this allotment of the trust fund in this year to, to make up the gap in our state share that we have with the trust fund to get us through 25 and then 26 as we keep spending, yes, we'll probably have to have some conversations on how fast that spin rate on the trust fund looks like at the end of that year, whether or not we're going to be able to make it through 26 with the trust. My whole, my whole point is, is that. Without the without the FMA that you all are referring to now is we're spending about $100 million more a month. And I'm gonna annualize it out $120 million a year just off of this report. And I appreciate y'all preparing the report and I understand that, you know, your costs coming in or your costs and you're trying to do what you're gonna do. Unfortunately, we're gonna get this every month. So we'll be able to see, we'll be able to see what's going on. But what I'm saying at this point right here, we're gonna have to start adjusting for this in our budget, uh, and it's going to be a large number and I'm just trying to make sure that all of our members understand whenever they're looking at. L7, the last page at the very bottom what's going on because this is simple, it's as simple as looking at what the beginning balance was. Down there at the bottom, beginning balance of 2025 far right column. And then where we're at for on a month to month basis because we're doing this in leg audit every month. Excuse me, in leg council every month here or in Pier. So. We'll keep watching and I appreciate uh, appreciate y'all, uh, coming to the table. All right, Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you all for being here. I guess I'm concerned about your past program. When was the last time. You did a survey of those individuals who are supposed to be receiving services from the past. To determine the level of satisfaction. Uh, and assessing whether or not we ought to keep this program, look to another program, cause all I'm getting are complaints. And I want to know what we're doing to make sure that what they are supposed to be doing. Is taking place. Mine's just a simple ask. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I've asked. Miss Weatherton to join us as she is, um, over that program specifically. Good morning, Senator Chesterfield. Melissa Weatherton, director of Medicaid Spe Populations. I don't know if Paula hung back. OK, well, paying attention to me, I was, I was. I heard your question and I'm, I, I hate that you're getting a lot of complaints. Um, as always, please send those over to me. Um, but I would say as far as surveys, so we do a couple of different things under the managed care regs, we have to have an EQRO which is a quality assurance vendor. That's part of what they do. We also I do, um, surveys. It's called NCI surveys where we go out and talk to clients. And then do you remember part of the legislation was that the passes had to have, um, consumer advisory councils where each one was made up of consumers or their guardians or parents that fed information back. But of course, none of that's perfect. So if you're getting complaints, um, please send them to determine who the consumers are going to be the sit on the boards to make sure that they're not. Oh yes, people, but people who will share with you how they really feel, because many times when you're receiving services, you're very reluctant to complain about them because you might lose them, but I am getting a number of of complaints and I'll be happy to share those with you at another. There have been some, it's. They feel a coldness when they're dealing with them. I guess that's how I would put it. It's as if we, we know we've got this plan and so it really doesn't matter what you think and that seems to be the consensus from those folks who have visited with me. What their names are right now I'm having a singing moment so I can't come up with it. But I remember the overall thing is they're very, very much concerned about the lack of concern sometimes on behalf on um from the past because they seem to feel that they are an entity unto themselves and Nothing's gonna happen to them. But, uh, just look out for that and I'd appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you to say really quickly it is open enrollment right now. If people are very unhappy with their past, they can switch during the month of October. question just on cost and how they're coming, uh, you know, there was recently a dispensing fee change, and I think this is for both of you. How does that, does that impact Medicaid in any way? Yes, sir, it will impact us in the QHP program, which is our expansion, and it will impact us in the past program. We have been working with our actuaries on the actual cost impact of several different scenarios, and we will be bringing that actually to ALC exec subcommittee or later this week. Just based on. If it, if it's $3.06 dollars or $10 is that what you mean? Yes, sir. So we, we did one scenario of just reasonable cost to dispense as the original rule was written, and we have, um, those preliminary estimates, then there was a, a request late last week to look at different types of dispensing fees and also a percentage added to NATA, which is a pricing mechanism for, for the drugs that literally email just came while we've been sitting here. So I haven't had A chance to review those estimates. OK, so we don't have a ballpark idea. Do you have any idea what it's gonna do to the passes? I, I, I don't, we, we, I don't, I, um, the initial, um, impact to the QHP on the original emergency rule was a total cost of, of, of roughly $250. Um and total dollars. So that would be 10% of a 2.5, um, And we have budget neutrality restrictions on our waiver to to to utilize that program. So, um, we're trying to see what true impact because can't pass that to the beneficiary, that's on the expansion. As far as determination of reasonable has the insurance department been communicating with y'all about what would be perceived to be a reasonable rate. We have been in communications with the insurance department on this rule. We have not discussed those specifics. Um, I think that's coming when I get my estimates so that I can share with them. I'm starting to hear from self-insureds now that are very concerned about what the cost is going to be to their insurers. So, um, I was just curious. I, I had. thought we had exempted it from the Medicaid, but I, I guess we did not. I, I, I did request that we be exempt, uh, but. OK. All right, thank you. All right, Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh, picking up on that conversation first, has, how long has Medicaid been? Um, doing a dispensing fee. In the in the fee for service, I, I believe we've had a dispensing fee for quite a while. I would, I would hate to give you a timeline as long as I know there has been a dispensing fee. So as far as the impact on the numbers if you've had it for a long period of time, how would Well, this, this rule as proposed, um, by the insurance department will not impact fee for service. Fee for service is outside of this calculation. It is, um, the managed care plans and insurance premiums that will be impacted through the past program and through the expansion model that uses the qualified health plan for system delivery. Sidebar, do you know how much and and I can never community reinvestment dollars, I think is what it's called. Do you, do you know how much each of those carry each year? I, I do not, but you might. So there's not a, um, Sandra Hammer, there's not a certain amount, um, necessarily of community, um, investment dollars, the way that a program works is the passes are allowed to invest funding in the community if we approve it that they then can count against their medical loss ratio. OK sidebar, I'd just like to get those numbers to know how much from the last year. So my question is back on, on the, uh. Discussion about your, your balance. The, um The the F map, that conversation has been around for a couple of years and refresh my memory, is it tied in with the census that they, when do they adjust the FMA rate, is it with the census or when? No, sir, the FMA rate adjusts every October 1. It is a, um, per capita formula that is very detailed. I, I, I don't look at it a whole bunch. We, um, but we, we get it a couple of months in advance. We get early estimates and then, then we get the final number a few months in advance of when that changes, but it's every October 1 with the federal fiscal year, this tied into economic improvement of the state, all that sort of stuff. So these numbers that we have in front of them, are they based on what you expect to get October. first, or is there going to be an adjustment? Well, we are in October, so these numbers are based on this past October 1st, right? No, sir, the, the numbers that are before you on the trust fund balances are based on what we've already spent through 9:30. So we transferred money to, um, use for our bills in, in the using the matching principle with some of our expenses. So as that we do that every month as normal course of business. So there's, um, a set of those accounts that are tied to very specifics. Types of payments for providers that we transfer every month for those payments. That will start to be, you will see the new FMAT reflected in in potentially in the usage. It'll be indirectly in that number. OK, and so do you anticipate based on The direction we've been going over the last several years, adjustments to the FMAP that were stabilizing or do you see that we're going to continue to lose or you even able to? Look at you Chris ball and can't look that far in the that far ahead and tell you what's going to happen with the FMAP. Um, I will say some of the early, um, numbers, um, we are not below our pre-COVID, um, FMAP. So there is always that potential, but it's gonna be determined on the economy of the state and the per capita calculation. OK, and then can you identify the contributors that have increased the need to draw. off of the reserve. I mean, are there certain items that you're able to pinpoint that say this, this is attributed to because of these items. Not at this time, and that's part of the ongoing weekly analysis of our weekly spend as it compares to our budget that was loaded in for the annual operating plan. So we look at it every week. I, I can't tell you at this stage, if it's one particular type of spend or not. How could you make the statement a while ago about the drug cost if you can't identify the other areas that you feel that's a contributing factor. Because I've had to do the cost analysis of what my rates would go up if this rule goes into effect. And those are being done by actuaries for actuaryly sound rates. So I have to send them the data, so they've told me that they would go up, but that rule's not gone into effect. I will not see the impact of that until late 25 or early 26. So I have to build it into a budget analysis going forward, but on other areas you don't track it to where you can pinpoint specifically like it's, you know, uh, I don't pick a subject, whatever it may, whatever it may be that you're paying Medicaid. And that's attributing to to the significant number we're dealing with, you can't say it's because of this, this and this, or it's just overall. Well, I would say that it's overall, we're tracking our budget every week and we compare it to what we've loaded in the annual operating plan of what we plan to spend, and then we compare that line by line. There's about 300 lines to the Medicaid spend every week. And we then move it up into about 8 to 10 lines. I'm looking at Jason to correct me if I'm wrong, and then we track it compared to what we've loaded in the budget. We are currently under budget, which is under 100 100% of expected spend at this stage. That could change next week depending on what comes through in the claims. So the last question in the snapshot represented in these numbers are based on when, when did you pull these numbers? Because if I'm interpreting what you just said right, that number is gonna change pretty frequently I think I'm confused at what snapshot you're looking at compared to the balances in the trust fund. So I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to make sure I'm answering the questions. correctly. No, I appreciate. I'm just trying to get my mind because you're based on Senator Hickey's questions, my term would be that the Medicaid trust fund is going to be insolvent, probably about 2, 2.5 years. I'm just trying to get my mind around, you know, if you're, if you're adjusting, you're looking at 300 lines, you bring it down to 8 to 10 lines. How much of that plays into what is the true number that's, that's shown on this sheet right here that we've been given. So the number shown here is what we have used in the 1st quarter for Medicaid spend that and right now we are still within budget. So yes, going forward, we are concerned if that burn rate were to pick up, we would need to to make some changes and given what we do every quarter, we, we meet with our partners at DFNA. We meet with, um, our actuaries and we continue to refine our, our budget. Every, every week, even though we have a budget that's loaded in AOP that gets compared, then we look at what the expected spend is based on the trend in both of those numbers right currently are trending under 100%. OK. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Pilkington, you're recognized. Thank you over here. Thanks for being here today. Um, so I've just got a couple questions with this discussion. So, um, you know, there's certain people out here are proposing that we end our homes and move back to a few move those people into a fee for service model. From what I'm understanding from this discussion with the FMAP, if we were to do that, we would actually exacerbate the problem even worse and become insolvent even faster if we were to do that because they are homes current program is not affected by this change with the FMAP. Is that correct? The our Home program does have a 90/10 match and that does not impact the FMA change that happens every October 1, but this, this first part of your question of moving it in to the fee for service would, would take a different analysis, a different, um, I don't have a way to answer that with just the FMA change because I think the FMA would retain at 90/10 for that population, it would just be moved into a fee for service area that we've not done the analysis or the what if forecasting on you. And there has, I think we've had two studies done at this point looking at, you know, whatever the insurance type program is versus a fee for service, and they were both independent. They were both done by people. people that were critical of the program. Uh, you know, continuing on and both came to the same outcome if I recall. So we can pull those if those aren't, and, you know, it's been a while since we've had this discussion, but it's an important one to have, I believe, because there's a big picture to look at and access being the most important one. And if we limit access, then every one of your individual rates is going to go up to create access, uh, for, for yourself and your own plans, even if we do cut the knees out of the Medicaid program. So there's a lot of things to be thinking about if we're going to make any. Significant changes to the Medicaid program and, and how it's really administered for. The It's not a, you know, the increased population. Yes sir, we, we could only hope. All right. Representative Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm, I'm over here to your, to your right. A couple of weeks ago I reached out to, uh, DHS Secretary Putman, um, insurance department, uh, regarding an issue with Uh, probably one of the most vulnerable segments of, of, um, Of our Arkansas healthcare. And concerns with past, any willing provider and a couple of other issues. And I, I just wanted to see if you maybe had more information for me, and this was an opportunity. I wasn't going to go down this path, but since my, my. Colleague Senator Chesfield opened the door up and mentioned passes, and you're at the table. It's a dang good opportunity. So, what I'm gonna ask is, um. If you've got any, any current information, I'll be glad to visit offline. Uh, but do not misinterpret my silence. Is my lack of concern in this area. It's vitally important and I would appreciate a response back to my concerns from all parties involved. So if you have information, I would like to, I'd like to have that. Um, yes, sir, we're happy to visit with you offline. Any willing provider falls under the jurisdiction of the insurance department. So I wouldn't, we would not have any information on that. But the other, we would be, yes, sir, I understand. I think that's the end of it. Thank you all very much for sticking around for questions. Members, do we have any other business? All right, seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you.