Joint Budget Committee
Video
Transcript
2 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
right members if you will grab your seats we'll get this thing started and call this meeting to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:45
order we've we've got a few items on the agenda today and I will turn this over to
Speaker 5
1:52
Wendy for discussion. thank you Mrir. itemut B are three service contracts for legislative review. These are out of state contracts. these contracts needed attention before the June council meeting. all are from DHS you'll see in item B there's a
letter from Jessica Patterson, director of officefice of state procurement and then the second page would be is the contracts. The first is division of childrenldren and familymily Services with evident change. This is an original contract for over690,000. this is for the child welfare structured decision making assessment it is sole source justification the first two contracts are sole sourced by justification you'll see at the end of your packet there is a letter and a form that will state the reasons for that being sole source.
B2 is division of county ops with Sifter Solutions it's a new contract for 1.2 million. it is to contract creating a supplemental nutrition assistance programme waiver compliance solution? and the third contract is the division ofvelopmental disabilities with Samaritan integrative Services for 156,000. This is for psychiatric services at the southeast Arkansas Human Development Center that completes the summary of the contract, Mr Chair. thank you any member have any questions for either three of these contracts
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:11
I seepresentative rose Representative rose you recognized for for which contract?
Yes sir thank you I've got a question on the evident change contract for DCfs OK we'll bring DCfS up to the table you would just state your names
for the records and with after you do that we'll give uhpresentative hose you recognized. Good
Speaker 11
3:51
morning Tiffanie Wwright, director for the division of Children and Family Services. Sarahcunningham
Chair
Unverified
3:57
officefice of procurement with DHS. Hey, good morning.lourri Mcdonald,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:59
chief of staff DHS. good morning. thank you so much for joining
us. lovevely weather outside. I'm sure that was nice coming in today. before I dig into questions
do you have any representation from the vendor in this contract that's here today?
Yes sir we do Mr Chair, would it be all
right to have them come to the table as well do you have any
questions they can attempt to answer before we it change up yes thank you so my primary the first question I think I'd like to lead with about six months ago we had a pretty good back and forth with regard to this vendor and one of the prevailing themes that I had a struggle with was
that we were becoming so reliant on them and that we were not developing any kind of an off ramp with this vendor with the training the tools the reliance overall and the vendor said themselves we want to put we want to put our s our clients in the best position to fire us is what they said then and furthermore one of the justifications we're just talking about a300,000 dollars contract whereas this looks more like a
near a $2.1 million contract but one of the justifications for why we should accept the300,000 dollars contract was because well this was put out for competitive bid originally and this is just an amendment on it so we're coming back no off ramp this contract it sounds like is now ending after seven years and we're adding on at least three more years no competitive bid and no off ramp. So I was I was curious if the vendor themselves
has any built in plans for an off ramp and what that looks like and we could
Speaker 23
5:56
just kind of start there. thank you that's a great question so to provide
Speaker 26
6:00
some clarity this contract that you all have before you today is the maintenance and operation contract for the structured decision making practice hub and the tools that DCfS is using to do the work that is then evaluated in what I call the
sister contract that you all approved in a scope of work on in December so this contract is the continued maintenance and operations of the practice hub that DCfS uses to complete all of the safety assessments in our case planning and so what you're seeing here now is how do we keep this going because we will with their tools because we are using their tools and our system to make decisions
and the maintenance and operation for that would be maintaining the system but then the operations would be if along the way we have enhancements things that need to be fixed or changed and how we are doing our business so that's what you're seeing now that this original contract was all of the work that we were bringing to Arkansas in 2017 to
Speaker 27
7:10
start changing the system and how we do the work that we do to build consistency and now we have the two separate
Speaker 26
7:19
contracts one again the maintenance and operations for the tools that are evidence umbas tools that they brought to our state and then the other is the CQI and the reviews and all of that work ol low up Mrir you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
7:35
recognized thank you. So if I understand you correctly, we have multiple contracts started with one we have more than one is this is this contract this renewal contract is this going to be more money than what it had been previously?
so this is the exact same amount we were paying for seven years previous
Speaker 27
7:55
to now so we're only this contract we're only requesting for three years and it's less money per year and we're requesting
Speaker 32
8:03
three years but it's not it's a total projected cost of three years at $2 million. Sorry
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
8:08
I'll rephrase. I'm sorry it's ok annually is this more mon is this more money or less
money annually this contract then the it says the contract is expiring at the end of this month. what we're paying them annually in
the contract that's expiring is this more annually or less annually? I think it's less but I plea
Speaker 35
8:29
I don't want to get that wrong so vendor but maybe I'm not sure do you
Speaker 23
8:37
have that she's Sarah's going to look I think it's I
Speaker 27
8:46
wanna I wanna say it's less because we're moving to strictly maintenance and operation and both and the prior
contract was all of the work, the tools training all of those different pieces that came when you had when we
Speaker 26
9:01
were bringing structured decision making to the state as a whole. We had to we didn't
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:06
have anything before so what I'm trying to discern and I don't think you're being evasive I think it's just maybe
it's unknown at the moment. are we going to be paying them more overall annually?
Speaker 27
9:18
or less? no we're we're paying them approximately um,700,000 dollars a year now a year the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:24
vendor from Arkansas annually not just this contract are we paying them more or less
in future like moving forward combining all the contracts together that we're paying them I
Speaker 39
9:36
don't have an answer for that what'm trying to figure out you said
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:42
that this this contract is is doing some things that
used to all be under one contract now it's under two contracts. What I'm trying to figure out is is this an expansion? are we
growing are we paying them more annually than we were and and I
see saying no but then just a second ago you guys weren't sure if we're paying them more annually so
Speaker 27
10:05
that's why I'm a little confused so on this contract we are not paying them more because we're moving into maintenance and operation. The other contract that will be coming up for renewal is the same minus what we had to add in December to add
Speaker 26
10:19
the additionalcQI work. we are not haven't added any funding to either of these contracts. OK. are are they
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
10:25
going to have more than 11 employees in Arkansas moving forward? that would have to be
Speaker 43
10:31
a question for the vendor they like to you'll recognize them if you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
10:36
want to bring them up if there's anybody from evident change you would ma'am just state your name and thenpresentative rose you're free to ask that question again.
Speaker 48
11:00
Good morning. I'm Heather Meitner from Evident Change. I'm a program
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
11:08
director there what was your last nameitner it in er thank you for being here this morning. With this contract is is there anything that's changing for your organization? are there any any new things taking place like additional employees or services
Speaker 47
11:21
or anything of that nature no not at this time what we really took to heart what was
Speaker 52
11:26
stated in the December hearing around continuing to support DcfS in the off ramping right
of some of the the services provided it's not uncommon for states to contract with organizations like ours to build their expertise as they build out their their child welfare system so we are continuing to decrease the amount of time and services we provide here. I appreciate it one more follow up and I'll hop out of the queue to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
11:55
let other people thank you thank you Mr
Chair so with yous with you stating
that is there an actual off ramp plan that you have proposed
Speaker 52
12:07
we have started some conversations about that yes and I'm sure we can follow up and provide more detail for you as we go forward. This this particular contract today around the the maintenance and operations is one piece of that so the tools are currently being utilized by the staff every single day and the system is built. all we need to do now is to fixes enhancements provide help desk support you know that's really just the the running smoothly day to day as
our as our plan here and that is much less expensive than the build was. Sure I appreciate that go ahead I'll hop out for an hour
Speaker 25
12:42
thank you RepresentativeRose uhpresentative Richardson you are recognized Mine's actually on a different
contract. I don't have anything for this apologize for that uhpresentative Wendstrom are you for this contract or different? sir for this one right you're recognized how many contracts total
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
13:04
you said multiple contracts so this is more than one how many contracts total?2.2. do we have a total for the amount of spend with evident change all all contracts combined. I don't today with I do not with me today yeah we
Speaker 39
13:20
can get that for youpresentative Lindstrom. so
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
13:27
for maintenance what's the other contract for?
Speaker 23
13:35
the other contract is for ca case reviews that are required
Speaker 26
13:40
for our child and family service review process with ACF CQI as well as the data management. So evident change we're required to produce different reports to the legislator and so they put together all of those with with before us monthly charts data management that sort of thing. OK you said there were there was an
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:06
off ramp discussion here we've been with this contract for7 years this is for another3 years so we've been there 10 years where's the off ramp Is it 10 years down the road or is it5 years down the road? what's what does that look
Speaker 27
14:25
like? I think that's so for this contract the this is the webba this is the platform where the
Speaker 26
14:33
tools are housed where our staff are using the tools and
we have to have the platform to be able to use them so for this particular contract I can't necessarily answer that right now because we need the tools to do the work that we're doing every day we use that we
Speaker 68
14:51
use that platform daily so there really isn't going to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:55
be an off ramp if we if they have proprietary contract on their software that'll be a continued it
won't be something we own it'll be a continued maintenance. Yes, I think the
Speaker 27
15:08
convers more conversation on the off ramp is on the other contract because the other contract is where we have the reviews going on in this CQI and that work happening. OK all right thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
15:19
you. I'll hop out of the queue for now. thank you chair.
does any other member have any question for evident change before I probablypresentative rose you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
15:28
probably help Senator Ester and it's possible you answered
Speaker 72
15:32
this but like all these contracts like matter that this one starts in the next month or
Speaker 23
15:43
approve this today? Yeah so on May31st evident change could would turn
Speaker 27
15:47
the system off and we wouldn't be able to have consistent safety risk assessments case planning reunification tools available that our staff use everyday to
Speaker 26
15:57
make decisions about kids and what's happening with those kids and families that we're serving and
Speaker 27
16:02
have the consistency as well as the support of some evidence-based work behind that.
Uhpresentative Woootten is this is this for this contract?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
16:20
you recognized this did did I understand early on that there's no competitive bid on this contract and why
Chair
Unverified
16:32
is that that's correct. so this was submitted as a sole source with justification under procurement law because of the proprietary nature of the underlying system and this
vendor is actually the only one in the United States that offers this type of structured decision management tool, for us to be able to access and continue the implementation that they've done in the state we would have to convert and move to a completely different assessment type and implement kind of moved to a completely different implementation. uh, and this was the most cost effective and in the best interest of the state to pursue this avenue as a sole source
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:14
follow up if I may. what what makes this service so single source I mean you are you are you telling us that they're the only ones in the United States that that provides this service that's a
Speaker 52
17:32
really important questionpresentative Wooten thank you for raising it. the suite of decision support tools that we provide have one key question that they answer at each point in the assessment process throughout the life of a
family's involvement with DCfs so in order to improve accuracy and consistency, utility for staff to be able to make very important decisions in an informed way. We wanted to make sure that there was a research and evidence base so evident change is a nonprofit we're a nonpartisan and we value research policy and practice support and all of our work is driven by the needs of child welfare agencies like DCfS so when those needs are brought to us we respond in kind and the
tools that we provide are the agency standard or the the the standard in the field work for child protection and are recognized by state and national clearing houses that rate these tools as evidencebased practice because it de there's demonstrated change in outcomes that come as a result of utilizing the tools so what makes the service so unique
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
18:38
then that you're that you're just the only source I think because we've been at it for
Speaker 52
18:47
many many years we started this in the 1990s and we've continued to grow and perfect the tools continue to evaluate them and really get the input of utilization users in the states to to continue to better them over time thank you chairman thank you thank youpresentative wooten uhpresentative Johnson, thank
you just so I'm clear and I I
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
19:10
think this is important around the sosourcing this particular contract today is around the operation and
management specifically of the product that evidence change has we've we're contracted with them that contract's coming up too at some point for review. so I would think that there's no one else that would be able to manage their particular platform so I think I can understand how this would be soleod I would I might take issue with the next contract being sood. I don't think it was before because I do think there are people in the country doing some structured
decision making things similar. there are definitely people I think that are competing with evident change around the country but for this particular one I I would say if I'm understanding that right, who no one else would be able to op er ate and manage their system. is that correct? that's correct right. thank you. Is there any other
members that have any question for evident change before we go to nonmembers? right RepresentativeRos give a little latitude you are
recognized for additional questions thank you Mr
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
20:27
chairir. I'd like to go back to just restating the concern that we discussed at length six months ago that the vendor is deeply entrenched inside of DCfs to the point where we're so reliant on them that if we don't renew this contract at the last hour that it sounds like everything comes crashing down.
we can't do what we do without them which has been my concern for quite some time now you mentioned the second contract and that it'll be coming up for renewal. When does that contract expire? are you asking when it expires of the7 years after
Chair
Unverified
21:08
procurement or just when it will be up for renewal. you could give me both dates. OK. Uh, it began it so it expires it's on a fiscal year so it'll each year will be June30th is
when it will need to be renewed and and it began July 1st of 2023. So it will be need to be reprocured and it previously this was posted as an RfP for that CQI contract that you're talking about it would need to be reprocured before that seven years so I understand correctly
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
21:39
that contract does not expire until 2030. is that right? yes under the if we went
Chair
Unverified
21:46
the maximum se years under procurement law. yes sir. it can be renewed up to annually up to se years.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
22:03
I think at this time I'm going to yield back Mr Chair just with the the the continued concern that we are moving forward with a vendor being so necessary to what we do in DCfs should this contract renewal have come in here and JBC decided that they didn't think it was a good thing to pass it that you now are saying that your hands would be tied and we wouldn't have the vendor the
vendor wouldn't be able to continue their services and we'd be you know step up stuck up a creek without a paddle. that seems like a very dangerous place to be because contracts do get halted, paused or voted down around here semiregularly and I would just say moving forward I would advise that you guys trying to head it off earlier than that so that we can have these conversations and instead of last minute wouldn't you agree yes sir thank you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:04
Representative rose thank you RepresentativeRose. Senator hickey is this for these more of a comment I just I don't understand and againt I don't have
an issue with the contract I guess, based on what everybody said, why don't we just run these simultaneously I mean if you've got your if you've got your program in there and you need the maintenance also why don't you just run the contract simultaneously that way if we ever want to get out of one and we have to rebid it then they would all be done the same way
Is there a reason we're not running those together? is
Chair
Unverified
23:41
your question around the the contract term and start date because I think that's kind of the primary reason as to why they're not running together currently. Well yes yeah
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:49
whenever we've got this program, you've got this program and it's my understanding that it's contingent upon the maintenance and operations so you've got this program here that you have a contract that's come and do at a later date but now we have to have this this maintenance and operations now
so they've always got us at their mercy for a lack of a better word. no disrespect to you it just doesn't make sense to me whether it's this contract or any other contract like this, I don't see how you how how you let somebody hold us hostage, hold us hostage for a lack of a better word because ok they've still got this contract it's still in place but we need we need the maintenance and
operations so we've got to approve this now. It's like a never ending it's a never ending cycle so I guess my I said it was more of a comment I guess with this and in the future, I just think that we should be more cognizant of that so unless you tell me there's
Speaker 23
25:00
a reason that we're not I think there was a prior I'm speaking before I was director and for probably too dangerous but I
Speaker 26
25:08
think there was a contract that ended and then we needed for the CfSR reviews and the data management then that's how that other contract stood up so a different contract was ending we changed vendors and so that was history of how they kind of got off onto different cycles if that makes sense Well but I see your point as well sir to that and I know y'all
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:29
deal with a lot and again, I appreciate what y'all do. but if that happens then we don't do a three year
contract or something we do a one year a one year eight month contract to try to get these things coincided back together. I just think that we need to be more prudent when looking at all of them. So anyway, thank you, Mr Chair. thank
you is there any other members got any questions fordCfs on this issue
all right seeing none you are you're dismissed and Representative Richardson who is this for? thank you
Speaker 100
26:09
it is the department of humanman Services this is contract number 2 Shifer Solutions Shifter
Solutions are after you're recognized for your question thank you very much appreciate it I'll wait
Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:23
on this Mary to get there as well so hold on before you begin if she'll
state her name for the record then you are recognized
Speaker 102
26:40
Good morning. I'm Mary Franklin, director of the division of county operations for
Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:46
Department of Human Services. thank you all so much and I appreciate the prior conversation as well just have a couple of questions that I wanted to have this morning one this is all associated with the snap changes the waiver that we were granted and the associated changes with certain types of I guess products is best to describe it soda pop
things of that nature right so and as I understand it based on our conversation this is a dynamic list that continues to be modified based on new products or whatever else is coming out and so this contract is is for this particular vendor to provide us with a connection to that dynamic list so that not just our retailers but also the individuals who are on snap can have direct access to that
and sorry for the long preface but I wanted to make sure all the members were kind of caught up to where I'm at with with this so what
Speaker 105
27:51
was the original purpose first question what was
Speaker 106
27:55
the original purpose for seeking the waiver
Speaker 103
27:58
the purpose of seeking the waiver to exclude certain unhealthy foods from being able to be purchased with Snap is just to increase the nutritional value of the benefits for that program. it actually helps to make snap
have more nutritional requirements similar to other USDA funded nutrition programs that do have nutritional requirements like for example the Wick program school lunch program other programs have more nutritional requirements than Snap does in general and this is this waiver is a step in the direction of increasing the nutritional value of that program. thank you for that and and that was my assumption but I wanted to make sure that
Scott Richardson
Unverified
28:43
was clear along that line I'm sure
there was a cost benefit that was done during this original conversation Du was that what I guess I guess the question I'm I'm not expecting you to have exact numbers but was there was there a cost benefit and was
Speaker 105
28:59
it do you have just rough figures around what that was so the cost you you know
Speaker 103
29:08
we didn't know very clearly at the onset of beginning the work to
implement this waiver what the cost would be we knew there would be an evaluation required and we we assumed that there would be cost associated with the evaluation component and we knew there would be costs on the retailer side, you know to make system changes and things like that to move them towards compliance with these new rules but we didn't we did not know for certain what the costs would be on the state side on the DHS side. but as we met we s we
established a regular meeting with Arkansas snap retailers and discuss this discussed you know what it would take to get it implemented what the pain points were and through those discussions you know they made it very clear that they were concerned about compliance because because it's it's an evolving market.ood products come onto the market daily and just to be sure that they were able to remain compliant and
that there was consistency for across the board at different retailers and not only for retailer benefit but for client benefit so that these new rules and the excluded products could be consistently excluded across the board and they had asked us to see what we can do to support that with a dynamic list you know with the ability for their systems to download lists as pro
new products came on board and we we went on a search to see what we could find and we found ifter and it it does what they asked us to bring to the table for this to support the waiver and the implementation this is a two year waiver and so we have been able to find that in aside from finding a product or a service that would do this we also had to find out how are we going to pay for this
right because we didn't have a clear plan on what the cost was and how we would fund it and we have been able to fund it with snap uttritionucation dollars 100% federal dollars for a program that's ending Snap uttrition Eucation is ended by the Hr one bill that was passed in July. we have access to this money because we didn't spend all of our allocation in the last federal year. so this is the end of snap nutrition education and by
combining the education components into the app because this service doesn't just provide a dynamic list for retailers and a list that we can link to our website for interested parties to to see what this list is it also provides an app that our clients can use as they shop it will scan you pc barcodes and it'll give them you know a yes no and it will also inject nutrition education information into that interaction with the client
so FNS is going to allow us to use some of those sunsetting funds for this purpose and otherwise if we didn't use them they would just return to the federal government so we found the product we found a funding stream and we believe that this will provide support for not only beneficiaries but retailers to make this a successful pilot and I will also share that we have been able to get the
evaluation for this waiver at no cost. the University of Pennsylvania is going to complete our evaluation at no cost using grant funds that they have been able to obtain so we are not having to spend money on the evaluation but we will be spending this money that otherwise Arkansas would lose to do this service and this app
Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:17
Well'm I'm sure that30 what is it383 $9 trillion debt
the US government has wouldn't mind that 1.2 million going back but
I I get the point for sure so my I guess all of that I was coming around to where is the real benefit to Arkansas and trying to trying to figure that out and what I heard from all of that really is there is a benefit to the retailers and there's obviously a benefit to to the Arkansans who were on Snap but the big piece of this is the value associated with the education better nutrition less healthcare cost hopefully down the road are we going to
Speaker 111
33:50
be measuring that in in any capacity? I think we will definitely be
Speaker 103
33:58
doing the evaluation and then another benefit that I seen to to the way we are doing it is that we we are unique at this point none of the other states that have this waiver have incorporated an app and nutrition education into the process in our evaluation also has a controlled state so that a controlled state that is not going to be implementing a waiver there's a study and a survey going on in that state as well as Arkansas before and after
implementation of the waiver so I think that that adds value to what FNS the data and material and outcomes that FNS will evaluate as they determine whether or not to continue these waivers or not continue them or to allow them to be expanded so I think we're we're giving them a unique perspective in the way that we're implementing our waiver here thank you for that so so from all of
Scott Richardson
Unverified
34:54
that now we can get to really the the the root of the
the question is is a sole source contract based on timing timelines the product all of that kind of concerns unders I I've got that the the I think you've heard from this body there's a lot of folks that are very concerned about us getting locked into these contracts we don't own the underlying source code for it we we we often timess have difficulty with where the data is and the additional costs associated with that I get the the technical aspect of this we're just connecting to an existing list the federal
government is providing and and flowing that through are we going to own this application when it's done is it is it going to be in a circumstance where two years from now we get to that point where it's we're we have to continue to renew and at that point we're not gonna have these federal dollars to depend on or are we going to be looking for an alternative I I know we don't even know if the waiver's going to continue but let's assume it does what what's our what's our thought process at that point
Speaker 103
36:02
so that is all of that thought process is the reason why this is only a two year contract and to coincide with the end of the waiver and I believe that because several states have sought these waivers and continue to seek and work on implementation that we will see this landscape change and other products and services be available and I think that we will have to make the decision as we get a little further into this waiver how we would how you know what service if we
continue a service and the waiver continues to put in place in the potential for a more competitive procurement could present itself so I don't think we know all the answers today but I do think that it can change and this is a two year contract specifically to coincide with the end of the waiver that's approved so that we can be making those decisions through our experience as we conti as we implement
Scott Richardson
Unverified
36:59
OK thank you for that and my expectation then would be that
somewhere in a year and a half years from now we would be talking about this conversation instead of of course at the end of that two years
so great thank you so much for that thank youpresentative Richardsonpresentative garner is this for county operations.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
37:19
you are recognized just a reminder to keep it short senate has to go into session at 9 a.m. so please stay on point you are recognized thank you Mr Chair and I'll get with
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
37:28
you offline for for some of the details but after having a nonprofit for
hunger relief for 15 years one of the things that we found is that parents really want to feed their children nutritionally. they want the best they can do it's just expensive, very expensive. Will this app have information about how how to purchase and how to buy and how to to cook budget friendly healthy foods because that's the biggest issue that we found. they want to do what they what they can but they just can't afford substitute
s for processed food sometimes if if you don't know we can
Speaker 103
38:09
get offline and talk about that too can do very quickly can just tell you we we are also using some of this federal nutrition education money to create a series of videos that we have worked with a nutritionist to film and specifically for using food that's available to make nutritious meals and that are healthy that are not gonna be on the excluded list so
our our communications team is working with that nutritionist and there will be a series of videos that we hope to be able to link to this app in addition to the other nutrition education materials that'll be available through the app and they'll also be available on our website so that is that is an area that we were we are focusing some of this sunsetting funding on is to be able to get those great thank you thank you chair thank youpresentative garner does any of the members have any other questions for any of these
contracts the board is not lit up a see no other questions without objections these items will stand reviewed no other business we are adjourned. thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Services Contracts for Legislative Review – Out-of-State Contracts
C. Other Business
D. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE, May 6, 2026 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| B. Contracts Submitted for Review May 6 2026 | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Joshua Bryant Chair
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 11
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 48
Speaker 47
Speaker 52
Speaker 25
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 68
Speaker 72
Speaker 73
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 100
Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 105
Speaker 106
Speaker 103
Speaker 111
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified