ALC-PEER

Members, if you can go ahead and take your seats. We're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to fix this clock in the back wall. It's about 3 minutes. But according to what I have. Uh, grab your seat throughout the morning as far as our AV system, uh, seating charts. If you're a member of the committee, you're, uh, the name plates that read and any member that is not a member, uh, to be able to log in so we know who you are if you set it one of those Bureau of legislative or your four digit pin is 01, then your district number to be able to log in. Uh, it's kind of backwards, I think if I'm understanding, if you. Uh, press and you have a request to speak, your mic is going to light up red. When you are, then when you are granted permission to speak or, you know, recognize it's going to go green. And so I think that's opposite of what we've had in the past, but that's, that's what's going You might be able to try to select, but nothing's gonna, uh, there's also been some updates back. I'll let staff or someone it means. Uh, but with that, uh, In the rules to add those to. Thank you, good senator. No idea. Thank you, Chairman. I, I just had a question about for public defenders I'll wait. I'm sorry. Thank you, we do suspend. All right. So I need a motions members. This is to account for a change in the reimbursement process for the division's career pathways program. The program is supported by TAA funds, and those funds are now administered by the Department of Human Services. The division will use fund balances to pay for the expenses as they are incurred and will be reimbursed by tenant funding after DHS processes payment requests. Next item is B4. This is a letter from finance and administration. $30 million in inappropriation. This is to provide spending authority for several projects, Staff learned this is related. Next item is B5, this 150,000 in appropriation, according to this letter, it's for promotional testing. It's supported by both general and special revenues. Next item is B6. Uh, this is for $1 million in appropriation is to provide state match for federal early childhood grants and support items B7 uh secondary education. This is for 7.5 million in spending authority. It's to meet the educational needs of districts that did not receive teacher salary equalization. It's supported by Fun. Next item is B8. We're on 1000 appropriation is to make grants to hospitals, law enforcement, and fire departments for the half for half of the box is supported by a fund transfer that will be requested later in the agenda, uh, Mr. Chair, we're going to move to the supplemental to the supplemental agenda and on page 3 is the first request. The first item is uh a request on Patree for the Department of Agriculture. It's for 54,000. It's revived funding is supported by general revenue. The next item has replacement page, so at your desk you should have a new letter from the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, and this is a request for 1.25 million in appropriation is to employ attorneys in a part-time capacity to address a backlog of cases. According to a letter from the CFO that precedes this request, the CFOs. Approval is provided with the prepare a plan to reduce the backlog. All right, thank you, members, um. Again, I'm going to go through. B1 through, uh, 8, and then we'll take up the supplemental. I would like to, if there's, you know, questions or comments or real concerns about 1 through 8, we'll vote those as a batch and then we'll move to supplemental and we'll vote those separately. Uh, so with that, if you have a question on B1, this is when you would light up your mic. So, Senator Rice, Thank you, uh, Department of Labor. I'd like to have come up and expand a little bit. And if you could just recognize yourself for the committee and then. And you Yeah, sure. Tyler Kane agency controller, labor and licensing. Good morning, uh. If you can give us a little more this says will provide us with capacity to conduct conduct inspections with greater efficiency and operating standards across 11 entities. And give agency leadership insight and inspection performance. Um, I hope that's all good, but sometimes I I can't read in these descriptions, uh, some of the unintended consequences is just to expand, uh, the oversight where you can fine tune it, or is this gonna put more inspections and more burden? On our business. Sir, what I'd like to share with you is pretty much what in the letter. I'm gonna ask Ken Anderson to come up to talk a little bit more. He's an IT person on the application side of. Thank you. And again, I'm, I'm, I'm not against this. I'm wanting to know what, what the definition says it's actually going. To do. All right, if you could recognize yourself for the committee. Yes, Ken Anderson, chief information officer for labor and licensing, uh, To answer the question we currently in these 11 areas have 11 different methods and methodology for doing inspections. Right now this would standardize it. So that we're all using the same platform to do the inspections, uh, the platform can be used across multiple regulatory areas, and it will increase efficiencies. In the testing that we did on the boiler inspections. We were averaging about 15 minutes per inspection of time saving due to it being done across an electronic mechanism. It will not increase any burden upon any of the entities that we inspect, it will actually provide them a more efficient method of communicating with the agency. And efficiencies is what we're always looking for. I just hope that y'all will monitor that and make sure it goes as planned when you standardize stuff sometimes you may not get. Uh, sometimes the technical outcome that you need and hopefully, you know, you will, uh, look at this uh shortly down the road and continue to follow it, but thank you for your explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, members if we have any other questions on B1? All right, seeing none be 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 All right, seeing no other questions, we have a motion. motion to approve items B 1 through 8. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none of those in favor signified by saying aye. Others opposed. Motion carries. Now we're going to move on to the supplemental items. And we do we have any questions on the supplemental for the Department of Agriculture. All right, seeing none, we've got a motion to approve. We've got a second in discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor signify seeing aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. We're going to move again, remember, this is a separate handout. Any questions on, uh, The supplemental general item for the public defender recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could have someone come down from the Public Defenders' commission, please? And if you could just recognize yourself for the committee and then you're welcome to Greg Parish, executive director of Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Thank you for being here. Uh, I actually have several questions and concerns, and my biggest question is, this is going back to COVID. You got your money in 2022. I was a little over $4 million is my understanding with 45 additional positions. Up to 45, we did not fill all 45. So you're coming back now saying that you're still not caught up on your backlog and my understanding is you're only 50% caught up in it in two years, ma'am. There are approximately 5000 cases through the AOC. That are still out there. Now, that could be from cases, the violent ones that are still pending. It could be from revocations and how we define those, those cases. The precurium that came from the Arkansas Supreme Court. The first one was in March of 2019, which shut everything down. Things were already shut down in certain areas. The last procurrium came in June of 2020. That is the time frame that we all agreed to work on, uh, through us and the prosecutors as what we attributed to the backlog of COVID cases for that time period. And so we've gone back now as our money has ran out or we'll run out at the end of this month, uh, to go back to the AOC and said tell us the number of cases that are open for that particular time frame solely, and they responded that between all the cases there's over 5000 cases still open. Some of those could be revocations where they've been reopened but they were not able to differentiate my concern is. We have all these cases that are gone back to COVID and be quite frank, I'm tired of hearing about how COVID has put everything on hold and how COVID can't get this done because we're in 2024 about to be in 2025. And we're still using COVID as an excuse of why things can't get done and caught up. And we're sitting here saying, after receiving money in 2022, we weren't able to get things caught up. We have people who have not been heard their cases. And so where are they, where are these people at? Are they out on bond? Are they sitting in county jail? Where are they at? depends upon the nature of the offense if they've made bond or if they make some of the violent offenses may still be in jail. That's possible, uh, I know a lot of cases have even Gotten up to we had some that you have to get up to the moment of trial before something happens. And I'm not blaming it on anybody, but for a defendant to say, yeah, I will take a plea or a prosecutor will change the plea. We've had people sitting in jail for 18 months the week before trial, their case gets dismissed. And that's something that is beyond our control. Well, at some point we have to get control back of getting these people heard in a timely manner and quit coming back and asking for additional money for something that happened in COVID. I, I mean, we're we're there, we're at that point now in my opinion, and I understand that you're asking, you asked for a year, I believe the governor said she'll give 6 months and then you got to do special reports, but we're at the point now that COVID's in the rearview mirror. We don't have COVID money anymore. It's basically gone. So it's time that we get these people through the system, it's not fair to them. It's not fair to the county jails that they're sitting in. It's not fair to the people that are out waiting for their cases to be heard. It, it's not fair. It's not the way that we need to conduct business. And so I have real concerns with keep extending this and extending this. I agree with you. I would love to be able to tell you we've moved every case along as fast as it comes in. That's not happening in today's time, whether it's COVID or any of the other cases as well because of the nature of the crimes that are being filed and the case load. Thank you. So there's 5000 that are backed up right now. That's what AOC has told us through their numbers and that was through uh audit who received those numbers from, uh, at their request and at my request as well. And does that come along with a breakdown of the type of case where they're located, you know, if they've bonded, if they have any of that information, the printout I saw did not. Now, it may be, you may be able to be quiet, but it would have to come as a breakdown from AOC. OK, is there anyone from ALC and I just As that we let's figure out who was in that 5000 where they are and really what the chairs staying, I think it's correct, wherever and, and there's, and it may be by area, for instance, there may be certain courts that are slower than others, and we should probably find out why. I'm sure the public in that area would love to know why, um, but no, thank you. All right, we're gonna move to Representative Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I agree with uh Representative Kavanaugh, this, this COVID thing's gotta, gotta go away, but, uh, the 45 positions, uh, yeah, I'm over here, Mr. Parris. So how many positions did you hire? We hired between and it fluctuated because they would come and go, but at our high point we had roughly 34, and the reason why we did not want to go up to 45 is we wanted to use this money for as long as possible. But you want to use it for raises for the majority of the money went for raises. Is that correct? No sir. No, sir. This money only as is and we were highly involved with the prosecutors and us. This money could only be used for salaries for part-time attorneys and when we first started this out, it was in conjunction with members of, of our legislature. That started out this thing initially. It was us and the prosecutors. And we all agreed that a salary cap would be the maximum of $60,000. That was it. And that has been followed from day one. None of this money was used for raises for anybody. OK, so I'm, I'm opposed to, uh, you getting my vote for this money until you give us an explanation of what you did with that money and what you plan on doing, uh, with the 1.5 or 1.25 million that you're requesting because, uh, My understanding is a large portion of the, the, the original ARPA funds went to pay raises for uh. For your employees so, that's incorrect. We could not that. Can you provide that to the committee? I certainly can, and we provided it to audit when they were asking us for this information because they were asked to do an audit, and I spoke with Mr. Quarter, and I said, well, this will be if you're talking about audit for finance, this will be easy because this money can only be used for salaries and nothing else and for a certain number of people, it was not used for raises for anybody. OK, can you provide the committee also with a listing. Of, uh, the COVID cases, the alleged COVID cases that you talk about that are backlogged when those cases, uh, uh. You know, When, when that they, they came to be and then uh when you expect to have them closed out, I, I can tell you exactly when they came to be. They came to be between March of 2000. And I may have said 19, but between March of 2000. 20 to June of 2021 and for clarification, the dates that the Arkansas Supreme Court entered procurium orders shutting everything down in reopening the wheels of justice move that slow in the state of Arkansas that you've still got those COVID cases on the books. We've still got some, but some of those cases may have come back because they could have been revocations. Uh, they could have been at the state hospital. It could be any number of reasons. That they're still bad they may have even came back after initial disposition. That's all I've got. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Johnson. What was the initial backlog in that year and 3 months. So I have to get back with you on that because I've got so many numbers and if I told you a specific number, I couldn't guarantee you that was the correct number. But I'll be glad to provide it to you, but I know it was in the thousands. All right, chair, I have a motion to hold this over till next month. All right, we've got quite a few questions. No, sorry, fingers are too big for that. I can only see how difficult this is. So, Mr. Chair, I got a couple. How many lawyers did you hire? How many attorneys did you hire with that 4 million that was done initially. A maximum we never exceeded 37, if I'm correct, because we, and this is my agreement with us and even the prosecutors going to, we were never going to go to 45 because they were expend the money too fast. When we first received money under Governor Hutchinson, us and the prosecutors, that's when the legislature was involved, you misunderstood my question. What is your normal number of attorneys prior to COVID and how many additional attorneys did you hire with the $40 that was given from this committee to help with the backlog from COVID. Exactlyroughly at that time we had about 1075 attorney positions for the state. Those are full-time positions. How many additional did you add with the? $4 million. Up to 37 and that fluctuated sometimes it went down to 32 and we'd have to replace them. OK, so the, the next question we had to, Mr. Chairman, he just didn't answer the first one correctly, so I'm sorry about that. How, how did that affect the backlog with those additional 30 some odd attorneys that you hired. So what did you see in the backlog. In improvement from that higher. Speaking with judges, a lot of success, especially here in Pulaski, give me your numbers. You had 5000, you made it down to 4000, or you had 6000, you got down to 5, you've already told us that there's 5000 out there today. So what did that improve? Well, what I'm telling you is of the 5000 today, that is what AOC says, listening to me I am I'm trying to explain this legislature gave you $4 million a few years ago to help with the backlog. You just told me you hired 30 some odd attorneys to help. What did that do to the backlog in case numbers from then to now, because you're now asking for additional money to do that again. So give us an idea of what that improves in the system. If, if you ask me how many cases, COVID cases were settled during that period of time. I don't have that number because all the information that you bring back to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, Senator Hester. 000. Here we are. So Mr. Harris, I, I, I recognize, um, how short you guys are on, on typical funding or at least, uh, like, what control do you have? As the, uh, public defender on a back. I have, uh, what do I have other than telling my public defenders if they will not accept a plea offer. If you can't get a better play, set it for trial. That's the only way to dispose of a case. And obviously, we, a judge, depending upon where they are, at most can only try one case a day. You know, if they're in a large district, and that's where the, the problems began is anything with either a very large district or 3 or more counties, you've got judges rotating. They're not on the bench every day. And so That's when things really start moving and I've told many of the judges, and they'll tell you when we've talked about the backlog, Judge said it. Just said it for trial. That's the way you make the case move because either the offer will get better. From the prosecutor, the defendant will either take the new offer or accept the offer that's on the table, or you'll have a trial. Which will get rid of that case. And that's what I tell him beyond that I have no control over how a judge sets his or her docket, or whether or not a defendant accepts a plea. So I, I think that was my point. I feel, I feel like we're wanting to hold you accountable for a problem that's not necessarily yours. The, uh, you know, I'm, I'm hearing rumors that, uh, we may, it's possible with these continued backlogs, when you have a backlog that continues and continues and continues, it's possible that we need more judges or we need the judges to operate more hours. I'm sure they're not agreeable to that, but, uh. we will probably need more judges. I don't know if we're gonna, if we're gonna increase our, uh, our circuit judges by 1 or by 5 next cycle. But if we've got backlogs that aren't being met, uh, I think it's unfair to the entire system that we're not increasing the judgeships by what it needs to, uh, Uh, to bring, uh, reasonable and quick justice to the people of Arkansas. So I guess, I guess that, that, that answers that question. Senator, if you don't mind and I've said this before over here where we've talked about. Uh, Certainly it's the prerogative of whether we had judges or add. Public defenders And I would say even prosecutors. What you're doing is that you're establishing more court dates. For the same number of people to try to handle, who can't handle what they've got right now. So you're serving another master. With the same help that you've got. And I hope that makes sense, uh. But I mean, there's only so many hours in a day and so many days in a week. So many visits we can make to a jail in an 8 hour time period. I've got people working on weekends seeing people. But if we don't add more support to the judges, all we're doing is adding another judge. OK, uh, uh, so I'll move on. We can address that is not your, your problem. I guess that's why I just want members to know that the backlog is not, uh, very small percentage that's your, your problem that it's not being resolved, but it is, it is good that we're having this discussion. When you, when you hire these part time, are the, are these lawyers that, uh, have a private practice and then are part-time working for you? I, I think that's a, that's a great program because I know that, uh, as we've met and even, uh, the prosecutors in certain parts of the state or other parts, you just can't. Hire somebody for the wages that we offer. Um, and if you can get somebody to work private some and, but most of these part-time have a private practice and then they, they work on public defense. Yes sir. That's correct. And, and the reason why part-time positions attractive to a a private. Yeah, I mean, I've had attorneys tell me, I'll take a secretary position. So I can get the insurance. Because when I'm playing in. Yeah. OK, thank you. Yes sir. Thank you and I do think that's why it'd be important to know and even probably on a pretty granular level, what's happening in some cases or, you know, what is happening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Perry. Good morning, Senator. One of the things I'm most interested in is the differentiation of labor within your division. And and we have spoken about this in the past. Do you have sufficient fofolks to meet the needs of our youth, is that one of the problems or is it a problem totally that we don't have the, the individuals to meet the needs of those in criminal court and we don't have, and do we similarly not have the individuals to meet the needs of those who deal with the youth justice system. It's across the board, Senator, and, and just for explanation and what, uh, what I'll explain is this. Because of what we pay, we're typically only able to hire on a full-time basis. Someone fresh out of law school. Someone fresh out of law school by our standards. can only handle low-grade felonies, which would be or misdemeanors. Only way they can elevate to handling the more serious crimes is through trying those lower grade felonies getting trial. The problem that we have with that, and I'm dealing with this right now with OPM is we train somebody. I've got one employee in a district right now that I can't find lawyers in. This attorney's making $86,000 a year full-time. Full time. And it's just been offered a job from the prosecutor's office for $80,000 a year. Porta. I can't compete with that. And that's, I mean, that's, that's a common occurrence that we lose people. To the prosecutor's offices. I'm not faulting the prosecutors. But they're able to hire experience away and then I'm put back to bringing somebody else in if I can find someone and training them up and that's a statewide problem. So what's the recidivism rate? We've been very good in the last couple of years because of some of the things that we've done, but I would say. 15% 15%. Yes, ma'am. And Do we have sufficient numbers to handle juvenile cases. I would say no, ma'am, we don't have sufficient numbers to handle any cases across the board and I, I mean, I'll be glad to share the information I've just received over the past week. This is not just Arkansas. It's not just Arkansas. Well, there are, it's across the nation that prosecutors, they will tell you the same because I've spoken with them and public defender's offices throughout the nation are having trouble finding people. To work to do this type of work. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that We've been asking for certain numbers and questions and you've not been able to provide those, but you were able to go to the governor and ask for more money. When you went and asked for that money, you didn't have those numbers available to plead your case about why you needed this. I had the numbers if you're talking about specific case numbers, no, ma'am, I didn't. I had overall the 5000 plus numbers of the backlog. That's what I had. But with the explanation that it would occurred during that period of time, and these could be reopened. as well. Well, I realized that, but when you've reopened it, it's not the original case from the COVID. That's a reopened case. It's a, it's because there was a qualification or whatever reason they're back. But my question is, when you come to ask whether it's the governor or or here. That you need additional funding but you don't have your documents together that you know we're gonna ask why, what's the backlog? I guess my question is, before you come asking for money, should you not have your facts for us so when we ask these questions, they're able to be answered and we can make a decision on a timely manner. I think I do, but if I may explain, I, I have only way I can get the numbers of the closures is what we can keep internally, but it comes from AOC. Could you not ask for that before you ask for money, AOC is not able to say. Case number one, this defendant, this charge. This disposition. Then how do you know how many are backlogged because they're able to tell me the number of open cases during that time period. Now we, when I, when I isolate that time period, and that's what I did. I didn't say. Infinitum this time period of cases. Can you tell me what is open for that time period. They're able to tell me that. Now, if we get down into the roots, and I know that that audit asked for more information as well. But the, the way they're unable to say through audit, excuse me, through AOC that these are public defender cases. Because the number that came back from AOC when they're asking me that this number doesn't seem right. I said that number is not right. But it's it's nobody's fault. It's just the way it's documented when it's filed. And that's what I've been trying to change, for instance, when a case is filed, OK, but my question is you're going off on a tangent, but my question is, how do we make a request? For additional funds if we don't even know what our real backlog is, or how many it's going to take. I mean, I guess I'm kind of confused is that we should have been able to know during this time, during COVID, there were this many cases that were put on hold. We are now through that in this many cases are, but you've not been able to provide that. You don't know what the original number was. You think it's 5000 now, but some of those may be because they had to they had to be in. It's not the original case. So, I mean, I guess that's where my frustration is, is they were asking to approve things and we still don't have numbers that we really need to know whether it's your, you know, not your fault, but someone else's, but as a legislative body, we need certain information. To be able to move forward with certain requests, and I just don't see that we've gotten that information. It's, it's kind of blurry. Thank you. Thank you. If you could, can you quickly just comment? Let's just say we hold this this week or this month, granted this additional appropriation. We start laying off people this week. Because The funds that we have can only be used for those monies will expire. At the end of this month, the first of September, because whenever someone leaves or we lay them off we then have to pay off you still got to pay them out for anybody who's so our funds will expire. They will, and I've lost probably 2 or 3 in the last couple of weeks because I knew this was coming. How many are we talking about laying off 30 low 30s at this point. And what happens with their existing case they have in hand at the moment they go right back to the local office and put on the people that are already there working. They do and that in that district. All right, um. Senator Barry, uh, Senator Johnson, you're still in the queue for a. OK. No, I'll recognize you for a question. I just wouldn't hit you if your emotion. Senator Johnson, you recognize. You, you explained to us that Most of the folks, these additional folks that were hired handle lower level cases. No, no, sir. If, if what I'm saying is not, not the ones that we've hired through these part-time positions. OK. Some have had to because of their experience, but we've also been successful in alluring in some experienced attorneys who are willing to take these on part-time basis. So it just depends on the candidate, the, the pool that we have to choose from. Some are very inexperienced and must handle low-level felonies. Some are not so inexperienced and they're able to handle the more complicated felonies of murder, rape, aggravated robbery, and so we don't know the breakdown of What these 30 additional folks, their case load. How minor how major they are. I mean, I can tell you one by one as to if, you know, if I know the person, their experience when they pass the bar. And so forth. I know here in Pulaski, I mean, I'm know right too right off top of my mind that we were able to hire very experienced attorneys, uh, went into 7th division here and was, according to the judge, just knocking the ball out of the park. Very excited about what they've been able to. Thanks, thanks, Senator. So Mr. Parris, you, you say if you don't get this money, you got to start laying people off this week. Yes sir, so could you not see this train coming down the track that you gotta come in here at the last minute and say I need a $1.25 million in order to stop the train before it runs over us. I started in April. Uh, with this request. Where's it been? It hasn't been before this committee. Uh, it had to go through channels is all I can say, and I've been checking on it to see, but I can, I mean, I started in April. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, thank you. All right, Senator Johnson. Motion to hold this over to. All right, so this committee is not going to take any action and ultimate IQ. All right, we're gonna. Move on then to section C. Again, we're gonna do these, uh, Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there, is there an avenue that these members that are wanting these questions answered prior to that they should go through. I just don't want us to get till Friday and I spend 2 hours on something because somebody didn't know that they needed to contact someone to get their particular information. So, is there a way that we can set that up through staffs proceeding. Yeah, I think you can go through Mr. Parish, but also if you want to have a direct, you know, conversation. With public defender's office, and I think you should do that. Um, and so, but I mean, just to be clear, if a member has a question, they need to voice that and not wait until Friday to say, oh, I didn't get my question today. Thank you sir. All right, thank you. But yeah, if you'd like to either talk to staff or go directly with a public defender's office would be the recommendation. Senator Stone. We've all been learning. All right, sounds great. All right, so we're gonna move on to section C. Thank you, Ms. Chairman in section C, these are the American Rescue Plan appropriation requests. There are 4 awards made directly to a state agency from a federal department. And the last request is a uh request for reallocation of, uh, appropriation that was made and that was a state award. The first item is C1. This is for Arkansas Tech University. It's 195,000 spending authority is to offset lost revenues. Next item is on page 3. On page 3 is C2. This is a request from the Department of Health. It's for $10.5 million in appropriation. This is to support data modernization, advanced molecular detection sequencing, and the SHARP program focused on healthcare-assisted, I'm sorry, healthcare associated and antimicrobial resistant infections. Next item is on page 5. This is item C3. Uh, this request from education Office of Early Childhood for 206,000 agencies next to our is on page 7. This is C4. Uh, this is from Energy and Environment Division of Environmental Quality. This is a reallocation of previously awarded appropriation. They're moving 33,000 from capital outlay to operating expenses. The division had funds left over after purchasing particulate matter monitors, ozone analyzers, a carbon monoxide analyzer, and a sulfur dioxide monitor. The EPA is allowing a budget adjustment. To use remaining funds on operating expenses for program support of the equipment purchase. The next item is on page 9. This is C5. This is a request from Parks Heritage and Tourism. Uh, this is a reallocation that they would like to use savings achieved during broadband implementation at parks and welcome centers to do further implementation at campgrounds, and this is what's on the agenda. All right, thank you, Ms. We're gonna see each one of these one at a time for questions. Any questions on C1, Arkansas Tech. C2, Department of Health. C3, Department of Education. C4 Department of Energy. Or C5 Department of Parks. Just one from staff and I I guess I don't see this very often. So, On the C5. We, we don't have the chart filled out, you know, whether or not it's going to be operating expenses. Is there a reason for that? Yes, sir. My understanding is that because they're not moving appropriation from one line to the other. So if this is all in capital LA, it's going to remain in Capital LA, so there's not a number to show, they're just changing the scope of the. Just for the future though, should that not be under other? I mean, if it was. Capital outlay, I mean, kind of, kind of like the lost revenue with Arkansas Tech, and I understand that's direct. This is not direct. Yes sir, but again, my understanding is that they're not moving it to other, there, there's still gonna be a capital outlay expense instead of using it at welcome centers they're gonna use it at campgrounds and special language stated that they had to show where the appropriations be spent per commitment item but also purpose of work. So this is really more of a change in purpose. So instead of using it just for welcome centers, they wanna let you know that we're gonna broaden this to campsites. And that answers my question. Their explanation was fine up there. I read it all needed it down at the bottom. So, thank you, sir. All right, thank you. All right, members, uh, we have a motion to approve item C135. We've got a motion, we've got a second discussion on the motion, seeing none. All those in favor signified by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Section D. Thank you, Ms. Chair. We're in, uh, section D. This is infrastructure Investment Jobs Act appropriation requests. The first item is D1. This is a request from the Department of Agriculture for 18.9 million. They have a grant from the EPA to provide for projects at public water systems to help small and disadvantaged communities with public health threats of contaminants. Next item is on page 3. This is D2 on page 3. Uh, this is a request from Public Safety Division of Emergency Management for 275,000. They have a grant from the US Department of Transportation to provide training to state and local emergency managers when responding to accidents involving hazardous materials and transportation. Next item is on page 5. Page 5 is D3. This is a request from Public Safety 2.4 million and they have a grant from Homeland Security to work with local governments to assess risk and combat the threats on page 74 is on page 7. Energy and Environment, oil and gas commission is for $5.5 million in appropriation. They have a grant from the US Department of the Interior to build out well plugging programs, remediate high priority wells and collect data. Next item is on page 9. This is D5 Energy Environment, Office of State Geologists, 275,000. They have a grant from the US Geological Survey to stop water leaks at the Williams Well Sample. All right, thank you. Members, any questions on D1? 2 3 4 Or 5. I don't seeing no questions. We've got a motion to approve. We've got a second discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor, but this is items D135. All those in favor signify by saying aye? All those opposed? Motion carries. Section E. Thank you, Ms. Sherburn in section, these are the restricted reserve fund transfer requests. The 1st 1, E1 is a letter from the Department of Education. This is a $1000 transfer is from the charter school facility set aside account with the enrollment public charter school facilities projects. Next item is E2. This is a letter from DFA dispersing officer, uh, it's for $120,000. It's a transfer from the economic development district set aside. This is to be transferred in equal amounts to the 8 economic E3 is a letter from the state board of. Election commissioners. It's a $250,000 transfer from the various general discretionary majority votes senator representation in the federal court case on a rule regarding voter registration. The letter explains that the attorney General's office is unable to replicate. There is a cash fund appropriation. Uh, next item is a letter uh from the Department of Public Safety. This is E4. This is from the division of State Police. It's a $2.4 million transfer from the motor vehicle set aside account. It's to purchase motor vehicles. Next item is E5. A letter from Commerce, Economic Development Commission. This is a $16.8 million dollar transfer is from the infrastructure grants matching set aside. Uh, this is to match federal funds for the Tarka Regional Airport Infrastructure Improvement Project. Appropriation will be requested at 6 a handout with more information is at the end of your packet, we received this document from DFA 6 is a letter from the Department of Education, division of the elementary and secondary education. It's a $7 million transfer. It's from the various general. discretionary majority votes set aside to count. This is you purchase pouches or other locking mechanisms to store students and 7, the last letter is from DFA dispersant officer. It's for $250,000. Uh, this is, uh, transfer from the various general discretionary majority votes set aside to count, and it makes grants to pay for half of the cost of the. All right, thank you, Representative Springer. Do you have a question on C1 You are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to know whether or not we've identified the third party administrator. For this but appropriation from the Department of Health? No, I'm sorry. Yeah. Greg Rogers, Department of Education, uh, yes, ma'am. uh, Representative, we came to review last month, we'd gone through, uh, the RFP process and, uh, I believe their name is Equitable Facilities Fund was selected in that that contract was in review last month. All right, uh, members, we have any questions on E2. E3. All right, E3. Staf recognize staff may help, if not, I guess I would like to have a little more information on this. On this particular one, you said there was a conflict. Do we know what that conflict is? Just recognize yourselves for the committee and. I guess I have, I have two questions. I'm here to your left. Appreciate you all coming down, uh, Do they need to identify their My name is Chris Madison. I'm the director for the State Board of My name is Wayland Cooper. I'm the legal counsel for the State Board of Election Commissioner. My, my first one is just as simple as. What the conflict is, was it the AG's office that said they had the conflict or was it you all that prior to the adoption of the rule that's in the basis of the litigation. The attorney General's office had offered an opinion that could be used adversely against the state board in litigation, so the attorney General's office found through their review process that it could be a conflict and that the better course of action was for them to recuse themselves. They wrote a letter to that effect and then we Contacted the governor's office for the retainment and I understand that's the process in government down here that we're about to give you $250,000 for attorneys' fees. Have you already negotiate negotiated how that's going to be paid or you've got an hourly thing, uh. What, what's kind of, so the way it actually works, and this was through the procurement office and the governor's office. The, uh, Mitchell Williams law firm has a master agreement with the racing commission. And under that agreement, other agencies are eligible to use that agreement as a, as the primary agreement, we have a secondary agreement on it. It's their hourly rates that they agreed with the racing commission. And this is a restricted reserve account and actually you'll see in the cash fund we're putting it in a separate account to track the expenses for it. Um, I mean, this is federal litigation in the Western District Federal court. We've got it's elections issues, probably going to be to the 8th Circuit before it's all said and done. Um, so this is the budget portion of it by setting it into a separate account rather than putting in our operations is one of those that tracks and doesn't affect our, uh, normal operations budgets. Biannual budgets and Again, I know how hard it is. I want to use the whole 250,000, but. Let's just say that it only comes in at 170 since this is out of restricted reserve. I don't know that we actually have language or not, but let's say that it only comes in at 170. Are you going to transfer that money back to ALC some way? Do we have an avenue back to us? Yes, yeah, that, that, that's my understanding of the way it works, how that works on the budget side and the ALC side. I don't know. I'll sign the forms they tell me to sign. OK, thank you, sir. I appreciate it. All right, thank you. All right. uh, any other questions on E3? All right. E4. E5 Which is the 7 million? E5 or is it? E5 has something to do with, uh, Texarkana I'm fine with that one, sir. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good, I know that's a good project. I've been listening to it for 3 years. So whenever you get to the 7 million, I will have a question. The 7 million, which one is E6, OK. I do have a quick question on E5 and it's just really about how the matching funds portion works. What is the I mean, I don't know who can answer that, it may mean that, is it a 2 for 1, a 3 for 1? What did the feds? Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA, uh, the way they're restricted, uh, reserve language works is it was originally allocated strictly for Aja. But there were more federal opportunities outside that particular statute. And so the way the language is written today, it was changed during, during the, uh, fiscal session. Is that as long as an infrastructure project is at least majority funded by the feds, then it'd be eligible for matching through this set aside. I think in the, uh, last information I saw, the feds are funding like 59% of this particular project and I think. State will be funding 34%. So we're funding a minority of it. But, so, but the way that it worked on the matching side, so matching to me means, you know, says like if, if you put in $2 I'm gonna put in $1. The Fed said, we're going to put in 59 and y'all put in 16 or no, sir, my understanding is that the, the appropriation from the feds did not require a matching this appropriate up to $1 amount, which was less than what the project cost was so Texark had to come up with other funding to plug the gap. But there's not I mean, I, I, I guess I was just looking at the letter. The letter said it's gonna provide matching funds. It's not going to provide matching funds. It's just we're the state of Arkansas is going to help provide additional funds to be able to fully implement whatever this is, but it's not matching. There was no agreement between the Fed and the state. I mean the feds are going to give their $59 million or whatever it was, regardless, regardless of what we did sitting in this committee. Is that correct? The on the appropriation side, that's correct. It's appropriate, it's already there, it's not contingent at all. The FAA won't approve the project until all the funding is secured though. OK, the next time we have a letter come before us, if it's not matching funds, and let's not call it matching funds. I understand it's coming from an account that says it was for matching funds. But this isn't matching funds. This is just additional funds to complete a project. We'll make that the feds contributed to. Yes, sir. OK. All right, thank you. Well, that, OK. I apologize, Senator Deasy. All right, members, do you have any other questions on E5 seeing on E6, Senator. OK, thanks, Department of Ed. Thank you. If you could just recognize yourself with the committee and then Senator Irving, you're recognized to. Courtney Solis Ford, Chief of Staff, Department of Education. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. Thank you. So if you could just let me know, number one, if schools have already done something like this, will they be eligible to apply? That's the first question I've received from schools in my district. And then secondly, what's going to be the process and the timeline for applying for those grants and then the specifics. Have y'all outlined that and how will that be communicated out? Yes, we have come up with a process that we are communicating to to school districts both through our education service cooperatives and through, um, several zooms that we're having with superintendents, if they purchased the locking mechanisms within the last year for those, um, in order to receive the funding they have to for during this school year and then the timeframe will depend on when they submit their invoices, um, and then I would have to defer to Greg on how long it takes us to reimburse them. OK, so it's reimbursable and then when you say, is this, um, is this per class or is there a policy to be eligible for this? Is it you, you lock it away at the beginning of the school day and then you get it back at the end of the school day, or is it per classroom? Does that make sense? So, um, districts are able to choose what method they want. I will say that the majority of districts we've heard from, um, are using pouches where. The student puts their phone and other, um, electronic device in it at the beginning of the day and it stays in the pouch, but with the student all day. They just can't unlock it until the end of the day. We do have a few school districts, however, that are doing lockers at the back of a classroom where the student will put their phone in the locker, the end of the class, they get it again so that they have access in between classes. But it's up to the district. OK. And Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, one thing that I've heard repeatedly said is, um, people being opposed to this because of school safety issues. However, in working with the criminal justice Institute. It's actually safer if some horrible event happens at a school campus, it's actually safer for kids not to be looking down at their phones. That is a misnomer and there's a lot of, a lot of commentary. I just think it's really important that it needs to be stated, actually, according to criminal Justice Institute, school safety experts within the FBI. If a kid is looking down at their phone, they're sitting duck. And so I've, I hear that all the time as an argument against this, but it's actually an argument for it. Um, kids are actually safer when they're able to heads up, look at direction and where they need to be told how to stay safe if something horrible happens on that campus. So, I just think it's really important that that be publicly stated, um, and be supportive of this program. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the latitude. Thank you. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I appreciate your, your support on this program. Uh, quick questions on the 7 million. So how was that number determined? Um, is, is my main question when I read about 180-ish schools that have signed up for the pilot program. Is that number based on those number of students in those school districts? Yes, that is correct. Um, we did an initial poll of school districts of who might be interested. Um, we came up with about 200 districts in their secondary schools, so we looked at the number of students, um, and then we just estimated based on different locking mechanisms that we had looked at and at the proximate cost. So if, if this were to roll out to all schools, uh, in the future, do you have a number? Of what that would increase to. So this, this $7 million is just for the 180 districts. Do you, do you know what that number would be if it increased to all schools. OK. And then, and just to clarify, this is only for the pouch system. This is nothing for any other hardware or mental health, uh, support, uh, that's also been talked about in the in the program. we are funding the, like the pouches or other locking mechanisms, um, depending on how much of that funding is used, we may end up using some of this to, um, look at some other mental health services, but the primary purpose is first for the pouches or other locking mechanisms. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you may have just answered that. I was gonna ask you the same, uh, uh, same content. If you don't look for other stuff, you're not going to send it back to us. Yes, we will again use as much as we can, um, for the pouches, but then if we have some remaining, we will be asking to use that for other mental health services. He's next to me, but now we're both home. I'm on to. If And Johnson will be quiet, I'll talk. OK. Uh, so that, that kind of leads me, leads me to the next deal. I guess I'd like to. If it's OK with the committee or maybe the committee would request at some point you're, you're looking to spend that all in this fis in this fiscal year. Is that correct? Yes, OK, so I'd like to get a breakdown of what it, what it was, you know, to get a report on what, what it's actually used for the whole 7 million. And I guess my next thing is this, so these pouches that we're doing, they're actually the property of the school districts, is that right? OK. So let's just say that this thing is successful. This is gonna, this would be a recurring thing. So are those pouches, are they supposed to last? what's their life? Are they supposed to last year, 2 years, 3 years, uh, what, what's the life on that? And if not, And if this is successful, or are you all looking to try to put this back into your budget, uh, because, yeah, we're taking out a restricted reserve funds this time which restrictive reserve funds have been set up with our past surpluses, but of course we've been doing tax cuts and things and we can't be anticipating that. So what, what's the plan with all this stuff? So depending on the device, they do have a very long life expectancy. If it's a locker, those are typically metal, um, would last for a very long time, even the pouches, most of the material of the, the various pouches we've seen are intended to last a long time. So our estimate would be that districts that have minimal couches because of course kids can destroy anything. Um, but we would not expect to have such a Large fund investment again. It would be ultimately up to districts to replace any, any. Or to come up with a replacement cost of any pouches going forward. So it's not going to be our intent to To be funding this every, every year like that or the, or the districts. I hate to ask a question like this sounds stupid, but I mean, is there any sanitizing cost to these things after one kid's walled it around for a whole year or 2 years or something like that, I mean, uh, that's all on the district, correct? That is correct. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. And then. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my question is, if you don't use all the 7 million for the pouches or the securing of the cell phones, you will then have to come to ALC for our approval to use the rest of it. So we will have to have the plan on if the plan changes or we don't use the whole on this pilot project, we don't use the whole 7 million for foam pouches, we would have to bring that plan back and show you what else so yes it would require approval of the ALC to change it, or you just reporting? So my question is if you're asking for 7 million, but you're not saying it's gonna be all used for one thing, but that's what you're presenting it to be used for, but you're saying that we may decide we want to use it for something else. If we approve this. Today And then y'all decide and 34 months that you decide you're only going to use 3.5 million of it for pouches. And then you decide you want to use it for something maybe we don't agree with. I'm all for mental health, but if y'all decide that you decide you want it for something else, are we gonna have any approval of that? I don't know if it's an approval review, but I do know that it will be something that the, the concept of planning. And anything, anything else that we would use it for, we would have a contract that would have to come back through Rule. Right, but we've, but we've already approved the money. So, I mean, that's my question is. OK. I mean, that's my only concern. I'm all for locking them up and I'm all for mental health and all that stuff, but I mean, I'm not sure I'm real comfortable with saying I'm giving you $700 but you decide to use it somewhere else, that we don't have any authority over that. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that because we're taken out a restricted reserve. So that's my, my concern and my question. We're, we're setting up in a separate account, so we'll, we'll be able to show you what we're spending on and if it does change, that will be something that will bring the plant. I don't know if it's the right words to call it a plan or something will be something that we'll have to come back for review or approval. I don't know which one right now. As a representative, I really want to know whether you get we have to review it if we don't agree with it, you can still do it. That's what I'm trying to find out. I, I think the problem is a minute ago when you sit for mental health. And then so they indicated maybe there's an alternative and so, uh, to be some commitment, essentially, you're gonna have to hold it in a separate account department of education or whatever, you know, whatever this stipulates, and if it's not, then it will not be spent on anything else and you may need to, you know, tighten up your request and then this is a pilot project and we like we said we're just working with the 180 schools, the 7, if this is successful and expanded out, I do flow in phone security pouches or lockers or something because this is just the first round of a. Pilott where we were asking districts, interested districts to participate and then we roll it out, I, I don't expect to have anything left to other than to be used for foam pouches or phone locking devices. But I think in the event that we did, we were just trying to let you know that that would be something I want you to be caught off guard if we came back again to, to his statement, our full intent is to use it solely for the pouches. Question Representative Eubanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the 7 million is, uh, based on the population of students in the 180 school districts that have made application. To be part of this pilot program, correct? I suspect there may be legislation in January that might require all school districts to participate in this, so. If the $7 million is Projected to cover. The these locking devices for these 180, uh, what are we gonna do when if We require all you going to, uh, ask for additional money so that they can do this as well, or are they, is it gonna be on their own to? My, um, assumption if legislation is passed is that we would request funding to assist those school districts, but how much would depend on who all is included in that legislation? You wanna So you follow ups, Mr. Chair. So you, You fully anticipate the 7 million to be used for these locking mechanisms and not. Really for anything to be left over, do you? All right. Senator Johnson, and Senator Ledding, I, I can't. Senator Johnson. So warm, safe, and dry had a whole new meaning whenever I was in school. A few years ago Because we didn't even have air conditioners. And we were pretty safe because most of us had 22 out in the back glasses, so. Now then, you can't have that out in your truck, and now we're gonna lock up the cell phones. Uh Can a school district. Just say you can't bring a cell phone into. Yes, they can. That it's completely up to the district. Districts have different policies, um, about whether they can have the cellphones on, on them in their backpack on campus that's all they can do whatever we're gonna. Give them a purse to put the phone in. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, thank you. Members, we have any other questions on 6. All right, seeing no further questions, any questions on E 7? All right, seeing no questions on E7. Uh, members, I know there's quite a few questions on E6. First thing I'm gonna do, I'm just gonna make a motion or I'm gonna, I'm gonna take a motion that we, uh, approve items E 12345, and 7. We've got a motion, we've got a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. R E. 6, and I'll entertain a motion on that you want to do, right? We've got a motion to approve. We've got a second discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all those in favor signified by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion caring. All right. Motion carries items for review. We'll go through section. Section F. These are the cash appropriation increase requests, uh, the first item is F1. This is a letter from the Department of Health State Board of Pharmacy. It's for 139,000 in appropriation. This is to update the licensure system for the state board of pharmacy and supported by their fund balance. Next item of 2 is a letter from the State Board of Election commissioners for 250,000. It's to hire an outside attorney. It was supported by the fund transfer that was approved earlier in the agenda. Next item is F3. This is a letter from Correction Division of Corrections for 1.5 million. This is to cover costs of equipment and supported by collect inmate phone calls at 4 is a letter from corrections again, this is for 3.5 million. This is to cover commissary law library, uh, repairs and additional expenses. It's supported by proceeds from the commissary store. F5 is a letter from corrections as performers and cover a flooring project. It's supported by inmate phone calls. F 6 is a letter from Commerce.8 million. Uh, this is to provide state match for Texas Canter Regional Airport infrastructure improvement project. This was supported by that fund transfer earlier in the agenda. And. All right, thank you, members, any questions on F1? F2. 3 For 5 Or 6. All right, seeing no questions. We've got a motion to review. We've got a second in discussion on the motion seeing none also in favor signify saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Secretary and Section G. This is a budget classification transfer request. Uh, there's only one on the agenda. This is for the Department of Health State Board of Nursing. It's a $30,000 appropriation transfers from operating expenses to capital outlay. It's to pay for capital expenses and replace equipment that has become damaged or obsole. Thank you, members. Any questions on G1? Seeing no questions. What will the committee we've got a motion review, we've got a second in discussion on motion, seeing none all in favor signified by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're in section H, uh, these are miscellaneous federal grant appropriation requests, uh, the first one is a request from the Department of Health. This is for $1.9 million in appropriation. They have a grant from the Department of Justice for the Arkansas Prescription drug monitoring Program. H2 is a Department of Health for 3.7 million, they have a grant from the CDC and activities, H3 is from Energy and Environments, 480,000. They have a grant from the EE software. H4 is a request from Parks Heritage and Tourism for $220,000 in appropriation. They have a grant from the National Park Service for functions of the State Historic Preservation Office. It requires a 40% state match, and I learned the batch from H5 is a request from Public Safety Commission on law enforcement Standards and training. It's for $43,000 in appropriation. Uh, they have a grant from DHS to provide crisis intervention trainings and purchase technology equipment to deliver the trainings. Age 6 is a request from agricultural forestry divisions for 500,000. They have a grant for the USDA to modernize Forest Street technical service delivery through outreach to underserved forced landowners. H 7 is a request from agriculture, Natural Resources Division. It's for 1.6 million in appropriation. They have a grant from the EPA to make sub-grants for water quality improvement and protection projects is a request from Energy and Environment Office of State Geologists for 30,000 in appropriation. They have a grand extension from the US Geological Survey to evaluate and replace core and cutting boxes. It does require a 50% state match. The next request is also from the Office of State Geologists. This is H9. It's 21,000 in appropriation. They have a grant from, uh, again from the US Geological Survey to assess core cutting boxes in the Norman F. Williams well sample. Library, it requires a 53% state match. Uh, the matches for these two islands will come from H10 is a request from agriculture. It's 2.7 million and to establish 6 positions. They have a grant for the Natural Resources Conservation Service to hire archaeologists to serve uh to serve as cultural resources request at the US. All right, thank you, members, any questions on H12. 3 For 56. 7 8, 10 Uh, seeing no questions, items H 1 through 10 stand reviewed. I need to go back. I've got one quick question. I wanna make sure I, I didn't see this handout. This is on the Texarkana Regional Airport. At the end of it, it says. I guess my question is, is where is it located? Is it in Arkansas it's in Arkansas. OK. Because what's not on this sheet is a commitment from the state of Texas, and maybe it shouldn't be since it's not in Texas, but they did contribute to the city. And so I was just a little bit curious about that. Well, I mean, I, If y'all want to be the ones that answer the questions, that's fine. And the other question I have is at the end it says local officials, including Representatives Dalby, Jean, and Mayors Alan Brown, Bergman have committed over 3.2 million in local matching funds. I'm assuming that's just a typo in the way that sentence is written because we don't. Senator Hickey, yes, that's both cities, so the Texas create a that, that airport is owned but as everything is down there is convoluted, but it is owned by both cities. So if I remember correctly, that is the amount that's being contributed. By Ter County, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas, I don't know if it's evenly split or if the Texas side because their population gets a little bit larger amount. Well, now, and so, yes, and so it's got a breakout here where it talks about texter kind and then Texas, Texarkana has done 1.4s are doing 29.1. The Arkansas. Aeronautics in the state of Arkansas is doing another 16.79. And I was just curious because I didn't know. I mean, there's nothing here and then beyond that, that's, that's the city of Texarkana, Texas, right, but the state of Arkansas on a, on a hook. You know, cumulatively is in it for 16.79 750,000, and then 1.19. And then the state of Texas is in it for 1.468 because it's actually located, it's actually located in Arkansas and our federal delegation, uh, they're the ones that could get the 29 million and I heard you say the matching and you were correct with the matching. The only thing was, is I don't believe that without the total amount of money. That that we would actually, that the funding would come through at all. So, although it was called a matching, uh, maybe the terminology wasn't correct, but if they don't get that amount of money or show that that funding dollar will come through other than what the two cities had put the feds wouldn't put the money out unless we do the 16. But the state of Texas cities, regardless of where it's located. The state of Texas isn't. It, and again, it's that convoluted thing down there. It's kind of like the water, water company down there is located on the Texas side, so if that infrastructure that's over there, they would pick up something like that, but yes, since it's located in actually located in Arkansas although it's owned by. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to add on what Senator Hickey has said, the, the federal, the Texas federal delegation has been real active in securing federal money. And actually I think the Texas federal delegation has secured more money in that regard of the 29 million. And so they've they've, they've done that through their Texas Federal congressman. Does that make sense? That, that's where I I understand, but I think the members from Arkansas would probably like just as much credit as they may be getting out of Texas. I'm just, I'm just saying they, they do have, I mean they have been working, but you know, again, I mean, for me, I just, I have a chart in front of me and I was trying to's not on the chart is the state of Texas. And so I was just curious, I mean that may be a conversation DFA has had with the state of Texas. I'm assuming there was some negotiation that was, you know, hey, state of Arkansas will put this up. Texas, you know, you're off the hook, we're gonna be the ones to do this, whatever, whatever the deal is. Um, I didn't know. And then there was just this language at the end. I was a little curious, um, because again, state representative or commit money. Uh, I'm sorry, Senator Hester, I'll get you. This is a project coming from economic development, um, and I see here it's 150 jobs and I'm I'm sure it's a great thing and I'm for it, but like, so if the economic development commission, they can just send request after request after request and we fund them like through this, this is the use of our restricted reserve. And one time we thought we would have to have an Aja match for the highway department to be able to maximize what we received in that federal money. Uh, later on, I think it was determined during the session and we changed it, that we wouldn't need as much money as we thought we needed to match. So then we said, well, we want to make sure that we set aside money in case there's a project that comes along that requires a match. And, and I mean, again, that was kind of my question because I don't think this is necessarily that, um, I understand. I mean, I think if I'm hearing it right, if we don't do something the feds. 29 million that they've committed goes away. I don't know how that works on the federal level once you've committed and have money going somewhere. Yeah OK, so, so maybe in a sense we can say it's. I mean, I think it's just, but that, that's why this is all about. So this isn't coming out of a, what's coming out of a restricted reserve account that was designated for projects that require I guess, so, so just for clarity, I mean, I guess I would applaud those local legislators for figuring out like, they, they're just first to the trough, right? So I should go back to all my people and say, Wear this out until we're out of restricted reserve. I mean, am I, am I wrong? Like they're just first to the trough. I, they're doing their job like, But what's to prevent me from bringing 10 of these next week or next month. And and there's no, there's, we spend until we're out. A restricted reserve. DFA can probably tell us what is, what is the amount that we put into that account. I don't think I have it. I mean, we've got it in one of the. Jim Hudson DFA, uh, the original set aside amount was 2000. Um, I believe the existing balance is 195-ish. Yes, sir. And so to, to the extent that, you know, any other projects come through that it'd be infrastructure and nature, and the majority of the project costs would be borne by the. And, and again, this, this was not something negotiated by DFA or by the administration. This was negotiated locally amongst all the parties and they brought the, you know, the request to us. All right? Do you have any other questions? So when you say this was, was negotiated, uh, it was negotiated locally, negotiated on the federal level, who negotiated this for the state of Arkansas, economic development, I mean, uh, Secretary. Huh, I mean, who, who negotiated for us? Again, I think what they, what they brought to us is what the funding need was and so the parties down there locally, working with the federal delegation, figured out how much funds they could bring from the federal side of things, plus the commitments from the local entities as well. Uh, you know, Texan, Texas, Texana, Arkansas, and then I believe some other economic development entities down there as well. Um, and so the The deficit was about the $17 million and the request was, could we use the infrastructure set aside money for this since it was majority federally funded. Yeah, so I mean, I, I go in meeting after meeting. I was in some last week that were getting majority federal funding on some infrastructure in Northwest Arkansas. So all I have to do is have them come make a request. Uh, to cover any deficiencies from that. And it comes straight out of restrictive reserve because highways are economic development. Uh, that's what I want to cook because I've got two projects in mind that I know we've just received federal funding for that there is deficiencies. So with that in mind, I just need to make the request and no one on our end says, well, yes, it was majority federally funded. Yes, there's some local money in, so the state's just going to send the money out. Well, you know, as with any restricted reserve request, you know, the request goes to the administration, it's evaluated, and then the request is submitted here for, for review and approval. If approval is granted. OK, so I guess that was right. So the administration, the governor's office, department, DFNA looked at it, said you're good. OK, dude. All right. Thank you, Representatives. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question has to do with um. H10 regarding the As I maximum, the salary maximums for the archaeologists and the administrative analysts. I, I noticed that there were no Uh, amounts in those. Now, I was just curious to know what the amounts are, the maximum amounts that will be paid to the archaeologists and then to the administrative analysts, the G8. That may, that may be gone, so it may not be our fault that no one's here to answer that question because we, we've already passed it. Do we have anyone here that can answer that? We have the grades. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it's for 6th positions, 5 of them will be archaeologists graded out to a GSO 8 and there'll be one administrative analyst. And my question is the amount, the max you have the maximum amount salary amount. Thank you. All right, members, any other questions? We're gonna move on to section I. No, hold on. day We've not done that. All right. Section 9, Department of Health. Thank you, Ms. Sher. We're in section I. This is, uh, pay plan appropriation request. Uh, this is a request from the Department of Health State Board of Nursing for 5700 in appropriation. This is to cover the rises. All right, thank you, members, if we have any questions on I see no objections, seeing none, none, I stands reviewed. Members were at reports now, uh, I think the way we'd like to do this is if, uh if you can just take a second to go through this. I'm assuming you've already looked through these and are aware and if you have any questions, then Billy's gonna be here. Give me just a minute, and I meant to, if you have any questions on the report. Vicky. Yes, mine will be on L6 and L7. Alright, I'll go through these one at J1. Any questions? OK 1 through 4. Any questions? Section L monthly reports. Senator Hickey, you're recognized. Thank you. And maybe just the departments on both of these, and I'll try to go, just to kind of give the members we had, we had enacted some special language that uh this body had passed to require these reports so I'd understand it. So, let him, he can go ahead and which ones do you have questions on I'll do L6 first, which is uh Billy go ahead and give an overview that whether members know we're all on the same page. Ms. She, uh, you're correct, Senator Hickey, this is from New special language in the Department's Appropriation Act that requires a report to the subcommittee that summarizes the current firm. Uh, fund balance in the past 5 years, phone balances of the education adequacy Fund. Uh, the adequacy fund was established in 2003 to fulfill the obligation of the state to provide an adequate educational system as authorized by law. The fund is comprised of revenues from sales tax, vending machine decal fees, diesel tax, franchise taxes, and a few more revenues, uh, prior to each year, the department certifies how much they believe they will need to draw from this fund. Funds are drawn each month until the certified need is met. Once Certified need is met, monthly revenues continue to flow to the adequacy fund and the balance builds until the cycle begins anew in the next fiscal year. On the 2nd page at the top, it shows the fund balance from fiscal year 20 through 25. The second table shows the monthly transactions. $58 million was deposited into the fund that month. 594 million was transferred to the public school fund and $4 million was transferred to the department. As I understand, this is the entire total that was certified by the department for fiscal year 25. This leaves a balance of 118 million at the end of July, and this amount will build throughout the year unless the department's uh recertified. OK. And I guess, uh, the department may have left. My only thing that I was going to ask them, Billy and uh the 594, so we're not expecting that they're gonna withdraw any more. Money out of the for the public school fund, correct understanding they would have to recertify more need and then bring that forward. OK. And how about the second one right there for the Department of Education, the 4 million, is that, is that gonna be a monthly expense or I'm not sure, sir. I'd have to refer that to the agency. Again, uh, so, so the whole, the whole reason that we were doing this was trying to make sure of where those balances were each year. And I don't know if they're gonna be getting $58 million every month or if that's cyclical and some months it's going to be higher because that revenue is going to increase during Christmas or summer for travel or whatever. But I guess the thing is it appears like to me that that that fund should be growing, uh, because if they're at 118 million, if you just use the 58 million if it says static at that number you're looking at 638 million plus 118. So I guess I was just wanting a little bit of explanation for them, but I think we're going to be doing this monthly, so I'll do it next month, uh, but those will be the questions that, uh, I asked that same question, that's the understanding that. OK. And then on 7, I don't know if DHS is gonna be here or not, but I, I have some brief notes on that if you like. So Medicaid program trust fund distribution, distribution and balance report. Again, it's a new special language that requires this report to the uh subcommittee on that, uh, two pages, um, or 5-year history of the fund balance by month with columns showing the source of income and on the last page is the Medicaid trust fund distribution for the first month of fiscal year 25. Uh, for the month of July, 12.2 million was distributed from the fund. OK, and this one was where, to be honest, it was probably a little more concerned. We wanted to make sure that, uh, uh, that we were not depleting those, depleting those funds and, and then also figure out what needed to go back into RSA. So I guess next month I'd request that they are here to answer questions on this and to see. They're here and the Department of Education should be a whole load of you too, so. OK, well, if you don't, if you don't mind, uh, and again, we'll try to be quick for the members. I'd just like to get a little more explanation on this. I struggled some trying to figure out the report because I used the July 1 number. Uh And if you could just recognize yourself for the committee and then you're welcome to restate your question. Uh, Janet Mann, DHS. Jason Callan, DHS. OK, thank you and you can tell me if I'm wrong again, I'm struggling a little bit. Y'all did a lot of work and I want to say thank you for that. So I went back and looked at July 1st of 2022, 23, 24. By doing that, So each month right here, we're gonna actually see how much this fund is dropping and I keep hearing that this Medicaid trust fund that you're, that you're going to be taking a lot of disbursements out of it and that it'll probably be dwindling, is that correct or not correct? So I guess what I would just like to see is if, if every month that you would come down and let's just kind of discuss how much is dropping. Kind of figure out this body needs to figure out, you know, at what number we want that thing to, to maintain and of course, at some point, we're going to have to look at putting that back into the budget through RSA so that we're making sure that we're cash flowing those numbers just because we're taking out of this account. That, that was the whole purpose for the special language. So again, I won't ask you a whole lot of questions today. It's just in the future, you know, if we could just kind of start discussing that, try to figure out, you know, again And what this body wants to maintain in that account and try to figure out before the session, you know, What Do we need to fund additional stuff through our actual budget instead of just taking it out of what I can also changed the format of the report if needed. Well, I think staff may be has talked to you too about that because again, I was struggling so I like I say I use the July 1st numbers and I don't think that might have been accurate because I think all of your July expenditures are in there. I was just trying to get the start of each fiscal year. So if we need to, if we need to Do the work on the reports and that'll be good, but my main thing. OK, thank you all. And just real quick, and just make sure I understand. So the, this is the monthly though, the soft drink tax when I'm looking. You know, the total collections is 1008. There we go, $104 million. Is that a monthly? Am I understanding that right? So the way that I built this report, it's the ending balance of that account at the end of the month include debits and credits. Yeah. All right, members, any other questions on reports anyone from the Department of Education, yeah. And if you could just recognize yourself again. Courtney Solis for for the department. Yes, if you could please restate your question. Thank you. I appreciate you coming back. Sorry, I should have let you, I should have let you know and I was going to have questions again. This report, as you know, was done through special language so that we could kind of get an idea. So, For the and I think I've lost that particular one. I've thrown it away since I didn't think you were here operating off a memory, there was about 500 and something million that went to the public schools. Is that correct? OK. Are you gonna have any or do you anticipate any more dispersements throughout the year for that? For the public school you did all the 594 or whatever it was. I'm sorry, Staff, just give it to me. Let me look at it and give you the right number and thank goodness, um. The real person who knows sit here cause I won't have to try to fumble through it. Hey Greg. Hey I'll, I'll bill you for that, uh. For that workout too. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. You need a minute. Yes, sir. I'll talk slower, uh, OK, so, so what we've got is we had the beginning balance, then we had the total deposits of like 58 million. And then we showed that we transferred like 594 million. OK, of course, during that month, which I guess was for the start of the school are we anticipating, are we anticipating that you're gonna have any more disbursements on the 594. August, September, October, November, or is that pretty much? We're done right there. We're done right there. OK. Then the Department of Education with the FY 25, the 4.2 million. What, what exactly was that and do we anticipate, do we anticipate that we're gonna have any more of those through the upcoming months. OK. Right And since you're sitting there and if, if I caught you off guard, then I, I apologize, but so we had 58 million that came in and of course that's coming through, through constitutional stuff, I guess, with the fuel tax, uh, maybe sales tax. OK. Is that cyclical in nature, in other words, can we figure that 58 million is Probably the minimum we're gonna get or the average we're gonna get. That, so I'm turning around looking at DFA because it's actually their fund and how the, the revenues come in. I don't think it is. I think it's completely baked because I know that 34 cents sales tax dive fuel tax. I'm trying to remember all the special revenues that go in there, so I would hate to say that it is because it is completely, I think the majority of it is the, the special revenue sales tax. So, so it is completely based just on that, how much we get, and it, it varies year to year a lot. Oh Christmas time we could expect an increase or something, I would assume. Yes, so year over year will be fairly static, uh, but monthly it does, there are wide variances obviously over Christmas and other times when sales tax revenues go up, that is simply the sales tax revenue for, for July mainly. OK. And the whole, and the whole reason for doing this report, and I know you didn't hear this, was to make sure that we were not taking additional funds out of what I call these cash, cash accounts. It appears like to me that you're that y'all. is actually going to grow as long as you maintain an average of the 58 million, you're not taking anything out, you're going to grow significantly. And that's what we've tried to do over the years is that there are years that we've backed off the adequacy fund, how much we were going to be using public school fund to make sure that I can remember a time when. God, I've been here too long. I can remember when you used to want to keep around $150 to $200 million in there just in case anything happened with revenues throughout the year. And obviously, as we've had more needs out of public school fund, we've kind of buffed that up, you know, how much we would need an adequacy fund because this is where we would first go if something happened and we weren't able to meet the obligations of the public school fund. This would be the first, that would be the only way that I would try to recertify to the, to the DFA that I needed additional funds out of adequacy. OK, so they're. to me in that account over and above track. So, OK, and that, that was the purpose of doing this again, uh, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicaid, excuse me, so, uh, I appreciate the information. Thank you, sir.