JBC-Special Language
Video
Transcript
3 documents
Bills discussed (32)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1052
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “a motion to add House Bill 1052 to the agenda. That's a proper motion. Do we have”
|
AN ACT TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION FOR STATE TURNBACK FOR COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES BY THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1080
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…a second we have a second all those in favor opposed passes house bill 1080”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES - … | Ladyman | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 3 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…ng the wrong bill. There were several bills up here. So the Senate Bill 4, I believe, is the bill that you're wanting to suspend the…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - LICENSING AND REGULATION BOARDS APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB73
Act 141
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “none all those in favor say aye next on the agenda is senate bill 73”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB73 is now Act 141 |
|
HB1089
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…e a second all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes house bill 1089 department of finance dispersing officer supplemental we ha…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION - DISBURSING OFFICER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1090
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…e a second all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes house bill 1090 depart we have a motion do we have a second we have a secon…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT - DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SUPPLEMENTAL … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1093
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “but when I'm sorry house bill 1093 is next up yeah we have a motion do pass enough any discuss…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - DIVISION OF CORRECTION REAPPROPRIATION. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1099
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…bers I believe we're passing over to house bill 1080 in and House Bill 1099, representing the lady who's not here today. Do we have, ha…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES APPROPRIATION. | Ladyman | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB20
Act 132
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…artment of Agriculture - Representative Bentley (BSS053) 5. SB20 - DHS - Division of Medical Services - Representative Bentl…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF MEDICAL SERVICES APPROPRIATION FOR … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB20 is now Act 132 |
|
SB36
Act 135
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…ive Office of the Courts - Representative Dalby (JAR128) 4. SB36 - Department of Agriculture - Representative Bentley (BSS05…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB36 is now Act 135 |
|
SB67
Act 140
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services Supplemental 2. SB67 – University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Supplemental…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB67 is now Act 140 |
|
SB77
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…d. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to suspend the rules to add Senate Bill 77 to the”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION DIVISION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 … | C. Tucker | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1004
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…tration - Regulatory Division - Senator Hester (JAP087) 25. HB1004 - Department of Corrections - Division of Community Correct…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1005
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ansas - Fayetteville - Representative McKenzie (HAR145) 23. HB1005 - Department of Education - Representative Walker (KMW090)…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1007
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ministrative Services - Representative Wardlaw (JAP081) 16. HB1007 - Department of Education - Division of Elementary and Seco…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION - … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1022
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…stration - Disbursing Officer - Senator Tucker (JAP082) 11. HB1022 - Arkansas Development Finance Authority - Representative B…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1036
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Education - Public School Fund - Senator Irvin (KMW094) 18. HB1036 - Department of Health - Senator Irvin (CJW036) 19. SB7 - D…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1037
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ties and Municipalities - Senator Mark Johnson (JAR145) 14. HB1037 - State Board of Election Commissioners - Senator Mark John…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1051
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…epartment of Education - Representative Walker (KMW090) 24. HB1051 - Department of Finance and Administration - Regulatory Div…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION - REGULATORY DIVISION APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1064
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 10. HB1064 - Department of Finance and Administration - Disbursing Off…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION - DISBURSING OFFICER APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1066
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…of Medical Services - Representative Pilkington (LCW100) 8. HB1066 - Department of Energy and Environment - Division of Enviro…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT - DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY APPROPRIATION … | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
HB1068
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…vironmental Quality - Representative Pilkington (WFP037) 9. HB1068 - Department of Finance and Administration - Representative…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's … |
|
SB15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB8 - Department of Commerce - Senator Dismang (CJW039) 21. SB15 - Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism - State Parks…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM - STATE PARKS AND TOURISM … | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB21
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…pment Finance Authority - Representative Beaty (CJW027) 12. SB21 - Department of Human Services - Division of Aging, Adult,…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF AGING, ADULT, AND BEHAVIORAL … | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB3
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Election Commissioners - Senator Mark Johnson (SRD016) 15. SB3 - Department of Shared Administrative Services - Representa…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SHARED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB31
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…y of Arkansas - Fayetteville - Senator Sullivan (HAR137) 3. SB31 - Administrative Office of the Courts - Representative Dalb…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB41
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Division of Higher Education - Senator Sullivan (KMW089) 2. SB41 - University of Arkansas - Fayetteville - Senator Sullivan…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS - FAYETTEVILLE APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB43
Act 136
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…nce and Administration - Representative Vaught (JAP084) 27. SB43 - University of Arkansas - Division of Agriculture - Senato…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS - DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB43 is now Act 136 |
|
SB58
Act 138
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…mendments referred to the Special Language Subcommittee: 1. SB58 - Department of Education - Division of Higher Education -…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - DIVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB58 is now Act 138 |
|
SB63
Act 139
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…C. Bills referred to the Special Language Subcommittee: 1. SB63 – DHS - Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Serv…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF AGING, ADULT, AND BEHAVIORAL … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB63 is now Act 139 |
|
SB7
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HB1036 - Department of Health - Senator Irvin (CJW036) 19. SB7 - Department of Commerce - State Insurance Department - Rep…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 … | Joint Budget Committee | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB8
Act 129
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…te Insurance Department - Representative Perry (CJW038) 20. SB8 - Department of Commerce - Senator Dismang (CJW039) 21. SB1…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB8 is now Act 129 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Merit change in this committee versus being taken up at a different format. We had four items referred over today from joint budget due to time constraints. If we're going to hear those items, it would require a motion to suspend rules to add those items to the agenda. I want to start by giving members a chance to make those motions. And I will get to you here in just a second. Yeah, let's see. There he is.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
0:30
Senator Clark, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to suspend the rules to add Senate Bill 77 to the
agenda. That's a proper motion. Do we have a second? We have a second. All those in favor of suspending the rules to add that to the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And the motion passes. We'll add that to the agenda. Senator Hester, you're recognized. I'd like to make
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
0:50
a motion to add House Bill 1052 to the agenda. That's a proper motion. Do we have
a second? Do we have a second? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That's added to the agenda.
Speaker 15
1:02
Representative Garner? Oh, you're asking. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Hold on for a moment. Yeah, they won't go to the agenda. We're just passing out. These are ones we heard in joint budget today that were referred over. They won't be heard until the end of the – they'll be placed at the end of the agenda. So there's plenty of time for members to look at it. this is a fair uh comment but they were there for joint budget i'm happy to
pause that process and okay um senator dismayne you
recognize all right thank you miss thank
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:53
you mr chairman uh i have two pieces of special language that were up for consideration today. That is item 20 and 27. I'm going
to ask that those not be considered today. I just want to let the committee know
and I'm hoping that we've got other members
that are going to do the same and let us know about special language
they're not planning on running today. 20 and 27. Appreciate that Senator Dismang.
So those two items you can scratch off the agenda for today and members I did not mean to get ahead of myself on the items that we were suspending the rules for i will entertain a motion at any time to extract that vote if
somebody wants to after they've reviewed them yeah okay make a motion to extract the vote on both the suspended yes okay that's a proper motion is there a second have a second all those in favor say i
opposed so we'll give members a chance to review both of those
items these were both bills that were on the agenda in joint budget and were referred over do what there are no to my knowledge this is the opportunity there were four that were sent over these are the only two that i've had a motion on and
so moving forward if there is a motion on something else we'll pause give people time to look at it and then we'll take up the vote so what we'll do is without objection i'll
give members a time to look at both of those bills and then we'll go through c in between c and d we'll take a vote on whether to take those up and
suspend the rules okay so next on the agenda is c c1 c
c1 is the governor's letter do we have someone from dhs that wants to
come yeah sorry this is this will get smoother as i go the page number for that is two through four
we have a motion do pass do we have any questions for the agency any discussion on the motion do we have a second on the motion do we have any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion passes next item on the agenda is senate bill 67 this we have a motion do we have a second we have a second any discussion on the motion seeing
none all those in favor say aye next on the agenda is senate bill 73
we have a motion on senate bill 73 do we have a second we have a second all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes house bill 1089 department of finance dispersing officer supplemental we have a motion do we have a second we have a second all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes house bill 1090 depart we have a motion do we have a second we have a second all those in favor opposed passes house bill 1080
but when I'm sorry house bill 1093 is next up yeah we have a motion do pass enough any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes members I believe we're passing over to house bill 1080 in and House Bill 1099, representing the lady who's not here today. Do we have, have members had a chance now
it's Senate Bill 77 and House Bill 1052.
Speaker 32
5:34
No, sorry, House Bill, sorry. Which one is? Okay,
Speaker 34
5:44
which one is, this is the wrong one, Senate Bill. So, yeah, do you have a motion on Senate
Bill 77? Right. Do you have a motion on Senate
Bill 77? Suspend the rules and take it up on the agenda.
That's the proper motion. We have a second. Members, there was some confusion here on the bill numbering. I think we asked
for the wrong bill to be suspended, and that's bad
Speaker 39
6:22
information on my part. yeah not this one right right so the mo
the motion originally it was extracted on house bill 1052 that was the wrong bill that i believe
senator hester made that motion i gave him the wrong
information i think it should be senate bill four it was a senate bill not a house bill lots of lots of handwriting scratching up here and not lines uh so senator hester do you would you like to substitute your motion for senate bill four as opposed to house bill 1052 and before we do that if we could pass that out senate bill four yeah just second So hold on just a second.
through this, I promise.
So we're going to be passing out the bill that I believe Senator Hester is making a motion on. That's my fault for having the wrong bill. There were several bills up here. So the Senate Bill 4, I believe, is the bill that you're wanting to suspend the rules for. We will pass that out and let members
Speaker 45
8:30
look at it. Perfect. And then we'll entertain that motion. And that's my fault, members. Yeah. Yes, Representative Wardlaw.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
8:39
So we still need to take up the suspension of the rules
on 77, correct? We need to take up the rules. That one's done. We suspended the rules in 77 is on
the agenda. Senate Bill 4. We got to look at it. We got to look at it first. Yeah, that's it. Okay, members. staff is passing out Senate Bill 4 we will survive and proceed we're going to go now into the D portion while members have a chance
to review Senate Bill 4 and decide if we
Speaker 56
9:16
want to add that to the agenda so Members, they're passing out handouts. Senator
Speaker 57
9:23
Sullivan, are you here where you can come to the table?
Thank you, sir. So we'll give the members a chance to get the handouts,
and you're welcome to come to the chair and be recognized to proceed.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
9:56
Senator, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dan Sullivan, District 20. I appreciate you all taking the time. I also appreciate the past, present, and continued willingness of the University of Arkansas administration to address significant issues at the King Fodd Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Issues continue to arise every day and deserve a closer look at the curriculum, funding, operation of the King Fodd Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and I plan to do
so through the ALC Higher Ed Subcommittee. I plan to hear testimony, review financials, the mission, operations in the coming months. Incidents of indoctrination, bias, lack of balance, and violation of state law Act 116, Act 721, Act 710 of 2017 against boycotts, and the governor's executive orders must be reviewed by this body. It appears some faculty members have used the King Fodd Center for Middle Eastern Studies as their personal playground and piggy bank to further a self-serving agenda.
You have some documents coming out before you. Please note that there are a few links, such as on a QR code and several other lengthy reports on those documents, and I encourage you to access those links. With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to pull down both of my proposals. Senator Sullivan, And we really
appreciate your comments and your time here today and the handouts you provided. Thank you for your participation in the committee. Thank you. Members, that's going to take us to Representative Dalby. Representative Dalby, you're here. This is item 3, page 9 through 11.
D3, page 9 through 11. I believe this is an amendment
to City of Bill 31. If you'll state
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
11:46
your name for the committee, you're recognized to present what you've stated your name. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carol Dalby, State Representative, District 100. Members, you'll recall back in the regular session, I ran the district court bill, and in that bill we were reducing the installment loan payments that defendants would pay to pay out their fines and fees from $10 to $7.50. Well, there was evidently a sentence that did not get repealed in there,
And so there's been some question among the district courts as to whether or not they add on previous cases that were charged at $10 to new cases that were now being charged $7.50. Some courts were charging $17.50. So all this does is make it clear that all that can be charged for installment fees will be, installment payment plans will be $7.50 and not $17.50. since and come january i'll run a bill to make sure that that gets corrected i'll be happy to
take any questions senator gilmore you recognize motions proper time members are there any questions seeing none we have a motion to we have a second all those in favor say aye opposed motion passes thank you thank you thank
you committee members that'll take us to item 4 d4 this is pages 12 through 15 to Senate Bill 36 that's representing Bentley if you don't mind
sitting at the table introduce yourself with the committee you recognize to present when you get to
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
13:25
the table State Representative Mary Bentley District 54 appreciate you guys hearing this today I'm not sure how many of you on ALC but if you were on ALC you heard that we had some forestry legacy grants come through the Department of Agriculture. And some of those, there was three grants before that grant came to the committee. The reason the committee did not hear is because the Department of Agriculture had enough appropriations in their budget that did not have to come before ALC. So there were three grants
that went through the Department of Ag affecting my county. And at that point, the county judge, the county quorum court, and no one heard anything about that until it was a done deal. So we lost a significant amount of property taxes because it went to Central Arkansas Water that pays absolutely zero property taxes because they're a public entity. I'm simply asking with this bill, that the Department of Ag will reach out to the county judge, the quorum court, and the state legislators in the county when they're purchasing land there. The Department of Ag has no issues with this bill at all. They're in support of what we're doing, so simply adding a notification to the city and the counties that are affected by the grant purchase.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
14:23
And I'll take any questions. Senator, can you recognize? Yes, ma'am. I'm sitting here reading this, and this says that before they
would even enter into a contract that they would have to notify us. You know, I don't know. I don't know that I'd be in favor or not, but at least we should have written this. I believe that it should have been a contingency in the contract that they had to notify it and a certain time may pass. Otherwise, it could affect, you know, the purchase price on what they're able to, you know, to get the land for.
So and then it just says that they're going to be notified. well what what's the recourse or at that point or it just it just appears odd to me that before you entered into a contract to purchase land that you would actually have to put that out for notice if we wanted to put a contingency in there and say well you know this contract is contingent upon these people being notified and then some something else transpiring i just think that
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
15:27
would be more effective i appreciate this is a lengthy process it went through the congressman hill's office and congressman hill heard nothing back from the county folks that were involved in the transaction so i just wanted them to be involved in the process while some counties were perry county was not so if we need to change the language up there i'm happy to do that i just again want these counties to be involved
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
15:50
in the process and not just blindsided right i just if
there is something reasonable that somebody's wanting to do, I do think that not allowing somebody to enter
into a contract, like I say, if we have a contingency in there, I just think that would be more appropriate. I don't know what the rest of the committee thinks about that, but from my standpoint, that just seems like a better way to proceed. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:16
you, ma'am. Senator Bryant, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to follow on, Senator Hickey, you're not looking for a county to stop a contract or a sale going forward no so the purpose will be just that the local officials are notified yeah i'm not asking for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:28
them to make a due pass to support it in any fashion i'm just
asking for them to be notified so once they get
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:33
notified what would be their course of action but this at this point they could have reached out to
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:38
congressman hill's office and let them know that they don't support it because they had to go through congress um this forest legacy and he had absolutely no feedback from perry county at that point so it's just for them to be aware and to be involved in the process, which they were not. Okay, and a month is
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:52
sufficient to get things? I think it would be very sufficient. The train stopped? Okay. I think it would
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:57
have stopped the train if they had been notified and they were aware of what was going on.
They were completely unaware. Okay, thank you. Members, do we have any more questions? Seeing none, do we have a motion? We have a question. Sorry, Senator
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
17:19
Hill. You're recognized. representative Bentley just just kind of following up on the two on this side over here and I see contracts every day that have contingencies on there because this could turn into a deal where they need to get it if the word gets out where a piece of property's value could drastically go up
on so have you thought about that maybe letting them do the contract and put a contingency on there
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
17:40
then notifying I just think it's at this point it's almost too late in the process if They're not notified early. Just because this is a separate thing, it's a forced legacy grant going through the Department of Ag and going through the Congress, to me, they need to be involved earlier in the process. So, to me, the train had already sailed by the time we're signing a contract. Okay, thank you. It's just a different process. Members, are there any more questions?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:08
Senator Bryant, you recognize? I'm going to just maybe a broad question. this is
specific to one issue but is this for all if department of ag wants to go by a portion of a cornfield in northeast
therefore they got to notify and yeah process and they they had no issue with it so otherwise i
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
18:26
would have struck with some different language so okay thank you again i would just say the department of ag was notified
I sentenced them early worked with them to make sure they had no issues with that and so that's why we proceeded
in this fashion Members do we have any more
questions? We have motion Have a motion do pass we have a second Second all those better say aye Discussion on the motion. Yes.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:03
Sorry my bad senator dismaying. You're recognized. All right. Thank you you uh so my my comments
aren't even specifically to this piece of legislation we had the ability
at the beginning of session to introduce a resolution if you wanted to bring up a matter that was not related really to physical matters i don't believe this is it creates a whole new process that was not previously in place lots of times we will provide clarification in this body for instance if dfa tells us that the sky is orange and we know that the sky is blue there There's been times in the past that we've used this committee to restate our legislative intent. I think that is one of the instances we can use this committee for a non-physical matter.
You'll see, and so I just want to make my position known because I'll be voting on this, not because of what you're doing or wanting to do. It's because I think it falls outside the scope of what we need to be doing in this special language committee now. And I will be doing this on a number of issues as we go through. If it's not dealing with funding or stipulating how someone spends money that we do provide for them or some type of appropriation process, then I am going to do my best to decipher out which one those are, and I'll be voting no, and I just wanted to make sure that that
was understood and my reason was provided to the sponsor for what I was going to do with that.
So thank you. Thank you, Senator Dismay. Members, are there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
No. Sorry, it's failed. Your amendment is failed. Thank you, committee. Thank you for your time. Members, that takes us to the next item. I think, Representative Bentley, you're still up. Next item on the agenda is amendment to Senate Bill 20, Division of Medical Services, DHS, is on pages 16 through 18.
And, Representative Bentley, you're recognized to present this for the committee. Perhaps just state your name one more time just for clarity. Thank you, Representative Mary Bentley. district
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
20:57
54 thank you so um colleagues i know this uh i've handed out some sheets to here i'm going to talk today about arkansas children's hospital a hospital that i was uh blessed to work at for over a decade and thoroughly enjoy what children's does and what they do for our state and for the children in our state but i think it's very important for this committee to realize that arkansas children's receives one-third nearly one-third of the spending that dh does on
hospital spending so um currently we spend 1.4 billion uh to hospital payments through dhs and Arkansas Children's receives $425,000 of that. On a daily per diem, Arkansas Children's Hospital gets $3,900 per day per patient, where the majority of hospitals in your district get $850 per day per patient. UAMS receives $2,000 per day, and critical care hospitals receive some more. But Arkansas Children's by far receives double what Children's does and so much more than other hospitals do per diem per day.
also on the inpatient outpatient cost settlements arkansas children's received 67 percent or 110 million of what the outpatient uh cost settlements are so we are seeing a huge portion of our state funding go to arkansas children's hospital all that spending is determined by dhs it's not it's uh historical spending it's nothing that we determine in statute so um there is a fee settlement that most of the hospitals participate in to make sure we get the maximum federal refunds back to the state and arkansas children's hospital does not participate in that so the only
thing we have in statute i looked at to see how could we get um help our smaller hospitals that so many of them are closing down so many of them are consolidating and they're in trouble and so why they are getting at the end of the day from history from reports that we've seen in committee they're getting most of our hospitals are losing money five to ten percent every year but children's hospital is in the profit for ten percent so i just wanted to understand why they warrant participating in the fee settlement so went to see what we could adjust here in statute and this is the only thing that we can really adjust in that whole process is by removing their
exemption from not having to be a part of the fee settlement so I know that's a lengthy and a lot but I'm concerned about our small hospitals I think it's unfair the current process so I would be happy to take any questions sorry
I turned you off Senator McKee you can press your own you're recognized for a question
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
23:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Bentley, for bringing this. I find that every time somebody brings a different piece of legislation, I learn a little bit more. So that fee settlement that the hospitals participate in that Children's is exempt from,
am I correct that at the end of the year or the fiscal year, I don't know which one, that fund is then returned to the hospitals around the state? Correct. Not including Children's because they don't participate. No, they do get some money from it. But what will... Even though they don't. So if they are participating in that fund, Children's would then participate in the remittance of that fund to them. Is there any concern on your part that they will receive an outsized portion of that reimbursement compared to other hospitals and possibly negatively affect those other hospitals because of where that fund is going?
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
24:06
Again, there's some numbers that we're looking at. I just think it's very important for us to look and see what we can do to help our smaller hospitals around the state. So I have reached out to Children's Hospital and, excuse me, to Jody Ann with the Hospital Association to look at that. So we don't know the answer to that question yet? At this point, no, because we're looking at funding for that as well as DHS is looking at that. Again, my purpose is to help those small hospitals. So if that's the case, we'd be happy
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
24:30
to pull that. And I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question. Right. Okay. But thank
you. Members, are there any other questions for Representative Bentley?
I do think it's an important issue. I appreciate you bringing it up for discussion. um seeing no other questions uh is there a motion we have a motion do pass is there a second seeing no seconds you failed
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
24:54
for lack of a second thank you committee permit for
me bringing this before you thank you members uh senator penzo has asked us to pass over senate bill 20 his amendment
to senate bill 20 for the moment so that's going to take us down to representative pilkington this is item d7 pages 22 through 25 and represented picking if you can
when you get to the table just introduce yourself for the committee and
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
25:26
you'll recognize to present your amendment thank you and i believe this first one is the
one uh the division of medical
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
25:34
services right yes that's uh yes that's correct yes yes so this one uh it's pretty simple uh we're just adding definitions uh for artificial intelligence for the use when doing pharmacy refills and saying that they may use artificial intelligence when uh doing uh pharmacy refills so uh
ai is a bigger and bigger part of health care as we know it um and as we try to find ways to save costs and to be more efficient especially when it comes to the employee benefits division i just wanted to allow this tool to be in the toolbox this is based off of a program that was used in utah and so like i said as we're trying to find ways to save money i just want to make sure that we have all the tools in the toolbox we need doesn't force anyone do anything they don't want to do they have to use a participating pharmacist and the patient has to be enrolled in either medicaid or ebd so this doesn't force any private insurers to do anything that they
they don't want to do and that's that's it
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:30
senator dismay you recognize thank you i'm supportive of what we're trying to do here you heard my previous comments i think pertain this too uh but my question would be because i do think it's important we start moving in that direction uh is this anything that can be done through rule uh is there anything that would prohibit uh i guess it'd be i don't know who the pharmacy board from doing this while we're not in session because again i do think it's an important issue i just don't think we
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
26:55
could you know my position i understand completely and what i would argue is because of our control over the employee benefits division i think we need to be clear that we will allow this the pharmacy board could create rules to do this uh they haven't i think a lot of times sometimes the legislature has to be the driver of of change in in some of these fields and and so that's why i do it and i would say the fiscal reason for this being is obviously because if we can use this to create cost savings for ebd to keep those costs down uh that is clearly a fiscal benefit to us
and that's why i think i found necessary to do it now as opposed to waiting to the general session to do it um
thank you members are there any other questions for representative pilkington on this amendment seeing no further
questions is there a motion We have a motion to do pass. Is there
a second? Seeing no second, your amendment has failed for
lack of a second. That's okay. If you want to stay in the chair, you're next up. This is an amendment to Department of Energy and Environmental Quality.
Yes. This is House Bill 1066, pages 26 through 28 in your packet, item D8. You're recognized to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:07
present that amendment. Perfect. Thank you. And full
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
28:10
disclosure, this is not a fiscal impact, so I will not be getting Senator Dismayne's vote on this. um this is a constituent driven bill we had a quarry that uh restarted in lamar um there were some people who were upset that they were notified about it happening before it's fully up and running operational but um talking to some of the the city officials they had asked that they felt like they
they weren't given notification when the permit was issued so i talked to adq asked them could we do this um and just basically just says that they need to notify the mayor when if it's in city limits most of the time cores are not done within a city limit it's extremely extremely rare but like I said I there were constituents brought this to me I said I would do it and so I'm doing here I think there's nothing wrong with them sending a letter or an email to a mayor to let them know that a permit has been issued so that they can start letting residents know before they start moving dirt and blasting and that's it pretty simple easy thank you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
29:07
Senator Hickey you recognize for a question yes or not I'm not planning on voting for this but just just just in the last sentence right there you know up
above it says that we shall do this yeah but then we go into the things I written notice may be delivered by mail I would think that we would need to be more exact on exactly how that notification would be instead of just giving a may so if somebody later said oh I sent it by mail it didn't arrived you know needs to be maybe certified mail or something to that nature since
you would be having shelf above it so just a comment for the future i understand
if we pass this i'll be happy to make that change maybe thank you for your vote
appreciate it members are there any other questions for representing pilkington seeing none do we have a motion seeing
no motion your amendment is failed for lack of motion thank you for presenting
the issue um members there is uh still there was a uh senate bill what was it senate bill four has circulated i believe senator hester was going to make a motion to suspend the rules to add that
to the agenda hopefully all the members have had a chance to look at that senator hester you're recognized yeah
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
30:21
it's an amendment to senate bill four i asked us we suspend the rules this was what i did at the beginning
just had the wrong bill number we have motion to second members are there any discussion on the motion this is a motion to spend the rules to take up senate bill four that
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
30:35
was referred today from the joint budget committee all those in favor say aye opposed I just
have it members that takes us to House bill 1068
that's representative Cavanaugh senators Boyd and Bryant representative Catamount if you don't mind introduce chef for the committee and when you introduce chef you recognize mr. bill
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
31:00
this is on pages 29 through 34 item d9 thank you mr. chair Frank Cavanaugh state representative district 30
this is a bill that just simply exempts the credit card convenience fee that business is charged when someone uses a credit card from sales tax this came about because there were some audits being done and people were getting
finding out that they should have been collecting the sales tax nobody in the state knows they should be collecting the sales tax. I would say 95% of businesses in the state don't know that they should be collecting that sales tax. They're not reporting that because they don't know they're supposed to collect it. And so this is just to clarify that we don't want sales tax collected on the convenience fee that businesses are charging their consumers for using a credit card. That's all this bill does. You're going to see that there is a physical impact on
it and if you look at the physical impact it's massive
members there's a there should be a page in front of you that was passed out at the beginning committee for fiscal impact
so she's referencing that if you have any trouble finding it let me know
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
32:06
but it should be there in front of you on the packets but I can't find a way that DF&A can justify where that number comes from because first of all it's gross receipts people are reporting so there's nothing that separates out what convenience fees might be and secondly for the amount of money they say it may hit
I don't think there's a way that the state is collecting that amount of convenience fees from consumers so and even speaking with DF&A you know they're talking about this is their best guess that it might be but I would dare say that 95 percent of businesses are not reporting this and not collecting it because they simply do not know they should be doing it and that's what this is to do, is to actually clarify that we should not be collecting it.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
32:53
Senator Hill, you're recognized for a question. Can we get Secretary Hudson up
here to tell us a little bit about these numbers that we have? We can. And members, for clarification in this committee, we will allow questions to be answered from agencies only. So we're going to stick to specific questions for the agency representatives. We're not looking for testimony, and we'll be only taking questions for agencies. And
if you both introduce yourself to the committee, you'll be recognized to answer questions.
Speaker 138
33:23
Jim Hudson, Secretary, DFA. Paul Gehring, Chief Counsel, DFA. Senator Hill, you're
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
33:31
recognized for your question. My direct question is, would you
Chair
Unverified
33:34
explain your figures? Yes, sir. Representative Kavanaugh is correct. It is our best estimate. I think it's better than a guess, but it is our best estimate. we don't track these numbers specifically so we had to do some inferential calculations to arrive at a number it could be less it could be more we wouldn't know until after we lived with
it for a little while the number is big as as representative kavanaugh acknowledged contextualizing the number 45 million dollars is almost a full tenth off of individual income tax and it's about three-tenths for the corporate income tax. So if it is in this magnitude in terms of the actual expense, it would be significant. But Paul and the team did the detailed work on the fiscal impacts. I'll let him speak to it.
Speaker 147
34:21
Senator Hilt, so we at DFA, we obtained some information that back in 2022,
there was some data that approximately $600 million in credit card swipe fees were being charged to Arkansas businesses. What we don't have any information on is the amount of those swipe fees that are attributable to purely transactions that relate to a taxable sales tax transaction. So if you go to a store and you buy goods or services that are taxable, clearly that would be contained within the gross receipts for that transaction if there was a separately stated credit card transaction fee. However, if you used your credit card for a non-taxable transaction, let's say for getting a haircut or paying for a prescription drug, that swipe fee clearly would not be included in a taxable transaction.
So our team in excise tax, they did an analysis based upon that $600 million. They did a fiscal impact as of if this exemption were in place in 2022, grossed up that figure at a 3% inflation rate to arrive at the number that's provided in the handout. We certainly understand, and we've made it clear in the fiscal, that it's up to that amount. that would be the maximum. We certainly think that there would be a range, but providing a
specific range, what would be the low figure, we wouldn't be able to provide a definite
Speaker 145
35:48
number. Just to add to that, sales tax is really known as gross receipts tax.
Chair
Unverified
35:54
You're charging the tax on the gross receipts that are received by the business. There is no modification of gross receipts for expenses that go in with that sale. That would be income tax. And so it really kind of cuts against the grain about what a gross receipt is and I'd also say anytime you know we
tax advantage a certain business practice then you can expect the number of people adopting that practice will increase so we may have a number of people who are charging the convenience fee today if we exempt that from sales tax then you can expect that more will do it tomorrow senator dismayne you recognize for a question thank you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
36:40
and not the representative may be able to answer it may need to be from dfa the
practice of pushing the processing fee to the
consumer is relatively new it has to be done with notice so essentially before you swap your card you have to let them know that change again it's new is that something that we allowed to happen by statute or did we allow it or is it just something that started to happen because the cost of goods are higher and whatever else may be i think
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
37:09
from the business standpoint that it started probably about maybe two years ago that's right yeah and
i think there was actually a change federally that allowed the business to do that now you have to be able to justify
when you speak to most businesses it's maybe two and a half maybe three percent of the transaction is what they're charging. They have to be able to justify where that's coming from. You can't just set it at 5% and go on about your business. And so I, and I think what's happened, and this is just my take on it, is legislatively, when we think about taxes, we think about if we don't give you the authority to tax, don't tax. And I think a lot of times when we look at the other side, the regulators, they're seeing if there's not an exemption, it's something that they can
tax on and I'm just trying to clarify that we did not give authority to collect on this and so it should not be collected on so
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
38:01
and then that if you don't mind it brings the follow-up question I would like to know if that was legislative or not I knew it's a new practice and member or you know folks are deciding to do it it's a practice that our counties and others have utilized and I think even state government and it's abusive to the taxpayer almost nine times out of ten Pulaski County for instance does a good job of keeping their processing fees low but I can tell you there are a number that exorbitant processing fees that they add, which are well in excess of
what is the processing fee that's being charged by the credit card company, and it's a money maker for those entities. I said that because if I read this definition, the processing fee is a fee that's charged by the seller, set by the seller. It doesn't tie back to anything that has to do with what the credit card processing fee company is charging. As long as it's separately stated on the invoice bill of sale or similar document it's not subject to sales tax and so if I want to kind of utilize the county governments as an example some do it well some don't do it as a moneymaker
essentially or they the the processing company that they utilize does it as a moneymaker they arbitrarily set those amounts right within reason we don't want to be obscene because we get called out for it and I think some of them are obscene but what prevents a retailer under the definition that we have right now that we will utilize so for instance i want a tire company and i buy a set of 500 tires no we can't do that we're going to buy a set of 1500 tires
and i want to charge a 100 processing fee there essentially this allows me to shield some of the gross receipts that i have that are well in excess of the processing fee charged by the credit card company from sales tax and so i think the way that it's written Or how you have it written, how do you shield from that shielding? I mean, how do you prevent that shielding from happening? Well, I
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
39:57
think part of this is regulated by federal law about what you're supposed to be.
If you've got bad players, you're just going to have bad players that try to hide those things. But I think that is actually addressed maybe in federal law. And that's why this was drafted this way is because you're supposed to be passing on what you're what you're actually being charged. No more is my understanding. That's the way our CPAs explained it to us in our business, that if we charge it, that's what we're supposed to be doing. Representative Evans, you're recognized
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
40:31
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Caring, walk me through this, make sure I understand, because you used some terminology about exempt from sales tax.
So hypothetically, I'm a farmer, and I'm buying a piece of equipment. That transaction should be exempt from sales tax, correct? correct okay um and let's say that equipment i want to use my credit card maybe i just want the rewards points from it or whatever and the equipment dealer notifies me in advance as senator dismang has mentioned that there is a transact there's a swipe fee or transaction fee for me using my card maybe it's two and a half percent and yet i still decide that i'm willing to pay that two and a half percent for that swipe fee to use my card because i know that this is a
tax-exempt purchase but what but what this but it's what is happening now is that the dealer then is also supposed to charge sales tax on that swipe fee so I've taken a tax-exempt transaction and we've now made it taxable on that swipe fee
Speaker 160
41:34
is that what we are currently doing no sir so in that circumstance
Speaker 147
41:39
if there is a purchase that's being between a vendor and a customer that in that purchase is not subject to Arkansas sales tax or use tax and then the vendor
charges a separate credit card transaction fee to that to that sale that would not create an additional taxable taxable event for purposes of just the transaction fee so in that entire transaction you would have a receipt that says I purchased me agricultural equipment or machinery that's exempt under our current law there was also a separate line item for transaction fee there would be zero tax collected in that example what what this law if but what you said what you said a while ago though is that when
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
42:22
you did this fiscal impact you were not able
to disseminate all you looked at was gross receipts on swipe fees so there could be a $25,000 equipment purchase that goes into gross receipts that you're accounting for to establish this fiscal impact but yet there should not have been sales tax charged on that but you're accumulating that sale into that gross receipts currently because you don't have any way to define it out correct correct we and that's i i
Speaker 147
42:48
agree so what the issue is is that we pointed out the fiscal impact is that the fiscal impact is up to a certain amount because we could not account for
of all of that data for the the 600 million in swipe fees that were charged to arkansas businesses by financial institutions, what the percentage would be for those transactions that were clearly taxable transactions or those that were transactions that were subject to a farm exemption or just for the purchase of a service that wasn't a taxable service. So we were unable to provide what that range would be in the fiscal impact
or an estimate of the number of transactions that take place where a separate transaction fee is charged and what percentage were taxable transactions versus non-taxables. But every time there
Speaker 164
43:43
was a large purchase made, that would skew your data? Yes.
Speaker 147
43:49
If we had data that would demonstrate of that pool of swipe fees that were being charged to Arkansas banks of what those were, exempt purchases versus non-exempt,
we would have a much better and clearer picture to provide the General Assembly of what the actual fiscal impact would be for this amendment.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
44:14
Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Senator Bryant, you recognize for a question. Thank you. This is for Paul for DF&A. If I did not pass as a business, if I did not pass that percentage, that processing fee percentage on, and I use it as a cost of business, Is that an expense to the business, or do I deduct it off gross receipts at the end of the day?
So if I do a $100 purchase and it's a $3 processing fee that I'm willing to pay to the credit card company to get that $100 transaction versus passing that $3 on to the consumer and having them pay sales tax on it, is that now a $97 gross receipt treated as such, or do I treat that $3 just as an expense on my business? Senator that it would be
Speaker 147
44:56
an expense of the business so the gross receipts in that example or is the $100 and the reason that the the cost of the seller
cannot be deducted is as you'll see in the in the amendment that's before you is that any service of the seller that's required to to complete the sale cannot be deducted from the gross
Chair
Unverified
45:16
receipts okay thank you senator Hickey you're recognized
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
45:21
for a question yes thank you of course a statement at first, from
my standpoint, this is recurring tax policy, and this, in my opinion, needs to be heard in revenue tax in a regular session. This just, there's this processing fee,
the way that we have it, you know, I go on to the next page also. I know Senator Dismain touched on it a little bit about, you know, we could basically put anything down as a processing fee, maybe with
the way we've got this written. But it says also that this is going to be stated on the invoice bill of sale or a similar document so are we sure all of our retailers do their their platforms or whatever do they have the capabilities to do this are
we going to run into some type of issues with
that because if they haven't been doing this I mean I just I don't know if there's some unintended consequences that we're going to run into also it's doing it on this short notice here in special language in the fiscal session just kind of gives me pause because at least during the regular session we've got everybody at the table, all the players, grocers,
whoever else, and I just am struggling with this. I
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
46:32
think that some systems allow it and some systems don't, to be honest with you. And I think that it's so new, and that's why it's thrown a lot of people off.
And I'll be honest with you, in Arkansas in particular it's thrown a lot of people off because they didn't know they were supposed to be collecting sales tax on it, and so they're scrambling on trying to figure out what to do because they did not know. It's occurring because DF&A is doing audits to businesses, and they're finding out they didn't collect it, and they're getting fined and paying interest and penalties on this unknown sales tax that they didn't know that they were supposed to collect. And so that was what the urgency was, that we didn't want businesses to continue to have this problem.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
47:13
Thank you, Representative Kavanaugh. for Mr. Hudson if you don't mind and maybe you're going to add which is fine with me. I was going to ask so is this something that we've been enforcing or is all of this just coming up because all of a sudden you all have figured this out and as she said have started
Speaker 176
47:32
doing audits or how has this kind of transpired that we're
Chair
Unverified
47:36
just now hearing about this? To Senator Dismang's point I think it is a business practice that has increased lately and so there have been more instances
of it showing up in audit i think as a as a general comment uh since i became secretary and the staff can can attest to this they understand we don't go looking for new things to tax you know that's the province of the general assembly to pass a bill saying this is taxable this is not taxable in this case gross the gross receipt statute's very very clear it's gross receipts and this is not an issue that is unique to arkansas this issue is showing up all over the country, and all states are having to kind of wrestle with it. I would agree with the statement
that you made that it is out of order for us to be taking it up in fiscal. If we have more time, if we could do a little bit more studies, you know, we can maybe come up with a little bit
Speaker 178
48:30
better number in terms of what the fiscal impact would be. It's just kind of hard
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
48:36
to do this in a fairly truncated fashion in a fiscal session. Sure, and I'll give Senator this to make a little but a credit it makes me even
think i don't get used to that uh but uh but you know do we see
anything that's in the language here i don't see it that's in
the language of this bill that would keep in his example the 1500 tire purchase if i if i wanted to just say well i'm going to sell them the tires for 100 and give a 1400 in processing fee i just it looks like to me that we need to really study this to make sure that we're not going to have those unintended consequences where somebody does that. And you say, well, that's not likely. Well, I think it is likely because, you know, if somebody can see a way around it
because we didn't get the statute correct, then we all know that's what they're going to do.
Speaker 145
49:26
We all, all of us, including me, seek to minimize our tax position. That is just, you
Chair
Unverified
49:32
know, good old American behavior right there. So people will find a way to take advantage of this. And I am concerned that we're not going to eliminate an audit issue. We're going to create a different audit issue because now we're going to be auditing whether or not somebody's properly taking the credit and asking those questions. And my fear is we'll create a controversy there as well.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
49:53
Right. I'd like to see if we do pursue this. I mean, of course, this committee
may decide to do it. But from my standpoint, if we're going to do this in rev and tax in the regular session, at a minimum we try to figure out that we limit to possibly just the standard operating processing fee and some of our attorneys can figure out how to write
that and do those type of things, like I say, and try to get that language sureed up
Speaker 145
50:22
better. Without committing to specifically supporting any particular piece of legislation,
Chair
Unverified
50:25
I will give you assurances that if this is not passed, if this is something that gets worked on instead during regular, we would work with whatever committees to make sure they
Speaker 186
50:33
have all the data they need to have. Right, and other
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
50:38
partners that are involved, and just to make sure they're not going to have a huge expense in trying to implement this also. So thank you. Members, are there any
more questions? Seeing no more questions, do we have a motion? We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Hearing no second, your amendment is not adopted for bail on
the second. Thank you, members. Members, that takes us to item D10 on the agenda. These are pages 35
through 38. Senator Tucker, if you don't mind introducing yourself to the committee for the record, and then you're recognized to present your amendment.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
51:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. let me start by just making very clear this is fiscal only thank you senator appreciate that
this is fiscal only we passed the bill last year senate bill 575 we've
all been concerned about the fees issue in the justice system uh that bill really addressed two fees the driver's license reinstatement fee and the installment fee directly and then other fees indirectly and we're still working on that what we're doing here is we are decoupling those fees from the agencies that were receiving the revenue generated by those fees as special revenue and making it general revenue instead. So just to give an example, $150 is their driver's license
reinstatement fee. That was largely going to the state police and state police retirement. When people, legislators would try to amend the extent to which judges or whoever can suspend driver's licenses, the state police was rightly opposed to that legislation because it would affect their revenue. So what Senate Bill 575 did is all of the money, all of the revenue that's generated by driver's license reinstatement fees, it sends it to the general revenue pot instead of directly to the state police. And then it takes the same amount of money out of the general revenue pot and sends it to the state police. So if that makes sense, it's just taking what was special
revenue and making it general revenue instead. In the Bill 575 that we passed last year, it delayed the effective date for a year until July 1st of this year so that we could get the numbers right in this fiscal session. And there's six agencies that are affected, but I mentioned state police, so I'll just continue to use them as an example. When we presented Senate Bill 575, and I've worked with other legislators, Senator Gilmore, Representative Dalby on this. When we did this, we committed to my colleagues and to the governor's office that we weren't spending
any additional money. We also committed to the agencies that their funding was not going to be cut by what we were doing. So that's why we delayed the effective date for a year, because we wanted to make sure that we got the dollar exactly right down to the penny. And so that's what we've done. We've taken time during the interim. These numbers that are in this bill, they're agreed to by the governor's office, by every agency that's affected. What we did is we took an average over the amount of money that each of these agencies were receiving over a three-year period. And we, you know, put it in here down to the dollar. So just for example, state police
retirement, they've been getting on average $1,545,068 in special revenue and driver's license reinstatement fees over the last three years. Once this becomes effective, the driver's license reinstatement money will go into the general revenue pot and state police retirement will receive $1,545,068 out of the general revenue pot. So we're not, again, we're not spending any money. We're not costing any agencies any money. We're just taking what was special revenue and making it general revenue so that then when we come back into session next year, we can try to potentially reform some of these fees.
So that's it. I'm happy to take
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
54:28
any questions. Senator Bryant, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I remember this measure. We're basically taking it out of the district court arena and putting it into the general revenue, and then we're dispersing back. But isn't the special revenue, I mean, every year it's different. We don't know what the reinstatements are. So aren't we
allowing a fixed transfer versus a percentage transfer of fees collected?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
54:55
So we're not actually affecting anything that the district courts do with the bill that we passed last year or with the bill that's in front of you now. The district courts can still suspend driver's licenses, and there will be a driver's license reinstatement fee. They can still impose installment fees. Just to be clear, the installment fee, if a person can't pay 100% of their fines, fees, and restitution up front, which is approximately 99.999% of the people in the justice system, then they pay an installment fee of $10 per month that's added to their principal balance until they get it paid off.
For some people, that's for the rest of their lives, and they never get out from under this, which is why I think so many members think we need to reform these fees. But to your question, Senator Bryant, the numbers that these agencies have been receiving from the special revenue has been consistent. Yes, it does vary, you know, a bit from year to year, but it's not like it's $1 million one year and $4 million the next year. It's within a few thousand or, you know, $10,000, $20,000 of each other. And so all of the agencies are good with these numbers. They feel good that it's consistent with what they, you know, close to what they have been receiving.
They recognize that. I don't want to speak for them. I think they recognize it might be off by a dollar or two here or there. But in general, they'll be getting the same amount of money consistently that they've been getting. And we're not spending any more money either because they
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
56:15
have been receiving money in those amounts. And overall, we're just changing it to dedicated funding instead of variable funding based on revenue. That's right. And so if we don't collect, let's say everybody's abiding by the law and those special revenue collections at the court drop in half.
Prior to this, it was that's all they got is a percentage of that half, whereas as this process transitions through, wouldn't this take a hit to our
general revenue overall because we're still going to commit to these
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
56:46
numbers? Hypothetically, yes. But I think that's unless we pass other legislation in the future, which quite frankly I will be proposing, and I want to be transparent with you. Unless we pass another bill next year, then there may be a tad less collection to general revenue.
But the point of doing this is that that hit would be to a $7 billion pot of money rather than to just stick with the driver's license reinstatement fees. Just to give you an idea of how many driver's licenses are suspended in Arkansas, this is a major – It's really the number one issue for people getting out of prison and able to try to have a better life and get a job. You can't drive to work without a driver's license, right? The driver's license reinstatement fee at $150 a pop generates over $8 million in revenue a year in Arkansas.
So, I mean, that's why these issues are in such dire need of reform. But that has been consistent not over like three years. That's the number we use for the average, but over decades. So unless we do something in the future, hypothetically, yes, if fewer driver's licenses are suspended, there will be a hit to a $7 billion pot. But I think that's very unlikely as a practical matter unless we pass other legislation. Okay. Thank you. Members, are there any other questions for Senator Tucker?
Seeing no other questions, do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Awesome. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The amendment is adopted.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next on the agenda, members, Representative Beatty, this is item D11, an amendment to House Bill 1022, the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. This is
going to be found on pages 39 through 43 of your packet. Thank you. And Representative Beatty, if you don't mind, introduce yourself to the committee.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
58:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, here to present House Bill 1022. Last session when we passed the legislation regarding ADFA, these are the changes that the suits have told me we need to add to the appropriation to identify the positions that are identified in this bill and also the reporting back to the fiscal officer and to the Secretary of Shared Services.
So this reports that back, gives the oversight back, and makes certain that the language is in the bill that's constitutionally sound. So with that, I'll entertain any questions. Members, are there
any questions for Representative Beatty? Senator Hickey,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
59:36
you're recognized. Yes, Representative Beatty. Yes, sir. On the one here labeled,
well, it's two of three, page 40, or the second page. Yes, sir.
It said order to recruit and retain exceptionally well-qualified personnel. They may exceed their maximum salary level by 20% of one-third. Is that standard language we have in other? I'm not certain that that's
Speaker 206
59:59
standard language, but I think this does establish a limit on that because on the other side, I think they were allowed to establish those salaries. I'm not certain that there was a limit on those. But us as a legislature set those salary schedules at the max, correct? I think we do, but I think in that legislation that we passed,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:00:19
and we can get Secretary Hudson to come up and address, maybe he can address that more specifically than what I'm doing, but we gave them the authority to establish some of those salary ranges outside of the established schedules because they're not funded by GR. Okay, yeah, I may want to hear that. I guess we've... Secretary Hudson,
Speaker 206
1:00:34
if you don't mind, introduce yourself when you sit at the table. Whatever.
Speaker 209
1:00:40
I guess we've already done it, but... I'm glad you have time.
Speaker 186
1:00:51
Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA. So, again, keep in mind that in the last regular, we
Chair
Unverified
1:00:57
passed legislation that, you know, really kind of created a little bit of a separation for ADFA. It's a standalone agency. And they're a cash agency. they're not GR funded. The specific language that you're pointing to, very similar language that we have for leg audit, in that there is flexibility. They're not necessarily constrained to the state pay plan because they are independent, but we don't want it to be without constraints.
And so they can go above those maximum subject to the cap. And really the whole reason we're bringing this is even though they are independent as an agency, they're still our public agency, And we believe that constitutionally they should still be appropriated, the positions. I think the Constitution is clear about that. So that's why we have this language in front of you, just to make sure we've got that appropriation checked off. So
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:01:46
do we have that language in this exact language and other bills?
To be honest, it seems like to me it wouldn't be constitutional.
Chair
Unverified
1:01:55
No, it's similar to what we have for lottery as well because lottery is not an appropriated agency, but
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:02
we do appropriate the positions. And we allow them to go over our maximum level that the legislature sets? That one
Speaker 178
1:02:09
I'm not sure of. Yes, the answer I'm being told is
Chair
Unverified
1:02:14
yes. And again, you know, if we were to say that they've just got to follow the state pay plan, then we really are undoing what we did last year to, you know, set them up as an independent standalone agency.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:27
I guess you've answered my question. and maybe I missed that language in some of the others. Again, I just didn't know that we could allow anyone to exceed the maximums
that the General Assembly had done, so I guess that's my struggle with this one. And if I missed it on something else, that's
Chair
Unverified
1:02:45
on me. Well, you would be allowing it if you passed the language, and it's with y'all's consent that the maximums could be
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:51
exceeded and reported back. Yeah, but I don't think, and again, I'm no attorney here, but I don't think we can designate that to anyone else either.
And so, you know, I'm struggling a little bit there. But thank you
Speaker 206
1:03:02
for the explanation. And, Senator, I just think this more clearly defines what we had in that act that we passed last session. Members, are there any
other questions? Secretary Hudson for Representative Beatty. Seeing no further questions, do we have
a motion? Do we have a second? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion's adopted. Thank y'all. Thank you, committee. Thank
you. Members, that takes us to item 12, D12, pages 44 through 47.
This is Senator Mark Johnson. Senator, if you don't mind, when you get to the table, introduce
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:03:49
yourself, and you'll be recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Johnson, Senator, District 17. This is, this amendment is to clarify some things in the law. It's unclear, or we wouldn't be here.
It was brought to my attention, there is an organization, a faith-based organization, located across the river from my district in Perry County called the Renewal Ranch. And they are a faith-based alcohol and drug rehab program for young men. um there was some question brought up uh without belaboring the point a dhs uh questioned whether they were eligible their their their uh young men participating in the
program who were otherwise eligible for snap would be able to get this because they do pool their their resources uh renewal ranch has a chef there he cooks three meals a day seven days a week for the young men going through this program and somehow or another because of a I think an incorrect interpretation of something in the statute that was all called into question it kind of rose to a pretty high level because I know includes one of the supporters of the
organization includes you know our first gentleman and other people that former legislators and things that are very familiar with with their program and their success I called a friend of mine I grew up with and I knew her son had been through that program and I just called her I said are you comfortable with what they do and she said that Renewal Ranch saved my son's life so this is a great program I don't want them to be punished because of a kind of a bureaucratic glitch and not blaming anyone DHS because they have to interpret federal law and USDA on all
this. What this simply does, it adds one more eligible criteria. It says that, and there was a differentiation made, I don't necessarily agree, but it was made about a 12-step program, self-help program versus a faith-based program. I think if you are self-help, you might say, I need help. I want to help myself, but I'm leaning on Jesus Christ to help me. I don't think that's something the state should be splitting hairs over. However, the language
would add the words faith-based, and I'll read them specifically, faith-based treatment and recovery programs for substance abuse. And that would also, anyway, that's what it does. It simply clarifies what I think was implicit in the law and will allow them to continue to receive those SNAP benefits. Again, they're not given to an organization, they're
given to individuals who otherwise qualify and they choose to pool their resources to
get that. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Members, are
there any questions for Senator Johnson? Seeing
no questions, do we have a motion? Do we have a second? All those in favor say aye. opposed your motion is your amendment is adopted thank you thank you sir members that takes
us to the next item on the agenda I believe that's still you senator Johnson this would be item D 13 pages 48 through 50 amendment to House
Bill 1052 officer the treasurer you're recognized
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:07:36
to present this amendment Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a special language that deals with
compensation of a city director in a city of the first class with a city manager, former government. There's been some controversy in the news recently of a city, which is partially in my district, that a city director did not attend city board meetings and has not for over 24 months and has continued to be paid.
I've had a lot of constituents contact me with concerns about this, that it's one of those that ain't right type things. And so I asked for this amendment to be drawn to clarify that situation. In other words, you don't get paid unless you come to work. And it did set it at 90 days. In other words, if someone had an illness and they were absent for up to 90 days, that's understandable. It could happen to any one of us.
We see our friends in here sometimes that, you know, have had medical problems or such family issues. But this would say anything more than 90 days. You know, you don't get paid for the job you're not doing. That's the long and short of it. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:09:05
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The municipalities, the funds
Speaker 223
1:09:07
that a city director would be paid from, those are municipal funds, not state funds, correct?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:09:13
Yes, sir, but this is related to turn back. They receive general revenue from
the state. So if they were special, and cities are not special revenue agencies, if they were special revenue agencies, your point would be very well taken that we don't need to be sticking our nose in it. However, we send quite a bit of turn back to cities and counties, and this is just to try to make sure that the taxpayers are protected. What's the turn back that goes to the city of Little Rock?
I don't know that number off the top of my head. If you can share it with me, I'd be grateful. I'm not the one running the bill. Well, again, so the honest answer is I don't know. But considering it's the largest city in the state, I would think it's substantial. thank you senator thank you members do we
have any other questions for senator Johnson seeing no other questions
their motion to adopt the amendment we have a motion do we have a second I have a motion a second all those in favor say
aye opposed I'm sorry your amendment is not adopted
thank you I think that brings us to the next item the generalist I'll show you senator Johnson this is yes Thank you for putting it mostly close together. No, happy to get you efficiently through. Item D14, pages 51 through 55 of your packet. This is an amendment to House Bill 1037,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:10:43
State Board of Election Commissioners. You're recognized to present
your amendment. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the 2025 session, I sponsored and the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 608, which is now Act 991.
the bill passed the house 94 to 2 and it passed the senate 27 to 5 the bill requires that in in our forms of government that our three forms of government for municipalities that the mayor and our city officials be elected by majority which would be 50 percent plus one vote And since we have three separate forms of city government allowable in Arkansas by local option,
my intent for the legislation was to make sure that this applied to all of the forms of city government. However, because there's different sections in the code, a mistake on the part of BLR and the sponsor, me, I take my full blame for it. It did not include the section that included the managerial form of government. So why do I fix this? Well, by local option, the law allowed a municipality with a city manager form of government,
in this case Little Rock, to elect officials by what I consider an inappropriate formula. That is, if a candidate gets 40% of the vote plus one vote, then they are elected without having a majority, which, again, and this is theoretical, of course, but this is the way it would be under the law. Someone could have 59% of the voters not want that person to win that office, but they would win if they did that.
So instead of allowing, following the majority rule that we have had in just about everything we've ever done in Arkansas and most places in the country, instead of having a plurality, we have runoffs. And in most of these elections, it takes, it's four weeks later. So what this would do, it would, I consider it a cleanup bill because it would implement the same things that were in Act 991 for every form of government in Arkansas and local localities.
So it's a, some people might not see it as a cleanup bill, but if we had, if I had correctly crafted that bill in 2025, this would not have been necessary. So I appreciate the members of the General Assembly, again, reminding you of the House 94-2 and the Senate 27-5. But now let's make that apply to every municipality in the state, regardless of which form of government they choose. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Members, are there any questions for Senator Johnson on this amendment? Seeing
no questions, do we have a motion? We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Sorry, your
amendment has failed. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I have one coming up later. I'll be back. Okay, thank you. We'll give
you a break. Members, next up on the agenda is Representative Wardlaw. This is item D15. I want to say to the members in the audience that there's an issue coming up next on the agenda after Representative Wardlaw.
I know a lot of people are here today interested in that issue. they were kind enough to create space in the room so we can meet fire code if you've been here most of the morning and this issue is not something you're particularly here for issue or interested in I would appreciate the opportunity we're gonna pause and give time for the room to adjust its composition if people want to try to come in
and come out I want to give them the opportunity to do that after representative Ward laws presented as Assuming Representative Wardlaw is here.
Sorry, hold on. Senator Dismayne, are you here to present for Representative Wardlaw? Yes.
We welcome you to come to the table and present. Thank you. I'm certain
that Representative Wardlaw appreciates it, too. Oh, sorry. Sorry. And I see now that I have looked at 1007 and see there are two amendments there.
One of those is Representative Mayberry. It's one of them is Senator Irvin's. I know both of those generated interest will still pause at that time and give people a chance to move around. Senator Dismayne, you're recognized to present item D15 on pages
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:15:35
56 through 59. All right, and there's probably other members on this committee
that can have a much better discussion about what this is than I can. Representative Wardlaw had to leave and ask me if I would present the amendment. This is my understanding, and I will quote,
an oversight from when the original legislation was filed is going to allow local governments to also participate in these cooperative agreements for purchasing. That's my understanding of the bill. If there is an expert that could go farther, that's probably who needs to be at the
table. members is there any questions around this uh does anyone have any questions that yeah senator bryant you're recognized thank you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:16:17
mr thank you mr chair maybe maybe it's after the motion for discussion just to unpack how a public school behaves which we're going to move to allow
cities to behave just to clarify for me because i know public schools have tips and taps and they've got different partnerships is that i guess the question for discussion or maybe the sponsor knows is that what we're allowing them to jump into those type of agreements
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:16:43
or form their own agreements yeah exactly it opens
up what we allowed for schools for municipalities to also participate in that's the way i
Speaker 227
1:16:53
read the amendment is there anyone here from
department shared services. Does anyone have
Chair
Unverified
1:17:08
any more questions? Representative Evans, you're recognized. I'll
make a motion, do pass, get a second, then
we can start discussion. We have a motion, a
second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Bryant,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:17:22
you're recognized for discussion on the motion yeah just just to have the discussion i think a complaint that i've received from from if we're talking about just construction is a lot of times the local our local businesses are overlooked because these larger corporations from out of state jump into these pots of programs and co-ops and we get to bypass a little bit of procurement to make it easier to grab these
services whenever the services were being offered right down the street and I know my answer them was we'll go jump in those hoops and be eligible for those programs and they might pick you because you might have lower overhead costs because you're local and then of course the discussions come on well why can't you just pick local and remove the procurement law so I would just know that that is an issue that is often talked about within public schools they like their programs the co-ops like their programs but as we open these up into this into your local governments i can just see my phone ringing a little bit more
of not an abuse just an overlook of what resources are are available locally yeah
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:18:28
representative evans thank you mr chairman yes so currently um the language that was passed back during the session what that did do was was give public schools there was a some gray area in audit we cleaned that up with this act back during the legislation to allow schools to participate in the tips taps cooperative buying programs which allowed them to maximize their spending while giving them the leniency of utilizing local companies because they have
past experiences with them accessibility quicker to provide services etc the language we thought was broad enough to make sure that it included municipalities however audit felt that it wasn't So this is just clean up language to make sure with legislative intent back during the original legislation to make sure that municipalities also had that same ability to use the tip-tap cooperative buying program, maximize their spending while giving them the flexibility to utilize local talent.
On the school side, we did put that if at any time that project was going to exceed a million dollars, they have to come, they have to file for a waiver. They come before ALC Executive Sub, explain and ask for that waiver, and then ALC Executive Subcommittee can grant that waiver to allow them to go over that $1 million. And we did that to just get a better feel to make sure that we knew exactly how, you know, if it was a large purchase like that, that we would be aware and knew how much of that was going on across the state for audit purposes.
And so I feel like over the last year that that's worked very well. we've probably had five or six school districts from across the state that have come and asked for those waivers I think the utilization of that from the municipalities will be about the same so thank
you that's good discussion this permissive language is clarifying legislative intent around what was intended by the original drafters of the language members are there any other questions
or discussion seeing none do we have a motion motion do we have a second motion a second all those in favor say aye opposed that's have it
amendment is adopted members we're gonna pause just a moment and again I'm not
anyone that's in a seat I'm not kicking you out of your seat I'm just I know there's a lot of people that have voluntarily left the room so if you don't have a particular interest in this particular issue we're gonna be hearing two amendments to House Bill 1007 that both deal with the Department of Education so I'm going to give just a few minutes here for the room to reshuffle if members want to go to the restroom you have to come back go chair
Unknown speaker
1:21:25
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, if we can start working our way back to our chairs, we'll resume shortly.
members we're gonna we're gonna begin shortly I'll give members just a couple of more minutes to come back in and set at your chairs
if you're out in the area doing a restroom break I understand it's a long meeting
Members we're going to resume. Representative Mayberry, y'all are at
the table. If y'all don't mind both introducing yourselves. Senator Kroll, District 3. Thank you, Senator. State Representative Julie Mayberry. Thank you, Representative. You're recognized to present your amendment. Okay. Do we have enough
here? I think we'll press on. Okay. Okay. Members are starting to move back in. I'm doing the best we can here to get everybody moving along.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:25:28
Okay. Members, I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible. I just want
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:25:36
to explain what this amendment actually will do. So currently we have 3,000 children, over 3,000, on a waiting list to receive early childhood education in the state of Arkansas. And what this amendment does is it will open up 1,500 slots. So about half of that waiting list so that our children can receive the care that their families need and that they need.
The other part of this would increase the rate for our ABC programs to the reimbursement rate of at least 75% of the current market rate. You may not be aware, but our ABC programs currently receive $28 a day. Our other early childhood education programs receive either $33 or $36 a day based on the age of the child.
The 36 is the infant and toddler care. This would equalize that. So trying to simplify some programs as we have moved our early childhood education from DHS to our Department of Education, I think that there will be some more things that will simplify some of those programs because it can get a little bit confusing, but that's essentially what this does. It increases the funding. ABC programs have not had a significant increase in funding since 2008.
I just want you to think for a second how a small business can survive off of the funding that they received in 2008 in today's terms. That's what we're talking about, and I would appreciate a good vote. I'd be happy to take any questions, and feel free to,
Speaker 242
1:27:22
as a co-sponsor, do you want to add anything? No,
Okay. We'll see if it works. Beautiful eye candy. Members, do we have questions for Representative Mayberry?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:27:39
Senator Hill, you recognize your question. What's the estimated total cost of this? The estimated total cost is about $22 million. Where is it going to come from? So in our Educational Adequacy Fund, we currently have over $800 million, and that fund will continue to increase because it's based on not income taxes. It's based on sales taxes and a variety of other things. I can pull it all out for you if you want all the details, but that fund will continue to always increase.
On July 1, the department is going to transfer some money to cover a lot of our educational needs. About $500 million is already being planned to move over, which would leave over $300 million still sitting there. I believe that it is absolutely an important decision to transfer an extra $22 million to take care of this need. Thank you. The money is there. Thank you for the question. Senator Disman, you're recognized.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:28:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a ton of talk about LEARNS taking away from the dollars that are available for public education. My understanding, I mean, we're going to utilize the adequacy dollars on a non-adequacy program, a non-public school program. And are you okay? I've heard, I think, even in your questioning that you're not okay with the way that we're spending those dollars and where they're going. LEARNS does not use anything out of the Adequacy Fund.
You're actually going to pull $22 million out of the Adequacy Fund,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:29:16
and that's something you're comfortable with. So, first of all, we already have state funds going towards early childhood education in the ABC program. Out of the Adequacy Fund. This is not the SRA program, which is federally funded, which we had a lot of discussion with in the fall. As you all probably got the e-mails and the text and the questions during that time, and we had a crisis. This is what I feel in this fiscal session is a good first step
towards solving some of the problems that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:29:51
we have. I think me restate it because I don't think it was very clear. There's a
lot of discussion about pulling money away that is for public schools. I think you've participated in that discussion. this directly pulls money that is directly raised and allocated for public schools from the fund that is for public schools are you okay with taking away money that would have otherwise been available
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:30:20
for public schools so actually about 75 percent of the funds will go back to
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:30:26
the public schools for this because that's where the majority of the providers for abc currently is located, about 25% would be the, you know, private care providers, the community providers. And I'm just going to pull up here, and if we're talking about learns, this is straight from the department, okay? This is what I'm reading from. This is from the Department of Early Childhood Education. and I think if we really care about improving K through 12 education
and if we really care about having third graders reading, take a look at what, I mean, I can give you a whole bunch of national statistics and studies and all that, but this is from our department, okay? I'm going to tell you what it says here. statewide ABC pre-k for children demonstrated gains in each assessed domain by the end of the 23-24 school year with at least 70 percent scoring proficient now let me dig a little bit deeper into
what that means so children coming in to the pre-k program starting off I'm just going to use that that 70% marker there, at the beginning of the year, 12% were proficient. By the end of the year in that program, according to our own numbers, 70% were proficient, ready to start kindergarten. Let's look at some of the others. That was under mathematical thinking. Under language and literacy,
we want children reading right they come in at the beginning of the year 18 percent proficient by the end of the year 74 percent proficient ready to start kindergarten so that we can make sure that they're reading by third grade and so I feel absolutely like what I'm asking for today helps the LEARNS Act. I've said many times one of the things that I truly valued about the LEARNS
Act was that we were moving it away from the Department of Human Services and moving it to the Department of Education so that we can start looking at the importance of understanding that learning begins, quite honestly, in my opinion, learning begins in the womb. I read to my children. I sang to my children in the womb and the most important area of brain development our brain develops the most in the earliest of years and so yes do I think this is important absolutely
and do I think that it meets exactly what the learns act does when you look at the learns in early childhood again I'm reading from from our own department's words all children enter kindergarten ready to learn and prepared for lifelong success as a result of their experiences in high quality early care and education i believe this matches up perfectly thank you for that
answer senator dismay you you're what recognized for your question sorry all right so there's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:33:54
lots of discussion about how the learns money is taking away from
that's available for public education. This, so far, will be the only instance in utilizing the justification of learns that we're directly taking away dollars that are available to public education via learns. Okay, it's okay. I am supportive of the ABC program, but I'm asking you, do you acknowledge that this takes away dollars that would otherwise be eligible for public schools?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:34:28
I really thought I just explained that it brings money to the public
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:34:34
schools. 75%, I think is
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:34:37
what you said. I was paying attention. And brings in the students who are going to do better in our public school education. We already spend state dollars through ABC programming, without a doubt. That money is already there. this does not affect SRA that's a whole whole other issue so I just felt like this was a very
good first step are there some issues that maybe could be addressed in 2027 yes but this is a fiscal session and I felt like this was a good first step to help our foundation is cracking and i
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:35:23
also i also feel that this is probably in the long run saving public schools money because we're not going to have to put resources in to try and get these kids caught up absolutely
Speaker 40
1:35:35
members are there other questions for senator the representative seeing no
other questions do we have a motion do we have a second we have a motion second all all those in favor is there
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:35:53
discussion on the motion senator you are recognized for
discussion again so i mean i just want to point out that these dollars are designated for public schools there's been lots of conversation amongst lots of members that are very concerned about the dollars that are supposedly being taken away from public schools out of general revenue
these are dollars that are actually raised specifically for public schools that we are going to divert to another program this isn't an argument about the value of the ABC program but I would like us to be consistent thank you
members is there any more discussion seeing no more discussion all those in favor
say aye opposed I'm sorry your amendment is not adopted thank you members that moves us
on to the next item on the agenda again if there's someone in the room that was here specifically for this item that we just concluded with representing Mayberry and Senator Corral if if you could make space I know there are members out people outside that would like to come in and hear the issue that Senator Irvin is about to if you don't mind introducing yourself with the committee, Senator Irvin, as people are changing their seats.
It looks like people are settling. If you'd
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:37:38
state your name for the committee, you'd be recognized to present. Thank you. Senator Missy Irvin, I represent district 24. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. This amendment to HB 1007 adds sections special language to revise Arkansas code to address specific funding needs for new isolated public school districts in the state. Specifically, the issues that have arisen that must be immediately addressed in order for these schools to begin school in August are millage rate, transfer
of buses and personal property, division of the funding and debt, the permission to begin student enrollment, making sure that existing board vacancies are preserved, those existing members for the time certain, and a timeline of events so that they can be ready to operate come August 1. It also revises the emergency clause to add that these sections will become effective upon passage and immediately upon approval. What this amendment does
is allows for these schools that have formed isolated school districts to open August the 1st. Without passing this amendment that you have before you today, then the schools that were formed under act 919 will not be able to open and educate the kids that they're currently educating today in those classrooms come august 1 2026 which is what act 919 allowed for that was unanimously passed by this legislature and signed by the governor elections took place in march of
this year. And those people voted in those communities at a rate of 91% in approval, 90%, 91% and greater for those communities to save those schools. These are isolated schools that exist in the state of Arkansas that are currently operating. And what that vote did in March was that it said we want these schools to be open operational and to be able to be their own
new school district without this amendment in this language the department of education cannot adequately or equitably fund those students for the upcoming school year beginning august 1 of 2026 the department of education needs statutory clarity on how these funds should be distributed based on the formation of these new school districts. That's why this amendment is immediately necessary for us to consider and pass, and I'm asking you to vote to save these
schools so that they can begin school in August. There's been a lot of discussion about the funding. My parameters given to the Department of Education when I asked them to write this language was that number one it be student focused and student centered because the money follows the student we have affirmed that principle through the passage of learns and through everything that we have done I said that anything within this bill had to be fair to all students concerned no matter where they went to school second was that it needed to be fair to all schools
so that all schools would be able to function as they are functioning today we believe that those parameters and that funding mechanism is fair according to the department of education's figures and numbers of those schools finances they will be able to be open everybody will be able to function including the new isolated school districts you also have the availability of declining enrollment funding which the existing districts can and will receive at the end of that
school year so I really believe with what we have in place that no school will be hurt or harmed but that all schools will be able to be open come August 1 to educate those kids and without agreements that cannot happen we had act 919 i did not specifically prescribe a settlement a detachment agreement because my hope was people would come together and negotiate that for
themselves and sadly that did not occur however in the language of this amendment that can still happen they can still come together and make those amendment those agreements but in certain cases that has failed and we cannot allow for stalling tactics bad faith negotiations to to close schools or to starve them out and not be able to operate so there is no date certain for those negotiations to take place without this amendment we in the department of our the state
of Arkansas, the Department of Education, must have clarity as soon as possible so that these schools can be ready to operate and open come August and teach those kids. We're talking about communities that went to the polls in March and voted overwhelmingly to save their schools. And that is why you do see this in special language, because without this clarity, the department of education cannot fund those new schools that were formed by the vote of the people
so i will answer any questions the department of education has been phenomenal we have some cases i will comment jasper and kingston have done a fabulous job of negotiating and working together and that can still proceed under language that has been preserved in this bill that they have the ability to meet reach their own agreements that it's reasonable with each other if they agree but unfortunately in other cases you've gotten a lot of emails unfortunately those negotiations
fell apart and did not occur and so we as a state must allow for there to be some clarity here so that these schools can open come august one and that is my ask so it's student funded money follows the student so that these votes by the people in march can be respected and that these schools can open august 1 and educate their kids and those teachers on those campuses can keep their jobs and that it's fair to all involved and that no school existing or new will be harmed
that was my ask to the department of education they crafted this language for me and i feel confident in greg rogers and courtney silas ford and daniel schultz that they have put forward an amendment that is fair and appropriate and immediately necessary for these kids to be able to start school in august i'm happy to answer any questions and the department is here also to answer questions thank you senator tecker you're recognized thank you mr chair first i just want to say senator ervin i know how
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:44:56
much work that you've put into this and i just really respect
you know the work and the effort that you've put into it um i know i'm gonna have some questions for mr rogers uh but i can just ask you and you made reference to this senator i know some of the negotiations have progressed further than the others like specifically jasper and kingston have made good progress and i i'm looking at language here and it says you know nothing in this prohibits an existing district in an isolated school district from reaching their own agreement as to the division of property and money and and that's that's preserved in this so even if this passes Jasper and Kingston could still pursue the same agreement that they were pursuing before this
this becomes law if it passes is that right yes that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:45:38
was the intention for the added this language to be added yeah okay all right thank you and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:45:42
I'll have a question for Mr. Rogers at the appropriate time is Mr. Rogers here where he can come and answer
a question somewhere from Desi he may be out in the hall as he's waiting to come
is there anyone else has a question for Senator Irvin Senator Bryant you're recognized yeah I'll just I'll tag on to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:46:06
what Senator Tucker said if this language were to pass
and you have two districts working on an agreement but now the language passes and the language becomes now more advantageous for one over the other is anything no longer buying them to the agreement they've been working on and one just jump off board and start working on what you're passing yeah if i can have courtney salas ford
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:46:26
i think it's a better person to answer that because this language was specific specific okay so i see the two of them approaching
the table if that if you don't mind introducing yourself for the committee
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:38
when you get seated greg rogers department education courtney salas ford department of education senator tecker you're recognized for your question thank you mr chair the sales ford i was trying to let you out of it but senator bryant you know he had to ask another question so i think obviously whoever wants to answer these questions um i'm good with it most of my questions are numbers related
so that's why uh so i understand in the legislation that this this
the isolated school districts that are detaching are going to receive 90 of the funding from from this past school year is that correct so do you have what those numbers are for jasper mountain
Speaker 267
1:47:22
view in cost dot yes i guess he's going to let me do it this time okay so if if all of the students who are currently attending kingston umpire rural special in timbo go to the newly established isolated school districts at the 90 is that the number you're asking for yes okay so that would
be 1.39 million for kingston 676 000 for umpire 1.5 million for rural special
Speaker 271
1:47:48
and 1.39 million for timbo okay just a couple follow-up questions mr chair with your indulgence
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:54
uh that 90 is that just of the state money or is that state and local money it's 90 of the foundation funding
Speaker 274
1:48:04
amount that you all set in in statute okay so it's inclusive of both
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:10
the local millage amount and the amount that comes from the state yes okay um okay
two more questions the last numbers question
and that is i want to make sure that same intent as senator ervin i want to make sure that everybody is taken care of right and so for the school districts that these
isolated districts are detaching from do they have funds available to cover those amounts and if they don't are there funds available at ade to make sure that they are made whole and that they're not you know suffering a big financial hardship as a
Speaker 279
1:48:40
result of this so we have looked at the fund balance of all one of all three of these districts and if you look at their operations and building funds they all do
have sufficient funding um however at senator ervin's request we did look to see if there was other funding we could make available and we did identify a consolidation incentive fund that has been unutilized for many years that we could try to assist the existing school districts if paying out these amounts causes a significant fiscal distress issue with them okay what's the fund balance of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:49:16
that 5.9 million okay okay that's
very helpful thank you last question is can the
isolated school districts can they detach without this legislation
Speaker 279
1:49:28
i mean legally they can detach but they would not have sufficient funding to be
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:36
able to operate. Okay. All right. Thank you all very much. If I can add to the numbers of what under the negotiations have been given, I believe it's, where is that? 17,000.
so the Kingston was $31,332 umpire $49,517 rural special $40,304 and Timbo $17,452 that's not sufficient funding to be able to begin school come August 1 for the teachers or for anybody so it essentially closes the schools that's why this amendment in this language is
critically important but they also will but also the existing districts can qualify for declining enrollment funding as well and i don't have those specific numbers but that's something that would be a question to them thank you senator hill you recognize for your question
thank you mr chair over here Senator
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:50:47
Tucker kind of touched on this I'm just going to go straight to the point with it if this amendment does not pass
will these schools be able to open at all and explain a little detail if they can
Speaker 279
1:51:06
how to do it and if they can't how it will work so again from a legal standpoint they can establish themselves as a school district but the funding that Senator Irvin just read it would be the amount of funding that they would have in our opinion you cannot feasibly open and operate a school district with seventeen thousand dollars or thirty four thousand dollars any of the
amounts that she read you could not hire a superintendent
Speaker 271
1:51:31
you could not hire teachers you couldn't provide lunch all of the things that are necessary in order to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:51:43
operate a school thank you senator bryant you're recognized thank you mr. chair just to repeat my question about because there's two separate numbers there's the 90 of foundation funding which was significant enough to probably operate a school for the fiscal year and then there's the negotiations where they're agreed upon or not yet not yet agreed upon so if this measure passes those
school districts that have an agreed upon number that senator urban said could they now walk away from that agreement seeing as how your rules make it more advantageous for the detached school to operate if they already have a signed and
Speaker 279
1:52:17
executed agreement if they were to try to break that then the other district could obviously try to enforce that in a civil action so I wouldn't want to do that if I were them but if they do not have a current signed executed agreement then they could
essentially say we're ending negotiations and going to follow the statute okay
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:52:38
do you have the numbers for the the schools that are being detached from do
you have the numbers that they could make up through additional funding for declining enrollment or any other programs that try to
Speaker 279
1:52:53
make them attempt to make them whole we have very very vague estimates on declining enrollment funding um i know but i think were you asking about the existing school districts so
Speaker 267
1:53:10
jasper casa taught mountain view yes okay so if they if all of the students who are currently attending the isolated schools leave and go to those isolated districts um then jasper would receive approximately 18,000 in declining enrollment funding rural special approximately 3,000 Timbo approximately 43,000
Speaker 292
1:53:41
I'm looking for that like them like Mountain View if they have a
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:53:46
thousand kids leave like and that's declining enrollment what would they what could they be eligible to receive for in a backstop that's
Speaker 290
1:53:53
what i just read sorry hold on a second so
Speaker 296
1:54:07
what she what she was talking about was the declining enrollment that the parent districts would be eligible to receive if if that same number of kids
does are the ones that leave and go go to the new existing districts that's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:54:22
the decline enrollment numbers okay okay what was what was mountain views did you add the two schools together to get mountain views uh it'd be
Speaker 267
1:54:28
about 46 000 okay thank you members are
there any other questions for either the department representative evans you're recognized for a question thank you mr chair uh
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:54:42
greg i just want to clarify uh some numbers maybe you're recording one either one who has the data in front of them
So the current total exposure, if this amendment passes to Mountain View, if the amendment passes, what is the total financial exposure that they would have that they would be paying where the money would follow the child at the 90% rate to the other two districts combined? It'd be about $2.8 million. $2.8 million. And what is their current fund balances based on current third quarter ADM?
Speaker 300
1:55:19
So, at the end, right now they have, right now there was about $6.2 million in total building
Speaker 304
1:55:28
fund and operating. They ended last fiscal year with around $5.5 million in total. Does the 5.5 ending, that
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:55:34
was their ending balance at the end of the previous school year. Yes. They probably moved some of that over into the building fund. Right.
Then when school starts back up, they move that back. You're saying current total fund balances are just a little north of $6 million.
Does that include any bond funding, or does that include any potential CDs that they may have in the bank where they've set aside money? No, we took out the
Speaker 296
1:56:00
QSAB balances, anything they had in there out of that. So
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:56:03
this is actual true operating cash that's in their fund balance? Yes. Okay. Okay, so there seems to be a lot of misinformation, and a lot of that just comes from perception, right?
You know, I have probably had no less than 150 emails from Mountain View stakeholders in the last 24 hours. I have had no less than probably 50 phone calls from Mountain View stakeholders in the last 24 hours. I've been getting text messages right now from Mountain View stakeholders that may be here today. There's a whole lot of Yellow Jackets here in the crowd. So this is – but none of these other schools are here. If they are, I'm not aware of it. Oh, got one back there.
But we've got a whole lot of people here from Mountain View for some reason. and and as i have tried to talk through some to some of those stakeholders it seems that they feel like that they're someone is sharing with them that their financial position today is much more grave than what you are telling us and as i've watched the body language and the heads nodding and the frustration that i see in the faces back here what i see is people who are very deeply vested in their public school district school must be out today because they've
got a bunch of kids here today so not sure that the kids really know why they're here but they're here nevertheless and they're they're they're wearing their proud blue but somewhere from somebody whether it's i'm not being accusatory superintendent school board president teachers association somebody is pumping information into that community that their financial position if this happens is much more grave than what you're telling us you're also telling us that if this
does bring any financial hardship and it is accurate and noteworthy the department has funding available to make that work that also works for the other side of this issue if timbo or real special or umpire or whoever when school starts back up because at the end of the day what we're arguing about here today is money and we're not we're not talking about kids and that that is very troublesome to me so we've got districts that are on the other side of this issue who feel like that they are now in a position to provide a very good education and keep the tradition of their standalone
school however when those doors open in august there's going to be unforeseen expenses and you're telling us today that you have funding because the total overall exposure that you shared with me there was about five the numbers that courtney read was about five million dollars but you've got a fund setting over here that's got today close to 5.9 million in it that you're telling us would could be available to assist those districts if there's any hardship am i correct yes okay so where is this disconnect you as the chief financial officer of the department of
education who knows these numbers where is this disconnect of what's being shared to us through email blast and group text messages and and
Speaker 302
1:59:16
what you're telling where's the disconnect that's a hard i don't i don't know where it is
Speaker 296
1:59:23
i can just look at what's in asking right now and just tell you what the fund balances for those districts are right now which is what we've read off to you and then the impact that we see that it will have for the not as a special language for that passes in there but in giving it that's why we went through our discussions that we did have
We did say that the Consolidated Incentive Fund, with the change of the rules, the $5.9 million that's sitting there, could be available if they are having something that might jeopardize the financial integrity of the district. Anything that would assist for this one-year transfer, that $5.9 million is sitting there that we could utilize for that.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:00:02
Okay. And that 90% that they would be required through this amendment to pay to the isolated districts,
that's not a today we're going to write the check. There's quarterly payments that's made on that.
Is that correct? I believe they could. I don't want to borrow her law degree, but I think they could. Certain payment due on July, certain payment due in December or something like that. Yes. Would it require, for this fund, this $5.9 million that you've got over here in one of your buckets, will that require any legislative action in order for those districts to access those funds if they need
Speaker 267
2:00:36
financial assistance through this? No, it would not require legislative action. We will have to amend our rules, which we can do at the senator's request in an emergency status.
bring those to you, um, ALC in June. So by
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:00:48
an action of ALC, uh, ALC executive subcommittee can even approve that emergency rule. And that's good for 160 days, 90 days. Yeah, I think it's 120 days, 120 days till, till it could be handled through the actual rulemaking process by which you would prioritize to take care of these districts. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And if
Speaker 267
2:01:10
I may just because i want to clarify i know not everyone is as familiar with school funding and
mr rogers made the point of we got these numbers from app scan which is the state's computer network where school districts are required
Speaker 279
2:01:21
to report their data and so the data that we have is what the schools have reported if it's incorrect it's because the school districts reported it incorrectly so it is difficult for us to say where there's a disconnect if the school districts are saying this is not what they have but this is what they reported to us senator dismay you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:01:43
recognize your question i'm just trying to make sure i understand this there's 2.9 million that's 90 of the foundation funding that would leave mountain view go to the
other school districts i think was the amount and then we have declining enrollment because those kids leave and that's not anywhere close to the 2.9 if i was hearing it earlier walk me through what I'm missing there on the difference
between what they're going to receive is declining enrollment for losing those kids and the $2.9 million that's
Speaker 267
2:02:15
at 90% of the foundation funding. Maybe. So I'm just going to, for ease, use numbers. So Kingston voted to detach from Jasper.
So under the proposed language, Kingston would receive $1.3 million from Jasper. Jasper would then receive $18,000 in declining enrollment funding plus whatever local tax revenue generated for that year is. Any amount above that is
Speaker 279
2:02:37
where we could look at our consolidation incentive funding and see if we can help soften the blow some. Senator Bryant, you recognize.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:02:54
Thank you. is there any when was the last time the state stood up a new public
Speaker 279
2:03:03
school i can't say stood up a new public school several years ago um the jacksonville north pulaski now school district detached from previous pulaski county school district um that's the closest thing that we can liken this to before that would have been way before my time so when when that
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:03:21
happened was there a struggle between the separation or was there i'm looking to see
is there is there any funds available for treating this as a new school even though it's attached and or they consolidated 20 some years ago and now they're separating can one be treated as a new school and be access to have access to funds well that's where
Speaker 279
2:03:44
we're saying we could use the consolidation incentive funding if we amend our rules we could use it for this scenario In the case of Jacksonville and Pulaski County, they went through very intense negotiations, but they eventually reached an agreement, and so nothing had to be dictated.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:04:01
Okay, but there's no fund balances available for new schools. So if a community came to you and said, hey, we're going to start our own public
Speaker 279
2:04:10
school, you just give them a thumbs up, good luck? No, there's a whole lot more in place, but we wouldn't
Chair
Unverified
2:04:15
have any funding to give them. Okay, all right, thanks. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:20
you recognize? Thank you. So it's 2.9 for Mountain View, 1.3 for Jasper. What was the number for cost of time?
$676,000. Okay. So the 5.9 in that fund is available. It would be up to those amounts because there's other declining enrollments
and there's other maybe pots of money, but there's enough there to cover to make sure everyone is made whole if there
Speaker 279
2:04:42
is a shortfall. We believe there's enough there to ensure that no one's fiscal integrity is jeopardized. Okay.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:04:50
i just want to add that it's important to understand what is existing in the fund balances and those fund balances are owned by the entire school district which includes tembo and rule special and mountain view there's three schools that exist within a mountain
school district and so any fund balance again is the student's money and so it is appropriate i think to understand why we brought this language forward because those fund balances are there to educate children and it's not just solely owned by one school out of the three schools that make up the school district and so the only way to be fair about this is to calculate that on a per
student basis and then appropriate that school and for that school to the the number of students that are at those three different schools and that's that is the model that we've put forward and it's also the model that we use for EFA funding so it's not just a random number that we picked out of the sky we actually try to use what we employ already in school funding to make
sure that it was done fairly and along the same principles as we fund EFA through learns and any other schools so there is reason for all of the language in this amendment including definitions that are really really critical in order to make sure that those students have desks and chairs and food and accommodations of technology, iPads, textbooks, et cetera. So the funding is critically important, but, again, it's not just something that came out of thin air.
It was based on their fund balances. And I will tell you, before I even filed Act 919 that was passed by this General Assembly, I asked the Department of Education, I don't want to set these people up for failure, so let's pull their financial information and make sure that this could work. before I even ran the bill to let these schools become isolated school districts, I didn't want anybody to get hurt. I am here to fight for rural public schools and for those kids to be able to have their education of their school choice,
even if it's at Umpire or Kingston or Timbo or Rural Special or Mountain View or Jasper or Cossatot. I want them all to survive. I want all the teachers to have their jobs and I want those kids to be able to return back to their classrooms that they're sitting in right now today except for the the ones that aren't here that are here with us today so thank you for the questions yeah thank you again what I said at
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:44
the start I know how much you put into this and the department and you know I commend you all for the
work that you've done purpose of my question was just to make sure that if there is a shortfall we got the money available I know it's very complex financially so but yes thank you so much senator yeah absolutely senator hickey you recognize yes sir i'd like
to move do pass we have a motion in a second is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all those in favor say aye opposed no your moment your amendment is adopted thank you thank you
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:08:28
Senator Irvin you have the next one up
members we have eight more items on the agenda as I count so it's going to be a little bit of time working through this I don't know that we'll be finished by one but we'll do our best we're probably my intention right now unless the committee says different is to work right up to the hour of one and get as
close as we can to being done if we have to come back after we can. Senator Irvin,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:09:02
you're recognized. Thank you. Members, this amendment
simply adds emergency services medical providers as one of those health care professionals who can accept a surrendered baby. I spoke with the Department of Health about this. The reason why we have it brought forward in special language is because there's some funding opportunities this year for the safe haven baby boxes for emergency services providers to apply for that want to pursue that funding that's why it's in special language right now to add emergency
service medical providers as one of those health care professionals that can qualify for the safe haven baby boxes and to be able to accept a surrendered baby happy to answer any questions members seeing no questions we have a motion and seconds during discussion on
the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye your your amendment is adopted thank you thank you members we're
gonna we had passed over senator pinzo he had some things he was preparing
i believe he's ready to present if that's okay you can go ahead and come to the table senator
and We'll move along. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:10:37
If you don't mind saying your name for... Senator Clint Penzo. You're recognized. Thank you. members this is a technical fix to existing law regarding the medicaid diagnostic lab cap
members and i'm sorry that i've lost track
of the pages so we're going
back this is just for everybody's clarification this is this is d6 on page 19 through
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:11:00
21 19 through 21 last session the legislature adopted a policy to allow additional diagnostic testing beyond the $500 cap. However, the way it was drafted created a distinction that does not align with federal Medicaid requirements, so it has not been fully implementable. This language corrects that by
removing the diagnosis-based distinction and instead allowing the cap to be exceeded up to $1,800, and this is only when medically necessary and under criteria set by DHS. You may hear a fiscal estimate from DHS that reflects a higher potential cost. It is important to understand that number represents a maximum exposure, assuming significantly increased utilization. This is not a blanket increase. The cap only increases when DHS determines it is medically necessary.
And DHS retains full control over utilization through its criteria and prior authorization process. so in practice this remains a targeted controlled policy not an across-the-board expansion at the end of the day this aligns state law with federal requirements and allows the policy we already passed to actually function I'd appreciate your support members are there questions for Senator Penzo senator mckee you recognize do you have
a fiscal impact statement on this one
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:12:32
um i do um i got up this morning thinking this was just a technical correction and i found out a few minutes before the meeting that there was a fiscal impact The fiscal impact that DHS provided has approximately a $4.6 million match, and this assumes a worst-case scenario that all 12,195 recipients that hit that $500 cap
go all the way up to the $1,800 cap. So it looks at the full $1,300 differential across the board. What it does not allow for is the language we've put in here that says that allows them to determine to be medically necessary in accordance with the criteria established by DHS. So I think there's guardrails that allow them still to determine what is medically necessary.
that 4.6 is kind of a worst-case scenario if it's completely utilized without guardrails Senator Bryant you recognize thank you mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:13:48
chair so when we when we passed this originally a few months ago or a year ago we had a fiscal impact on that and whatever it was we sent it off for approval and they came back and said no because it doesn't line with the language what did we not
know then the cost wise that they're saying now costs more my understanding
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:14:14
and like I said that's kind of why we passed this over was so I could wrap my head around what what the issue was but apparently it has to do with a parity issue you can't just limit it to a certain category of diagnostic testing it has to be expanded across the entire board but like i said there's language in here that says that they can determine dhs can set parameters on if it's medically necessary or not so um but yeah it
was it was a parody issue kind of like the the dental bill uh you know that ended up with some unintended consequences but this actually has guardrails in it so initially
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:55
when you passed passed the bill and became law they just looked at it as a single a single entity and the fiscal was that because
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:15:03
that's how it was written but apparently uh it has to be broader it has to be broader you can't separate
out just that one section that was in the bill okay and then for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:15:15
can you give me like a fact scenario on like who who is impacted by not being able to receive these services because of the cost or can't be recoverable versus who is getting the funding what was the question like a fact scenario of how this works in real real practice like I know we're just billing we're asking for billing to go up from 500 to 1800 but at the end of the day what is a process or a disadvantaged group that is receiving these benefits that would not otherwise
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:15:48
Well, when it was chronic pain testing, I guess for an example, there could be testing done to make sure that, you know, they're not overutilization of medications. Under this scenario here, it could be any kind of diagnostic testing that would be required to make sure that somebody doesn't have any issues that could hospitalize them. I mean, so arguably, this could end up saving Medicaid money to catch things before they go too far
and somebody's hospitalized or, even worse, dies of an issue. So, I mean, it could be so
Chair
Unverified
2:16:31
many different scenarios. Okay. All right. Thank you. Representative Garner, you're recognized.
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
2:16:46
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Penzo. I wanted to expound on that just a little bit. Do we have any way to know how much these diagnostic tests are saving by diagnosing earlier? I mean, I happen to be a cancer nurse, so I do know how important these diagnostic tests, but there's no, is there any way that we can figure out?
I know this is a big fiscal impact, but what is the fiscal impact of us not doing these diagnostic tests in the long run, and how can
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:17:20
we figure that out? I mean, that's a great point that, you know, it would be nice to know what that number looks like if we don't figure things out early and let the conditions exacerbate and end up costing the system more money. I don't know how you would calculate that. Um, if, uh, if, if I'd had a little bit more preparation time, you know, if I'd known the
dynamic of, of the situation before a few minutes before the meeting, I might've been able to come up with a better answer for you. But I mean, that's, that's a tough, that's, that's the question we ask every time we run a bill in public health. It's, you know, what, what kind of impact does this do? And there's really no way to, um, just like this fiscal impact, it's, it's an estimate. I mean, it's a worst-case scenario estimate on, you know, full utilization. Do I think that's going to be the real number? Absolutely not.
Depends what kind of guardrails DHS puts on the issue. And the language allows them to set the guardrails. So I think it could be much lower, and I think they can dictate what that utilization looks like. But to answer your question, I think it would probably save the state money in the long
run. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Senator Hickey, you're recognized.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:18:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two from me, and I'd like for DHS to come up too. But if we do nothing, what happens?
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:18:47
Well, a bill we passed can't be implemented. Okay. So the cap would remain where it is currently at $500 instead of being increased to the $1,800 that the legislature approved.
And the feds, they won't recognize that? Is that what I've heard? That's my understanding is it's a parity issue,
and we can't just carve out a section of diagnostic testing without expanding it to the whole category. Thank you, Senator. Could we get DHS to the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:19:16
table just so that we could get their take on this?
All right. Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions while we're waiting for DHS? Thank you.
Speaker 208
2:20:02
I'm getting some motions that they're coming sent chair so it's up to you on this I'm okay I'm
Speaker 337
2:20:18
happy to wait there I think they're right here yeah
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:20:32
I am working on the assumption that they're close. Okay.
Speaker 339
2:21:32
okay well I think what we do members
I mean we're not going to be able to get through this agenda before one o'clock in spite of our best efforts. My intention is to hear this
one and without objection from the members of the committee. We'll adjourn, give members time to grab a quick bite before we have to convene, and then we'll come back 15 minutes upon adjournment of the House and Senate and take up the agenda. So we'll give
Secretary Mayhem a few moments, and then we'll go from there. Senator Hill, do you have a question while we're waiting? Yeah, if we just need
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:22:37
some entertainment, we can get Secretary Hudson up here to talk
about the fiscal. Surely we could get some sort of ad lib entertainment going from one of the secretaries.
to the members we have we have the long enough agenda we're gonna have to come back no matter
what i'm getting some requests to take a small break to grab some food before we convene i hear you senator we're going to lean to the majority
of the committee secretary man how are you if you don't mind introduce yourself to the committee um
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:23:31
janet man secretary dhs thank you senator hickey you recognize for your
question oh sorry you think i'd be better at this by now i'm trying yeah i'm trying man
i'm trying to hit the microphone i'll keep it there we go you
Speaker 343
2:23:52
recognize sorry for that secretary man so it wasn't just
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:23:57
myself others were wanting to hear from you all are you familiar with what was going on with this particular bill um
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:24:04
yes sir i was watching and we we did discuss a little bit of
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:24:08
it this morning okay so my question to senator Penzo was, you know, what happens, what happens if we do nothing? And it was kind of our understanding from what was said in here that the way that we had written it before was not going to be
appropriate for the Fed. So would nothing
Speaker 344
2:24:27
transpire? Yes, sir. The bill from last session, as Senator Penzo indicated, we
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:24:31
did send it to CMS with a state plan amendment. They used their preemption right it was not eligible to be implemented the way that it was written so we have not implemented that that statute to increase pain pain chronic pain medication and testing to eighteen hundred dollars so we've not done anything the limit has stayed at five hundred dollars for that entire category okay the way
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:24:54
this amendment is written do you think it would
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:24:57
correct that issue if we were to pass it yes sir the way the amendment is written it would increase our expenditures, but it would increase the lab category to $1,800 for all testing. So it would be open to all adults that would fall into that category and have that current limit. It would be raised. Children do not have a testing limit, so it would
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:25:21
be applicable to adults. Okay. And it was $4.9 million or something was what you ought to estimate as a fiscal impact if it was fully
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:25:29
utilized yes sir we estimated a state impact of 4.6 million that we provided that was based on utilization of people that went over the that would have gone over the limit so that's how we did the estimate there yes sir okay
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:25:44
and the importance of us passing this from your standpoint i understand it's a legislative purview to do but uh do you see the do you see importance with this or do you think it should just wait until the next session?
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:26:00
It's a fair question. It's a fair question. I'm charged with holding the budget as flat as I can. So my request would be to do it in the general session, understanding that that is a request. Okay. And so we just
Speaker 347
2:26:14
wouldn't be doing this for the next nine months.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:26:19
and what what might be the what might possibly happen if we're not doing this we just wouldn't catch uh some of these issues that some of these folks have i think
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:26:32
we we have testing up to five
hundred dollars for the adults there's always um the risk that we would not catch something with or without a limit i don't know how to quantify that i understand i know there were questions asked earlier about does it reduce potential expenses into the future there's no good way estimate that and I do believe that's been part of the conversation this morning
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:26:59
thank you ma'am senator Bryant you recognize thank you um do you know how many states like what what is the
average is several states have this limit raised up to 1800 because
that's the CMS max or just a number that we just pulled because it's industry and And then I guess, and I've asked, I've probably wondered this on more than one occasion, but if those states that do take up to $1,800 for diagnostic testing that have been doing it for years, can we not compare their, their population group and the amount of expenditures in their Medicaid budget versus ours at this rate for those same people groups to see, to see if there's a correlation to catching it early and doing the intervention.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:27:43
So going from state to state comparison can probably be done. We would have to look for a fee-for-service state that pays for this with the population. A lot of states, I think up to 35 to 40, have adopted some form of managed care. I don't know how to do an apple-to-apple comparison. We have not done an apple-to-apple comparison, so I don't know how to answer your question with other states and limits at this time. Okay. All right. Thank you.
senator hill you recognize just thinking about your your comment a while ago that uh you said never uh senator hickey asked you the question about you know what what are the ramifications if we wait till till january
and your response was you know we could miss something is that correct i i think i i testified that we could
miss something with or without this limit just to be honest I mean okay because where I was going with that was you know that yeah it's not a
big deal unless it's you or me that something's happening to then at that point it becomes an issue and then at that point it becomes an issue to whomever it affects if something
is missed yes sir I think that's I mean that's a risk in all of our health care program not just Medicaid if something is missed then it is a it is a risk to miss something for for anyone potentially I that's the reason I don't know how to quantify what you're asking understand okay thank you members
do we have other questions see no other
questions we have a motion have a motion do we have a second have a motion a second
all those in favor say aye opposed I do not hear ten votes in the room
your amendment is failed thank you committee members we have eight more items on the agenda I don't see any way we're going
to be able to get through this I think to give everybody that's been a long meeting already give everybody a chance to grab a snack before we go into session We're going to adjourn, and we'll come back 15
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:30:06
minutes on adjournment of the House and the Senate. So this meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
No agenda available.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JBC-SPECIAL LANGUAGE, Apr 22, 2026 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
| C. Bills referred to the Special Language Subcommittee | Exhibit | 28 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| D. Amendments referred to the Special Language Subcommittee | Exhibit | 129 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Lee Johnson Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 15
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 32
Speaker 34
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 46
Speaker 45
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 57
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 138
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 145
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 160
Speaker 164
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Speaker 186
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 206
Speaker 209
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 227
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 242
Speaker 241
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 40
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 267
Speaker 271
Speaker 274
Speaker 279
Speaker 292
Speaker 290
Speaker 296
Speaker 300
Speaker 304
Speaker 302
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
Speaker 208
Speaker 337
Speaker 339
Speaker 343
Speaker 344
Speaker 347