Revenue & Tax - Senate

Presenting Senate bill number one correct. Thank you members you know we sent out quite a bit information about this bill already it's been worked on for awhile and and large part we've already had a a broad discussion about the tax cuts you know it's implication in a previous meeting as we pass it last bushel session first like say this bill does three things the first thing does it creates an individual income tax credit of a hundred fifty dollars per year and that's three hundred dollars per couple for the twenty twenty two tax year we are making that retroactive effective one one two thousand twenty two and the reason for that is that will trigger a automatic change withholding table and essentially that three hundred dollars or a hundred fifty dollars we have to get made up in the final two to three months of the fiscal year which means every every individual that's working is going to see an increase in their take home check for those last remaining months of the calendar year a second it does advance the income tax cuts that were already in place as bills for the individual in federal it's going to bring down the top rate to four point nine percent again effective I one one twenty twenty two that's going to benefit positively every pair that makes above twenty four thousand six hundred dollars in the state a second part to that it does also advance because as we discussed in here before we wanted the corporate to trail the individual income tax cuts is going to lower the corporate rate to five point three percent in that will be effective on January first twenty twenty three the third thing it does it brings our section one seventy nine expense deduction in line with that with that curves on the federal level that's going to affect a huge benefit to our small business owners here in the state in particular and the reason for that is actually when I first started practicing County when the first tax returns I did in that year was when the feds increase their section one minute seven nine expense we were twenty five thousand state level then I've made a phone call at that time actually as a staffer to DFA asking if we were going to conform with the federal guidelines was told at that time we would that was incorrect we never conform to. So we've been set at twenty five thousand dollars with limitation from them which I think was roughly. Two thousand five I think it's a long time ago a long time ago and so this would allow us to to mimic what happens rings in conformity with section one seven nine that's going to save a lot of headache for tax preparers and taxpayers and also provide a benefit to our small business owners here in the state in a section of one seventy nine expense for those may not be aware that's where you're allowed to expense the total amount of an asset purchase the particular equipment instead of having to expenses over the useful life of that equipment so it may be five to seven years depending on what type of industry or in so again you get the up front benefit of a full deduction in the first year at this again just mimics it back to the federal level and with that I'd be happy to take any questions. Members of the questions Senator Ingram questions for D. F. and I please. You would. Your name. Thank you Mr chair members of the committee Paul hearing DFA. Senator I've got a copy of a memo that was provided by Robert Breck of regarding the possibility of income tax affecting our ARPU of money and at one time I think. The term might have been used it it was of the possibility existed of it to affect eighty to ninety million dollars then that that figure jumped from eighty to ninety to eight hundred million dollars of can you comment on that for us sure certainly so um the the as a part of the American rescue plan act that was passed in March of two thousand twenty one there was language inserted into the Arkadelphia concerning the a state's ability to receive our profundity with these conditions that the R. profundity utilize to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction tax revenue as a part of that legislation in our a. The Congress gave treasury the ability to promulgate regulations and rules for interpretation and application that provision what time the treasury rules provide for is that there's a potential recruitment or call back of our funding in the event that a state in improperly uses the art of funds to indirectly or directly offset a tax reduction so um. DFA as a part of the requirements to receive the R. funding is required to annually certify to the treasury those tax reductions that have been enacted since the March twenty twenty one signing of arpa into law. And a part of that model is that the two thousand nineteen tax year is utilized for purposes of what our tax collections are as a state and then as a part of that future modeling to see if any tax cuts were either directly or indirectly used to offset a reduction or improper use of the op of funds this state is used has to use the CPI of the inflation figure two I just at two thousand nineteen baseline year. So when we were dealing with the pandemic over the last couple of years we had a situation where we had normal inflation or maybe slightly elevated inflation between three and four percent or baseline then was growing it at a very similar rate to what was ordinary inflation also what would ordinarily be reflected in our increased natural collections of taxes and also our our budget but during two thousand twenty two we have had very rapid increases in inflation worldwide particularly here in United States anywhere from eight to nine percent inflation that cost our baseline to increase for that first part of the arctic test where we compare our baseline tax collections. Scale for inflation and then we have to take out those tax reductions in the first part of the test so to your to your to your questions Senator Ingram as we have tracked that baseline the rapid rates of inflation have changed or baseline so that the potential recruitment from arca originally in the tens of millions of dollars of potential liability of recruitment has grown to a potential liability of the higher figure that you mention DFA and that is the point two the memo that our budget administrator prepared on this particular issue we did a very close look at the treasury regulations the is well as the litigation that has been filed in the state of Alabama that state of Arkansas is a party to. try to get a better understanding of how this is going to work and what are potential liability is going to be so I'm looking at the ERP test you have the the one percent DO minimus that you can cut taxes that there is no impact whatsoever on on recruitment but if you do fail the the second call the first component of the R. protest that according to our baseline we cut too much taxes and risk recruitment the second part of the test is that have had is this state using part of funds to basically pay for items in their budget. that they otherwise would pay for out of tax revenue but they have cut tax revenues to appoint their using our put a plug in those holes that's not what we're doing with this legislation. Arch are reductions in this legislation are coming from the increases in tax revenue. So we we took a hard look at this issue our budget administrator provide the memo to the to the General Assembly we spoke with our representative representative from the Attorney General's office in the litigation to get a very more a more clearly demonstrated picture of what our actual risk would be for recruitment we made a determination after taking a very close look that the the risk of recruitment I've Arkansans is minimal we let we analyze the the pleadings that the U. S. treasury filed and in the Alabama litigation that were a party to and they gave some very good examples of improper uses of our funding so if the General Assembly had a appropriated monies for specific appropriations for COVID testing or possibly for water improvements. In their budgets and then the and the General Assembly after the fact. Cut that funding for those for COVID testing or for for the water improvements and then turn around and cut taxes and then use the Arkema need to pay for the COVID testing or for the water system improvements those would be very specific examples where there is an improper use of the funding so NO we're we're confident that that we are not using these are funds incorrectly with this tax litigation I'm sorry tax reduction the Bill. Now the Alabama court has permanently enjoined the enforcement of the tax mandate any any provisions of the R. Pelor that provide for recruitment have been stayed by the federal court we won't have a decision from the U. S. court of appeals likely until sometime this fall or early spring there is nationwide litigation on this issue so ultimately we it would be decided by the US Supreme Court but at this point given all of the information and the and the the research that we have done and speaking with the the the the interested parties that are involved which include other states we do not think that there's a risk of recruitment with this litigate with this reduction bill and even if the tax mandate were up held by the US Supreme Court of the court of appeals. We do not believe that there is an improper use of our funds. So of it I think to the income tax is treated differently than tax holidays that other states had for gasoline or clothes or anything like that they sort of got the federal government's blessing on the that that doesn't impact our of funds there's no threat of that being of of recoup correct there is there now if there was a a tax reduction like before in your example senator Graham the sales tax holiday for back to school that was already enacted but anything that was enacted post March two thousand twenty one that provided for a rate reduction a credit a rebate or delaying the implementation of a previously enacted tax those are going to be subject to the having to be reported to the treasury on an annual basis one item that is in this in this bill is the section one seventy nine conformity with federal law that is not included in our in our county because the treasury specifically stated in March of twenty one that a state can continue to conform with recent changes in federal tax law so that would not be included but we certainly are going to and report to the treasury that we have reduced our income taxes both on the individual the corporate as well as this one time credit for the two thousand twenty two tax year so you said that up to the that the the hearings the the appeals that are going on now where this fall my information is that the the through the Arizona case as well as the case in Atlanta that we're a party to be heard in September the mid mid September so I mean that that I mean it's not very far from now that we would probably know certain whether we were impacting our pull funds or not of when you say some or or we talking about of when when your early estimate was. What are we talking about that we were. Potentially of our profundity negatively impacted how much are we talking about their Paul we we do not believe that there is any Arkansans at risk for recruitment and and you're correct the briefing in the Alabama case that's in the in the U. S. court court of appeals that we're party breathing is complete there it's look it's possible that they will have oral argument this fall and then how long it takes for the court to render its decision that's an unknown but given the information that we have even applying the tax mandate two part test that's required for us to do we're not doing what the treasury is is prohibiting in terms of using our Arkansans to plugging holes in our budget for previously budgeted items judge so eat so I think that based upon the information that we have even if the tax mandate as it's called in the article bill and and in the litigation is up finally upheld we are going to continue to take the position and and and we feel confident in saying that we are not utilizing Arkansans improperly that would subject the state to regret so you're willing to you D. F. A. is willing to say hi we're we have such confidence that of five hundred million dollars in tax cuts of we're willing to take the risk of losing nine hundred million dollars in our of funds because we believe that's why the low rate and that certainly is not a decision and and and and our analysis that you would take of easily or without a great deal of care and research and analysis and consultation with the Attorney General and any other states but yes based upon our our our final conclusion on this issue the our risk of any recruitment of the R. of funds contemplated by this tax reduction bill we believe is is minimal. Or close to zero one last question Mister and I'm sorry call is always so thorough it's I'm asking questions but he's given great thorough answers and I appreciate that now there was talk of that we would take the ahrp of the eight hundred or nine hundred million that's the ballot and we would not expended until after the case is decided is that something that the administration is is good we prepared to do and to wait so that we don't spend it and then have it up clawed back well certainly there are going to be continued needs for for use of the R. funds we have projects for water improvements in for broadband I can't speak for the governor's office but certainly our hope would be that these continued improvements and use of the art funds we would continue with the with the approval of of the General Assembly in terms of the the near future plans of the Arkansas during committee I can't speak to what is coming up soon but in terms of delaying spending the final allotment in the arca I can't say that there are any plans to delay any future projects for art of funding until that litigation is it comes to a final conclusion which may take you might be two thousand twenty four until the Supreme Court receive that case does the briefing and is able to issue a decision and that that by that time the window for using the art of funds would be coming to a close and we would still have the needs here in Arkansas develop and and use the or funds for appropriate projects maybe somebody very close to me might in like this so whether he thinks that's that's very not Mister chair thank you Paul is always thank you thank you senator thank members of the other questions. Senator Teague. What could you send us that document that the AG's office so brilliantly in life and do you own. Sir so Senator to what I would have or the the pleadings from the. Both the Alabama federal District Court I thought you should I AG's office provided use of some light into the darkness and you through some document or something the we reviewed the pleadings in the federal district court case the the memorandum decision of the federal District Court judge we also have the appellate briefs that have been filed by the parties I'd be happy to share those with you but we didn't get a a specific letter or guidance directly from the AG but we had we had conferences quick wit where we spoke with our council I have serious doubts and I would understand any of it but if you email it to me I appreciate it absolutism thank you. Thank you Mr thank you members are there other questions. We have the impact statement on the desk. Or the questions about the impact statement will. Mr Gehring is still here Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman Mr thank you for your hard work on this is always of. What I'm looking at the impact on page two of the green sheet of. Are these. Impact in general revenues as like before any of the tax cuts are these numbers adjusted for us what we have here in SP one. So what you have in the fiscal impact statement Senator Johnson or going to be the the fiscal year impacts based upon the specific tax changes are not counting what we did last year whatever this is is it from last year to these changes or is it from the baseline to these changes these these changes are exclusive to what is included in the bill has been one in SP one and also house bill one thousand to the identical bill in the in the house so they could not put words in your mouth but you can extrapolate this is not all we have cut taxes with the five hundred million in FY twenty three this is additional tax cut and thousand what we we're we we started this process last that is correct we have that we have this we have a special session tax cut in December as well as the tax cuts that were enacted post March two thousand twenty one that are are being reported as a part of our our for yes and this is my question I'm all smiles when I ask of I've had lots of emails from certain constituents saying that people really don't need this money they don't want it in their pocket if if you had to pull a number out and say the and I know there is no average taxpayer but let's say that we can come up with some kind of average maybe come up with a number and divide it by three million or however many people file returns How much money would go back into people's pockets FOR FY twenty three of our maybe she's a tax year twenty three not FOR this is on top but the return they're going to file as of twelve thirty one sure to how much money would go back in their pockets Proxibid so we have just some different scenarios that be happy to share with the committee starting with twenty thousand dollars and that taxable income all the way up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars and so what one thing that we identified was the median income for a single our cans and and the median income for single or cans and would have about twenty six thousand five twenty six and net taxable income and in tax year two thousand twenty one their tax due on their return would be eight hundred eighty eight dollars which is an effective tax rate of three point three four percent. Up for tax year two thousand twenty two that's going to be reduced down to five hundred twenty three dollars which is an effective tax rate of one point nine seven percent and the breakdown of that decrease of three hundred sixty five dollars that taxpayers going to receive the one hundred and fifty dollar credit. for the two thousand twenty two tax year only they're also going to have a a two dollar reduction from the From the top rate reduction of two dollars and reduction also to the two thousand twenty one legislation that was enacted that taxpayers also receiving a benefit of a hundred eighty six dollars from combination of the tables. And the changes to the other change the brackets nine dollars and then there's also the little legally imposed inflation adjustment that changes the the tax tables every year of eighteen dollars that's what accounts for the total of three hundred sixty five dollars difference for the median taxable income for single taxpayers but we have the we have all of the scenarios that would be happy to share with members of the committee that can illustrate what the individual impact is for people that are from dead though the lower end of the income range all the way up to two hundred fifty thousand that taxable income but implements correct me if I'm not hearing is correct. on the low end your average that median I should say taxpayer is looking at three hundred sixty two five hundred dollars more in their pocket because of this which even at today's prices will by a few tanks of gas and. And certainly help on groceries absolutely that's that's a and and the I was a part of this legislation there is any anybody that is paying income tax in Arkansas which is about one point six million filers everybody's getting a reduction whether it's from benefit from the credit of a hundred fifty dollars from the top rate reduction. Every taxpayer that has a tax due on the return of that because the credit is a non refundable credit and there's not going to be anybody that wasn't previously paying taxes that's going to get a benefit okay thank you Mr hearing thank service chairman. Six Senator you have another question up on nine hundred and fifty of let's see now the of tax cut is a permanent tax cut from from that once it's passed retro to twenty twenty two it's it's up permit. The tax credit. It is that permanent the one fifty dollar credit for three hundred for married filing joint you that is for the twenty twenty to tax your home phone okay it sure. All. Senator John you turn mark off I'm sorry. An accident and I was going to mention this earlier not feel too so I apologize there's not a single thing in this tax bill that is a temporary. There's not a single reducing reduction I name three different you know categories or buckets were looking at in all three of those are temporary in nature as far as their cost first the advancement of the income taxes where we're we're doing it sooner those are already on the books is going to happen anyway it's being advanced one one twenty two that is a temporary change in difference second this section one seventy nine that will fully pay for itself over five to seven years depending on the life of the asset the expense was going to occur it's just it is current one time to is it Kerr over the creation life and then third of course would be the credit of a hundred fifty dollars every thing that we're doing contrary to what may be said is temporary in nature the tax cuts are already on the books are just being advanced this section one seventy nine is a timing difference in the hundred fifty dollar credit is for is obviously temporary is its credit for just the twenty twenty two filing here I guess. My definition of temporary and yours is different because on a go forward basis that the that's the tax cut is going to be in place it's going to be in place it just is going to in place sooner well as a temporary change in our revenues but but in the out years that change would have been exactly the same it's temporary but. The change in our general revenues which is the thing most of what most of us as legislators look at that changes temporary the full reduction of our tax cuts was going to take place regardless of what we do our day it's just windows those decrease in revenues that temporary change in revenue Sturch and we're saying it starts effective one one twenty two which would be you know whatever whenever it's fully adopted any all change the table such with startling change in our generating so again I would contend that everything that we're doing is having a temporary change to our general revenues. But the the tax cut that we're talking about dozen sunset in one year is not a hundred and fifty does that hundred fifty sunsets in one year that's what I consider in in with the other thing and I'm glad you brought that up to you because it's something that I think we're missing as far as the discussion here we said in this room. And as a group of members said we were going to prioritize the tax cuts for the low and middle income earners in this state we did it by combining tables and creating simplicity for those individuals on the the middle income earners we did it with the in additional credit and then also the inflationary just meant for the standard deduction we did that first the cost of that was roughly a hundred and sixty one million dollars benefit to those bears we said we're going to do secondary the top rate reduction. And so I believe that one thing that we need to keep in mind is number again and and number one this is a temporary change in our revenues all of this was going to happen at some point in the future with the exception of the hundred fifty dollar credit and then the second is is we've got to remember that we did take care of low income earners in this state we we at low and middle income earners in the state we prioritize it in fact admitted effective January first two thousand twenty two all we're doing now is advancing the full tax cut package January first twenty twenty two Senator remind me of I can't where I can remember I had for lunch state how much was the of the low the the low income was it sixty Bucks how much was that credit what eliminated taxes for in the coming individuals was it that no longer would pay taxes the state of Arkansas and I'm we're probably asking things it would have to research quickly but eliminated taxes for a large number of Arkansans with the filing of return hence the credit also if I have that number here if we wanna move on the next question will come back and that you would. But it helped a sizeable number of individuals and we did a great benefit in my opinion we combined the the middle on the table for middle income earners particularly those making roughly twenty four thousand dollars in the state of Arkansas I don't know why the number of this one fifty is much higher than what that was as I remember I think it was around sixty dollars thank you thanks. Members are there other questions. Seeing none thank. Mr dismissed. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee thank you. we do have. Someone from the audience that would like to speak. You have to someone from the audience would like to speak against the bill of first one would be Mr showers. State your name for the record and who you represent place Bruno showers Arkansas advocates for children and families make your start sort yeah thank you Mr chair and thank you all for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to express my concerns about the cost of these tax cuts and speak against making them retroactive. Making tax cuts retroactive enacting the new. You. February. making the tax cuts retroactive an enacting new ones will cost an additional seven hundred and fifty million dollars on top of the on going revenue losses they've already been priced into the budget that's bad enough on its own in my opinion but my biggest concern is that we will be eliminating a safeguard that you will enacted to ensure fiscal responsibility in December. On the way he wrote the tax cuts into law back then ensured that if state revenues fail to meets the budget needs between now and twenty twenty five the tax cuts would freeze in place wherever they were at that point. and if you make them retroactive will lose that important protection for our state budget. But I think this tool to ensure fiscal responsibilities especially important right now in twenty twenty to you given are uncertain future economic conditions the most recent forecast idea from a projects that net available revenues in FY twenty three will fall from FY twenty two and that they'll fall further in FY twenty four from twenty three. But even that may be optimistic in my opinion their model is seeing strong growth for the rest of twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three and even elevated wage growth and a twenty twenty four. since the meet those projections in Maine the federal reserve has announced increases to the interest rate and we've had two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction this year that means the most economists have revised their forecasts and increase the chance that a recession is likely to happen in the next couple of years. I don't want to discount the fact that many Arkansans are still struggling with the pandemic in the fall out it's because our economy I know that you are you're all hearing of peoples struggling with skyrocketing rents and housing costs dealing with more more children's mental health issues and trying to juggle increase childcare and family obligations with work. but it's not just families that are hurting a lot of our institutions are hurting too less than a month ago I read in office and talk business by the center for health improvement talking about how the staffing shortages in our hospitals and clinics are at a critical state. last year a report authored by the US chamber of commerce foundation found Arkansas's economy is losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year because of a lack of access to affordable quality health a child care in part of that is because we could be doing more to invest in those that staffing issues there when we need more investment. and workforces that provide care for the most disadvantaged or Kansans unlike those in or exiting our foster care system for those dealing with severe developmental disabilities those work forces have long suffered from low pay and the issues it causes with staff retention and staffing there. The reason I bring those up it's just to kind of go back to the conversation you know we're just having there are concerns that the federal government to claw back hundreds of millions of dollars and A. R. P. funds if we pursue these tax cuts we do not run any risk if we use those funds instead to invest and see programs critical programs that can help families directly. So in summary we know that our Kansans are already experiencing elevated hardships because of pandemic but if we had a recession before spending down our surplus but if we had a recession after spending down or surplus to pay for tax cuts I'm just worried about how will be able to address the between problems of falling revenue increased pressure on public services that a potential recession would bring even without the threat of losing on a or P. funds I think that that could be bad for cans and families. And so you know all emerging really is that we kind of pump the brakes as as you mentioned you're just making temporary tax cuts right now they're already gonna fees and assuming our budget situation stays strong I just don't see what we need to come back right now and and and accelerate the tax cuts thank you all for the opportunity to speak. Mr showers would you take a question from Senator Rapert yes she were sole record. Thank you sure could you name one program that we have actually cut funding for in the last ten years. No Sir not off the top of my head thank you. Are there other questions sharks. Seeing none thank you Sir all right really appreciate you all. now we have doctor eleven. Dr eleven will be speaking against the bill. If you would state your name and who you represent you my name is doctor stared eleven I'm the CEO of Arkansas support network and the president of the Arkansas waiver association. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the committee again today the look many of you remember I was here in December and and asking at that time that prior to making changes to tax revenue that this state invest in the service industry in the service systems for individuals with disabilities specifically up for all our Kansans in need all our cans it's marginalized and I returned today to say in those conversations in December we heard from lots of elected officials that ask questions and wanted to pursue a conversation to look at our work force in our industry disability services in Arkansas home and community based disability services specifically I have lost our capacity to be competitive and hire the direct support professional workforce necessary to support our Kansans with disabilities who qualify for those services and that has been a building capacity Senator Rapert it's not a program that's receive funding cuts in the past ten years it's a program that's been under funded for ten years we have not had the ability to recruit the workforce necessary to do that work and the position with the pandemic has put us in has put is in competition with fast food and retail employers that are able to raise their prices and pay higher wages and we're locked into Medicaid reimbursement rates that are set in the budget and we have absolutely no wiggle room what we're seeing today is providers are shuttering providers are stopping taking new referrals we're seeing providers on the behavioral health side that have packed up and moved out of state because this is not a state that they can operate and successfully leaving the most vulnerable our Kansans here without the support not. Seri my ask in December was for us to. Delay cutting revenue as we move forward to address these issues and I've had lots of conversations at with lots of folks the only change that we've seen since December is that the governor moved forward with moving at approximately thirty seven million dollars from the Medicaid trust to fund the waiver waiting list at the time in December we said the provider infrastructure cannot support that we cannot support the five thousand people who are currently qualified for Medicaid waiver services we cannot add an additional thirty two hundred people with the reimbursement rates that we have in the funding that we have we have not seen any additional changes there's been no increase in our reimbursement rates from the past system despite the past system returning almost three hundred million dollars through the risk corridor to the Medicaid trust fund and we have not eight obtained a calendar of arpa funds that were earmarked for our industry in March of last year that money is still sitting at the passes and has not made its way to developmental disability providers we are in dire straits and need support and assistance and we are not alone every service industry in Arkansas is struggling right now we do not have the resources necessary to provide the quality workforce to care for the R. Kansans that we all have an obligation to care for and I ask is that before we accelerate those tax cuts and move us even further away from revenue question before we redistribute the surplus in this budget that we look at investing in the service structures of this state so that we can ensure that our Kansans have access to the services that they qualify for. Senator you have a question for doctor eleven yes so to clarify the the the thirty seven million dollars that was to clear the the the wait list we we sore accomplish that but when you're talking about providers or are you talking about people that are the in home care that are the DD that were only DD list we've got him off the list but the money to pay providers that are in home care is is not there because of the rise and salaries yes if it's all right I can I elaborate on the the structure of that process so Medicaid waiver coming communities dedicated waiver in Arkansas well it as a federal program is is a match reimbursement and so in Arkansas we receive about seventy one percent of the funding for home and community based developmental disability waiver as federal to a federal match to what Arkansas pays in and so that approximately thirty seven million dollars is the cost for a single year of service at current rates for the thirty two hundred folks that were on the waiting list as of December and and then the the rest of that money would come directly from the state or from the federal government my apologies that the rate of death that dollar amount was set based on the rate of current rates of service. Providers it showed up at that time and said we are thrilled for this we have always advocated to be able to provide those services include without wait list we have always ask that people that have a critical institutional level of care need not have to wait on a list for ten years to receive that service but in in the face of the additional workforce challenges the pandemic has caused us and the inability that we have to be competitive with any fast food restaurant or retail store anywhere around that we need additional resources in order to be able to serve the people that are up to five thousand people currently on waiver and there is absolutely no way that we can turn our eyes towards those thirty two hundred with this current system not that the funding has been approved and the the waiver has been amended so we just as of last week received approval from the federal government for the additional slots to be added to the waiver so we are just at the cusp of beginning to rollout services to those thirty two hundred people over the next three years and the reality that they're facing is they're getting a call and they're being told congratulations after ten plus years of waiting for service you now have a waiter waiver slot and they're selecting a provider on the list of waiver providers and they're contacting that provider and they're being told we do not have a workforce to support you you have to go on another waiting list waiting list that previously didn't exist. Senator your questions answered. Members of the other questions or concerns. Singer Senator Rapert. And this is just a to maybe make sure kids I understand and you know I have spoken out I remember your any commitment at the years and and we've been making that so I'm disappointed is to know that all that effort is is hitting a brick wall and the reality of what you described but did want to ask just because I'm aware of recently says situation would you say or could you say that this is also a factor affecting the mental health institutions in our state do you hear from them as well this is a factor that's affecting every direct care system that we see this is This is pervasive in an all save for my colleagues for all the money that we've but Mr chairman to crisis stabilization units Only because I was involved in hearing about a situation that I've had to recently deal with it's difficult and sad to know that we put all this money in these mental health crisis stabilization units only to be told by sheriffs and those involved there are no bids. For these people and I was even advised by one sheriff that we have people that have been ordered to the state hospital later one year has now been sitting one year in jail in a rural jail with nobody effectively to be able to help them to care for them to minister anything to them that you keep this able to to them so all I'm saying is for since we've this is membros I just wanted to get it out here as you all prepare for the next session because it's very important that we make sure that we're doing what we can so thank you for answering that ma'am thank you in would it be okay for me to add to that to start a brief explainer so one of the challenges that we found that there isn't a network of providers Arkansas has the Arkansas waiver Association which I'm the president of and also the developmental disability provider association and we've been working in collaboration with providers within the DD community and the behavioral health community any community that will sit down at the table and and work with us to try to create solutions and and we have brought a number of solutions to the state we we have looked at a direct support professional credentialing that would allow some quality training and development of skills that that could help create a career ladder that would elevate this from a entry level work force to a long term career options there are our Kansans that are not going to go into computers and coding and technology and be successful but they have skills that are very valuable and beneficial in supporting this population of folks and we want to give them a long term career track we have looked at enabling technology as a resource to help balance some of the missing workforce pieces and in those instances we work hard to create opportunities and initiatives to maximize the resources that. We have and we are told in both of those instances and many more that the state that DDS and DHS to not have the resources necessary we were told was certification they didn't have the resources necessary to manage certification and and just recently H. CDS removed and enabling technology from the waiver amendment what that was disapproved because they didn't have the right answers for CMS when that was was scrutinized are asking again is it the revenue that we are cutting we need to be funneling that to some of our state level department if if that if those are the barriers if we have providers and families and advocates that are working so hard to create meaningful solutions and make this work we need support from the state in order to be able to make that happen thank you so much for the time. Thank you members are there other questions. Seeing the thank you Sir. Senator Dismang would you like to close for your bill here you can close your. Thank you to okay it's also thanks for the other testimony had in regards to the bill and I think it it is really a a great example of some of the discussions that we're gonna be having as we move into the next session you know this is probably going to be one of the more involved sessions as we have the budget because there isn't a sector of our economy that has not been impacted by this inflation and that includes our people back home and that's why we're bringing this tax cut now there are other considerations in regards inflation what's happening to our economy and in particular those into these we fund to the state that we're going to have to take into consideration next legislative session will do that and we'll do that as a whole not piece Mealing it together and so with that I appreciate your time consideration close for the bill. What's wishes of the committee Senator you can make a motion motion if passed. I have a motion by Senator Dismang a second by Senator Johnson Razer any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. All opposed no. Chair for this recognizes Senator Ingram's vote of No motion passes and seeing no other business we are adjourned.