JBC-Special Language

Our members as a quorum we're gonna get started. We're going to start the. With the Adam C. one SP one twenty one department labor last things being miss Hamilton. Members this is a continuation of the discussion that we had yesterday regarding their Expenditure and transfer limitation language this is on page three behind see in your packet. This is dealt with the expenditures including the transfers not limited to this year's services transfers for each individual board commission section or division the department of labor and licensing we had some testimony from secretary to set and he is here to continue the discussion and answer questions remembers. The members you think you need an overview of where we're at with this but this particular one there was some language change during budget hearings well until could you give that are Kevin Anderson would you mind giving us an update. Kind of what all happened in budget hearings and then kind of where we're at today. Mr chairman. Thank you Mr chairman Kevin Anderson pure of Legislative Research so we're in the packet on item see page three during budget hearings there was some concern for the boards and commissions that were transferred through transformation into the department of labor and This language was put in there to say that. The combined expenditures with the amount transferred out to shared services shall not exceed their annual income this basically was to address the fact that if transfers were made out of shared services from these boards and commissions fund balances it would not. Cause them to go negative in their balances and have to raise their fines and fees that was the general concept Mr chairman. Given and so I think if I remember this correctly these these smaller boards and commissions they were able to use In the Department finds ministration they refuse their legal in their accounting. And after transformation the party finance mysteries no longer sharing their expense they're they're asking them to pay their own expense which is putting them into a negative. Position is that accurate yes Sir that was the that was the concern apparently some of the boards and commissions head expressing concern that if they transfer too much money for those services that were now being performed department wide they might have to raise their fines and fees and so this language was put in there saying that you can't transfer more money out. That would cause that to happen you have to look at their combined expenditures along with the transfers out to make sure it doesn't exceed your receipts coming in it's budgeting one or one pretty much. The Representative love you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair so I guess Kevin I'm I'm of a. I'm over here yes Sir I guess I'm I'm trying to understand if the if an eight was picking it up why would we just if the cost is the cost. Why did we just not transfer those funding because that's that's how we're doing everything else we're transferring the funds to cover the cost so. If these boards and commissions are need to pick up the cost and the cost is just the actual cost then. I don't see I don't see that either the state's going to have to pick it up for the board that I have to pick it up you just can't. You were saying that the leverages has to to absorbent. But the I guess the that just doesn't make sense to me the cost of the call so we the need to pay the cost. Yes Sir we need to just be able to the board so right in the way that this would work is that we the agency would pay the cost that they shared services was set up with in all the departments where you have a centralized Division instead of separate little entities in the department that does procurement in legal and all that so are we giving more funding to the agency well the agency in in this situation is we'll have to if they have additional costs will have to absorb that within their within their budget yes Sir. So there would have been to the funds that were. They were utilizing a D. F. and I well I think the concern was by the boards and commissions that were lobbying the members is that too much was being transferred out in that Dave this language was put in there to protect them to make sure that they're. Their billing state Nicks didn't put them in a situation where they were going to have to raise their fines and fees and during budget hearings this was talked about at length in this was the only department it was determined that it was necessary to put this language in. That was that was the will of the General Assembly at that point in time yeah I remember that I think that the debate was I felt like you that the The New department was charging them too much those services but Jake bleed you have something you want to say yes and then just on the the issue of that the costs so the the the services were provided through something called the service bureau the service bureau was something that DFA has had set up for years of it had a number of employees I think there were three in accounting a similar number in a personal management state procurement of the budget department so those employees were responsible for providing services from those departments to of a whole array of small boards and commissions summer one or two person shops summer actual agencies but they still provided those services to them because. A lot of times procurement or major or whatever requires an expertise that a one person shop just isn't gonna have up with transformation the expectation was that those services would be provided in house to do shared services we did increase the budget for the department of labor licensing in our in the governor's balanced budget in part to recognize that but the. It to some extent we're still providing some of those services so for example the the office of budget still helps put together budgets for the departments and obviously accounting personal management and say procurement is there to assist the day to day work has been shifted over to the departments okay so Jake I guess. Then the question is is is the amount of funding. Then we increased their budget department of labor is that match the cost of what was actually going on. NTFA nine I guess the case. You can't say something is in cost X. in the in the shifted over to another agency this is a Class Y. if X. is X. then sure it's a part of what we're trying to do we set up shared services that all the department was reduce that cost to reduce that acts need to be able to do that through better management through through economies of scale through having folks who are really specialists in areas because they have that higher level of skill because they have that higher level bility they're able to perform more and do better for less that's the idea of it and that's one of the reasons that we were really standing up labor licensing is a great example of where we think there's some potential to do that just because these are a lot of small boards and commissions they've been stand alone for years a lot of times there areas that really do need some capital they really do need some reinvestment we thank and it's got an opportunity I that we felt I think it was an opportunity to really improve the performance of of some agencies released that's my opinion okay well my last question is why then why why hasn't this been actualized yes if if that's the rub. Why hasn't it hasn't manifested itself in. In terms of the actual performs the agencies yes this is still pretty new we stood this up I the law became effective I think a year and a half ago so of we're we're still standing it up and put it together and and working out the Kinks this is I think for this is something we were wrestling with all during the fiscal session it was something that we were certainly wrestling with during budget hearings okay thank you senator Dismang you're recognized thank you Mister and I was kind of one of restatement sure understand we we are going to set this visit special language to the side so if I'm hearing everything correctly had we have boards and commissions that exist because the fees penalties whatever they have in place some of those boards and commissions working free accounting work and you know legal opinion whatever from DFA as opposed to having to pay an account or having to pay an attorney for you know responsibilities associated with their department that fair correct okay and so now at this point when we did shared services it was and I will say is a member I had no idea that I didn't understand that is what I I guess that that those were free service is being provided for by the state so what kind of got exposed in the process of. Transformation was that the speed you know that these services were being provided for free and at some point someone has to pay. I guess what I what I don't want to do So you have that issue but then you also have probably boards and commissions that were already on the the edge from what I understand pandemic makes a little bit worse they're not clicking as much in maybe their loss membership or whatever it is that they're not even able to cash flow setting aside the issue of at nine paper accounting and legal or whatever the services are do we have an idea. Of what those boards and commissions are because it's almost a separate issue in my opinion. Yes I can yes Sir we we did a spreadsheet when we were looking at this language to look at the income verses the receipts verses the receipts first is the expenditures for all these boards and commissions and that was part of a that was used to draft this language Sir. Per minute so with this it's a tough issue I'm not sure how you reconcile it when we passed out you know catchment preparations all the time and we yes it is no impact general revenue it's not a big deal in the end of the day I think you know the big lesson was will there may not be a direct impact general revenue but they were utilizing general revenues and who made the decision is it a board level decision on whether or not they utilized the FAA yeah I mean I know some of these ended you know folks have their own accounts at their own attorneys whatever it may be how how is that prior to transformation how was that. Can it doled out or how did they make those decisions it was really case by case and you know some of those I'll tell you some of the agencies that will work state central server excuse me we're service bureau agencies some of whom I've always wondered will you know and we had some pretty big ones as I recall that probably could have afforded to do it on their own but just that's how they were written in the law and they utilize those services they were they were comfortable with that some agencies of course would prefer to do their own HR in their own accounting. but others availed themselves of the service bureau that's why that that that's why I was there Mr engine is that part of it was that part of what we look at two who is paying for it on our own versus who is allowing or again taking part in the free service from DFA well a lot of moving parts here in work in progress with this we tried to look at all the different aspects mostly to be completely transparent is the end income versus expenditures I was the driving factor behind this okay all right thank you. I hope all right at. So I don't have any more testimony. anyone remembers okay now I do Senator Bledsoe as back yes and that okay I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for a Mr the Senate secretary to set to come in maybe of tell us he said in in hopes that if we still are a little in handy with the way things are working and that we can get all the stakeholders so to speak to the table to to look at this again. Mr. You're recognized sector thereby set. Secretary of labor licensing We pretty much got everything out the yesterday but what I want to re emphasize here is that one thing we we we need to we need to highlight is that the special language that it would that's in question here now was basically inserted in the all special language that we had coming out of the fiscal session was was replaced that language coming out of the fiscal session was the kind of language that was going to allow us to be able to service these entities. That's the point that we want to make clear here today without that language as it existed initially we can't service these these agencies as they were serviced would serve by service bureau we cannot perform those at those services we also cannot Hey for individuals who are who are going to use their expertise to service them legal I. T. H. R. of. You know finance without that transfer language and we don't have that transfer language anymore now that's the critical point that you need to understand here today I'll absent that transfer language of we're we're essentially hamstrung. and that's that's one thing all entertain questions but that I mean that's the crux of the matter now the reality is as I stated yesterday a number of these agencies prior to transformation we're not cash flowing. They were not cash flowing there and they were in critical of fiscal distress they remain there what we're doing so the charges that we we are that would be rude we're eleven against them did not put them in the negative they have consistently over the years been using their fund balance because their revenues never exceeded their expenditures what we have to do is be creative in how we service these agencies in order to rehabilitate them financially and we're in the process of doing that. But for this specialized which in question. You have got some questions against senator Dismang and senator Hickey so center Dismang you're recognized thank Mr chairman of. So if if we implemented this special language in a way I think this maybe I don't I'm not sure who originated the special language that we may need to what I'm curious that was so what's envisioned means of the. What would you can't make them go negative but they have to have the services at this point they can't utilize the FAA. But they don't have the money to pay for that I mean. So I am I guess my question so at this point you're saying those services just so they need an accounting function they go negative they're just not gonna have an accounting function perform for them. And so as far as on our side senses legislatively driven how did we see that playing out I'm not sure again I have no idea who sponsored special language I can't remember I should know I think it was represented Wardlaw okay Leding that so how did we see this playing out or we could mean who's going to pick up the tab if it's not available from. You know the secretary's not available from DFA is it just something that goes on done or or do we need to have some other component in this to make sure that the provided for. If you all can ensure that we do it we have the you know the Legislative spokes that were involved in this maybe there was something I didn't understand jangly can you answer that well I don't know I can't answer to the legislative intent but I can say that we're not going to let these agencies boards and commissions go without accounting effective accounting services that might need some folks have to stay late it might be more work on our plate over idea saying at some point in time it may mean we come back and ask for the positions to rebuild the service bureau if that's what it takes I think that would be contrary to the intent of transformation. And I I I agree I think it would be I think it would be contrary to the intent of transformation the original special language that we had that created a common paying fun was that concept that would allow us to be able to service these individuals that special language again has been removed and this special language has been inserted in its place That's the whole crux of the matter so would that and to be able to perform those services with if we were to adopt the special language I guess my question is can they even be performed. You mean if with the current special language you're with the current specialized the current special language nine of these agencies or or or or or don't have revenues and expedite have a revenues that exceed their expenditures so they fall into that category where they cannot be have funds transferred from so those so that's a third of my department. Service center thank you have someone yes. You do so. I'm Karen freaky I'm the CFO of the department of labor licensing I just wanted to be sure in response to Senator this man's question. The problem that we're facing. Ultimately is with this special language we don't have the appropriation. In this in a place that we can. Find that we can find it with this special language would not be able to do the transfers that were necessary the appropriations in one place and the findings in another as we discussed yesterday early on I just want to be sure that that point. Didn't get lost in this discussion. Okay Senator Hickey been on and off a few times are you off. Okay and then I've got represent Shepherd then represented love okay thank you Mr of Mr beset thank you thank you so as my understanding the the way this is written with this special language and I do agree that if we pass this basically you all are not going to be able to operate or those agencies are not going to be able to operate but in addition to this we would need to remove special language and insert what was in the. Pre budget language would that be correct yes Sir okay and just another board black that I'm just going to just go after and say. Those few agencies that you're talking about they were using the service bureau who are basically not cash flowing now they were getting their services for free. So if there's not a way to find efficiencies. Through may be sharing some service they're going to have to raise their fees to some of their members to be able to cash flow is that correct. I ideally with the initials of the language that we had we were going to be able to find those efficiencies and they were not going to be able to they're not going to be forced to raise their fees I understand that was supposed to be what transformation was about but we can a hundred percent say that for each one of for all of those agencies that there's going to be enough of the agencies found that that that might not have to transpire is that correct early in the process yes Sir so I can't give nine yeah I understand but that is a possibility is that correct yes Sir okay well I just think that's the. the honest truth about the thing you know we had to we had right or wrong and that's for this this body to understand we had to. We had an entity set up at the FNA to the service bureau that was being provided for free. To those agencies maybe it wasn't free to the taxpayers and whenever we did transformation that went away. So now we have either got to find those efficiencies through your department or the way that you all are helping them. Or at some point if there's not enough there then those fees are going to have to be increased to that membership if this is going to work our only other option would be as Mister Billy just said that this body decides that they don't like what we did in transformation or what that was done in transformation and we go back and reinstall the service bureau. So. I'd is that is that correct. I don't think I have like six using I'd like for Kevin to step in real quick. I just. Thank you Mr chairman of the the transfer language that allows shared services allows you to build the boards and commissions is still in the bill it's the language right before this. the Committee the I just want to make sure you all understood the Joint Budget Committee didn't take that out that shared services for them to able to perform the billing for these boards and commissions this was added in addition to. To be restrictive on the amount they could transfer out I just wanna make sure the committee understood that that shares services transfer language for this agency is still in there they can still build the agencies are just limited in the amount they can build them. So if the map ma'am Mr yes so Kevin. If we were going to have this the way it was before the pre budget at what line would we need to. Takes out we're with this no we we just delete this restrictive language out altogether and it would be the the way it was before this is brand new language that was put in in addition to. That said the department can't transfer out more money to shared services in the authority they have in the section right before this then what the agency's taken in so would we would we on page nine if you have it in front of the. So what are you telling me that owns a line twenty six. Is that where we would need to strive. well. What I'm saying is if you didn't want them to be restrictive you wanted them to be able to transfer out as much as they wanted to. And then you would just delete this whole section because the shared services the language that allows him to go ahead and transfer make those transfers those buildings is right before this section does that make sense Mr Senator Hickey. Well Mister I guess we'll just go on with the additional questions I'm not for sure at some point that we just would need to pull this down and make sure that we get it drafted correctly and then look at it again. Senator Hickey I agree with you I'm gonna let Speaker Shepherd go next and I ask a few questions that may be what we need to do it thank you Mr. Thank you thank you Mr chairman and and I would be fine having this pull down so we can discuss it but just to ask a few questions with regard to my recollection of how this language developed. as Mister Billy indicated under transformation there were certain services that were moved over to the Department transformation and for which they were then build back to the respective boards and commissions and other departments for that matter so that there's an accurate accounting and that that there was uh sharing of those costs across the board this restrictive language came up and I'll see if Mr beset agrees or Mr blade agrees this came up because there was some concern that the billing in terms of that shared amount was going to exceed the revenue and was going to result in license and be increases that would be awfully passed on to What lights the to licensees under this labor in licensing and so the restrictive language was to say you're not gonna pay more than what you the what it's been taken in and really the intent I think was you're not gonna pay more than what you're paying in the past is is am I correct about that. You correct the but I'm sorry. You're correct that there was that concern on the part of some of the agencies but the but what what we what we've clearly stated is that in many cases they weren't paying anything for. And so what our responsibility is as a department is to make sure that what we would that that the cost allocation formula that we utilize is fair and equitable across the board and we felt that we had that kind of mechanism in place but when we remove the common paying funds from the equation then we have no way to transfer into a common paying fine what that means is is that we have to then in essence invoice each of these twenty one entities and then monitor those invoices and then hopefully they get the money back to us in a timely timely manner and then right twenty one different checks for every bill that comes through the through the entity that's what this instance special language forces us to have to do without the transfer and just one other one other question before we pull this down with regard to the the discussion about the FNA was providing services that were. Previously not paid for. May not that nothing's truly free right but but what I think the intent was at a high level was that with regard to the Department transformation shared services is that they would be cap on what they were building these individual agencies departments and boards and commissions and in essence they would absorb whatever additional expenses might be which is really just shifting that. Free service if you will to the extent it is free from DF in a over to transformations and shared services so I just wanted to point that out but I I agree it should be cool down so that we can make sure that we're all comfortable and and make sure the language does what we think you should do. Its members what I'm gonna do represent of love and Senator Dismang or the cumulative answer questions but either way at eight thirty five we're gonna move on to the rest the agenda up I don't want to hold up to read the whole agenda over this but represent love you're recognized. Okay sorry are you okay Mister chair for going pulling down the and I'll we could just move on okay Senator dismaying you're recognized thank Mr chairman and just I guess this to kind of put our by noticed we can start thinking about it you know again we treat cash fund the preparations you know we're pretty liberal with past knows that it's my understanding coming into testimony we've got several of these entities that are upside down you know revenues are under the expenses they've been spending out of fund balances and that's really discussion that we're gonna have start having as of unfortunately is everyone of these cast agencies come before before proof will and and so you Mr secretary this but let's think through with that needs to the to to look like it's a three year look back for each one of those you know what what it how how they've been utilizing the fund balance they were in a pandemic I anticipate there be some utilization of a fund balance that's why he would have won this for time like this but it is something that's historically been happening then we need to know and then also what are these actual new expenses that they're gonna be paying again some have been paying that may even be paying less under the new model and some have been paying anything which always will be paying more. But unfortunately those are discussions we're gonna have to have that sounds like with at least this set of cash fund agencies as we move through the preparation process unfortunately begin we'll get with leadership and try to figure out what that needs to look like so we have a checklist to go through prior to approval preparation. The director said you in South report down have some more discussions and then come back you have anything you'd like to answer thank you Mr chairman and thanks committee for your consideration here we we just wanted to come before you and ask for your assistance and and just inform you as to how other gravity of the situation and we appreciate the opportunity to continue to work on this issue thank you Director you're dismissed moving on to item C. to HB one of seven two Director Samson you're recognized. Members this is house bill ten seventy two on page five of your gender this is department finds the ministration regulatory division we had discussion yesterday. Regards to pay six section seventeen the Arkansas tobacco control promotional items language I believe Mr believed was going to talk to the agency to determine whether or not it was appropriate to codified language. Jake you're recognized. Jake we DFA office so there's a couple different ways we could approach this one would be to codify the language another would be to add to a governor's letter eighty line for promotional items the commitment item twenty six for those of you who are budget. Darks. But that would be a zero line so we wouldn't have any promotional item appropriation but we would still add the line then if the agency wanted to bail themselves of they want to go by promotional items they could come to L. C. and seek a budget classification transfer to move appropriation from another line in their budget down to that new line with LC approval we would achieve the same effect as the the language it in place now we'd be able to remove the special language we just add that additional line of that zero appropriation line to the budget bill. We're happy with either. I don't have any questions from a. Committee on this right now so we do we seem to be happy with with that move. Anyone wanna make a motion. Anyone Speaker Shepherd. Terry Rice. So we we can get rid of the special language by adding a line to their normal budget are we come we will we would present a governor's letter we're comfortable getting rid of the special language and with the plan to be that we will present a governor's letter subsequently to add that additional one zero sum line. No Sir this is on DFI. Okay we'll just a bunch of stuff happened. So Speaker Shepherd were you trying to speak or do you. Okay represented love you're recognized okay so so there there are multiple agencies that have promotional lines in so you're saying there were. This could damage thirty okay so during this peer we just for the special language if we want we want them to have promotion lines and then they they have whatever revenue they have a promotion or you're saying in we could remove the special language. In the in every time they want about promotional items they come to a else the to get the approval yes so what we would be doing is not adding any additional appropriation the only thing we'd really be adding is a new kind of way that they could spend their money any way a new commitment item in their budget. Of course we passed budgets that we passed them for things like operating expenses and salary in match and what not well this would add this would give DFA the flexibility to to spend money on promotional items in their budget but it would give them zero additional budget to do that. That way if the agency wanted to exercise that new flexibility they would have to come to L. C. and basically asked to move appropriation from elsewhere in their budget down to that line it's called a budget classification transfer of BCT we approve them and Pierre Committee every month and. It requires a LC to approve so we would have to come to you all and get your approval to do this. I haven't talked to the other agencies I think your point is that correct we have a lot of agencies that want promotional items were always looking a promotional item special language whether and to what extent this solution might apply to other agencies I haven't asked around but I'd certainly be willing to. Okay I think I have a motion from Speaker Shepherd second represent Cavenaugh to To have you guys had that line into your budget not to this special language all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Okay so I need a motion to remove this special language from the bill. I have a motion and a second removed from the bill all those in favor say aye. Posay NO. Motion carries. Ring on the atom C. three department of public safety. Ms Hampton you're recognized thank you manager of Mister chair sorry we're on page seven this is house bill twelve OO eight. Looking and section forty one this is language dealing with extraordinary expenses right now the department state police is authorized to purchase from the maintenance and general operations classifications some emergency essential items that they have won over the got operations where their employees need to purchase items in emergency situations right now. The amount is capped at twenty five hundred the language that you're looking at their requesting is to remove that cap so the struck through language says up to an amount not to exceed two thousand. All right sorry two thousand five hundred dollars each fiscal year so that like to just remove that cap that way they can purchase what they need whenever they have emergency situations all of these expenses are usually incur by one employee this designated by the Arkansas state police and so for reimbursement place purposes they would like to go ahead and have that language moved. Are there any questions from the committee. Represent Cavenaugh you're recognized do we have any idea what they've historically spent if we take the cap away. Somebody from the Department. Just state your name and you're recognized. Mr using good morning Mister bill bright red to the Arkansas state police. And I'm John Smith and the CFO for public sector. Did you have a question on the we've never. Spent more than twenty five hundred in a fiscal years time. But with the pandemic and with. Civil unrest things that happen we're seeing that that could be a possibility we that's what we're asking to thank the women all. Mr rather than taking the limit off why don't you raise the limit. And I would be good with that. Represent Cavenaugh if I could just add a few things subcommittee director twenty fifteen we created the emergency response team we have over a hundred troopers can go anywhere in the state used for so arrested dual purpose tornado floods things like that and and we discussed before committee meeting that we would work with this committee takes to put a limit you know we're not asking for a blank check it is the discussions been set in the last two or three special language meetings about maybe as we go for code five some of the special language so you know we would be glad to work with the committee maybe. The committee would permit fifty thousand for the year we don't want a blank check we will be responsible but yet. I mean this could be for Mandela's prison breaks plus like we had a northeast Arkansas different things or we had our protests that turned violent we were out there Levin days in which the reason we have never experienced stand it the twenty five ACT UP spent more than twenty five hundred dollars we're very force we have profit organizations come cook forced. And saved us money so we just like the flexibility to take care of our employees and have that there you need to be fiscally responsible so you know we don't want a blank check either so I would deal to this committee if fifty thousand that way if we do codified this language go for I think that would be a fair amount as we proceed. Can can we put down a work on language with them. So that we can get it worked out for the proper amount that you think you need. We found that many okay thank you. I thank to represent him may have a verbal amendment. You're recognized yes I'd like to go ahead on section forty one of to change it where we say we struck out that there is no limit and then raise that limit up to fifty thousand. Page two line thirty five or Page twenty two. Adam see pages eight. Line thirty five will change that fifty thousand dollars. That is the motion to members understand that good. Got a motion and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries thank major. Are moving on to item C. for department of commerce. We're not finished. Mr chairman page term of that section forty four another pieces special languages deals with the client crime lab your medical examiner salaries in order to recruit and retain employees that meet the licensure requirements for these positions in code. They are authorized to exceed or no more exceed fifty percent of the following authorized classifications are listing their this is for the salary levels would like to increase them so they can go ahead and recruit and retain these employees this of course is only going to be implemented after approval by Legislative Council joint budget. What what is this and special language in a personal. We have Tony Robinson here who is the administrator of the personnel subcommittee and Cynder personal heard it during hearings but all special language comes to special language committee during the session okay perfect. R. S. C. N.. No questions from members do I have a motion. Get a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO motion carries special language has passed now we move on to see for department of commerce. Members this is Senate bill one thirty two on page twelve this section fifty three this is new language has been requested by the agency regarding carry forward they would like to carry forward the funds in the Arkansas acceleration fund program any unexpended balances of course that are remaining at the end of each state fiscal year they would like to go ahead and utilize with the appropriate carry forward provisions in there so they have to explain the programs are usually using them for put any expenditures and include all of that information the budget manual so it can be reviewed during budget hearings. I see no questions for members are there any questions seeing under I have a motion. I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO motion carries Adam C. four passes moving on Adam C. five this is Senate bill one fifty eight for department Education Division of elementary and secondary education for the public school fund on page fifteen and section thirty one there's some language that struck through this deals with the educator compensation reform sub Fund there was sixty million dollars that was transferred from the educational adequacy fund to the public school fun and this was called to set up the program and implement any rules or regulations for program. There are other stipulations they have to be kept separate from all other moneys in the public school fund they have to be utilized over four year period on in an effort to. Move the minimum salaries to thirty six thousand by July one twenty twenty three. The fund can't be considered part of the school district's legal balance as stipulated in code for those reasons and. My understanding is the department has to promulgate rules to administer this section so the sixty million has already been transfer programs already been implemented I believe some rules have been put in place so lines thirty four through thirty six on page eighteen and lines one and two on page sixteen are no longer necessary. Right are there any questions from members. Saying nine eleven motion to pass I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO motion carries C. C. five passes moving on to witness their second one sorry section thirty three this is code amendment dealing with the administration of multi district vocational centers they're adding a new section in the code that permits counties and school districts if they enact the local tax to fund the construction of the center to go ahead and use those funds for management maintenance and operation of this. Any questions from members. Saying that I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries so Adam C. five number thirty three also passes now we moving on to section the. Partminer corrections member amendment. Thank you this is house bill twelve oh six for a division of correction within the department of corrections this is a member amendment by Representative Payton there's some language that we had discussed earlier it's included in your packet so you see the first page of the bill and on. Page four of item do you'll see we're starting and section thirty six this is the new facilities language that we had discussed the other day that allow them to transfer from any line item within the appropriation including the shared services appropriations they can operate the facilities expanded their capabilities a transfer and I believe our presenters Payton had some comments and requested this amendment regarding that issue resent Payton you are recognized. Thank you Mr chair so. On the. Page twenty seven of the bill. Adam the full page four you'll see section thirty six. The language is at the top of the next page but anyway I saw this language and thought it looked very broad and I started asking questions if we'd ever used this type of language before this would set a precedent and after talking to Mr believed in the agency they have other means of of covering. through normal channels that all agencies are used to go through legislative counsel And so with kinder agreed to remove this language that's what the amendment does it puts the paragraph the first paragraph of section thirty six back to its original form. Please come down. Please state your name for the record. Jake please DFA office budget. Yes. So I would make a motion that we. adopt the amendment. Do you have any comments on this amendment no ma'am and were discussed with represented Payton with the agency and we're okay with. I have a motion and a second thank you Jake all in favor of. Imposed. Amendment is adopted. Item eight we're going to move out of a on the agenda. Members these items literally just for review these are. Actions that we took in the prior meeting and you'll see that the amendments have been drafted by staff so we're just reviewing the amendments for the sections that have been struck in the at the request of this subcommittee. If there's any questions we do have staff that can answer but once again these were items from the previous subcommittee meeting that were approved. I just wanna. Are there any questions on Adamjee wonder you to. Seeing none do I have a motion pass got a motion and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries. And the following bills release from special language committee H. B. twelve oh eight SP one thirty two S. B. one fifty eight. Any other business. Seeing none. We are adjourned.