ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

Oh I out How you doing, boss? Good to see you. Representative Holcomb, do you wanna open this up in prayer first things first, if you would hit your mic. We won't Lord, we ask that we come together to take care of the business here in this state. Lord, we do what's not only pleasing to those that we serve, but it's pleasing to you. We we stay united. I always look to thee and guidance, dear God, all what we do and our holy precious name we pray. Amen. Representative Milligan. You're recognized to give the special language report. Yes sir, thank you, Mr. Chair. Special language subcommittee. Uh, met on Wednesday, October 30th at 1:30 and reports the following actions, the subcommittee adopted agency recommendations for the Constitutional agencies and the departments of Highway and Transportation language listed in the report. The subcommittee adopted executive recommendations for the, for most state agency language listed in the report. Page 5 and 6 contain the subcommittee recommendations for agencies requesting changes. There are two attachments adopted by the subcommittee for new and revised language. The next special language meeting will take place this afternoon, November 6th at 1:30. In McA in, in Ma meeting room A and I moved for adoption of this of the report. Promotion, but I have center dismay, you have a question or motion? Yes, um, actually I need to suspend the rules, if that's OK with the committee to pass out a change to the special languages related to the purchase of. Uh, vehicle restriction. That's proper motion to have 2. All those in favor, say ah. I post, I have it, rules are suspended, sir, dismay. All right, I'd like to make a. Substitute motion on the special language that was added for the purchase of vehicle restriction, uh, I think the, the way the language was, uh, I guess the final amendment that was passed by the subcommittee. Had approval language, to be honest, it didn't make a whole lot of sense because we were approving a report, not an action, which is not, uh, you know, something that we typically do. So this, this takes that down back to what I think we were originally looking to do, which is just to ensure that there is a study done before we start purchasing vehicles again. And so the new language, you know, be passed out in front of you to take a look at. Are there any questions on the new language? Seeing no is there motion on the new language? I got a motion. I have a 2nd. All those in favor, say ah. I opposed, I have it. So with that we'll go back to the original motion of the report, with the exception of the adopted language on vehicles, so you'll have a second. I have a second. All those in favor, say ah. All posed, eyes have it. Committee will move on to uh institution of higher ed. We have Doctor Ken Warden and Mr. Henry Rice at the table. If you guys would. Uh, introduce yourselves for the record and you are recognized to start presenting. Ken Warden, commissioner Division of higher education. Henry Rice Bureau of Legislative Research. Nick Fuller, Division of Higher Education. Thank you, Nick, and I didn't miss you. Your name just wasn't on my list. So, Mr. Rice, you're recognized. I think, uh, we, did you wanna start with the, uh, it would start with the, with Doctor Warden and come back to you for the spreadsheet. Ladies and gentlemen, members of Sin, we thank you for your time this morning. Uh, I'm gonna ask uh Nick Fuller, our assistant commissioner for finance, to, uh, present the report. Good morning. I'm going to present to you the, uh, the state treasury recommendations from the Coordinating Board. Those recommendations start on page 5 of the budget manual. On page 6 will be the first thing I want to talk to you about on the productivity funding recommendation for hired institutions. You'll see on page 6 is the productivity index for fiscal year 2026. We are showing a 0.12% productivity increase overall for the state. So that results in an additional funding recommendation to individual institutions of $682,000. That, that $682,000 will come from incentive funding from FY 2025 that is reduced, as for the, the distribution model. So if you will see Last year there were, there was $2,011,000 in incentive funds that are reduced from the FY 25 allocations. That are one-time funds above the 2% required restriction on increases the base level for institutions. So money is pulled back and then the $682,000 is redistributed based on the increases for each institution, as you'll see in the the following charts. So that leaves a balance. To be used for statewide purposes of 5.9, almost $5.9 million that we're not able to distribute through the funding model. The distribution of that will be presented to you later on in the, in the year as the governor presents her balanced budget. Of those productivity distributions, we take the, that is just for the general revenue portion of state funds to institutions. We take those amounts for each school, at the current year allocations for Workforce 2000 funds and educational excellence Trust funds. And that is how we determine what the operating recommendation for each institution is that you'll see on pages 7 and 8. Those are the operating recommendations for state treasury appropriation for the formula entities. If you'll notice at the end of those charts in the green columns. There is an additional column that says 5% appropriation adjustment. We make that recommendation above the funding levels to account for any increases within the educational excellence Trust Fund or the Workforce 2000 fund. Above the current year levels to make sure that institutions have adequate appropriation moving forward. For FY 26, those numbers, you will see in each institution's recommendation, the appropriation adjustment number is listed in a contingency line item. Separate from the operational light items that they have. This is based on language that is in the division of higher ed appropriation Act that allows an institution if the need for that appropriation arises, they can come to you all in the peer committee in the interim for ALC peer or joint budget if you're in session and ask for transfer from that contingency to any line item they have within their treasury appropriation. allow them to adjust line items to be able to spin the state revenues allocated to them in the middle of the year without having to come ask for increases above what they're already authorized at the beginning of the year. And on page 9 is the operating recommendations for the nonformula entities. See these requests are based off of FY 25 funding levels with a 7% continuing level increase recommendation. Based on the higher education price index. And then any program or base operations for enhancement requests that the entity submitted to our division. The nonformula entities resulted in a, in an increase of $25 million above current level funding and in the recommendation. And that is our total recommendation for state funding for the higher ed institutions. the total funding would be right around $700 million in state revenue. Any questions? Representative Beck, you recognize. Thinking this might be something that we can discuss later but why is there, you know, for years you see on the, on the two-year college recommendations there, it's almost like there's colleges or institutions that started up here and there's some that started down here and as far as funding is concerned, and then I'm talking about per student type funding and we never seem to close that gap. We, you guys do a good job of increasing the funding, but it kind of just goes flat, so the people are that are at the lower level are are less funded. Then the people top so how are we ever gonna try to make it maybe there's a reason for that and, and you can explain that to me, but how do we ever hope to levelize that out if we just keep doing across the board increases for for the category. So when we Thank you for the question, in the Beck. So when we began the formula, we started from a baseline of where it was, uh, and we did, we didn't do any like. Overarching levelization based on a headcount we started where the institutions were. And then when the formula was implemented, uh, you know, I'm blessed by this body. There's very little discretion, if none really, that we have in that process and so as institutions have increased their enrollments or excuse me, it's not based on Roman, it's based on certificates and degrees, increase their degree production or decrease their uh their, their, their degree production. Uh, we have a 2% threshold up or down in their base. So one is that it started from a baseline that was not to your point, uh, quote unquote, even, uh, and so we started from a place that wasn't. even and so it has never caught up and with the 2% up or down if folks have gains or losses that are exceed that, then that just kind of extend it continues that and can in some cases exacerbate that problem. You recognize it. Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Beck, I didn't know your mic was off. I'm sorry, I, I turned it off so. I, I guess the a challenge maybe I'll I'll just put this out there, it's a look at a way to to better levelize those because I think, I think there's some great people do some great things and they're fun at a much lower level and, and this is really these are the people who are doing a great job as far as workforce development and and and for our country, our for our state, excuse me, and, uh, and I think we need to make sure that we're rewarding them appropriately and we, and, and I think something needs to happen as far as this funding matrix is concerned to civilized that often and, and make it a, uh, I guess an even playing field would be a better way to put that, so thank you. Sir Chesfield, you recognized. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Good morning, I want to start out by saying thank you, uh, for always responding when I have called on you. Uh, as you know, one of my great concerns is that I believe what we afford higher ed is still among the best kept secrets in the state of Arkansas. Have we budgeted anything that will allow people to be more conversant with the Our Futures grant, the Challenge grant, the opportunities that we have with concurrent credit. What are we doing to publicize ourselves because people steal. Look at me. With wonder when I start saying, you know, you can go to school 2 years for free. And they're wondering why nobody's told them that. Are we increasing the communications budget so that we toot our own horns a little bit better than we've been doing so that we can increase the number of young people who are going to go into higher ed, whether it be career or the 4 year. Yes ma'am, and we, we aren't increasing the overall request for our advertising budget, and that'll be at the department hearing that we have next week for the department itself, but we are better maximizing those funds that we have, and I think you'll see when we present that, that the, the utilization of AR Future has definitely increased over the past two years since we began promoting that and had that marketing budget to be able to advertise for those. So we are seeing an uptake in utilization of it. So it is, it is showing there is a payoff to that, so we're trying.on. And so tell me and with some degree of accuracy, how many as a result of your effort, how many more Arkansas children are taking advantage of what this state has been so kind to provide. We have any numbers? I don't know that I have a headcount number for how many we awarded, I will say we have went from spending around $2 million on that program to the last year we spent 4.5 million. So we've we've almost doubled or more than doubled the expense that we've done on paying the scholarships. That is good news because I know for a while we weren't, nobody was taking advantage of it. We lost funding for it, and yet it is the gateway, I think, to so many young people being able to come out of there with a technical degree. And moving on then to um a BA or a BS ma'am, or into the workforce work. Thank you so much and thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to add on to what Senator Chesterfield said, can you also check and see, I'm curious to know the, uh, The people that are taking advantage of that, where they're coming from around the state. Can you break that down as well? Thank you. Senator Chesfield, you recognize for a quick one. Would you break it down by region and by gender. OK, thank you. All right, Mr. Rice, you ready for the spreadsheet? Thank you, Mr. Chair, Henry Rice, uh, if you'd please look at the document titled Institutions summary of institutions of higher education, which should be on your desk. It's a summary of appropriations that we hope will assist you in your decision making today. You'll be looking at and making a decision on the appropriations for Treasury, cash, and other appropriations that are in this binder. So there are 3 parts to the summary. The first part you'll see on the first page is for treasury appropriations, which are paid from the revenue stabilization fund educational excellence, and Workforce 2000 funds. So if you read from left to right in the columns it shows the institution or the fund. It'll show you the page number that the appropriation appears on in the manuals and the authorized appropriations that they currently have this fiscal year. And following that you have the AEC that's the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendations for fiscal years 26 and 27. The following columns showed the change in dollar amount for the next biennium, as well as the percent change from the current authorized appropriation levels. The far right column has asterisks in it and one asterisk will show line item changes, 2 asterisks will show either an addition or deletion of a line item and 3 asterisks will indicate. The addition or deletion of a new appropriation section. So on this first page it totals the 4-year institutions at the bottom. The 2nd page of your handout, it also, it totals the two-year institutions and it's in the same format and again these are the treasury fund appropriation summaries. If you turn to the 3rd page. That's the beginning of the cash appropriation summaries. So these are the ones that are paid from tuition and fees, sales and federal funds. It also has the same format, and on the very last page we have what are called other appropriations for this handout that includes tobacco funding, special revenues from court filings that go to the University of Arkansas and UA UALR law schools and breast cancer research funds, among others, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have on this summary. Seeing no questions. Do I have a motion to adopt higher ed Rick. Oh, Senator Caldwell, do you have a motion? Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I do have a motion and members, uh, East Arkansas Community College is being assimilated into the, uh, University of Arkansas, and my motion has to do with, uh, correcting, uh, uh, wording in, in, uh, legislation and rules. Uh, I make a motion, any reference to East Arkansas Community College in Bill drafting be changed to the University of Arkansas, East Arkansas Community College, as well as changing the position of president to Chancellor. That's my motion. That's a proper motion. I have 2. All those in favor say aye, all posed, I have it. Thank you. And Yeah, he does. There's a second motion, Senator Caldwell. If you're ready for the second motion, uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, committee, we did this uh last session also, but, uh, I make a motion for the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendation for all institutions, but the division of agriculture be drafted separately from the University of Arkansas Systems Bill. Uh, what that does is allow us to, uh, vote on the division bag budget separately. We did the same thing, uh, last session. So, uh, that's my motion. What's proper motion of 2nd members, I do have a member in the queue, Representative Wooton, do you have a question on this motion? No, I'm not on this question. I might have missed my opportunity uh if you can come back to me, I would appreciate it. I'll definitely try. Our members, we have a proper motion on the floor with a second. All those in favor, say ah. All posed eyes have it. Thank you, Miss Shed. Thank you, members. Thank you. OK, so guys, I'm gonna have you hold on a second, Representative Wootton, what's your question before I let you go on the on the uh C2 example. Um There's a lot, awful lot of zeros. Child abuse on page on the first page, the child, child abuse and neglect program psychiatric research, healthcare initiative, newborn and biblical cord blood. Well, is this where y'all did not recommend any increase in those or did the institution not ask for it. We did not recommend an increase and they did not ask for an increase. They did not ask for increases. And these, those I believe are special revenue funded or miscellaneous agencies funded where there's not part of the productivity and funding model. Follow-up question. There was an article in the newspaper last week that indicated that y'all were hiring a lot of additional people. And uh new positions in that type of thing, is that correct? Well, what, what, what, what are they, what are they trying to convey. What about the Grantham situation. No, sir, we have, where we acquired 3 250, 300 people and we just brought them in, that was at the time that we swamped down 1100 positions and uh the way we're occurring on it still looks like we're adding 230 new positions. What's the reason for that? Yes. And, and the that we'll see on the charting personnel this afternoon. It's not that we're adding to the 200 and, I believe, 13 new positions for Grantham. Those were added in the interim when they were brought on, but they were not in the previous session in the Appropriation Act. So that act reflected 0, and now that they're showing in the act for those same positions that we initially brought on, it looks like a large increase, but it's the exact same positions that were at the outset whenever Grantham was brought into the US system. How many positions did y'all have last year? The recommendation for 26 as a whole for the institutions is an increase of I believe 57 the whole across all of the institutions, yes, sir. OK, let me ask you one more. Where, where, where do you keep those numbers. Well, I mean, they are shown on any report that I've looked at. They they should be for each institution. They, they should be in the the Book that's printed and presented for you, that'll be in in handed out in the the personnel committee hearing. Oh. One more. Represent a William that the last one and you're gonna talk to them offline, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your forbearance. How much interest do you all collect a year? Well, that, that, that would be a question I have to get from, from each individual institution is they, they collect that interest separately. We don't I don't want, I don't wanna know each individual account, but I want to know all the interest that comes into you through banks, through the state treasury, whatever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So with that, you guys are excused. We'll move on to the Department of Ag. Let's maintain order as we exit the building. I, I get sleepy. Then listen to me. Ms. Smith, if you would, if you're ready, we'll go ahead and get started. We have a letter, a letter that you. You guys would introduce yourself for the record, and we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Kathy Schmidt with the Bureau of Legislative Research. West 4 from the Department of Agriculture. We can bring your budget back up if you can't keep the noise down. We are carrying on business. Miss Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're gonna start with a letter, uh, revised request coming from the Department of Agriculture and it should be on your desk, uh, this letter from Secretary Ward is uh requesting some changes in their appropriation bills currently the Department of Agriculture has 3 appropriation bills. One is a bill that has the 6 promotion boards in it. One bill has the Agra Shared Services as well as livestock and poultry, plant board, and forestry as well as meat inspection and some other marketing programs. The 3rd appropriation bill that AR has is natural resources bill and this request, this revised request that they have submitted is to combine the Agri bill with the livestock and poultry plant board, uh, forestry as well as the natural. Sources bill into one appropriation bill and to combine the positions uh except for the shared services, uh, from the, uh, natural resources bill and the AGRI bill into one salary section as well as one extra help section. And they also are requesting some special language to deal with the transfer of the personnel positions. So that's the first request before you this morning. Members, uh, seeing without objection, we'll adopt the letter with the exception of the One Piece having to go to special language. Is there any objection to that? Seeing no Representative Wootton, do you have a question at this point or can I move through? OK. All right, Ms. Smith, you're recognizable. We'll start with the, uh, beef council, I guess. We're starting with the promotion boards as I mentioned, there are 6 promotion boards and only 2 of those boards have, uh, changes to their appropriations. Mr. Chairman, if you want me to, I'll just point out those with changes, ma'am. OK, that'll be on the first one you're in, uh, section 4 of your manual, uh, starting with page one, agriculture, but the first promotion board was The change will be found on page 8 in your manual, and this is the catfish operations and the change that the agency is requesting is to reallocate $5000 from a line item called consumer information to research development to better align with the actual spend for that part of the agency and the executive provides for that request. The only other promotion board with a change is found on page 14. And this one is the soybean promotion board, and the agency in this case is asking for an increase in $300,000 in their research and development line item and this is in anticipation of higher soybean production and that higher production will result in larger remittances to the National Soybean Board. The executive provides for the agency request, and according to the letter, this would all be found in one appropriation bill. Oh We're on 4. 41 page 54 in the a book. Without objection, we'll adopt the ones with changes with the executive re. Move on to the next changes. Ms. Smith. Mr. Chairman, now we're moving to page 18, we are in volume 4, page 18. This is the shared services, uh, appropriation for AR and the changes that they're requesting are restoration of two growth pool positions, uh, reallocation of $200,000 from professional fees to operating expenses in order to better align with the actual spend and then in the case of this one, the restoration of their capital outlay, $200,000. to replace outdated vehicles. The executive provides for that request as well as some additional personnel changes, the reclassification of one position and discontinuation of 3 positions. We'll move on to the next appropriation with changes is going to be found on page 24. This one is the Agra department operations appropriation. It's funded by general revenue. Um, this is uh. The appropriation dealing with uh livestock and poultry plant board, forestry, and the promotion boards. The executive recommendation, um, is to go along with the agency request, which was at for actually for no changes. The executive is also requesting reclassification of 3 positions and discontinuation of one position, um, and the salary and match associated with that. Moving on to the next one with a change, uh, on the next page, page 26. Is the livestock and poultry, animal disease and controlled eradication program. The only change in this one is restoration of their capital outlay $120,000 and they note that they'll use that to replace age testing and emergency response equipment. Next on the next page, page 28, is the livestock and poultry egg grading program, and this appropriation, the agency is requesting an increase in their refunds and reimbursements of $132,000. They know that's in anticipation of egg grading rate increases that will result in again a larger remittance to the United States Department of AGRA and also the restoration of their capital outlay $100,000 to replace equipment for the egg and poultry grading staff. Moving on to the next appropriation with changes is found on page 29 and 30. This is the Agra Laboratory testing appropriation. They're asking to reallocate from a line item for the National Animal Health Laboratory Network. This is for their certifications to move that up into operating expense to align with the actual spending for that line item and restoration of their capital outlay to replace lab machinery and equipment along with purchasing and new equipment. The executive provides for that request by the agency. The next appropriation is the uh one found on 31 and 32. This is the equine infectious anemia Appropriation, the only change the agency is requesting in this is the restoration of their capital outlay. Again, $100,000 to replace office equipment. The executive provides for that request. We're going to skip over the next one that has no change and we'll move now to the plant board, uh, the administration. For pest control, found on pages 35 and 36. This is um an appropriation they were requesting an increase in extra help and overtime, uh, and personal services matching, and they note that this increase is needed in order to fulfill the anticipated increase in peanut production here in the state. There are also asking for reallocation of 55,346 from license and enforcing line item to the operating line item again, uh, the agency is just lining up expenditures with. actual projections of what they think in the line items that they'll need them, and again, the increase in their capital outlay, uh, to maintain lab and inspection equipment. The executive provides for that request as well as the discontinuation of 3 positions and the salary and match to go along with that. The next one that we're gonna take a look at, we're gonna skip a few and we're gonna move over to forestry on page 48. This is the, the big appropriation for the forestry department found on pages 47, 48, um, this is the request that the agency has on this is to reallocate $200,000 that they had in a line item for a replacement of the district office which has been taken care of, they want to move that to operating expenses to better align with their actual spin to restore their capital outlay $1,663,000. for in capital outlay to replace outdated fleet, reallocation of, uh, $3,190,000. They're moving this from the Forests Legacy program, uh, which is a, a line item in this appropriation. They're wanting to move that to page 60, where we'll see that being moved to and increase their underserved landowner outreach, uh, by a half a million dollars for federal grant awards that they're anticipating or have. received as well as increasing their outreach and planning a line item to accommodate federal grant awards by $225,000. Again, the executive recommendation goes along with this request from the agency as well as some additional personnel changes, uh, reclassification of 3 position and discontinuation of two positions. That takes us to, uh, the next appropriation that we want to look at is on page 49 and 50. This is the forestry rural community fire protection. This is a federal program, uh, they have several requests that they're asking for in this appropriation. They are asking for an increase in operating expenses to accommodate additional federal grant funding that they're receiving increase of $30,000 in professional fees to support division sponsored events, that is their burn school workshops that they provide, uh, increase of $220,000 in grants and aid. to accommodate additional federal grants and an increase in capital outlay, and this is $270,000 to purchase bulldozers to ensure rapid wildfire response throughout the state. And these are for their uh rural community and assistant volunteer fire departments appropriation. The executive provides for that agency request. The next one is on urban forestry services on page 51 and 52, um, this one is uh federally funded program. They are asking for an increase in the urban and community forestry line item to align with their budgeted levels that incorporate additional federal funding. The executive provides for that request. On the next page, we're skipping that one and moving on to the foresters, um. State forestry trust program. On this one, the only change that they're requesting is the restoration of $2,250,000 in capital outlay. This is the appropriation that they will use to replace a fleet of bulldozers and transport units, uh, needed by the agency, the executive provides for the agency request on that. Uh, forestry, excuse me, on page 57 and 58, Forestry Southern pine beetle Prevention. Uh, this appropriation is only, uh, there only changes an increase in their grants and aids to accommodate federal grant awards, that's $80,000. The executive provides for that request. On page 60 is the forestry, uh, forest legacy appro appropriation. They're asking for a discontinuation of grants in aid of $137,500 and that is just to better align with the actual spend and then they're asking for an increase of $6 million in the Forest legacy program, and this is for land acquisition costs, the 3,190,000 is being relocated from page 48. uh, earlier, but they're moving it in with some additional um funding in that area. The executive provides for the agency request. Skipping over to page 63 and 64. This is the foresters, uh, for future scholarship program, its funding is made up of special revenues and uh currently, uh, I believe they told me they had $4000 a student in, uh, uh, per semester for the scholarship program, they're wanting to increase that by $10,000 to expand the existing scholarship program, and this is dealing with forestry. On the next page uh is the AGR scholarship program and their not asking for any changes in that particular program, we'll move over now to page 72, 71 and 72 is the refunds and transfers for the plant board cash appropriation. They are asking for a decrease in refunds and reimbursements, uh, that's the only change, and you'll note there were actually no expenses in this appropriation in in the past year, but in case they need refunds and reimbursements, they are requesting a reduction to $50,000 the executive provides for that request by the agency. Next is the meat inspection program, uh, this is funded by money through federal grants, uh, they are requesting the well, the agency was making no changes, the executive provides for, uh, uh, some changes in personnel. The personnel are actually seen on another page, but uh, payment of 3 positions would be made, uh, discontinued from this appropriation. Next is Feral hog eradication, that's spelled on page 75 and 7. Uh, this is from fines that fund this collective that funds this program. The agency requests a reduction of $2,800,000 in that feral hog eradication line item to align with the federal allocation for the program and the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Next is the Agra Fair funding program. This is the line item that funds the various district livestock shows, uh. and state fairs and that kind of thing and they are requesting a change. They are asking to reallocate $54,000 from the program operating expenses, the expenses, the AGRA department, uh, uh, receives in order to administer this, uh, and that was that amount would be transferred uh to the, uh, district fairs in order to make grant payments to the North Central Fair. The executive provides for the agency request. Forestry, rural fire protection program. Uh, this is the one that runs through the Arkansas Association, um, out in, uh, Rowland, Arkansas, they are asking for a reduction of $20,000 to align with the general revenue allocation for the program. This is funded through general revenue. Next is the um meat inspection program. This is the general revenue funded appropriation for this program. Um, in this, the agency is requesting the decreases in salary, personal service matching, and operating expenses, um, and this is where we see the 3 positions that are actually taken out of the authorized the executive provides for the agency request on page 83 and 84 is the Agricash operations, um, on this one they're asking for an increase in their conference and travel expenses to support a conference that they had. have the Arkansas Grown conference, which I think will be taking place in January and they're asking for a reduction in the Buffalo River watershed grants, uh, projects line item to better align with the remaining funding that's available for that, uh, allocation, and then we have the industrial hemp research program. Um, this is funded through fees and licenses, and they're asking to decrease, um, 200,000 $200,500. Uh, for the line item on uh industrial hemp research program, and that is just to better align with the current funding levels for the agency. Those are all the changes that are being requested in Agra's uh appropriation bills. And the board has lit up. So we'll start off with Representative John Eubanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Secretary, actually I have a couple of questions uh regarding the forestry division, uh, especially with regard to uh fire protection and, um, Wondering what your staffing requirements are or what they are, are they all filled? Uh, it I've been told that a hiring freeze may be preventing you from feeling some. Is that accurate or is that just a, a, a rumor and then I'll let you answer that before I ask the others. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the, the question and uh the forestry, especially, uh, as everyone knows over this, this past month or so we've had a uh a high occurrence of wild wildland fires throughout the state and so, uh, I appreciate the, the question from, from yourself and other legislators on this topic, uh, throughout various parts of the state, uh, so we, we've been doing some. on our personnel numbers as well as equipment needs. We were here special language last week talking about, you know, dozers and equipment that, uh, that play an important role, uh, in our wildfire response capabilities, uh, currently, just to, to share the numbers on our, our forestry staff, uh, we have, we have allocated 282 total positions for forestry, uh, 83% of those are filled, um, so we're, we're at a decent level as far as staffing we would like to be a little bit higher. We've got. 22 of those positions are currently advertised, uh, you know, one of, one of our challenges, especially on the lower graded positions is they'll, they'll come in, they'll get trained, they'll be here for a year or two and then they'll, they'll move to another, another job with higher pay, but, uh, that, that topic aside, you know, statewide we have been trying to take a more statewide comprehensive approach to our wildfire response and wildfire management, uh, and so as opposed to necessarily looking at a specific county and saying we need 5 people here, it's looking more in a regional and state. wide basis of where are the fires occurring, where do we need the equipment, where do we need the personnel, uh, so we, we are, uh, and we'll continue to work through that, you know, thankfully we've, we've had some, some rain recently that will, uh, lower, uh lower the risk of wildfires throughout the state currently, uh, but, you know, as far as the staffing level, I think we're, we're at a, we're at a level where we can respond adequately. Uh, but we do have several positions that we're trying to get filled just to give a little more cushion and certainly on the wildfire capacity if you have a bad wildfire year. Uh, you know, you can only work so many hours until they're fatigue and accidents start happening, so we're, we're mindful of that and we're, we're working to, uh, address that as, as best as we can. So there's nothing preventing you from filling those positions. That's, that's correct, and I'm, I'm glad that you mentioned that, you know, uh, uh, unfortunately, we, we've heard that a couple times that there is a hiring freeze and there, and there's not. We've, we've worked very closely with the governor's office and with TSS, you know, they, they have all been very responsive on, uh, if there's a forestry need to get those positions advertised. I think our our challenge has been, uh, just we're getting those positions filled and, and maintained. We, we, you know, we've got a fairly high turnover rate with our forestry. positions and so just that's part of the struggle. It's not a, it's not a hiring freeze at all. We've got great support from the governor and uh the other branches within the executive branch and other departments to to fill those and so, uh, it's, it's, it's really just a matter of getting people in those positions and being able to keep them there. I understand the difficulty of may be fulfilling them, but do you need to increase the overall number of personnel that you have in that division. I think that's part of our ongoing efforts and and working with the governor's office in TSS just to make sure we've got the. adequate number, um, you know, I, I would say right now we're, we're at a, at a, at a baseline capacity to respond throughout the state, but we, we do need a little bit of cushion and I think that's, that's what these field positions if we could get them, if we could get those positions filled that we have advertised that would give us the appropriate cushion that that we need there. As we talked earlier this summer, uh, the person that leases my farm had a fire get out and so it was imperative that the forestry people come and they did an outstanding job fighting that fire and containing it. The other question I have has to do with the uh prescribed burner courses. Now, it's my understanding you're supposed to be working in conjunction with Game and fish. Are you actually doing that or is game and fish taking on all that responsibility. It's a, it's another great question, and I, I do have I pulled some data, we got a phone call about that yesterday and pulled some information, be happy to share with you and the rest of the legislative members, uh, so there, there have been, uh, a number of courses that we participated in. It, it is a joint effort between the AG department and, and the game and fish commission, uh, what I think might give the appearance that we haven't been participating is that we use the game of fish, uh, portal. for registration, uh, and signing up for the courses so it, it, it would give the appearance that we're not doing it, uh, but we are actively participating in all the trainings. I've got a list of the, the trainings that we've, uh, conducted with, with the game and fish in partnership with Game and Fish since August, uh, since then we've, we've had 229 attendees and we've participated in all of those. We're working on a, a card to make sure, not required, but if someone goes to the training that way they've got some proof that they've participated in that qualified prescriber burner course, should they? Should there be a question about a fire. So, uh, certainly we, we are participating. I'd be happy to share this information, uh, with yourself and, and other members if that's, if that's helpful. And Mr. Chair, I have one more question. Uh, and then I. What caught my attention was on page 79, the reduction in the by $20,000 for the rural fire protection program. Can, can you elaborate on that a little bit more. Yes, sir. That's a, it's That one's a little, uh, unique, so we, we have the department has a rural fire program that we operate and I think has, has been doing really well this, this specific piece is a separate. Separate historical funding to the RC and the, you know, resource conservation, uh, development. It's a separate entity that had historically received grant funding of about $50,000 a year. So to, to align general revenue. Uh, allocations with what that entity was receiving for grant funding. It's, it's really at about $20,000. So that that's that reflects that change. It is not a change change to our program within the Department of Agriculture, our rural fire program. It's this other grant that this entity had historically been receiving. Do we need to be concerned about that reduction? I, I don't think so. I, I think, you know, we, we, we partner with them, we work with them, uh, our world fire response is, is a. Is a Dedicated coordinated effort throughout the state to work with volunteer rural fire departments throughout the entire state and other entities whether that's conservation districts or RCND or uh all partners are, are part of that effort through rural fire. So I, I, I think we're in a good spot there. I've, I've, I do not have any concerns with, with that, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Eubanks. One of my biggest concerns is that 20,000 being returned because one of the things when this bill was drafted to set up the rule the fire assistance program and, and qualify folks to be qualified burners. You guys were supposed to take that lead. Game of Fish came in at the last hour and asked to be a part of it, and it was added in the committee. I was standing down in the AG committee when it was added. And they've taken the lead and they've went out and they've had these classes. You guys haven't had one class that was put on by your department, by yourself, and that's concerning to me. I want to see more classes. I want to see more participation, uh, this is a great thing for our state. It will help us with our fire budget because if we prescribe burn these tracks, we're not going to see as many wildfires on these tracks. And so it's a cost prohibitive thing. more than it is just a habitat issue, and it's a huge habitat issue coming from someone that's in the, uh, outdoor world, so. With that Representative Mark Barry, you recognize. I think the Supreme chairman. Um, my question, secretary, is about, uh, I don't know if you saw this coming Madison County opposite, uh, y'all closed without telling me, by the way, I had to hear it from the county judge, and, uh, I would appreciate a little heads up on that in the future, but Um Is that the only one person office in the state of Arkansas that y'all closed? I'm Kyle Cunningham State Forester, Department of Agriculture, um, yes, sir, that's the only office that had one ranger located. OK, so, uh, and where do they, where did the, does Madison County get their support now? So we, I worked with our district forester, uh, from District 6 up there and we put a fire response plan and a natural disaster response plan in place and it'll be from the four surrounding counties, uh, Washington, Franklin, Carolyn, and Newton. You know how long it takes, uh, to get up the pig trail from Franklin County with a fire truck central portion of the county will be covered by Washington out of our Fayetteville office and because of the road systems there, yeah, the, the Franklin County will really do. The very southern tier. And we have had several fires there in October. Uh, the rangers still there right now, but you know, having a one person office, you know, we've somewhat been In that position because we don't send one person to a fire. How many years has it been one person? Uh That's been, I guess, uh. Going on a year and a half or maybe 2 years, something like that. And how many, how many was authorized in there previously. Um, we had 2 there previously. OK, um, Well, I just have some concerns because Madison County is a very rural county, a lot of uh trees in that area and uh uh I think having one person, at least one person in the to to work with the rural and local fire departments, everything would be extremely valuable, and I hate to see, you know, for what it costs to, uh, keep that individual and keep that office open. Uh, I think it's more of a benefit to, uh, my district, uh, if it was kept open. Uh So that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Berry. I, I don't know how we're gonna make it come January. Representative Wootton, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mr. Secretary, on, uh, You're, uh, report on the 5th of September. You showed um 121 vacant positions. Uh, 6070 total for your department, the 18% of the vacancies, what, what are those in with 121. Yes, sir. So, uh, you know, a, a reflected uh updated report, uh, as of this week we, we pulled those numbers, so we're, we're currently at. Uh, what would be 550 positions filled, uh. Um, 58 positions that are advertised, so it ranges the, the areas that, that, that are vacant that are, that are identified there are a lot of those are forced repositions. We've got about 22 of those, uh, engineers, uh, some of our, our veterinary sports staff, lab staff, those, those are primarily the positions that we've had the, the biggest challenge of, of hiring and keeping, so it, you know, we, we kind of go through a little bit of a revolving door of we get it advertised, we get it filled. And then it's just this constant turnover, so our turnover rate has been, has been a challenge for some of these competitive. Yes sir, yes sir, you have, uh, 19 positions of the 121 have been vacant for over two years. What it was those, what, what, what are those positions and why are they still vacant? Or why are you still carrying them? Yes, sir. So, uh, we, we did submit an Act 796 report, uh, and we had 77 on that, so I, I would have to double check those numbers just to make sure we're. Answering that more specifically, but, uh, that, that ranges from. Uh, generally, uh, there's, there's a GS3 position, a really low graded position. There's a GS7 land resource specialist position, uh, couple of fiscal positions in an IT position for Stranger ag inspector, so those, those are the ones that we were tracking as far as the Act 796 requirements, uh, 5 of those we are trying to keep our, our IT position in particular, uh, but there's a couple that we are, we are going to surrender and, and generally just because they're lower graded and Just to avoid that turnover that we've 60 you have roughly 603 William. Your budget is 65, you have 61, you're authorized 63. You're asking for 65 and the executive recommends 62. What, what do you do those, what, what are those positions do in the central office or the shared services. What, what are they responsible for. Yes, sir. So our, our, our shared services is, uh, is reflective of of the the services that are that are provided throughout the entire department and all four kind of operational divisions, so that's our, our legal staff, that's our fiscal HR IT. Um, all of those positions are part of that shared services that as opposed to having, you know, TYT positions for each division, we can consolidate that instead of having 8 IT positions, we could have 4, so it's, that's what that shared services is reflective, reflective of that makes up roughly 10% of your, uh, total employment. Yes, sir. You use in the central office. On page uh. Hey, on page 18. Um I see that professional fees. 238,0906. Uh, actual expenses, 451,000 budgeted and then 904,000, that's almost a million dollars authorized and then, and then you're asking for 704,000 when you only spent 238. Well, one of the disparity between the actual expenses in the, the budget. I know Suzaki, fiscal officer. So the 238,000 is tied to our fire suppression contract. So the more fires, uh, the more fires we get, that total expenditure will go up. So the reason why you're showing 238,000 it's because we have less in fire suppression costs in fiscal year 2024. And again We won't be able to project what our fire suppression's gonna be. In 2026 and 2027, the reason why we're keeping that spending authority at the level that we're requesting. Well, what, what's your anticipation of your expense to uh expenditures for the, for the 26, 27. Is it 704,000. You're increasing it. Almost a half a million dollars. So we budgeted, budgeted 704. That is correct. So that's a half a million dollars, but that's 500,000 more than you spent, you know, 4, are you, are you gonna increase that category that much. I guess what I'm saying is, why are we budgeting so much money when we're only going up my budgeting process always use the actual numbers and then extrapolated that out to you to poor anticipated growth, uh, inflation or whatever, increase in cost and that type thing. I didn't jump from 238 to 704,000. So a good example would be this current fiscal year. We're looking at Uh Fire suppression costs to be a little bit over $600,000. For fiscal year 202 you see what I'm saying? Yes, sir. OK. And then the total budget's 8.3 million and you're asking for 10.2. And the executive recommends 10.115, so What, what is the difference between what you want and what they want. And so I believe the difference had to do with the positions, uh. The positions that we're gonna end up surrendering. Uh, as parts Act 796. And also uh some uh growth pool positions that we ended up, uh, getting. So if you look at Agency requests of 65 total positions versus 62. Uh, looking at those numbers. We added 2 additional growth positions to the authorized 63 and surrendered. Uh 3. And so that makes up that. 62 total positions. But you see my point about your budgeting process and then I worry about the personnel aspect. It just seems like the 65, 63 people in the central office in a, in a, in a shared services position is an awful lot as much as 10% of your employment, but thank you and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your report on the interest. That's exactly what I'm looking for only in one lump. number, but thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irving, you recognize. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all very much for being here. And, um, just I have a few quick questions, um, on page 76, when we talk about the feral hawk eradication, I understand aligning that because that federal, um, I guess, uh, allocation is, is not there, um, but on the transfer of 11,744 for motor vehicle fund. Is that purchasing a vehicle with for the program itself, or is that a transfer just to the agency of the vehicles uh for the program. OK, um, and then what, and, and you may have said this, but what is other underfunding sources. We have a fun balance and I, I appreciate that we're utilizing that fund balance. I think that's appropriate. But what is the other underfunding? So, so the other is the debt transfer of the motor vehicle. Oh in and transfer out along with uh Um, yes, so, so that's the net transfer of the money that came in for the uh vehicle transfers, uh, purchase and the money that went out, uh, for the motor vehicle transfers. OK, so it's just interagency funding that was transferred? OK, that, that's just one and then and then back to um the discussion about the fire protection, and I know, um, that we've had several discussions of in this committee over the past couple of weeks of legislative initiatives that were seeing appropriations being eliminated for legislative initiatives, and that bothers me, um, and there are reasons why you know, this legislation was brought forward by members of the General Assembly, um, because it's a reflection of their districts and what their districts are facing and going through. So I, I would really request that we put that 20,000 back in, um, as appropriation, um, whether it's funded or not, I still believe that that was a legislative initiative that I think it was important. It was important for the sportsman's caucus, uh. To, um, and I think it's a really important tool. I will tell you in an area that I live in where we do have prescribed burns, um, generally that are being conducted by the US, uh, forestry. Sometimes they work and sometimes they are horrible. And there was a case, you know, there was a situation under previous leadership of US forestry in the Ozark National Forest, as you drive from Mountain View to Calico Rock. Where it just looked like a whole another planet because they did not anticipate for the heat coming off of the rocks and the shale, and it just burned everything to a crisp. And when you live in a state of, and you live in an area of the state of Arkansas like we do, I mean, everywhere is gorgeous and beautiful, but tourism depends on our natural resources and our beauty and our wildlife and our habitat, but it's dangerous and these fires can get out of hand. So, you know, I just, I know we have so many needs across the state of Arkansas, and I really think that we need to streamline and focus on priorities, but I would just really want us to keep this appropriation in there. It's not that much and maybe we can find something to throw towards it, um, just because I, I, I've seen it go bad, and I've seen a really, really, really bad outcome on a prescribed burn, and it's dangerous. and it just mars the earth and uh and so, you know, Mr. Chair, I would just, I would just really love for us to consider just keeping that there as a placeholder, uh, if that, if that at all possible. But again, really appreciate all the work on the feral hog eradication program, that's been incredibly important, um, and I hope we can continue doing that and just appreciate all the work that you're doing across the board on promoting aro tourism as well. If you don't put that in the form of emotion, Senator, I would accept that motion. That's proper motion to have a second? I have a 2. All those in favor of reinstating the 20,000 to the fire program. Say ah. All posed. I have a single no motion passes. For they will go to uh Representative Volt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here. I'm sorry, I was a little late this morning, um, couldn't help be here on time and you've probably already answered this question, but I want to talk about your, um, what I would consider a staffing shortage that we have. I know we, in my area, we do, for the Forestry division. Um, I had a big fire, uh, in Darks, Arkansas, and that is what we call warehauser land, and that's a lot of trees in my area. Um, and I only have one person that works in that area, um, in the Arkansas Forestry division. And I don't know if everybody in this room is aware, they can't unload the dozer until a second person shows up for them to unload the dozer. That's a lot of trees that can burn down or people's houses can burn down while they're waiting on someone to come from a different county. To get there in time, to get the dozer off the truck. Um Do we have a short? I know we don't have a hiring freeze. Do we have a shortage and what would you, I know we have a shortage, so please don't tell me that we don't, because I know we do. And then what would you attribute that shortage to? And are you actively trying to fill those positions. Yes, ma'am, absolutely and uh certainly appreciate the, the comment and the question and and we do have currently within within forestry itself of 22 positions that are being advertised, uh, so I, I think if we could, if we could find a way to get those filled and for them to stay in place, I think that would make a, a big difference in, in a lot of the concerns that have been brought up and if I if I am thinking correctly, it's probably. Do to pay the amount that you pay for these people to come in versus them going to do something in the private sector. So what is the starting salary for these guys and gals, and then what would it take for you, for the 22 shortages that you have, do you have the appropriation to pay them or to make it whole. It's um. Try to answer this as best as I can. It's a combination of factors, a lot of, a lot of the, our forestry response capabilities are funded through, uh, special. Both special revenue, you know, the severance tax timber severance tax, and real estate tax. So as, as we've seen the economic conditions that have decreased some of, some of that special revenue that does impact our ability to pay for, to pay for a, a full, a fully staffed forestry team. Uh, I, I don't think that we're in that position yet, but it is a factor that we're, we're keeping a close eye on because we, we couldn't just go out and feel 300 positions. We just wouldn't have the revenue to do that, uh, of, of the 22 positions, I, I think that we're, we're managing appropriately to to get as many of those filled and in place as we possibly can, but, but we have been looking at, at the current starting salaries for, you know, uh, for a Ranger one position, uh, 34,000 current starting salary, heavy equipment operators, 32,000. So Uh, as I mentioned previously, you know, we get some of these folks in who are good and hardworking, do a great job, they come in, they get trained, they get experience, and they're here for a year or two and then they. Go somewhere else. And so that, that is part of our challenge. It's getting, getting the positions filled at that salary and then maintaining someone once we get them, get them in those seats. So follow up, Mr. Chair. So, in your appropriation, did you ask for more money so that you could pay these, uh, men and women, a better salary so that they would want to, it would be an attractive job, a job for them to come to. I think, uh, I, I think as far as our specific budget, I think that we. We've accounted for that as best as we can. I do know that there are ongoing broader discussions with the FNA and TSS and the governor's office on personnel in general. I know that's a, it's a big topic for, for the legislature as well. And so there, there are conversations, there are discussions on how best, how best to address that. I don't have a, a final response there other than that we're, we're, we're working on it. Well, Arkansas is known for its natural beauty, and we're very pro-life. So it breaks my heart to think that we can't hire people because we won't. pay them for a job that we need them to do in the state of Arkansas. And if we're going to keep our state safe, we need to fill those positions, and that means we might need to be up in the pay to keep our forest here in Arkansas safe and our people safe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I want to elaborate on Representative Vault's question, but You said best we can. What does that mean? Is there someone holding you back from raising that pay or asking for that raise in pay. Uh, well, I mean, just, just the current, um, pay structure uh that that we're working off of and I, I, I, I, that was not a commitment to have you asked for a level increase in that payment structure? we have, we have looked at these positions and we've, that's part of been part of what we've adjusted to can you point it out in your budget today where you've asked for that. So that, that's reflective of the positions that uh that we've traded lower graded for higher graded positions to just to make sure that we're feeling those as best as we can. So I, I would do you think that upgrade's gonna be sufficient enough to sustain these positions? I think for the, for the short term it is and that's what I meant by the part of the broader conversations that we're having with. DFNA and TSS and the governor's office on overall broader state government personnel needs, but I, so that that's where the comic comes where we're, we're doing the best we can with what we have now. We've, we've traded positions to get higher graded positions. I think it's funny that you're returning $20,000 in a fire program, you don't have enough money to pay these people because you're not paying them high enough. I mean, your stories aren't lining up. So bring me into where we, where we're at and how we're gonna get to a good happy medium to make sure these positions are filled. Oh, I, I I don't know how the story's not lining up, but, uh, but yes, we don't return money and then you can't pay them enough I think that's just the appropriation that's not. The dollars Good. Representative Beck, you recognize. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, my question's on, on page 82 and it has to do with the, the meat inspection program and looks like the reduction of of 5 positions there, um, The question I have is what, what would those. Positions slotted for those 5 positions. Yes sir have a Patrick. speak more specifically about that program, but I, I think that, that's just a, a reflection of when we, when we started and the legislature approved the state inspection program, it was, we originally had position unfunded positions that were, that were identified. So as, as we've went through standing that program up and, and operating it, uh, based off of, of the general revenue funding that we have to operate it as well as the USDA reimbursements. This is just intended to be more reflective of, of the current budget status. And I, I, I understand that it my, my, my concern is, and I may be barking up the wrong tree here or whatever, but, but it stopped me, uh, the, you know, like right now we're doing a lot of the farm to school stuff and a lot of this is dependent upon this meat inspection program and there's my concern, uh, that we make sure that we have that that program is standing up is is adequate to make sure that anyone who's utilizing that inspection program to in the farm school. manners, making sure that we've got everything that we need there. We're not just short staffing because there's not enough revenue there, uh, but we can address that if we need to is my is my concern. Yes sir, no, I'd be happy to uh make sure we keep a close eye on that because that program is up to 50% is reimbursed by USDA, so that, that is kind of one of the, uh, the factors there that as we look at uh our capabilities and so I, I, I do think that we, we're currently staffed where we need to be, but if, if there are, uh, additional facilities that come online, additional capacity that's needed, then we would, we would have to come back to uh to the legislature ask for additional funding for those, uh, should that program continue to grow past where it currently is, but, but right now it's reflective of the, of the current state of, of, uh, meat inspector facilities that we, that were required to cover. Thank you very much. Representative Richmond, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I. My question will go back to, uh, statement made by Representative Vogt in that, uh, you have one employee at some of these 4 service locations and it requires 2 to back a bulldozer off of a, a low boy. Is, is there some kind of, does it have to be a forced service employee to back another 4 service employee off of the vehicle because I would think that if there's only one person that that thing isn't loaded up all the time. And how did it get loaded? It would sound like it just one person. Would actually load it. So I'm just thinking, I mean, are we handicapping ourselves with this policy? I understand the safety and everything, but I don't know, and I don't know how long, you know, backup Dozer school last or anything, but you know it's, it just seemed like we, we were handicapping ourselves if that's true. Could you elaborate on that a little bit, please? Yes, sir, I can respond to that, um, 11 thing I need to clear up is those offices do have more than one position there. We're just may have two there and one's vacant so we wind up with one person there, um, and it's not that they can't load and unload the equipment. We just, we have a rule that we don't attack a fire with one person. We have to have a minimum of 2 on on the scene to attack the fire. And it has to be another employee. Yes. All right, thank you. Senator Hammer, he recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, on the discussion about the positions and trading in positions, the, is there, Any, any of the positions that you may want to add, are they going to be in the management level then or would they be in the field level or how do you anticipate handling that from for forestry specifically, uh, you know, the majority of the those positions would be out in the field to to help with wildfire response. OK. And if you don't mind, Mike a little closer for my benefit, if you don't mind. Uh, and Mr. Chair, I ask this request and it could be sent to the chair. I'd like to get a, um, list of the, uh, positions within the agency separated by management versus field operations, uh, if I could get that over the last two years because one thing I hear is um and and true or not, I'd like to find out just to establish it is, um, if the agency is getting top-heavy on the the office side of things versus the, in the field side of things, and I'd, I'd like to see the um positions broken out by those two groups, please. And Mr. Chair, if that's right, we'll send to you and you can put it out to the committee, please send that staff, we'll get it out to the committee. than the um on the feral hog, uh, program, the reduction in the funding, as I would understand your notes is attributed to lack of federal funding coming in. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And, and there's. Short answer is yes, yes, sir. OK. Your communications with the federal level and things, how they may shape up in the future now, um. I guess if you receive some money, you just come back and ask for us for an increase if it's in between the budget cycles. Have you had any discussions or any indications that would show that that funding might come back from the federal government or, uh, can you just educate us on that? I think it's uh cer certainly possible, uh, and we, we would certainly should that additional funding open up from the federal government, we would, we would approach with a miscellaneous federal grant or or some other mechanisms to increase that appropriation and allow for that funding there, but, uh, you know, certainly we've got a great congressional delegation. They're, they're aware of our feral hog needs in the state of Arkansas and, and, you know. Senator Bosman, Representative Crawford from the AG committee standpoint are are fully aware and supportive of trying to, to help in any way that they can there. All right, y'all been running, uh, uh, I think it's under your agency, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe be under one of the other ones that deal with Ferrell hogs as far as, uh, being able to get, you know, traps you, you know, you, you trap a certain number of hogs and you get a rebate kind of thing. Is that under your wheelhouse or is that on one of the other agencies? I believe, uh, I believe Gam and fish has one of, there, there's a couple of different entities. So we, the Ferrahog eradication task force is, is still operating, but there's several different, uh, aspects of trying to address the problem as far as your fund where you're reducing the appropriation that money is not for that, uh. Reimbursement of expense for purchasing traps, right? All right. And then, um, I think that's it for now. Thank you. Senator Love, you reckon? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to go back to, uh, the forestry positions because I think, um, uh, Secretary Ward. Number one, I, I, I think I hear the concern of of the members and not to say that that you lack that same concern, um, but in your budget, and I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out. And find it. Are you, are you saying that you raised your appropriation so that you could pay the forestry positions more. I'm I'm just trying to get a little clarification before I move on. Not, not specifically as as approving the appropriations, but we have, we have traded lower graded positions for higher graded positions in order to pay to pay at a higher rate. The the appropriation is sufficient where we, where do we rank regionally as far as those positions as far as pay. Uh, I, I could certainly work on getting you an answer for that. I know that we've, we've been looking at, you know, our kind of starting salary for some of our lower graded positions versus versus others and, and, and aspects of trying to be more competitive there, how we rank from a regional basis itself, I'd, I'd have to, I'd have to pull that information, but I'd be happy to, to get it for you. OK, because I, I was looking also at the scholarship program in and you know how all this works, we graduating, uh, uh, foresters from UIM. And then the I guess they may be transitioning out. Due to the lack of pay or so I, I guess we need to pretty much find out what that, that problem is because we need to if we're investing. We need to also retain. The young people. That we are that we are investing in, so I would really be interested in that, um, that metric so that we can see number one what we're paying versus regionally and then number 2 is, is actually getting our, our jobs to that that that level at least so that we could try to retain people. Yes, sir. And we can certainly help get that information and I'm, I'm glad you mentioned UAM. Uh, we work very closely with them, uh, certainly our state forester has a very close relationships with the with the staff there, uh, you know, that is part of why we do have the Foresters for the Future scholarship program is part of part of these broader efforts to help recruit people to the forestry field, keep them in Arkansas, hopefully, if they're not working for the Department of Agriculture and our forestry division working somewhere within the state within the forestry industry, but that. It is part of we graduating an adequate number. Of of persons from that program to kind of meet our needs or are we, are we graduating them and then they're leaving. Alright. So the foresters for the future scholarship is a fairly new program, and we've only had one graduate so far and that person went to Weyerhauser and, and uh did stay in the state, I believe, so, so that that's within the scholarship program However, within the school in general. I'll be graduating enough, across the South and, and really across the country but for sure across the South, forestry schools have seen a decrease in the number of forestry students and then therefore the number of graduates. UAM has done a really good job of building that back up over the last few years and we're getting back to a a I wouldn't say a great level but a better level. And so the number of foresters coming out of school don't meet the demand. I think that's probably. The question that you're looking for there and and so that does put us in a position, there's a lot of competition for these graduates when they come out. OK, just then we're, we're actually, we need to make sure that our, our, our pay is on par. Um, and then the last question is I noticed that I did see an increase in your. Or not not actually increase. I saw an increase from last year to to this year and your your state, your county fair budget, uh, we're not gonna have that same issue this year that we, we send it, we tend to have every year. About county fairs are we? We certainly hope not, uh, you know, the, the, I mean, hey, I've been here for about 14 years and I'm telling you every year we seem to have that same issue, so, uh, but I, I wanted to, I, I really did want to ask about, do we have an adequate. Amount of money in this fund so that we can take care of our county fairs. I believe it's a combination of, of the governor consolidating what was the construction funds with the regular every year general revenues we've, we've eliminated some of the confusion there. We've got that all in one spot, one consistent payment. We've, we've got the North Central District Fair added in. I think we're. We hope that we've addressed every issue that was outstanding. I think we've got a good path forward. We've got the projections for the next couple of years, be happy to share that we think we're in a, we're thinking, we're in a good spot. All right, Wes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Johnson, you recognize. Thank you, Chairman, uh, I'm gonna go back to Representative Richmond and And Representative uh va's question. So I have a friend that, you know, that used to be in the legislature that is, does pilot work. How many people's in that cockpit. With that plane. primarily single seat planes. He's fighting that fire by itself, isn't he? Don't ask, I mean, it, I mean, I'm not kidding. I've fought, I've fought the fires by myself with a 200 horsepower tractor and a 25 ft disc. There wasn't no backup for me. Put your people and say you can't, you can't back at Dozer off. You can't start, you can't fight that fire. Where does it ever start? You gotta wait on a chief to come. You, you, I mean, serious. You put me on a bulldozer and uh, what I can do with a dadgum disk and put out a fire on my neighbors. I can take out some ground with bulldozer and so could your people. So why would you hamstring them fighting the fire. Anybody wanna answer that? Oh, no, I, I, I think, uh, certainly. Well made points, sir, and we'll, we'll go back and we'll make sure, you know, to represent Richmond, represent, representing Viewbanks, you know, we'll, we'll go back and look just to make sure if there's anything that we're doing that's an impediment to being responsive. We want, we want to eliminate that, so we will, we will absolutely. I think, I think that guy could probably have about 10 acres cleared out pretty quick with that before somebody else shows up. Thank you. Representative Wootton, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, uh, I'm rather frustrated. Because you're about the 3rd or 4th secretary that's indicated to us that they're hesitant to say any more to the governor's office about paying compensation for state employees. And the look here and I see where you've got a $43 million funding surplus and the $29 million.01 budgeted and you're cutting it for somehow, I don't know where the millions are going to 4.4. While we have employees out here that need to be paid more and they need to be paid in a commodity market. We have been waiting on the governor's office for 2 years to come up with a pay plan. We had one. We approve one and we funded it in such a way that it wouldn't cause a discard for the Department of OPM. Every time I hear about it, I hear about OPM. It's the governor's office. She has got to make a decision, and they have got to come forward with a pay plan for the state employees. I'm tired of having them tell me that they're having to get food stamps and do this and do that in order. To be able to survive because they work for the great state of Arkansas. That we need to do something. And when I was in your position as secretary of commerce and secretary of the Department of Finance Administration and an Arkansas state trooper andministrative position to the colonel of the department, I stood my ground and told them what I thought to be right. And if it cost me my job, it cost me my job. One of you secretaries need to tell the governor's office, and I hope the young lady is listening back there. This is directed to the governor. We have got to have a pay increase for our state employees and we could quit dealdling around with the competitive market and not paying them anything. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you. I appreciate you. position that you've taken, but somebody's got to stand the ground. In which case, we, we could spend $3 million to build a new penitentiary. And ground and land and hold it secret and not tell anybody about it. No. And we can do something like that and we can't pay 23,000 employees of state government, a decent wage. We, we need to get our priorities right, she needs to get herself in order over there. Thank you. Thank you, seeing no more on the board. I have a motion exere with the exclusion of the change of the $20,000. I have a motion in a second on favor I. The post Thank you all for being here today. Next up we have natural resources. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the natural resources is going to start on, uh, page 95. Again, uh, this is part of agriculture, um, I'm gonna go over the ones with uh they have 21 appropriations, but I'm gonna go over the 13 with changes. The first one for natural resources with changes is gonna be found on page 100 and 101. Uh, it's the, uh, damn inventory, uh, appropriation for inspecting dams throughout the state and the only change level that the agency is requesting is the restoration of $10,000 in capital outlay to replace some of the uh inventory uh equipment and program, uh, for that program that they need, the executive provides for the agency request. Uh, the next one that has a change level is on the next page. It's the, uh, water waste disposal pollution abatement 102 and 103. The agency is requesting no change, but the executive provides for the uh that request and and in addition discontinuation of one position and the salary and match along with that. Uh, next is, uh, natural resources operations. This is uh general revenue funded appropriation, and on this. when the only change that the agency is requesting is to reallocate $941,872 in grants and aid to the conservation district grants page, which will be page 116, so when we get to that, I'll point that out, but again, that's just reallocating uh that portion of that to another appropriation. There is no change in the next appropriation we'll move on to page 109 and 108 and 109 is the flood insurance program. Uh, again, this is an appropriation that the only change, uh, level request from the agency is to restore the capital outlay $25,000 for replacing of equipment, uh, next, we'll skip over to water quality implementation, uh, that's on page 112 and 113. This too is a general revenue funded appropriation, uh, they are asking to decrease their grants and aid line item to be more in line with the anticipated funding. ing and spending for this particular line item, the executive provides for that request, moving on to conservation district grants, um, these are to the 75 conservation districts, um, in this, the agency is requesting to increase, uh, the conservation district grants assistance line item, uh, this would consolidate these appropriations into a single fund center, uh, that would be reallocating, uh, 5. $28,000 from the page 124, uh, to this for the district clerk's insurance and the remainder of the increase is due to increased payments to, which is $52,800 to employee benefit division, uh, the executive provides for that agency request. Moving on to the next appropriation. This is the um page 117 and 118. This is Natural Resources. This is their cash appropriation, um, in this, they're asking to restore $225,000 in capital outlay to replace vehicles and equipment for the agency, moving on the executive uh provides for that as well as reclassing one position and discontinuing two positions and the salary and match associated. Moving on to district clerks, uh, Conservation District clerk's insurance on page 123 and 124 is the next one with changes, uh, the only change being requested, reallocation of the $528,000 in personal services matching from the conservation district grants that was on page 116, uh, being added into this appropriation, um. Moving on the the next one with the changes will be on page 127, uh, and 128. This is the nonpoint source pollution control program. The agency is requesting restoration of their capital outlay, $50,000 to replace equipment for water quality projects and an increase of $1,606,373 for the sewer overflow and stormwater reused line item and this is to provide sufficient appropriation for the federal grant that they'll be that they're receiving. The executive provides for the agency requests, and they also have two positions and associated regular salary. and matching, uh, coming out of this appropriation. Moving on to page, um, 131, 132 is the Alliance landowner Conservation, uh, practices. This is a new appropriation, um, they are asking to restore the $2,445,538 in Alliance landowner Conservation practices, and that is to provide for the federal grant award that they're receiving, executive, uh, provides for the agency request, um. Next is feral swine eradication and control. This is the part of the federal feral swan eradication program administered through the conservation districts, uh, they are requesting a reduction of $1.5 million in the eradication and control line item, uh, to align with the federal allocation for the program, the executive provides for the agency request, uh, moving on to conservation technical assistance. On page 137 and 138. The only change in this is the agency requesting their $40,000 restored in capital outlay, and this is to purchase equipment for the irrigation efficiency program, and then on page 139 and 140. We have the unpaved roads program, uh, they are requesting increase of $300,000 in unpaid road grants and aid are operating line, uh, due to an increased number. of concurrent unpaved road projects where they're spanning multiple physical years, so an increase in that line, the executive provides for the agency request and for natural resources, those are all the appropriations with change levels being requested. Thank you, Mr. Director, if you identify yourself for the record. Good morning, everyone. Chris Calaisure, uh, Natural Resources division director at the Department of Agriculture. Thank you for being here. One question from myself. Uh, is, is this the only uh Ferrell swine eradication eradication project going on in the state right now. Yes, sir. It's the only one that we have currently. This was a pilot program through Natural Resource Conservation Service and it has run its course. We're hopeful that maybe through the farm bill or some other federal mechanism that will get additional funds to continue that pilot, I've got a picture on my phone that just recently that uh. Gentleman that's running that in my county. Uh, caught 16 that was. Turned up not only my wife's front yard, but all our pasture and all and and it's I hate to see this get cut so if you'll advocate all you can for that, there's a lot more to do, but I, I, I was impressed. With, with how he did that, uh, going first to Senator Hammer, you recognized. Like a share pick it up on that subject on the feral swine. When we set that thing up, remind me, we, the reason we have so many different agencies is because funding comes down from different levels. It was kind of like we had to build the cups to catch the water coming down from wherever it was coming down. Is that right? The way that those federal funds came down, 50 came through USDA AFIS and half came through NRCS AIS was able, USDA AFIS, which is Animal Plant Health Inspection Service was able to plus up some of their trappers and traps across the state. And then we use the conservation districts to work directly with landowners to hire trappers and traps and have those within districts. Yeah, and, and so you probably sitting in the room when I asked, uh, Director Secretary Ward, this, is this the fund that Pace for the traps that if people, there, there's a trap program recently where, you know, you could apply, get a grant, get free trap, and then there was one, if I remember right, where, you know, if you, you paid for it and then after you trap a certain number of hogs, um, you know, a reimbursement. Is that out of this funding source or where is it, you know? I believe that's the game and fish program. That's the game and fish program, OK. Um, so coordinating between all the agencies. You think the You think the task force as it was originally set up, it's time to revisit that and streamline a little bit, um, or do you feel it's still operating efficiently because I think I remember in a report given to JPR maybe you all got yours turned in in time. There, there were not records or minutes from the meetings. Are y'all still having meetings or what you give me a backdrop on that. So, so that task force was sunsetted, but we have continued that under a memorandum of agreement with all the with all the different partners. And in fact, they just met on the 31st of October, so they're continuing to meet and uh I know one of their big tasks right now is developing a strategic plan. OK, and that's strategic plan involve any requests for funding at the state level, not being so heavily dependent on the federal in case through the farm bill, they don't appropriate any more money down to us to help address this issue because we, we've gained some ground. I just hate to see us lose because we're not, we're counting on that federal funding. It's not coming through and everything we've worked hard to get to where we are, knowing we've got to get further is going to be compromised if we don't have that money. Understood I haven't seen, I haven't seen, I haven't seen the, the report yet. So they're in the early stages, so is it gonna be ready by the general session? Uh, that I don't know, but we'll push hard, sir. OK. Who's the point person on that now. So we have uh JP Fairhead who works, yeah, and, uh, Ryan Farney with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. OK, I'll, I'll get a hold of JP because that really needs to be in front of us for the general session and we get to the final RSA, uh, and then the other question real quick, um, on the, the beaver eradication, um, I treat, I feel about beavers about the way I do about hogs, only beaver I like is Bucky. But, uh, On the beaver eradication, uh, can you just get some statistics to us, are we, are we staying ahead of because I know they kill a, a great amount of timber in the state. Uh, can you just quick snapshot on that. Is that enough money to meet the job or do we need to be taking a look at that too? So the way this program works in many cases, the, we're providing 150,000 across the state, uh, roughly about 56 counties participate and then a lot of times counties will often provide match to that and to incentivize trappers and, and other folks to, to harvest beavers. OK. But I don't have the exact numbers with me on how many were actually taken last year, um. It's one thing I hear back is, you know, like in the county, there's not enough money to go around to pay the trappers for the $10 tail, um, Bounty. On them, so I, I'll get with y'all fly cause that may be something I wanna look at just to. Uh, see about trying to Treat them like we do the hogs. Yes, sir. Feral hogs that is. Thanks. General Barry, you recognize? Thank you, Chairman. So in relation to sew sewer, uh, water, uh, solid waste disposal, uh, and Mr. Secretary or Chris, were, uh, either of y'all consulted with about, uh, placing the, uh, prison in Franklin County that nobody in this body knew about it till the night before or local officials. Did anybody have any of those discussions with y'all about the, uh, The needs for that. They didn't, so, uh, 3000 bed, uh, facility is going to create a tremendous amount of solid waste, uh, and, uh, as well as sewer and use a lot of water, uh, over in that area, but, uh, so my other question is, uh, In relation to, is there an environmental impact study required over there, do you know from a natural, uh, resources. That's related to the prison, sir, before you put a a city in the middle of this big pasture out there. Is there a, uh, requirement for environmental impact study. Usually that's, it's based on how it's funded, so I know like all of our federal programs require some level of, of environmental impact study. So is there no, uh, uh, state requirement for an environmental impact study. We don't require it on our state programs, but I know all the federals trigger that, so. OK, so if they're getting federal, federal dollars and there would be a requirement for that problem. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bo, you reckon? Thank you, Mister Chair. And I'm over here. Um, I know we've talked about, uh. We have a lot of cities and counties that have a lot of water issues, um, more than, I think most people realize, uh, because I have several of those in my district. I was trying to look through your appropriation. The only one I could see was probably page 126, that may be it, um, but it may be the next one also. Can you, uh, tell us where we're at on water infrastructure for towns, um, that are needing improvements and where that. money is allocated in here, and if we've allocated enough, I mean, I know that we talked about 50 million being put into this at one time, if I remember right, Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe the governor did that. Um, And if we did, how are we, uh, Allotting those funds out to different cities and counties, how are they finding out about those grants that they can apply for, and what is our next, uh, step to help in these counties and cities have good clean water, uh, and sewage. Yeah, I've, I've, uh, start with an overview that Chris jump in with some specifics, but uh I, I do want to start by saying that, uh, you're absolutely right, the, the, the water wastewater problems are throughout the entire state of Arkansas. Uh, it's, it is one of the priority items for the governor. We, we talk about water issues with her frequently. That's part of why she did the executive order to update the water plan. Uh, there, there was that from the American rescue Plan Act, there was the 200 and what ended up being 270 million for water and wastewater, uh, plus the recent 55 million that was also added to that. So, uh, we're, we're trying and, and every, uh, every pot of money that we can to, to use funding to support that. I think our, our current portfolio that covers all 75 counties is about, uh, just short of $2.5 billion. I mean those are, they're big numbers, uh, and so we're, we're working very hard on that. We owe the governor. an update on the state water plan before the end of the year. So it's something that's top of mind for us, uh, but you know, there's several different funds whether through the state revolving funds or general obligation funds, uh, were, were all of those, uh, things where we pull from to be able to fund the different projects. We've, we've got a big project, uh, a big natural resource commission funding, funding meeting that will be later, uh, uh, this month on November 20th, but, uh, I'll, I'll let Chris kind of talk through the process of of people applying, but, but we do work, we do work. As hard as we can to work with counties and cities to make them aware of uh the resources that are available for them. Yeah, and I, I'll add to that. I mean, we work very closely with municipal league and a lot of other associations and groups to try to get the word out on the different types of programs. There's a lot of, there's a water and wastewater managers association where we actually work with the employees they're working in those systems to make them aware of grant opportunities or funding opportunities when they arise, um, as Secretary Ward mentioned, we did have the American Rescue Plan Act funds that we have allocated those funds we had a. The whole process grant application process where they applied, they were ranked, they were scored, and we funded those, but we also have roughly 4 federal programs that we operate and 3 state programs that we operate and so we're continuously every 2 months awarding funding to communities. So it's, it's a, it's, it's a nonstop and we've seen, you know, by far an unprecedented amount of applications and awards for water and wastewater system improvements across the state and, and I'll echo Secretary Ward on the governor's, you know, importance of water and the fact that we're working on the water plan, we just had focus group meetings on infrastructure last week and that's going to be one of our top priorities in the water plan is, is water and wastewater infrastructure. Well, I think the governor and y'all for working on this issue because it is. Detrimental to a lot of people in rural Arkansas. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Me you recognized name is Chairman. Perfect segue because I'm gonna follow up on kind of what uh what she was saying. Um, I've got, uh, 2 questions on page 126 on the, uh, uh, revolving fund, um, you've got a $6 million appropriation, looks like we only spent 1.5 million and we've got a $15 million fund balance, uh, is there a reason why we don't have more of that money going out. Why, why, why we've only got $1.5 million spend if we've got 15. million dollars and such great need in the state. So it Most of our other most of our other awards have come out of the state revolving fund, which is a totally separate fund, uh, we are receiving infrastructure investment and Jobs Act dollars into that fund. So we've been moving more. More, uh, projects to the SRF fund. It actually has a better interest rate too. OK, so just. It it's a better deal for the communities than this fund. Is that kind of the long and short. Yes, sir. It's, it's subsidized and, and below market and we actually have some principal forgiveness dollars in there. Uh, my, my second question is, um, kind of like Representative Vaut, I've got a couple of, uh, water, um. Systems in my area that have, you know, they've been neglected over the years, so the new managers coming in, they're trying to make improvements, but they don't always have the, the people and the expertise that they need in order to get the, get the job done to the level that, that they want. Does the uh state have people that are available to be, uh, consultants to bring expertise to these more rural systems that normally wouldn't have those resources available to help them to make sure they're able to do the best with what. They've got. Yeah, there, there are two entities that we work very closely with. One is Communities Unlimited, and the other is the Arkansas Rural Water Association, so they can come in and provide some assistance if it's, if it's designing and planning a project upgrades that, that really is going to trigger an engineer. And in many cases as they apply for funds, they'll include engineering in that so that we can award, you know, some engineering on the front end as part of their project so that they can get the technical expertise, but yeah, there are entities that are assisting communities across the state. But, but I mean, is there anything within your agency that does it so that, uh, it's not a, not a cost necessarily to those entities. So, so unlimited and rural Water Association won't charge those communities for assistance. We'll provide them as much assistance. as we can on the application process and what they need to do, follow all the steps. We're talking with communities every single day, but we are often not out there with them because most of our folks are processing, you know, grant applications, paperwork applications, working on awards and that sort of thing. OK. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irvin, you recognize? Thank you, and I again, appreciate, um, all the work I know you, you got a big, um, job that got dropped in your lap, you know, with the ARPA money, but I think it was probably the best use of that money that I think we have seen, um, with that being said, I know there's a big project in my district, and it's kind of a back and forth with the health department. And so, just, if you don't mind giving me a quick update, I just want to make sure that we're able to be flexible on those dates because a lot of what's happening on these projects is the engineering that has to get signed off on and approved by the health department, and that has been kind of a big back and forth and ongoing event. I mean, I'm monitoring it on one project, but I'm sure that's happening across the board, and they're being inundated too. So another piece to the puzzle of all of this is the health department making sure that they're signing off. So could you just talk to that and are you able to take that into consideration as we're trying to Utilize these funds appropriately and I know we want to turn back anything that's not being utilized, but are you taking those, that process with the health department into consideration, and can you just kind of talk to me and give me an update where we are on those things. So, so yes, the, the answer is yes, we are working very closely with Department of Health and, uh, the division of Environmental Quality on permits. And so they have our full list of all the ARPA awarded projects and we, we actually, they do updates, we do. updates. We're constantly, uh, looking at the list to see where we are on project stats. We have been flexible on those deadlines, understanding though that we still have to construct by the end of 26, and so, you know, that's what we're really pushing for, but we understand sometimes things come up, just as I mentioned, we've had a, just a, a surplus of projects, all the consulting engineers and all the other folks are also backed up and so, you know, we just have a lot of projects in the queue right now in private sector and in the public sector. And so but we're all working together to try to make sure that that we don't projects communication going on between you guys, because I think it would be important just to say, listen, if we can get this one moved on, I think this will, you know, I think that would be a tremendous help, I think, just prioritizing what can be. Looked at first, um, OK, quickly on the um. One of the things that I wanted to, I, I appreciate that the unpaved Roads program is doing good and it looks healthy and I thought that was, I'm glad that we transitioned and got that funding source for that. That's really, really important for rural Arkansas. So I appreciate that that program is doing really good things. Um, I'm gonna make my request for our buffalo River Conservation Committee to meet again. The reason why is because of this alliance landowner Conservation practices that you now are receiving. This was one of the most important components of the work, I think that this conservation committee did, which was not necessarily utilized in the state GR that was awarded through Governor Hutchinson, which was fabulous and efficient and effective, probably the best spend of money that I could ever point to as a government elected official, but one of the huge, I think, successes. was aligning with the already existing programs that are at the federal level and getting those cooperations going in all these different levels, whether it was unpiped roads, but I mean, that's more state general revenue, but this one particularly, I think will be really key and important, and I just, I wanna reemphasize. I think that Illinois watershed is another area where we really need to replicate this model and Because it's about education and outreach and that brought all those key stakeholders together and got the word out and maximized these programs for the benefit of the area, landowners and everyone. So I, I hope I, I'm, I'm making that request, but I want to be. when you see something work well in government like this has worked well, you want to replicate it. You don't want to abandon it. And so, uh, in my mind, we do have funding right here that can be maximized and utilized and this probably not just the only one of the federal programs and, and my hope is that USDA will get back in gear and we can realize more funding through USDA as well for a lot of these key projects. So that's my request and, and I, I think it's really important to replicate that with the Illinois watershed. Thank you, Representative Springer, you recognize. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair for the opportunity to ask the question, and I just echo and thank the the representatives who talked about rural Arkansas and the water and and with Senator Irvin taking, making mention of the unpaid roles that's a concern of mine. I have relatives that live in rural Arkansas even though now I think I'm a city person. They don't live down there. But anyway, I am concerned because I do have relatives there, so I would like to have more information about the unpaved roads, because I do have people that live in areas in rural Arkansas where there are historical cemeteries on some of those county roads, so if you could tell me more about the grant application process in the counties where you're currently funding those services, I would appreciate it because I think it's very important and I do agree that we not only need to look about look for funding in the urban areas, but also the rural areas because all of us probably have relatives who live across the state of Arkansas in rural areas. So I wanna make sure that we take care of them. So if we can get together, you can share that information with me. I would love to have that so I can communicate to the people in those areas that would probably benefit from it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Richmond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh, let me describe a situation and then you can I'll ask the question on this what what I have is, is that a few years ago, uh, county water system grants, federal grants, whatever they had at the time, they were able to, to provide water throughout the Fish Valley area all the way to a point where they crossed the Fish River the 3rd time. At that point, they ran out of funding. And it stopped there about. Probably Maybe a total of 1 mile short of getting to 3 or 4 different individuals, their homes, those individuals, their wells have dried up or that the water has is is not potable, can't even wash your clothes or dishes or anything else in it. People that had good well water got county water, the folks that needed the most didn't. Is there any programs or anything available that can address small numbers like that. So one of the things that we did when we did the actual ARPA funding we did allow points, for example, if you were extending service into areas that were previously not served. Uh, the way that it works right now is we have mostly loan programs, the state revolving loan fund is mostly loans. We do get a little bit of principal for giving us dollars from direct federal funds. Um, the big detriment, what happens, uh, for a lot of systems is if, if a system is, is going to extend service and there's just a few customers. Often there's not enough ratepayer base there to pay for that infrastructure. So it is a barrier, and we see it actually all the way all across the state. Right now we don't have a sufficient funding mechanism to fix that because, you know, it may cost a million dollars to extend service to 10 people and a lot of times it's up to that system to put a They often put a surcharge on those individuals, um, and in some cases we've been able to fund some of those, but in, in other cases, we've not had a, had enough funding to be able to do that. All right, thank you. I appreciate that answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to follow up that that's my constituent too and I've talked to Secretary Ward about that back when we first realized we was gonna get some more money. And this is the water service that comes out of the. Uh, no aggressible. Uh, Tri County. And it goes over into Scott County, the rest of Scott County we did, but that's on the wrong side of the mountain. And they went across a major river. Uh, I didn't realize that for a while, they're on that other side now when I got water and I had to wait. Extra years after I paid for service because uh, we had people in our rural community that, uh, they were gonna get extra federal money because they had septic tanks too close to uh the whale and, and they, and I even offered to pay for some of those people for the 1st 2 or 3, whatever it was maybe first year for minimum service to get it done, but we waited an extra 2 or 3 years. These people are hauling water that water they have and they have run out is just sulfur. And, and I, I, again, there's not that many of them. I paid, uh, to run a line. Two lines, son and my both half mile. Uh, from the highway. I don't think this is a million dollar cost. I would appreciate any help. These people have been very patient and I talked to Tri County probably been two years ago with anything, anything you could help on that and really that's a finishing that project. Uh, that's the end of it. It would be greatly appreciated, uh, Senator Hammer, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, two questions. One is on the damn inventory budget, um, you've got one position, how many dams are actually inspected in the state that falls under your jurisdiction, and are these earth dams or so, the right now we have one dam inspector, um, and then we have one. engineer supervisor in that section. We have 460 some odd dams they're permitted through us, but a lot of what we do is we do a lot of education workshops with the damn owners so that they understand, don't let trees grow on the dam. That sort of thing we we we helped them through inspections, we do some inspections, but we're really trying to, you know, educate them on the dos and don'ts of them ownership is a lot of what we do. Is that, is that sufficient for the need because, um. I mean, it's property owners are wanting to put a dam that might fall under your jurisdiction. Is that sufficient to meet the need or the staying current or falling behind. Are you talking specifically to the funding that we have? Well, to the to the ability of an office of 2 versus 400 and something dams that probably don't get inspected every year. I'm sure they're on cycle, but is that sufficient in order to It's, it's not, and we've, we've actually have another position that we've tried to, to fill. We've had uh engineers is another sort of field that we struggle to feel in, in the state right now, um, just because the market. Uh, is really sort of outpacing us, um, as far as engineers and, and that's been a somewhat of an issue that we've been trying to to battle as far as hiring. So that's an engineer's position that you're having trouble filling because that seems to be a consistent theme across state government that engineers are. Or were you highway department or whether you're yours now or the others. OK. And I'll, I'll get offline with you on that one. OK. Um, and then the other question was, Oh, on the flood insurance program on page 109. Help me understand your numbers because the fund balance is depleting. Over a period Into the 26, 27. And just help me understand. Those numbers as to why the fund balance would be depleting and what kind of effect is that gonna have on the responsibilities of the flood insurance program, given what's happening in other states and potentially what happens here from time to time. I'll say this as I'm Our, uh, our program is, is stayed fairly consistent. We have employees, I mean, we have 400 and some odd communities that participate in the national flood insurance program. Our goal is to help those communities implement ordinances that say, you know, that they'll build at the base flood elevation or higher, uh, the work we do actual assessments where we'll drive their floodplain and then go meet with the floodplain administrator, so that part has not changed and is not changing at all. The things that fluctuate from time to time. or hazard mitigation grants. So if communities apply for hazard mitigation grants through FEMA, those dollars come through us to them and that's based on, on current projects. OK, and just. He educate me though I'm looking at your fund balance line and I'm on, I'm page 109, your fund balance line. Goes from 1.1 million and deteriorates into the 26, 27 to a zero balance. What is there, is that something to be concerned about or am I just not comprehending the, the numbers. I can take a stab at it. So If you look at the budget. So we're assuming for every dollar. Thus budgeted. We're going to spend 100% of it. And as you can see, it's not the case in most of the time. So this is assuming If we budget 5.2 million, we're going to spend the entire 5.2 million based on that funding. Uh, that we're projecting for that fiscal year. And so the difference between The, the budgeted amount. And uh projected fund bounds is what's driving that making the fun bounce, uh. To decrease as we go throughout the years, which will not be the case, compared to when you look at the 2024 actual spending. OK, let me get, let me get offline with you instead of taking up the committee time. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Fort, your last one on the screen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, one final question, maybe some clarification about the feral hog issue. Did I understand you to say, uh, help me with this that uh. We're having, we're cutting the funding because the USDA and their farm bill. Uh, that's not the farm bill we're talking about. It, it's the farm bill that has to do with SNAP and, and, uh, this kind of program, is that correct? So, so the, the our appropriation really ties back to a feral hog pilot program that came about in 21, 2021, and so we're about to use all of those federal funds and that pilot has not been extended yet. We're hopeful that something is gonna happen. Related to the pilot that it will get extended or maybe something will come out in the farm bill, but right now we don't, there's no indication that there's going to be additional funds under the pilot at this time. OK, and then along that line, uh. I'm hearing that the USDA, uh, The trappers, for lack of a better word, uh, are. probably going to be laid off up in my district, the trapper. The USDA employee. What will What will we do? Will we just have to do it on our own or uh. This could the Arkansas State Help fund that or. continue with, get that something to keep that man trapping because if he's not there. He's the last line up up in my area. I know that was a fuzzy question, but Well, and first of all, we'll check in with USDAAFIS to see if they're, I've, I've not heard of any layoffs and so contemplated I'll check on that and see, um, one thing about AFIS is they have been able, they staffed up over the last 3 to 4 years. Um, and which is good because we need the, the, the technical assistance on the ground helping landowners, but let me check into that and see. I think USDA is, is, uh. They're relying on the farm bill to fund the trapper. So if you, if you'd let me know, I'd appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you and um hopeful with the Change in the US Senate that Senator Bozeman will be the chair of AG, and I think we've got a leg up there and he understands the problem, so we appreciate that, uh. Not seeing any more questions, Ms. Smith, thank you for the good job you always do, uh. You gentlemen, thank you all for being here, Dana, we had a lot of questions, but you are nearer and nearer to rural Arkansas and we appreciate you and thank you for answering the questions, uh, members, uh, we have special language at 1:30. And uh ALC JBC personnel will be right after that. I, I, I appreciate that and uh I, I'm, I'm surprised Kevin hadn't reached over here and slapped me. So I have a motion in a second all in favor I. Po now you guys can go in peace. Thank you. We are adjourned.