ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

Remember you will move to your seats. Good morning. Welcome back to AOC Joint Budget hearings, uh, members you'll take your seat. We'll get started. Uh, we Have the uh Department of Corrections this morning and as uh. Uh They come to the table members I would remind you we gotta still have to finish commerce that we carried over. Uh, yesterday, I, my intention is to get through this, uh, try to be succinct in your Uh, questioning on on budget. I, I chase rabbit trails myself and this sometimes that's needed in here but just we're gonna try to get through this today so I appreciate you. Your help on that. And we're gonna, first up, we're gonna have a personnel report with representative Richmond. If you, there you go. You recognize her. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The personnel subcommittee of the ALC JBC met Tuesday, October 29th, the committee adopted item one, a spreadsheet, a spreadsheet of 422 unbudgeted positions to be eliminated across state agencies. This report was adopted in lieu of Act 796 report as well as positions not recommended in the individual agency reports. The committee also adopted a motion for item 2 that will release the agencies held from the previous meeting with executive recommendation excluding position and eliminations. The committee has determined. that until a resolution has been made regarding the funding of EBD, we are not recommending eliminating any budget positions from state agencies. The remaining agencies listed in the report apart from item 12, which was held, were adopted with the executive recommendation or agency request for the constitutionals with the exception of their requested or recommended position eliminations. I move adoption of the report at the proper time. He represented Richmond, uh, a second on that The second discussion on the motion, not all in favor I. Pod, it is passed. Thank you. Uh, we're gonna start with our analyst Mr. Coleman, if you'll identify yourself, we'll go across the table and Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Don Coleman with the Bureau of Legislative Research. Lindsay Wallace, secretary, Department of Corrections. Chad Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Corrections. Thank you all for being here today. We welcome you and Mr. Coleman. You're recognized. If you report. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh, we'll start on page 428 of your manual's members. I'll give you a second to get there, uh, on that page you'll find the overview for administration and shared services for the Department of Corrections. So the total agency request for fiscal year 26 is just under 209 million, which is a $30 million increase from fiscal year 25 authorized, uh, and it's just over $215 million for fiscal year 27. So the executive recommendation is roughly $200,000 short of those requests for both years of the biennium. Looking at the first of the two appropriations that make up this division on page 430, uh, you'll see the county jail reimbursement appropriation. So the agency is requesting $34.8 million in appropriation for reimbursements for both years of the biennium. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request for appropriation. Uh For, and that's up $8 million for fiscal year 25 authorized, and that's to account for the increased inmate population in the county jail back up. And the second and final appropriation for administration shared Services is the department. Uh, cabinet appropriation on page 433 of your manuals. So the cabinet appropriation and Total, uh, in the agency request column is just over $174 million for fisky or 26, just over $180 million for fiscal year 27. The difference in the agency request and the executive recommendation really boils down to the discontinuation of 4 positions in the executive recommendation. And that's for both years of the biennium resulting in a roughly $110,000 difference in fiscal year 26 and a $206,000 difference and fiscal year 27. Uh, other changes include transfers in of 11,000 and $19,000 from Arkansas Sentencing Commission for IT costs and the annual population report respectively. Uh, there are also increases of just over 20 $21 million in 5th year 26 and $27 million in fiscal year, 27 to provide for the increased cost of the new medical contract. Uh, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the. Department of Appropriations or sorry, the cabinet appropriations. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, any anything you'd like to state secretary? Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity, but no, I'm just here to be available for questions if you have any, we're going to Uh, representative Evans you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, um, looking at the appropriation, uh, request for the county jail reimbursements. Looks like about a. What a 7. $7 million increase roughly. Um, analysts mentioned that this was to cover the increase in the number of inmates in the county jails, but there was no mention of the increase in the amount being reimbursed to the jail per inmate. So is this strictly for a population, or is there actually a per inmate increase in what that reimbursement is going to be. Thank you for the question, Representative Evans. It is strictly for the inmate population as it stands. There was no, uh, we don't make that change to the, the, uh, pay per day for it's $40 per day. Um, we don't make that change. That is, I believe the governor and the legislative body sets what the reimbursement rate is, but you're not at, but, but knowing that that is a very big topic among the legislature. We've, we've had multiple discussions about how we have to increase that reimbursement rate. to our county jails, especially for the state inmates that they're hosting. Um, you didn't see the need to put. An increase or an ask for a potential increase in your appropriation to cover that. We're really just a pass through for that fund. So that was just based on kind of what our need has been and what we've seen as far as our population goes. Um, we're happy to help the counties however we can. Um, it's just intended to offset their cost, and I don't know what all of their costs are based on. So I don't know that I really feel like I am the right person to, to say what that rate should be. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, Senator Love, you recognized, um, and actually my question was, was asked by uh Representative Evans because we're talking it how many, how many inmates do we have in the county jails currently as of today. So this morning it was just a little shy of 2500, around 23, I think is what we've got. OK, 2500 is that how The majority, the great majority of those are bound for the division of correction. There are some that are 90 day waivers that will go to like our sanction centers, um, some are straight community corrections, summer, uh, parole holds, things of that nature. But the great majority of those will go to the division of correction. About 2500. A little bit less, yes, sir. Um, in, in expressing the same thing that Representative Evans had. I, I think, Mr. Chair, we might need to flag this budget, um, we might need to flag this budget uh for session because we need to really deal with this, uh, I know that we had, we've had a couple of meetings where um where the the shares have been telling us that they're holding more inmates with mental health with mental health issues as well and so I know that's costing the count is a little more money, so. If we could just flag this budget for for session, I would, I would appreciate it. We have that noted and uh Senator Love, the legislature is the one that could fix that if they want to do it. All right, thank you. Uh, Represent Wooton, would you have a question? My Following the same line of Heavens and love, what, what, what is the, I couldn't understand you. What is the amount per day. It's $40 per day that the counties get reimbursed. Yes, sir. Um, and there's, I have, uh, do you have the history? Mr. Brown may have the history on when those, uh, when it has been increased. Um, oh, OK, so it's $40 per day currently in 1985, it began at 18 and '91, it was increased to 25, 2001, it was 28, 2015, it was 30, 2020, it was increased to 32 and then in 2022, it was increased to $40 per day. That's where it sits now. What is our cost to maintain? Is it 69. roughly. It's. And I, and I really. It's right around, I realized that we do more than they do. It's right around $70 per day disparity between 42 and 69. Follow-up question, you budgeted 25 million. 26 million, uh, but you spent 30.2 million. Uh How, how, how do you account for that, uh, 5 million difference. I'll let Mr. Brown take that, but it really is attributable to the increase, the continual increase in the population in county jail. Representative, we in the fiscal session, uh, we requested a supplemental of 4.2, uh, because we knew based on our projections that we weren't going to have enough funding and once we get to the point that we run out of funding, we hold invoices and we can no longer pay the counties, so we worked with the Department of Finance Administration and the governor's office. Uh, we settled on 4.2. That got us through uh the end of fiscal year and so when we moved into this fiscal year, we tried to incorporate what that cost would actually look at or what that cost would actually look like, and that's what we try to adjust our appropriation to fit. So that's why you see the $34 million appropriation. So, so that's the reason the 34 million. Yes, sir, so. The way, the way I kind of look at that is if you, if you look at averages. So if you break down averages, let's say if you have an average of 2200 people in county jail a month and you do it based on the days in the month and you project that out, that'll be about 32.2 million. If you have 2300 on average each month, that'll be about 33.6%. That's kind of where we landed because county jails fluctuate so much, uh. That if we stay around 24, 2500, then the 34 will not be enough. So we, we do it based on fluctuations. Am I correct that those, those cases have been adjudicated through circuit court and they are actually our prisoners. Yes, sir, they are waiting a bed within the Department of Corrections. Yes, sir, so the 34,800 is, is that still the $42 but it depends upon the number $40 but yes, sir. Depends on the actual number. Yes, sir. OK. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Senator Irvin, you recognize. Thank you, so 2500 is what you said, roughly. I just pulled it up and it's a little bit less than 2300, right at 2300. Yes, ma'am. So the 34.8. Um, I guess it's based on, I mean, not having to pull out of general reserve allotment, but, but that's not that many. I mean, it's 2300, but at $40 a day, I mean, you're at millions of dollars here, so why the length, is it the length of stay, due to the fact that they're not getting adjudicated quickly or is it just, we just don't have space in the prisons. It's that we don't have space. All of these folks that are on our county jail backup list have been adjudicated. Um, we just don't have the space now all that is to say within the next month, maybe in a couple of weeks, we've got a couple 400 beds that are coming online internally, but we're getting close to the end of our capacity as far as what we can do internally. We still have a, um, a couple of expansions we're getting ready to expand the Mississippi County work release center by 100 additional beds. Um, we're getting ready to work up in or open up an addition at the McPherson Women's Unit. Um, we've got White River Correctional Facility, which is getting ready to open, that's 170 beds, and then we added 70 beds at Texarkana, so we're doing. everything that we can to try to make some space, but right now we've just kind of hit that lull where our numbers in county jail are just high. And this, the daily cost at the county jails does not include medical. So, I mean, correct. Like we, I think they have some sort of baseline medical care, but I will say any sort of significant medical issues. We have like a fast track process within the department. They work with our medical staff to get them fast tracked into our. facility because we're already paying that specific, uh, rate per day per inmate if they're in our custody. So, and obviously if it's anything related to their stay there, they, they can seek reimbursement for us if it's an emergency or something to that degree, um, I think it would be nice to know the differences between why the right, you know, I mean, there's not parody and you need to show why there's not parody there association of Counties has some sort of, um, formula that They base that, they do a report on County jail, um, rates. I'll see if I can grab a copy of that and get that sent to you all. OK. Thanks, Senator Irving not see any more questions. I have a motion for. For exec re, I've got a motion from Senator Urban to 22nd on the paper, I post that section is passed, uh, Mr. Coleman proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, we'll take a look at the division of Community Correction on page 436, and on this page you'll find the agency summary. So the agency is requesting a total of around 142.5 million in fiscal year 26 with a slight. $80,000 increase to that amount in fiscal year 27 executive recommendations are slightly lower in these amounts at $141.8 million in fiscal year 26 and around 141.9 million. feels like you're 27, mostly due to a discontinuation of 13 positions in the community corrections state appropriation. Uh, so we'll take a look at the first appropriation with changes within the division of Community Correction, and that'll be on page 440 of your manuals, uh, and this is community corrections special. So this appropriation is utilized to support adult or adult probation and parole services as well as special programs for substance abuse and mental health treatment. Uh, this appropriation is funded with court fees and sanctions paid by offenders. The agency is requesting the same level of appropriation as fiscal year 25 authorized at just under $15 million. Uh, there are some differences in individual line items, however, uh. The agency requests and executive recommendation both show for the reallocation of War Memorial County, uh, community correction programs and transitional housing line items into the operating expense line item for, uh, for ease of operation. Moving on to the next preparation is Community Corrections state on page 442. So this is a general operating appropriation for community correction, uh, funding for this appropriation is primarily general revenue with some cash funds from building rentals in Texarkana. Uh, the department also utilize this appropriation for federal grant awards. So apart from regular salaries, personal services matching and capital outlay, the level of appropriation is fiscal year 25 authorized. Uh, the agency requests and the executive recommendation both discontinue the $212,000 in capital outlay from fiscal year 25 authorized. The difference between the agency requests and the executive recommendation can be found in the regular salaries and personal services matching line items, uh, the agency request provides for regular salaries for 1,549 positions for both the years of the biennium, and the executive recommendation provides for 1,536 positions. Uh, the agency request is about 480,000 greater than the executive recommendation for both years of the upcoming biennium due to those differences. And the final, I believe final appropriation and. Uh, community corrections and on page 444, and this is federal asset forfeiture. Uh, so community correction uses this appropriation for daily operations. Funds come from Federal asset forfeiture settlements and the agency is requesting an appropriation in the amount of $75,000 for both years of the upcoming biennium, which represents a $425,000 reduction. To better align with agency expenditures. And Mr. Chairman, I believe that concludes the division of Community Correction. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. Not seeing any questions. Do I have a motion for executive right. OK. I had a question. Representing you wasn't hardly fast there. You recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a quick question on the The numbers on page 436. Your actual expenditures were 1009 million.4. And you're asking for 142. 49. Million. And that's a, I believe that's a 30 $33 million difference. Can you tell us what that 33 million is for or what the great of the difference. Representative, this is the overall summary, so this would take into consideration all of our different funds together, so. We have appropriation requests throughout each fund. Uh, some have additions. Uh, for example, we have a million in residential cash. Uh, that'll be for like renovation for our Southwest Center in Texarkana. Uh, we just, I just know that. I, I don't know if I have an answer for the department summary, but I can look at each. Find And go through those with you if you would like. Well, I, I see, I see the authorization for 138.4 million. Mhm. But you're actual expenditures were 109 million and you're going up to 100 or you're asking for 10042.5 million, that's still a big increase over what you expended. What are you anticipating causing it to run up to 33 million rather uh 100 and go up by 33 million compared to 109 million. I don't think. I mean, when I look at the authorized of 138 and the request of 140 for each year. To me, that's not a significant increase in appropriation, uh, our expenses and what we budget is based on what we certify throughout the fiscal year so funds are available, that's what we spend. Uh, I know in last fiscal year, we put Uh, community correction on a a tighter budget because what we're doing is we're looking at ways to make efficiencies within the department, uh, within that division, personnel wise, uh, capital Y, capital equipment wise, MNO wise, uh, we're just looking at everything, but This, the appropriation request is in line with what we do, but we can only spend what we certify. Well, what are you certifying 142 million. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what, what, if you spend 109. Mi. Why do you need 142 million. I can understand maybe 115, 120, perhaps. But a $33 million increase is a pretty good amount of money. At least in my part of the country. Yeah. So representative, the way, the way that I've discussed this with Secretary Wallace is. We're, we're willing to do. Whatever we need with our appropriation as long as we know that we have a mechanism to come back in front of the legislature to get what we need. We're, we're open. Let me, while we're on personnel, you have, uh, you're showing all of 5th of September and you have a copy of the report there at the desk. You're showing 6312 positions. You're showing that 1959 vacancies and of those 345 or over 2 years old. Two questions. One, That's a 31% vacancy. What, what, what makes up the bulk of that. Is that correctional officers. Yes, uh, Representative Wootton, you're correct, uh, the great majority of those are security. There's a few that are in our shared services division. I think there was one in the post-rison transfer board that, um, that is going away. It was an administrative position, but yes, sir, the great majority of those are, are security positions and we try as best as we can to fill those on a rotating basis. Obviously, we would prefer to be fully staffed. we attempt to make an increase in their rate of pay. We have been working with the governor's office and the Department of Finance and Administration to, to work out a pay plan with Arkansas Forward and all of those things. Yes, sir, we've been working through all of the specifics with that. And I think that kind of goes to part of, uh, the questions you were having about what we actually spent versus the appropriation, the authorized amount, um, as, uh, Mr. Brown said, we, we, we do have the authorization for that funding, but because of some funding issues and lack of GR we have gone, uh, we've gone on a tight budget. Um, what I have been doing and working with the division directors and the board to do is try to figure out if we can reorganize things in our. within our structure to make more, create more efficiencies. We recently moved the Community Correction centers underneath the division of correction to try to streamline some processes. They're virtually the same offenders in a lot of cases, and they move back and forth across the aisle. So we're looking at all sorts of things, uh, to Mr. Brown's point, you know, if, if there's a, uh, if you would like for us to reduce the appropriation, we can always come back in the interim and ask for more. Um, I think if we had the, the, the money to do it. And we may have the money once we get through with all of our reorganization efforts. There are certainly needs with for public safety that the officers could utilize funding for, uh, I read. And I've observed that your water treatment facility is in Need of attention immediately attention and that's what, 30 million? So there are some, there are some different options. We're working again with the Department of Finance and Administration, and the, um, Department of Environment and Quality to figure out the best method to, to work through whatever issues we have. We have, and I have our maintenance director here. This is the division of correction side of the house, but, um, just to work through whatever our needs are for wastewater. We certainly work on improving things on a. a regular basis for wastewater treatment. Right. Of the, of the 3 of the 4 345 that are vacant over 2 years. How many of those are budgeted. I don't have that information. This is my human resources administrator Nick Stewart. Yes, sir, absolutely. I can get that for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Waller. Thank you, Representative. Richard S do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my question is on, uh, page 442 on the re-entry side of it, so. You're actual in 23 was 1.7 and you're asking for 5.2. I'm trying to understand what's the $3.5 million dollar. Increase in there, what, what's driving that? Because over the past couple of I think back into 22, I think the most you've spent is 2.8 and the other two years or the other couple of years you've been right at budget at about 17. So what's, what's driving at 3.5 million? Representative, what page are you on again? 2, I'm sorry, 442. I So Representative, that's, that's one of those cases that I was explaining to Representative Woo. I agree with you in your analysis, uh, so normally we just request to continue on what we have. That's one of those line items that if we need to reduce that to put that more in line with expenditures. We're more than happy to do so. OK, OK, thank you. Thank you, uh, Representative Beck, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So. Just, just getting a little bit into the weight, not too much, hopefully. But you know, I, I went and looked at the line, the majority of the increase that Representative Wooton was talking about comes, looks to me like it in terms of dollars comes from the uh community corrections state. Line appropriation. So looking at that line, I, I have a question. I'm just gonna question some of the numbers. It looks like you're, and these are round numbers um doing real quick here, but like you're increasing the number of positions comparing the actuals and, and 23 to to uh uh 25. Uh, 26 numbers you're increasing the number of position by 14%. You're increasing the salaries by 20%, uh, and. And then your, uh, you're increasing the overtime by 6 X. it seemed to me that if we're going to increase the number of people. Uh, that certainly I'm more than 20% increases uh it's understandable, but if you're gonna increase them by 14%, why do you expect your overtime to get more? Higher by 6 X. Are you looking at page 436, representative. Ah, OK. It would seem that, you know, the overtime that that you had was probably because you're a little bit short staffed now and you're increasing that so. So when it comes to the overtime, I'm I was looking at the wrong page and you were explaining so if I don't answer all your questions, let, let me know and I'll, I'll do the best I can. When it comes to overtime, And I'm gonna say in this line of work we have trouble on both sides of the house filling positions. Our goal is we budget as many positions as we can. Uh, we do that for the safety and security of our officers and also the ones we have in our custody, uh, on the community correction side, of course, that's our parole and probation side. We have vacancies all over the place, uh, we will advertise a position several times, no luck, uh, so we do the best we can that generates salary savings when we cannot fill those positions that creates a need for overtime, especially in our facilities, uh, and you'll also notice that on the division of correction side as well. So once you start looking at the facility side of community correction. That would be the need for overtime to make sure we cover shifts. And I can speak a little bit to that with the reorganization efforts that we're looking at, um, one of the things that we've looked at is maybe we can shift the staffing patterns, community corrections traditionally have had 8 hour shifts, um, but division of corrections, they do twelve-hour shifts. So we're looking at all sorts of things that we can eliminate those overtime issues along with, of course, we're looking for our officer pay and things like that. So I hope that that actually goes down, but for the time being, I think the fear is just that we don't. We need to have enough appropriation to make sure we, we can cover the overtime expenses as they sit now. And I, and I it's just quick follow up. the, the issue that I have is that The increase of 14% in the number of positions, an increase of 20% in salaries which I'm, I'm 100% support, but that would at least indicate that you're paying people more money so it'd be easier to fill your your example of not being in a field positions it would make it easier to fill those positions. Hopefully help you with retention as far as keeping those those individuals there and then just to Totally blow that one line out of the water at 6 X, uh, when it looks like, looks like you're doing the right thing and the salaries and the number of positions to eliminate that and then you're saying, oh by the way, we gotta have 6 times the amount of money for overtime. That's the issue that we're certainly amenable to I'll give you some slack on it. I'm going to send her Chester fish. She ain't got to talk this morning. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am not, I am not moving immediate consideration. I will shortly, um, but secretary, um, thank you all for being here. One of the things that um Has troubled me over the last several years is the ability to get good staff. You have been severely understaffed. People have had to work long, long hours and for a while we were not able to pay them. What we needed to pay them in order to attract and keep. Those individuals. Is that still the case? Well, we are still low, we're still short staffed. Yes, ma'am. Um, we're doing a lot of things that we can. We're reaching out to the community. We're trying to have a better outreach in the community. We're trying to improve, um, the culture and the environment for our staff as well as the offenders. And yes, in terms of the pay plan, we are working with Arkansas Forward Group, DFNA, the Governor's office, very closely to get to what we believe is the right entry level amount for our officers. That's really where we struggle. We have overall security rates, but it's really the entry level folks. So when we're looking at, you know, the types of people that want to come to work for us and how do we communicate with them and just kind of doing a, a wholesale look at how our hiring practices are, how our communication is and what we can do internally, not just getting people in the door, but keeping them in the door. Yes, ma'am. It's more so on the correction side of the house with community corrections, there's a lot of local law enforcement agencies that pay a better wage than what we do. So, that's also something that we're working on on that side of the house as well. Right. Because over the last, you're doing much better now. Thank you. Um, But over the last several years, it has just been a grind, and some of our units are worse than others, um, East Arkansas is notoriously difficult to fill positions. One is due to the location and, and it's a long ways to get there. And you've also got a federal facility that's relatively close by. So they pay, they have paid better than us, um, last month you all approved, um, for us to give an additional differential to them. So I think we, and I hate to advertise it, but I think we finally got ahead of the, the federal entry rate. So hopefully we'll have some success. success in that area as well. Thank you so much. I'll have a motion at the proper time, Mr. Chair. Center Love, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair, so sticking with the the staffing issues that you, you have. What is, what is the ratio of staff to inmate at this current time. I'm, I'm gonna have to rely on Director Payne to, to give, I don't have that information in front of me and he may not have it with him right now either, and we may have to get that back to you, but. If he does, we'll get it for you. I apologize. And, and so, and so, secretary, let me also ask, because I'm gonna ask not only that, um. We need to know the the the ratio. Can we get the gender also. Yes. And then also, what is the recommended staffing. ratio. OK cause I wanna, I, I just wanna look at, look at all that. OK, um, and that's something that I've looked at or thought about before, um, and I think that's difficult to ascertain without like a true study of the way that the population is made up at each facility, because they're mixture of populations. So I'm not, I'm not exactly sure what that ratio should be. Um, but if director Payne has any additional insight on that, I'm happy for him to join me at the table right, right, thank you, Mr. Chair. We can come back to that. We, we can, we can come back. I'm going to Center Urban. Thank you. At one point, Mr. Brown, you came to us because there was a a huge need and we were underfunded in community corrections, so I, for one, I'm glad to see it in the appropriation because you know these folks. That are out. I mean, that, especially the ones that are friends of mine that, you know, have been I mean, killed in the line of duty. And this year we've had, we've had some losses and um and you on our sex offenders and our high level sex offenders and some of the operations that they have conducted have been highly um volatile and with factors that are unknown going into, you know, somebody else's domain and trying to, uh, uh, and I hope that we're able to restore some of the needs that that are out there, um, particularly for the, the areas where they serve, um, with. The populations that they are dealing with, um, and they're incredibly important in my opinion for the cart teams and and all the different um, you know, they respond. They're, they're kind of a first responder in my opinion for public safety at this level in working alongside our local police, um, and sheriff's offices, and so, you know, I really am interested in making sure that they have the equipment that they need. And to make, to keep them safe. And, and that's really, really important to me. So it's that part of the plan here within your appropriation. So Senator I'm gonna answer this the best I can, uh, because it's, it's a complicated answer and we're looking. We're looking to make some moves, uh, that I'll get into also, but. To address what you're asking and also to answer what Senator Love was talking about, uh, Secretary Wallace tasked my division or my, my section to look at a staffing analysis, uh, we have put feelers out, uh, through cooperative contracts to see what companies are out there that do this because we too are are. Curious what a true staffing ratio looks like, uh, we heard the conversations about uh vehicles yesterday, uh, excess appropriations and. Assessments being done around each department, and I want to make sure this, this body knows that we are looking at our staffing, uh, we're looking at that on the community correction side we're looking at that on the division of correction side because we want to know what that is and the reason we want to know what that is is because community correction is facing some issues and it's those issues that I addressed with you a while back. That is still hanging out there. There's only one curveball that gets thrown into the mix. That curveball is. We're looking at moving the facilities either through a reallocation or in the session over to the division of correction under Director Payne. That means we will move personnel. Uh, capital equipment, vehicles, uh, salary match, you name it, anything under a facility will be located under. Director Payne. Director Payne and I have had several discussions, uh, I've also talked with a few of his staff members and said, hey, I need you guys to look at ways we can streamline things better within those 6 or 7 facilities that will be coming to you. An example is the way food is ordered, uh, food on the community correction side is ordered through a vendor, one vendor, I'll say Cisco, maybe somebody else. Uh, under Director Payne's side of the house, it is a well oiled machine. They have a very particular process that we work through our warehouse we get things in bulk at a cheaper rate. That's one of those efficiencies that we're going to look at to see if we can bring that what I said a while back, a shortfall on ACC side down, uh, so we're looking at everything we can to reduce that. We're looking at our cash funds. Uh, we're looking at pushing more things to our cash funds because we understand. we have some high balances. Uh, but what I also want to make sure everybody understands along with those high balances we also have things around the department that's aging. Uh, Cummins, one of the oldest facilities in the state, so that has a lot of needs. It makes me nervous to tap out a cash fund when I know. We have things coming down the pipe. So we're looking the best we can to make efficiencies on the community correction side. Our goal is to leave them with enough funding to operate parole and probation. After we move. The center's to Director Payne's side of the house and anything over and above that Director Cheek wants in community correction, he's gonna have to budget that out of his cash fund. And we've had those discussions. There's some things on Director Payne's side that he's going to absorb that we cannot budget for. I, I don't know how to do projections like overtime. I don't know how much overtime. Is going to be projected to move over. Because I don't know some of his facilities like at the max units need more staff, so is he gonna pull staff from these coming over? I'm sure he will. I just don't know what that looks like, so he's going to absorb some liabilities. So what, what keeps me up at night is. Whatever issues community correction had that is now being shifted over to the division of correction. What I'm trying to create is one issue instead of 2. So I'm trying to take that issue out of one and just move it over where if it needs to be fixed in the future, we just have one fix. I hope that answers your question. I, I, you know, I, I have major concern obviously for all of our law enforcement officers are within the system, um, but the variables within a facility are very different than the variables when you're, you know, driving down a driveway at 2 o'clock in the morning. About to, you know, proceed with A sting operation, basically with, you know, a sex offender. That is that they've been watching and. I mean, there, there are so many other different variables involved with that, so I just want to make sure those folks that are out in the field have what they need to be safe. That's, that's my primary question. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Central Love were you waiting on an answer? I If you'll hit your mind. Yes, sir, I was, I was waiting on the information in regards to the staffing ratios. Dexter Payne, our director for the division of Correction, Senator Love, we're authorized, uh, with our positions and the number of inmates we have, the ratio is 4 authorized 4.4 to 1. Uh, inmate, 4.1 inmate to one staff. But what we currently have with our vacancies is 6.2. To 1 Does that so what kind of safety risks does that pose within the facilities? I mean, are we, are we doing the necessary checks that we need or we are we doing, are we keeping up with the necessary Yeah, I mean, inside, inside the facilities, are we making the necessary checks. Are they as safe for those for the for those staff members as they were, or they should be under the 1 to 4. Yes, make up for the shortfall, what we're doing is, uh, requiring officers to come in for overtime, so that what that what that's what makes up for that shortfall of staff. OK, so we're we're ensuring that our our officers are safe within the facilities, even though we are short staffed. Yes, sir. I just want to just make sure that the facilities. That are employees are safe. That, that's, that was my. Yes, sir, and, and we're taking measures that everything that we can do to keep them safe, um, uh, I know we haven't gotten to the division of correction budget, but one of the things we asked for, I think in the last fiscal year was an additional appropriation in order to purchase stab vests for our employees that are in our facilities. So we're trying to take whatever steps that we can to, to give a little more, um, safety, if you will, um, to those officers. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh. Represent Barry, you reckon. Oh, thank you, good chairman. Uh, so, uh, just a quick question, I may have missed, I had stepped out, but, uh, what is your, uh, uh, case load for your, uh, probation and parole, uh, officers right now because, you know, we talk about finding efficiencies and so forth, but we got to be very careful that we don't get so efficient that it starts, uh, affecting our probation and parole officers out in the field. Uh, Jim Cheek, director of division of Community Correction. Uh, thanks, Representative Barry. Uh, it actually varies by area. We're probably averaging with the number of officers we actually have right now is 503, but we're running about 461. Uh, due to some vacancies, so case loads average. They're all a little bit over 100 right now. If you do it statewide, some areas are higher based on it, you know, if you lose one officer and an officer 3, your case loads are considerably higher if they were in the office of 20 and you lose one, so. We're trying to, I mean, ideally we'd like to be around. 50 to 80, you know that, but we're way ahead of that right now, so you're comfortable that you're able to accomplish your mission with what you've got right now. Or you're not, it's obvious you're not comfortable, so that's good I mean I, I, I would love to have more staff, but I mean we're doing what we can do with what we've got right now and our officers doing a great job. I mean, you kind of check the press and see what's going on. I mean, they're working as hard as they can to, you know, get the job done so I appreciate what you do and a lot of times we focus on the corrections, uh, there are inmates, but excuse me, it's a critical part of the correction system to have our community corrections officers out there serving in our community. So, I appreciate, uh, what you do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, um. Represent Wooten and then I'm going to Central Chesterville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is your average compensation. For correctional office. Um, OK, so do you want to know, um, entry level. I've got a chart that's got them all kind of broken down, and we do it based on like a tearing system what I want is the average. For your entire staff. I'm going to have to get Mr. Stewart to give me, I don't have the overall average in front of me. Would it be OK for me to provide that information to you? OK, on the parole officer, uh, rush. We're, we're running about 90. Inmates or 90 parolees to one I actually serves probation and parolee, but it's just a very, but we're over 100 average for the state as of right now, yes. And the national average is what in the 60s? It's lower than us right now, yes, sir. OK. In the, in the budgeting process, um, uh, Mr. Secretary, Madam Secretary, that you've had consultation with the governor's office. And that's the reason I'd like to know because here we are in the 4th, 3rd, and 4th week of budget hearings and you know, let's going to be a gigantic uh situation for us to deal with as a body and we're still waiting to hear like you exactly what the plan is going to be, but what do you see or what do you want or envision. And I'm putting you on the spot, but we've got to have some numbers to work with. What do you see as an average increase for your correctional officers. You just well go ahead and get it out in the public because we're facing this in every state agency. Sure, it's a little hard for me to say I'm in and I know you want a figure and it's very difficult for me to give you one because what we have done over the years for, forever, um, is create differentials for our correctional officers to kind of fill the gap with what, um, our structure is for personnel and so like you're, you're talking about some ash. astronomical. I mean, someone could be making $10,000 to $12,000 in a differential pay, um, based on what their salary is. So it's, and it, it changes based on where you're at. So it's very difficult for me to say what a great entry level salary is because I, I understand the value of retirement, right? A lot of staff that work for us don't necessarily, they see the, I want that check right now that's very high. So, um, Trying to weigh all of the needs with the department. You know, we've got to have the funding for the max facilities and things like that that I think are traditionally more difficult to fill positions. Um, I, I, I can't just give you a figure right now because there are so many nuances to it. And we've talked through all of those nuances with personnel. We've talked through all of those with the governor's office and DFNA. So, I think everybody's got a really great, um, picture of what our issues are and why, you know, it has taken us a while to really come up with what an increase should look like for correctional officers. Well, I, I'm not being critical. I'm, I'm, I'm sympathetic because I spent, I've spent several months at Cummins and Tucker not his inmate, but his trooper and clarification but I know, I know what you're up against from a security standpoint because at the time I was down there we had trustees with 30 6 rifles up in the guard tires, and we were troopers with pistols. I mean, it's, it was a frightening uh concerning situation, let's put it that way. But we need to do the best we can to protect those inmates because they're in our custody and we need to do the best. And to protect the people who live around that area. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I'm gonna slip in Tucker in here. He hadn't got to speak either, Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to start with the disclaimer, I have not spent months at an Arkansas correctional facility in any capacity. Uh, I, Representative Wooton beat me to the punch a little bit. We've had a lot of discussion this morning about vacancies with corrections officers at for inmates at facilities, and I share all of those concerns 100%. It's, it's right that we have that discussion. But I just want to bring, uh, parole and probation officers into the discussion as well because we have a really a dire need, uh, with that. And, and it has a direct relationship with public safety, um, and, you know, we talked about this. Week, week before last or last week maybe at our task force meeting, but I just wanted to, you know, bring it before the attention of, of the body here, you know, we, there's only two ways to reduce that ratio, right? And one is to make the numerator smaller or the denominator bigger, right? And we really need to do both. We really need to supervise less people, but we, we also are desperate, in desperate need of more officers. So, um, and like Representative Wootten, I know y'all are working and the details are to come. I will be anxious to, to, to hear those details as soon as we can, but I, I just wanted to, I don't really have a specific question. I wanted to make sure we're talking about probation and parole officers as much as we are corrections officers and of course, invite any comments you have, um, Madam Secretary. Yes sir, absolutely, and one of my goals also with, I talked about the reorganization of the community correction centers. One of my goals with that, um, community corrections only has one special revenue fund, and it, it funds everything. It funds rent, it funds equipment at all sorts of things. So it's not just about the salary. I, I go out in the field and I visit with these folks, and they love what they do. But they, of course, would like more tools in their tool belt to, to do a better job. They would like more SUVs, special revenue funds, vehicles. It's hard to get down a dirt road in the country if you're driving a charger. So, um, they would like better training opportunities. Um, any sort of equipment that can help them feel safer doing their job. Um, that is one of my hopes and goals with Reorging the centers is so that Mr. Chee has what he can to focus on supervision and focus on the officers and what the needs are in the community and bridging gaps within the community to, to get better resources for the offenders once they get released back to community. Um, that I think we're doing, we're doing our part with that also with the, the risk assessment we're, we're putting in a new validated risk assessment tools so that we can reassess all of these folks that are on supervision and that are leaving the incarcerated space. To community to make sure that they are at the level of supervision that they truly need to be at. So, that's all in process, um, but I, yes, sir, I completely agree with you and I understand exactly where you're coming from. Thank you. Representative Shepherd, do you have a question on the budget before I go to Central Chesterfield. It was in regards to the positions at the units, Mr. Chair. Thank you so very much and thank you for being here today. Do you pay higher salaries, uh, based on the units and officers assigned to and if so which units are those? Do you want to talk about the tearing or you want me, want that too? So we have different tiers that have different levels of differentials, and I'll probably have to get Mr. Stewart up here because he's very dialed into all the facilities, but yes, for Max facilities, um, tier 34 and 5 units. We've got East Arkansas, they get the most differentials. They get a max max differential, they get a geographical and a hazardous duty differential. So that's what, 22% differential that they're receiving now. And that's based on their base salary. So when we pay, we pay that out of, um, salary savings. Um, and then let's see, Varner, it gets a max differential and a hazardous duty differential of 16% and then Cummins and the maximum security unit. So to answer your question, yes, they all, based on the type of offenders that they house, the type of facility that they're deemed to be, there is differential pay that is tacked on top of whatever their entry level pay is. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. year. Thank you, Senator Chester, you reckon? Yes, Mr. Chair, I move executive. 2. I did hear a second on favor I. closed. Thank you. Appreciate that. It was for community corrections and now we go to Uh Mr. Coleman again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, we'll begin looking at the division of correction, division summary on page 447 of your manuals. Just going over some totals here. If you look at the bottom line of the appropriation table, uh, the agency request totals for the division of Correction are $438.6 million for fiscal year 26 and just under $438.8 million for fiscal year 27. Uh, the executive request is slightly different at 437.2 million for 26 and 437.3 million for 27. Uh, looking at the first appropriation with a change level on page 451, uh, you'll find the ADC sex offender assessment. Uh, this appropriation is for the UAMS juvenile sex offender assessment. It's funded by fees collected by the Crime Information Center from those required by law to register as level 3 or 4 sex offenders. The department is questioning $170,000 for each year of the upcoming biennium, uh, which represents a $120,000 increase from fiscal year $25 authorized this increase can be found in the professional fees line item is for. payments of juvenile assessment expenses. Uh, I'm looking at the next appropriation with the change. Should be page. Um, sorry, page 455 of your manuals, uh, and this is the inmate care and custody preparation. So this is the main operating preparation for the division of correction. It's funded mostly by general revenue with some cash and special revenue as well, uh, apart from regular salaries, personal services matching, and operating expenses. The requested amounts for both the agency request and the execut recommendation are fiscal year 25 authorized amounts. Both the agency and executive provide for a transfer of just over $9 million from salaries and $3 million from personal services matching to. Operating expenses to bring the operating expenses line item total to just under $70 million to better align with expenditures. The real difference between the agency request and the execut recommendation is that the executive recommendation provides for the reclassification of 12 positions, discontinuation of 26 positions and the associated salary and match the agency request is around $366.5 million for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for about 365 million. Uh, moving on to Page 459. Of your manuals, you'll find the prison industry appropriation. So the prison industries' program aims to operate various industry programs in an efficient and cost effective manner that provides inmates with productive and significant training opportunities. Uh, more than 500 inmates participate in these programs. There are two line item increases within this appropriation, the first being personal services matching with a roughly $60,000 increase for both years of the biennium and the second being a $221,000 increase to capital outlay for equipment purchase as needed by the division. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request at just under $12.5 million for both years of the biennium. Uh, moving on to farm operations on page 461 in your manuals. Uh, the agricultural division of ADC is involved in almost every area of farming, providing fresh and frozen vegetables, dairy, meat, and eggs that are consumed by the inmate population while generating revenue by selling products like soybeans, wheat, uh, rice, cotton, etc. Primary goal of this program is to provide useful and meaningful work for inmates while producing cost-effective food for inmates. Uh, the program provides jobs to approximately 300 inmates. Executive recommendation provides for the agency request for this appropriation at just under $20 million for both years of the upcoming biennium. Apart from the roughly $150,000 increase for personal services matching the only increase from fiscal year 25 authorized is a $1.15 million dollar increase in capital outlay, uh, and that's for equipment as needed by the division of agriculture there or sorry, the Department of Corrections Agricultural division. Uh, page 460. 3 is the inmate welfare treasury cash appropriation. Uh, this cash appropriation provides for self-supported store operations within correctional institutions for inmates to purchase hygiene items. Paper and stamps and various snack foods, they just use the requesting an additional $3 million in operating expenses to cover maintenance repairs and uh commissary operations and a $4.25 million dollar increase in capital outlay, and that's to replace and repair kitchen and laundry equipment. Uh, the executive recommendation provides for all of these changes, resulting in a total preparation amount of about 22.7 million. In both years of the biennium. Uh, page 465, you'll find non-tax revenue receipts. Uh, this cash appropriation is funded by proceeds from a contractual agreement with the division's telephone service provider for the operation of a coinless telephone system. These funds are used for inmate assistance projects, security equipment, and long-term needs in general operations. The only change in this appropriation from fiscal year 25 authorized is a $1.5 million dollar increase in operating expenses uh to ensure the safety and security of staff and inmates with things like stab vests and, uh, security camera projects. Uh, the appropriation total for both years of the upcoming biennium is 3.75 million. The agency request is supported by the executive recommendation there. Um, The final preparation would change levels is page 469, which is medical monetary sanctions. This cash appropriation is funded from liquidated damages imposed when contracted levels of health services are not provided. Uh, these funds are used to improve healthcare services for inmates and the department is requesting $5 million each year of the biennium to better align with agency needs. Executive recommendation provides for this $3.3 million dollar increase from fiscal year 25 authorized. Mr. Chairman, I believe that concludes the change levels for the division of correction. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Coleman, uh. Remember I sit here in my simpleton mine. Was just thinking about Not counting law enforcement. If 50% of people who committed felonious. things to be incarcerated for. Can you imagine the amount of money. That we would save and have to do other good things with. Just a thought. Uh, going to Senator Chesterfield, you are recognized. I have a motion at the time. I move executive. Um, is there any discussion on the motion. Discussion on the motion. Uh, Representative Meeks so I'm going to recognize you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for staff, um, prior to you calling the vote on that if that's OK. Good. Um, so on, um, The farm operations on page 461, uh, on their capital outlay. It says that they spent $1.8 million but they were only budgeted 800,000. Did they go over their appropriation on that? Did they have the authority to make that spend or is there something else going on with that? You see what I'm talking about page 461 Capital Olay actual expenses 1.8 million budgeted 800,000. For So I just want to make sure they didn't run afoul of the law or if there was a change there, did we approve that? Go ahead and answer. Uh, Representative Meeks, what we did, we came and asked for additional appropriation to purchase some leased, uh, tractors. So that's what that is. OK, so you had authority from the General Assembly then to make that change that, and I just want to make sure that was done. OK. All right, that was my question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson, do you have a discussion on the motion? I have a question. I'm gonna allow your question, Senator Johnson. So, In the farm operations, uh, page 461. The, uh, special revenue, I'm gonna assume is mainly from sales of rice, soybeans, cotton. Is that right? Yes sir, that that's revenue produced from the roe crop side of the farm, uh, how much is in row crop production, 12,000 or so. Uh, well, let me, let me back up that also that revenue also includes sale of cattle, sale of horses. Uh, so that that includes that too, but on the row crops. I don't know if Mr. Ferribeau knows the answer to that question, uh, if not. Is it possible we can get that back to you? I just, I just, I mean, if you've got 20,000 acres and you got 12,000 in production. You got $9 million in revenue. That's, that's about $800 an acre, and you need to lease out your farm for about $1500 an acre and quit your spin. Yeah, I'm David Fairbo, farmer administrator, uh, Cummins has about 9000 acres in, in row crop and, um, Vegetable production, uh, East Arkansas is about 2000 acres and um the Tucker farm is about 3000 acres. So it's just, just pretty close to. 12 to 13,000. Yes, sir. I mean, that's $800 an acre, is what, is what, I mean, if, if it's 12,000 acres, you got in production. I would say you keep all your vegetables, chicken, egg. Dairy And you need, you need to lease out. Because if you can't make more than $800 an acre, you're, you're, you're not sustainable. I mean, it's, uh, I mean, that's. That's a fact. That would get rid of your having to buy a lot of tractors and stuff and still be able to produce cattle and chickens and eggs and everything and You need to lease out your farm, and I've, I've tried to figure out some way of, of doing it, but they, I mean, if, if you can't make more than 80 approximately $800 an acre. It's is not worth, it's not worth y'all's time or, or the, you know, people working. I mean, that's, that's my suggestion y'all can come up with whatever you want to, but if, if that's including selling cattle and and row crop. That's, that's, that's pitiful farming. That's not selling the cattle side, no, sir, that's, that's just the row crop sales. Uh, y'all need to get out of farming, so, thank you. Representative and um, um, lines from leeway if you can. Keep it close. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have several questions on your, on, on the form operations. You've got 12,000 acres, roughly under cultivation. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And you, you use 43 people. About that, that, that's, uh, all the livestock people, security officers, processing plants and everything. That's one. How many do you have directly involved in your farming operation. On row crop side right now, maybe 8 people plus the 8 people plus the inmates. OK. All right, on, On your uh conference and travel expense, you have $2,406. Um, you had budgeted 33,000, you're authorized 53,000. And your budget continues to be 53,000. That's a good difference between 24. 06 and 5,300,010. Representative, that's, that's another one of those line items if, if we need to look at reducing that to put it in more in line with actuals, we're more than willing to do so. Do that again. This is one of those line items that if we need to reduce to put it more in line with the actuals. We're more than happy to do so. OK. Well, you know, that's, that's a wide disparity. And then also how, how do you handle, do you still, you still have cattle? Yes, sir. OK. The last time we talked about that, y'all mentioned the fact that in the report I got, uh, as a result of the questioning. You mentioned the fact that you transported cattle to Oklahoma to sell. What, what, what controls do you have over who takes that over there and with that income and that money where is that shown for what you saw those cows for. We got away from going to Oak City. We are now sailed through Superior, uh, on the video auctions, all the cattle stay at the farms. They're, they're presented on the video, I think about 8000 bidders across the nation. And then once the cattle are sold, it is the buyer's responsibility to send the trucks to us. And then once they send the trucks to us, we have 2 people, not associated with farm counting the cattle as they go on the truck. They're we on certified scales, superior writes us a check that day. They, they count the cows as they're loaded on. Yes, sir, because the trucks we, we advertise that we might, we'll have a pot load of let's just say 80 hit and we'll verify that 80 head is what went on the on the pipe you don't take them to a cellborn in Oklahoma. No, not anymore, not anymore. Yes sir, that was, that was probably 7 individuals bid on them and then you load them on the trucks. Correct. And ship them out. Yes, sir. OK, and you have employees there that count and keep up with it. Our protocol says 2 people not associated with the beef herd operations. So we'll bring in a, uh, someone from management or someone from security to make sure that the count is correct. Uh But you are I'm gonna ask you to speed it up a little bit. Representative please speed it up a little that's fine. That's fine. Thank you. Uh, in the back. Thank you. My question has to do with page 469 and it's just really uh looking at the actual Um In the 23, 24 numbers versus the growth on this line, um. You know, from 191,000 to. 5 million Representative, this, this is an easy one for me to explain. So with our new medical contract, we have increased the sanctions, uh, so if the company that we A contract with if they don't. Follow protocols, procedures, they get sanctioned for that. This is where that money goes into the account. And as you can see, that's what we normally get. However, we don't know with the new medical contract what those sanctions are going to look like and we don't know what the money is going to look like coming into this account. So that's why you see such a significant increase in appropriation. And this appropriation is used for, uh, to pay for chemo, uh, for inmates, uh, some of our offender management system upgrades. Uh, we buy handicapped vehicles, uh, through this appropriation, and we provide updates to our facility in Wachita. That's what that's the significant increase for this. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Chesterfield. I will accept your motion is You just, you just give us some motion for that Greg, I will say except I don't have any business on the board. All right. Thank you. And I had a 2nd all in favor I. Post. Thank you. Uh, next, going to Uh, post prison transfer board, Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The post-Prison Transfer board appropriation can be found on page 472 of your manuals. So the post-prison transfer board is responsible for conducting parole hearings throughout the state, making decisions on conditional releases of inmates from correctional facilities and reviewing pardon and executive clemency applications and making recommendations to the governor. Uh, the board is funded by GR through the Miscellaneous Agencies fund and the agency is requesting just over $2.5 million in fiscal year 26 and 27. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request except for one discontinued position and the associated salary and match, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the post prison transfer board. Like you not see any questions, uh, I have a motion for exeick. Motion 2nd on favor. I pose that post prison transfer board is passed. Mr. Cohen, Corrections Department Sentencing Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our last appropriation of the day for corrections is on page 4, 75, and this is Arkansas Sentencing Commission. So the Arkansas Sentencing Commission establishes, maintains, and revised the sentencing guidelines, institutes sentencing standards to ensure convictions are proportional to seriousness of offenses, monitors and assesses the effects of legislation on policy, on correctional resources and educates the criminal justice community and public regarding laws and policy. The operations appropriation is funded by general revenue through the Miscellaneous Agency's fund account. Uh, the agency is requesting just over $475,000 in both years of the upcoming biennium. Apart from salary and match adjustments, the only line item changes are a transfer of $19,000 from operating expenses for IT expenses. And $11,000 from professional fees for the annual inmate population report contract, and we talked about those in the uh department budget, those are both going to the Department of Correction Shared Services. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the presentation for sentencing commission. I have a motion fore motion 2 on favor I. Post, thank you all for being here today, Secretary Wallace. Y'all have a good day. Uh, members were going to finish up what we didn't get done yesterday. Uh, commerce department insurance division if uh. Commissioner McLean would come up and whoever Welcome. Good to have you all today and Miss Hamilton, I'm glad to have you back if you identify yourself starting across the table. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Mildred Hamilton with the fiscal division of the Bureau of Legislative Research. Mr. Chair, Alan McLean, Arkansas Insurance Commissioner. I'll let my colleagues introduce themselves. Good morning, uh, Mary Davis, CFO for AID. Good morning, Alison Hatfield, Chief of Staff for commerce. Thank you all for being here, Ms. Hamilton, uh, you can proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, we're on page 260 of your manual. This is for the Department of Commerce State Insurance Department. You'll see their their department appropriation summary. They do have 25 appropriations, 14 with changes, which I'll go through quickly. Overall, the request for the executive recommendation is your the decrease of 7 positions from the 25 authorized into 26 and 27 and an increase of appropriation of about 63.4 million in fiscal year, 26 and 63. 8.5 million in fiscal year 27. 1st appropriation with changes is on page 264. This is our operations appropriation. I do want to note before I go through all of them, that there's no general revenue in this agency. If you'll note on page 263, the authorized appropriation is 40 million. They're asking that this be increased to 75 million and this is for expenses and claims from their Amefeline item to offset increases in the property premiums for participating state agencies and school districts. That's the executive recommendation. Next appropriation is on page 266, is their operations appropriation. This is funded by special revenues. You'll note that there are a number of changes. There is a decrease of 8 positions from 25 authorized and there is also an increase of about $385,000 in fiscal year 26 and $391,000 in fiscal year 27. There's also a restoration request of 150,000 in capital outlay to replace their outdated equipment and vehicles. This is the executive recommendation for fiscal year 2627. Next, appropriation with changes is on page 267. This is a fraud investigation unit and it is funded from special revenues. You'll note that there are 10 positions and an appropriation of 943,000 that was authorized in 25. They're asking to discontinue this appropriation for fiscal years 26 and 27, and that is the executive recommendation for this request. The next appropriation with changes is on page 269. This is also a fraud investigation division, but this is funded with the Criminal Investigation Division Trust Fund. It's also funded with special revenues, you will note on 269 that the authorized number of positions is 3. It's being requested to increase to 10. And there's an increase in appropriation from the 663 authorized to 1.6 million in both fiscal years 26 and 27, and this is to align their appropriations and merge their program operations. They're also asking for restoration of 60,000 capital outlay to replace their outdated equipment and vehicles. Next appropriation which changes is on page 271. This is also a prepaid trust fund. It consists of investment income grants, refunds, gifts, annual report fees and licenses that are paid on page 271, you will note that there is a change restoration of 30,000 capital outlay also again to replace outdated equipment and vehicles. This is the executive recommendation going into fiscal year 26 and 27. Next appropriation with changes is on page 276. This is your state employee claims appropriation. Excuse me, this funded by the Workers' Compensation revolving Fund. The agency is requesting for a decrease in appropriation from 16.5 million to 15.5 million. Again, this is in their claims line item to align their appropriation with the anticipated expenditures while they support their program capacity for catastrophic claims, that's the executive recommendation. The next appropriation with changes is on page 277. This is their operations. Funding comes from bond premiums. And the request is to decrease. They claims line item. By 1.3 million to align their appropriation with the anticipated expenditures and you'll see that decrease in the claims line item. It goes from 2.8 million authorized 25 to 1.5 million and 26 and 27. That's the executive recommendation. Next appropriation was changes is on page 279. You'll note the position change from authorized 23 positions to a decrease of 2 to 21 positions going into fiscal year 26 and 27. That's the only change to this appropriation. The next is on page 281. This is their health information counseling appropriation. It's federal. Agencies requesting changes in their operating expenses conference and travel and professional fees line item. There's a reallocation of $130,000 in professional fees and this is going to the operating expenses line item there's an increase of 100,000, an increase of 10,000 in their conference and travel line item and then an increase of 20,000 in a promotional line item. There's an overall increase of approximately 57,000 from fiscal year 25 authorized. That's the executive recommendation. Next appropriation with changes you'll see on page 296. This is their public insurance. Now if this is a criminal background checks appropriation. There is a decrease in the line item for operating expenses from 125,000 authorized to 25,000 for fiscal year 26 and 27. This is to better align their budget with anticipated expenditures. This is a cash and treasury appropriation, and that is the executive recommendation. The next is on page 297. This is a trust fund appropriation. This comes from vehicle insurance premiums that are paid by participating entities. The request is to increase the appropriation from 20 million authorized and 25 to 50 million in 26 and 27, and this is to support the increase in property premiums, that is the executive recommendation. On page 302. You will see their AID senior Medicare patrol SMP. I do want to note before we talk about this appropriation that. This was a request for continuation of appropriation. It was approved through a miscellaneous federal grant back in 2023. So council did approve it and it was continued for 2024 when it was transferred from DHS, but in about two weeks ago in the ALC peer subcommittee, this item was not approved. It was held. Um, I am gonna go through it though. So on page 301, you'll see that there is no. Appropriation authorized for 25, but they are asking for $815,000 for fiscal years 26 and 27. And this is going to restore 3 miscellaneous federal grant positions, increased their operating expenses, their conference and travel, their promotional lines items line item and their grants and aid to support the sub-grantee scope of service to prevent healthcare fraud. This is the executive recommendation, but once again this was not an item that was uh reviewed in peer it was held. Next, appropriation which changes is on page 308. This is their funeral services appropriation. There is just a request for a decrease of 67,000 in their operating expenses, and this is to align their budget with anticipated expenditures. This is a cash and treasury appropriation, and this is what the executive is recommending. The last appropriation was changes is on page 309. This is a federal appropriation. It's from their market stabilization grant. The agency is requesting to discontinue their appropriation and the one position that you see on page 309, the appropriation was for 501,000 in fiscal year 25, but there is no recommendation for perspiration in 26 and 27, that's the executive recommendation and that concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. All right, here we go with questions. Reps of Kavanaugh you recognize that, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here to the right. Um, my first question is going to be on page 273, which is the continuing education, uh, trust fund. I noticed that there's not been a spend from that since 2016, 2017, and at that time, it was only $5000. Why do we, why do we still need this? I'll let our CFO start with that one. Good morning. Um, thank you for the question. So we did have a lot of discussion about this, um, statutorily, it's required that we continue this program. The reason that there hasn't been any historical spend is because this was absorbed into our licensing department, um, starting in 2025, we did allocate a portion of the person's salary that's in charge of this, um, to this, um, Fund And the only other thing that we started looking at is reducing the fees that are collected to, um, more aligned with what the spend will be going forward. OK. Yeah, because you have 556 years worth of fund balance and this fund balances, it can only be used for specific, what can it be used for, um. Hold on one second. That So this can only be used, um, for continuing education provisions as far as, um, we make the insurance providers of continuing education, pay a fee, and that, um, and we assess their, um, educational courses. So it can only be used for those purposes. It's very specific to continuing education for insurance producers. And as a, um, full transparency, I hold a license. an insurance agent. So how much you charge us a year for that? title insurance agent fee is $10. The educational provider themselves is $100 fee. And so there are fees that we're collecting that we don't really don't need to collect from someone with this type of balance or we need to find another use for it. That, that, that's right Kavanaugh, we, we are. Uh, collecting it's we administer the continuing aid programs we have staff that analyze as Mary said, what, uh, uh whether the providers who submit their credentials to to conduct continuing it, so there is that fee, but it's, it's not costing the agency. We can only allocate a part of a position to do that so uh we do need to reduce that fee and I can do that administratively and plan to over the next year. OK, and then we're offline if we can talk about. Ways that we might find ability to use that fund, if it takes some laws or something, but it's just sitting there not doing anything for anybody. So that's kind of. What my goal is. And then I'm going to talk to you about your fund balance on 293. Your fund balance on 293, your highest suspend on that one has been, uh, 476, and that was in 1718 and based upon spend, you have 22 years' worth of balance on that one. And Waterwe and I kind of understand what this one is for, but really, how much? Exposure do we have there? It it's one that's hard to predict on the exposure so yeah it it may err on the side of being being a little high, but it, the, the idea would be to uh have that money available to to to help consumers have a recover from their, their uh from a uh a prepaid funeral program that might not honor what they're supposed to do, so it is sort of a backup for consumers if they, if they, if they have a problem with that and so, uh, that is something that basically. on the historical, uh, it could, could be reduced, you're right. OK, thank you. Then I want to look at, um, 301. You get there real quick. Um, this is the senior Medicare patrol. Can you just explain to me exactly what you're doing in this program. Sure, I'll start and we do have the director of that program here with us today, Kathleen Purcell, and so she does it every day and but it it is to educate our. Uh, uh, Medicare beneficiaries to, to detect. Fraud fraudulent activity. It's just a consumer, uh, you know, if I were a Medicare beneficiary, it would, it would be to instruct me to to be able to identify if a provider of a medical provider in particular was, was doing some fraudulent billing, uh, not, uh, or, um, doing something that they're not supposed to do, so it's, it's more of a buyer beware, consumer facing program that is 100% federally funded. We just took it in uh June of 2020. 3, as was mentioned, uh, we also have a senior health insurance program that educates um also a federal, uh, fully federally funded program that educates seniors on Medicare options, so when the when the the grant became uh a new grant again then uh, we, we brought it from DHS to to the Department of insurance to have it sit beside our senior health insurance program, so it, it is completely about educating. consumers. OK, and I noticed that you're showing in your funding source that you got 268,000 from the federal government, um, in 2526, and also in 2627, you're projecting that you're gonna get almost a million dollars. Are we really expecting a million dollars from the federal government on this. Yes, ma'am. So there's a couple of factors that went into, um, why we did the budget the way that we did. So the spend is a little low in the first year because it was the first year of the program, we only had one employee at that time. Um, we are still setting it up. And, uh, this grant does renew, um, During the state fiscal year, it's not at the same time as our, um, July 1. So what we did was budget for 2 years of that funding to allow for, um, previous pro projects that haven't been completed, that we're caring for the funds and then anticipating the funding that we put in our five-year budget to be awarded, um, during that fiscal year. OK. I guess I'm having a little trouble really understanding what we're doing with this program, how we're helping seniors, um, beyond. Teaching them, I guess, to question what the providers. Billing And it talks about grants and aids here and it's $35,000 in grants and aids. I mean, who gets the grants and aids, who, I mean, who's getting those and what are they doing with them? Um Do we want to have caffeine Yeah, we're going ask Kathleen to come up and add a little more color to this, to do a better job than than me uh as we talk about her outreach throughout the state and engages different vendors to help do this educational component, so I'll let Kathleen introduce herself, Kathleen for So, program director for the Arkansas Senior Medicare Patrol. Um, so I'm not sure of the question, but I think you're wanting to know what we're doing with the, with the, uh, money as far as we sub-grant to partners throughout the state who help us do what we do and what our major, uh, program objective is to educate senior citizens and caregivers and people in the aging industry about healthcare fraud and the scams that target the seniors, senior population, um, the education part is. um, statewide and we The cost is mostly through advertising, through publications, through, uh, furnishing or sub-grantees with promotional items and materials as well, um, we do, um, you know, we travel statewide, we, you know, hotel stays, I guess, not too often, but what else is in our budget? How do we track how many seniors we actually help with this program. How do we know what our effective rate? is on this program. Cause I'm all for helping the seniors they need as much help as they can to spot people trying to scam them, but how effective are we at that with this program? Um, so we track that through a database that the Administration for Community Living came up with, and, um, so we, the measurable outcome on that is through, um, how many people we speak to through presentations and also exhibit booths. Getting our message out that way, um, and then the numbers, I guess, do you have those numbers here from, so, and I understand we're speaking to people, but how do we know? We're helping seniors, uh, identify and know what scams are not being, how are we able to show the effectiveness and speak to somebody all day long, but I don't know if that's a, I don't know if I'm effective when I do that or not. I'm gonna, I'm going to get her to answer your question. I've got a full board, but if you can answer the question, if not, you may have to get offline. That is just one of the issues with this program because it is a prevention program through education, and that is. It's not measurable. Um, all we can do is do a um And before and after survey that says, now will you change your actions? Will you start reviewing your Medicare summary notice, will you hang up the phone when you realize it's a scam, you know, that's the only way we can kind of. Justify that our message is getting heard. OK, thank you. So dismay you recognize. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna skip one and come to this because it's all related and it's really for the insurance department as a whole as we're looking at the Medicare programs that y'all administer. So the way that I'm reading the report, there are 3 of them that are administered by the insurance department, and those would be the health information counseling, which is 281 on 281 in your packet. The other one is the senior Medicare patrol, which I think is what we were just talking about, which is 301 and the last one is the Medicare Improvement for patients. Providers Act 303. And so I think those are the three functions that you all have that are associated with Medicare. My, all right, so the first one, health information counseling, had 3 employers, 3 employees, I think you're moving to 2. If I'm reading it right, the actual spin was 713,000 in the budget request is 1.3 million. The next one is the senior Medicare patrol, which is what we're just talking about. It has 3 employees, it's going to stick with 3 employees. It's actual is 268, and that's gonna move to 815. And then the last one is the 303, uh, the Medicare. Improvement Patients Providers Act, actual spend was 738. It's wanting to go to, it's got a budget request of 1.28 and it's going from 3 employees to 4 employees. And when I read just your summaries in this packet, every single one of those things overlap and they're kind of doing the same thing. I think there's a misstatement here and one of them where we call something a Medicaid Part D. I'm assuming that's alluding to Medicare Part D, um, But my question is, is. It's all about outreach. It's all about community outreach. Are these three entities coordinating with each other? Are they sharing employees? Should they share employees or more money could be spent for, you know, outreach and, and solving whatever these situations might be. What are the measures will look like? I understand it's all federally funded. Maybe we shouldn't care because it's federally funded. I mean, I was told yesterday we shouldn't worry about banking because banking, you know, gets their own money, uh from the banks. So to fund themselves. That's just not how that works. So is someone looking at this and evaluating and making sure that there's no they're overlapping appropriately. Yes, sir. As far as the positions, um, It's their cost allocated in ACEs, but I don't think there's a way on the reports from the Office of Budget to show when a position is cost allocated to multiple grants. So when you see those numbers, they're, they're actually the same employee that's working on the same program. So the, um, the only ones that have their. Employees separate is SMP. The other ones are working cost allocated between the grants. The MIA one that you see in there is actually 3 grants that are in that appropriation. There's different tiers and they're offered different. Things, but they all work together. So we are all working together as one grant department and we are spreading those. funds for the personnel across those grants. So when I, when I look at it and it says that health information counseling has 3 employees and they're going to 2. Do they actually have 2 employees that are only doing that. No, there's actually 5 total people that work for grants. I know it's really confusing, but they're, they're, they're cost allocated in AIS between the 5 grants, the the ship, well, now 4, sorry, I, we got rid of one this year. So it'll be 4 grants. So there's actually 5 people that are cost allocated. But I don't, I don't know if there's a way on that report or maybe I'm not explaining it very well to Medicare patrol. Yes. That they have 3 employees and that's not a grant program or but it is a grant program but it's also an outreach program. Yeah, it's a federally funded outreach program, yes. And then so they have 3 employees that just do that. OK. And then the other one, which I think you live to it's going from 3 to 4. That's just a grant program. Yes. That that's the Medicare improvement for patients Providers Act. Yeah, but they're not those positions are not actually full time in that grant. The costs allocated, but there's no way on that report to show a cost allocation. OK. I can provide the cost allocation to you if you would like to see it. I would be curious, and I mean, and I, I would go back to, I would just like to make sure that these things are being effective. I mean, I understand it's federal money and And maybe we shouldn't be that concerned about it, but I mean, if we're going to have a Medicare. Fraud patrol, whatever it is going out, what does that even look like? I've seen some of the reports. I'm not sure how effective it is. Uh, just by looking at some of the summaries that I've seen, it seems like it's more about getting impressions than it is like a solution, um. But, but, but I hope to be wrong. I, I'm gonna move to, again, if y'all could look at that, I would love to know. To see how we're efficiently using those and have those positions right on 263 and I'll try to be quick, that's multi-agency Insurance Trust. And we can do this after this. I would just be curious, what do we look? I mean, how many vehicles do we have covered? What is our deductible? Is it standard across the board? Do we carry liability on some only, I mean, what, what does that look like? Because we got a $750 million appropriation. For the multi-agency trust again that's on 263. Um, as far as As far as the vehicles, um, we currently insure 6,0019 vehicles for that. So and how do y'all monitor those when they come on or off. I mean, we heard, I've heard now that we have vehicles that sit in parking lots and never move. Um, do we insure those vehicles or do we have something in process to take those down to liability while they're sitting there, or what do y'all do? There is a process with forms to add or remove vehicles from your insurance during the year. Those are sent out, um, with renewals in a packet to the agencies, and we can have Randy answer more questions and I'll just be very forward. This was the start of my conversation yesterday that I was trying to have on acquisition because. Like just some questions that I would like to have answered is number one, what is the annual reoccurring, you know, costs that we're paying for. You know, vehicles like so repair, not repairs and maintenance, but the damage that we're having to cover or whatever. I mean, how much, what do we have any claims reoccurring each year. Randy, on average, Randy identify yourself please and answer. Randy Robinson, state risk manager, um, Senators May, I'm gonna have to get back to you on the claims number question, um, but I can get that to you, number of, uh, we do have that, we have that data readily available. I just don't have it with me. Alright, to answer that question, uh, it is a standard deductible. We have um um comprehensive deductible on state vehicles, state and school are um is 50. dollars and collision is $1000. That's what I was afraid I was. So, and then uh we have, um, Uh, your question about will, um, to monitor uh when vehicles are coming on or coming off of the program, yes, we, we do that in our office, state agencies or the schools, they will send us a request to, um, add or remove a vehicle or take it from um full coverage to liability only. Um, but that is, that is on the agencies, we don't have uh the staffing or the ability to monitor all 6000. on where they are, where they're sitting, whether they're being used in that but statewide fleet management tool would integrate really well with what you're doing on insurance and cre uh uh ability for it to make sure they're not wasting money insuring vehicles that aren't being used because the agency hasn't taken the time to get the information over at, yeah, be very helpful, I think. That would be good because we, we have a lot that at the end of the year, we get some surprises that, that, that they wanted to move something, but they didn't know they, they didn't tell us till the last of the month or yes, sir. So, and again, I, I would, if we can get that annualized, you know, we, what we would think to be a reoccurring claim. I understand that can vary, but I mean if we're having $500 to $1000 deductibles, and we have, I don't know, $10 million worth of reoccurring claims and essentially we're just paying insurance companies to finance our claims. That is, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Um, and then in here it says higher deductibles and is that so your goal is to have this so you can move to higher deductibles and self-insure or what's the Well, the, the appropriation is for the entire Arkansas multi-agency Insurance Trust. That includes vehicles, cyber, and property. Vehicle is only one small portion of that and, um, I'd have to, I've got the number in my phone, um, here, but, um, and Mary may have it too. But for yeah, for vehicles, our auto premium was around uh 2.5 million. So the rest of that appropriation is in property premiums, cyber premium, aggregates for those other programs, the auto program does not have an aggregate. It's $1 coverage after the deductible. OK, it's just maybe the summary is too much of a summary because it doesn't really, that's not the way that I was reading the summary, so it is that 75 is for the entire Amate fund, not the, uh, uh, not the, uh, just the auto, and I've gotten a note here, state losses of uh FI 24, we had a 183 losses, and that's uh totaling amount of, uh, 972. 287 All right That we're, yeah, if we don't, we can, if you don't mind, let's visit on the vehicle side of things. I'll just be curious to see what we're doing. The way this reads, it reads like it focuses more on vehicles than anything on the summary side, so I appreciate.pologize for that. No, it's, it's more, much more than just vehicles. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think you ripped in uh Springer, you reckon. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask the question. Maybe I missed this, the Department of Insurance uh for consumer complaints. I have quite a few constituents that contact me about consumer complaints. Did we cover that in another budget appropriation or is it within this one? For the, the, the, the department that handles complaints division that, that is part of the department that we receive that appropriation they're not broken out into their own. The consumer services division is paid out of our general trust fund, which is the summaries on 264, 264 and the budget's on 265 people you have working over there? I believe it's like 7 people fairly small, yeah, so and then that that's that those are people who received the complaints and, and, and talked to talk to our consumers daily and respond receive the electronic complaints as well as uh phones and walk-in complaints. Last question, Mr. Chair. How many complaints on average do you receive a year? Great question. I thought I had it written down here, but it's not the fing my fingertips. Happy to get back to you on that. It's a, it's a great question. We, we, we track that. I just don't have that in my, in my, uh. Notes right here but it's uh uh. They, they stay very busy with with a lot of complaints and we encourage consumers to contact us all the time. That's, that's our number one statutory mission is consumer protection and, and so they are doing that constantly. Uh, we're just told it's around 1800. I'm complaints. We were just told it was around 8 1800 OK, so you have enough staff. I'm finished. Thank you. Trips in Bentley, you reckon that. Thank you, Chairman over here. So we're looking at, um, I know we're. Looking at your fraud department there on page 269. just want to know, make sure, if you can tell me how much of those will be investigating, uh, the PBM instance that we have going on right now to make sure they're not fraudulently doing things to our pharmacists across the state. So can you divide that up to me, how many of those are going to be working on this PBM issue, and do you think you have enough to do that. Our criminal investigation unit does not do anything with our PBMs, our, our legal division and a separate department, uh, and under the, uh, watch of Booth Rand or general counsel, and, and his staff do all the PBM investigations and we are looking to hire a couple more people we do think we need, uh, and with our existing staff that we have and I know we have a vacant attorney position and we have a uh an analyst position that we plan on, uh, bringing on. To, um, to, to do that, to answer your question, do we have enough right now? No. Do I think we have enough in our appropriation right now, I think so, uh, and, uh, I don't anticipate any changes right now uh for that, but, but that doesn't, our criminal investigation division only handles, uh, other types of uh of fraud investigations, so just to clarify for me, uh, Chairman, real quick, so can you clarify, Tim, how many are working on that right now. I'm sorry. So we have one person, one data illness and one. The person working on that issue right now? Is that what you're, we have a PBM department, uh, is, uh, 3 full-time employees plus our general counsel Booth Rand, who oversees that. So we have a, a pharmacist, an investigator, uh, uh, and a clerical and administrative assistant and it's all overseen by booth, so really about 4, for doing it right now. We're planning to bring on a couple, 2 more. So you plan to bring on 2 more to help you with data and analysis or what not, you know, data analysis, but, but also just uh the. Processing of the the complaints determining whether those complaints are violation of the PBM licensure Act, and, and then you know you might are probably familiar with it it's pretty some pretty strict uh violations, uh, possibilities for violations in there that require a lot of legal expertise, so our Booth is telling, has told me that yeah, he would like to have an additional attorney to help him with that. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman. Representative guess what you recognize. There we go. Representative Bentley asked my question, so I don't have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, Senator Irvin, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions on the Medicare, uh, topic. Do any of those programs coordinate with the Attorney General's office when it comes to Medicare fraud. Not specifically, we met the attorney general obviously is one avenue for people to make complaints to and we advise consumers that they can make their complaints there, but no, not specifically. OK. And I'm not sure if there's any kind of level of coordination between the folks in the insurance department with the Attorney General's office, but I would think that it might be a good idea to leverage that cooperative type of, um, You know, just to leverage the opportunity there, um, because I think it's really important, they are also providing advertising and things like that, and I think it would be a good coordination and cooperation, if that were to happen, if those Medicare fraud units or Outreach or whatever could coordinate with the Attorney General's office, I think that would be really, really important, um, and just for our ability to leverage, um, and then the last thing I would just say in regards to the, the The vehicles, um, in 2011, I passed legislation. I wanted to make it mandated legislation, but I made it permissive that any and all agencies could acquire fleet management software. And utilize that. At the time, they tried to kill my bill, but then realized that they needed the bill, and that was the state police because the state police does utilize this, and it's very important for them because on a car chase, for example, they're able to recreate, uh, by looking at the data and the information of the tracking to, uh, recover any evidence that may have been lost during the car chase. And so, um, and it's important for them to know where their law enforcement officers and, and things like that are. So at 2011, it was really important. They were opposed to my bill, but then became supportive of the bill. But that language exists. So we've had the ability, any and all agencies have had the ability to embrace fleet management software to keep track of all of this. Uh, for us. It's just a matter of choice of spend, if we want to do that or not. Now that we have Department of Transformation and Shared Services. I think it's critically important for it to be housed there, and that we make that expenditure. I think it's an important and prudent thing. There's a lot of discussion about it. But again, you have the language on the books. It's permissive. So I think it's, you know, far past time to really utilize that. Um, and so I hope those conversations are happening, and that's not particularly to your department, but it does deal with you and it's really important that all of the insurance component be part of that fleet management study that's happening that we just asked for to be presented to ALC quickly, um, so that we have all the information. So I hope that you're going to work with Department of Transformation and Shared Services on that fleet management study to encompass all of the information that you just had it in exchange with Senator Desma's questions. That, um, let's, let's utilize that language, and we could have been doing this administrative it's by administration, you can choose to do that, um, no language is needed at this, it's already been passed. Thanks. OK. Anything else? Thank you. Uh, for your record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a comment and a suggestion about the senior patrol, uh, IR one of those said seniors, and I can tell you that seniors don't trust. people anymore as a rule. And if you want to be effective, go to bingo or senior dinners and let us talk to you direct and then let us talk to each other. That would be the best way to disseminate information that you want is as local as you can get, uh, I'm, I'm being facetious about bingo, but I can tell you, if the word is at bingo, it's taken as gospel, so as local as you can be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Words of wisdom. Uh. Represent Wooton, you reckon that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm sure you saw it and I read it and did all of my constituents. There is dumbfounded as I am. Recently in the Arkansas Democratic Gazette, there was an article where PBM a PBM spokesman made the comment. That if you rule 28 holds the ground that it will graze the rights of drugs that are sold in Arkansas. And first of all, I can't believe they would do that. I can't believe they would say that with what they've done to the marketplace and in Arkansas, uh, Mr. uh, commissioner, are you, are you familiar with the statements made by the Wall Street Journal and the Federal Trade Commission, and the congressional. House oversight committee. Are you familiar with those statements that they made this summer about PBMs being um Baying the public trust. And uh and some other things. Yeah, hardly a day goes by that PBMs aren't in part of my something I read, but uh yeah, I'm familiar with the articles you you you're referencing, they're all concerned at the federal level about the anti-competitiveness, and I've had comments from constituents of mine about concerning the cost of cancer drugs and I've just recently been a, a person or patient for due to the 2nd round of cancer and uh Some of them have had to pay, uh, for a $60 trunk they've been told they had to pay $19,000,200 which is 32,000% increase. Are you familiar with any of that? I've heard, I've heard those stories, not that specific one though you're right. In the, in the Federal Trade Commission has, has reported that they have uh PBMs that just thumbed their nose and gone on and continues to do what they're doing, and we need to do something to put a stop to it, and you can't do it with 3 people, uh, in, in, in, in my estimation, So my question is, does your department have a sufficient budget and sufficient staff. Uh, analysis, uh, analyst, and, uh, attorneys trained and dedicated to Arkansas PBM. Not at the moment, but we are, or as I said earlier, we're adding some folks, I think we have sufficient, uh, positions to do that with what we have. Are you familiar with the Oklahoma program. Uh, I, I, I don't have the specifics on in my head, but I know they have a they have a lot more people in their program than than we do have a budget of $2 million.14 law enforcement officers investigating the actions of the PBMs in their state. And I think if it takes that much resource to get them either in or out or in the right way in the state that we need, we need to take a look at that because not only are they not only are they digging into the pockets of my constituents, they're hurting my pharmacist and I, I don't know whether it was you or someone recently stated that it's a strong possibility that Arkansas County, which is not in my district, but I have. where I in Dewitt. I'm familiar with it. They will not have any pharmacs if it continues. With the PBM. You got a question there for me is, do you think that your budget is sufficient. At this time I do, uh, we, um. We definitely need to add another attorney and another analyst to work with our staff. I do think that that, uh, under the direction of, of, uh, Mr. Rand, we, we have what we need right now, but we will certainly take this as an invitation to come back, uh, and ask for more. I think that uh we um. I, I think we have what we need right now. OK. Do you think that uh we can why why is there such disarray in the pharmacists business with Walgreens shutting down several stores and, and, uh, CVS saying they're gonna pull that, uh, I'm not, this is, this is it is vital and we've spent, we've spent previous times and, and then the PBM there. I'm gonna give you a little bit more leeway, but we've, we've spent in another committees a lot of and that's what we're working on. We're open to the legislation that my question the insurance department, are you, is there any legislation that That you know it's been proposed on the, the PBM crisis and the pharmacies and nothing that I've seen drafted, I'll look to to Jake from our, our legislative liaison, but we don't have anything drafted, no, nothing that we've seen, uh, at this point that's been that that's been drafted obviously as you referenced, we've got Rule 118, Rule 128 dealing with reimbursement. There's some things out there that that I think the PBM Licenser Act already gives us some me some leeway in, but the, the rule. to further define uh uh what what I need to do in terms of, uh, cost reimbursement on some of those things, but, uh, so that's, that's most of you are well, well familiar with that and that's kind of ongoing over the next couple of months is sure not that we're not interested because we've, we have, and, and the, the rules we passed and all trying to do it, so appreciate anything you can do and if, if there's something we can legislature, federal government could fix this real quick if they would. That's a problem. Uh Represent Kavanaugh, I'm gonna go to you, uh, quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My final question is gonna be on page 305, and that's dealing with the healthcare transparency initiative database. Um, can you just explain to me. What that is and what we're doing, how we're spending the 2.1 million, because I really don't give us much information. So what does that really about? Yeah, thank you for the question. The funding is used to pay UAMS, um, for the administration of the all-payer claims database. And what do we do with that database? Mhm So that that database is um. Uh Receives claim information from all the payers of health insurance, all, all health payers and so the, the, uh, Arkansas Center for Health Improvement actually, uh, will conduct there there would be different administers that along with us to, to, uh, for, for different data research projects that so that that helps fund that that program. And are we required under law to do that? I believe there's a statute, but I don't have that in front of me. OK. I Is it a federal or is it ours? OK, and across the country, but that's one of ours do we know what we do with that data? Uh, the data is a repository for for research, uh, on, on health, and it might be, you know, different, um, health related research that people might do or network or adequacy of certain resources and parts of the state, so different researchers from um really across the country will ask to ask to access our database to do health related research and so that's what that's for. Do we sell the data? Uh, yeah, it's a it's that at? The sale of the data is put back into this fund. OK? And how would we know how much of that is actual being sold because this says fund ballots, intraagency transfer miscellaneous revolving. It doesn't show me that you had any revenue from the sale of the data. Yeah, it's all lumped into that miscellaneous revolving line. Um, I can get you a breakdown as far as sale and um if you don't mind, give me a breakdown of what makes up that miscellaneous in particular and also the intraagency where it comes from, um, And my final question on this, was this a competitive bid for the management of this database. Um, it was done as an intergovernmental with UAMS. OK, thank you. Senator Irvin, you reckon? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question and then I'll have a motion for, uh, executive recommendation, but one list you have large fund balances in these different areas. Are you able to, how do you, do we invest those, do we gain interest on those? Could you just talk about the management aspect, financial management of your fund balances for me. We do invest um a couple of our trust funds, um, and I do want to note our general trust fund that has a very large balance is swept to DFNA every biennium, um, any excess funding over one year of our appropriation is used to, uh, support general revenue. um, and then for our other trust funds like the AA program we do invest those in CDs and then the, um, uh, Publicly public employee claims Trust is also, um, invested in CDs. And do y'all shop those CDs and change them from top just to make sure we're getting the best. Yeah, we, um, we go through, uh, DFNA to assist us with those, OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'll have a motion. OK, let me go to your chest here. Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. Go Dodgers, I move. Executive rec. OK, they have a second. OK, I'm a motion is 2 for executive rec home favor. I post. Like you had asked for the insurance division. Members now going to the next page through uh rehabilitation services, Miss Hamilton, you're recognized. Members, we're going to move to page 315. This is department of rehab services. They have 9 appropriations, 7 of which have changes overall, the executive recommendation for this agency is a decrease of 47 positions over the 25 authorized and an increase of 2.6 million in fiscal year 26. And in 27. Y'all get seated if you will identify yourself, please. April Cooper, CFO. Nathan Winter, Deputy commissioner. And one's running off. Please identify yourself, we'll get that out of the way. Cody Wade's director of workforce. Thank you for being here, Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first appropriation with changes is on page 317. This is our operations appropriation. This is funded with both general and federal revenue. On page 317, you'll see the changes that are being requested by the agency and it recommended by the executive branch in their position total, there's a decrease of 42 positions. There's also an increase in 33,000 in conference and travel to provide the necessary technical assistance training and an increase of 4.5 million in the contract services line item to provide additional client service expenditures and associated executive, uh, contract costs. The executive recommendation is for 61 million in both fiscal year 26 and 27. Second appropriation with changes is on page 320. I'm sorry, 319, it's their ICAN appropriation. This is a 100% federally funded. On page 319 you'll note that there's a decrease in positions from the authorizer's 5, the executive recommendation is for 4 going into fiscal year 26 and 27 and to slightly increase the appropriation level by about 1200 and each fiscal year. This is a net change. The increase of 36,000 in operating expenses to support their associated costs with the assistive technology that they use, an increase of $4000 in professional fees to support their contract fees. And a restoration of about 100,000 in capital outlay to support their large client services expenses related to their assisted technology. That is net 40,000 change executive recommendation is for the agency's request. The next appropriation that has changes, excuse me. is on page 321. This is your statewide disability telecom funding is for, I'm sorry, funding for this appropriation is from special revenues. The request overall is for an increase of about 144,000 in fiscal year 26 and 145,000 in fiscal year 27. This includes the increase in operating expenses of about 20,000 for their monthly software maintenance and operating expenses and about 60,000 in grants and aids to enable the agency to provide for the agency client equipment, additional client equipment. Executive rep provides for the agency's request. Next appropriation we changes is on page 326. This is your tech equipment. This is a cash and treasury appropriation. Hold on. This appropriation provides loans to individuals with disabilities for assisted. Technology and you'll note in the page 20325, there is an increase in appropriation requested from 532,000 to 750,000 and this is an increase of 217,000 in their loans line item to support providing low interest loans for disabled citizens in Arkansas. Their next appropriation which changes is on page 3, 30. This is in their operations appropriation over on page. 3:31, you will note that there's a decrease of 4 positions from the authorized 78 to 74 in fiscal year 26 and 27. The appropriation does not change very much, but there is a decrease of about 91,000 fiscal year 26 and 89,000 in fiscal year 27. This also includes a reclassification of 2 positions, as well as discontinuation of the four positions just mentioned, executive recommendations for the agency's request. On page 328 and 329, I think I skipped an appropriation. This is a miscellaneous funded appropriation that never actually received any appropriation. It was to be funded by general revenue and agencies requesting for discontinuation. You'll see on page 329 that it's not requested for the 26th or 27 fiscal year, it was authorized at 2025 though lasts appropriation which changes is on page 334. I'm sorry. 333. It is blind services grants. This is also a general revenue on federally funded appropriation. They're asking for an increase from the authorized 4.6 million to 6 million in both fiscal year 26 and 27. This is for an increase of 1.3 million in their grants and aid line item to support associated costs of client services to better align with their budget spend. That concludes the presentation, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, going to Representative Kavanaugh, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a question on page, um, 317 on the rehab services down on your contract line item, it's like 25.4 million, exactly what is in that contract, Adam. Um, yes, ma'am. I'm happy to answer that for you. We use that for our, basically it's our grants and aids, and we use that for our vocational rehabilitation supported employment, um, independent living, um, social services block grants, uh, those are distributed from that line. And as you can see, we, we kind of maxed it out last year. So that's why we're asking for the additional appropriation, ma'am. OK, can you, if you don't mind, give me a list of what I made that up so we can see where the money went, and I'd appreciate that. And then on page 31, um, this is the blind service operation. Um, can you explain, and this is the, I guess the admin part, exactly what we do with this program. Just punch your butt, punch your butt and leave it down. I'm the assistant director for services for the pond, Megan Lamb. Um, so what we are is we're the vocational rehabilitation program for those who are blind and low vision in the state of Arkansas. So we support them with employment, supported employment. Um, we also have an independent living program under our older individuals who are blind fun to assist them with maintaining their independence in their homes. Is this through a grant process or how do they get that assistance. So we are given a federal grant and then they apply for services and we work with them based on their individual needs and assessments with our counselors. OK, I'm assuming it's uh throughout the whole state. OK, all right, thank you so much. Thank you, Steven, uh, Representative Steven makes. Mr. Chairman, I'm, you're far, far right way over here on the far end here. Um, so I have, uh, uh, just, uh, two questions. First one, I think it's pretty straightforward, um, the executive is recommending the discontinuation of 42 positions, um, so I'm, I'm gonna give you the floor here to make the case. Are you agreeable to that or is there some reason why we should keep those positions and if you're OK with getting rid of those 42 positions. Is it because we just can't fill them or what's the, the genesis there. Um, Yes, I think, I think by and large we're OK with, uh, with surrendering those positions, um, most of those positions are, have been unfilled for quite some time. So we've kind of been living without them. Um, I, uh, you know, to be honest, uh, some of those positions were uh a few very high uh grade positions that, that it would have been nice to keep, but, uh, but I understand, uh, you know, relinquishing them for sure. OK, all right. Uh, and then my, my second question is, um, on the appropriation on, uh, 903, the rehab, uh, services appropriation. Um, and, and this may be a question for y'all and for staff, um, are we giving out loans to private citizens. It looks like maybe we did $18,000 in loans to private citizens in my. I'm sorry, sir, are you talking about, um, 902. On page 325. Yeah, that may be why I'm talking about here, well, loans is 902, so I just want to make sure we're talking about the, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Is that correct? OK, I'm sorry. I just want to make sure, um, so what happened in 2324 is we gave out right at $60,058,000 in loans. I actually had to come back and ask for additional appropriation, um, because we only had a budget of right at 532,000 I believe. And our interest rates are Quite a bit lower, uh, than the. Local banks. So we have asked for additional appropriation going forward, um, because we just have so many of our clients who are interested in these loans. And so that, that's why we've asked for that. Does that answer your question? Yeah, so, so we're, so, so as a state government, we're making loans to private citizens essentially is what you're saying. Well, they have to meet certain criteria, that's yeah, but, but, but yes, we're, we're, we're as a state government. OK. Yes, sir, it's for things like, you know, a, a ban. Sure, sure, and, and, and, and, and hearing aids and I don't disagree it's too a worthy cause. I'm not, I'm not that I get the larger point is, um, is that an appropriate function of state government to give out personal loans to private citizens, um, and if, you know, this, those citizens don't make good on those loans. Are we sending them to collections or Uh, I, I, I, I guess maybe my, my, my bigger question is, is, would we be better off making these grants versus loans because I think grants is more appropriate, and I didn't know if And I, and I'll finish my question up with this. Is this, uh, is this a program that y'all started or is there something in law that authorizes this, and then, um Uh, so I'll go ahead. I is there something in law that does authorize this? Yeah, so the, these funds were initially uh distributed as part of the assisted, uh, assistive Technology Act that also created that increase in capabilities access, uh, network, and, uh, we had the option as a state to either get them in a disbursement, so it would be a regular disbursement that we, that we could give out or we could be a one lump sum payment, right? Um, Arkansas chose to take it as a one lump sum payment and and. this, uh, this loan fund, right? So we could, uh, fund and it it has become self-sustaining so if we, if we did end up uh due to payback interest, those kind of things if we did make them as grants, the program would go away because there's no way to refund that grant. Does that make? Sure, sure. Um, and I, and I guess my, my question would be to, uh, Mr. Anderson and his staff. Are there any other instances that we as a state give loans to private citizens, does that? Was, is that something we do in other areas or is this kind of uh the only area where we do that. And, and if you need to research that and get back to me, I'm, I'm OK with that because I know we're short on time this morning. OK, I'm on. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, student loan authority, but we'll research it and see if there's any others. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Chesterfield, you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, first of all, thank you, rehab services for what you do. Um It has especially come forward since Senator Elliott has been ill and the services that you have provided for her have been absolutely phenomenal and we appreciate it, but not just for her, but for a number of individuals who need to have Those services who need to have the ramp that we take for granted, who need to have the um the shower that allows them to access that shower. I'm wondering though, do you have enough people? Because this is becoming more and more statewide and people are beginning to discover a lot of folks don't know you and what you do. And I think that's one of the best kept secrets in the world. I'm a big fan of rehab services, and I wanted you all to know that in spite of the fact that Cody's in charge now. I. But this to me is one of the most important services we provide for the citizens of this state, because those who have become disabled. Have got to depend on you. And not just for those services, but to get them back into the workforce. So do you have enough people? To do what you do, and I don't, I'm putting you on the spot, he's already turning red over here and um in this budget. Are there any increases in the number of individuals who are working with rehab that deals specifically with those entities, those individuals who have these particular uh challenges, if you will. Do I have all the positions filled? No, no, we have a significant number of vacancies. What do you see? I'm trying to be so nice here. What do you see as the barriers to filling those positions is salary or outreach, what is the, what's the problem? Salary is a huge contributing factor, yes, um. The We have changed educational commerce. So if we're talking specifically about rehab counselors that are the individuals that are working one on one with, uh, you know, the individuals and the Arkansans with disabilities. Um. A lot of them are shifting, even though they're getting a degree in rehabilitation counseling, they're shifting their focus to being licensed professional counselors, uh, and, and. Opportunities such as that that are a little bit more lucrative, right? Because we just simply aren't competitive. What do we, is it the it's the salary thing are we waiting for the salary, um, reboot that we've been talking about here for a long time because You know, right now someone has had a leg removed, uh, right now somebody has had um an arm removed. Right now somebody has had a stroke. Uh, we need to know that you have enough people so that when these things happen to our citizens. And they happen more than we want to talk about, and I'm not gonna beat this to death, but to me this is one of the most important agencies that we have because when our citizens need you, they really need you. So with that, do you agree we do to help. What can this legislature, I'm going home, so what can the legislature do to help? Cody's so happy. Look at him just smiling nothing's going on. Make us more competitive. Help us, help us be more competitive. Thank you. Thank you. uh, Senator Love, you recognize? I can share, um, I'm gonna move to page, uh, was it 3:28. I'm just curious about the um. You discontinued the preparation for World services for the blind. And, and uh once I know they had a project going and did did we did we give actually give funding for to the world so. Yes, sir, I can answer that question. Um, I can also tell you that I believe that, um, the appropriation was originally given to us and the funding was provided to us at, we were a pass through from the governor's office, and I can tell you that $750,000 was passed through through our agency. to the World Services for the blind. That was a couple of years ago. Since then, there has been no funding available for us to pass through. So as an agency to just, um, We decided to just go ahead and and request that this appropriation just be zeroed out and if that funding does become available, then we can come back to you as a body and say, funding is available, will you give us the appropriation. To pass that through, uh, we don't have the funding in our budget, but should you find the funding we're happy to, to do whatever the body decides. OK, so, we did give $750,000 to, right, let me, let me ask you this then, how do, uh, do we coordinate with the world services for the blind for the some of the, the services that we provide. Do you want me to Um, yeah, Megan, if you want to take that. So for division of services for the blind we regularly work with World Services. We have many clients who go to their facility for training. Um, they have offered and helped us with staff training as well when they have experts in orientation and mobility or assistive technology. Um, and we try to coordinate with them regularly and we work very closely as partners together, so. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, uh, Representative Annette. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, my question is already answered, um, Senator Chesfield asked the question I was going to ask, but I want to thank you all for all the work you do. This is kind of personal to me. I have a son with disabilities and I have multiple people that I know, um, in the same situation, so if there's anything that we can do moving forward, please let us know. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Irvin, you recognize you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions on your, um, tech telecommunications equipment fund. And your tech equipment. Appropriation is there that seems to, and I realized one is for telecommunications. The other one is for, um, equipment for adaptive living, but is there any possible way you could combine those two programs into one. I'm sorry, I'm on page. 321. And page. 3:25. Um I, I don't know that that that that's ever been considered. Uh, we would have to look at the language that created the special funding for, uh, the telecommunications access program, which is that telecom, uh, program, because I think, I think it, it is pretty specific in the language that it has to be used specifically for that, so we couldn't, um, roll the two and spend it in any other way than, than what it's beingended right now. Are they administered by the same people. I'm just thinking of administratively it's two different staffs. Um, we do have a high level manager that oversees, um, both of those programs, but the staff work, uh, independently in each one of those programs could revisit just that language just to see if we could figure out a way to administratively streamline that, but still maintain the, um, I, I think maintain the funding aspect of it that streamlined the administration of those two programs. And we, we have streamlined a little bit of the programs that kind of revolve around that. If you look at the loan program and uh the governor's commission. Those are staffed by the same people, even though it, it probably says that they each have two staff, it's the same staff. Well, I, I think that would just be my challenge to you is to look at those two categories and see if we could streamline. administratively, and then, you know, whatever language needed to be worked out, I think you could continue, obviously to, to make sure that the telecom communications because I see that that's a fee collected, um OK, that's one question. The second question I have, and so I just would challenge you to look at that to see if we could combine those two somehow, some way. It just makes sense to me. Um, and then you had in here on page. 327, there was a um a restricted reserve fund of 285,000. That was an actual, what was that for and I see that it was one time. It's not going forward. If I may, um, this was a $225,000. That was approved by August 22, 23 Pier. This came from a various general discretionary majority votes set aside, and then there was a 60,000 that was approved March 12 in 2024 appear, and this was for the EBD contingency set aside. There were 2. Disbursements. OK, what were they for again? I, I apologize. It was for this program, they came from different sources, but it was for this program. OK. OK. The agencies had come before Pierre to I was just, I couldn't remember exactly what that was for. The request was for, I think maybe to answer your question, I'm, I'm hoping, um, is we received those funds to assist with the Army Navy Hospital in Hot Springs, OK, because that, so that was one time. This is a one time one time and then the last question would be your phone balances, because you do have, you know, healthy, how do you, how do you treat those and do you invest them? Um, are we Are we able to Like interest again. I, I see a lot of these fund balances that are piecemealed all throughout these appropriations in many ways. And I, I think how are we managing those fund balances financially. Um, Most of are the largest fund balances, um, that I believe that we have are definitely in the loans, and we are, we did ask for additional appropriation this year, so we're hoping to get that fund balance down because it is quite large. It is significant, um, also the same thing with the TAP program. It is, has a larger fund balance and we definitely have, um, requested additional appropriation there, so we don't have to keep coming back to you. Um, it seems like we do spring, we have to come back and ask for additional appropriation. So we're hoping to get that fund balance down as well. Well, and I think on the telecommunications piece of that, you know, you could look at reducing that. If there's a large fund balance there, then, you know, could that go from 2 cents to 1 cent. We actually have a calculation on that, um, that we look at every single year, that would be a reduction in fees ma'am that are are taxes that could be paid and so if you've got a healthy fund balance, we could reduce that down a. and still be OK. I'd love to see the historical data to see if that's spent would would accept that type of a move. I'm happy to send you that calculation that I did that and then let's look at see. I mean, you know, if, if that's being utilized. I, I can assume at the time that that was put in place, that was probably a landline thing. Um, we have moved way beyond that in technology and so is that even, you know, necessary that we're able to do that, or can we roll that in to the other. Yes, ma'am, telecommunic beyond telecommunications to tech technology equipment. Yes, ma'am. Let's look at seeing happy to send that to you get that, can you get that information, Senator Irvin? Yeah, that'd be great. Yes, ma'am. And then I do it at the end of every month. So today's the last day of the month. So I'll be doing it. final question on some of your appropriations where you have federal revenue and general revenue. Is there a requirement by that we have to provide a match there. There is a Springer you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I, I just want to follow up on the questions that were asked by uh Senator Love with respect to that line item, um, on page 328. And 29. Um, so have these services that you previously, you know, you got the money back. I'm I'm looking in the book. You got the money back in 20223, and you haven't had anything since that time. Are you still providing these services in any other line item is, are they, are you all able to provide their services that this particular one was uh designed to assist with, uh, that, that specific fund doesn't. Help us provide any service that that we typically do in a day in and day out purpose, right? It was specifically for the World Service to do like a construction project of some sort that's what it was for construction, OK, it didn't, OK, it didn't say that. OK, thank you. Representative Wooton you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be brief. Uh the, the 42 that you're surrendering, were they in the 77 on the report that's there on the table where uh how how many of them were in that 777. They were over 2 years. Of the 42 that you're surrendering. Representative Wooton, we don't have the report up here. There's a sheet. There should be a sheet on the, the show 777 positions that that you had there were over 2 years old. How many of the 42 were in that. It's the last thing in the Department of Commerce. On the first page. We think it's 27. OK, just. Well, that's fine. Just let me know, um, if you would get word to me how many of them. Yeah, they said it's 27. OK, 27, we're in there. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Senator Chesterfield, you right, motion 2, 2nd on favor I post rehabilitation services finished. Next step, security partner. Miss Hamilton Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're moving to page 335 in your budget manual. You'll see their department appropriation summary, they've got 3 appropriations to with changes overall, they're requesting to continue their 35 positions and increase their decrease their appropriation. I'm sorry. Increase your appropriation from 4.1 in the 25 authorized to 4.4 in both fiscal year 26 and 27. 1st appropriation. With changes, excuse me, is on page 337. They're requesting an increase in 44,000 in operating expenses to support the costs associated with the securities department day to day operations. They're also asking for a $40,000 increase to support the costs associated with attending training programs, conferences, and seminars, and you'll see that in their conference and travel wine item. Overall, the appropriation is going to increase from 3.8 in fiscal year 25 to 4 million and both fiscal year 26 and 27, that's the executive recommendation, the net change is about 170,000 in fiscal year 26 and 173,000 fiscal year 27. Next appropriation which changes is on page 390. I'm sorry, 34, 339. This is their investor education. This is, uh, a special revenue fund funded by fines and penalties levied by the department. The executive recommendation includes following changes, $10,000 increase in confidence and travel. This is for their program of operations, 12,500 and promotional items to purchase items for outreach activities and 10,000 I'm sorry 100,000 in grants and aid to be align their budget with anticipated expenditures, you'll note that there are appropriation increases from the authorized 25% amount of 193,000 to 316,000. That's the executive recommendation. That's a conclusion of mine. uh, presentation, Mr. Chair. Hamilton, does anybody want to bring the agency up. Not saying so, to have a motion. 2nd. The second on play I. Post it is passed. Thank you, uh, going to Waterways Commission, Miss Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Moving to page 343 in your manual, you see the department appropriation summary contains 3 appropriations. This budget is pretty much flat. There have been no changes. They're requesting to continue their appropriation of 7.3 million and the two full-time positions that they have. concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I motion and a second executive rec I'm about to run out of wind on favor I post has passed. Thank you. I workforce services, Miss Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to move to page 352 in your manual. The department appropriation summary includes 23 appropriations. There are 18 with changes overall from their 25 authorized. The executive recommendation is to decrease about 165 positions. And decrease their appropriation by about 1 million in both fiscal year 26 and 27. First appropriation with changes is on page 357. This is their. Excess unemployment benefits, expenses. This is a special fund. appropriations is about 4 million for both years of biennium, the changes include a reduction of about 5.9 million in their payment expenses line item to align the appropriation with their anticipated expenditures, that is the executive recommendation. You'll note that's a decrease from their authorized amount of 10 million. Next appropriation with changes is on page 360. This is their operations. They're requesting a number of changes, restoration of 26 growth pool positions, reduction of 305 extra help positions, reduction 700,000 in overtime to allow with their anticipated spin, reduction of 308 in confidence and travel again to align with their anticipated span and reduction of 1.3% in professional fees, excuse me, the executive recommendation also includes a reclassification of 6 positions and the discontinuation of 187 positions. You'll note their appropriation changes from 74.6 million and is reduced to about 63.5 million in fiscal year 26 and 63.6 million in fiscal year 27. Next appropriation we change this is on page 362. This is a workforce innovation and opportunity. I'm sorry. 361. This is a workforce uh innovation and Opportunity Act. This is a federal appropriation. It comes from the Department of Labor. They're asking for a reduction in their grants and aid line item appropriation from 30 million, I mean from 40 million to 30 million fiscal year 26 and 27. That is the executive recommendation. On 365 you will see the next appropriation which changes. This is their training trust fund. This is trust fund revenue that comes from proceeds from the administrative assessment, any interest accrued in any other funds that are made by this assembly. They're requesting appropriation of 2.5 million, which is a reduction from the 3.2% that they were authorized in 25, and this includes a reduction in the personal services operating expenses and grants line items to align with their anticipated spend that is the executive recommendation. On page 370 is their new higher registry. I'm sorry, 369. This is a paying account funding is from general revenue. The agency is requesting. Ah Sorry The next change is on page 371. Sorry, this is a cash and bank appropriation for their unemployment benefits and cash. This is funded by federal dollars deposited into a cash account and the requested changes are from the authorized amount of 4 million to a reduction of 350,000 in both fiscal years 26 and 27, which includes a 3.6% reduction in the grants and aid line item. To align with declining program populations and a reduction of 3.5 million in their training allowances to align with their declining population program and they are asking for that to be continued. That is the executive recommendation to decrease our overall appropriation from 8.1 million in fiscal year 25 to about 1 million in 26 and 27. Next appropriation with changes is on page 373. This is also a cash and bank federal dollars deposited into a cash account. requesting a reduction of one. Line item, it's their benefits non-employee, it'll go from 1 billion in fiscal year 25 to about 500 million in fiscal year 26 and 27, and this is to align their appropriation with anticipated funding and expenditure. Next appropriation is similar. It's on page 375. It's also a cash and bank federal deposits of federal dollars into a cash account. Another reduction requested from 1 billion 25 to 500 million in 26 and 27 to align with their anticipated funding and expenditures. Next appropriation is on page 377. This is another cash and bank federal deposit federal dollars deposited into a cash account. The reduction is for $19 million. They're authorized spend, I mean, they're authorized appropriation for 25 was 20 million. They're asking for that to be reduced to 1 million, both 26 and 27, that is the executive recommendation. On page 379 you'll see there read act cash and bank appropriation. This appropriation was for the uh purpose of construction and improvement of buildings, rent lease costs, and acquisition of data processing equipment, but as you can see, there's not been, excuse me, any expenditures? The agency is asking for an increase in 9. I'm sorry, 999 million and read at funds, and this is gonna be for their IT upgrades, that is the executive recommendation. On page 381 you'll see another cash appropriation. These are loans for their local workforce development boards. The requesting funding for payroll and other operating expenses and then the funds are deposited into the state treasury overnight. In order to be processed and sent out to the. Work will do local workforce development boards, they're asking for discontinuation of this appropriation, so you'll know on page 381 that it goes from 1.5 million down to 0 and fiscal years 26 and 27. Next appropriation which changes is on page 383. This is another cash and treasury appropriation. They're asking for a reduction of 6.8 million. In their line item for TAA vendor payments, they're phasing out this program. Congress did not reauthorize a program after June 30th, 2022, so they're not, um, going to be accepting applications or servicing clients. Page 385. Is another cash and treasury appropriation? Department of Labor uses two payment methods to recipients of these programs, alternative trade adjustment assistance program and the re-employment trades assistance program. They're asking for, um, continuation of their appropriation at an increased level from 100,000 authorized and 25 to 200,000. In 26 and 27. This is gonna be for their benefits, not employee land item and this is gonna be to consolidate the appropriation exceptions that I'd mentioned previously. In their operations, or state operations appropriation on page 389. There are a number of changes. The executive recommendation is for reallocation of 417,000. This is gonna be on regular salaries and personal services matching. They're gonna try to uh combine this with the adult basic education state appropriation, they're merging these two appropriations because they share the same purpose, this is gonna be on the next page. They're also asking for a reduction of 71 extra help positions to align that with their anticipated utilization. And to reallocate 24,000 operating expenses again from this adult state basic education appropriation in the next page, and the executive recommendation also includes a discontinuation of two positions, so you'll see all those changes on page 389, the overall appropriation amount it's gonna go from 1.3 million to 2.6 million. To reflect the Merging of the two preparations. On page 391. You'll note that the 593,000. Appropriation for 25 and the 7 positions are now gonna be merged into the previous. corporation that we just discussed, this is the adult adult basic education state. On page 393. You've got a federal appropriation this for the federal portion of the adult basic education. And they are asking for the discontinuation of one position. There's only going to be a slight decrease of about 52,000 each fiscal year and the reduction of two positions, so the authorizedropriation will go from 25, 11.18 to 11.13 in both fiscal year 26 and 27, and that's the executive recommendation. Last appropriation we changes is on page 399 and 400. This is their GED testing program. They are requesting an increase of 500, I'm sorry, 50,000 GED test costs. This is to align their expenditures. With their appropriation levels, so you'll see on page 399, they've got authorized $350,000. They're asking for an increase of 50,000 to 400,000 both fiscal year 26 and 27, and that is what the executive recommendation is in the conclusion of my presentation, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. Ripson Kevin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my first question is gonna be on page. 357. And one of my questions is going to be the staff is the information that's in our book doesn't match the A book, meaning that the A book is broken out by a different line items than what's in this book. Why is that? Everything on these expenses is just lumped together in payments and expenses, but if you look at the a book, it's actually broken out into different line items Kevin. Uh, the only thing I can, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I can say to that is our A book comes straight out of ACEs, and they, the DFA probably put this together to make a little more sense. And it makes a little less sense because it doesn't tell me anything, but not trying to be rude, but that's OK. Thank y'all. My question is going to be on this particular fund, you've got a $17.28 million fund balance, your spend, um, was actually 2,022,000 in, uh, 2324, um, that's 85 years worth of fund balance based on spend, and I noticed. That you're, your spend is going historically down. I think the highest was actually during the pandemic. Um Why we need such a large fund balance and what can we do with it if. So that's my question. If y'all would introduce yourself since you haven't been at the table yet, please. Steven Geesey, CFO, um, the reason is for this large fund balance, it's um from our stabilization taxes, we don't receive any state general revenue. We're pretty much just federally funded in the event that um we have an economic downturn or something of that nature, this is what we have to fill in that gap during that time just like right now we're only funded through December 20th of this year with the continuing resolution, so we've been given 3 point. $6 million from the federal government. If that money runs out before then or they don't pass another continuing resolution, these funds will be used to continue to operate during that time. Also, the past several years of having continuing resolutions. This is kind of our fallback if the funding doesn't come in time for the federal government, this allows us to continue to operate. What we have spent most of this money on during this time is building repairs. Um, we have some older buildings we've had to repair some large um air conditioning units and that kind of stuff. OK, well, I noticed that the funding is supposed to be used basically for building maintenance and construction is what it looks like. Is that correct? Uh, that's correct, but again, it could also be used for operations, um, we could use it to run the UI program as well. OK. When I'm looking at your funding sources on this. It shows fund balance. It shows intraagency fund transfer and other. It doesn't show me any federal funding. So where, how much federal funding did you, that's what I'm trying to figure out. It doesn't show federal funds. Yes, ma'am. So this, this is funded by the PNI. I'm, I'm sorry, Chris Rhodes, the assistant director of unemployment insurance. Um, this fund is, uh, funded by PNI, which is a combination of the amount that we collect. back from unemployment insurance recipients who receive those funds incorrectly, and they paid later, we charge them interest. And then also the amount that is charged to employers for penalty and interest for filing the reports late and then paying late. So that is where that is brought through the system. OK, so this isn't federal funds. This is money that you collect from penalties and interest or repayments for paid. Claims that shouldn't have happened. Yes, but it, it is deemed federal funds because it's related to the trust fund. OK. And what limits are on this fund that it can be used for. Yes, based on the definition on page 356. It can be used for construction, personnel services, and matching, maintenance and general operating expenses, um, for agency owned buildings, which is what we do in fact use it for the vast majority of the time, as, as Stephen indicated, it is also a safety net, um, so for example, in the pandemic, we had some disallowed costs, and we were able to negotiate and did not have to pay those back, um, but if those did have to be paid back. This would also be the fund that would have to pay those funds back as well. OK, but this is this fund, but your trust fund that you actually get the transfer out of, correct? Is this, these are just the penalties and just penalties and interests that is, that is an excess of the 15% that were required to put into the trust fund, and then that brings up your audit findings that were brought out yes they were on yesterday's, but they're not here today, but I remember from yesterday's audit findings, if you could speak to those because we did have Some audit findings where the way I looked at it is that people owes us money and maybe we owe some money. Well, it's, it's, it's a little convoluted and I understand it's, you know, it's, it's an auditor speak which I myself sometimes struggle with. Um, so there were two findings, uh, the first of which was the amount that um we uh will be collecting from claimants, and the second was the amount that we would, um, owe back to the federal government for amounts that we collect on their behalf. So we overstated by $14,670,000 the amount that we would, um, that we would be able to collect and we understated the amount that we would be payable to claimants, um, during that transition from one fiscal year to another. That was due to a mathematical error, um, so the total amount that we've set up an overpayments since this program has been in existence since 1983 is $364 million. A third of that has been set up in the last year, um, because um, in prior years this balance was not near as voluminous as it is now with the pandemic and all of the fraud that that occurred during that time, we are still doing a lot of those transactions in a manual system on an Excel spreadsheet, um, and so staff missed a year, and that is what caused that $14 million. Issue. OK, and what about what we actually owe back. Um, it was the same thing, so there, there's a percentage that is calculated of the available of the amounts that we have collected based on the amounts that we have set up to collect, um, this year, for example, it's 19.2%. Um, so that is then used and applied against the federal balances, um, to determine how much we owe back to the federal government, um, because we're also collecting on those unemployment insurance programs, the PUA, the FPOC, the additional 600. on. And what are we doing to collect for these fraudulent claims because there's a bunch of them. I'm just telling you, I've got phone calls from our local office that they were trying to file on myself and my family. Yes, ma'am, myself as well. They have to know us and knew that it wasn't true, so they called. We stopped it, but I mean it, it was rampant. Yes, ma'am. And so they have done a lot of what we call thread pulling, which is to connect data elements inside the claims to understand those larger schemes. We work with OIG to be able to find those. They've tied it to Everything from child trafficking to laundering money, um, to all kinds of other things, those criminal enterprises took this on as a tack on to their existing business plans. If, if I can call it that, right? Strange, um, that, that's the way that it's been explained to me, but, um, so we've been able to connect those fraud schemes and when those, um, bad actors are identified, um, OIG does go after those for collection of funds on a smaller level on the individual, which is what we see more of when those backed actor, when those bad actors. can be identified. We go through our standard collection process, um, which would end in a potential criminal prosecution, OK? And then I want to talk about 363, which is your UI trust fund interest, um, it also has a large balance in comparison to your actual spin. And I noticed that the highest spin was in 2025, I mean 2014, 2015, and then it's just kind of dropped. what it is now, 58. Can you? Explain kind of what's going on and. This fund balance. Yes, so, um, this the the the interest that is earned on the trust fund, which is between 6.5 and $7.5 million a quarter is deposited back into the trust fund. Um, these specific amounts would be, um, based on the the clearing account. Am I correct on that? Yeah. It's the advanced interest tax if any penalties and interest transferred to the unemployment insurance clearing account. So it's where we earn interest when we're transferring money down from the trust fund to be able to pay that out to claimants or refund it to employers. OK, what about that? What about the balance? You've got an excess, it shows you have a fun balance 5 million or something like that. So. What is that doing and how's it being used? It's just We, we seem to have a lot of money parked in a lot of different access fundings and I'm trying to find out why we need them or how they can be used. Yes, ma'am. If I, if I. So I believe that that is just tied to the the the clearing account which is just a pass through fund where we draw from the trust fund and pay back, pay back out, and that has to do with how much money we can pull down and flush through. There, there are not that much fun sitting in that account. Well, according to the port that I was looking at, it's $5 million. Just one second, I apologize. I got some new information. Yeah, showing that you have an um excess funding of 5 million, $5,00302. So I can speak to what the, the advanced interest um specifically is, and that has to do with, um, back in 2009 to 2013, we had to take Title 12 advances from the federal government because during the Great Recession, our trust fund ran dry, um, and so we had to borrow money from the federal government and there was an amount that had to be paid back, um, which is what advanced interest is. But as to the detail of that, If you don't mind, can you find out why we have such a big fund balance, like I said, compared to your spend, you have 848 years worth of fund balance. So, so I'd like to know what that fund balance is and why, what we can do with it. And Mr. Chair, my one of my final questions is on page 373. This is the. Federal employees benefit cash. And When we look at this is how I'm assuming this is the unemployment claims on federal employees. Yes, ma'am. OK. Now, Outside of the pandemic, which was just historic for everything, our normal high spend has been $3.1 million and it keeps dropping continually. So why we need a $500 million appropriation. You were asked for 1 billion, and I do appreciate you dropped it to 500 million, but I'm, I'm asking why we need the 500 million. No, and, and I can explain a portion of that and then I can, I can let Steven clarify. Um, so if there is in fact a government shutdown, those people are eligible for benefits. There was a change in policy where they will receive payment, but if you look at the lower paid workers, they're not going to be able to get through a potential 2 months of working without receiving those benefits. So that is why we ask for additional appropriation. And we were just being cautious with how we're reducing. these. We are going to look at them again and reduce it even more. Uh, we just don't want to come in here and do it all at once, so we thought that we'd do it in steps. So the next time we come back, we will have a, again, we'll reduce it providing there's no government shutdown, pandemic or natural disasters. Well, I mean, if I go back and look at your historic spend, even when there was a government shutdown beyond the pandemic, and I'm just knocking that one out because we had to come back for appropriations because nobody understood what was happening with those numbers. It was only 31.1 million, your highest in 10. years. And believe me, there's been plenty of shutdowns during that time. So, 500 million is really excessive for what you need in this. So I really want to, you know, admonish you that don't wait, do it now. I mean, that's, that's what we're, that's what we need to do is to look at these appropriations and on 379. Um Just as on a, she can speak to the IT moderator, the UI moderation. Is this part of that that's cash and balance. This is what it could be used for, um, so it will be used for UI modernization. OK. And where are we at in that process? As of um today, well, actually, as of, uh, the end of September, um, 30.5% of the allowable 35 million have been spent, that's 10 million,677,000 dollars. So we're in the process of working with Amazon Web Services to take our existing DB2 mainframe system and put that into the cloud. That is in fact a first step, not the last step, um, but that will save us, um, between 380 and $420,000 a month just in mainframe costs. So we, we did, um, have the requirement to stop that bleeding first, um, so once that is completed, which is estimated for uh March of next year, then those actual, um, activities will change to truly modernize that system. So we, we often refer to this as laying a good foundation, and then we have to build a good house on top of that good foundation and that money that we set aside, I'm assuming it's setting in a fund and it's drawing interest. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. OK. All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Let me ask you something. Uh, representative can I'll make some valid points. You're not gonna change anything unless it's an executive branch. As to OK it, are you? The legislature can change that. They're not going to do it. It's a good recommendations. But we're gonna have to push it if we're gonna do it. Uh, well, I just had 2 and I've got 3, representative Meeks. thing was chairman. So mine should be quick. So I think Representative Kavanaugh tackled my, my two questions. Um, but I want to follow up on the, on the last one, because I know during the pandemic, we were trying to modernize, and I'm way over here to your far, far right. We were trying to modernize the, the UI, uh, system for claimants so they could get benefits and, uh, of course, that was, uh, uh, a very challenging time to get that done, and I guess it was later decided that uh we were not gonna do that. We switched gears and decided we wanted to go in-house and so where are we at with the modernization of these systems. I know you talked about using the AWS cloud services, uh, so as part of that question, have you talked with DIS about using our state's own internal cloud services versus uh AWS, uh, so kind of, so give us some more details on that. Do we need to be investing more in Yes, they're happy to. So we, we are doing it with AWS with the assistance of DIS. So DIS will be monitoring and running that cloud system for us. We're just the first to go on to that, um, and so we're working directly with AWS and their pro their programmers to ensure that environment is secure as well as getting all of our information into that environment. OK, because, because when you're saying that we're doing fraud detection with the Excel spreadsheets, that's kind of, kind of worrisome, so understandably so, um, and, uh, Mr. Chairman, I'll have a, um, I'll have a motion at the proper time. Well, we're getting to the proper time, uh, Senor Chesterfield. Yes, sir. I, I do have a question. I know everybody expects me to move executive break, but I am concerned on page 399 and 400. Um, we've had substantial. cuts over the last year or so in GED funding. And I continue to to be confused because some of it's in tan. Some of us with you. Is that still the case or do we have that under one umbrella? was this little $50,000 increase in sal increase in the budget. I'm gonna ask Bridget Crier to come up from adult education and speak to that. Hey Allison. I know you're not Leslie. I Good afternoon Uh, turn your mic on, sweet, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'm sorry, Senator Chesterfield, I wanna make sure that you, Um, I'm sorry, Senator Chesterfield, I wanna make sure that thank you. Uh, I am Bridget Creiner, associate director for adult education. Thank you. I wanted to ask if you would restate your question. I wanna make sure that I and good to see you here Miss Crier. Uh, you know, I am a huge fan of Adult E and um the GED program. It has been Unfunded and we have lost some providers who lost their funding. Is this gonna be sufficient to, to bring this back to where it was before so that those individuals who are seeking a GED will be able to get one. Um, Senator, thank you for the question. We believe that it will um based on where we've been in the last several years. We believe that that $50,000 represents the amount of money that we will that it will be required specifically for GED testing based on the number that we've had, uh, two tests in the last couple of years and the expected increases in that. We do also expect that that's going to cover the increased cost that's coming with the GED now that there have been changes through. Uh, Pearson View, the vendor for the GED test. There have been increased costs due to they've raised the cost of the test. They also, um, we now students who need to retake a test now we'll only have one free retake as opposed to the two free retakes that they had in the past, um, but they only have one retake will now only have one free retake, yes. How is that good? It's not. Uh, not in terms of cost, it definitely um is an increase in cost, which is why we're asking for that $50,000? We believe it is, yes. Are y'all still working with the Chaniff program with, I mean, is it all under one house now or is some of it a DHS still with DHS, so we no longer directly work with Tani um as part under the adult education umbrella, but we do uh we do of course service 10 of students and getting them the, the services that they need. Was there an increase in their budget I wasn't looking for it, I'm sorry. Do you know? No, I don't believe there was an increase in our in the adult education budget. I think uh Senator Rice was concerned about people in his area. I was concerned about loss of of uh GED services in my area. I'm not sure about others and theirs, so we now are able to go back to where we were. A year or so ago. Are we going to get back those people that we lost those those those entities that we lost that were providing this GED service? Are we just going forward with what we already have. We're going forward with the entities that we have, but they do serve all 75 counties, so we make sure that each county does have services available. So we, what we've done is we've reduced the administration costs because with each program, of course there are certain administration costs that go with that by reducing the number of programs, but not reducing the Services, we reduced those administrative costs, but you're reducing the services because you're only providing for one retake. Oh, now that is with the GED testing, OK, that's, that's their thing, it's not your thing. OK, thank you, thank you Mr. Chair. I'll have a motion at the proper time. do. Would, would that be education, she needs to check with on that education department or what? With the cost of the GED exam one test that's Pierson View, who was the vendor for GED testing the funding is through y'all. Yes. OK. I would say San Chisfield might follow up on that. Uh, Representative Shepherd, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my question is on page 371, and, um, I, I also Bridget want to echo what Senator Chesterfield stated in regards to ensuring that adult aid is fully funded. Um, so my question and I don't know if this is more so for a director for Cody, um, in regards to the training, it's if somebody can give me an explanation of that, does that mean we're going to be providing less funding for those short term workforce. training Could you repeat the question please? On page 20. I'm sorry, 371, the training if I can get an explanation of what that is and what impact it's going to have. Um, well, the training, if you're referring to the training trust fund, um, which, you know, I, I don't think that's what we're talking about here, but the Trading trust fund, you know, most of the money that comes into the training trust fund, 2.5 million of that gets transferred to the Office of Skills Development for training programs and so that's, that's not gonna hinder anything. The remainder of the money there is used for, uh, things like the CRC, so we administered the CRC statewide for our local workforce offices. And so we've continued to do that and that's really what we're doing with the Training Trust Fund, but I'm not exactly sure that's, that's what we're talking about here. It is, that's, that's, that's what I'm asking, what impact would that have? I just wanted an explanation on what those monies were actually being used for. Uh, thank you, Senator Chester. CRC is the career and readiness certificate. So, you know, a lot of, there's individuals around the state who could take the CRC to get different levels, bronze, gold, silver, platinum, and allows a lot of employers to be able to kind of justify, um, at what levels that if you reach certain levels on the CRC, it gives them some level of confidence that you're employable at, at, in certain occupations. Thank you. OK. Uh, Senator Irvin, you recognize? Yes, thank you, and I had spoken to Miss Hatfield and she had somebody reach out to me, so I really appreciate that. Thank you. Um, but I, I, I, my constituent is also going to be watching probably online and this is my Cersei County Chamber of Commerce who reached out to me about the Harrison office, um, And so that they're losing um the job services. Is that correct? Is being moved from Harrison to Fayetteville, or could you just give me an update on that. I'm, I'm They're Cersei County is working through a program that is, that is being implemented by your agency and their concerned about being able to complete that, um, program, the Keys to Work, um, the work the work ready communities initiative through CRC the Harrison was helping them with that, but can no longer help them because of a transition or an elimination perhaps of a position. Could you speak to that, go ahead. OK. Uh, thank you. I actually spoke with you yesterday, so thank you for taking my stating that for me because I'm trying to Yes, so, um, I've, I've got, um, some calls out to Shea and and to Eddie to get some additional numbers for you for the Harrison area, um, but with Wagner Pisser, uh, pulling out because of TANF going to um the uh Department of Human Services, of course, that left a funding hole for our local offices, which we had to close several, um, and then with the Wagner Peiser shortfall, we've had to change some of that and so we did talk a little bit about there was concerns about um the doors being closed to the public at certain times. and that that is being addressed. I'm in the process of um hiring 13 positions to be able to handle that function at local offices. Um, so I do not believe that it will have an effect with the CRC and the work readiness, but I was pulling some additional information to be able to give that to her. OK. So, thank you, and I appreciate you stating that in your work on that. It's a big concern, obviously, for North Central Arkansas. I don't know if you've ever tried to drive. From Marshall to Fayetteville, but it's really hard. It's not easy, and so when, you know, those types of things happen, it creates kind of big holes for workforce services in our area of the world, and they struggle already for with unemployment or with high unemployment. So, you know, it's important for them, they're doing what they can to try to transition workers and get them into the workforce and maintain that population. So, um, I appreciate if you'll just get that. information, I'll pass it on to my Cersey County Chamber director. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, uh. in mixed you say you had a motion. Uh, yes, sir. I want to move, uh, executive rec, uh, with the exception on, uh, C 28, which is, uh, where, uh, Representative Kavanaugh was asking about, uh, I'd like to uh move that $500 million down to $200 million still gives them plenty of uh headroom, but makes it a little more reasonable to their historic span. So executive rec, uh, with the exception of C 28, dropping the employee benefits line item from 500 million down to. 200 million. OK, we've got a motion any discussion on the motion. The 2nd 2nd home favor I. Post OK, members that finishes up for next week, uh, Tuesday is election day, as you know, Wednesday at 9 a.m. have institutions of higher ed and Agra department and at 1:30 in the afternoon, we have special language, then upon adjournment, uh, we have, uh, Uh, personnel, so just.