ALC-JBC Special Language

I Members of everybody will get to their chairs, we will get the meeting started. I'm in my chair. OK. Char calls the meeting to order. Uh, thank you, thank the committee for being here and everybody that's here today, uh, Mr. Co-Chair, do you have anything? No, sir, Miss Hamilton, do you? Remember there's a, there's an item, uh, needed to be taken up in committee, but it's not on the agenda. So I'll need a motion, uh, I'll need a motion to spin the rules that I can be addressed, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna recognize Senator Dima to explain this, uh. Displaying what is on your desk. Thanks, uh, this morning there was a discussion about uh the addition of uh Capitol outlay appropriation to purchase vehicles at the banking department. Kind of had some conversation amongst members. I think everyone generally agrees that the fleet management study needs to take place, that we need to take a look at what we're doing and how we're operating. Um, you know, prior to buying vehicles, I think even, and I, I'll let them speak themselves if they'd like to, even the or uh. Even AEDC would agree with that position, uh, the, the fear was that we were singling out the bankers, the bankers, or we were singling out the insurance department or whatever it may be, and part of the argument was they have their own money or, or whatever, uh, but in order to not do this, you have an amendment in front of you that essentially says that no vehicles will be purchased by the Department of Commerce, including any division or department until the fleet management study is complete and presented to the legislature after that, you know, we're not taking away the authority to. Spin or buy new vehicles, but it exists and they can move forward with the acquisition of additional vehicles in, in whatever department they deem necessary. Do you have any questions on that explanation? Of adding this out. Hang on a minute. Senator, when you recognized? No, I'm sorry. Thank you. I, I support this. Do we know, is the fleet management study being conducted. It says by the Department of Commerce, but is it for the entire state government? Uh, no, I mean, I know internally that they're doing that at commerce right now that's something that they're working through, um, it may be prior to session before we have anything, it may be deering session. I'm not sure about that. And it doesn't mean that necessarily has to be complex. Um, they're, they're independent study has to be complex where I would really just like them to do is make sure that they're operating as quickly or as efficiently as they possibly can with the vehicles that they do have, um. And, and again, I, I will trust their judgment, but look forward to the presentation. OK, but they're the only agency doing this that we know of. I think they'd already taken it upon themselves to start doing it. I'd let them speak for themselves, but I mean that that's something that I know that, uh, the commissioner has actively looked at trying to address. OK. Um, Alison Hatfield, chief of staff at Commerce. Hang, hang on, hang on just a minute, ma'am. Yeah, yeah, this is not on the agenda agenda yet for questioning, so I was just letting Senator Dima explain that before we, before we vote. Yeah, I'd be happy to take any other question from me. Oops. I'm sorry, turned you. Senator Hill Center Di Bain, can, can you kind of give us a little, a little, give me a little more background than just what what you said and just what this is we're just come from the the four W's on this, you know, who, what, when, where. The whole works kind of work. What brought this on and and we we're going with this what we're trying to accomplish. Uh, we have, uh, various agencies inside the department of commerce. They're looking to acquire vehicles, um, so they have increased capital outlay appropriations to be able to acquire vehicles. So for instance, the banking department had one for 130, 1000. I think the insurance department had two separate requests, one for 30, 1 for 60, and I stopped reviewing after that. I know that it's been a priority, uh, you know, for, uh, the Department of Commerce to get a better handle on its fleet that they have, um, and so prior to. Acquiring new vehicles, which, you know, the increased appropriation would allow them to do next year, by the way, not now, next year, they would have their fleet management study done. So if their fleet management study is done between now and the session they can prevent, you know, present that, then that's great. And they actually have longer than that, um, but. I mean, they would have more lead time than that, but all we would ask for is that they complete their study, report it back to us. We're not stipulating how complex it has to be, um, but, but that is something that they've actually taken a look at before they acquire another vehicle in any of the 8. Any other questions? Do I have a motion to suspend the rules? Of a 1st and the 2nd. All of favor of spending rules and adding this to the agenda, say ah, all the polls. Motion passes. On my glasses here. Now, as uh we'll move on. Senator Desma, you have another. And I'm just lit up to present the amendment which I And I'm just lit up to present the amendment which I've essentially already done, but I had to take any questions and if someone has questions for the department, then. I would welcome those if the chair sea saw fit. We have any questions for the department? Sorry. Senator Irvin. Thank you. I, I, I, I guess I was misunderstanding that this fleet management study was being done by a Different agency, but that they're doing it internally, which I applaud, and I think it's a good idea. I think it needs to be across the entire state government. So is there, is this happening at DFNA? Is it happening in a shared services? Is this? Can somebody speak to that? I mean, I think it's a good special language. I think it's special language that needs to be in every single department, to be frank. If y'all would please identify yourself and y'all may proceed. Mm Uh, good afternoon, Alison Hatfield, chief of staff at Commerce. Courtney Trailer, chief of staff at TSS. We start yeah or I can say for we certainly have been working on this at commerce, I think the 2nd week that Secretary McDonald was on the job is when he said, we've put a stopped all car purchasing, um, and we have actually been kind of recycling them and selling them off and part of that movement, then launched over to Arkansas Forward where not just commerce is doing it, but it's part of the whole Arkansas forward plan so every department's looking at this. That's correct. We are looking statewide at all 15 agencies, and, um, we've identified some underutilized vehicles and we're working on a plan for those. And we're also working on a statewide strategy for how we're going to manage those fleet vehicles, um, that's right, that plan is not complete yet. We're still trying to finalize the Arkansas forward, um, all the findings that we have, we're still trying to come up with what the plan is on those. And once those are complete, we'd be happy to come back and present that. Here. Senator Irwin, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you have an expected time frame as to what we can expect when that's going to be complete. I would think that we'll have our first draft done by the end of December, um, and then from there, making sure that each department is on board with what that plan is and that they're able to, to work with that plan, um, so I would hope that we could start rolling that out the first of the year. OK, I mean, I think that would help in the budget process, um, and then does this language then, uh, applied just to the Department of Commerce or would this need to be replicated in other agencies, um, Main appropriation bill. It, it's a statewide effort to look at all the, the fleet vehicles, um, that are assigned in each of the 15 departments. So it wouldn't be isolated to just commerce. It's every department is looking at that. That's the study, but I guess to Senator Desma, that question's probably more to you. Does this need to be then replicated for every department and their appropriation bill. Senator, I think that would be up to the committee moving forward. I mean, I don't think we can drop. I'd have to ask staff if there's one piece of special language that's gonna apply to every acquisition in the state for vehicle and if that's the way we should do it, I felt as though putting it up, you know, it, it the secretary level or the Department of Commerce would work for the particular situation we're in today, um, and just for some added context so that anyone has any angst about, well, there's a vehicle that's going to break down the side of the road tomorrow and what are we going to do? Remember, we're talking about acquisitions that would occur after July 1st, 2025. So there there's no one growing up and no one's going to break down tomorrow. That's going to be impacted by the special language. Uh, if that were to happen and they need to purchase a vehicle and they didn't have the capital outlay appropriation remaining to do that, they would have to come to us and ask for it, um, so we're not creating some dire situation or some emergency with a special language. All we're doing is asking the Department of Commerce to give us their fleet management report. Or study Prior to acquiring new vehicles which they cannot do with this appropriation. Until July 1st, 2025. So they've got a long time to get that accomplished, and you're already hearing that there's a statewide initiative, hopefully that's going to at least have a draft done by December. Right, I, I, I think, I think it's just, it's good language and I think it should be replicated for Each department based on the statewide Fleet fleet management study. Thank you, go ahead. Consider this way, I think, I think your language is great. Let me, let me ask if it was OK with you and the rest of the committee. Could we wait till the end of this committee and as you suggested, could we have staff to see if there's some way, as Senator Irvin is, uh, requesting because that's kind of my issue. I think it's great. I'm for what you want to do, but I think it needs to be done statewide. But let's can we see if we can actually get that, uh, included, uh, in, in the special language, and if we can't, then we'll just go forward, or, you know, to see if we can get the vote for your, for yours the way it is, but if you're open to Statewide, I'd like to look at it like that. If it's possible in this committee. I'm fine with whatever you would like to do, like I said I was, I was listening today and, and going through and started becoming aware, well, there's a large number of requests or appears there's gonna be a large number of requests for capital outlay increases to buy new vehicles. I would like to know what's happening in bigger picture. If y'all want to do it on the statewide level, and that, that makes sense and there's a way to do that, then we can. I don't want to jeopardize doing here and I'll, I'll tell you why it's because I think out of all of the agencies, I think commerce. is probably the most motivated to do something and, and I'll be honest, I think we'll probably replicate whatever they choose to do in other agencies. Uh, I, I don't think they're satisfied with the status quo at commerce and I'm not saying other agencies are, uh, but I, I think they're already committed to doing it, um, and getting that out there and getting it public and getting a, you know, I think allowing, um, some pressure to be created so it happens sooner than later is important. That was my motivation, uh, this morning. Um, so however y'all want to hand it's fine. I, I have a prior commitment at 2. I'll have to leave it up to y'all. But we'll, if, if you're open to it, it sounds like you are. If we could just have staff to look at that to see if there's a way, and if there's not, whether you're here or not, then we'll, we'll pick it back up at the, uh, end of the meeting. Is that OK, Senator Dimay? OK. He nodded yes. Yeah, so thank you, sir. OK, now we'll move on to the regular agenda for today. As mentioned in the previous meeting, Adams, the Adams in C section of the agenda will be batched. But members can request any items to be pulled out for further discussion. Uh, today we'll be batching. 31 down to 53 where D starts. Does anybody have any questions on Any of these items that we're gonna batch. And, and also remember that we agreed last meeting that all these agencies that are going to bring us uh explanation by the uh ALC in November, uh, for us to look at about keeping these and moving them forward. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Uh, yes, I want to make sure that we pull out, uh, I. Is it C43 for a separate vote? And Then on, um, like this is. Volume 3, page 95, because we're talking about motor vehicles. And this specific language allows the department of corrections and community, um, corrections to purchase vehicles from a certain line item. I don't know if with conversations that we're having about motor vehicle purchase. This needs to be looked at. I'm just saying. So do I, do I have a motion to back? Hang on a minute. OK. Uh just before we do, before the we do the batch and I assume that you're gonna do it. Excluding the two items that that you've requested. But also members, and I did this last, uh, meeting, and I want to make sure that I bring it up again and that everybody understands it. There's always a lot of discussion in budget hearings, and you're going to see another request, uh, that's a new request here in just a little bit about allowing agencies to carry their funds forward. And I hear more of that from the house probably than I do the Senate, just to be, uh, uh, quite blunt blunt about it. But what I also want to do is I want everybody to understand. That those are in here. So if those need to be discussed or it needs to be on a, A larger macro, uh, pitcher, you know, but what we're doing here is we are allowing That this language is drafted into the bill so that they will have that authority to do it. These particular ones we may have been doing for years, but everybody always brings it up. So I'm gonna keep saying that every, every meeting. OK, do I have a, do I have any more discussion on any of the ones we're gonna batch. OK, I, I need a motion to do what San Urban, go ahead. I have a motion to batch all the albums except 343 and 395. Do I have a second? Have a second in discussion. All in favor say aye all oppose. Motion pack. we needed Representative Kavanaugh, you want to discuss these individually. OK, go ahead. 3343 1st, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam, um, on page volume 3, 43 is language that allows the director of the economic development commission to actually receive a salary outside of their state salary. I do not like that. I think it is a conflict of interest. I think that they either work for the state or they don't work for the state. And what's the old saying, you can't serve two masters. So my, I, I, I'm against this language and I don't. I think we need to continue this language. And in particular, we have special language that prohibits this exact payment to the Secretary of Education. So we've got two different standards. So I think we need to be consistent. If it's not good for one, it's not good for the other. Any more discussion on 343. The agency here. Is the agency here anybody from the agency here? I would like to talk about this. And I'm not even sure we actually have a director of AEDC anymore after the transformation. OK, Senator Gilmore, go ahead. OK, well, I wasn't sure they're gonna make it, but I, I was gonna ask if I I think we do have a director of AEDC, but I don't know that we still do this for the director of AEDC, do we? Uh, yes, sir. Director Clint O'Neill is the executive director of the Economic Development Commission, um, that was here this morning with us. He's not here right now, but yes, yes, sir, we do. Yes, ma'am. Representative Kavanaugh, we do have someone in that position. Was cut off. Thank you. We, so we do have a director, but are we currently paying the director as we have previously using this. I'm sorry, I heard only I kind of only heard part of the question. I'll. We currently have a director, Clen O'Neill. Are we currently paying the director as we have previously. Using this Yes, sir. Yes sir, that's what I was trying to get out. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. So we're currently paying a state employee. To another private entity. We're supplementing their income with another private entity. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tammy Williams, Department of Commerce, um, yes ma'am, so this language allows the director to receive funds from the foundation. I know what it does they're not, they're not paid through the state, and I It The, so are you saying that we don't have an executive director of ADC that's paid through the state. That allows them. Past history. I don't know if you have it. This language was used to pay our secretary. Extra money out of a foundation to the amount of $50,000 a year. Yes, ma'am. That, that's. That currently exist through the foundation to the executive director Clint O'Neill. Yes, yes, ma'am. And are we currently paying the executive director outside of his salary through this foundation. The foundation does, yes, ma'am, but that's completely separate than the why do we think that's a good idea on the state level that we have an employee that is employed. By the state to represent the whole state, but then can take money from a foundation that a special interest groups. Historically, this is what has happened, um, in most states, I think actually all states run it this way, but that's the way it has been set up and functioned every person in that position as the executive director has done that and there I don't have the milestones in front of me, but it's not an automatic, um, payment of funds. There have to be certain measures and. stones meant for him to receive any, any funds. In addition, from the foundation. I, I understand that, but we still go back to the same thing as they're working for two masters. Either working for the people of Arkansas, or you're working for a special interest group. Which one are you working for? Who's paying you the money? And when we have specific language that prohibits the Secretary of Education from being able to do that. Why should we allow another employee, I guess is my concern. Well, I will say the foundation, um, was certainly designed and set up to support the state and the state's interest and be able to support and add supplemental funds when the state wasn't able to, to bring, um, whether it's different projects or businesses here. So they do run on parallel tracks, but the Point is obviously to to help support the state and bring the different jobs and ventures here that we're not able to just with state funds. But that has nothing to do with paying somebody. They can do all that stuff without paying a state employee additional monies. Well, everything you just described and no, no disrespect has nothing to do with paining an executive director outside their salary from a foundation. It has everything to do with what foundations are designed to do and to work with them, because to be quite frank, it benefits the members of that foundation. And the state of Arkansas, and I agree with that. I just have real heartburn, paining someone that is a state employee through a foundation. When it's a special interest group. And again, I had the biggest heart heartburn because we don't allow it with education, but we think it's OK for commerce. And that's My problem. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Senator Hill. What are we looking at as far as total income, if you don't know the answer to that, as far as from the state and the foundation if not get us pretty close percentage wise. I don't, if you give us just a minute, we could probably look it up. Yeah, give us just a second, we'll look it up or see what we can come up with. Um We'd need to look at specific numbers with confidence to give you an answer, but I think right now we both feel comfortable saying $200,000 total. So I'd have to look that up though and look up his statement of financial interest to confirm that. I think that would be combined in that and it may be more than that, but I don't feel comfortable giving you, you know, something in excess of that without looking pretty close on that. So how much is actually the state salary of that. Mm, oh, here we can figure that out. Hang on, I'm looking on. I'm looking on transparency, hang on. Uh, 171 is what the state. OK, thank you. Yes, sir. Senator Hester. Look, I'm, I'm supportive of this. We, we, we talk about this a lot and I think most members are, don't necessarily love the, uh, love the process, but it is what it is. I, I think that if if we decided to do something different, now I'm supportive of, of how it currently is. I think where we normally circle back around to is if, if we're not going to allow that foundation to pay it, then the state's got to step up and start paying it. Um, and maybe we're OK with that, but I, I do believe that, uh, Mr. O'Neill was widely respected and doing a fantastic job and, and, and, and deserves the gross. compensation that he's getting. So that would just be, be, be my position. Senator Hickey. Uh, just, I kind of echo that. I wanna, I wanna get, uh, I want to get just a little bit of information because I do understand the, uh, struggle that represented Kavanaugh has with this to make sure there's no conflicts of interest, but We're saying the pay, but really. This gentleman, the director, he has a set pay that's by the state of Arkansas with the benefit package. And we're, we're paying all of that. Is there any other type of separate agreement that the foundation has with the state some memorandum of understanding or some other type of employment agreement or is this all outside of us? Is that just being done separate or do we have some type of document that ties all this together. It's 100% outside his employment with the state. That answers my question. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Gilmore. Thank you. So just following up on the long, along the lines of that, um, and I think Mr. O'Neill does a, a great job, and I don't really have that much heartburn with this. I understand where Representative Kavanaugh is coming from in the sense of if it's not allowable for one, why we're doing it for other? And, and I think it's fair to question it. But that being said, I think Clint does a good job. What, what I would like to ask is the formation of the foundation, I believe, is a 501c. Yes, sir. What's it's sole purpose, I think, is to supplement the activities of AEDC, is that correct? Yes, and based on what I understand, yes, and develop and bring business, yes, support businesses in the state. Yeah, it's not like they're engaged in You know, a lot of other activities outside of really their lane, and that's to support the function of AEDC, is that correct? OK, and I presume, uh, you know, maybe it'd be helpful to see some of the formation documents for, for that 501, um, C3 or C6 or whatever it is, I'm not really sure how it's actually formed, but it would be to support the efforts and very limited what they can do outside of that. So maybe that would be helpful for members of the committee to see actually what that structure looks like. Sure, yes, yes, sir, I'm happy to get that to y'all. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Hill. Over here, over here again, and I kind of go right along what uh Senator Hester said, I have no problem with what they're doing or how they're doing it. I just like to be transparent about how do they come up with the extra money? Is it so much per Development that's brought For the economic, how, how is that or they just reach out in the air and grab a figure. And say this is what we think you're worth this year. No, I I can't speak to specifics on that. My understanding is I think there's a specific formula or something, but again, it's 100% outside our work for the state, but, um, I could look into that for you OK. Thank you, ma'am. Represent Representative Jean. Uh, yes, I would just Would, would, and I ask the staff a question or, or is special language meeting next week. Yes. OK. Uh, before we defeat this special language and we don't have Mr. uh, uh, Hugh and uh O'Neal here to defend themselves. And at the minimum, take it, put it off till next week, but I have no problem. We've been doing this for years. It is economic development, uh, it's the economic development foundation trying to create jobs for Arkansas. It's not like they're, they're lobbying for, uh, other entities that are not, uh, for the betterment of Arkansas, but, but I would not want to defeat this, uh, without them coming here and testifying. Is is that a motion to hold? 3:43 to whatever the will of the committee is, I mean, I'm, I'm, I can, I could vote for it today or I just don't want it to go up and, and then, uh, and then go down, uh, to beat the special language till we've heard from them. Thank you. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm OK to hold this to next week, so everybody can hear the sides because it's not going to change my vote. I'm, I'm just never gonna have. Yeah, I'm just never gonna be good with it. I mean, I think it's a double standard that we have one for one and one for not the other one. We can open it up to everybody or we can close it to everybody. That's kind of the way I look at it. And so, I don't mind to hold it to next week and then everybody can hear both sides of the story just for history on the 501c3. When I ran the bill to do a way with this language. I think it was 2 sessions ago. I asked for all that information. I asked for the donors list so we'd know who was doing it. I was refused that information. So, there you go. Thank you, uh, seat 83, I'm not sure. I can't. Senator ices, I'm sorry, I can't see you. Thank you and I, I appreciate, uh, Representative Kavanaugh was willing to hold up like, uh, Representative Gene correct and we'll have commerce back in here tomorrow after corrections if you need to do something. I, I'm just gonna add something. I, I've had some heartburn on this before, and I sure don't want to hurt economic development, but I know A few years ago. I brought up somebody that was getting dual pay. That publicly stated That our legislators were working for communist Chinese company chairs. Right into the governor's conference room and that just chaffed me. Very much, and I'll let the governor know and I'll let that person know. So there is a There is a concern for people drawn to this. I'm not saying it can't be done. But in that instance, it was wrong. And we need to be very careful and transparent how we do it. Thank you. OK. Hang on just a second, Senator. I'll be right back to you. Go ahead. If members, if you don't mind, we, we've got a little bit out of. Or just, just by a little bit. So let me explain here. Senter dismay whenever he first did his, he had a motion. He actually had a motion on the floor, and of course he indicated, he indicated that it was OK for us to put that on the back, uh, put that on the back for staff to look at it. However, we did not ask him to withdraw his motion. He indicated he was fine with that. So, Mr. Chair, with, with no objection. With no objection, then we'll consider that that that was OK with this committee. Then also, We had a motion to batch. Everything with the two that except the two that represented Kavanaugh did, but we really need a motion to batch and approve. So that, so that we can have those, so with that if it's OK, let's, let's have a moat we have if we have, I'll give a motion to, to approve on the batch except for the two that we're talking about now, so we can go ahead and get all that out of the way and then we'll start taking motions on these other two. Yeah, so you can have a first and seconds in discussion. All in favor say aye, all oppose motion passes, back to you, Senator Irwin. I I'll make a motion to hold this special language till next week. I think it's completely inappropriate for a representative to ask for information and not receive it. And that needs to be rectified and so for that purpose, I'll make a motion to hold this till next week, and I would strongly urge and encourage the Secretary of Commerce and the department to get that information to Representative Kavanaugh and to the members of this committee. Yeah. Yeah Have a motion to hold 343 till next week to have a second, have a second in discussion. And I, I would ask that y'all bring the information center Hill what Senator Gilmore maybe brought up, that would probably help everybody a whole lot, if you would. In discussion all in favor say aye, all oppose. Motion passes. Thank you all. Yeah Um Now we'll move, uh, 395 Ris and Kavanaugh hell did that Kah Kavanaugh, you are recognized The only reason I brought this up is that we were talking about vehicles and I happen to notice this is dealing with vehicles for the Department of Corrections. I didn't know if we need to have a discussion around this? Does this need to be held until we figure out what we're doing or or or what. That's the only reason I brought it up. Yeah, yeah, let's just, uh, make, let's we're just gonna hold that till this man's left at the end. Make a motion that we hold this till the next special language meeting after at the end of the meeting at the end of the meeting we'll just we'll just, OK, have a motion to wait to do 395 at the end after we discussed. Oh. Special language in dismay to have a second. 1st and 2nd in discussion. All in favor, say ah. All the poles Motion passes. Now we'll go on to D. Uh And on your desk there's a uh replacement page for an item held over from the previous meeting, the Department of Parks and Heri and Tourism is here to present the revised request and answer any questions. Um, on this, on this agenda item. Miss Hamilton, go here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, we are in volume 2 on page 10. This estate Parks, heritage and tourism. This is a small festival funding language that we had discussed last week. The replacement page is on your desk and the department is here to discuss the revised request that they are presenting to the committee the department or the Senator Irwin, go ahead. What's your motion? I appreciate this change and I make a motion to approve the replaced special language by the Department of Parks and Tourism Division. And thank them for listening and working with us on this. I'm the first, uh, do I have a second? I have a 1st and a 2nd on the, uh, language change from the. Parks is any discussion. All in favor say aye, all oppose motion passed. Next on the Aegina, I'm sorry, on the agenda we have the item for the Bureau of Legislative Research. This is in volume 3. It's on page 16. This is special language, it requires a code amendment. Jennifer Brooks, the analyst presenting identify yourself and go ahead. Jennifer Rook, Bureau of Legislative Research. We're in manual 3 on page 16. This is uh Arkansas code 10-3-303. We are asking to just add. At the very bottom, number 3, the appropriations for the Bureau to any other constitutional officer. This is a code Amendment special language that was suggested by DFNA to clarify that BLR can transfer appropriation to constitutional officers. I have any questions? Have a motion to approve, to have a 2, have a second in discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye, all oppose motion passes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the waterways commission members, we are still in volume 3. We're going to turn to page 60. This language is being requested to be deleted. It deals with association dues. It indicated the amounts appropriated for regional contributions by the state contributions line item in their act. had to be paid out. 7th or whichever is less to the appropriated or funded amount each fiscal year for membership dues to the lower Mississippi Valley flood Control Association and then the remainder 17 or whatever is. Appropriated or funded each fiscal year be allocated for membership dues to each of the following. The Wachita River Valley Association, the Red River Arkansas Waterways Association and the White River Valley Coalition. The request for deletion is because the association is no longer are in operation, so the language is not needed in order to expend the monies for the commitment item in their budget. Have a motion to approve. Uh, I have a 2nd in discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye, all pose motion passes. Go ahead, Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next item is on page 61. We're still in volume 3. This is also a request for deletion. Currently, the agency had promotional items language in their bill that allowed them to transfer appropriation from their operating expenses to their promotional items after approval of the Chief Fiscal Office of the state. They're requesting the lesion because this is currently allowable in statute under 194525. Allstate agencies do have the ability to request a transfer to promotional items upon approval from the CFO so this language is no. no longer need it. Have a motion to approve. I have a second. Have a second In discussion All in favor say aye, all oppose motion passes. Members, we're going to move to page 71, still in volume 3. This is for the Department of Inspector General has to deal with the Arkansas Fair Housing Commission promotional items line item Lila Wallace is an analyst. Yeah. Identify yourself and go ahead, Miss Walsh. Thank you, Chair. My name is Lila Walls and I work for the Bureau of Legislative Research. All right, this is the agency is also requesting the deletion of this promotional items special language. It allowed the agency upon CFO's approval to transfer appropriation from our operating expenses line item 2 line items 2, the promotional items in their educational trust appropriation. And it limits that transfer to $8000 per fiscal year, um, upon speaking to the agency, they said that they really don't have any need to have such a high limit and that the $5000 that they have access to in statute is fine, so they wanted to get rid of this and the executive provides for the agency's request. have a motion to approve agency requests. I have a second, have a second, and in discussion. All the papers say ah all pose motion passes. Thank you. Members were moving to page 73. This is Department of Corrections. It's reallocation of resource language, Dalton Coleman Alist. He identify yourself and Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Dalton Coleman with the Bureau of Legislative Research. Uh, we'll start on page 73, uh, with the Department of Corrections cabinet Special language, and that's reallocation of resources is the first section we'll be looking at. Um, this change, or sorry, the changes made to the section, uh, they this is reallocation language. It provides for general reallocations within the division of correction and community correction at the request of the secretary, uh, so with approval of the governor and ALC and JBC um These reallocations can, can go through and this includes a new and existing divisions of the department between which physicians, programs, funds, appropriations and line item appropriations may be transferred and we'll see, uh, when we look at the division of community correction and correction later on that the reallocation language that they're requesting to be deleted. In those divisions, uh, it's pretty much all covered by this, this new language in this section. Um Moving on to page 79, uh, we'll look at the transfer of appropriation and funds to the county jail reimbursement fund and, uh, the changes in this language allow for the department to transfer funds along with appropriation of the county jaw reimbursement fund before it was just appropriation, uh, and any remaining GR that they choose to. Advanced to the next fiscal year will be carried forward, uh, to County jail reimbursement only. And that's, that's the Department of Corrections cabinet, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hickey got a question. Just, just one and maybe, maybe you can help me with the agency. The, at, at first glance, it appears like to me that this is actually more transparent. Because we eventually we towards the bottom there we used to have agency and now we're saying division office section or unit. But I guess I also want to make sure, because up the top it says 5% of the total general revenue and special revenue appropriation funding. Uh As far as cumulative totals. Because now that we're looking at it from a division office section or unit. Do you know, are we, are we increasing the amount that we're allowing with this because they've done that again, I think it's, I like the way because it's more transparent, but I want to make sure that We're just it's just kind of a wash, if that makes sense, Mr. Chair, it's, it's my understanding that the, the agency doesn't really utilize, um, after talking with them, uh, this past week, um, I I guess I'd have to defer about their position on that because um I'm not sure that they utilize a very, very often. Is the agency here. Thank you. Please identify yourself and. Chad Brown, CFO Department of Corrections. Senator, you just couldn't help it, could you? I couldn't. I think it was grudgingly that you come up here. I, I don't blame you. So the way that, the way that we understand this from the department side is we're trying to move this all up into shared services instead of having it split out into different appropriations. And for us, if we were going to reallocate from one division or another, we would use that division basically what is in the RSA for that division, so 5% of what is in the RSA. That's how we would calculate that to move over. To wherever it was going to go. And I guess that's my question, and I guess I'm struggling here a little bit and maybe I just want to make sure that You know, and maybe we wouldn't care. There's no unintended consequences. Again, at first glance, I It looks better to me from a transparency thing, but before it was. I guess 5% of the total general revenue. To each agency. We're not, is it just a wash as far as dollars that. I mean, is it, is that 5% when the way it was written with the agency, is that still the same as it would be as a 5% with the division office section or unit. That's the way that I read it, OK. Well, we got you on record, so I guess I'll go with that one. So. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Uh, Senator, Senator Irwin, you're recognized. Thank you. Can you just um explain to me a little bit that, that why the addition at the top, um, at the request of the Secretary of Corrections. In the language that's going to be deleted out of community corrections language that did not include the secretary, I believe, and so we were trying to make it uniform, uh, the more we spoke with, uh, DFA and the governor's office. We kind of brainstormed and said, why don't we just do away with it in each individual appropriation and put it up in shared services so we can so we can encompass the entire department as a whole. So we're trying to get all approval levels we need in order to do this correctly. OK, OK. But is there any? Is there, would there be any time where. Um, it may be determined by the Board of Corrections, not at the request of the Secretary of Corrections? Would that ever happen? I think under the previous language in the division of Community Corrections language, it would have been that way, uh, if the secretary is not included, uh, that would have been that would have been at the discretion of the board, uh, but. So since the secretary is more in the day to day operations, we felt it was Uh, better for us to bring that to the board, uh, since we have all the information to let them decide. No, that makes sense. Thank you. Any more questions? If not, I'll entertain emotion on both pieces. Have a motion And the second, any more discussion? All the papers say ah. I'll suppose. Motion passes. Go ahead. We're moving to page 84 community correction. Go ahead Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on page 84, you can see the community corrections program line item uses, uh, special language there. So the agency is requesting removal of this language, the removal of this language is contingent upon the agency's budget request in which the agency and executive recommendation is to consolidate the community corrections. Uh, programs line item that's mentioned in this section, uh, into the divisions special revenue appreciation into the operating expenses line item when that appropriation. Uh, therefore removing the need for this language at all. Um, Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification, do you want me to go? Special language section by a special language or should I do the entire division of QD correction. Sorry, uh, just do it section by section, OK. Easi to keep up with that. All right, well then that concludes the community correction program line item uses section there hang on just a minute, Senator Irwin, let me. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I understood this special language being deleted is dependent upon whether or not their budget is approved with these changes. Is that what I just heard? Uh, so after talking with the agency, uh, and if. Uh, without getting too much into the budget, they, they have, they have a couple of line items in their special language, uh. Section for community corrections and there's a community corrections programs line item there for, I guess, ease of operations they're moving that into the operating expenses line item as well so this would effectively eliminate the line item mentioned in this section, the rendering this, this section useless, so I guess that's my question is we're a proven special language before we do the budget and is that the proper order? That'll that'll be a question I'll have to ask. I'm not, I, I do not know. Kevin, Kevin. Um, due to Kevin Anderson, Bureau of Legislative Research, um, due to the complexity of budget hearings and scheduling with personnel and special language, it's not uncommon for one personnel to get it in front of budget we do see them you all are up tomorrow. Uh, with their budget requests, but so it's not uncommon for the, for y'all to act upon some special language when we haven't heard their budget yet. What we would do is if there was a conflict, we would make sure we let the committee know and we would flag that and give you all a chance to go back and revisit that. So if something happened in budget hearings and this wasn't approved and the next special language it could be brought back up. OK, ma'am. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Thank you. Um Senator now. OK, I'm sorry I'm sorry. I'm sorry and I'm gonna, I'm gonna back up a little bit here. So, Because the, the, the order this was in. So let me ask you this. So, We're putting in 373. But are we taking? Page 85, are we taking that out because we've put this in the other place, is that the reason? Excuse me. Uh, yep, I'm looking at page. So the one that we were just discussing. 384, 384. So Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that this, this, um, this section is not related to the reallocation language that we talked about first there, I think there's a specific section uh for reallocation of resources in community correction and division correction that's related to that. This is simply related to that individual. Uh, operating special revenue appropriation within the division of Community Corrections itself. So we're, you don't think that we're getting rid of this because we, we didn't put the other one in and we no longer need this. Is that, if I'm saying that wrong, maybe that's a good question for the department. that. I'm gonna see if I can answer your question, Senator. So. Tomorrow on page 440 of the budget manual. You will see 3 line items. Our request is to Transfer the appropriation from those three line items up to the M&O line item. Therefore, That came about because. This language was created years ago. I can't tell you why. I don't know, but for us. We're going to continue to purchase the same things we always purchase regardless of if this language exists or not. So for community correction programs. This pays for things like drug testing, GPS, uh, drug treatment programs and what this is gonna allow the department to do, it's gonna make it a lot easier on us when We're putting purchase wrecks and POs into the system. This is gonna do away with hundreds of cost centers for us if you just think of drug courts around the state. We have multiple call centers for each drug court, so for us if you're manually keying those things into ACIS, it's going to lessen our human error. We can still pull whatever information you want us to pull if the legislature requests information from us and we can still find how much we pay for all these things out of this line item. We just want to move it up just to make it easier for us to operate. That, that makes sense. I think that ties in with what Representative Kavanaugh was just asking, I guess, about the budget, so I should have been listening closer to that. Because that's what was confusing to me. I missed that part. Thank you, sir. Any more questions? Oh thou senator, I'll back to you. Thank you. Motion for agency requests about first and the 2nd. For agency requests, is there any discussion? All the papers say yeah on the post. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next section is parking fee section on page 86 of your manuals, uh, this. After talking with the agency, it is my understanding they haven't used this special language section since 2017, so they're requesting its removal. And that's from War Memorial Stadium, right? Yes sir, yes sir, OK. Uh Have emotion agency request, I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor, say ah. Uh, any opposed? Motion passes. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's on page 89, you'll find the reallocation of resources section for the division of Community Correction. This goes back to that first section we passed that reallocation of resources section, uh. With that being passed, It renders a section unneeded. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, say ah. Go ahead Mr. Coleman. All right, the next section is community correction program line item uses again on page 92. Um, this is very similar to the one we just talked about. It also uses that utilizes that community corrections programs line item, it just talks about other things that that money can be spent on, uh, Mr. Chairman, the section is Um, been determined unneeded by the agency for the same reasons the last. Send everyone. Is that the same for 393 too? 3. Yes, um, 393 is more related to the reallocation of resources, um, then. Well, it's along the same line item, so I have emotion for 392 and 393 agency request. OK. I have a motion and a 2 for 392 and 393. I say request is any discussion. If not, all in favor say ay. All the pose. Motion passes. Members, we're gonna move to page 102. This is division of Correction. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on page 102, I believe we'll find the first section that there are changes to in the division of correction. This is utility rate increase transfer. This is similar to the section we just approved on 393 I believe. Uh, this is related to reallocation of resources, uh, within the division of correction. It has a lot to do with that first section that we looked at. This, this language originally allows the agency to transfer money to pay for fuel increases if there's a 10% 373 covers it also. The first one we talked about, OK. Have a motion for request in a second in discussion. All in favor say a. All the pos ocean passes. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we'll move to mental health services on page 104 of your manuals. So these mental health services transfers are also covered by the initial transfer language section, uh, therefore, the agency requests to have these, these language removed as well. The, the new medical contract covers this one right well OK Yeah. Have a, have a first and a second in discussion. All the papers say ah all the po motion passes. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll move on to page 110, promotional items. This allowed the agency $5000 each fiscal year for promotional items, uh, for the prison industry program. Uh, the agency is no longer requesting the use of this, this section. motion agency requests and 2nd in discussion. All in favor, say ah, all the pose, motion passes. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Hey, Mr. Chair, moving on to page 111, we have the carry forward energy maintenance and operational savings section. Uh, this language allows the agency to carry forward fund balances for guaranteed energy maintenance and operational savings for the same purpose in the next fiscal year after discussing it with the agency, they informed me that this language will no longer be needed. a motion I request in a second. In discussion All in favor, say ah, all the po motion passes. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, moving on to page 113, we have carry forward general revenue year-end fund balance and this is a completely new section. Uh, this language allows GR remaining in the division of Corrections fund account to be transferred into a subfund to be used for county jail reimbursement and maintenance needs within the department, uh, in an amount not to exceed $5 million. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to ask any questions about that if I can have a motion and a second. Any questions? In discussion. Representative Jean, you recognize? The thing was Chairman, uh, Miss Brown, do y'all have any uh carryover money right now is just, will this be the first? Uh, no, sir, we do not have any, uh, this year, uh. This would be the first, uh, if this were approved. So this is not to exceed $5 million. That's correct and it can be used for, if you need to do some jail reimbursement and other maintenance needs. Anything else? No, sir. That's all that would be covered under this. All right, thank you. Thank you, Representative. Any more discussion on our motion? If not, all in favor say aye. All oppose motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today, taking care of us. you Members, we're going to move to volume 4. The first item is on page 8. It is for the Department of Agriculture and Kathy Schmidt is an analyst. Go ahead, Miss Smith, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Kathy Schmidt, Bureau of Legislative Research. As Mildred said, we're in volume 4, page 8. Excuse me, is the first piece of language, these are, uh, language pieces of language for the agricultural department and the first one is a request by the agency to, uh, get rid of, uh, special language they had for promotional items and this was language that several agencies had, uh, previously to allow them to transfer up to $5000 to purchase, uh, promotional items they actually have a line item in their marketing program appropriation, so no longer need this. Have a motion they request and a second. In discussion All the papers say yeah, all the pose, motion passes. Yeah Go ahead, Ms. Smith. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The next piece of language is on page 10. This is new language. The agency is requesting carry forward language for their department of agricultural fund account that's your general revenue fund. This is, uh, basic carry forward language. I would like to point out that, uh, we have kind of standard language and we've noted when we were looking at this, there may have been some words left out. I want to point out to you that we'd like to make a technical correction, uh, to add in uh section. To their, uh, the 5th line down or so, it talks about carry forward and then after that, uh, on line 6, it should be carried forward and then to insert from the first fiscal year to the 2nd physical year, comma, and then it picks up with the program, which is already there, and then on the next page in section 3, about the 6th line down, it's talking, uh, more than 30 days prior to the time, um, the words the agency board. com commission or institution presents its budget and then goes back to what's there on your page, request to the Arkansas Legislative Council Joint Budget Committee, and so this again is carry forward language, new language, it's uh pretty primary language in, in uh carry forward, but there we did notice a couple of uh words that were left out that we'd like to, uh, add in when we, uh, draft the bill if this is approved. Senator Irwin, go ahead. So would that be an agency request or a legislative request? Well, that's Well, uh, it's an agency request with permission for us to make a technical correction when we're drafting it meaning the bureau. Yes, ma'am. There are other questions. Representative Jean, uh, if I could have the department up, please. The department are they here? They come up, please? I Go ahead and recognize yourself and go ahead and Representative Jean has a question for you. Yes, sir. West War Department of Agriculture. I knew Suzaki, chief fiscal Officer. The Kyle Cunningham State Forestry Department of Agriculture. Thank you. Res jingle here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm over here to your far right. I'm over here behind David Ray. Um, Do we have any money in the Department of Agriculture that we carry forward now. Yes, sir, on the natural resources side on the natural resources side um. Generally on what we're talking about here, what kind of balance would we be carrying for from year to year. I see no amount like it was in the Department of Corrections, Cabinet at a certain amount. What, what kind of money are we talking about that'll be carried forward. So we're looking at no more than $300,000 just based on last year's figures. Uh, we did have a reclaim of about 284,000. Have we ever had a banner year that went way above that? Yes sir. What, what year was that and how much? 2023, it was about a little bit over $500,000. OK, all right. All right, uh, I'm just, I'm just trying to keep, keep these departments from turning into DHS and Department of Education. That's all I got. Thank you. Representative Kevinau, you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Similar to Representative Jean. So why do we now need to carry for when we've not ever had it before and we've been able to operate. So what's making the necessity for it. I'll, uh, I'll start. I'll let Kyle, uh, Cunninghamer State Forester jump in as well. So this carry forward language is primarily for forestry division, I say primarily exclusively for forestry division. Uh, and so that, that goes to wildfire response capabilities that's making sure we've got, uh, our rangers who are out capable to respond for the personnel expense as well as the equipment needed to, uh, for their wildfire response capabilities. So that, so that is what primarily what it's for, uh, but I'll, I'll let Kyle jump in for, for any other specifics. I, I do know that we've had, uh, you know, as we look across the state trying to just make sure we've got resources allocated where they need to be and this would help to be able to accomplish that. Yeah, thank you. I'll just add that, um, you know, we've had a really busy fire year this year. And so we've seen what, uh, you know, some of the strain from an intense fire season can can put on us, um, we do have an aging bulldozer fleet, uh, about 30% of our bulldozer fleet is 20 years old or older, and so we're looking at really all avenues to be able to replace some of those over the next few years. And so that's where, uh, specifically this money would really be targeted towards the replacement of those. question, is there some particular reason that we didn't put a balance like corrections did on it, because as we carry these carry forwards that gives us more appetite to allow that when we know that we've got a an amount because as Representative Jean said, we don't need Department of Health, DHS, I mean, we got money stashed everywhere. I, I don't know that I've got, I don't know that I've got a good answer on, on that, but, uh, but certainly we, we intend to be as fully transparent and happy to always answer questions about how much and I think we, we have seen fluctuations in the amount of general revenue that we could carry forward per year, and I think that's, that's probably why we don't have a specific number because it would vary, uh, but would have no problems at all sharing that with, with the legislature. And I, I could add, um, so, you know, for us also from the forestry divisions, uh, side of things within the Department of Ag. You know, our budget need could, could vary drastically year from year based on the fire season we're having, you know, we could have a year where things spin out of control and we could run out of money really quickly. And so, you know, on the average year, I think that's what, uh, Mr. Zaki is talking about on the average year we're looking at 000 to 500,000, but there could be years where there's nothing there also. Thank you. Go ahead. This, this is more of a comment. This is a reason on all of this. I want the members to know, we have literally opened this up to everyone, and that's on y'all's particular deal. I don't particularly like it. I don't like the Department of Cations. I don't like the, uh, Uh, things that we're doing with, uh, uh, DHS Education Department are all because all we're doing is allowing those funds that are unexpended and there's always that argument that, well, we were at the very end and that, uh, uh, you know, we didn't have time to. To actually spend those funds, but as far as state government goes, and this is not it, not at you all. So don't take it. I don't blame you all. To be honest, at this point, it looks like to me that we've opened this up to everyone. But what it does do is if there's money that the state itself on a macro level would not have to spend. What we're now doing is allowing that of course they have to have the appropriation to go ahead and spend it. But it's much like you and I, I appreciate where you're at, and I appreciate everything you're up against with this drought that's going on right now, but, you know, if you need to bulldozers, and again, I'm using you, I can equate this to any agency that's doing it, then, you know, from my standpoint, what you need to do is have that in your budget and come to this legislature and budget hearings every time, and we're going to have a capital outlay that shows what that is and we purchase those. Uh, you know, the worry that I have. And again, I'm speaking on a macro level, is that some agency, they get a large Extra fund balance like that, I don't want some way that, uh, you know, we ever start you in that, using that for some recurring expense. Uh, that will, you know, that was ongoing or should be ongoing, and then all of a sudden, you know, that dissipates and we no longer have that funding source because we've just allowed you to keep that savings account. So, again, that's more of a comment and that's not specifically directed at you all, you just happen to be at the table asking for, for it new. So, if the other members don't feel that way, that's fine. It's, at this point, the way I see it is something that we probably need to look at in a session, and The entire body. would need to decide what they want to do, uh, whether or not we want to continue these or just cut them all out. You know, I know the Department of Corrections is sitting out there and they would be saying, well, you know, one of ours that we've got on the carry forward is for county jail reimbursements. Personally, I understand the need of that since it's specific, but I don't know how we can just pick and choose between these. Anyway, more of a comment. I just won't, you know, All members kind of understand what we're doing here because again, I hear these, uh, People grab uh legislators gripping about that year round, and then we get in here and then we just continue to do it, so thanks for allowing me to comment, Mr. Chair. Senator Hill, you recognize. Over here to your left. You made a comment just a while ago about the age of your fleet as far as your doger and stuff goes for fire prevention or firefighting and everything. Why have we not replaced those because to me, this becomes a public safety issue. So if we, if we need those for public safety, especially in the times like we have now, why are we not addressing that? I'll let, I'll start and I'll let um Kyle jump in and provide extra explanation, but I, I would say it's the dozer and equipment standpoint has, have, have been a constant conversation for numerous years and so I over, over the course of history, I could get the specific numbers for you, but working to make sure that we're replacing the older dozers, the, you know, making sure we've got the environmental cabs for the safety of our dozer operators. Uh, it's been a, it's been a long process of updating our fleet, uh. that standpoint, I think we've, we've made progress. We just, it's, it just never ends, you're constantly having to, to make those investments in dozers and so if, if you take a dozer itself, you're looking at 200 $220,000 apiece and so it's a to the extent that we can, we're trying to replace 2 or 3 every year, uh, so we're, we're making progress on it and it has been uh a multi-year process trying to do that. So we have enough here to buy a, buy 1.5 dozers, correct? So why are we not doing that? Because if I, if that's my house, my wife and kids in it, and I live around a bunch of, of pine trees. That's a public safety issue. For you to pull up there and I've got a farm. I understand the equipment, and you try to start it and it doesn't start. Or if you have a track to run off or something. Absolutely, and that's, that's what we're trying to avoid and, and, you know, I, I came in a little over a year ago now and we've been doing some analysis on, on all of this and, and we're in the process right now of putting together a, a, uh, information, uh, document on our bulldozer situation, uh, what we see as short term solutions and long term solutions, and Secretary Ward mentioned 3 a year. Um, if you put them on the fifteen-year rotation really 5 to 7 is where we ought to be and that's very difficult to get to, um, and so, yeah, I think we are. have to have to have some tough discussions on how do we fund these replacements because the cost goes up every year, uh, the cost of a bulldozer has probably doubled in the last 10 years and, and then also the transport trucks that have to go with those, so you're really looking at about $400,000 for the unit. And so yes, these are big numbers and we're, these are things we're gonna have to look at and right now, really on my end, I'm looking at how do we piecemeal some things through grants or, or whatever, you know, to, to fill some of those gaps right now until we can get to a solution. Thank you, sir. So Senator Hickey, go ahead. And just, I need to clarify and you might have been caught off guard a little bit and I actually have staff to get from, from the past, you know, what, what you all have turned back. So we have had some larger amounts in that because unless you've got some discrepancy with what we have on our books down here. So, like, Representative Gene, this was you, so like in 2021, we had 981,000 2022, 949, uh, there's been years that have been a lot less, but those were actually the highest years. So we have been up close to a million dollars, so, uh, in 21, 22. So, I just, since you stated that, I just wanted to make sure we did get the clarification. Thank you, sir. Um Senator Rice, go ahead. You just sitting there listening to this, I, I'll ask you this if, would you agree that, you know, you've had some years that you've had some money, you still have to have a reserve there for manpower for extra manpower that you've already stated in why you could spend it all on equipment, you, you got to hold something back. And he also, regardless of who the executive branch is at the time. And Secretary Ward's been here for, for more than one. Y'all are told to keep your budget down like, like all age is correct? Yeah, it's, you're, you're, you're, you've got a boss. In there, so we're telling you to do one thing, since Ricky isn't. I am too. I, we hope you would request from us what you need or at least get with some of us if you've got critical needs, and maybe let us push, but uh we, we realize what you're dealing with on your side. So if you have those critical needs, uh feel free to let us try to help. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, Senator Irwin, you're recognized. Thank you. Before, um, just, I just feel like it's important to talk about this, but Before any of y'all were sitting at this table, um, in previous administration, we had a major issue with the state Forestry Commission. And I, we had to create a subcommittee from joint Budget Committee, which I chaired, and we called for an audit and unfortunately, what we found was the, a lot. I, I don't A lot of conference travel, a lot of expenses, um, a grant program that was run very, very, um, just highly suspiciously, um, and there were whistleblowers within forestry that actually brought it to my attention. So, there is appropriate concern when we talk about carry forward funding because of that lack of accountability, sometimes that will occur because of that. So, I think it's appropriate and I'm, again, this is just painting a history of where we've come from, which sometimes puts us into why we have pushed the brakes on this, and I think it's important history to understand and acknowledge so that we don't repeat that history, um, but to that end, so I. I, I, I appreciate the, the fire suppression duties and activities, and I think that's where you really should be focused on. Is there any way you could limit their language to where it's just focused on that versus other, it says or other duties imposed by law upon the forestry division and made payable to that account, um, is, uh, is this broad language or Could it be more narrowed so that we're really focused on you being able to have that funds, you know, or the Carry Ford funds for specific fire suppression and for purchase of bulldozers. I mean, this has been a Ever since I was elected in 2010, this has been a discussion about bulldozers and needing more bulldozers. So, I'm totally for that, but what we were finding was, you know, we had a, a director that was not in Arkansas, but every other state, and every single conference traveling with unbelievable amounts of money that were being expended. So, um, I mean, I would. I would just make sure that what we're doing is narrowly focused to understand that, so we don't repeat that scenario. Do you, can you, you can respond to that. I'm not. I'm just not sure if the, if the language is. tight, tight enough for me or. Or what? Just what your thoughts are. I mean, certainly we, we were not object to making any edits. On the language OK, cause I was just reading the statute 1531-101. And, um, You know, it, it's very encompassing, um, which You know, which are very, very important, um, for control of forest insects and diseases and all that. I just, I'm just concerned about. The the history there, this is why we've put these stops kind of in place. I just don't want us repeating that history. So, um, it's just something that we might want to consider. I I don't know. I, I think that we all want to make sure you're focused and you have the funds needed to fight fires all the time when I've got, uh, Representative Jean in the queue and then we'll come back and and and if you'd entertain emotion, maybe to hold this till next Wednesday and then let them work on it. But let, let me catch Representative Jean first. You recognize her and Gen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ward, uh, is the governor in full support of this. Yes, sir, we, we're in constant communication with the governor's office on making sure we've got the appropriate piggyback on what Senator Irving said. I, I do believe we need to take this up. We are going to meet next week and, and I also would like for y'all to consider putting a cap of 400, 500,000 because I got this, the book the same time, uh, Senator Hickey did, and, and there are a couple of years where this thing jumped up to about a million dollars. So, uh, I, I'm, I'm a forestry guy. Um, been in the forestry business for years. My family, several generations. I know how important it is Arkansas. I know how important it is to fight wildfires. And we're not trying to stop that, but I think we do need to cap this, uh, and just not leave it, uh, with no number and just whatever, whatever y'all get you because we've got some other things coming in revenues are dropping, and I think that would be the most prudent thing to do is put a cap on this, and if y'all would mind pulling this down and, and coming back. Either, I don't know if we're meeting Wednesday or Thursday, one of the two days, uh, to special language. I would, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Do I have a motion to let them pull out of. OK, don't need to motion. OK. OK. Yeah, thank you all very much. Uh, Mr. Chairman, we have one more piece of language for our agriculture and it is found on page, um, is that page? 13, um, and this is a transfer. I'm sorry, that's not the right page, uh. It's It's on page 12. OK, sorry, um, this is a new piece of language, uh, fund transfer language. This is a new language for surplus transfer that was made back in 2012 that the agency did not utilize all the funding that was provided, so this language will allow them to repurpose these remaining funds and the exact remaining funds of $1,180,100 is what we're talking about that remains in that fund, and again, this is new language, the Agency was requesting. Yeah, if y'all would just for, I, I've got a copy of how how this money got where it's at and why it was there and if y'all would for the committee's sake, start from the beginning and, and how we got where we're at today and that where everybody will understand. Yes sir. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to touch on that, and I, I would honestly echo the comments from Senator Urban. That's exactly where this came from. So 2012 time frame forestry commission forestry funding was in really bad shape and there was a lot of efforts to fix that. There was a reduction and employees there was a lot of fiscal financial challenges that that had to be made. And so there was some funding that was moved over by the legislature to help make sure that those costs were covered because things were coming out of the wrong funds. So that that money was placed over there. It was also to help reimburse some federal grants to make sure all of that was properly accounted for, uh, the, the federal grant process itself had, I think about a 5 to 7 year timeline just to make sure there weren't issues on, on potential funding needed to needing to come out of that. So, uh, we probably should have done this a couple of years ago, uh, to ask for that funding to be transferred back, uh, but that, that's the history of where that money came from. um those historic forestry issues. And so right now there's that, there is that $1.1 million there and so similar to the carry for language our our request is to be able to use that very specifically for our wildfire suppression, or equipment needs that that we so it was it was 2.6 total and then all that was expended except the 1.1, so everything was taken care of the on the federal side and everything, OK. OK, uh, Representative Jean you maybe you are, yeah. You hear me now? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Ward, what, what is your, uh, on this 1.1, uh, what are you looking to, to do with that money. We are Exclusively going to use that on uh equipment so dozers transport dozers like that. All right, and then how many dozers do we have? We currently have 110 bulldozers, OK. Uh, about 35 of those are 20 years old. How many are running? Oh they're all, we keep them running. Uh, that's another aspect of this, and we basically have one in every county for sure, right? Well, we have 63 offices and so in those offices. OK. All right. Uh, so this will be to purchase equipment. And then what you're asking on the other one if we come back next week, is money to have for ongoing purchases. OK, thank you. Go ahead. And I would struggle with this because I'd like to say that whenever this was done, the legislature at that time, which was a year or two before me, you know, they actually restricted it to that it was supposed to take care of, of whatever federal deficiency we had. So that legislature at that time, You know They actually put that, that restriction in place, you know. So I guess, you know, as long as, as long as this committee fully understands that, you know, it was done that way, you know, I appreciate what you say, even though it looks like it's got a little bit broader language in the special language and equipment. I mean, you all are. Um, and I'm not saying it has to be exact, but you are within a little bit. You're gonna use every bit of that, as you told Representative Lane Jean to purchase these dozers that you're gonna be bringing before us anyway. So are you going to reduce what you were planning on bringing before us next week for the equipment? Are you gonna reduce it by the me and 180 or what, what's your intent there? Or had you already factored that in? It's so because those costs are, are reoccurring and we're constantly having to update our dozer fleet. It, it would just be built into that. OK, so you're, so you've already thought that if we would allow this you're intending your intention was that we were going to, which that's fine. So you'd actually already factored in, you're gonna leave what you're going to bring before us next week at the same number. Is that correct? For the, for the car for you, yes, sir. That's correct. As far as the As far as the purchase of the other equipment that you were talking about. You're not reducing next week's by 1, 180. No, sir. OK. As long as we understand. Thank you. Senator, you recognize this came from those times, just like the secretary said, where I believe we misappropriated federal funds and did not spend the federal dollars that we were supposed to spend on eradicating some bug that we were supposed to eradicate. It was completely mismanagement, and it was a total mess. And so, um, I'm, I definitely support, you know, utilizing this money that's been sitting there, um. Again, you know, where it says or other duties imposed by law upon the forestry division. I'm not sure if that would include, you know, something different, I would prefer the language just to be very specific that we're going to utilize it for maintenance and operation costs, um, You know, for fire equipment and suppression activities, um, that just, I don't know if that's too, if that's broad or not or if it's in keeping, I don't want to impose something upon you that's unreasonable, if that makes sense. So I would just look to you for direction to see if. If that language It is OK if it's too broad. It gives me a little bit of concern because I feel like it may be a little too broad, but Again, that just might be me. I just wanted to state the, the 1.18, I believe it is, million. That's almost 3 units. And so our, our plan is to purchase 3 and we'll have to come up with a little bit of extra. I mean, I, I, I think. I guess the language is OK as it is written, but, um, but it's just that or other duties, that's just really encompassing and I would just prefer it. Could, would, uh, any, any other questions for the agency. Uh, would y'all be willing to do this the same as 10, pull 12 down and. Tighten that up for 3 bulldozers or. And we understand everybody, you know, we talked about the trucks and the trailers and the hauling and the, I mean, there's more than just bulldozers that. Uh, makes it, you know, then you got to buy the stuff also, but if you'll bring that back and tighten that up like Senator everyone that asks and maybe make, make it specific to that, so, OK. Any other questions? If not That's all. Thank you all for being here today. Members and next agency of his Department of Environmental Quality we're on page 22, still in volume 4, William Parish is the analyst. Sir, Mr. Parish, recognize yourself and go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, Billy Parish, Legislative Research, we're on page 22 in volume 4. this language is the electric vehicle infrastructure Fund expenditures, and this language requires approval from legislative council of any expenditures from the electric vehicle infrastructure fund. A agency request is to discontinue this language and the executive recommendation is agency requests. There's a $5 million appropriation section that's connected or attached to this language, it's also being requested to be discontinued. The sections were added in 2022. That's because it was assumed environmental equality will be the state agency receiving federal dollars to deploy EV charging stations. Those are instead were directed to the Arkansas Department of Transportation, the electric vehicle infrastructure fund, since it's its inception has received no funds and has no expenses. Thank you, sir. To have any discussion or questions or motion. 1st and 2nd, but agency request any discussion. All in favor, say ah. I'll oppose motion passes. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Chair, we're moving to the oil and gas commission now. This is on page 23. And this language is for fund transfer. It allows the transfer of up to 1 million per year from the Oil and gas commission fund to the abandoned and orphaned well plugging fund after receiving review by the chief fiscal officer and reporting it to the Legislative council or Joint Budget Committee. The agency request is to discontinue this language and the executive recommendation is agency requests. The commission had language in 2022 to transfer $10 million. They also, they have also been awarded another 10 million in IIJ grants. This recent influx new funds has made the transfer language unnecessary, according to the agency, and the fund also receives special revenue derived from forfeited bonds, fees assessments, reimbursements, sales of hydrocarbons and equipment and abandoned wells and a few more sources. The fund received 683,000 in fiscal year 24. Any questions? Have a motion Have a motion, I have a second? Oil and gas. Have a second. Uh, any discussion all in favor say aye, all oppose. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Members, we're gonna move to the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. We're moving to page 24. We're still in volume 4 and James Penman is the analyst he'll be presenting DTSS and the Building Authority. Yes sir, Mr. Penman go recognize yourself and go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, James Penman, Legislative Research. So as said we're gonna be on page 24. The Shared Services language with Department of Transformation and Shared Services. This is the allows them to create paying accounts and transfers between line items. The this was in Act 209 of 2022, the agency. Uh, it's asking to have this language stricken because the associated paying account has not been used since fiscal year 2021. Go, go ahead. I may, I may want the agency if they're here on this. I just. Courtney Trailer, chief of staff, TSS. James Caldwell, CFO, uh, TSS. Thank you. OK, and I, I heard, I heard what our staff said and everything, you haven't used it. However, in some of it I want to forget, but back whenever we did the transformation bill that was so long and everything, we put all of this in and every cabinet. Position, I believe. So you are all are a cabinet position, correct? So, it just, and I understand we're talking about shared services for shared services, which is makes it even more confusing for, for, for me and a lot of other people, but It Uh, so how, how does this work with you all? So we have, we have shared services, so do you all never share in those or are you doing it some other way. How how does this work? I just, I'm confused a little bit. So shortly after, so after we used it in 2021 and then from what I can tell in 2022, we got separate appropriation through the state central services to fund the 5 positions that would have been paid out of that pay 9914 was what? What type of positions? the chief of staff, CFO and legal, I believe, and then HR. Are the 5 positions that we're paying out of that. OK, so those are coming straight out of state central services, but if you all need, uh, like the other agencies, what would be a, a good one if an attorney? Or something of that nature where we would share a service or you can use whatever, whatever person you want, how is, how would that be handled as a shared services through Department of Transformation and Shared Services. How would, how does that handle? So currently we have. It's all done through reporting structure pretty much so we have. Multiple lawyers that report to the chief legal and then they. Primarily work in their division, but they also lend assistance to the others as needed. So do you not get, if that happens, uh, this mechanism was set up so that you could get reimbursed, correct, correct? As far as the chief fiscal officer. So the chief is direct and transfer funds and appropriations for that, that paying account. So if you all were using one of your, your attorneys. For somebody else it it's does this exclude you? if we used it for another, if another department, how we would be able to charge another department's correct. Yeah, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. So not internally. Oh, OK, so. Really, the shared service languages as far as I understood it was specific to each department, so it's for internal to that department so anything external would require an MOU or something like that. OK, so, so within, within your department, do you just, do you just have the Department of Transportation and Shared Services, you don't have other entities that are are under you. Yes, we have division Information Systems, geographic information systems. That's good enough. So if one of those, if one of those wants to utilize. Your direct hiring of, I'm gonna use an attorney, I know there's others. Does this allow you all to not get Reimbursed for For that, from that division. How does all that work? So currently we don't get reimbursed from any of our divisions. We provide support to all of them. And it's all out of the state central service, the majority of the money that was coming into that fund was coming from state central service anyways, which is why I believe they changed it to a direct appropriation instead of the transfers. OK. Help me a little more, and I'm, I'm struggling here. I understand that. I'll admit it and I don't care as long as we get it right. So the The other, the other cabinet positions. How, how are they different from you all that they've got to continue to have theirs, but you all don't. I guess that's probably a better way for me to, to try to state it. I think part of the difference between us and some of the other cabinets is we were actually created out of transformation our our cabinet department did not exist. And I think probably another difference is, you know, our mission is to serve other departments. That's what we're here for. We're here to, um, whether it's IT or personnel, we're here to serve the other departments. So, um, with that being our mission, I think that's different than other departments that have, um, more Programmatic, for instance, um, commerce that was here earlier, you know, they have. Um, mini missions, you know, they're trying to serve different programs and so they're able to charge those programs that might be federally funded or special revenue or general revenue, but they, you know, they can rely on those different programs to fund. Um, their administration they're just getting reimbursed. From in the internal programs. And, and you, and you don't, I mean, there's no avenue that you would, that you would say that you would ever have that, that you know of? I mean, no, sir, OK, as long as we have the, um, state central services, we, you know, that's our mission is to serve. Those other, the programs that we have, which is IT personnel, procurement. It The cost of, of charging for those services to those programs doesn't seem to be a benefit. I understand. Yeah, and it, and it wouldn't be. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions? Have a motion for agency request. I have, I have a second in discussion. All in favor say aye, all opposes motion passes. Thank y'all. Penman, you have one more, right? Uh, 2 more, but they are both connected, yeah. Our next 12 sections of language are gonna be on page 33 and 34 for, uh, building Authority division. Both of these relate to their appropriation, their sustainable building design program. On page 33 there are funding transfers that outline funding transfers for sustainable building design program through development enhancement funds if the agency receives any of those funds allows them to use them for the program. And on page 34 that's the same application for any federal funds that would be received. The not to exceed $12 million in conversations with the agency, this language was, uh, added for one time monies and no additional funds from these sources are expected, so they're asking to have this language taken out and executive agrees with the agency request. Do what? any questions? I have a motion for agency request. We have a second for, yeah, yeah, motions for both 4:33 and 4:34. At 1st and 2nd in discussion. All in favor, say ah. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. Now we will go back to uh Senator Dismaine's. Um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna recognize Senator Irwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Senator Hickey, um, had directed our staff to look at creating some language that would not be specific just to the Department of Commerce, but to all agencies statewide as it related to the, um, fleet management study that's underway by the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, and as it would affect any and all purchased vehicles. Uh For any agencies. And so this language, they prepared in response to this committee's discussion and, uh, they're passing it out now for you to review. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. This, I think would be in replacement of Senator Desma's language that was specific to the Department of Commerce's appropriation, but it would encompass the Department of Commerce as well as all other agencies as it relates to, um, vehicle purchases. Do you have any questions on the handout that you have. Uh, I'd also say this is restricted to executive departments so that we're not interfering with the highway department or other constitutional offices. Yeah. You recognize. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My, my question is, Transformation and shared services. Have they left the room? Are they still here? Uh, yeah, they're still here. Hang on just a second. Can y'all come back up, please? Thank you. Mm Courtney Traylor, chief of staff, TSS. You recognize baby. Uh, my question is, where are we in this fleet management study. Has it, has it been started? Are we midway through? How long are we from completion of this study. Yes, sir. We started this back in, um, I want to say July, I may be off a little bit. Um, I started at TSS back in March to be part of the Arkansas Forward Project and, um, We, we have several, we're looking at several of the functional areas and fleet is one. So I would say we're probably midway through, we've got a lot of, um, Initial Task that we want to present and to propose that, that we do to be more efficient with our fleet management. And we're trying to finalize what, what it is we think we can do and to prioritize those things right now. So you said midway through and you said you started back in July, so and we think we'll be through by the end of December. We think there's still some wrapping up to do. I think there's, there's a lot of work left in a short period of time. We've already, um, begun to asking departments to turn in the vehicles that we've identified as underutilized. We've, um, and they've done that, they've started doing that. So we've been working with M&R to prepare them to receive the, the volume of vehicles that We've identified so we can get those sold quickly. Um, so we have, we've done quite a bit of work there, but I still think there's some finalizing of, um, What the initiatives should look like going forward. Well, I, I'm going to make a request of TS and S, uh, and, and basically that request is that next legislative council that you provide us an update on every aspect of the fleet management study and, and what, where you are on that process as well as the anything that you've identified with the vehicles at different agencies that are underutilized and you start providing that information to, to legislative council, uh, and we'll be expecting that study. Um In December. OK, I'd be happy to do that. Is this for the one in November, the next, next couple of weeks. Or he could have that if you could have that at the next meeting, I think that would be great. It, it would provide some December would be better, but I would, I'll do, I'll do whatever you would like, we will get that it would provide some confidence that this is a priority and something you're moving forward with. Thank you. Uh-huh. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On this study, is it looking at the problem that we have with vehicles bought with federal funds and what we can and cannot do with those vehicles. Well, that's one of the complicating factors is what can we do with the federal funds. One of the things we're looking at is, um, well, several options and, and no decisions have been made, but one of the things that we're looking at is does it make more sense, um, you know, today, if you purchase a vehicle with federal funds that can only be used for that specific program, which is part of what's creating some of the inefficiencies. So would it make more sense to purchase maybe with a, with a general pool of general revenue funds that we have. And then Bill the agencies based on usage. You know, that's how we've looked, we've talked to different states, that's how they do it. And so we're trying to learn more about other states and, and what makes the most sense and what has worked the best, and especially the ones that have that do that with the federal funds, it's hard to get that approval. And so what did they do? So we're not having to reinvent those steps to get that approval process, if that's the route we decide to go. OK. Is there also in the study looking at what we do with the current. fleet we have that are federal dollars that we can't transfer and we can't use them for anything else, but we're still having to maintain them. Is there a look at what we do because a lot of them are end of life. So what do we do with those parameters around when those vehicles are disposed, um, but until we have a replacement. Um, I guess process identified, we're not trying to push the disposal of those because we don't want to, we can't get rid of our, all of our federal fleet until we have a plan on replacing them. And then what is the actual process to determine the demand. What do we need to replace them with, you know, how many vehicles. So we're looking at that as well. We're also if there are federal vehicles, there is a way for us to dispose of them. I guess that's what I'm asking. OK, good, correct. Alright. Thank you. Uh-huh. Reverend Eugene, you're you're recognized. Her's going to um Do what I was gonna do, so just to recognize her. Let me. Uh, so, I'm gonna be recognized here. So what we're going to do is just, we're gonna, we're gonna add, is that OK, Mr. Chair? I apologize. So what we're gonna do is that we're just gonna add that we have, that we're gonna have approval on this, uh, uh fleet study. Is that correct? Is that the way that everybody believes that we should do it. OK. Senator Irvin, that's, uh has been presented and approved. OK, so if you'll look at this, what you have before you, the motion would be then it would say after the report has been presented and approved to Arkansas Legislative council or Joint Budget Committee executive departments may purchase vehicles. Is that the language that we are wanting. Is that correct? Representative Dalby, do you have a? And edit for me. Representing W you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not a member of the committee, so I appreciate, uh, the opportunity to, to chime in. I would suggest in that that line, Senator Ervin, that it would be after the report has been presented to and approved by instead of presented to an approved to instead of presented, you see what I'm trying to add, presented to an approved by. Would be, would be the language I would suggest, but once again, I'm not a member of the committee. I would, I would agree with that. And then we also need severability language that would be added, which is boilerplate language needs to be added to it as well, so I would direct my motion would be, if y'all don't care, give, give us, give, give us just about 2 or 3 minutes. Let us get this right, exactly right. Is that OK? Just give us a couple of minutes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll just get it exact. OK. This is committee and action working. This is a. OK. Representative Kavanaugh recognize you for a question. OK, while we're making this motion, does Adam on 95 need to be considered in this motion at all. Because this is given the department a correction, community corrections, the authority to purchase vehicles with app from the appropriations authorized for capital outlay and state opera so I guess that's what I'm saying is, do we even need to approve this one. That's what I'm asking. So when we start making the motion, we need to realize this 95 need to be included or does it need to be voted? I don't know. So. Let's deal with that. Let's deal with that when we get there. Yeah, yeah, let's. Let's do this first, then we'll look at 95. Thank you though. Senator when you recognize. OK, so this is basically what the special language will state, and it would be under the Department of Transformation and Shared Services Appropriation Bill, purchase a vehicle reg restriction. No vehicles shall be purchased by an executive department before the completion of a fleet management study to be conducted by the Department of Transformation and Sad Services. Upon completion of the fleet management study, the Department of Transformation and Shared Services shall present the report to Arkansas Legislative Council. or the Joint Budget Committee if meeting in legislative session after the report has been presented to an approved by Arkansas Legislative Council or Joint Budget Committee, executive departments may purchase vehicles. The provisions of the section shall be in effect from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. And we would add non-severability clauses. This would be a legislative recommendation to incorporate this language into agencies appropriation bill. Do I have a 2nd? Have a 1st and 2nd in discussion. Any discussion all in favor say a, I'll oppose motion passes. Now we still have 395. To take up I have a motion not to approve. Nope. Oh Oh that motion please in there. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Kavanaugh, you recognize, Kevin just came up and said that actually this language would work with this. So, it, it wouldn't, this language is not gonna supersede what we just passed. It can work in conjunction. So once they get it approved, this will just give them the appropriation line that they can buy from. So I think it's OK. Thank you. So I'm You have a motion for agency requests. I have a second. All in favor I in discussion? All in favor say aye, all oppose. Motion passes. Um I don't think we have any other business. Next meeting is