ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

Representative Milligan, if you would light up. Nothing harder than typing in that password when you're in a hurry, is it? All right, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The special language subcommittee met on Wednesday, October 23rd at 1:30 and reports the following actions. Subcommittee adopted the executive recommendations for most agency language listed in the report. The subcommittee adopted agency recommendations for language for the game and fish commission and certain agencies requesting changes. Those items are listed in the report. The subcommittee adopted the motion stating that the agency shall submit a report on all batch special language indicating when the language was initiated. The purpose of the language and just for justification to continue the language. The report shall be submitted by the November Legislative Council week. The next special language meeting will take place Wednesday, October 30th at 1:30 and MacA meeting room A. I moved for the adoption of the report. Remember as you've heard the motion. Do we have a second? We have a second. Any discussion? See none all in favor, say I. Any your post. Eyes have it. All right, moving, moving right along to. Uh, ministrative office, the courts, uh, budget analyst Jennifer Rook, if you would please have a seat. Introduce yourself for the record if you would. And if we have somebody from AOC, if you would go ahead and make your way to the table. And then introduce yourselves when you get here, please. Jennifer Rook, Bureau of Legislative Research. I'm Marty Sullivan. I'm the director of the administrative office of the courts. I'm Kristen Clark. I'm the director of the legal services division at the administrative office of the courts. Sam Kaufman, I'm the finance director at the administrative Office of the courts. I'm Brooke Stein. I'm the juvenile division director at the AOC. Good morning. Thank you for being here, Miss Ms. Brook, if you would please begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The administrative office of the courts has submitted a letter for you guys to take a look at it. It's with your agenda. It's 2 pages. In the letter, they are stating they are making no changes other than routine general ledger adjustments and no requests for additional appropriation beyond the standard minimal salary and matching amounts. Due to the upcoming election for the Chief Justice and the anticipated transition in leadership. If you'll turn with me to page 2. This is the department appropriation summary. They have 29 appropriations. They are funded from state central services Administration of Justice Fund, real estate transfer tax, federal and special revenue. They are requesting about 67 million for FY 26 and 68 million for FY 27. There are no significant changes as you can see over their authorized amount other than some changes to salary and match that were requested in the interim. And this concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? Is that, yeah, if you would please, uh, Kevin. Um, Mr. Chairman, uh, We just gave a brief summary on those agent on, on, uh, on this one because they had no change levels for the analysts to go over, but if there are any we're, but she is prepared to go over any that the committee would want. want to see, just we wanted to let the committee know why we didn't go through each one, right, Mr. Chairman? That, that's correct. Um, so members with that are there, I see some questions so I'm gonna go to representative Wootton. You're recognized. Thank you chairman, uh, I've got a question. I don't know which one of you can answer it, but in, in going down and looking at the actual expenses to the budgeted on page 2. Um, one of them that stands out is automation project, cash 0 budgeted 150,000 and then you got USDOT case management. 247 expended 484,000 budgeted. And then I see um juvenile justice reform. 137,000 spent. $1 million budgeted, I mean, how, how come there's such a distortion and then here's one specialty courts, uh, actual expenditure is zero budgeted 300,000. And uh, I mean, it just goes on and then on Only excessive appropriation. Actual 4.2442 4 million. Actual or budgeted 835,000. What, what, what such disparity between what's budgeted and what's expended. It looks like to me now, this is just me. It looks like to me you're tying up budgeted money, but you're not expending it. I mean, to me, you ought to be able to budget closer, um, And here's one adult drug court, a million dollar actual million dollar budgeting. So I mean, you got that one right on. Who wants to answer that? Thank you for the question, Representative Wootton. Uh, I'll address the specialty court related for questions. The last question that you asked was the million dollar funding that we got right on. I'll start with it. That was a million dollars, uh, grant from opioid settlement funds that the AG had granted to AOC and we had already dispersed all of those funds. That was a one time grant, which is why it looks like we did well on that. The other specialty court program that you mentioned. I think it was There was $300,000 on it, that is funding that's to support the specialty court program advisory committee up to this point, we have been using federal funds instead of the state funds to do the program evaluations that is in part because The funding that we have there is, is not a regular funding stream. It's based on a fee that is assessed and collected of some specialty court participants, um, we just felt like that was a, again, we won't always be able to rely on federal grants to do the evaluations, but we felt like that was the more fiscally appropriate way to handle that. But you see my point. Absolutely, yes. So It looks like you would have more leeway in your budgeting process of where you're using the cash. If you have a shortfall, be better to use it there than, I mean, I understand the federal grant. I understand grant money in that type of thing. But I don't know that we need to carry a, uh, you know, if you only spend 1000 and you have 10,000 budgeted. That's $9000. This tied up. That's true. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Wooten. Uh, Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here. Um, can you speak to your audit finding. On the jury reimbursement. Uh, yes, ma'am, uh, so that was actually our audit finding from fiscal year 22. Our most recent audit finding fiscal year 23, we had no findings, uh, the final report, so I'm, I'm not sure why that why 22s was presented, uh, to y'all, but I can't speak to the county jury reimbursement issue, uh. are finding related to uh We uh we're tasked with reimbursing the county's for juror expenses. However, we're capped funding wise based on the the proportion of funding that's allocated from the uh the AOJ fund, uh, to the AOC for that purpose, uh, so. In fiscal year 22, uh, honestly, we tried to get a little creative. We saw a line item for professional fees and services that we thought. Was appropriately. Available to go back to the counties for county jury reimbursement. I think it is key, uh, to remember we're essentially a pass through, uh, for reimbursing the counties, uh, legislative audit disagreed, uh, and that's fine, and we worked with the legislate with this body uh over the last two years to get special language so that we could uh One avoid that error again and 2, hopefully uh free up additional funds for county juror reimbursement if we do have any um excess appropriation at the end of the fiscal year. OK, so we have addressed the problem and it's been corrected so that we won't have it going forward. Yes, ma'am. OK, thank you. Thank you, Representative Kavanaugh, Representative Ladyman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um. I got a question on uh court automation. line 8:16 there at the top. Uh, you've got 4.3 million actual and you got budgeted 7.8 million. Um I mean, why aren't we spending more money on that. I'm on page 2. Uh, and why aren't we, uh, my question is, why aren't we moving faster on automating the courts because that should Save taxpayer money and What's the reason for that? And your, uh, A number of employees is constant throughout, so if employment's a problem, I mean. Can you increase that? Representative, um, I'm Tim Holtoff. I'm the director of the Court Information Systems division, um, Marty asked me to, to step up when, when we had the potential for some automation questions. I'm happy to to answer those questions. First, regarding the, the court automation fund, um, if we go back to the, the early time of the pandemic, we, so this is a special fund, it's not general revenue from the state. This is funded by the installment fee and the, the, uh, court automation fee that's that's applied on some types of cases, so it's, it's entirely special revenue, no general revenue in this fund, so we are bounded. By the funds that come in to this fund. So we, uh, regardless of what the appropriation is, we cannot spend any more dollars than than come into that fund, so we have to to monitor it uh very closely based on the, the revenue. In 2020, the, the revenue plummeted and, and we, we didn't have to, to do any layoffs. We didn't have to to to do any hiring freeze, but we had to, to manage a monitor very closely. In 2023, um, the, the, uh, governor and the general assembly, um, granted, uh, $20 million in ARPA funds to to focus on building our new court case management system. So we were able to to use those funds to direct the effort, um, and, and we've made substantial progress where we're approaching our first release of the software um. We're targeting, uh, December of this year, um, to, to have the base, um, uh, software completed for criminal and traffic case processing in in limited jurisdiction courts, and then from there we build out the, the rest of the system to replace our legacy system. So the, the, the first answer is why we didn't spend that much. Um, we had to build the funds back up because of the loss of revenue into that fund, so we were, we were very cautious in spending. Secondly, we had ARPA funds that helped us, uh, continue the, the development and we've made some significant progress. We've also just received additional grants from the Federal motor carrier Safety Administration and NCHIP, and then we have some designated developer positions from an adult drug court grant that are going to be focused on continuing this build effort. So, um, we're We're making progress and we have resources available to continue that progress, uh, and, and we're hoping to, to be able to, to do major releases within in the next year or two, to replace our, our legacy aging system, and I, I hope that answered your question. Yes, it does. Thank you for that question, for that answer. Uh, also on court improvement program down below 966. Uh, you got 7,560,276,000 spent. Again, that's an improvement fund, uh, why are we not spending more of that, uh, to improve the courts. Yes, sir. That is a federal fund, uh, funded, um, program where we support our dependency, neglect, our child welfare cases, our foster kid cases. We've received $400,000 a year in that fund, but it's a two-year grant, so we're allowed to Spend arguably 800,000 in one year, but we only received 400, so we have, uh, we've have an appropriation of 800 just in case we do need to spend it all within one year, but we have 2 years to spend it and we spend every penny of it. All right, thank you for that sir. Uh, one more, Mr. Chairman, if I might, uh, that AR 3 line justice reform, you got a million dollars, I think maybe someone else might ask this question. I apologize. If they did, but you spent 137,000 juveniles. are our future, and, you know, we need to spend as much as we can to improve the juvenile court. So why don't we spend more of that? This is also a 4-year grant, um, so it's kind of the same situation. We have 4, we have 4 years to spend that million dollars and trust me, my intent is to spend every penny of it. I completely agree with you about your statement about the juveniles. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative Ladyman, um, back to you, Representative Wooten. Let me follow up on uh the previous question under court automation. Um, You see a special revenue. What, what is, what how is that collected or what is the special revenue. So the, the source of revenue to that fund is mostly from the installment fee that's paid, um, when, uh, people pay their, their traffic tickets over time, they can't pay it all at once. So they, they are assessed a monthly installment fee. The state gets half that goes into that fund, and then the The, uh, local government, whether it's a city government or a county government, depending on the, which district court, they get the other half, so it's 250 per month. So that's the primary source of revenue into that fund. And, and I believe there's, um, uh, other, other work that's being, uh, taken by, by the, the legislature then underfunding sources and special revenue, it's 8,07095. With 310,000 budget it where is the 7 million. On page 20 well, actually it's on page 3. Underfunding sources, you have a special revenue, 8,000795 and uh budget is 310. But over here, on cor automation, you show $7,807 budgeted. So where is that special revenue? On the show up. Or page on page 2. The, the, um, for line item 816. Is that, is that the correct line item? Which page? On page 2. For court automation. The, the actual expenditure was 4. 3 Million Yeah, but what I'm saying, what I'm asking you. Underfunding source should, shouldn't it show up under funding sources somewhere. Yeah, yes sir, that's gonna be on page 12, uh, on the, uh, appropriation summary for the court automation specifically, I think what you're seeing on page 3 is Uh, uh, different totals, uh, for the entire. I'll say that again. Sure, yes, sir. I, I believe what you're looking for is gonna be on page 12 of your packet for the Uh, portion of appropriation summary report automation, and there you're going to see uh a breakdown that uh on funding sources that captures what uh Mr. Holtoff is. So, there's 43 positions involved in that. allocations. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Wootton, uh, going to Representative Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, and, and we could, if we need to talk. Outside of this, that's fine too, but. He help me better understand the, the court automation, OK, when we get through with this, we're gonna have something much better than what we had before and just what is that real brief what does that look like? we will never get through with this, so this, um, one of the, the major changes in our approach is to take a modern approach to software development with our focus on continuous improvement. And continuous delivery. So it's not software today, you you can't just, uh, one and done it. You, you have to, to continue to, to supply the resources to to improve it for cybersecurity to improve it for the, the changing nature of technology. So we, we will always be working on this, but we have to get that, that basic piece built first to allow us to, to track the cases. So The progress that we've made, we're getting very close to having that initial base piece where court clerks, uh, can, can enter basic case information on traffic in criminal cases or electronic citations from the state police can can be received into the system. Um, and then we continue to build on that to be able to manage every case type in our courts from, from the district court, circuit court, the appellate courts, whether it's juvenile civil domestic probate, every, every case type and then we'll be able to, to build the special functionality that's needed to better monitor specialty courts and, and, um, we'll be able to do a better job in integrating the information between our court system and, and, uh, DHS for managing and monitoring dependency neglect cases and and other juvenile cases. So, so we're, we're in, we're deep in a building process. It again, it, it'll never, we never really be done, but we'll get to that base piece where the courts can start using the system and then we continue building on it, um, in perpetuity. Brief follow-up. You're recognized, uh, so. And and now, then I'll drop this so I I guess I was sort of keen to, is there some efficiency component that this is going to help us in the future to do it with less, you know, with less of the staff or or something or speed as far as being able to turn these things around quicker, the courts are holding, I guess that all of those things are goals for building a modern case management system today, um, even though we've made great progress with, with the legacy system over the last 2. years and folks are able to do electronic filing, they're able to, to pay online. There are still in this old system, a lot of very manual processes that the, the clerks and the judges and the trial court administrators have to push the right buttons at the right time. Um, it's, it's, um, susceptible to, to, to pushing the wrong button and then we have to spend time to, to help them fix those things. But using modern technology we're able to improve the, the automation, the, the flow of the information. So for example, when um an attorney files a proposed order that that should immediately notify the judge that there's, there's a proposed order ready to be filed. The, the judge shouldn't have to go in and log into a system and and go and hunt for things and, and it's the same for, for all of the actors in the in the uh judiciary, we, we need to be able to provide information to the right people at the right time so that they can act on that information rather than having to go and hunt for information to be able to take action. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative back. Representative, uh, Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh, so this is just a clarification follow up from Representative Wooten's question. So he was asking about the court automation funding, and you directed him to page 12, um, but I think what he was really trying to ask is if you guys identified that as special revenue. Why is it not in a special revenue line. It looks like it's in the other line. Is that right? Yes, that's right. I mean, honestly, it's just a matter of. The form that is used to input it, uh, and what has been used for. I don't know 10+ years has been the other line, uh, and I think it probably qualifies under both categories, uh, and it went through the DFNA process and they. thought there was appropriate. So DFNA directed you to put it in other rather than special revenue. I put it in other based on. What has been done for the last decade or so and DFNA did not object. OK, well, I mean, I guess from my standpoint, I don't know if others agree or not, but other is difficult to identify and if it's special revenue, I would think it should be in special revenue so we can all follow it. Sure, thanks. Yes sir. All right, thank you, members, uh, seeing no other questions. Uh, do we have a motion to adopt the agency wreck. I have a motion. I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. In your post. Is have it. Thank you. All right, Ms. Brook, back to you, and I think we have up next the attorney General's office, so. If, uh, they would make their way to the table and then introduce themselves when they get here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna let them introduce themselves. Absolutely. Please introduce yourself for the record. I'm Sid Rosenbaum, chief fiscal officer for the Attorney General's office. Zach Mayo, general counsel, Attorney General's office. And I'm Robbie Riggs, deputy general counsel for the AG's office. Thank you all for being here. You're Mrs. Rook, please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Attorney General's, uh, request starts on page 34. We're going to turn to the Department of Appropriations summary, which is on page 36. They have 8 appropriations. Only 3 of them have changed levels. The agency is requesting about 42 million for each year of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation. And we'll go over those change levels. The 3 change levels are change levels in salary and match line items due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law. The first one is Medicaid frauded that can be found on page 38. It's funded from federal revenue. The second is the Medicaid fraud state that can be found on page 39, and it's funded from state central services. And the third is the cooperative Disability Investigation Program on page 44, and it is funded from federal revenue, and that completes my presentation. All right, members, do we have, I see we have, uh, Representative Kavanaugh. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank y'all for being here. My question is on page 37 on the administrative salaries. Um, when you look at that, your actual spend is like 12.6 million for 148 employees, which is like an average of 85,000 and some change, but you're gonna do for authorized to 164 and you're going to raise it to $18.5 million. That is, uh, average salary of $113,000. Why such the increase? Why do we need such the increase? Uh, so both in the, uh, previous legislative session and uh this over here to your right um, in the previous legislative session and the fiscal session, Attorney General Griffin made a priority of both, uh, increasing slots for priorities that, uh, he, he saw, uh, that to respond to legislative priorities for the office of the Attorney General and also to increase the maximum salary ranges for uh competitiveness purposes, uh, both of the private sector and to maintain. ity uh with other, uh, government lawyer positions, um, I think he's, he's spoken pretty extensively both in the media and to the legislature about, uh, that priority, so I, I believe that's at the root of the increase to the average, uh, salary for those slots and for the increase. OK, well that's a substantial amount of increase. So is that, is that what you're saying is that you're gonna do that much increase. I mean, we're not, we're talking. Uh, $5 million difference, almost $6 million difference from what you're currently paying, is what you're asking for you to be authorized to spend on your salaries, and I'm not even talking about the matching that goes with it. I'm just talking about the salaries. So are you, are you planning a pay rate increase that much? Uh, it's an increase for the authorization, as, as you know, so I, I don't think there's no plan to raise everyone to the maximum authorized for the slot, um, that is the increase for the types of slots to allow, uh, flexibility as is traditionally been offered to constitutional officers to say they can go up to this slot, but that does not mean that everyone will be paid at the maximum authorized amount. OK, so your basic answer is this is the way we've always done it, so this is the way we're doing it. OK, thank you. All right, members, any other questions? Well, Representative Woo. I have a, and you have a copy of this on the table and following up on Representative Kavanaugh's question, you have, uh, authorized 1092 positions. As of the 5th of September. And you have 2 vacant positions now. What, what are the 2 vacant positions. What makes up the bulk of those. Representative Putin, right now we have currently have 14 open positions and of those 10 are attorney positions and the 4 support staff. Of what Support staff like admin, uh, assistants to 10 attorney for admin assistant positions. OK, if I may, Mr. Chairman, in your response to Representative Kavanaugh, you made the statement that you pay, you'll pay what's authorized. So why, why the additional $6 million are you not an authorized level of compensation now. For maybe all those positions are part of them. I mean, I'm trying to, I'm like she, I'm trying to see the difference between 12 million expended and in the $6 million increase. From 80, what, 85 to 113, but if you can only, if you're only paying what's authorized per position. What are you asking for the additional money. Well, some employees will be paid more than the previous. authorized level and then we requested and received an increase to the authorized level, to a new authorized level and some employees will receive raises, but I said before, uh, I, I think is what you're is that not every employee is going to be paid at the new maximum authorized level so we don't expect the expenditures on salaries to be the full new figure. Of $18.533 million because not everyone will be. Why ask for more than you're going to use. Uh, I think that's just the. That Every slot has a maximum authorized salary and uh not everyone reaches that salary, but that entails asking for the authority to go up to that maximum salary, but that's not OK. So you're, you're anticipating perhaps asking for increases to the uh the new authorized amount. Yes, that's Attorney General Griffin has asked, uh, and received increases to the maximum authorized amounts, uh, in the past couple of legislative sessions for both uh to again meet competitive goal competitiveness goals with the rest of state government and the private sector and also to meet the critical priorities of the legislature is put with the Attorney General's office, like, uh, human trafficking, cybercrimes, things like that, um, both for attorney slots for law enforcement slots, and for our support staff. OK, are your positions under the regular compensation plan for the state. I guess what I'm getting to is we're going to overhaul. The compensation plan. first time since 20, since 2017. But we haven't received that from OPM from the McGovernor's office yet, but yet you're looking at authorized salaries based on what. Our our office is not included in the, the general state agency OPM plan, but we do, uh, we do look to the proposed increases and changes to that plan to make sure that we maintain parity with those other state agencies since we compete with those state agencies for hiring attorney slots. OK, well then, is your budget exceeding what is authorized. Well, you're basing, I understand that you have positions that are not authorized level. If I understand what you're saying, you're looking at increasing to the authorized levels and that's where the extra money will be used between the 12 million now and the 18 million you're asking for. Uh We, the Attorney General has used some of the authorized increase, uh, from the legislature to raise salaries above the previously authorized level, but not all the way up to the new authorized level. Is that, is that what you're asking? OK, so, but you're budgeting above the new authorized level, right? No, no. No, Senator, Senator Wootten, that's 18 million is what is uh what is budgeted what is authorized, so if you took every line item max, you added them all up. This is the number that she'd come up with, so that's the maximum amount per position that we can pay and and if you take the maximum of each line and add it all up, this is where you come up with the $18 million budgeting at the maximum amount. Yes, sir. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative Wootton, uh, Senator Petty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over here on your left, just a quick question on the audit finding if you could expand on that for just a second. So my understanding is the audit finding that was included in your packet is, uh, the one from, I think it's fiscal 2123. Mhm So this is um. This is, uh, we, we discussed this, I think, sort of out of order last, last year when this came up, uh, but this was under Attorney General Griffin's predecessor. There were employees that were paid above their line item maximums. This was during, uh, COVID where the governor authorized um an increase through a law that existed at that time. It doesn't exist anymore for general state agency salaries, uh, because of what, uh, Representative Wootton brought up that we are not under that plan. The Attorney General At the time, uh, decided to authorize an increase above line item max, uh, to the to certain employees of the Attorney general's office, um, that was, uh, in our, in our view not permitted by, by law, uh, the, the attorney general's office is bound by the constitutional language that says the legislature sets the maximum line on and salaries, um, so when Attorney General Griffin came into office, uh, actually an opinion request from, uh, Senator Hickey uh asked about that. issue and we responded that those were we agreed with the audit finding that those were not authorized increases, uh, and we have, we, we follow our line item maxes, and there have been no payments above line item max, and there will be no payments above line item max while Attorney General Griffins. In in office Thank you. All right. Thank you, Senator Petty, Representative Richardson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and I may have missed it. I just want to make sure I heard. On the positions you you uh you were budgeted 164, you used 148. Are you short those 16 positions? Um, I'm sorry, sir, you, you asked were short in those positions are open positions that you plan to fill. That's correct. We do plan to fill those. We, we have those advertised right now and we're actively seeking applicants to fill those positions. How long have they been open? The longest one's been open since January and then the other ones are just a few months, 34 months at the most. So these majority attorneys? Yes sir, 10 of them are attorneys for our support staff. Yes sir. I remember seeing no further questions, I'll entertain a motion for Agency rec. I have motion. I have a second, all of, uh, any discussion? All in favor, say I. In your post. Eyes have it. Thank you all for being here. This rookie may, uh, continue, and I believe up next we have the uh auditor of state if you would make your way up. And then introduce yourself for the record when you get to the table, please. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll let them introduce themselves. Jason Brady, deputy auditor. Christina, Assistant Chief of Staff. Jessica Keith, Assistant Chief of Staff. You may proceed. Thank you. The auditor has a letter. It's with your packet. It's just a one-page letter. We're gonna go over that. It's in reference to the appropriation that's on page 55. They are requesting to remove this appropriation. It's an extra help cash appropriation. This was for the prosecutors, um, for them to have the extra help to work with the backlog. This appropriation was funded from a restricted reserve release, and these funds have been expended. All right, members, so you've heard a description of the letter we need to adopt this, so I'll entertain a motion to adopt. I have a motion. I have a second, any discussion on the letter? All right, see not all in favor? In your post. I have it. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The auditor's request starts on page 45. We're gonna start out on page 46, which is the department appropriation summary. They have 11 appropriations. They are requesting about 73 million for each year of the biennium, there is no executive recommendation. They have 3 with change levels and 1 that has not been requested for the current bienniums. The 3 change levels, the first one you can find on page 47. This is their operations. It is funded from state central services. They're requesting about 3.1 million each year of the biennium. The change levels in salary and match line items are due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law. There's an increase of 3000 for conference and travel expenses due to rising cost of travel. There's an increase of 10,000 for professional fees to pay a consultant for automating their system. On page 49 is the other change level. Their unclaimed property. It's also funded from state central services. They're requesting about 2.9 million each year of the biennium. And these change levels are in salary match light items due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law. Page 52. Deputy prosecuting attorneys also funded from state central services. They're requesting about 27.5 million for each year of the biennium. Also changes just in salary and match due to, um, law. And this concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right, so we have some questions in the queue so I'm going to, uh, Representative Collins first, you're recognized. Thank you. So on page 54. Um, it looks like, so I was just kind of looking at this fun balance, um. It looks like your unclaimed property cash is the biggest component of the fund balance and you transfer out 18 million or you did transfer out 18 million in fiscal 24, um, but I mean it appears that even with that transfer route, and I am kind of curious about where that goes. It goes from 50 million to 120 million. So what, what's the sort of philosophy there? Why keep such a large fund balance in a in a larger fund balance than what we've had. Take the risk. So on the, uh, 18 million, sir, uh, and there's a statute, and if I can cite it for you, it's 18 if you would just pull that microphone a little bit apologies and my seasonal allergies are killing me. I apologize. Uh, uh, statute 18-28-213 and it authorizes DFNA to, uh, extract $18 million out of the unclaimed property fund every year. And so that has been building up over the years and you'll need to visit. DFNA will refer to them about why they do that and all that, but, uh, anyway, it's built up to about a $396 million liability in the unclaimed fund fund. But the address your other question, if you will, please, Jessica. Thank you for your question, Representative Collins. So those are funds that are actually sheeted to our office by holders of unclaimed property. So all of those funds are owed to individuals in the state of Arkansas. We work to return those funds and, and the prior fiscal year we returned to 35.6 million, um, but the remaining funds are held for property owners in the state. Um, and, and is there a time at which that, uh, they lose their right to that property. Does it expire? No, sir. There is no truest deed in the state of Arkansas. We hold those in perpetuity, except for 18 million. Correct, but the property owners are still, we still keep record of what is owed to them. So while we are operating on our budget, um, and we are underfunded as far as our total liability. We don't have um enough cash on hand to pay every property owner. We still keep that record so that they may make their claim at any time. Somewhat like a bank taking a calculated risk, then. Letting some of that go out, OK, so we should expect this fund balance to increase in perpetuity. Correct. OK, thank you. All right, thank you members see no other questions, I'll entertain a motion to adopt Agency rec. I have a motion. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? See none all in favor say aye. In your post. Eyes have it. Thank you for being here. All right. Mr. Rook, we're back to you and I see the next thing on the agenda is, uh, Court of Appeals. Yes asked them to come to the table. And then introduce yourself when you get here, please. Good morning. I'm Ann Solomon. I'm the chief staff attorney for the Court of Appeals. I'm Brandon Harrison. I'm the chief judge of the Court of Appeals. Thank you for being here, Mr. Rook, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the Court of Appeals, it starts on page 59. They only have one appropriation, which is on page 60. It is funded from state central services. They're requesting about 6.6 million each year of the biennium, there is no executive recommendation. Their change levels, our salary and match due to adjustments for employees is authorized by law. There's an increase of 25,000 in operating expenses due to IT expenses with adding extra security. Um, an increase of 12,000 in conference and travel. Again, this is due to travel costs rising. There's an increase of 40,000 in legal counsel due to a very busy criminal docket, and the court paying for the court appointed attorneys. And this concludes my presentation. All right, uh, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, over here, um, this question. That line item for special judges, are those the specialty courts or is that something different? I'm sorry, um, it's something different. So the Court of Appeals sits in panels of 3 judges. There are certain extraordinary circumstances in which all 12 of our judges might have to recuse from a case. It's happened once in the last couple of years, actually, in those instances, the Chief Justice has to appoint 3 special judges to sit on our court. When that occurs, we have spent nearly the entirety of that line item, but it is. Ordinarily something that we turn back because it's a rarity. OK, thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. I'll entertain a motion for agency rec motion 2nd, any discussion? See none, all in favor say aye. In your post. I have it. Thank you for being here. Thank you. All right, Ms. Brook, back to you and up next we have the governor's office. You would introduce yourself for the record. James Caldwell, CFO for TSS. Courtney trailer, chief of staff for TSS right, Ms. Brook, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The governor's office appropriation summary is on page 62. They have two appropriations. The agency request is about 7 million for each year of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation. The first one is their operations. It's on page 63. This is funded from state central services. They're requesting about 6.5 million for each year of the biennium. Change levels in salary and match line items are due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law. On page 64 is the governor's emergency proclamation. It's funded from the Governor's emergency fund. They're requesting $500,000 for each year of the biennium, and there are no changes to it. And this concludes my presentation. All right. I see no questions, so I'll entertain a motion. Motion. I have a second. All of any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Eyes have it. Thank you for being here. It's They get to stay. They do governor's mansion too. Good deal. All right, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Governor's main it starts on page 65. On page 66 is their department appropriation summary. They have two appropriations. The agency request is about 2 million each year of the biennium, and there is no executive recommendation. Their first appropriation is on page 67. So their operations and it's funded from state central services. They are requesting about 1.5 million for each year of the biennium. They are asking for a decrease in salary and match due to lowering the number of positions. They are asking for an increase of 12,846 in annual maintenance and an increase of 35,000 in utilities, and it's due to the rising cost of utilities. The second appropriation is on page 68. This is their Grand Hall mansion grounds appropriation. It's funded through cash funds from proceeds generated through the use of the grand hall. And they're requesting about 500,000 each year of the biennium with no change from the current biennium. And this concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. I see no one in the queue, so we're moving right along, uh, I actually appreciate this members, uh, so I, I'll entertain emotion I have emotion, I have a second, all any discussion, see none, all in favor say aye. And opposed? I just have it. Thank you. Uh, up next we have the land commissioner's office, if you would come to the table. And please introduce yourself for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm Kelly Boyd, Deputy commissioner of State lands. Thank you, Sam Sparrow fiscal fiscal director for the commissioner of State lands. Thank you for being here, Mrs. Rook. We may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The commissioner of State lands begins on page 69. Their department appropriation summary is on page 70. They have 4 appropriations. They're requesting about 37 million for each year of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation. Only one of their appropriations has a change level and that's the one I'll go over. It's on page 71, it's their operations. And the. It's funded from state central services, the agency requesting about 4.4 million for both years of the biennium. It shows in the manual that they are requesting different amounts. You can, you can see for 26 and for 27, but they've decided to change the FY 27's numbers to match what they are requesting in 26. They were going to ask for increases due to pay plan implementation but have decided to wait. And they are also adding a position, um, for a director of government affairs, and this concludes my presentation. All right, we have a question from me Ladyman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just a question on, uh, page 70. Um, where it says islands and submerged lands. You have 250,000 spent $302. Uh, can you tell me what that is? I mean, we got a lot of swamps up in northeast Arkansas. You need to spend more of that money up there. Thank you, Mr. Layman. That money, primarily we use that in the event of emergencies. You remember Northeast Arkansas a few years back, the Spring River issue under uh that time commissioner Thurston, and then we had another incident year before last on the Spring River where we mitigated in conjunction with the Game and Fish commission, another area where a young lady had passed away, uh, fell into a sinkhole. That's typically what this money is utilized for so one year we may hopefully we don't have any of those. The other thing that we use it for and to answer your question specifically, we're working with the county judge in Jackson County right now and they have sought a grant to take care of one of the big log jams on the Cache River and if they qualify for that federal grant, we've agreed to pick up the match so that Jack. Jason County doesn't have to pay that match. It's not often we can do it, but we do try to do that on matches when we can. That's my little district. I hope you're successful in doing that. That needs to be done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, uh, Representative Wootten, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On, um, The 5th Of September, you reported 41 positions. Uh, failed or authorized. Uh, but you failed to provide the information on the number of vacancies. How, how many vacancies do you have? In the fiscal session we took 4 positions out. We were authorized 45 as we moved on June 30th we were authorized 45 on June 1st, uh, July 1st we were authorized 41. Well, you didn't answer my question. My question is how many vacant positions do you have? We have 37 field positions. So you have 4 unauthorized, OK. Um, what are those four positions. What are they? We have a a deputy director of real estate. We have a customer service rep. We have, I believe it's a redemption tech. And a Governmental affairs liaison. On page uh 70 Under, uh, islands submerged lands you expended $302. You have budgeted 250,000. Well, the, one of the difference between the budgeted amount and the expenditure amount. That fund essentially exists for us as an insurance fund in the event of lack on the Spring River, an emergency rises up, we have the money to pay for that if we don't have the need to pay for it, it just stays in our budget. It comes from our cash funds. It's not appropriated from GR or special revenue. It's strictly our cash funds we maintain that balance every year. have decreased it. Um, from 4 years ago we were decreased it, but we try to hold that amount of money in the event of an emergency on one of our waterways around the state. OK, one more question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, on the fund balances you show a 53 million53.4, and then under the budget of 64, what it, what makes up that? How do you accumulate $53 million. We operate essentially on a 3 year cycle. All that money is owed back out if we sell a piece of property today. Then for one year we hold on to the money and we invest that into the certificates of deposit by the end of next week we'll have 78 of those. We held that money for one year, then the owner of the property has the right by law to seek what we call excess proceeds after the taxes fees, all the legal requirements are taken care of. Any money that the property sold for in excess of that amount becomes what we call excess proceeds that owner then has after one year, 2 years to apply to us and have it paid back to them. If they have not paid it back to us at the end of that 2 years, then it is sheets to the county within 30 days of the date of the sale typically that occurred 3 years prior. So the money you're seeing there is what's been accrued over the last 3 years and we know we're paying it out. OK. All right. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, seeing no other members in the queue. I will, uh, entertain a motion to adopt the revised recommendation as was previously stated, so I have a motion. And I have a second. All right. Any discussion on the motion? See, none, all in favor say aye. Any opposed, eyes have it. Thank you. All right. Up next we have, uh, legislative audit. And we have two letters, I believe with audit. We do. All right, if you would, uh, take a seat, introduce yourself for the record, and then Ms. Brook, you may proceed as, as you will. Kevin White, legislative auditor. Jenna Cason's CFO. David Cole's deputy legislative auditor over information systems. All right, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So legislative audit, they have two letters with your packet. One is signed by Mister White and one is signed by the committee, the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee. The first one Is asking for 10 extra help positions for FY 25. So our current. fiscal year. With 38,400 in extra help salaries and 8820 in personal services matching to initiate an internship program to begin in the summer of 2025 to help promote employment within state government. The second letter that you'll find is from the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee and it's in support of the legislative audits budget and this supplemental that they're requesting. All right, so members, we have 2 letters, one that comes from the committee recommending the, uh, changes in the adoption of the letter from Mr. White. So with that, I will entertain a motion to adopt the letter. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. Any discussion on this letter. All right. See, none, all in favor say aye. In your post I have it. You may proceed. All right. So legislative audit starts on page 75. They do have one appropriation. It's their operations. It is funded from state central services, adorum tax, federal funds, and lottery fees. They're requesting about 50 million for each year of the biennium, there is no executive recommendation. They are requesting an increase in regular salaries and matching due to adding a new IT position for cybersecurity. They are also requesting 10 positions and extra help, and this is a carryover from that letter that we just talked about. And adding 230,400 for extra help. They are one for their internship program. And this concludes my presentation. All right, members, any questions? See none, looks like you're getting off very easy. So with that, I will entertain, uh, motion. I have a motion. I have a second. Any discussion? See none all in favor say aye. In your post. I have it. Thank you. And then Director Gerty, if you would. I see you wait in the wings over there and be nice to me. All right, if you would introduce yourself. Marty Geraghty with the Bureau of Legislative Research. You may proceed. Thank you. Bureau of Legislative Research begins on page 77. Of course you guys all know that we are your staff. We act as a service agency within the legislative department. We also act as a dispersing officer for the legislature. On page 79 is the operations appropriation. This is funded from state central services. We're requesting about 22.5 million for each year of the biennium, there is no executive recommendation. Requesting an increase in contingency line item by 2 million to be able to meet the needs of the General Assembly. This is a transfer of appropriation from a previously authorized re-appropriation and this transfer will better align agency expenditures. We're gonna move on to working as a dispersing officer. It's on page 81. There's the department appropriation summary. There are 2 appropriations that are requested to continue into FY 26 and FY 27. Requesting about 1.7 million for each year of the biennium. This is a decrease from FY 25 authorized of $313,003. Again, there's no executive recommendation. The two changes are. First one is on page 83, interim committee expenses, funded from state central services, requesting about 1.5 million for each year of the biennium. There is a reallocation of 30,000 from the Energy Council appropriation found on page 84 to the per diem expenditures and mileage line item on page 83. The out of state travel line item is not being requested for the biennium because this is now being handled by the House and the Senate. The second appropriation is on page 84, the Energy Council. We're requesting to discontinue this appropriation as it is not needed as a separate appropriation, 30,000 of the 65,806 was reallocated to the interim committee expense appropriation. And this concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. OK, it looks like we have a version of Meeks in the queue, you're recognized. Hey, good morning. Um, I, I'm just curious, uh, if you could expand on the contingency line item, the $2 million there wasn't any justification given for that or what that's used for. So if you could just give us that, please. That's been a $2 million reappropriation that's been in our budget since at least 2010, um, rather than leaving it in the re-appropriation or moving it over to our, our budget because that's where we're spending out of what what can you give us example of what a contingency expense would be part of that, that we're working on, um, Some of that would be the, um, two conference rooms that we're building, um, and then part of it goes to the, um, operations, mileage per diem, um, it's, it fills that part of it. OK, kind of a almost like a miscellaneous type. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion for agency wreck at the proper time. Uh, this is the proper time, so I'll entertain that motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any post seen none, I have it. Thank you. Lieutenant Governor's office, if you would make your way. And introduce yourself for the record when you have a seat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Drew Evans, chief of staff, Lieutenant Governor's office. Thank you for being here, Mrs. Rooker. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we're going to start on page 85. is the lieutenant governor's request. On page 86 is their only appropriation. It's their operations. The agency is requesting about 573,000 for each year of the biennium. Again, there is no executive recommendation. There are change levels in salary and match line items are due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law, and this concludes my presentation. That was quick, uh, seen no questions. I'll I'll entertain emotion. I have motion. I have a second. All any discussion? All in favor say aye. He opposed, I have it. Thank you for being here. Up next we have prosecutor coordinator's office, Bob McMahon, if you would, please come to the table. Please introduce yourself for the record and then You may proceed Bob McMahon, prosecutor coordinator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Prosecutor coordinators, budget request begins on page 87. On page 88 is their department appropriation summary. They have 4 appropriations. There are 2 with change levels and 2 appropriations that they are no longer requesting. The agency is requesting about 2.3 million for each year of the biennium and the executive provides for this agency request. The first is the prosecutor coordinator operations, page 92. It's funded from state central services. The agency is requesting about 1.5 million for each year of the biennium. The executive provides for this agency request. And these are just changes in the salary and match line studio adjustments for employees is authorized by law. And on page 94 is Paul for Justice, same reasoning for salary and match. It's funded from state central services, and they're requesting about 607,000 each year of the biennium. And again, the executive provides for this request. This concludes my presentation. All right, members, do we have any questions? All right, see none. I'll entertain a motion for executive rec. I have a motion, I have a second. All in favor. Any discussion, see none, all in favor say aye. In your post I have it. Thank you. OK, moving right along. Secretary of State's office. I And I believe there's a letter as well. There is, sir. Um, let them make their way and then if you would introduce yourself. For the record, uh Senator Pitch, I know it probably feels a little different sitting down there. 100% different on this side of the equation. Senator Pitch, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary of State. Kenneth Eddington, assistant Business Office director, Secretary of State. All right, Mr. Brook, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So again, they do have a letter. It is with your packet. It's signed by John Thurston. So what they're wanting to do is eliminate. One of their appropriations, this was one time money for the Arkansas Capitol Police equipment. You can find that on page 112 of their budget. If you just want to take a look at it. But they are wanting to do away with that appropriation. And then on page 111. They're wanting to move regular salaries and personal services matching. From this appropriation to their operations appropriation so that they can put all of their Capitol Police in one salary section. I remember, so you've heard a description of the letter. I will entertain a motion to adopt the letter. I have a motion. I have a 2nd in discussion. See, none, all in favor say aye, and your post. I have it, letters adopted, please continue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Their request starts on page 99. The department appropriations summary is on page 101. They have 14 appropriations, 6 with change levels. They're requesting about 46 million for each year of the biennium, there is no executive recommendation. On page 103 is the first change level. It's their operations. It's funded from state social services requesting about 23 million each year of the biennium, and these are change levels in salary match due to adjustments for employees is authorized by law. On page 109 is the mechanical room construction appropriation. This was funded from cash funds, but they are no longer requesting this appropriation to continue. uh. Page 111 and 112. Those were the ones that were talked about in the letter. So it will change that one for 111 from it'll take that, the regular salaries and the personal services matching out, but it'll leave the appropriation level at about 850,000 for each year of the biennium. On page 114. is the county voting system grant. It's funded from a fund balance and special revenue. They're requesting 11 million for each year of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation. It is a $1 million increase in appropriation level, they would like to increase the appropriation to be prepared when they will need to replace voting equipment across the state. And on page 117 is the campaign filing and reporting system. And this is an appropriation that is, they are not requesting. This concludes my presentation. All right, thank you. Do we have any questions? See none that I, well, who, who, everyone just lit up at one time. All right, so we'll take this in, in order, Representative Wooton, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on, on the report for the 5th of September, which you have a copy there on your information not available for vacancies. How many, how many vacancies do you have that. You got that handy. We have 162 operations with the hiring of new law enforcement personnel. We have 22 openings. None of those are over a year old, um, of the 22 positions, 10 are police, 3 were filled with the same lower level police and 8 are filled by others, and we have one doing more than one job and that's yours truly the government affairs and the chief financial officer. OK. Then the next question. You have taken over the building protection or security for this building and what else did you gain? Basically we took over the building security of this as requested the legislature and DLR at the time it was requested, they asked for several buildings, but looking at that overall cost, it was pared back to just this building. So at this point, this building, how many did you did officers, did you have to add? Is that included in the 2 that's in the open spots, but we have filled 8 of them. That's why we still have 20. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Wootton, uh, Representative, uh, Jack Ladyman. Thank you. uh, on page 101 there, the first line, 003. It shows you have budgeted 162 people, but you only have one person working as at your salary, 48 million. No, no, it isn't. Is that an error or did I miss something there? Uh, you're on page 101. Yeah, am I on the wrong budget? You know, I see 162 people there, but as we just referenced, we have, you know, it shows your actual positions is one. So I'm reading that wrong. That is a mistake. I'm being told by BLR, yes. All right, thank you. All right, Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the, um, County voting systems grant funding that you're increasing a million dollars, um. You only spent a million dollars last year at 978,000, something like that. Um. You're doing this to prepare for replacing voting equipment. Do we have an estimate on when the lifespan is and. I mean, are you replacing all of them across the state or? I know there's a rotational life span of 2019. Thank you for the question. In 2019, we spent 9.1 million to replace everyone and get them all up to speed. That account has things in it for voting equipment, maintenance, etc. You see the 983,000. We anticipated that question coming in. We were asked by, I'll just say several senators, Senator Hammer led the effort because 5 year old voting equipment is going to need to be replaced and last year's budget went to that level. Rough estimates are probably gonna put what was worth 9.1 million. In 2019. You pick it 20 million, 15 million somewhere there. So we're trying to get the appropriation up to that when it comes time. So you do anticipate actually using the 11 million or close to it, each, each year to try to slowly replace these things as we're going along, that's, that is my hope is that we can replace them without one big hit, but rather in a percentage basis right now, we would probably working with Leslie in our elections department, try. to start determining which and what, but that's why that went up 1 more million. So is this if you don't get it all done, does it have a fund balance that then accumulates and carries over, so you have a set aside for that. Not so much a fund to balance, but it does keep the appropriation. This is an appropriation only that's there, it needs to be funded though. OK. Thank you. All right, thank you, Senator, uh, Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. Um, I'm on 104. My questions are about Hava Help America Road Act, uh, funding and spending, so $2.9 million spent, what did that go to in the last fiscal year and, and, uh, what do you intend on spending 4 million on next fiscal year. If you give me a second, I'll pull out. We hova is a unique thing. It's, uh, help America Vote Act, that's strictly federal dollars, uh, the 2.9 million. It was one time poll books purchase for the counties. It was actually 2.8 million. We spent 100,000 on other things with regard to that. But the harbor grants that we have, we have 3 of them that are active. You have 5 years to spend them, 3 different federal grants that we've applied for every year and received, um. You know, we put 4 million down as the plan to spend under the authorized going forward because that's the total currently of those 3, we'll see whether we get that federal funding for each of the remaining years. So does that kind of answer your question? We bought poll books is what the 2.9 was. It does in part so you apply, you can apply up to once a year or even more or just typically we apply for a federal grant every year, which helps deny those ever in the past, it doesn't look too bad. 2020, we received 1 2022, 2023, so something happened in 2021 and we'll see what happens in 2024. And that can be used for electronic voting, for example. Well, strictly for making security of the Voting Act. It's what they have to be described. You can't put them for anything else. OK, thanks. All right, Representative Fortner, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a point of information, uh, Matt, uh, uh, the 500 grill. Is that, is that in a normal year, is that a profit center or do you do that just as a service, uh, to the community and the body a little bit of both. It's on our budget as a budget line item. We have to maintain what goes in and what comes out, but it is as a service to you folks and, and by the way. You probably hear lots of banging and clanging down there. We, we are fast and furious trying to be open by January 6th for when you come back permanently so it it pays its own way pretty much yes it's within our budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I remember seeing no other questions, I will entertain a motion. I have motion. Have a second Any discussion, see none. All in favor say aye. In your post. I have it. Thank you for being here. Moving right along to the Supreme Court. You would introduce yourself for the record and then Miss Rook, you may proceed when running. Melanie Fleming, I'm the financial officer for the Arkansas Supreme Court. Shamika Young financial officer for the Arkansas Supreme Court. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supreme Court's, um, budget request starts on page 118. And on page 119 is their is their department of corporation summary. They do have two appropriations. They're requesting about 13.4 million for both years of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation. Their first appropriation is on page 120, and this is their operations. It's funded from state central services. They're requesting about 7.6 million for each year of the biennium. Increase in operating expenses by 75,000 to cover security and other costs related to the civic center, there's an increase in conference and travel by 25,000 due to increases in travel cost. The second appropriation is Bar of Arkansas. It's on page 121. expanded through cash funds through attorney license fees, requesting about 5.7 million for each year of the biennium. The only change levels are in salary and match line items due to adjustments for employees as authorized by law. And this concludes my presentation. All right, I see no members. In the queue I have a motion, I have a second. All right, any discussion? See none All those in favor say aye. And he opposed, I just have it. Thank you. Alright, uh, treasurer's office, if you would please make your way. And please introduce yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Steven Bright. I'm the chief of staff for the treasurer's office. Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Holly Beaver, and I'm an investment accountant with the treasurer's office. Good morning. I'm Jackie Baker. I'm the HR director for the treasurer's office. Thank you for being here, Ms. Rook, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Their budget request starts on page 122. On page 123, is there a department appropriations summary. They have 11 appropriations. The agency is requesting about 3.9 billion each year of the biennium. There is no executive recommendation, and there's only one appropriation with change levels, and that is on page 124. It's their operations. It's funded from state central services. The agency is requesting about 7.8 million for each year of the biennium. They're asking to decrease their extra helpline by $10,000. They're asking to increase their data processing system and services lot. I don't buy 100,000 to be in line with federal regulations to comply with Rule 4210 and we'll hire a vendor to oversee credit risk and securities transactions. There are no other changes, and this concludes my presentation. All right. I see no members in the queue. So with that I'll entertain emotion. Motion. I have a second. Any discussion? See none, all in favor say aye. He opposed, I have it. Thank you. Yeah, I think, I think y'all are. Yeah, I think you have one more item. You may proceed. Thank you, sir. So we're gonna look at county aid. This is prepared by the Association of Arkansas Counties, but the funds are distributed by the treasurer's office. Starts on page 135. On page 136 is their department appropriation summary. There are 4 appropriations, one with a change level. The agency is requesting about 568.4 million each year of the biennium, the executive recommendation is about 563.4 million for each year of the biennium. On page 139, there is a carry forward report for this agency, but they did not carry for any funding. So the appropriation with the change is on page 143. This is the mineral lease appropriation. The agency is requesting to continue with the $15 million appropriation for grants and aid, and the executive recommendation for was for it to be at 10 million. I think they've got some comments towards that, so I'm going to conclude my presentation. You recognized for comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we have spoken with the executive branch in DFNA and they are in support of the agencies, uh, request for. Uh, this appropriation. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I see we have questions in the queue, so I'll go to Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you only spent half of your appropriation. Why, why do you need? Why do you need the 15, I guess is what I'm asking you. Um OK. M. Good morning, uh, Holly Beaver. And Oh, thank you. So The the reason being is, is this particular appropriation is for an anticipated revenues, um, We distribute, um, minis from the federal government, uh, to like pass through money basically, um, from revenue sources, they could be federal funds for mineral leases, forest reserves, flood control, highway revenues, highway severance, four-lane highway, wholesale fuel tax, electric vehicle, casino funds, etc. And so, um, there have been an increase in those funds. It's been increasing, uh, each year. Um, And so, uh, particularly in the highway revenues, we do a distribution on the very last day of the fiscal year, uh, typically about 7 o'clock at night on the last day of the fiscal year. Um, and what this particular preparation would be, um, distributing and anticipated. Uh, funds, so we really don't, we wouldn't know how much we need to distribute until maybe 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon on the last day of the fiscal year, and then we would distribute it at like 7 o'clock that night. So, um, And since they are by nature unanticipated, we We don't really have, um, we don't have a lot of history. In the past, we have distributed up to $9 million and, but because of the, like I said, because of the highway revenues there has been growth. DFNA, uh, did the analysis and they recommended 15 million for this, and so, because what happens is if we had, say, we needed to distribute $11 million. It's 7 o'clock at the last hour, and we only had a $10 million appropriation, then we could not distribute to Um, those counties and so they would not get their payment. And that, that would be very bad, so, um, this is just basically a contingency for us. We only distribute what we get, um, if we get $10 we distribute $10. It's, it's passed through many only and, uh, it's, it's just giving us a legal means to distribute how much we receive. Did I answer your question, OK? Yeah, we'll just say, yeah, that's fine. OK, sorry. OK, uh, thank you, Representative going to, uh, Majority Leader Beatty. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I guess my, my question is, what happens this money if you don't distribute it and at the end of the year, there's an excess left in this account. Is it just carry over for distribution or what happens at that point? OK, I think I have an answer. We don't know. I'll give an easier question. We'll just, we'll let you get back with us on that, that way the, the, the smoke can clear out up there, um, was there any, um, on the executive objection and changing from the 15, what, what was the objection from the governor's office to, uh, go with the 10 million instead of the 15 million, some of the same concerns we had here. Why do you want 15 when you've only given out 7.8. They looked at, at a history based on a history and it it Uh, if, if Robert wants to come up and comment on it, but they looked at the historical and there really wasn't a lot of historical in the cities and so they just kind of said you didn't use it, but I don't think there was a full understanding that this is unanticipated and with the highway funds increasing that we could put ourselves in the situation on the last day of the year and so when we sent them the documentation and what we were working with. They were very um they were very happy to. to change their, their input. OK, well, we'll just assume their calculation and forecast where a good number and you said the executive is OK with it now. Yes, sir, that's what I'm being told and Mr. Breck is here also. What, what did you say to the executive that made them OK with that. We showed them that um number one, that this is um increasing revenue from the highway fund, and with it increasing, you're kind of under an unknown on the last day, and so it it should we use the whole 15? a million on the counties probably not, but if you're at 10 and you have 11, you're in trouble and we don't want you guys getting calls from the cities or the counties on the last day of the year because we would not have a mechanism on that day to correct that that appropriation. All right, sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Representative Meeks. So, uh, my, my question may be for staff here on this. When I look on page 143, when I'm looking at the appropriation summary summary, um, it has the agency recommendation at 15 and the executive recommendation at 15, so that would seem to indicate to me that that $10 million is not really the executive that the executive is recommending 15, uh, along with the agency, and this is 143. Am I reading that correctly, Mr. Anderson, through the chair, I'll let Mr. Anderson answer that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, look at the very top line when you go across and not, not the funding part. You'll see the difference in the executive recommendation needs to request there. OK, all right, I, I, I see it now. All right. uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I'll, I'll move, um, uh, agency, uh, recommendation for this budget then. OK, I'll entertain that motion. I also heard a second. Any discussion? See none, all in favor say aye. He opposed. I have it. And I think you have one more item. Yes sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're looking at municipal aid starts on page 146. This is prepared by the municipal League, and these are the funds distributed by the treasurer. On page 147 is the department appropriation summary. They have 4 appropriations. There's only one with a change level. It's similar to the last one. The agency is requesting about 256 million in appropriation each year of the biennium, the executive recommendation is about 251 million for each year of the biennium. The agency does have carry forward language. You can see that on page 150, and they are showing they carried for about $9000. On page 156 is gonna be this change level. Is the unanticipated special revenue city appropriation. This is a new appropriation that was added last session by a governor's letter and is funded by special revenue. The agency is requesting 10 million for each year of the biennium and the executive is requesting $5 million for each year of the biennium. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions? See none. I have a motion. Do I have a second? All right, it looks like people want to get out of here, so we'll move this right along. Uh, any discussion on this motion? See, none. All in favor say aye. What, what, I'm sorry, hold on. There Was there discussion, Mr. Chairman, you want to point something out to the committee, please? I, I think something that was overlooked. We have the exact same situation in this one on page 156, where the agencies requested 10 million. And the executive has recommended 5 million, um, so I just wanted the committee aware of that before they voted. OK. Did you want to be recognized? In response to, uh, Representative Beatty's question, that money goes away. If we do not keep it, it does not continue to be in that fund. It, it just does not exist anymore. And so we do not get to keep that money. Oh, OK, uh, you, you can light up and. be recognized. Um, yes, I, I would like to speak to you about the agency versus executive, uh, recommendation. Again, this is a situation just like with the county aid, uh, Robert Brech spoke with, uh, the, uh, governor's office and, uh, as it is passed through many, the agent, uh, Office of Budget and the executive are in support of the agency request now. OK, so as I understand, like the previous item, you're asking to go with the agency reg, not the executive reg, but I had a motion for executive rec. Well, uh, so one second, I had called the eyes for that motion. So if. for OK, I have a motion to expunge. I have a second. Any discussion on what we're expunging. Just teasing. I mean, I'm happy to bring him up. I also, I would also ask the agency that as we were moving through that to maybe pointed out the disparity there, but uh we're to this point. So we're going to vote on an expungement of the recommendation for the motion for executive rec. So I will call for the eyes on the expungement. in your post. All right. Now we're going to take up. Agency wreck, I have a motion for Agency rec. I have a second. Any discussion? See none, all those in favor say aye. Yeah I'll recognize you for discussion if we need to expunge, we'll do it again. Mine was a question to the previous motion, um, that I don't know that you ever actually called that motion. I, I did call the ice. Yeah, I did. OK. So This motion is for what exactly? So we, we expunge the, the vote that I called where I called the ayes in favor of executive rec. We have expunged that. We just voted on the expungement. It passed, and now we've just voted on the motion to go with agency rec. OK, so the question is, why are we doing the agency rec again over the. Executive rec. Because apparently, uh, the agents, the executive rather does not have an objection. I'm happy to bring the executive to the table? I'm fine then if they don't have. They have no objection. All right. Any other questions? Everybody know what we're doing. All right, so we've already, we've already voted that is passed for the agency recommendation. All right. We, we have personnel, uh, in room A at 1:30. Uh, so please be here tomorrow and then, uh, today and then tomorrow we have budget at 9, special language at 1:30 tomorrow, Thursday 9 o'clock for budget. Thank you, members, we are adjourned. Thank you, sir.