ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

AI recap

Transcript

All right, members, if you could go ahead and take a seat, we're going to get started here in just about one minute. All right, members, we're going to call to order. Arkansas Legislative Council, Joint Budget Committee, Budget Hearings. Appreciate everybody being here this morning. There are no reports or communications, so we're going to go on down to item C, presentation of the budget request. This time I'd like to ask Mr. Secretary Hudson to come to the table and you can bring anyone else you think might help you answer questions. And when you get set down, if you would just introduce yourself for the record, we'll get started with the presentation. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, good morning, committee, Jim Hudson, Secretary, DFA. Good morning, Jessica Moore, DFA. Andy Babitt, DFA. Good morning, Adam Penman, Bureau of Legislative Research. All right, you recognize, go ahead and proceed. Right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Our first division we're looking at today, this is going to begin on page two and three. This is DFA administration and shared services. We have one appropriation, it's funded by state central services and it provides for operations of the shared services division within DFA. Agencies requesting appropriation in the amount of $3.5 million for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agencies request. Following that, we're going to skip over to page four and five to write into DFA alcoholic beverage control administration. This division is responsible for enforcing and handling laws concerning alcohol and since the Medical Marijuana amendment and the creation of regulatory division, they also handle tobacco and medical marijuana. It's funded by general revenue, special revenues, federal revenues and cash funds. There are eight appropriations, you'll see those on page five. They only have one with change levels. The agency is requesting $9.5 million for FY28 and 29 and the executive recommendation provides for their request. The first appropriation we look at begins on page six and seven. This is for regulatory division that consists of alcoholic beverage control enforcement and alcohol tobacco control and is funded by general revenue and transfers from the Medical Marijuana implementation and operations fund. Agency is requesting appropriation of $5.2 million for FY28 and 29 and general revenue and the amount of $3.6 million for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. Our next appropriation is going to be on page eight and nine. This is their sales to minors enforcement. This is a cash and treasury account and is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of sales to minors. Agencies requesting to continue appropriation of $1.1 million for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. Next on page is 10 and 11. This is the tobacco inspection program. This is a federally funded program that allows tobacco control to assist the US FDA in inspecting retail establishments. Agency requests to continue appropriation of $972,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. Our next appropriation on page 12 and 13. This is cigarette fire safety. This is funded by special revenues and was established to set ignition standards for cigarette sold and Arkansas. Agencies requesting to continue appropriation of $50,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation on page 14 and 15. This is spiritless and vyingous beverages. This is utilized by alcoholic beverage control for general operations and is funded by special revenues derived by registration fees paid to ABC. Agency requesting to continue appropriation of $300,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. Our next appropriation on page 16 and 17. This is ATC revenue enforcement. This is for operating expenses of tobacco control board enforcement and is funded by alcohol tobacco control revenue fund. The agency is requesting 1.2 million for both years of the biennium and does include some changes. On page 17, you'll see they're asking for an increase of $100,000 in operating expenses to support the implementation of a new regulatory licensing system and they're asking to continue $50,000 in capital outlay to outfit vehicles and purchase essential enforcement equipment. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation on page 18 and 19. This is untaxed tobacco forfeiture and it is a cash and treasury fund, sorry, by the tobacco forfeiture fund, it's a cash and treasury fund funded by the tobacco forfeiture fund. The agency requests to continue appropriation of $100,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. Our next appropriation on page 20 and 21. This is the Medical Marijuana Commission, which has the responsibility to oversee medical marijuana cultivation facilities and dispensaries in the state and is funded from cultivation and dispensary application and licensing fees, agency requests to continue appropriation of $500,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for their request. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for the DFA Admin and Chair Services and alcohol beverage control administration. All right, Adam, thank you. Members, are there any questions on these? All right, we have a few representative of a ladyman you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm right here, just curiosity, but on page 13, that cigarette fire safety, what exactly is that? It's funded by cash, it looks like, but- So that is a fund that is dedicated to studying or helping mitigate cigarettes, burning and causing fires. The fund balance is relatively static, and I think we need to be looking at that and figure out there are other ways that we can use it within the tobacco space to bring that down, because it's been pretty much flat for a few years now. Yeah, it's too early. So for many years, they haven't spent any money. Not any, they spent it a little bit, I believe, but it's a very minimal amount. All right, thank you. Yeah. All right, representative Bentley, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Looking on page 21 on the Medical Marijuana Commission, we see that we expenditures are $15,000 and we're asking for $500,000 appropriation. Can you tell us why? So I'm page 21. So this spin level has been historical for the past few years. We did spend approximately $600,000 in recent fiscal years in 2023 and 22. But as of recent, it's been less than $20,000. So again, my- it's just historical. So what do we- I'm just curious why we would not- maybe go $250,000 or something versus $500,000. Right. It's refunds. So representative, this is- we keep the- we keep the preparation level at a half a million. In case we need to issue new permits or anything, and there's a refund from that. So to keep us from coming back over here for VTA when we do need to make a refund, we just maintain the half-million dollar appropriation request. Perfect. Thank you. And thank you, representative- representative lunchroom, you recognize? Thank you. Going back to what the last few questions were about. Page 19, page 21 and page 18. What cost savings can we pull out of any of this? What are- what cost savings have you come up with? For example, on page 21, there's a fund balance of $500,000. We only spent $68,000. What are the plans in the future for any cost savings? To take that to zero? So ordinarily I would say in most divisions of DFA, we're constantly looking at cost savings and trying to economize the operations. This is a unique operation in the sense that it's a regulatory enforcement operation. And so we do want to make sure that we're not cutting there and actually hurting our ability to enforce, especially when we're talking about in the tobacco space because they do a lot of work in prohibiting sales to minors. So I think we've got the scope of it just right. The real question would be, do we need to be spending a little bit more and be able to kind of draw down some of those fund balances within the allowable uses for the funds? Not to shift it to collateral uses, but core uses in terms of tobacco cessation, tobacco prevention. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Representative Garner, you're recognized. I just have a quick question that actually the fire safety brought up. I've had a couple of calls about cigarettes out the window and fires. Is that part of that? That was really with my question because when I was slipping through the book, I was like, what are we doing there? It's not kind of in the fire marshal area, it's not that in terms of general fire prevention. This is about product safety. And I say that with quotes in terms of cigarettes because there's no safe way to use a cigarette. But it's just to make sure that since you're dealing with combustible material that it's not going to ignite too easily, thus causing, you know, fires and issues like that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Representative. Representative Wooten, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, clarification from the chair. Can we cover other agencies or we just specifically on the office of the secretary or what's the protocol this morning? I want to know because I've gotten in trouble for going ahead. I heard about that. Right now, if you look at your agenda, we're just dealing with DFNA and we're dealing specifically with the alcohol beverage control administration and those categories that you see on your agenda. Questions are for others. For example, number two is DFA assessment coordination department. I would prefer you wait until that comes up to ask your questions. My questions are in general. So they're fine right now. Go ahead and I'll let you know. Okay. Thank you. Okay. First of all, you have a shown only report I have of the fifth. You have 2711 employees. Is that correct? In total. That's correct. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Those are all for us positions. Okay. 112 of those are over two years, or over two years old. Right. And the bulk of that, 55 of those are in the revenue service division. Can you give me the raise of turnover in the revenue offices? What's your raise of turnover? I don't have it for that division. We can get that and we'll get it back. Okay. I would say in general, our turnover has declined. We don't have as high turnover as we once did once we've been in the pay plan. But in the revenue services division, particularly when we're talking about our front line workers, our customer facing workers, you know, when those positions become vacant, it is a priority to fill those. Okay. We want the maximum number of people serving. And that's an average to the public. Yes, sir. That's right. So if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that the compensation package that we passed has helped, but it has not solved the problem. Well, I think you're always going to have some degree of turnover. So we'll not get to zero. I don't sense that we have a turnover issue, but let me get the exact number and we'll get it to you. All right. My next question deals with page 21. And we have actual expenditures of 15,000. And we budgeted 500,000. I think that's what I think I believe that's what represent the last one. But why the deviation between 15,500,000? All at Mr. Babich give the same explanation. It would represent Bentley asked that question to you. Okay. Representative Luton, this is the fun that we make reimbursements for. So if we were to open up a new permitting for medical marijuana and some of those applications needed to be refunded, this would be the fund we refund from. So we keep that at a historically half-million dollars because we don't know when we're going to open those up or what amount of refunds we're going to have to make. So it's an uncertainty relative to what you're going to pay out. So you try to cover it with a 500,000 on a medical marijuana. One further question, if I may. How much will you be paying to the State Department of human, of shared services out of your budget? One agency has said their, their fee or I don't know what they're going to call it. Their charge will be 260,000 dollars. This one agency's report. How much will you be paying to shared services? Are you already covering that? I'm having trouble getting my arm to around paying another agency, 260,000 dollars for the service that's been provided by the agency. It's a little different for us since DFA and shared administrative services are both funded substantially out of the State Central Services Fund. So there are some things that like some of the payroll support that we get out of, you know, SAS, we may not pay it the same way because it just be taking something out of one pocket and putting into another pocket because it's all going in the State Central Services Fund. Other things that would be like paying for licenses for software, you know, we're paying directly to them for them to be able to pay the third party. We would just need to get you an exact calculation of that. I don't know if we have that here today. I find it interesting that we're being charged out of all these years that we're charging agencies for work that's been performed by the agency. So will there be a reduction in personnel in DFA or other agencies as a result of this? Well, I think that what you're referring to really is a broader initiative through Arkansas Ford where we truly establish a back office for state government. So right now you had a few hundred individuals who were working in the HR space, for example. I would argue that there's nobody, you know, probably more qualified to run HR in state government than Kate Barnhill. She understands how that works. And so to be able to have all the HR people in shared administrative services reporting to her under her direction. So we'll get a better quality service out of that. So they're not necessarily paying twice for it. You know, the payroll expense is now shared administrative services. And the receiving department, the beneficiary of those services is paying for that fee. So the question is where the payroll is and who's paying for the fee. So what we're talking about is the transfer funds from DFA to Kate Barnhill's group to take care of HR. You won't have any HR services in your division. Now, we'll have some HR services, particularly on the employee relations side of things. Helping us with issues that may come up with supervising, you know, more than a couple of thousand employees. What we're really talking about is, you know, gaining efficiencies in the true back office administration. So the paperwork that's got to get done in order to be able to hire somebody, pay somebody and off board somebody. That is an administrative intensive function that should be centralized. That is how the private sector does that. So that's, that's supplanting what you're doing and transferring it to them. So will there be a reduction in personnel? It, I can't speak to whether I'll be a reduction in personnel. I think, you know, a lot of that we dealt with as a trition over time. In my mind, I want us to see efficiency gains, you know, in a relatively short period of time. That's my metric for success on whether or not this initiative pays off. I think we'll see that. You will see it. I think we will. I think we'll be asking questions if we don't. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Putin. I remind you probably aware to personnel to meet today at 130. So if you have any other personnel questions, that would be a good place for that. Senator Dodson, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to page 21 just briefly. If I understand it correctly, this is a fund for application fees and reimbursements of license fees. Looking back over the last several years, doesn't look like you've really topped 16,000 in expenses in that since 2021 when it was over 600,000. Is that because that was when we initially did a lot of applications and everything came on board initially? And I guess that was the lead up to a secondary part of the question. Do we anticipate over the next year that we're going to have opening for another licensing round or application round for a new license where we might have the need to reimburse anywhere close to that amount again? We certainly would not envision an expansion of the number of license holders. But there is at least one license holder that had its license revoked because it felt to operate consistent with requirements of the commission and applicable law. You know, I think we're looking at a way to reissue that license, not necessarily to grow the net number of licenses. Get that one back out there, particularly in Garland County. It's where that license holder was at. And I know Garland County is very interested in that happening. So there will be a round at some point. We've got to run rules to let us do that. But I expect in the next 12 to 24 months that to happen. And the amount of appropriation that we need to be really driven by the number of applications that work for that. Absolutely. But that's where the spikes and that's in stuff is when there's an application around. Thank you. Appreciate it. The expenses of the commission itself are very, very nominal. They're not, they're not significant. All right, Representative Ladyman. This is the last question we have in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, Secretary Hudson, this may be a difficult question. But kind of going back to what Representative Lundstrom asked about savings. So all the way from page 9, all the way to page 23, you've got these small budgets that can only be used for specific things. So it's been my experience. If you get too granular, then you've got all this money set in all these buckets that you really, you have no flexibility as a manager to be able to spend those funds where they need to be spent. And you wind up having two or three hundred percent times the amount of money you need allocated. Are you following me, Ethan? I follow, don't agree, but I follow. I didn't ask you if you agreed, but anyway, that's okay. But would it be workable if we had an account that was more flexible that could cover a number of these smaller issues, or are they required by legislation? Well, I think a great question, Representative Lundstrom, and I would say that as DFA Secretary, and remember the executive branch, if this body is at a place where you want to give us maximum flexibility on how we use the funds, thank you very much. We very much appreciate that. I know that's not your point, though. We are limited by the uses that the feds dictate for some of the particular on the tobacco side of things, so we have to be very careful about that. We can't use federal funds for tobacco enforcement in the medical marijuana space, for example, or in the alcohol space. And I think the same thing would be said of the people who pay the fees in the alcohol space, they don't want to subsidize other operations. The Christie-Lorrigan, the director for the enforcement division, has done an exceptional job trying to build a single team, and then we're just apportioning those costs out as we can based on those limitations, and then supplement as we need to with general revenue. But again, in terms of the big thing that's DFA, this is not an area of concern for me in terms of, are we as efficient as we need to be. And it is a law enforcement function, most of our staff are certified law enforcement officers. So I want to make sure that they're paid well, they're equipped well, and they go home safely every single night. Yeah, well, I appreciate that, and I understand we would be giving up power as a legislative body if we gave you more flexibility, but I've worked in the executive branch, and if we're serving the people, we need to share the power. That's my opinion. Yeah, there's just constitutional limitations also on the medical marijuana money, you know, too. So I think I think it's working, we don't have a problem, but to the extent that there's suggestions you want to give us, happy to hear those. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. Members, any other further questions on item one? Seeing none, do we have a motion for executive break? We have motion and second? Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. It takes us to item two. Same group. This is the FNA Assessment Coordination Department. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assessment Coordination begins on page 22. Their appropriation summary is going to be on page 24. This division exercises general and complete supervision over the valuation assessment and equalization of all locally assessed advalorem taxes in Arkansas. And you'll see they're funded by a mix of real property reappraisal, fund balances, advalorem tax, general revenue and cash funds. The agency has a total of four appropriations, one of which has changed levels. And the agency is requesting 20.1 million for both FY28 and 2029. Our first appropriation begins on page 25 and 26. This is the real property reappraisal program. This program has, takes the market value of real property located within Arkansas counties and reappraisers at every three to five years for taxation purposes. And it's funded by proportional transfers from several funds, including general revenue. The agency is requesting to continue appropriation of 15.7 million for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation on page 27 and 28. This is the county assessors continuing education. This is funded by $600 assessments collected annually from counties and are designated solely for operating the continuing education program for county assessors in covering all related travel and training costs. The agency is requesting to continue appropriation of $60,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation on page 29 and 30. This is the state operations appropriation. This is funded by general revenue and by transfers from the advalorem tax fund. The agency requests appropriation the amount of 4.2 million for each year of the biennium and general revenue funding and the amount of $591,000 for each year of the biennium. And this includes a change level and increase in their operating expenses appropriation of $50,000 to support implementation of a data portal project and the executive recommendation does provide for the agency's request. Our fourth appropriation begins on pages 31 and 32. This is their cash operations appropriation. This is utilized to purchase educational materials, defray and pay for evaluations of agency methods and determine their compliance with guidelines. This is also funded by proceeds from the sale of property assessment and appraisal publications and also tuition collected from citizens who enroll in assessment and appraisal courses. The agency requests to continue appropriation of $55,000 for both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for assessment coordination division. Thank you, Adam. We have a couple of questions. Representative Graham-Lick, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at page 30 and your number of positions and see in 26, we had 23 and then 27 were bumping up to 33. Are we down to employees? Are we increasing the size of the, like, by 10 employees? What's going on there? Or am I reading that wrong? So in fiscal year 23 and 26, yes, they were down to 10 employees. Currently, there's six vacancies at the assessment coordination division right now. Are we working to get in those filled? Do we need those positions? Like? I'll have Commissioner Collins come up, the division reports to him. I will tell you, we have not increased the number of authorized positions in that division. So it'd be just a question of, you know, backfilling vacant positions. Thank you. Morning, sir. If you just introduce yourself for the record. Good morning. My name is Charlie Collins. I'm the Commissioner of Revenue. And in answer to your question, we're currently below our existing positions. One of the challenges we have in ACD when we're hiring people is one geographic limitations and two, the specificity of the skill sets so it can take us a little longer. So we're going to get better about that and making sure that we get essential positions backfilled. We also have a very long tenured workforce in ACD. And so as you think about baby boomers retiring, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65. That's affecting us a little bit more in ACD as it is in other places. We've currently got a couple of those roles that were on the cusp of filling. And we'll continue to work with the secretary to make sure that we're balancing the services that we need to provide to the counties and the assessors and the companies that are working there with being as efficient as possible. So we expect that we're going to have to continue to dig to find employees for these positions just because it's a very unique skill set. Is that what you're saying? Yes sir, for example, you know, we have one position. It's not vacant at this time called ratio studies, which is a very particular method for ensuring proper implementation of appraisal methods. We have another position where you need to be an expert in agricultural land and assessments and kind of on down the line. So there's very specific requirements for those different roles and some of them are geographically focused as well where a role may be open in a certain part of the state. So now we need the technical skills plus the location. And I would add to that just in general in terms of vacancies across all DFA. Whenever we have a request from a division leader to post a vacancy, regardless of level, it comes to my office and I personally approve it. Thank you very much. Thank you representative senator dots and you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mine is also on the same page 30 there answered the part of the question, but the I guess on the assessor's school line item there is that also related to lower employees. So the cost or the expenses are lower in that category than what is normally because there's fewer employees there. Now this is not a school for our employees. This is actually continuing the education for the assessors who are around the state. So that not be more of a normal level thing that from year to year, if it's 75 assessors across the county or across the state. Well, I believe that would also include the expenses that we would have for facilities for food, we do it at central location. Gotcha. So it's it's kind of an event that we have to pay for as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'm particularly interested in how much we are spending. It looks like 14.9 million on the real property appraisal program. My understanding and I want you to correct because I don't know if I've got this correct. Counties use that. Those funds to help them do reappraisals. Correct. Okay, so do they use those funds to hire outside appraisers? Contrangers. Yes, sir. This man. Question. So if we already have some counties that have 30 or 40 people, full-time employees, why do they have to have an outside appraiser come in? It is a it is a technical endeavor and those skills are commanded highly in the marketplace. So you want somebody to understand some real estate values, the different methodologies for, you know, as you know, very well for arriving at the value for a parcel real estate. This is not something that you want to have somebody doing as an added aspect to their job once every three to five years. Okay. Has there ever been so we've got the 30 or 40 employees that are at any county or any given time some counties might be smaller, some larger. Plus our tax supported folks that come in and help them. Has there ever been any type of study or research of how many how many employees it takes to run an incisors office, the cost of those employees, the additional outside $15 million to assess property has ever been an overview of the cost of collecting those property taxes? I'm unaware of any recent study it would have been on that point. Look at Mr. Collins see if he has an answer. So directly with regard to counties and staffing county offices, I'm unaware of any study and it wouldn't be within ACD's purview to kind of do that. But with regard to the way the appraisals were representative, it's a flat fee per parcel. So that fund is $7 per parcel, so the variability is driven by the parcels, whether you have employees and some of those larger offices that actually do some of that work themselves fully contracted out. Regardless of your method, all the counties are getting a uniform $7 per parcel across the board annually. Okay, so I just don't understand this. So we've got 15 million to do the assessment and we've got $7 per parcel we charge. And then we have the property taxes on the side. So I'm just trying to understand our total costs involved and maybe you can help me offline later on that. Absolutely. I'll step out of the queue. And it's important for members to also be mindful of the ACD's role is not to supervise assessors. We cannot supervise a constitutionally separate office that is nested in the counties. Our responsibility is to establish a uniform set of standards for doing assessments throughout the state. So we have an equal consistent approach to doing property assessments. They don't report to us. So we have to influence and educate them and set the standards, but ultimately your assessors are elected locally. They report to the citizens. But we also are the ones paying for those assessments. So they may not report to us locally, but we're the ones paying for it. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Senator Flowers, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question first is on the analysis on page 31 of the cash operations. It mentions tuition collected from private citizens who enroll in assessment and appraisal courses conducted by the division. So is that those individuals more than just the county assessors that you provide education for? How does it work? How does a private citizen become to pay tuition and attend a course? Yes, ma'am. The courses are available to not only the county assessors, not only employees in the county, but also the private sector's individuals that do a lot of this different work. And the funds are relatively specific. For example, you mentioned earlier about one fund, which can reimburse assessor expenses. And then there's another fund where we can pay for people reimburse expenses for people that work in the counties. And then separately for those private sector employees, there can be tuition charge or they can purchase publications, which can help provide the materials and also our ability to help ensure compliance with the international assessing standards that they need to live up to. So it's kind of a multi variable process, but yes, all types of individuals, about 1,500 people statewide are eligible for training via ACD. So when you say they're eligible for training, there are rules that provide for who can apply to take these courses. I'm going to say yes, ma'am, but I would have to dig a little deeper because each course would have certain components to it and depending on which aspect different people may be qualified and others may be less strict. So I don't know all the rules for every course because there's a breadth of courses that are given, but there are certain standards, for example, getting certified at a different level of assessment skill like level four is required to do some activities, but not all activities. And then the other question is I guess as a follow up, trying to get a little better understanding of the questions that representative lunch from asked on page 26, where she has noted the 15 million for real property appraisal. Where, and she mentioned the $7 per assessment, where is that funding source? What is that? So ma'am, when property taxes are collected, they're allocated allocated to the public school fund, county fund, municipal funds, and from there up to $14,250,000. So $7 is then reallocated as the primary funding source for the $7 fee. In addition to that, you've authorized $1.5 million from general revenue to be used if the number of parcels, so $7 times the number of parcels exceeds the $14,250,000. So we get the current state, the combination of net general revenue plus the property tax allocation is about 15 million a year. So the current authority that the legislature has given ACD provides over the biennium for an increase in the number of properties of about 5%. So what will happen or not, obviously we don't know, certainly in the next few years, at least the next couple of bienniums, we could very well be at that level. Senator, if you'll look on page 25, just one page up from where you're at, there is a breakdown of the funding sources. From public school fund, county aid fund, and municipal aid fund, it shows you the relative percentages that are coming from each one of those. So with these mentioned sources and what Commissioner Collins just mentioned about any excess coming from a general revenue fund, where will we see that? Do we see that when we have the revenue stabilization budget, where does that come into play where we actually see a number from general revenue? Senator, if you go to page 26, you'll see the actual transfer that was needed for a fiscal year 26 of $664,000. That's the amount that they transferred in to make up the difference of the 14.25. And intra agency fund. Yes. So those are various agencies. That's the general revenue that the agency has determined that was needed to make up the difference and they transferred in to this account. Okay, from general revenue. Well, it's kind of just confusing to me that it would be noted as intra agency fund transfer. But I guess somewhere else, the umbrella would be general fund for DFNA. That's proper general revenue. I didn't hear you. Yes, that's proper. It's from general revenue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Wooten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk about personnel. You have $1,264 in actual expenditure. And then you have a budget of $1,976. Is that the 10 employees that you're short? They make up the total budget. Which page, Jim? Okay. You should be on page 30. Is that correct, Representative Wooten? It's on page 30. I'm sorry. It's on page 30 at the top column. It's $1,264 that you have. And then you have an actual expenditures. And then you have a budget of $1,976. Is there difference between the two? Is that the 10 employees? Yes. And then you have six of those positions. If my report serves me correctly, you have six of those positions that have been vacant for two years. Can you share with us why they've been vacant for two years? Yes, sir. So we are a trying to continually be as efficient as we can. So that's one subset. Subset number two is these roles have very specific requirements. Expertise levels, for example, being an expert in agricultural land, for example, or being an expert in the statistical studies of ratio analysis, for example, or having a level for appraisal's license. So the hiring process can be a little bit challenging as we're going through it. We're actually in the process now of placing two of those roles in the hiring process. And those hiring processes do take a little bit more time. But we're in the process of filling two of those that we can see that we're on a way to doing. The other thing that affects ACD a little bit is there are very many long tenured employees. So as baby boomers are aging, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65. We're seeing that affect us a little bit. But we'll continue to work with Secretary Hudson to fill the roles that are essential, but not one role more than that. Okay, then on a total budget, you have 4.2 million. You're requested 4.25. You spend $3 million, but $700,000 is held captive by the 10 vacant positions. So you're actually asking for $700,000 more than you need it. In the last 3.0 million. Yes, Representative, that would give the division the opportunity to fill those positions and have the appropriation needed to cover the salaries if hired. But do you evaluate each year those vacant positions in over two and a half years? I found some in a report from Ms. Barnum's office. I found one that's been in the health for 16 years. So you look at each one, each position, each year. Yes, sir. We're working on all the different positions. If we've got one that's been 16 years, I'd be a little bit surprised. Yeah, because I was real surprised. Well, every two years we go through a process that we've been doing now for several sessions where we're turning eliminating positions that are more than two years old. These positions that are more recently two years old would have come from the most recent reduction. So these are more clearly hitting that window. So I would be surprised if there was an ACD position that was 16 years old. But we are looking at each of the roles. We're also doing what we can to centralize and standardize so that we can minimize the number of roles we have. And then we work very closely with Secretary Hudson. And as I mentioned, we're in the process of filling those. But roles that we determine we can live without permanently. We will return those. If any, as we have in the other areas and even with ACD over the past half dozen years. Representative, Ms. Marniel sends us a list of our two year vacancies. And the disposition is turn those in unless there's a clear reason why we hold on to them. Like, you know, it's just highly specialized skills. And it's difficult to be able to fill it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Representative, ladies and gentlemen, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this question is for Commissioner Collins. Good to see you again, Charlie. And seeing you in a while. You've been sitting on this side long and you were over here, I think. But my question is kind of bills on what we've been talking about here. You're looking for people with special skills. So I guess my question is, have you all or are you beginning to look into AI to help? Because there's a lot of data study that you're looking at here for regional areas. With AI, we should be able to access that better. So do you all have a plan to look at that and see how that can improve your operation and maybe replace some of these positions that are highly skilled? I'll speak to AI in general for DFA. Yes, we are spending lots of time trying to understand the best use cases at an enterprise level. And I think we're making some progress on that, but we're not rushing into that. Because again, I think you can use AI to become efficient and do the calculations. But you actually absolutely have to have a human in the loop. To look at the output and make sure the output's reasonable, and particularly on something like real property assessments, we don't want some automated process just spitting out data without a human look at it. Well, my question relates, I think Commissioner Collins said something about regional demographics play into this. So that's something that AI could provide to help maybe help the situation. My question is, you know, are we doing that? And I think your answer is yes, you're really looking into that. So thank you. Representative Ladyman, I would just add one specific thing that the Secretary's authorized us to do, and the reason that we're asking for the incremental operation spending is the creation of the data portal, which transfers our ability to answer your questions from the old process, depending on what you ask, of us having to send emails to 75 county assessors, wait for a period of time to get however many responses we get, and then compile that information manually with this data for some questions. We'll be able to access it directly, give you better customer service, and it'll be more efficient for us as well. So automation is absolutely something we're looking at. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have three more questions, members. Remind you, we're trying to review budget requests here. So if you get too much into the weeds on personnel, I would remind you also that personnel meet today at 130, represented the back you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Excuse me. My question is pretty simple. The $7 per parcel, that's for appraisal or for the assessor of the property. I think you mentioned a $7 figure, the per parcel. So here's my confusion. It seems like it might just be that we're dancing around. We're using the term assessor and appraisal kind of as the same. I was trying to find where's that line at. I'm assuming that an appraisal or someone that goes after and says this is the value of this property. And then at that point, the assessor would then say, the taxes from this parcel are to be distributed in this manner. Millages and so on and so forth. Correct? Try to correct me from wrong. But the $7 is what gets paid to the contractor. The contractor is the appraiser. Okay. So there's an appraisal service that will be in charge of a contractor for the entire county. It is the assessor that is hiring that contractor. The $7 is what funds the contractor. That comes from us. Right. So that led to my question as far as it seems like the, I was curious as to whether or not the assessor's position could be much using AI, it would be because it seems like dividing the parcels up as to where they should go. That seems like a very AI type of function. So that was my question concerning that. But so you've cleared it up. It's an assessor that you're looking at as possible. The assessor has probably AI. They have the responsibility to do re-appraisals in every single county. It is their responsibility by constitutional amendment and by statute. They have the responsibility. So they're in control of their pace of the $14 million. Yep. It is our responsibility to ensure that they're adequately trained. And they follow a uniform set of guidelines in that process and that we fund the process. Thank you. Senator Rice, you recognize. We have one more after you. And then we'll be on to the next topic, but you recognize Senator Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the re-appraisal discussion that we're talking about, we've seen some re-appraisals double in your talking about you do the education or the assessors, but you don't tell them what to do. You put a disclaimer on that and tell them what they are allowed to do, because there's concerns a lot of times that they listen to AAC or somebody. And I presume maybe I thought maybe this program gave them one side that they run with. And sometimes they're shown by law that they got some discretion. Do you all do any type of disclaimer? I don't know if I would use the term disclaimer Senator. You know, we educate them. You know, there are statutory requirements on the reassessment process. There is a statutory process to appeal the assessment. That's all locally driven. You know, there's a county board of equalization that you can appeal to. And then you can take it from there to circuit court. Okay. So I believe the assessors understand, you know, what our role is on that. Yeah. I do think they solicit our feedback and it's helped as much as we can, but the responsibility's on them. And I'll just say that when new ones get elected, they're not for me and R, they're more vulnerable to what they're being told. I mean, that's just human nature. They're interested in learning. And if you give one side, I'm not accusing you about anything. That I just won't touch you real quickly. The 2.95 million paid for the property was building authority about the Franklin County prison property. No, sir. That was purchased by Adva. By what? Adva. That's right. Okay. Correct. So to board a correction for dollar. So. Did not sell it to the board of corrections. Okay. Did that take that off the local tax row? I can't speak that. I have no idea. You don't know if state owned property is taking off the local tax run? Not always. It depends. I'd have to look at the actual tax roll there and see. Okay. That's interesting that we don't know that. It's been two years that properties have not been used. The state spent a million dollars on it. But who can. If you've got somebody in your office could let me know. We can see we can find out. I'd be interested in that. Yes, public records. So we ought to be able to find. Yeah. And again, I'd hope we could. Not your not your part of you making the call. But I think publicly we need to know. If that pulled out of the county. I mean, we charge for depths of soil. That doesn't have it much on it. I'm charged for depths of soil on mine because part of it's. Got more soil on it. Is that correct? Again, I'd have to look at what, you know, the assessed value is to see. What the basis was on that. I don't know if it's assessed as our cultural land. Or if it's assessed as some sort of different land. Yeah. I would be interested knowing is whether that is. It was taken away from the county. We can look into it. Okay. All right. One final question. Thank you, Senator. Representative Bady, you're recognized. Good morning, guys. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on the real property of re-appraisal program. What vendors on that $7 on the re-appraisal? Do you have a list of the vendors that you utilize in that program? And the counties and the areas in which they solicit the work for the re-appraisal? I'm sure there is a list. We can get it to you. Second question is, you mentioned a three to five year re-appraisal period. But I think 139 of 2023 kicked it to four years. How many of these counties do we have on a waiver or an extension that allows them to continue on the three to five year plan? And which counties are they? They're all transitioned at this point, correct. There was a transition period, Representative. Yes, sir. I'm not sure. We'll find out how far we are into that transition period. I think they may all be fully transitioned at this point to the four year session. So everything's on a four year cycle. I think so. But we'll double check on that. All right. I think that just that transition period just completed, I believe. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Representative. Seeing no further questions. Do we have a motion for executive recognition? Good motion. No second. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. The eyes have it. That carries us down to item number three. DFNA Management Services Division. Adam, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next section is going to be DFA Budget Management Services. Its appropriation summary is on page 35. This division assists all state agencies and management of their funds, while also exercising certain agency statutory controls. You'll see it's funded by federal revenue, state central services, general revenue and cash funds. The agency has 17 total appropriations, nine of which have changed levels. They're requesting $616 million for FY28 and 29. And for the sake of time, I'll go through only those that have changed levels. Now, first appropriation is on page 37. This Victims of Crime Justice Assistance Federal, this is one of three appropriations that are being merged into the federal grant assistance appropriation that is on page 61. So I'll skip over this one until we get to page 61. Our next appropriation with change levels is going to be on page 42. This, again, is Department of Justice non-victim assistance grants. This is another one being merged with federal grant assistance. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 44. This is the agency's operations appropriation. It is funded by state central services. And they're requesting appropriation of 24.3 million for both years of the biennium. And they are requesting a change. They're asking to continue $100,000 in capital outlay for both years of the biennium to do to necessary asset acquisitions. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 46. This is information technology. This is also funded by state central services. The agency is requesting appropriation of 50.2 million for each year of the biennium, which includes an increase of $6 million in their information technology services appropriation, which reflects a shift of expenses from the commercial drivers license fund in revenue services. That's going to be on page 194. They're also asking for a decrease of $2.1 million in their Aces Billings Appropriation to Department of State Shared Services. Because of expenses shifting to that agency, I will cover that on page 231. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 58. That's going to be the Rural Health Transformation Program. This is federally funded and covers salaries, operating expenses and grants for administering federal funds, received through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Agency requests is for $500 million for each year of the biennium. There's no change level of appropriation, but they are asking to reallocate $8.7 million from grants and aid to operating expenses to support the cost of contracted technical services. Our next appropriation on page 61. This is federal grant assistance. I mentioned this before. The agency manages federal grant programs that support various goals. And they are asking to merge these into a single appropriation that would cover management of all the federal grant programs, which they are asking for a transfer, or sorry, requesting appropriation in the amount of $31.1 million for each year of the biennium, which includes a transfer of $31.1 million from those three separate appropriations that are being merged. And they are asking to reduce $5 million in grants and aid due to lower federal award levels. Our next appropriation is on page 67. That's going to be domestic violence shelter grants. This is funded by special revenue of court assessed costs to provide statewide grants to a designated domestic violence entity. The agency is requesting appropriation of $125,000 each year of the biennium, which includes an increase of $25,000 in grants and aid to utilize available funding. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 69. This is Project State Neighborhoods. This is another one of those federally funded grants that is being merged with federal grant assistance on page 61. And then our last appropriation is on page 71. This is the comprehensive opioid abuse program. This is also a federal grant program. The agency is requesting to discontinue it for each year of the biennium due to federal funding expiring. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for DFA budget management services. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to go back and ask a question about the vote of funding and the domestic violence shelter funding. It's my understanding that we're losing a significant amount of federal funding to the tune of millions of dollars for these programs. And I don't see that we have accounted for that loss anywhere in the budget. Can you give me some idea of what the plan is to ensure that we don't lose access to these services? You know, I would think that at this point, I don't envision a further runoff in the vote of funding. That declined happened in recent years, but it stabilized. Now it actually is kind of on the upswing at this point. We're not back to a place where we were before. We had an aberration about three, four years ago when the funding level spiked up, but it was not sustainable. So the point we're at right now, I think we'll be there, at least for the next biennium. Follow up. It's my understanding too that some of the domestic violence shelters are required to do some sort of matching in order to obtain state funds, which is to my understanding has resulted in some of those domestic violence shelters having to close. Can you give us some idea of what you're aware of with regard to those matching obligations and whether or not we're seeing an increase in closures of domestic violence shelters? I'm not aware of that any of you are. So representative Hudson, there is a match requirement for the federal funds. That is a part of the grant program from the federal government provoking some of these other programs we fund domestic violence shelters through. As far as closing, I'm not aware of any nor has staff maybe aware of any that are closing simply because of the matching requirement. If you have some information, I can get with you offline. Representative McCullough, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the domestic violence shelter grants here on page 67. I think it says that you guys will review the grant applications term in which applicants will receive awards under this program and retain oversight. Can you tell me more about what determines what shelters get these grants? In general, on all our funding grants, we have a rubric that we use, and then based on that, that is the funding level. On this particular one, I'll have to get you some additional details. But generally, to the best of my recollection, this is the one that we fund a portion of expenditures that the domestic violence shelter submits to us. Based on that rubric in alignment with the code section. I'd add to it, Representative, we have an advisory council of stakeholders. Representatives from sexual abuse, treatment organizations, child advocacy centers, they give us feedback on funding priorities. I guess what I'm asking is, do the shelters, are there any requirements about shelters, any credentials they have to have or anything like that? Yeah, we look to the advisory council to help us look through the list of applicants and make sure that we're funding those who have capacity to be able to actually offer the services. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. All right, members, one more. Representative Wooten here, recognize. That's me. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is on page 58. We have no actual expenditures of that 500,000. We have two positions in there at roughly $1,518,000 each. What are we doing without half a million dollars? It's a half billion, not a half million. And it's not a typo. This is the Rule Health Transformation Program. So this program is federally funded. It was just stood up about this time last year. Funds were awarded to us the end of 2025. We have obligated about $200 million for our first year awards, $209 million, as of about two weeks ago. And so we've not yet actually had any expenditures in the program. We will start having expenditures in the next fiscal year, or excuse me, the next calendar year. Okay, then my next question is on page 61. And I'm all used to so many zeros, but there's $32 million and no expenditures of that money. Is that the same thing? No, sir, it's different. The BLR analyst was referring that earlier in terms of the transfer. We consolidated various federal programs into a single appropriation. So those expenditures are in different appropriations for previous fiscal years. Okay. One more question. Is that money invested? Are we making money on that? Or are we limited by the federal government? Well, anything that is federally funded, we are subject to draws. We don't get to invest the federal money. The federal government gets to invest in money. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Representative Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a question on the rural health transformation. I know we've talked about this a little bit, but could you remind us about basically who makes the decisions about who gets the grant, who has oversight over the money, and who is determining the outcomes of those grants? Well, CMS has most of the say in terms of what can be funded at various initiatives. You know, we submitted an application about a year ago into October, last year, that really kind of set what our plan is going to be for the expenditures. And so that is what we're obligated to at this point. So at this stage, it's executing relative to our plan. So we issued notice of funding opportunities consistently, each of the four major initiatives. And then the applicants come and they tell us how they will be able to meet those requirements. And then there's just a cross section of different folks on the steering committee, myself, Janet Mann, DHS, Renée Mallory, with Department of Health and then Ted Brown, head of the DPS Crime Lab. And we together evaluate those with the assistance of our outsourced provider, BDO, to make sure they meet the requirements. And then we obviously discuss that with the government. And ultimately the government makes the decision in terms of where things get funded based on our recommendations. Okay, that's what I want to know. I think it's a, I believe it's a very transparent process. And we're really focused on getting as much engagement as we can from those who can do the work. And feedback so far has been pretty positive. But there's no, there's no legislative oversight at all. Are you appropriate? Well, yes. I take that seriously. You appropriate so. And my, and my question comes from in looking over some of the reports when it just says support of whatever it is. That to me is not an outcome yet. So, and I know we're not there. But I would like to see some outcomes from some of these, some of these grant. CMS expects us to be able to demonstrate outcomes. Okay, perfect. So that's, again, this is the first year. So a lot of the outcomes are getting stood up and building capacity to be able to actually execute on some things. Sure. But once we get into year two and the ensuing years, we have to be able to track real outcomes on that. CMS will expect that. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative. Seeing no further questions, we got one more Senator Flowers. You got in the nick of time. Thank you. You recognize recently on the news. I think I heard the governor commit maybe $3 million for rural health. With this, be a separate grant. And could it not have been merged with the federally funded appropriation for the rural health transformation program? Just one second. I make sure. Do you recall which program she announced? It was on rural health. I do recall that. And it was seemingly her effort to address hospital closings. Yeah. I think we may be talking about the same thing. I'm not, you know, a $3 million number is not coming to mind. I'm happy to follow up the governor's office and ask them. Would it have been this? This is her primary initiative in terms of rural health is this particular program. Well, would she have been referring to this? She could, again, I'm not real sure what the three million is referring to. But she has made a series of announcements as we've made awards under this program. So it could be that man. But I'll happy to ask. Well, if it was something in addition to federal funds, we would know if they were state funds in this budget proposal, which is why I think it's really probably a specific award that she was referring to. From this particular program. But I'm happy to ask. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Senator. I remember seeing no further questions. We have motion. We have motion for executive right. It was second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. All right. Members, that takes us down to item number four. The FNH child support enforcement. And Adam, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Child support enforcement. Their appropriation summary is on page 79. This agency is a federal and state effort to collect child support from noncustodial parents. And the agency also establishes and enforces orders to collect child support. They are funded out of a combination of federal funds, general revenues, fees, federal incentive payments, and the state share of temporary assistance for needy families collections. Agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of 83.8 million for both years of the biennium, and general revenue funding in the amount of 12.3 million for both years of the biennium. Agency requests includes the following changes. They are asking for a decrease of $50,000 in their professional fees line item to more closely align with historical expenditures. They are also asking to continue $100,000 in capital outlay that is needed to support computer equipment replacement and security system upgrades. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And that concludes my presentation for child support enforcement. Members, any questions on this one? All right. Seeing none with a motion. Motion for executive. Second. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Takes us down to number 5, the FNA dispersing officer. Adam, you're up again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dispersing officer's appropriation summary begins on page 81 and goes through pages 84. There are 75 total appropriations, 17 of which have changed levels. And for second time I will focus only on those appropriations that have changed levels. Dispersing officer, it executes transfers and disperses appropriations that doesn't have a purpose that would be clearly chargeable to any state agency. And they're funded primarily from special revenue, fund balances, federal revenues, and general revenues. Our first appropriation that has changed levels is going to be on page 92 and 93. Sorry, 91 and 92. This is marketing and redistribution. This provides for transfers of appropriation for state agencies, for expending or dispersing net proceeds from properties sold through this program. And it's funded from the Property Sales Holding Fund. Agency requests 2.75 million each year of the biennium. That includes an increase of $250,000 in the marketing and redistribution line item due to increased proceeds to state departments, agencies, colleges, and universities. And the executive recommendation does provide for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 98. This is the information network of Arkansas. This is to provide public access to state government information and interaction with government agencies and is funded by user fees. The agency is requesting to discontinue this appropriation for each year of the biennium due to this program transferring to the Department of Shared Administrative Services Office of State Technology. That's going to be on page 265. Any executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation with change levels is page 104. This is drug enforcement and education. This is funded by money deposited in the special state assets for Fitcher Fund and is distributed for drug interdiction, eradication, education, rehabilitation, the state crime lab and drug courts. Agency is requesting a million dollars each year of the biennium. And this includes a decrease in a million dollars in their drug enforcement and education line item to reflect changes in state wide asset for Fitcher allocations and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 106. This is baby Sharon act grants. This is funded by an income tax return check off and are used by children's hospital to assist families of medical expenses incurred with children cast off illnesses or injuries. Agency is asking for $250,000 each year of the biennium, which is a decrease of a million 750,000 to better align appropriation with available funding. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 110. This is agriculture marketing grants. This is used to provide grants to wineries and consists of 50% of fees that are deposited into the Arkansas wine grants fund. Agency is requesting appropriation of $700,000 for each year of the biennium. And this includes an increase of $100,000 in grants and aid due to a growth in wine permit issuances. And the executive recommendation does provide for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 118. This is the multi jurisdictional drug crime task force. This is for the purpose of creating and funding multi jurisdictional drug crime task forces. And consists of revenues provided by drug crime special assessments and any money authorized by the general assembly. Agency request is for $5 million each year of the biennium. This includes a decrease of $500,000 due to administrative costs previously charged no longer being allocated to this fund. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 124. This is for purchase of vehicles. This is funded by Motor Vehicle Acquisition Revolving Fund. And is for maintaining a system that provides complete inventory of all state-owned vehicles. The agency is requesting $20 million for each year of the biennium, which includes an increase of $5 million due to rising vehicle costs and aging fleet replacement needs. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 130. This is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act appropriation. This is utilized for transfers of appropriation to any agencies or institutions for all expenditures associated with the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Agency is requesting $2.5 billion for each year of the appropriation. That's a decrease of $1 billion due to expiring funds. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 142. This is the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Like the previous appropriation we covered, this is used for utilizing transfers of appropriation for expenditures related to the American Rescue Plan Act. The agency is requesting $500 million each year of the biennium, which includes a decrease of $1.6 billion in the direct appropriation line item. And $900 million reduction in their appropriation line item, both of these are due to federal funds expiring. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And our last appropriation that has changed levels is going to be on page 148. This is for state's contributions. This is funded by General Revenue and provides disbursements on an annual basis for Arkansas's dues to various interstate organizations. Agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of $1.8 million and General Revenue funding an amount of $1.7 million for each year of the biennium. And you'll notice the change levels they have listed on page 147. There are six line items that have increases. There is one line item asking to be deleted, the state and local legal center. And there is one line item, the association of racing commissioners that are being transferred to DFA's racing commission. The operations appropriation that will be covered on page 178. The net increase, net appropriation increase, per fiscal year is $28,300. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for DFA disburseing officer. All right, Adam, thank you. We have a few questions in the queue representative Collins, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm off to your right here. I would like to ask about page 158, the CARES holding. So we have 5 million in each year of the biennium as far as an appropriation. Is there money in that account? Why are we holding on to that? What do we expect that will be used? There were no expenditures in fiscal 26. Just kind of curious about the story of that. It's appropriation that would allow us to be able to return funds as we need to to the federal government looking at Andy. Great. Go ahead, Andy. Yes, Representative Collins, there is still an ongoing legal matter. And if we were to recruit from that legal matter, then this would allow us to return it to the federal government. I see. And is potentially up to $5 million at stake in the legal matter, which we would... And secondly, is the only thing that we could do with the appropriation to return to the federal government? Yes, that program from the federal government level has expired. And so there's nothing else we can do but return it. Okay. And just because we're here and approving this appropriation, what is the legal matter? Or just generally... It's a dispute with a contractor that very early in the pandemic, you know, if it failed to fulfill their obligations to the state in terms of providing personal protective materials. And so, word and mitigation, I think, you know, on the merits feel very confident that we'll win that. The question is, is it a recoverable amount? Okay. Thank you. Representative Garner, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question I have is on page 148. And it's the state and local legal center that we're zeroing out. Could you just tell me what that is and what it does? The state and local legal center on page 148, the state's contributions were just zeroing out. There was one authorized appropriation. I just don't know what that is. Do we have a state and local legal center? Representative Garner, we're going to have to get you some information back. I would hate to try to answer off the top. Well, I feel better that you all haven't heard about it. And again, you know, the thing about dispersing officer appropriation is these are not programs. You know, we're just writing checks that you tell us to write the checks as a general assembly. It is not funded. And so, we like to go through and clean up things that are appropriated but not funded and get them out of the appropriation bills. Perfect. And Mr. Chair, I have one question on the previous group that I forgot to ask. Go ahead and ask it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's the child enforcement. Child support, child support enforcement. We went from 706 to 775 positions. Are we that short of positions or is there an increase in child support issues or what's the deal there? So I would say in general, you know, of all the DFA divisions, you know, child support is, it's one of the toughest ones. I'm sure. I think it's very analogous to what we see in our county operations at DHS in terms of the nature of the work that you have to do. I think overall, you know, on their turnover, I asked that number recently and it's around five, six percent. So we're managing it well now. But I think for a period of time there, they were struggling. Pay plan is helping. It is helping a lot. So that would be another one of the areas of priority for approving postings for me because it is their our customer facing positions. Those positions are critical, critical to making sure that custodial parents, you know, have the funds they need to be able to take care of their children. And if they don't have that, then it turns into a financial obligation for the state to be able to support them. So it's better for us to make sure they're making sure they're meeting their obligations. Yeah, I'm all about getting those folks there. I just wonder what the reason was that we don't have so many. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized. Thank you. I just have some points. I'm just curious what it is on page 83 line X40. It says temporary temp appropriation. 350 million. What is that? So that's appropriation that during the interim at Arkansas Legislative Council appropriations that are non federal or cash will come in the seek additional authority. And we will transfer that appropriation to this receiving agency so you won't see the expenditures reflected here. It will be on the receiving agency side. These are not these are not appropriation for DFA use. This is just where we capture VTAs. And if you think about coming to peer, you know, VTAs are approved and peer every single month. The appropriation comes out of this appropriated amount. So constitutionally, you have to approve all appropriation, including VTAs. As you're sitting in the general assembly. Legislative Council cannot create appropriation. You authorize the appropriation to be used. It sets in this appropriation at DFA. Okay. Forgive me. What's a VTA? Various temporary appropriation. Various temporary appropriation. Is there a list of these somewhere? These happen, you know, during the interim and they come to ALC requesting temporary spending approval. Because of some set of circumstances that's occurred that's different than what was in the biennial budget, for example. And then if that's coming ongoing, we'll true it up and we'll include it in their appropriation next time it's before you. Okay. Thank you. The next question I had was on Z72. And it was on page 83, just 1, 2, 3, 4. From the bottom it said it says COVID-19 cares reimbursement. Is this the end of that 4.6 million dollars? Actually expenditures and it zeroed out. Different example. So representative lunchroom. We had two ongoing litigations. This is the Z72. That was the first litigation that was settled and refunded back to the federal government. That ties in with the Z67 above for that 5 million, which is the second part of the litigation. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. On page 82, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, about interstate metro planning grants. That's $90,000 is that for cities to apply for planning grants? What is that for? Okay. 7th down on page 182. Do you say 182 or 82? 82. I'm sorry. Okay. 82. Thank you. It's 2 dB. Okay. Representative, it's not a grant program. I can tell you that. I think we're just dispersing a certain amount for that purpose. Just one second. We're running it down. Okay. We'll get more information to staff on that matter. Okay. If you wouldn't share that with the body. And then the next question I had was the reproductive health monitoring for 564 million. What's going on there? What is that? Same page, just a couple down. So that's appropriation and funding that we transfer to the Medicaid program for children's hospital. For reproductive health monitoring? Yes. And this is outlined in special language for all at the burn center, the hospital payments, and all of the appropriations that you see listed here on page 128. Send it back to normal revenue. Okay. I think we had a line for the burn center. I'm trying to figure out what the reproductive health monitoring is. And if that's going to children's, I'd like to have some more information on that, please. We had to get that from children's. If you look on page 127, you can see the description that's there. Funds utilized to assist the hospital providing financial assistance, additional services in the areas of intensive care reproductive reproductive health research, and the burn unit. As to how much of that is being used on reproductive care. I'm not sure we can we can certainly find out. Yeah, I'd like more detail on that. We'll request that in children. Thank you. And then the last thing, and I'll get jump out of the queue, was the purchase of vehicles. We were at 1.7, and then we bumped up to 15 million, and then bumped up again to 20 million. So representative Lentstrom, the motor vehicle acquisition funds have been very difficult over the last six years. You don't see a lot of expenditures there, but we have to have the appropriation when we order the car. So when you issue a purchase order for a car, we have to have appropriation. When the car finally arrives, we also have to have appropriation. So as a good example, if we begin to look at vehicle manufacturers, they only make a certain number of cars per year that they're willing to sell to governments. So if the state police order 65 units, and we just recently had this happened, they ordered them during the 25 fiscal year, which required appropriation. They did not fulfill some of those units until the 27 fiscal year. So I had to use appropriation in 25, 26, and then in 27. So that's why you see a large discrepancy there between the appropriation and the actual spend. Does that help out? A little bit. That just seems like a real expensive jump. I get it on police cars. Those are just more expensive in general. But are these outside of police cars? How many of these are employee cars? Employee cars. We try to maintain those at a minimum. There is a website that we maintain that will identify any permanently assigned vehicles to an employee. However, there has been a review of those, and we try to monitor that very tightly. If we see that your military embarrassment, because of your job duties, increases too high, then it hoves the state to provide a card to them to offset the military embarrassment we're having to pay. Let me just circle back to the point that Andy was making that we don't lose this. A dollar of appropriation in this category does not equal a dollar of cash out the door. It's we're dealing with appropriation here. We're not dealing with actual cash expenses. So the cash expense occurs one time, but you may have to hit the appropriation count a couple of three times. So that's it just amplifies the appropriation need, but it's not a cash equivalent. Okay. All right. I'll jump out of the queue. I'm just the last thing. I'd really like to know what that five hundred and sixty four thousand is. And so if y'all can get that to me, I would appreciate it. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you representative representative Wooten. You're in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on page 81. Item 025. Fifth one. Six fifth one down. Ten million dollars. And it's for personnel personal service overtime. What what agency is that George to? And they didn't use any of it. Is that federal? Are these all federal? These are not all federal. These are passed through accounts correct. Correct representative. That is a password count for. What is that? What is that? Ten million dollars held captive for? It's for overtime for state agencies that will come in the interim if they have an additional liability at their agency. Most recently, it's been used at the Department of Corrections. It's mainly the Department of Corrections for their overtime. Correct. And they didn't take advantage of it. It's just appropriations of their current levels of authorize overtime is not sufficient. They'll come seek authority. It's still money tied up. Correct. It not here. This is appropriation to go to the agency. Item number 066. It's miscellaneous federal grants. Two billion dollars. And there's there again just an appropriation. Yes. Again, that's for the miscellaneous federal grants that are unforeseen if agencies receive grant awards or increases throughout the fiscal year. They'll come over to counsel for additional federal authority and will transfer from this account. But again, to remind members, when you're setting together as a general assembly, you have to approve all appropriations. I understand that. But what are we doing holding two billion dollars? Is it federal money? It's not funding. It's appropriation only. So if a federal grant is awarded, then they would come to counsel during the interim and get an MFG and miscellaneous federal grant so then they would have the authority to actually expend the funds. The next question has to do with network services. We had, I think it was 262 hundred and 216 thousand in actual expenditures. But we didn't have any budget for that. So where did we get the 216 thousand? And that ties back to your IT budget that you had was eight and a half million above what we budgeted for. It was 18 million and I think we budgeted 10 or 12 million. So here's 216 thousand that we didn't have an appropriation for and yet an R budget request, but we spent 216 thousand. Different years, sir. The expenditures were occurring in FY26. That's what's on the sheet. FY27, we don't have any appropriation. We don't have any budget expenditures. We're removing it from our appropriation book. This was, this is not for DFA's IT services. This is, this benefits all state government. This was transferred by statute, change in statute from DFA to SAS. So we'll show up in SAS as appropriation. All right. Adam, one GD drug enforcement. It had an expenditure of 236 well budgeted budgeted expenditure of 236 thousand, but yet the budget amount is two million. Our appropriation is two million and the agency request is a million and the executive request is a million. How do we balance that? I mean, how do you deal with that? Just some forfeatures. So it's, this is a forfeiture, this is a forfeiture account. So it really all depends upon how much forfeatures we actually collect. And so we're reducing the amount of requested appropriation to a smaller amount to a million dollars versus two million dollars. But depending upon the interdictions that are occurring and how much we're ceasing the appropriations can be 200,000 that could be, you know, 900,000. We just want to make sure that we have available appropriation that if we get the forfeiture, we can deal with it. Okay. And this, this has to do with the question that the representative wants to ask. We have 20 million dollars agency request, executive request, 20 million for vehicles. We only spent 1.7 million. What's, what's. Is it, or do we face the same thing there at late delivery in another fiscal year? No, sir, I just refer you back to the answer I gave ribs in the lunchroom, which is this is appropriation. And so sometimes we have to have multiple appropriations for a single expenditure. So $1 appropriation in this line item does not equal $1 expenditure. But I still don't understand why we have 20 million dollars. Are we spending that much money for vehicles? Again, we're not spending. We don't have cash going out the door of $20 million. We need that level of appropriation in order to be able to buy the vehicles we need to be able to buy at less cash than $20 million, substantially less cash. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Beck, you're the third one in the queue with two after you. You're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this will be quick. I'm looking at page 134. So I'm looking at the appropriation. I'm talking to 26 was $3.5 million. They didn't spend all that leaving us a surplus of $1.8 million. And that was what was spent in 27. Although it was appropriated that they could for 3.5, excuse me 3.5 million. So now it doesn't look like any revenues were transferred in in 27. They basically spent down the surplus that they had from 26. But yet we're carrying the appropriations out at 3.5 for 28 and 29. We're keeping the existing appropriation level on that recommending that and the governor's office is an agreement. This is always something that is funded kind of in a one time basis. So we used restricted reserve transfers last time. We'll continue to evaluate the needs for that. But also keep in mind that there are crossovers in years. So the money doesn't always come out at once. It really depends on how much expenditures are sent to us. So we think we ought to keep it just in case we do get extra funding that could come in to be able to support the program further. Thank you. All right, two more rips in the gardener and then after that will be Senator Dotson. So rips in the gardener, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on page 134, the pregnancy health organization grants. Obviously I have a question about that. I've looked at the report, the yearly report on the grants and what went to those grants. And basically most of them said pregnancy support. That doesn't really tell us anything. So my question is again here, who makes the decisions for those grants, who monitors the money and who determines the outcomes of those grants? Two. Okay. So with the pregnancy health organizations in special language, that dictates how we dispose. And there's a requirement for the organization to have existed. And I'm not going to quote the day because I don't remember it off the top of my head. But they had to be in existence as of a certain date. And then they have to provide certain services and they cannot provide certain other services. And so it's all laid out in that special language in our preparation act. And that's exactly how we fulfill those. We take in applications. Excuse me. And then based on the amount of funding we have, we make disbursements. So pretty much if you're an eligible organization, you're going to get funded at some level. I think I'm aware of your data requests and understand, you know, your interest in this area. DFA's role is as a dispersing agent. We're not a super intending authority for the pregnancy health organizations. What we do is make sure that they spend the money consistent with what their application said. But the sentiment and the expressed, you know, expression of the general assembly is, we're going to fund these organizations. And so we're funding them consistent with that. Okay. And then so, so nobody really is looking to see that their application is correct. No, we're reviewing the applications. But again, you know that if they say they have an ultrasound, they have an ultrasound. If they have a physician, they have a physician. Right. But if the question is in terms of outcomes, we're not, we're not healthcare providers. We're not setting, you know, some sort of super intending authority to determine outcomes on that. We will make sure that they're spending the money consistent with what's allowed in terms of the program and that it meets what their application to propose budget is. So do you have more information than what was on that report? So when, when somebody says pregnancy support, that that's okay. That's enough. Well, no, we're reviewing detailed expenditures. Okay. So we're making sure that there are receipts for anything that's coming in and verifying the veracity of requests for reimbursement. That I guess is what I would like to know, what, what they're spending, what they're spending the money on and where we, where there are gaps and where we need to fill those gaps in other places. That's what I'm looking for. Okay. Well, I think we are reports consistent with what special language requires if there's specific things that any member wants, you know, BLR will reach out to us and we'll try the best we can to provide that information. Great. We're talking about the expenditure of public funds, so other public records. Thank you. Appreciate it. Senator Dawson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back on page 81, 82, specifically related to item number 159, the administrative of Justice Fund. Is that, how does that fund work, I guess, with the appropriation request 21 million, but last year expended to an a half million. Is that fund get court finds and awards? How does that work as far as dispersing? So the administration of Justice Fund does receive filing fees and court costs from each county that is submitted monthly to DFA. And then those are dispersed out. And so we're at the mercy of how much the courts finds and fees that they're assessed. Has there ever been a year, though, that we've done 21 million dollars worth of dispersing for those things? On page 100, you'll see the transfers agencies of 28 million dollars, and that's outlined in our special language within DFA. On who receives those funds and at what allocation? So it transfers 28 million from. Correct. So that that fund has to have 21 million to allow for up to 21 million worth of transfer authority? That's correct. And then also on page 82 and 83 specifically related to the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act. And then the American Rescue Plan Act, obviously I see the reduction because of the some of the exploration of funds. But how much longer are we expecting those funds to, I mean, I see 500 million for the American Rescue Plan as your request for the next year. So I was thinking those are about done, aren't they? Yeah, all the ARPA funds are fully obligated at this point. From state, you know, local fiscal recovery fund, those had to be fully expended by the end of the year. There are direct awards that went to various departments that will continue into subsequent fiscal years. We have to have a sufficient balance there so that if money has to be returned to the federal government, we have the appropriation available and be able to do that. Okay. As you can see, we've, we've truncated that amount significantly at this point. Correct. And I would expect as we get into FY 29, we're going to whack it down some more once we kind of see what the flows out are. Similar with the infrastructure and job act. Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. I just a little bit different because there's some historical programs that are nested in that that may continue for a longer period of time. Okay. But by and large is the same principle. Appreciate you taking that issue and whacking that down. Yes, sir, as we go. Thank you. All right. Last one. Representative Bady. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to go back over that 20 million on car purchases. I'm joking. Motion for executive rent. We have a motion second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you, Representative Bady. Members, that takes us on over to the next page item 6, the FNA Racing Commission. Adam, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This appropriation summary is on page 177. Racing Commission has the sole jurisdiction over third red horse racing and now casino gaming in the state of Arkansas. They're funded primarily with cash funds, state central services, fund balances and general revenue. You'll see they have five appropriations, one of which their operations appropriation has changed levels. And for sake of time, I only focus on those that have changed levels. So turn to page 178 and 179. This is the agency's operations appropriation. And it is funded by general revenue. Agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of 1.4 million for both years of the biennium and general revenue funding of 1.4 million for both years. And the agency request includes the following changes. They're asking for an increase of $15,000 in overtime to support seasonal operating activities. And they're also asking for an increase of $21,000 in operating expenses to support the transfer of the membership news expenses we talked about on page 140. So we're going to go out on page 147 that were transferred from the FAA dispersing officer to the racing commission. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for racing commission. Thank you. Members, any questions? All right. Seeing none, go ahead. Motion? Motion for executive recommendation. We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Do you have any revenue division? Adam, your opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Revenue division is going to begin on page 188. Their appropriation summary is on page 193. Revenue Services Division is responsible for collecting taxes, assessing taxpayer compliance with revenue laws, maintaining driver history records, and licensing motor vehicles in the state. They're funded primarily by tax refunds, state central services, fund balances, cash funds, and special revenues. On 193, you'll see the agency has nine total appropriations, five of which have changed levels. They're requesting 1.3 billion for both years of the biennium. And as before, I'll focus only on those appropriations that have changed levels. First appropriation with change levels is going to begin on 197. This is the income, individual income tax, and add floor and property tax rebates appropriation. This is used to refund individual tax payers and amounts as maybe determined by the chief fiscal officer of the state. And for property tax rebates on the assessed value of taxable real property. Agency is requesting appropriation of 730 million each year of the biennium, which includes a decrease of 50 million in refunds and reimbursements line item to align with historical expenditure trends. Our next appropriation on page 199 is corporate income tax. Like the one before, this is used to make tax refunds. This one's for corporate tax payers. Agency is requesting appropriation of 150 million in each year of the biennium, which includes a decrease of 50 million dollars in refunds and reimbursements to align with historical expenditure needs. Our next appropriation with change levels is going to be on page 205. This is miscellaneous tax refunds. And like for, this is for tax rebates that fall into miscellaneous categories. There's a list of some of them on page 204. It's funded by the miscellaneous revolving fund. The agency is requesting appropriation of 275 million in each year of the biennium, which includes an increase of 100 million dollars in the refunds and reimbursements line item to better align with historical expenditures. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. On the next page, on 206 and 207, this is their operations appropriation. This is funded by state central services. The agency is requesting appropriation of $134 million for both years of the biennium and includes the following changes. We're asking to continue a continuation of their $600,000 in capital outlay to support their IT needs. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And our last appropriation with change levels is going to be on page 209. This is the motor vehicle special plates appropriation. This is provided funded by cash funds and is for disbursement of design use and fundraising fees collected for motor vehicle special license plates. The agency is requesting appropriation in the amount of 5.5 million each year of the biennium and includes an increase of $500,000 in their appropriation to align with increased collections of specialty license plate fees and their distributions to designated entities. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for revenue services division. Thank you, Adam. We do have a couple of questions. Representative Collins, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm on page 197. This is the individual income tax and ad or property tax rebates. I see that you're cutting the appropriation or proposing to cut the appropriation by $50 million from $780 million to $730 million in both years of the biennium. I see it was only $558 million in fiscal 26, but even two years ago was $787 million in the year before that $768 million. So I guess I just want to make sure we're not cutting too close to the bone here by reducing that to $730 or do you guys have some structural reason why you think that refunds will not be coming up to the levels they were two and three years ago. So Representative Collins, we have special language that allows us to transfer between all these refund appropriations each time we do, we have to report to ALC. So what we're trying to do here is align these better with our more recent spend knowing that if we have to have additional appropriation for refunds specifically for individual income tax, we can transfer it from the other refund appropriations. Taxpayers will get their refunds. We'll make sure that. Well, I have no doubt about that, but I guess I mean, the corporate you have a little bit more leeway, I think a couple years ago you're at $137 million, but is there anything really, I mean, I guess you're just saying you'll get the money later, but we're not really expecting necessarily that we will stay under $730 million. No, I mean, we're doing reasonable forecasting on what we think we'll need, but Andy's point is that if we miss that and we need more, we have special language that lets us move appropriation around to be able to plug that whole. We'd rather come to you and ask for a lower number than overshoot the number. All right, thank you. Representative lunchroom. Just a quick point of information. Where was that property tax line in here, the fund? You said there was a property tax reimbursement. It's they had Laura property tax and it's on 197, 196, 197. Okay, and that's for property tax rebates, correct? I'm just trying to understand it. This is not the property tax, the like the homestead tax credit is that's what you're asking. Yes, I'm just trying to figure out what this fund is. This is for just straight, if somebody on that forum, in essence, overpays us, files their return. And then if they do refund, this is where the refund comes from. Property tax rebates or the homestead tax credit is actually nested in the treasure states office. And that's where that that appropriational rest. Explain to me how they would overpay. I want to add Vlorum. Add Vlorum's an interesting area. This is the, if our call correctly, this is for common carrier. Yes, it's common carrier. So common carrier utility, real properties. Those are minister at PSC. So it's, the PSC acts essentially as the county collector for common carrier. So truckers, trucking companies, utility companies, ports. And so they have to administer refunds or collections. And then we provide the appropriation for that. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. One final question. Representative Bady, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my question is on the special plates. The increase of half a million to, in collection and then distribution of those funds. Can you explain that further for me? How, how that's going to cost us $500,000 more? This is, this is simply when, if you were to have a specially played. I'm thinking of the colleges and universities. This gives us the authority to disperse to them. And as new plates come online, obviously we see a peak interest the first couple of years. And so we've got a couple of new plates. I believe they're about to come online. And so we're in those. And so you're telling us those couple of new plates are going to cost us a half a million dollars. And just getting that money to the proper entity to receive the fees. I think that the explanation is that we're collecting the fees from the plate holder. And we're remitting, we had that preparation to remit to the colleges and to the organizations. They're share of that. So that's really going to be a product of the increase distribution. Cells are up. Cells are up. And that's just a pass-through. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. I lied. We have two more representative Wooten. You're up. Very quickly on page 193. You show 1385 positions in actual expenditures. 1528 and budgeted. 1545 under appropriation. And then you're asking for 1492. Are you giving? First of all, is the 55 positions that are over two years are laid to be added to the 1385? Or are they included? So within this division, to get to the 1492, this division is transferring several positions out of this agency to our shared services as well as to budget management services. So that's inclusive here. And then we've also done the two-year vacant reduction of positions in this division as well. So that's all captured in that picture on the 1393. Well, the 1492 that your agency and the executive branch is asking for, is that the total number with the reduction of approximately 40, 50 positions? Is that what we're looking at? Correct, and that reduction is due to the transfer. Where did those positions go? So part of the transfer was to better align with how we operate at DFA. Some of those came into budget management services, which is the area that Jessica and I work in. The smaller number went to shared services, which is where Secretary Hudson and his appropriation lies. These are intra DFA trains. They went to your shared services division. Within DFA. So what are they going to do? If we're moving an X amount of work to the state, to the shared services of the state, what did we need to transfer 45 or 50 positions to your shared service office? Not all shared services have moved to SAS. We've moved some IT functions, some personnel functions, but we still have accounting functions. We still have a lot of IT functions in DFA. So there's still shared services to get done in DFA. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm on 193 as well. I was just looking at this fund balance, which goes from 14 million in fiscal 26 to 8 in fiscal 27. 3.9 in fiscal 28, and then 53 in fiscal 29. Why does it go from 3.9 to 53 million and how? So Representative Collins, this is our CDL fund. And last biennium, we had a large fund balance. We utilized that fund balance on one time expenditures to stand up certain programs, including our mobile drivers license program. And as those, as that fund balance has decreased, the ongoing operations are what's been transferred over into our information technology appropriation. I don't think I'd quite follow. First, this is the summary, but you're saying that 100% of that differences from the CDL. So you're talking about the 14 million in special revenue? No, I'm talking about the fund balance, the 14 million fund balance. So the top line there, not the special revenue line. It's decreasing through fiscal 28, but then from fiscal 28 to fiscal 29, you have it increasing by $50 million. Representative Collins. So from the 26 to 27, the decline is for the CDL, as Andy mentioned. But going forward into 28, 29, that's assuming that there will be increased collections on individual income tax collection side. And so as we know, that's a timing matter. It's not actually going to be a real last fund balance there. So it's just the way the manual is structured. It's assuming that we'll have 53 million excess funding. And that will be from what income tax collection. So if you go to page 197, it's projecting that $53 million fund balance based on the collections in 28. Why would we not have that 53 million in fiscal 28? So in this assumption, it would assume that it has the fund balance. It has a fund balance of $3 million, but we know that we're going to cut what we bring in will push out. And so it wouldn't be, it will be a timing issue. And it may not be real as it just assumes that we will have $780 million of collections, but only $730 million of refunds. I guess I still don't understand. Will this go away? Is it presumed to go away in fiscal 30? I mean, is it, or does it just stay in there? Is it a $53 million fund balance projected, or is it a $3 million? I have to still just, and this is on me. I've just done understand how this works. Let me take a stab at it. And obviously, it's to Ms. Moore's point. It's really more about the formula in the books. It's derivative of how many actual, how much we actually collect in income taxes, and how much we actually issue in refunds. And so we don't know what the balance will be. It assumes that it's going to be that, that maximum amount from the past, but it may not be that. It's just really going to depend on what the actual is. And why the difference? Well, think of it as a true fund balance. It's really just more of a, of a derivation of the number of funds saying that right. I'm going to accept that. I just understand the difference between fiscal 28 and fiscal 29. They're both projections. One projects $3 million, one projects $53 million. Why the difference in those two? So the $3 million is a carry forward from the existing fiscal year. Assuming we'll also collect $780 million. And then it takes in consideration that you're going to utilize the full $730 million in appropriation above. And then that will flow into $28, into $29. Okay. All right. I'll get up. Thank you. All right. Representative Paner, did you have a question? Are you good? Okay. You're welcome. Representative Woolridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 192, we're talking about vehicle registration registration certificate. I'm assuming that's the piece of registration paper that you get when you license your vehicle. So while we're talking about that are on the subject, what other certificates are required for like specialty type use? And my example would be in my area that I get to serve there are several cotton gins. I'm being told by gin owners that they're required to have a $400 permit to run a module truck on a road. So that would be in addition to having to be legally registered to operate that vehicle. And my question would be, A, Y, and B, how many other categories out there exist? And where is that calculated? Well, I asked Mr. Hammer to come up who runs our motor vehicle division. I can't tell you what the requirements are for sure for that. Representative Woolridge, what is a modular truck? That picks up cotton mills, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And I learned something today. Yes, sir Wayne Hamrick with DFA. Yes, sir. You let me repeat that question. Yes, sir, just so we can be clear. I can sure do it. So we're talking about having to have a license vehicle on the road. I understand, obviously, the 2.5 million for the registration of vehicles. But I'm being told by gin owners that are in the district I serve that they are having to have an additional certificate to run a module truck on a road, which is to the chairman's point. A truck that picks up cotton bales after they've been processed in the field. I've been told that's around $300 to $400 per truck per year. Okay, so it's my understanding that that permit fee. All of that is included in the registration. So I'm not quite familiar with what they could be referring to. And as far as the cotton modules, those are special mobile equipment and how they're registered. So I would need to look into that just for some clarity on that. How about we get you a comprehensive list. And if you want to send us, you know, any specific questions beyond that particular piece of equipment. We'll get you catalog of all potential fees that could be assessed on that. Well, I appreciate that. I think that would be helpful. And you know, my point would be if they're legal to run on the highway and additional fee to be able to process for a vehicle that you use for 30 days a year seems ridiculous. But I appreciate the information. And all the fees that we assess are fees that you direct us by statute to assess. So there should be a corresponding statute out there that imposes that fee. But we'll check. Absolutely. Maybe we can unwind that. Thank you. Thank you representative. Representative lunchroom. Yes. My questions for the chair or for director Hudson. Do we ever keep up or is there a line item here of all the finds that we have? The penalties collected by DFNA. It would be multiple line items. And we report those every single month to BLR. They're in the revenue report that you'll see each month. Okay. And you will have year to date numbers. You have comparisons year over year as well. All right. Thank you so much. All right, representative. We know I'm going to give you the last one. All right, Mr. Chairman. I've got one question of a secretary. And we discussed it several months ago. Okay. What is what are we losing a year in funding? Because people are not paying their sales tax like everybody else. I don't think we have an exact number. I think it's substantial. And it's well. We have the report. I think we can BLR gave the report to the committee that was looking into the collection at the point of licensing. But I'm looking at Mr. Daring, I think. How much money we're losing. And it's a substantial amount of money because people are failing to pay their sales tax on their automobile. Correct. And you said, told me it was an enforcement problem. So we need to do something to get that right because there's thousands of people that are paying their sales tax like they should on the date they should. And there's, but there's many thousands that are running the highways that are not paying their fee. We, you extended out the registration period from 30 days to 60 days, a couple sessions ago. We'd hope that that would have made it better. It has not made it better. At the end of the day, we have tax scoff laws, you know, abounding. And we are missing revenue because that I think as long as those vehicles are allowed to operate on the roads, the issue is going to continue. So that vehicle is interdicted and pounded. I don't know what else to be. We don't have enforcement authority. Obviously on that, that would be, you know, with local law enforcement. And they have their own enforcement priorities. I see on daily and everyone in this room, members of the legislature and the general public and agencies. They see the loss in place, the paper plates every single day that people owe their tax on that motor vehicle. Is that not correct? That's correct. It's the longest sales tax is collected. So we're telling this body that it's an enforcement problem that we need to be stricter owned. As long as a matter of policy that we're collecting the sales tax at the point of registration versus the point of purchase, we're going to keep chasing that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you. Good to see you, Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I can also add to the question that DFA, we receive the information regarding the temporary tags from the dealers. We do review those temporary tags compared to the registration records that we received to make sure and verify that the individual that made the vehicle purchase is paying their registration fee and their sales tax. And in those circumstances where they have not, we do assess the individual that made the vehicle purchase based upon the information that we received from the dealers. All right. Thank you, Paul. Appreciate that. Members, seeing all the questions, we have a motion for executive work. We have that. We have a second. A second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. All right. Members, flip the page. Takes us over to number eight. Shared administrative services. We're going to switch out teams. Except for Adam. You're staying. And if you would, please just introduce yourself for the record and then we'll get on with it. Good morning. I'm Leslie Fiskin, Secretary of Shared Administrative Services. Good morning, Courtney Trailer, Shared Administrative Services. James Caldwell, CFO Shared Administrative Services. All right. Thank you for being here. Adam, you go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For Shared Administrative Services, we're going to start on page 1215 with their appropriation summary. SAS is responsible for collaboration across state government and providing statewide shared services. They're funded primarily through service charges, fund balances, state central services, M&R sales and cash funds. You'll see the agency has eight appropriations, five of which have change levels. And for a sake of time, I'll go through only those that have change levels. Our first appropriation is going to be on page 217. This is the Office of Property Risk, their operations appropriation. This provides for operation of the Office of Property Risk and is responsible for managing property insurance for all state agencies. This is funded by the Captive Insurance Program Trust Fund and the agency is requesting appropriation of $242 million for both years of the biennium. This includes a reallocation of $13,000 to conference and travel from their operating expenses to support the agency's needs and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation with change levels is going to be on page 221. This is for statewide shared services, the commission stipend and mileage payments. This is for payment of stipends and mileage to commission members of the public school employee health benefit advisory commission and the same for state employee health benefit advisory commission. Agency is requesting $14,000 each year of the biennium. That's a reduction of $86,000 and overall appropriation due to decreased stipend and travel needs and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is on page 224. This is SAS miscellaneous cash used to provide spending authority for various activities within shared administrative services like the Office of Personal Management, interagency training program, the Office of State Procurement Seminars, vendor fees and rebates and employee benefits division. Agency is requesting appropriation of $5.9 million for both years of biennium, which includes the following changes. They're asking for an increase of $5,000 in overtime appropriation, an increase of $830,000 in operating expenses appropriation, and an increase of 168,000 in operating expenses to support ongoing licensing costs associated with the state's new digital procurement solution. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation is going to be on page 228. This is marketing and redistribution. This provides for operating of the M&R program because state agencies are required to dispose of furnishings, equipment, vehicles, and other inventory items through M&R. And funding for this is provided via fees, charge for goods and services offered through the M&R warehouse. Agency requests 1.2 million for both years of biennium, which includes a reallocation of 27,000 from operating expenses to ensure adequate staffing and continuity of services during peak periods and has a breakdown on page 227, $15,000 increase in extra help, $5,000 to overtime appropriation, and $5,000 to comfort and travel for training and interstate learning opportunities. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And our last appropriation that has changed levels is going to be on page 233. This is state-wide shared services, which supports department-wide administrative functions so it funds employee benefits division, provides for office of personnel management and state procurement, and it's funded by state central services. Agency requests appropriation of 24.3 million both years of the biennium, which includes an increase of 2.6 million in operating expenses to support ongoing licensing costs for the new time and leave system being implemented in FY27. They're asking to reallocate $18,000 to comfort and travel from operating expenses to support essential travel needed for skilled development, certification requirements, and ongoing training. And there's the transfer of 2.1 million in ACES buildings appropriation. This is what we mentioned on page 45 from department administration in their budget management services. To cover expenses shifting to the agency for the state's cloud-based HR system. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for shared administrative services. All right. Thank you, Adam. One question represented, Bentley. Thank you, Chairman. On page 224 over here is. I see a pretty big increase in salary positions. Can you tell us what those new positions are going to do? I think going from 22 to 35. And I just curious what those new employees are going to be doing. So those are existing positions that are currently funded by state central services. We are moving 12 positions from EBD into their cash funds. And then we're also moving three positions from the office of state procurement that manage the credit card program. To be paid out of those credit card rebates that are earned. Instead of state central services. Okay. So maybe thank you. Representative Beck you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on same page 224. The jump in operating expenses is pretty dramatic. It's basically a million dollars. It was 953,000. That's 1.9. Why is those operating expenses so much higher? Those were the operating expenses that came along with the employees that transferred from state central services to the cash funds. All right. Thank you. All right. Representative Wolken you're up. Questions for the secretary. In general speaking you have 499 employees. I'm sorry. You have 499 employees and 76 of them are over two years old. And you're asking for additional positions to take care of. Exactly how much money will you receive from the agencies in total by transferring some of the work from the agencies to your agency. One and one agency has reported us $260,000 that they're going to pay your agency. Where is that in your budget and how what is the total amount that you're going to draft from other agencies to your agency. Yes, we're happy to answer that. I think you're specifically referring to the office of personal management and the... I'm referring to the fact that your agency is going to assume responsibility for different roles and different agencies as a presently in the agencies. How much money in total will your agency receive from other agencies of state government? Okay. Yes, I understand. All right. The total projected buildings for this fiscal year is $8 million. And that will all of the people that are currently in state central services. So this $8 million will then reimburse state central services for those positions. Okay. inexpensive. If that's correct, then what services are you going to perform for the agencies that have not been that are being performed by the agencies. In other words, what is our total cost going to be $8 million for employees. What is our total cost in total that you're drafting from each agency? Not individually, but totally. Is it $8 million? That's the total. $8 million is the total. Total. Yeah. And what services will you be performing for agencies that they're already performing themselves at the present time, but they're shifting to you outside of personnel? I understand that. That would include payroll. We would be centralizing the payroll functions. A lot of those have transferred from the department over to OPM to our department, as well as recruiting. So we've enhanced our recruiting services that we offer on especially with the go live of our upgrade of our software. And so we do statewide recruiting for the departments. And so that's done consistently. We screen the applicants and provide those qualified applicants to the departments as well as the onboarding process that's included with that. So all of that has shifted to our department. Well, the agencies have input into the recruitment of what you're recruiting. Absolutely. What would be based on what information from them? Yes, absolutely. Yes, sir. So what would the savings be to the state by doing this? I don't know that we are able to identify as savings to the state. We're hoping that we will quickly be able to do that. So as Secretary Hudson mentioned, we, that is absolutely the goal is to have a savings and efficiency, as well as consistency across how we screen and hire. So I believe that we will have that over time over the next, probably by next fiscal year, we should be able to report some savings. And I think that will happen through attrition. And what formula do you use in order to charge the percentage to each agency? What amount or how do you arrive at that? What DFA always wants to work as a tourism owes and vice versa? So under the cost allocation plan for OPM, we are allocating all of the, our project expenses for these services. We are allocating it based on a per budgeted position, similar to how employee benefits is budgeted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking at page 228. That budget has a lot of movement in it and just curious on a couple of things. That conference in travel is up from, looks like 1,000 to 6,000. And then you've got extra help from zero to 20,000. What's all the movement there? Is there big changes? And if you look down to the funding sources, the M&R sales was 3.5 million. It says it's 1.2 million. Well, what's going on there? So the M&R sales, they are approximately 3,000,000 to 3.5 million per year. This is the portion that M&R gets based on the percentage split with the departments. So part of that money goes back to the departments and isn't included in M&R's budget. Okay. And then the movement, we're trying to be a little bit more efficient. When they have high volume, being able to hire extra help would be very beneficial to them to get the time to pick items up and get them listed for sale. And then same thing with overtime, occasionally there's been a need for it and they didn't have any appropriation there. So we're trying to add a little bit to give them some flexibility so they can be a little bit more efficient in their operations. What about the travel experience? Travel. So that is, we are trying to learn from other states currently so that we can find ways to be more efficient. To whether it's more online sales or something like that, but this is, they haven't historically had enough appropriation to actually go anywhere and do any kind of extra training or learn from anybody. And this is going to allow them that opportunity. Thank you. All right, Senator Urban, you recognize? Thank you. If you quickly page two, two 16, 17, 18, I wanted to ask you about the state's captive insurance program trust fund. So we have the trust fund is the 75 million that is going to sit there for the reserves. So looking at this initial, is this an estimation of claims at 15 million? But how do we get these numbers specifically on 217? And on the funding sources, will we find that in the line item of our institutions of higher ed public schools that they would be transferring that money to you in service charges or in the interagency fund transfers? The service charges are actually the premium. So that's where that would be coming from. Okay. And then what about the interagency fund transfers on that funding? So that was that was when the old a mate plan transferred to us from commerce. Okay. That was the money that we were transferred from them. Okay. And again, on the claims up at the top where we have, you know, the 50 million is that just kind of an estimation of what we anticipate that may or may not be. I mean, I know it's an appropriation of a budget. The way the captive is structured are the state's liability in any one year for claims is 50 million. So that appropriation gives us the ability. If we were to have a catastrophic year and have to pay out the full liability. Okay. So just based on an actual real number basically. Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Good to hear from you. All right. Seeing no other questions with a motion. The motion. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none all those in favor say aye. Opposed? The eyes have it. All right. Next section is item nine. This would be a building authority. Adam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Building authority begins on page 234 with their appropriation summary on page 235. This division is responsible for obtaining sites for state agencies. Authorizing leasing of property for and buy state agencies and assisting agencies in construction of public buildings. You see they are primarily funded by fund balances, rental incomes, general revenues, loan repayments and cash funds. The agency has nine total appropriations, five of which have changed levels. And total they're requesting 52 million for both years of the biennium. And executive provides for their requests. Now as before I'll focus only on those appropriations that have changed levels. The first of which is on page 237. This is the Army Navy hospital fire and security grant. The agency is requesting to establish this appropriation. This was previously a miscellaneous federal grant that was approved by ALC in FY27. This is funded by a federal grant and is for security and fire safety upgrades designed to reduce the risk of fire that could damage historic structures as spread to adjacent hot springs national park. The appropriation has what have changes of $550,000 in operating expenses, $48,000 in professional fees, $200,000 in capital outlay, and $1 million in FY28 and $750,000 in FY29 in the fire and protective services grant line items. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation with change levels is on page 239. This is for the justice building construction. It's a cash fund. This provides for debt service obligations associated with construction and renovation of the justice building. The agency is requesting appropriation of $2 million for each year of the biennium, which includes a reallocation of $2 million to debt service from their construction appropriation to align with the agency's needs since the completion of the construction phase of the project. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our next appropriation with change levels is on page 241. This is the operations appropriation. This is funded by General Revenue. They're requesting $2.2 million in both appropriation and general revenue funding for both years of the biennium, which includes a reallocation of $3,000 to operating expenses from comforts and travel to align with the agency's needs. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Next we'll have on page 243. This is building maintenance. This is funded from rental income and reimbursements from building authority owned or operated buildings. And it supports the property management and critical maintenance needs of those state owned and DBA operated buildings. The agency requests appropriation of $27.9 million for both years of the biennium, and this includes a reallocation of $30,000 to extra help from operating expenses to align with the agency's needs. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Our last appropriation with change levels is going to be on page 247. This is for the justice building operations. And is funding is provided under special language provisions for a transfer from state central services to their maintenance fund. The agency requests appropriations of $727,000 for both years of the biennium. And this includes an increase of $6,000 in overtime to ensure sufficient staffing for essential after hours and weekend work. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for building authority. All right. Thank you, Adam. We do have just a couple of questions. Representative Collins recognized. Thank you. I'm over to your right. On acquisition and maintenance, I see that there is, and this is on page 245. There's a $4.3 million appropriation that is the current and also being retained in both years of the biennium. Looking back, it appears that since fiscal 18, we've never spent more than 450,000 in that line item. And then, of course, in fiscal 26, we only spent 2800. Is this for prison land acquisition or is it for something specific or why is such a larger appropriation there and expected to be retained? This appropriation is there in case there's a need, a department has a need to build a building. They are able to transfer the funds to DBA and then they can use this appropriation in order to purchase it. The most recent, they assisted offices of state technology with purchasing part of the data center. Okay. So this, I guess we have this book here that maybe this will be our question. Those very little being expended in this, are you saying that actually we do expend significantly more? No, this is kind of just there in case it's needed. It's more of a contingency type of appropriation. But it's not reserved for the prisoner intended for this. No, it's not intended for that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lundstrom. Yes, thank you, Chairman. On page 243, we have the state's rental property and we have the total expenditures of 18 million in change. We have an income of 15 million. So we're supplementing our rental property by 3 million. So a portion of the funding in that is fund balance that's retained through efficiency savings through the rental of those buildings that DBA then uses. They transfer to a critical maintenance sub fund and they use that for the bigger maintenance projects at the buildings. Okay. At what point though rental property does pay it for itself and you have maintenance and your insurance and it shows should have more of an income. Why isn't that happening here? Are buildings very young or what seems to be the problem? So in the 2026 budget, we, or 2025 budget, we transferred this critical maintenance and combined it with this appropriation. It seems to be a standalone. So now the two are combined. That's why it, it looks like we're spending more than what the buildings are bringing in. It's because we have more critical maintenance projects in the last year. Okay. I'm going to digest this and I'll get back in the queue if I need to. Senator Putin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm on page 4243 also under rent space. What is that? We didn't spend any money on the buildings on the rental space. Zero under actual expenditures. Yes, that is a contingency appropriation in case something were to happen to DBA's offices. They would be able to get a short-term rental of office space so they can continue to spend any money at all and upkeep maintenance of any of the buildings on upkeep. That would be in the operating expenses and in the critical maintenance line. The operating expense. Why the difference in the budget of virtually $10 million? You spend $18 million and you're asking for $27.902 million? Why the difference? What do you anticipate happening or occurring that requires you to have a $10 million cushion? So two and a half million of that is related to the critical maintenance projects and those vary from year to year depending on the need and the available funding. And then the rest of it is we probably need to take a closer look in the future. You need to be closer in your budgeting. Is that what you're saying? Yes, I hold it. You're holding captive $10 million over $10 million. Yeah, and it's historically been because we want to make sure that if something happens and we do have a need that it's available to them. And Layla, I believe it's here. You're showing a $12 million fund balance. Is that correct? Yes, and part of that is what set aside for critical maintenance projects. Thank you. And those are the projects over $100,000. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you. Representative Layton, all you got to the last question. I'm barely out in there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you define what you mean by critical maintenance? And is that I'm over here. I'm right here. And what do you mean by that? So is that on different properties than the rental properties? No, sir. It's on the rental properties, but it's any project that would be a capital expenditure. So anything that's going to be over $5,000, it's going to be a bigger project that includes construction and that kind of things, remodeling buildings, elevators, cooling systems, things like that. But that still doesn't answer the representative one's from question about we're losing money because you're spending, you're not putting money in a long term maintenance account. I mean, it seems like we're losing money here. That's where the fund balance is. It's money that's been put in there. Some years we're going to spend more than we bring in. Other years we're going to spend less than we bring in. This past year we had a couple of bigger renovation projects, and that's why it spent the fund balance down some. Shouldn't you have a capital improvement line for that? That is the special maintenance. And we do have inside that fund balance set aside in a separate fund. It just doesn't show on this report that way. Where's the special maintenance? What line's that in? The critical maintenance appropriation is the 512-032. Oh, but you said special maintenance. Sorry, I meant critical maintenance. Well, okay, I think we need to look into that. Thank you. All right, thank you. Seeing no other questions. Members, you have a motion? Motion is executive wreck. We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none? All in favor say aye. Opposed? Yeah, I have it. Takes us down to the geographic information systems out of Europe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Geographic information systems division begins on page 254. Their appropriation summary is going to be on page 255. This division coordinates, develops and maintains state geographic information systems data with cities, counties and state agencies along with the federal government. And it is funded primarily by general revenue, fund balances and trust funds. The agency has two total appropriations, both of which have changed levels. And in total, they're requesting 3.1 million for both years in the biennium. The first appropriation is going to be on page 256 and 257. This is the geo-store and framework. This is used to carry out the duties, responsibilities and authority of the information systems board and to create and update and maintain the Arkansas spatial data infrastructure. The agency is requesting to continue appropriation of 1.2 million for each year of the biennium, which includes an increase in $15,000 in extra help to support workload needs. And they outline it below. This is on page 256. 6,900 would be transferred from the next appropriation, that's geographic information systems. And then $9,100 reallocated from geo-store and framework operation line item. And then they're also asking for a decrease of $6,900 in geo-store and framework appropriation to align with the funding. There'd be no net change in appropriation levels. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. The next appropriation on page 258 and 259. This is the operations appropriation. This is funded by General Revenue. The agency is requesting appropriation the amount of 1.9 million for each year of the biennium and they're requesting General Revenue funding any amount of 1.7 million for each year of the biennium. Which includes a decrease of $277,000 in operating expenses to align with the agency's needs of which $150,000 of that would be reallocated to capital outlay to continue updating aerial imagery essential for the agency. And a decrease of $5,100 in comfort and travel to align with the agency's needs. The executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. And the agency also has carry-forward that you'll see on page 260. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for geographic information systems. All right. Thank you, members. Any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion for executive. Second. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Yeah, I have it. It takes us down to believe the last one. This would be Office of State Technology. Adam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Their appropriation summary is on page 264. The Office of State Technology is responsible for providing technical planning, design, and support for IT and telecommunication services to the public sector in Arkansas. They're funded primarily by non-revenue receipts, fund balances, and federal revenues. The agency has two total appropriations, one of which has change levels, and they are requesting $113 million for each year of the biennium. The first appropriation is going to be on page 267. This is their operations appropriation. This is funded by non-revenue receipts derived from services provided to various agencies of the federal, state, city, and county governments. The agency is requesting appropriation of 109.7 million for each year of the biennium and includes the following changes. They're asking for an increase of $34,000 in overtime to maintain statewide service levels and respond to critical issues after hours. They're asking for an increase of $15.8 million that would be spread $800,000 to operating expenses and $15 million in their telecommunications and technology delivery appropriation. They're asking to continue $1 million in their capital outlay to obtain required technology equipment to accommodate customer requirements and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. In our last appropriation on page 269, this is their equipment acquisition appropriation. This is utilized for major equipment acquisition and or information technology improvements and the office funds this through the information technology reserve fund. The agency requests to continue appropriation of $3.5 million for each year of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation for the Office of State Technology. All right. Thank you, Adam. We do have one question. Representative Lunchroom. Yes, I just want to make sure I understand. You said that one of the IT agencies had a $800,000 a year increase. Could you go back over that? I didn't quite understand it. There was one of the biggest increases. That's in their operations appropriation on page 265. 265, their operations. And they were asking for how much? They were asking for a total of $15.8 million. $15 million would go to telecommunication and technology delivery line item. You can see on page 267. And then the $800,000 would go into operating expenses. This was for on page 265. The statement was this was for supporting critical statewide technology and security needs. Okay, why such a big increase? That's a pretty good size increase. So about 3 million of it is related to the data hub, which was being funded by ARPA, which ends in December 31st. So we need the appropriation in our main fund in order to continue the data hub, which supports programs like launch and some other state infrastructure. About 6 million of it is related to security and enhancing our security posture throughout the state. And then the cybersecurity and then another 3 million of that is related to cloud services and working to move some of our bigger technology acquisitions to an operational model where we're paying like for all the cloud, like AWS and things like that. So that is the majority of that increase. And a lot of it will only be is going to be used as needed. That's a lot of money. I just want to make sure I understand it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said that we're spending some of this money to enhance our cybersecurity. What does that mean? To represent a lunchroom's point, this is a really big increase. And I'm curious about what deficiencies we've had previously because we didn't have this 15 million invested in what you mean by enhancing our cybersecurity. So as part of the Arkansas Ford study, they determine that the state as a whole was spending way less on cybersecurity than surrounding state. And we are taking a measured approach so we're increasing slowly over time with what our capacity allows in order to do things like a crowd strike on all the state equipment. It helps detect intrusions and other things like that. And then if we need to, we can get director heart and up here and he can give a little bit more information on the cybersecurity. Representative Wooten. Representative Hudson, were you done? Okay. Representative Wooten, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really try. I really try not to ask any questions for my colleagues and for the chairman and for the general public. But I'm telling you, I don't understand the budgeting process that has an 80 million dollar expenditure. Asking for a hundred and nine million the next by any. I just, I can't get my arms around that. That's thirty million dollars. That some can be used somewhere else in state government. I mean, and your, your appropriation is, is twelve million more than you spend. I don't understand the philosophy that has permeated not only your agency, but all the state government, Mr. Secretary Hudson. I don't understand that. What do we need thirty million in surplus money tied up in one agency in appropriation? So, I mean, at a high level, I can just understand that. So this is appropriation. So it's, it's not that we'll spend it. It's, it's the, to have the budget to be able to spend it. Part of this is needed because of the new, the governance that occurred in the last session, which brings a lot of the purchasing scrutiny and a lot of the consistency and tools and software that we're using under office of state technology. And a lot of that would be billed through office of state technology. An example is AI. We didn't have AI a few years ago. So we're trying to streamline the AI tools that we have for the state. And all of that goes through office of state technology for security purposes. And to make sure that it's being administered appropriately throughout the state. And that will be billed to departments through office of state technology. That's one example of why we've had to increase that. If, if I had your position, I'd say the same thing, but it's just not. It's just, we, we, we, we need to be good stewards with the money that the people have given us of this great state. And I swear I can't see where third holding 30 million dollars captive and not knowing your budget process of what you're going to have to expand the next year. That's what this is about. This is not about in the future. It's not about AI. This is about what we're confronted with right now. And we're not going to continue to have 400, 500, 600 million dollar surpluses and we're holding in one budget and one budget, 30 million dollars captive. That's just not right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Hester, you recognize. Senator, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just want to make you know that most of us up here understand the difference between appropriation and budget and that it's not money. It's not being held captive. We understand that. Thank you for what you're doing. I think it's very appropriate. Thank you. Representative Wooten, you're not recognized this time. Representative Wooten. He's not on. All right. Thank you, Representative Wooten. I appreciate that. Members, any other questions on these items? Good. All right. We have a motion for exec reg. All right. Second. All those in any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Members, hang on for just one second. We do have, as I said, several times personnel at 130 today. All of you that are wearing pink, the House photographer would like you to meet out in front of BLR for a photo as soon as we're done here. One more thing. I'm going to recognize Senator Irvin for something pretty significant. If you just pay attention to this, I'd appreciate it. Senator Irvin, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make an announcement for our general assembly. We lost a former state representative, Dr. Scott Ferguson, who's the husband of former state representative Deborah Ferguson yesterday. Dr. Ferguson did a ton of work for the state of Arkansas and for West Memphis, his community, and was recognized nationally for all the things that he worked on in healthcare for not just the state, but for the country. Scott was just, he loved West Memphis. He loved the people that were his patients. He loved Deborah and his children. So for those of us that serve with Deborah Ferguson, I just wanted to say we love you and our thoughts and our prayers are with you. And I just asked that you would keep her and her family and your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Irvin. Seeing no other business members, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.