ALC-JBC Budget Hearings

AI recap

Transcript

So welcome, the first thing that we want to do is make an announcement or a clarification if you will on the publications, the A book, the B book, tax handbook, they're going to remain at the desks for the entirety of the ALC joint budget committee hearings. That said, the binders, the white binders on your desk, those get changed out every week. So you can't take the binder with you because that's state property that stays here. But you can take the contents. So if you need to make notes, you can take the entire contents of the binder. You can take part of the contents of the binder each week. But just wanted to clarify that, the white binders, those will be changed out every week. If there's something in there that needs to be part of your permanent record, you need to take it with you each week. So what that said, so we're going straight to C1. So Cameron with, if you'll come to the table, and then Rename Allery and Team, especially Matt Gilmore, you'll come to the table. And then once everyone is assembled, if each individual will introduce him or herself for the record, then Ms. Whit, you may begin after that, okay? Cameron Whit, Bureau of Legislative Research, Physical Division. Rename Allery, Secretary of Health, Department of Health. John Adams, Chief of Staff, Department of Health, Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, Cameron Whit, Bureau of Legislative Research. I will start by presenting item C1 that's behind your agenda. This summary of the Health-related boards and commissions show actual expenditures for the last fiscal year, the current authorized appropriations, and the agency requests an executive recommendation for the next biennium. It lists 19 agencies alphabetically, along with the page number for more detail. Most of these boards are funded by cash revenue or special revenue. The spinal cord commission is the only general revenue receiving agency, and they are requesting about 2.3 million in both years of the biennium. Across these 19 agencies, you will be reviewing a total of 27 appropriations, and 26 of these appropriations have no change levels. The one appropriation with a change level is the Arkansas Social Work Licensing Board. They are requesting an increase of about 33,900 and extra help in personal services matching to support the effective management of licensure application processing and renewals. This funding is supported by special revenue from licensing fees and penalties. On the bottom of this summary, you will see that the total agency requests come to approximately 17.3 million in both years of the biennium, and the executive recommendation provides for the agency's request. That concludes my presentation on the health boards and commissions. Thank you for your presentation. Representative Collins, your—can I ask a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm looking at your positions here, and really it looks like it's pretty much all on the health operations paying appropriation. I see, obviously, that in—for this budget cycle, you're back down to around 1,850 positions and 222 extra help. But I'm curious how we got to the point of having 2,203 appropriated positions when you only have 1,812 in fiscal 26. Can you walk me through how we got to that point, because that's a whole lot more positions budgeted than you actually had? Representative Collins, can you tell me what page you're on just short to make sure? Sure, sure. Well, you know, you could look at the summary, but I think page 159 is probably the— Okay, yes, sir. Most direct way to look at it. So the 1812 is the positions that we actually field in fiscal year 26 of the positions that are appropriated to us, and then under budgeted expenditures for this fiscal year, we've budgeted 1,852, but of course appropriated 2,200, a little over 2,200. So some of the positions that were appropriated to us, we did not budget, and of course we've made an evaluation on what we think we need, and we don't need, and then of course if we don't think we're going to feel that position, we don't budget it. And then of course moving into the next biennial, we are surrendering those positions that we didn't budget this fiscal year. Right, I know that, but I'm saying, how did we get to the point where you guys were asking and we granted appropriation authority for 2,200 positions when you only needed 1,812? Representative Collins, can you hold that question? We're really on department at the boards and commissions. We're going to get in, that could be answered in the presentation. That may be. All right, we'd come back to it. Representative Lutton, do you have a question specifically on the boards and commissions or do you have a broader question that we can come back to after we heard the entire presentation? Okay, we're coming back to that when we get farther, yes, yes. And Senator Everett, I'm assuming you've got a question on boards and commissions. You're recognized for your question. Thank you. I see just from this right here. Thank you, good morning. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Looking forward to your presentation of your budget. Reason to keep fund balance beyond three year average, running average. Everything is listed as a no. Would there ever be a reason to keep the fund balance, would that ever be a yes and would there be a reason provided? I don't think so. And they bring in, you know, consistent revenue. When we evaluate that every spring, I do think we're trying to get those balances down. And then we're probably, I want to have some conversations about lowering some of the fees lower. And just to get those down to where we don't have to, you know, every year evaluate those and kind of, and it fluctuates so much. Right. So I just really receive in what you really need to send out versus keeping and building a fund balance. I mean, I think that's the goal here, but right from this data. And I assume all of these fees, well, not all of them, most of them are licensing fees. A few permit fees, but mainly occupational licenses, yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. And the Spinal Court Commission, that one is, it's a state general revenue, it's SGR, yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to approve the executive? I've got a motion by Senator Irvin. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We're now moving on to D2. Representative Collins and Representative Wooten, after this presentation, if your question's not answered, please go back in the queue, okay? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department of Health Secretary's Office of Appropriation is on page 127. This appropriation is used to pay for the Secretary's salary, personal services matching and support staff. It is funded by shared services transfers from the Health Operations Paying Account and from the Health Boards and Commissions. Judges in this appropriation include an increase of approximately 367,000 in extra help, 116,000 in personal services matching for the use of medical personnel. The agency said this increase is needed to support the seven extra help positions that were transferred in the 2025 Act from their operations for more flexibility to utilize these positions within the Boards and Commissions, especially nurses. There's also an increase of $1 million to ensure support for operational needs across the agency's divisions and programs. Broken down, there is an increase of about 700,000 in operating expenses, 200,000 in professional fees, and 100,000 in grants in aid. This will allow the agency to better utilize the shared services transfers that are collected in this account. The total request and executive recommendation are approximately 1.9 million in both years of the biennium. If you'll turn with me to the department summary on page 153. This is the department appropriation summary. The department has 10 ARPA appropriations that are not requested for the next biennium, as well as eight other appropriations they are requesting to continue. These are funded by a mix of general revenue, federal revenue, special revenue, fees, transfers, third-party reimbursements, manufacturer rebates, and tobacco settlement funds. Currently, the department has 439 million authorized in appropriation, and they are requesting a total of approximately 411 million in appropriation going into the next biennium. This includes about 79 million in general revenue, which is utilized in the health operations and trauma system appropriations. Two of these appropriations have changed levels. The health operations paying account and the interpreters for the deaf and hearing impaired. So, we'll go to page 157. This is the health operations appropriation. It is their largest appropriation. It supports the operations of the department of health, including multiple divisions, two central offices, and more than 90 local health units. It supports various programs, specifically those for kidney disease, breast and cervical cancer, epidemiology and laboratory capacity, and maternal and child health. It receives a combination of general revenue, federal funds, special revenue, third-party reimbursement, tobacco settlement proceeds, and other program support funds. On page 159 is the appropriation summary. There are two change levels. The agency is requesting zero dollars in capital outlay to align appropriation with anticipated expenditures, and to discontinue appropriation for infectious disease control due to the federal program funding ending that originated from the COVID-19 response. In total for this appropriation, the agency is requesting approximately 300.7 million in spending authority, which is a decrease of about 28.3 million from the current authorized. The request includes approximately 59 million in general revenue, which is the executive recommendation. The next appropriation which changes is on page 173. It provides for expenses of the interpreters for the deaf and hearing impaired advisory board. They are responsible for regulating and supporting the certification and professional standards of interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, hard of hearing, and oral deaf community. Funding is derived from fees and penalties as authorized in Arkansas code. The agency is requesting an increase of about 100,000 in appropriation for expenses in both years of the biennium, or a total of 125,000, in order to modernize testing materials, expand interpreter education, and support administrative functions. The agency says they are developing a new test, and this will allow them to utilize their fund balance as needed. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request, and that concludes my presentation on the Department of Health. Thank you. I'm going to start with Representative Collins since I stopped him first, and then we'll go to Representative Wooden. Representative Collins, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, so my question, and I understand that you guys are eliminating the unfill positions, which is good, everybody should be good with that. But I am curious about how we got to 2,200 when you only had 1,812 of the positions filled. Were they formerly filled? I mean, were people working in those positions before? And if not, I'm surprised that this committee wouldn't have asked why are we appropriating 400 extra positions more than we had if we did ask that at that time. What did you say? I'm just kind of curious how that was where we are coming from now. I'm glad we're eliminating them, but I mean, to the extent they're not filled and don't need to be filled, but why were we there? Yes, sir. So we did add positions during the pandemic, and some of that is returning the positions that we no longer need. A lot of these positions have been vacant for a very long time. And so in years past, we may have carried those, just in case we needed them, although there's a cost to carrying them on our budget. And so we are now surrendering those positions, because we feel like that's the most fiscally responsible thing to do. Okay. And then related to that question, I see that you actually only had 46 of the extra help positions filled, but you've retained the higher 222 number of positions that you're requesting. I guess why retain that if you don't have that many of those filled? Yes, sir. So in years past, we have filled more than that. Of course, during the pandemic, we filled more extra help positions. So it kind of depends what's going on as far as outbreaks and other things in the department. But to your point, we probably have more than we would use under normal circumstances, so. Okay. Well, and I guess you guys have had a few rounds of layoffs and things like that, obviously over the last couple months and beyond that, that I assume would all just kind of be, for the most part, that's in this budget category here, where you guys have had the layoffs, have people, you know, positions that you don't plan on refilling. That's all in this appropriations, health operations plan. Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Representative Wooten, you are recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, my, my, it's a thank you all for being here to die in. My report shows that you have a total of 2,300 and 90 positions out there in the health department. 214 of them have been vacant or in the health Arkansas department, including tobacco and previous and recess, in session, 214 positions you don't need or, you know, you use the language in case you might need the vacant positions. Well, it's taxpayers out here suffering and they don't have an in case. So why are we holding 214 positions in the health department that have been vacant for over two years? Representative Wooten, first, just to clarify, we are surrendering those positions going in this biennium. So that's in our budget. And the positions that were surrendering, we did not budget. They're appropriated to us, but we did not budget those this fiscal year. So there's no expense related to, even though they're appropriated and authorized, there's no expense to the taxpayers by having those positions. But we are surrendering those and more going into next fiscal year. How many are you, sir? How many are you giving back? Agency, why we're 368. 368 positions. Correct. That you're identifying that are over two years. No, sir. No, sir. So the 214, I think you mentioned earlier, those are the ones that have been vacant for over two years. So we're surrendering additional positions beyond those. They may have been vacant for a year and a half or a year. Well, that's commendable. Are you reviewing them every year? You're reviewing each position? Yes, sir. That you have. Okay. One follow-up question. On this sheet of paper that we were given this morning, under the fund balances, I see the medical board has fund balance of 16 million expenditures at 2.8 million and 8.4 over three years. Well, and there's several. One, here's one of the- Representative Wooden, we've already approved that one. Can you take that question up after the- I mean, it's an important question, but we're now past that. Never mind. Just forget it. I have a- just to- what I think will be a quick question, I hope. So you said something about infectious diseases. I just want to make sure that- Okay. Representative Wooden, we've- we've moved on. Thank you. Representative Wooden, we've moved on. And those are not general revenue agencies for the most part. So back to my- my question. So you said something about infectious diseases. I just want to make sure, you know, on occasion we have mosquito-borne illness diseases pop up. We've had a- a month's outbreak. There's discussion of measles outbreaks that we have what we need for surveillance and appropriate response to a historical well-known concern of, you know, infectious disease outbreak. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Representative Hudson, you are recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to go back to the WIC funding. I wondered if you could give me some additional information about what assumptions about federal funding are built into this budget and what the plan is if there are cuts or shortfalls at the federal level given some of the changes that we've seen to SNAP program and other- other funding. Yes, ma'am. So our WIC funding has not been cut. It's been continuing level and the particular funding we have in here is for our food packages and so we have enough funding and appropriations to meet that demand. And you can meet that independent of any federal funding? Is that what you're saying? No, ma'am. Okay. So my question is, if there is a cut to federal funding, what contingency plans do you have in place? Well, you know, that's a federal program that dictates the food packages and along with receiving the money. If it was cut, we could take a little cut and not hamper services. So we have more food funds than we actually expense in a given year. So there is some cushion there, even if there was a cut. If it got below our current expenses, we would have to evaluate shifting funding and making adjustments. Can you give me some idea of what that cushion is approximately? Well, I think last year, I have to look at it, we spent $51 million in food package funds. We're appropriated for $60 million. I think we actually have more funding than even we have appropriations, so we have quite a bit of cushion. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. And just as a point to help other members, if you could tell us what page number you're referring to in a question that might help some of us stay engaged in the conversation. Senator Love, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm going to go back to the positions that were authorized and then the ones that you're surrendering. We talked about extra help positions, and so tell me in these extra help positions, what is covered under that pool of positions? The extra help positions have a lot of flexibility, so we can feel those extra help positions in different class codes kind of depending on the needs. So they're not really specified as we've got so many nurses, so many clerks, so many health program specialists, they're more generic in nature, and then depending on our need, we can fill it in a certain class code. Okay. And on these positions that we're going to be surrendering, no sir. Okay. In the extra help positions, you're just surrendering specific positions that haven't been filled for I guess over the past two years. Correct. Okay. And are we saying that we do not need any of those positions? I guess that's what I'm trying, because what I'm thinking about is when we talked about like outbreaks and different things, and do we have those positions? So are those the extra help positions that we're talking about that we can deploy? If we need those at any given time, I'm just trying to make sure that we have what we need. Correct. So we're not at this point, we're not surrendering any appropriated extra help positions that gives us that ability that you are speaking of. So the positions we're surrendering are regular positions that haven't been filled in a while and that we've evaluated and we don't feel like we need them moving forward. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Senator Arvin, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Page 163. So trauma system, just want to talk about that for just one second. At one time with, I'll let you get there. So we were able to use part of this fund balance to assist with purchasing more large, long-acting, reversible contraception. Are we still doing that, and if not, why? Because I see here that additional funding support for Stroke, STEMI, and injury prevention programs, which I'm very supportive of, but I'd really like to see long-acting, reversible contraception in there. Yes, Senator. So this money is available. The carry-forward funds are available for large, as you mentioned. And so that's evaluated on a year-to-year basis. We use multiple funding sources to buy large. We have some reimbursement money. We have some federal money. And so if we need that, we can tap into this carry-forward funds. Okay. Is, is LARC listed in language and anywhere in your budget manual? Special language, I believe. Special language. So we'll see a special language section attached to this appropriation or just your general appropriation. Disappropriation. The 0645 health operations. Yes. Okay. I'd really, I'd love to see that just written. I mean, just because I think that it's a commitment that we need to state publicly. We are stating it publicly for Stroke, STEMI, and injury prevention. But let's put that in the manual. Just list that because we are doing it. And I think we as legislators need to see the commitment there and it needs to be reflected in the budget manual. I do think it's specifically listed in special language. I'm not looking at it right now, but I do believe it is, but we'll confirm that. Okay, yeah, just in the budget manuals, too, I think would be a great thing. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Garner, you are recognized for your question. Okay. Representative Richardson, you are recognized for your question. No? You don't have one? Okay. Senator Tucker, you are recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is just a broad question. We've had some excellent specific questions about WIC and Larkson, I'm supportive of all of those. There's clearly some health care changes taking place in the state right now. Our waiver from Medicaid expansion, I understand that's in a different agency, but also other aspects of health care delivery in Arkansas. We're eliminating unfilled positions, which I understand the rationale for. By and large, the budget is being held flat in what you're proposing here. And it's just a big picture question given the dynamic and the scope of the health care changes that are either happening or on the verge of happening in Arkansas. Is this budget request sufficient for you all to deliver the services that the people of Arkansas need for the next fiscal year? So I'll start Senator Tucker and then I'll let the team enter in, but we had a lot of funding coming in during COVID. And so that funding allowed us to look at some infrastructure things that we need to do as far as technology and that kind of thing, which has allowed us to look across the agency and try to be more efficient with what we have. So in short answer to your question, the answer is yes. We have enough to do what we think we need to do right now and in the future. Now, you know, you never know what's going to happen, but right now the answer to that is yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to pass this executive recommendation? Oh, you do have a question center? Okay. So I've got a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to Adam B. D. Is it D3? C3. Adam C3. Ms. Whit, you are recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The budget request for the Health Services Permit Agency starts on page 186. This agency operates under the direction of the Health Services Permit Commission and is responsible for reviewing applications and issuing permits of approval for designated health care facilities and services. On page 187, you will see that the operations of this agency is supported by General Revenue and Special Revenue, which is derived from certificates of need applications. Pursuant to Arkansas code, these funds are deposited into one account that is designated specifically for the agency, and you will see that carry forward amount on page 188 and in the budget detail. The agency is requesting to continue appropriation in the amount of approximately 478,000, which includes approximately 445,000 in General Revenue for both years of the biennium. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request, and that concludes my presentation on the Health Services Permit Agency. Okay, any questions? No questions? All right. With that said, do I have a motion to pass this executive recommendation? I see a motion. I have a second. Do I have a second? Someone? Second. I've got a motion a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We are moving on to four. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The budget request for the Minority Health Commission begins on page 196. This commission was established to study issues related to the delivery of and access to health services for minority populations in Arkansas, and promote the prevention of diseases and conditions that disproportionately occur among minority populations. They have three appropriations. Fund for these appropriations are supported by tobacco settlement funds, fund balances, General Revenue and cash revenue from donations, grants, interest, and reimbursement for expenses associated with various public health initiatives. The Minority Health Operations Appropriation on page 202 is the only one with changes. The agency is requesting to discontinue this appropriation alongside the General Revenue Funding. It has received in previous fiscal years. The agency is requesting to transfer the associated expenses from this appropriation to the Minority Health Initiative Appropriation on page 200 in order to enhance operational efficiency and utilize more of their fund balance. In total, the agency is requesting a continuing level of appropriation of approximately 2.1 million in the next biennium in both years of the biennium and the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. That concludes my presentation on the Minority Health Commission. Thank you for your presentation. Do we? Okay. I see we've got some questions. Those were quick. Senator Love, you are recognized for your question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Mallory, now, exactly tell me exactly what are we doing because I just heard that we're going to be transferring appropriations to the Minority Initiative, so tell me exactly what we're doing. I think I can speak to it, but Secretary, I don't know, it doesn't matter who speaks to it. I just want you to speak to it. Yeah. So, they have several, with the Minority Health Commission, they have a couple of different appropriations, but some of the positions we're funded with SGR, they've got a healthy fund balance, and so we suggested and made the recommendation to move those positions over to the tobacco settlement funds that they receive, they've got a healthy fund balance of that, and just trying to be, you know, we've gotten comments in here before about using that fund balance, and just wanted to, you know, try to do that, and that's all that change is basically moving it from SGR to master settlement funding in their fund balance. All right, so we're moving it from the state general revenue to master settlement funds. Most of the positions are funded at the commission through master settlement funds, and we're just putting them all in the same appropriation, and moving those positions off SGR or to that. Okay, but that's still within the Minority Health Commission, because I thought she stated that it was moving to the Minority Initiative. Well, the initiative is part of the commission, and it's, I look at it as one big, one large budget, but it is two separate appropriations, but it's, we'll be moving those SGR positions that we're talking about here over to the initiative fund, which is where the other six or seven positions are. It's all part of the commission, though. Okay. All right, now what was, let me, let me, let me see what was the fund balance as of right now? At this moment, it's about 5.7 million this fiscal year. 5.7 million this fiscal year, okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore, for that clarification. Representative Collins, you are recognized for your question. Thank you. It's related to that same line of questioning. So you're discontinuing the appropriation to the Minority Health Commission from general revenue, spending down the fund balance. It looks like, if you're going from 5.7, 4.1 to 2.4, by the end of this biennium, you'll be kind of near, I mean, you could do one more biennium and spend it all the way down. Is the plan to bring that appropriation back at some point and resume general revenue, or is the plan to just spend the fund balance down and do something else like discontinued the Minority Health Commission? So I think the numbers you're seeing there is what we've certified, but there's annual payments still coming into the master's settlement funds that help support this. They're spending, you know, pretty much what that annual payment is every year. So, and the fund balance, I don't see it going down very quickly at all. And so what I guess I'm trying to say is what we receive from the master's settlement payment every year is covering their expenses and what they spend every year. So we are trying to whittle that fund balance down, but it's not going down as fast as I would like it to, but it is moving that direction. It won't move as fast as you're seeing on the bottom of that, that page 196. So it's your belief that without this appropriation of general revenue, we can continue the Minority Health Commission doing all the same things it does now, and hopefully more, yes, sir. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Seeing no more questions. Do I have a motion to approve this document? Exactly. Oh, you have a question? Thank you. Yes. You're Senator Arvin. You're recognized for your statement. And I'll make a motion for Executive Rec after this, but I think it's a really good discussion to have. And I appreciate the discussion about and what you just did with that because those are the things that create efficiencies and eliminates and alleviates the pressure off state general revenue. That's really, really important for us to utilize funds. It's not doing our citizens any good, stacking up a bunch of money in these fund balances. It's just not, and so we've got to move that out, get it off the shelf, utilize it for the benefit of our citizens, and be smarter about how we're paying for our positions and really taking a keen look at that. So I think it's a really good discussion point. I just wanted to highlight it because it's one that I think we need to be doing consistently throughout state government. So I just wanted to make that statement and I have a motion for Executive Rec. Thank you, Senator Arvin. Your comments in your motion? Do I have a second? I've got a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Executive recommendation motion passes. We are now moving on to number five. This way you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the last agency for the Department of Health. The budget request for the tobacco settlement commission starts on page 252. This appropriation provides for the commission's operation expenses and is funded by the investment earnings of the tobacco settlement program fund. The commission is responsible for monitoring and evaluating expenditures made from the four program accounts established under the tobacco settlement proceeds acts or initiated to act one of two thousand. Those are the prevention and cessation program account. The target state needs program account. The Arkansas biosciences institute program account and the Medicaid expansion program account to ensure that the funds received are used effectively and responsibly. They are also authorized to contract with an independent third party to evaluate these expenditures and to prepare a biennial report. On page 253, you'll see the agency is requesting to continue appropriation in the amount of 363.5 thousand in both years of the biennium, which is the executive recommendation. That concludes my presentation on the tobacco settlement commission. Thank you for your presentation. Representative Wooden, you are a recognized for a question. Yes, Mr. Gilmore, you have a fund balance of roughly $20 million expenditure budgeting of $23 million. Can that money be used elsewhere or is it designated for that particular line item? The way the settlement was set up and the initiated act that went before the people and it needs to be used towards health issues, targeted health issues and appropriated by y'all, but it is my understanding it should be used for health issues generally. Well, I mean, in the health department, it could be used for other purposes. If this body appropriated that, yes, sir, but it is kind of locked where it is. It's appropriated by us in that column. Yes, sir. That's a good way of saying yes, sir. If we wanted to, we could use that money elsewhere. That would be a decision for this body and the government. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to approve this executive recommendation? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now moving on to it. So, you're excused. We are now on number six, which is park's heritage and tourism. We do appreciate you being here today and your information. Mr. Parrish, you're invited to the table. And then Secretary Lewis and team, you're invited to the table as well. If everyone will introduce himself or herself for the record, then Mr. Parrish, you may begin once introductions have taken place. Good morning, Shay Lewis, Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism. Jamie Fisher, CFO for Parks Heritage and Tourism. Suzanne Grabmeyer, Chief of Staff, Parks Heritage and Tourism. Mr. Parrish, if you'll recognize yourself, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Billy Parrish, with the Bureau of Legislative Research. We will start on page 254. This is the Shared Services section for the Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism. The Department's comprised of agencies and programs to make up three appropriation bills. The first one is the Capital Zoning Commission, next is the Division of Heritage, and then the last one is the Division of Parks and Tourism. The cabinets were provided at Shared Services section to eliminate duplication of services and provide efficiencies. So on this page, you'll see their employment summary and publications. And on the next page is the analysis of the budget request. Again, this section provides for the Shared Services Department across all divisions and programs. It's supported by a paying account. On page 256 is their appropriation summary. If you look in the third column for fiscal year 27 at the bottom, the author of the appropriation is 10.9 million. For the biennium in 28, the request is 12.1 million. That's an 11% increase. And in 29, again, 12.1, another 11% increase. However, there are no change levels other than salary adjustments carrying forward into the new biennium and discontinuing vacant positions. The executive recommendation provides for this agency request. Mr. Chair, that is the Shared Services section. Thank you for your presentation. What questions do we have? If we have no questions, do I have a motion to approve this executive recommendation? I have a motion. I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now on seven capital zoning district. Mr. Parish, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, on page 257. This is the capital zoning district commission. And the commission regulates zoning development and design within the capital zoning district, pursuant to a master plan formulated and maintained by the commission. This page shows the employment summary and publications. And the next page is the Department of Appropriation Summary. That's on page 258. The division has two appropriation requests. The total authorized appropriation in fiscal year 27, again, that's that third column at the bottom. It's 2509,000. That's 2509,000 in spending authority. There are no change levels. The commission requests the same appropriation for the biennium. The executive recommendation provides for this agency request. The commission is funded from general revenue and cash funds in the form of civil funds. That is the capital zoning district commission. Thank you, Mr. Parish, for this presentation. I see no questions. Do I have a motion to pass this executive recommendation? I have a motion. I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now moving on to number eight. Mr. Parish, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're at the Division of Heritage now. This is on page 263. The Division of Heritage was created in 1975 to preserve and promote Arkansas's natural and cultural heritage. It consists of non-sections. That's historic preservation program, natural heritage commissions, state archives, Delta Cultural Center, historic Arkansas Museum, Mosaic Templars Cultural Center, the old stayhouse museum, arts council, and natural and cultural resources council. This page shows an employment summary and publications. The next page shows the division's appropriation summary. So now we're on page 264. The division has 16 appropriation requests. The total authorize appropriation in 27 is 59.9 million. The division requests 60.2 million for the biennium. That's a less than 1% increase. The executive recommendation provides for the agency requests. There are no change levels from fiscal 27 in this budget request. There are sections where their requests carrying forward salary and match adjustments considered a new biennium or vacant unbudget positions to be discontinued. If you look at funding sources at the bottom chart, the division is funded from general revenue, federal grants, special revenue, and that's from 9% of the 1.8% conservation sales tax. They also get special revenue from gas royalties and cash funds. That's from museums, gift shops, and cultural center proceeds, as well as natural area timber thins. The division also received 20 million from the restricted reserve fund. That is used to offset the income tax credits allowed under the Arkansas major historic rehabilitation income tax credit act. Mr. Chair, that is the end of the division of heritage. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We have a number of questions. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're not Senator Payton. That's all right. I'll fill in. Just some clarification on the Delta cultural cash and treasury. All right. So that's at 19. It's going up to 120. Is there a big project that's coming there? Something that increases that just curious. So we allow for that appropriation. Historically, we have that authority, but they historically typically only spend and bring in revenue between 20 and 25. But if they have a larger event or larger donations, it allows for that flexibility for them to have the operating expenditures at the museum. And the special revenue for cash and the same thing on natural heritage federal program that actual was 131. And then I see over the next you've run up to 2 million. Correct. They have a appropriation there for land acquisition in the previous fiscal year. We had no land acquisitions. Got you. Okay. Thank you. Just for clarity, that was representative Richardson asking questions. I guess anyone online or somewhere else was wondering. Representative Lutney or recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the clarification, whoever wants to answer it. Why do we have a budget expenditure of 60 million and an actual expenditure of 15.8 million. And then the budget remains the same. It's 60 million point two. What why is that? What which page are you on? Page 154. I'm sorry. Page 264. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. You'll notice there the large portion of the appropriation is the 40 million and historic tax credits. And those are redeemed as the projects are finished and we actually had our first transfer of this fiscal year in 27. So that program will authorize previously. We're just now starting to see payments go out. I follow Mr. Chairman to the same question. The fund balance under a budget expenditure shows 47.6 million. But yet we have 90.82 million in excess funds. What can you explain that? Please. On page 264. It's the bottom shows a bunch of the expenditures of 47.6 million and an excess funding of 90.8 million or 9.9 million. I believe if we're looking at column for the 26 for the actual, I think that's because of the fund balance that we do have available for the historic tax credit. 90 million. Yes. We were actually given an additional 20 last year expenses or 15 million. Correct. Okay. Under, and I guess this is the place to ask this question, my report shows 975 positions altogether is incorrect. And of those 76 positions are over two years old. Can't do you look at those each and every year and review them? What is the 76 positions? And what's the average age of those? So of that 76 positions, 40 plus are 796 positions that we are either reviewing for. I review every single position when it comes vacant. We take a look closely at the need at the time for that position and I review every single position that comes in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Representative, thank you. Representative, make sure you're recognized for your question. Thank you. I'm hiding right here by the column. My question is kind of, I guess the follow-up to what Representative Putin was asking on the fund balance. It shows 90 million this year. Then it drops to, like he said, 47 million planned expenditure. It looks like in 28 and then 23 million down in 29. So it looks like we are spending that down to almost zero. Curious, what are we spending the money on? And is that part of a plan so that looks like by the time we get to a fiscal year 30 on that trajectory it's going to be close to zero? I think that those projections make the assumption that all appropriations will be expended and as you can see from 26 we don't historically expend all appropriations. I do think the historic tax credits are significantly skewing that. As I said, we did receive an additional 20 million in cash so that's included in the fund reserve there shown. So the reserve for the historic tax credits is actually 60 million. So while it's just the way the accounting works, it creates the appearance that it's drawing down. Reality is generally it's not going to. And the money in that balance is just generally used for operations or what do we generally typically use that fund for? Outside of the historic tax credits, yes sir. The general revenue in our amendment 75 conservation sales tax is absolutely operating and it's yours. All right, thank you. Representative Collins, you're wrecking us for a question. Thank you all the way over here, right? So if you could go to page 279 with me, this is the, well, it looks like it is being transferred out, but this was where. So I understand that some of the real estate transfer tax goes into this fund and then it goes to grants. And so it looks like it's, but the most part cash. And so what it looks like is that it's been moved to a different appropriation, which is fine. This main street program, but my question is what, what becomes of the fund balance, the $7.8 million. If that's not even going to be in the same fund where we're going to make the grants anymore, is that just going to sit there in perpetuity because it's kind of like what it looks like here. This funds a little unusual. So the appropriation is actually transferred into it from the NCRC funding. So there's actually a transfer that comes from one of our other business areas into this to support the main street grants that you mentioned. So you'll see the expenditures here. The appropriation is not requested here. It's requested in another place and transferred into it. We'll see it in a subsequent appropriation request here in a few minutes. Well, understand that. But I mean, you are getting around $4.5 million in real estate transfer tax a year, right? And you're making contributions. Well, $2 million it looks like this past year. Is this right? Yeah, 3.2 total with operating expenditures correct. So you still do have this fund balance in there. And is that? I mean, you're not even making grants that equal the amount of, you know, the amount of cash you're getting from the real estate transfer tax. So are we just going to see this fund balance increase? Is that what we're thinking? So we unfortunately, what's not shown on the schedule is our commitments for outlays and expenditures that are committed to main street programs that are just not expended in this year. Well, but I'm looking at the other one, which I guess is on page 311. And that appears to be where, you know, you have your expectation of $6 million in grants. Is that right? But I see, I guess I'm still confused, though, because if this is, if this is where this is, then you have a fund balance of $9.4 million in this one. And you have $7.8 in the other. So am I supposed to add those two together? I mean, what is the total fund balance? Is it? It is the combination of the two funds. So it's 16. It's really 17 million. Yes, the fund balance that's shown in on page 311 in Fund Center 481 is a combination for the total NCRC program for that fund, that business area. So I mean, okay. And I guess like these are grants and do we, is the demand such like, is this something where we just have the money because the law has has granted this percentage of real estate taxes to us. It's burning a hole in our pocket where you got to spend it somewhere. Or is the demand such that we're really meeting a need? I guess, I mean, this more of a substantive question about this program. I don't know anything about the program, but I mean, is it just money that we have to spend basically so we don't have the fund balance continue to accrue? So the Main Street program is a collection of Main Streets across the state. There are two categories of Main Street programs. There's the Main Street program and then the affiliate for smaller towns. This program goes to help them with their businesses helping build streetscapes and overlay districts. The program itself is largely funded through real estate transfer tax much like many of our historic preservation efforts in the department. We get a certain portion of those funds that go from real estate transfer tax to fund those programs. It does very year to year because of the real estate market. And so those things are not necessarily cut and dry from a physical perspective. But we see it as a need and feel like communities across the state do benefit from that program. Well, I'm sure it's a good program. It just seems like there's a lot of slack in it and to be honest with you with the amount that we're taking from real estate transfer taxes that people do have to pay. That's just a comment. Thank you. We're representing Labeman question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm over here. The Main Street program. I think that's a very good program because I think it renews our downtown areas and it gives cities, small cities, especially funds that they don't have to save their downtowns really. So my question is, do y'all know? I know it's based on real estate fees, but has that increased over the years? Are more cities being able to take the opportunity to use those funds? Has it stayed steady or? Mr. Chair, if it's okay, we'd like to invite director Marty Raoul to the table from the Heritage Division. Mr. Raoul, please introduce yourself for the record and you may answer the question. Mr. Raoul, we're representing Labeman. We have a bit of 40 cities right now to participate. I might be off by 1, maybe 39, but we probably have 20 in the top tier and 20 in the affiliate tier. And we have an application period every year where other cities can come in and apply. It was just a couple of weeks ago that we had approximately 12 cities, I believe, that came in and made a presentation. And it's potentially going through the application process. They have until March to complete that process. And these would be new cities and be added to it. And right now, we only have the capacity to probably take four or five of these cities into the program right now. So there's a vast need out there and we're trying to accommodate as many as we can. I agree with you. There's a need because 40 cities out of 500, that's not very many. Right. And a lot of these smaller towns have no other income that they can use for this. So I think we should look at more into the last year. Well, there's some there's some qualifications for each city and that they have to have someone dedicated to implement the program at the city level. There's a certain criteria that have to meet so we can make sure that they have the infrastructure in place to take care of that. But with your right, there's plenty of cities out there that need it. And we try to encourage cities to take this step because it has helped revitalize the downtowns of so many towns around the state. There's one more quick question. Are the people that apply for this? Is it mostly the smaller cities? It varies. I mean, just this last application period, I know we had, a revival came to make a presentation, and then of course the city of Kio made a presentation. So it varies from, you know, moderate size cities. I mean, the larger cities are either in or run their own program, but it is the moderate or upper level down to some of the smallest ones. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Senator Flowers, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess Mr. Ryle might be able to answer this. Representative Collins asked a lot of the questions that I had concerning the real estate transfer tax. I'd like to know and I think I heard somebody say what the average amount is collected if there is an average amount collected per year. So we have a list of where these taxes are coming from. Yes, so the real estate transfer tax is collected and levied when anybody in the state of Arkansas buys or sells a piece of property and the average amount. So it has increased over the last several fiscal years. Last year's collections were 40.8 million to the department. 48.8 million. Just point almost 41 million. And that's in our next section that we'll cover in our appropriation request. And 10% of that amount goes now into this Department of Heritage and Tourism for Main Street. Is that what I'm understanding? Correct. So at least 4 million goes in there. Yes, ma'am. Do we have a list of cities that are participating or communities that are participating in that? And I'd like to see a list of where those taxes are coming from. Yes, ma'am. Like I said, we have approximately 40 cities that are participating and I can get you that list. Well, participating in your Main Street program. Yes ma'am. I'm talking about where are the taxes coming from? What counties are putting in more transfer tax money? I would have to defer to DFA I think on that question because I'm not sure we have the details on we just get the cash transfer to is from the tax. I'm not sure that we're provided the details. Mr. Chair, I'd like to request that DFA provide a list of those amounts coming from the various counties. Mr. Parish, do you have something you can help with on that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I don't have the specifics about the counties, but I do have more history on that tax. If you go to the tax handbook on page 197 that gives you a history of the laws that went into the tax and how they change. And on page 198, you'll see the revenues generated and you can see it's fairly volatile. And then the distribution of the tax, how 80% of it goes to the natural and cultural resources grant and trust fund, which is against the section we'll get to later in the presentation. And 10% goes to the tourism fund account. Then another 10% goes to the Main Street and historic preservation trust fund. Well, in that manual that you've just said that does it list the amounts coming from the different counties for real estate transfer fees? No, ma'am, it doesn't provide that specificity. Well, that's what I'm asking for, Mr. Chair. Senator Flowers, we are going to work with DFA to see if there's any reason we can't provide that and if we can, unless we can't, we're going to get that information to you. Appreciate it. And I think in the past, it has been provided. I think it came from DFNA, but I'd like to see a current list. Yes, ma'am, we're going to get that to you unless there's some legal reason we can't. But he's kind of signaling that he can't provide information. I don't see how that have some kind of prohibition to disclosure. Yeah, no, we're good. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Springer, you are recognized for a question. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question relates to page 279 regarding historic preservation. I am not originally from Pulaski County, I'm from the South, down in Washington County and I'm very familiar with the historic parks down in that area. And Mr. Lewis and I, we've been having discussions with respect to historic preservation. And I noticed here on page 279, I'm going back to that page where you've previously allocated nine positions for a physical year, 26, and then you've decreased those positions down to seven for years, 27, budgeted and authorized seven. Then I noticed that you've increased extra help positions up to eight to eight. Are you following me? You see who I am? So hopefully you will utilize those extra help positions to maintain certain parks within the areas. Can I count on that to be taking place? So these positions are directly related to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program that is headquartered here in Little Rock, not specific to field. A lot of those positions do work out across the state in various parts, but not specific to a region. The historic preservation program is your National Historic Register, which is, of course, getting a building or a structure on the National Historic Register is the first step of getting it qualified to be able to accept grants and restoration projects. And then, you know, there's, there's a cemetery restoration program within there. There's, but it's not just the mainstream program and it's, I know you had some questions about Poison Springs parks. It's not related to the state parks. It's more of your historic preservation of historical structures around the state. Is, is, is parks and springs not historical? I mean, some of the Civil War. No, it is. It is within the state park. They would call it on the state parks. Oh, okay. That's right. You told me. What was it? Why don't, why don't state park? Okay. So, so what's the budget for why? Why don't? Is any of those funds being utilized for? Representative Springer, we'll get to that in the next another section here. Okay. All right. So I mean, I can talk to direct secretary Lewis offline again so we can get this taken care of. I will say that these positions support the efforts of Arkansas State Parks through historic preservation. It's just a kind of a different level of the way they operate versus directly. Well, hopefully we can get this work done. Thank you. Representative Lutney or recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raul, I assume that the 16.4 million in excess funds. That's included in the 90 million on the first page. Which page are we on? Well, the amount I'm asking about is on page 267, but I think it refers back to the 90 million surplus. The 16 million is in that. Is that correct? That would be correct. Okay. Is the conservation tax producing more than we thought it would when we passed that tax? And that's that's given for the excess money that's in there. That's correct in certain. The money is here more for conservation purposes and the list under Mr. Raul that you gave to us. It provides the income for those for that along with the real estate and other things. Correct. Yeah. But the conservation tax is producing more money than we anticipated. Yes. Yes. I would say, you know, since the inception of the conservation amendment, it has far exceeded, you know, our expectations. And it has been put to good use across our department, the State Park System, Arkansas Game and Fish. Keep Arkansas beautiful. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Irwin, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Asking on behalf of Senator Payton, who's watching online. Just wanting to know on the Main Street Historic Preservation Main Street program, are there restrictions on what that money is used for, or if that's just capital improvement? There are restrictions, but there are funds that are beyond capital improvements if I'm not mistaken. I'd have to verify that. But I mean, we provide. There are grants every participating city gets a grant. Like right now on the on the top tier, each participating city gets 30,000 each year as a grant for them to use for their historic preservation programs. And it's not limited to capital improvements. It has to be used for the purposes of downtown restoration and improvements. But I believe there's some areas in there that aren't capital improvements, but I had to get the details and get it to you. Okay, if you don't mind getting those details and following up with Senator Payton on that, that would be great. So it can be used for programs or programming or just let me know because. Yeah, I just had to find out. I don't recall what was specifically programming that's allowed. But let me just, I don't want to say something correct. So I will get it to Senator Payton. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for getting that to Senator Payton. Senator Flowers, your recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for my clarification, so these different funding sources, like the conservation tax, the 10% that goes now from the real estate transfer fee to Main Street or the division. Are these stat for grants for preserving historic structures? Could the real estate transfer 10% be used for preservation of historic structures? And is there more sources of funding for that purpose? I think you'll see in the next appropriation request that we'll get to in the next section. We do have more that is designated for historic structures within state agencies and state owned facilities. So we do have a part of the real estate transfer tax, a larger portion that comes to us is designated for that purpose, not reflected in Department of Heritage, but in a subsequent appropriation request. We'll see in a moment. Well, is there any way since the division actually handles all of those applications and grants? Is that right? You're shaking your head, yes, I guess. So it's at the department level or the division level, yes. Well, you're the head of the department. There is also NCRC also has a council that is responsible for the distribution of those funds, but that's dictated through the act that created the law that outlines the role and purpose of those funds specifically. Can we get a list or a total amount that is used for the purpose of historic preservation? Yes, yes, we can provide that. Okay, and maybe Mr. Riles can say how much in those type grants have been allocated for this past year? Sure, we have, we're talking about two different things here. You have the Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resource Commission, which is a commission that's made up of, I think there's eight or nine members that any state owned facility is eligible for those. Those grants, but then within the division heritage is further grants that are for historic preservation, historic restoration grants. I mean, there's several, but absolutely we can get you that list, be happy to. So, well, from what the conversation has been, it's sounded as if the real estate transfer tax. That 10% used to go to that natural resources with the board just mentioned, but now it goes to the division. Is that right? A portion goes to State Parks, a portion goes to Department of Arkansas Heritage, and then a portion stays in that the council manages for their awards. The larger portion stays with the council. Well, is there a breakdown of that? Is that what our bureau person referred to? There is a separate appropriation request. Yes, ma'am. Is this in that tax handbook where we can see all these things? Senator NCRC is a little bit later in the agenda, so we will get to that presentation. I understand that, but it just sounds like what we've done is changed where some funding goes, and it goes into this Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism, but we're not getting the total amount. I mean, where all these funding sources coming from is what I want to know. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes, your recognize, Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, it's on page 198 of the tax handbook, and it'll show the distribution of the tax, and the previous pages show you all the different laws that changed how that tax was set up. So it'll give you the history of where it went and where it's being moved to, and it also shows you the revenues generated since 2015. Yes, ma'am. And that's on page 197 or 198 pages. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Flower. Senator Kane, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry, I just walked in. But this may not be necessarily the budget, but on the Buffalo River designation issue that caused the big crosses. Is there anything you are hearing or any drive at all to change or work on the Buffalo River designation change? No, nothing currently on our plates are associated with it. Is this natural state committee, or are they still meeting and deciding things, or do you know, or you're a part of, what are they doing? Sure, I'm a member of the Natural State Initiative. We have a working group. We're in the process of trying to schedule a meeting here between now and the end of the year. Have you been meeting this past year? I'm trying to remember when our last meeting was. It has been a little while. Okay, if you could just provide me with the last September, I believe was the last. Yeah, if you could just provide me summaries of what's discussed there or your regulations of it, and you said you're meeting when? We're trying, we're in the process now scheduling a meeting between now and the end of the calendar year. Is that a public meeting? Point more, Mr. Chair. Oh, she's. Are you about finished in another king? Yeah, I can see where this is going so. Okay, thank you. All right. I see. All right. Seeing no further questions. Do I have a motion to pass this? Okay, I've got a motion. Do I have a second? I've got a motion and a second to pass this executive recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are moving on to number nine. Mr. Parish, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're on page 298. This is for the Arkansas Arts Council. The Council seeks to advance the Arts and Arkansas. The Council expands cultural and educational opportunities by investing in museums, theaters, symphonies, and other providers of artistic programming. On page 298, this page shows the publication of an annual report. And the next page is there at the Department of Appropriation Summary. There's a number on page 299. The division has two appropriation requests. The Total Authorities Appropriation for fiscal year 27. Again, this is that third column at the bottom is 1.19 million. The division requests for the next biome is only $5,000 less. That's a less than 1% change. This is associated with discontinued and vacant unbudgeted position. The executive recommendation provides for the agency requests. If you look at funding sources, the division is funded from federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts, and cash funds from registration fees, sales, and workshop sessions. Here that is the Arts Council presentation. Thank you for your presentation. Representative makes your recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, a question I had is you said there was a $5,000 decline in the budget, and that was due to the elimination of one position. I'm just kind of curious, one position, only $5,000. I believe it's offset with the pay plan implementations. I'd have to look at the details, but I think that's the difference. So, we're spending more on the employee we're keeping, and so the difference between, and I'm assuming that employee we're dropping probably was part-time. It would be a full-time position. Okay. Even with that adjustment, $5,000 still seems kind of small, but I'm assuming that everything's on the up and up. So, as the new pay plan was implemented, salaries went up in other positions. That was an entry-level administrative analyst position, and so that's the difference that shows there. The other positions went up and paid, leaving that $5,000 difference. Okay. Okay, thank you. Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to approve this executive recommendation? I've got a motion, do I have a second? I have a motion, I have a second, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, we are now moving on to 10. Mr. Parrish, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on the Natural and Cultural Resources Council. This is page 304. The Council of Ministers, a grants program for the acquisition, management, and stewardship of state owned properties acquired or used for council approved purposes. Grants for projects that protect and maintain state owned natural areas, historic sites, and outdoor recreation. This page shows they have no publications, and their next page is the Department of Appropriation Summary. That's on page 305. The division has three appropriation requests. There are no change levels. The total authorized appropriation in fiscal year 27 is $54 million. The Council requests $54 million for the biennium. The executive recommendation provides for this agency request. The division is funded from proceeds from the state's real estate transfer tax. Again, that's page 197 that tax handbook. 80% goes to the NCRC state owned lands program. 10% is for main street and state historic preservation programs. The first appropriation is for $0. This is to allow appropriation to be transferred in from the second section. The second section transfers appropriation to agencies throughout the state when grants are made by the council for the acquisition, management, and stewardship of state owned property. The third section does the same for the main street and state historic preservation programs. You will not see actual expenses for the last few sections. Special language specifies that grants are made to state agencies from these sections. The corresponding amount of appropriation and funding may be transferred to the receiving state agency. Therefore, actual expenditures are reflected by the recipient agency. Mr. Chair, that is the NCRC budget presentation. Thank you, Mr. Parish, for your presentation. Senator Arvin, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, and it's primarily on page 310. I think it's another question about the main street program just to add to the request for Senator Payton to look at any funding that is going to main street. Programs wanted to see what exactly the use of those are for. If it's for capital outlay, festivals, programming, whatever. I just want to, and you can copy me on that too. And so just wanted to see any program. And if there are these funding nonprofit organizations that are like Main Street, Hebris Springs or Main Street, they are okay. So we just, I want to just look at that and see what that money is being used for. And thank you. We'll be glad to provide that. Thank you. Senator Mark Johnson, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you. I had a question. It's a little bit of a follow-up on Senator Arvin's question. I don't know if it's in the Main Street program or if it's in affiliation with the. I'm having a senior moment with me that the museum on Broadway, Mosaic Templars. Sorry, just a little quick clip there. I came down Knight Street yesterday and there were containers in the street and they had some signage on them and all this. Is this the kind of stuff that's being paid for out of that fund or exactly what is that? There was a project that was done. It kicked off. I believe it was early spring related to studio main and they did a pop-up along Knight Street to bring up the historic nature of the street. They did a street diet. It was not a program that we ran, but we had programming associated with Juneteenth out in Knight Street. But that's not our department. Well, I'm glad that they're doing some things like that and awareness along Knight Street. But when you put something in the street, whether it's a bike path on seventh or containers on Knight, I start paying more attention to that. And I just want to know, is that permanent or is that a temporary thing or what? To my understanding, it should be wrapping up soon, but it is through a nonprofit studio main. And so they're working with the city. There was no $3 involved in the actual buying a container or anything like that. Okay, great. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez, the other Justin in the legislature, you're recognized. Except you went away. There you go. I don't mean to turn that on, sorry. All right. Well, you are not recognized then. You're good. Representative Luton, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question's on page 309 and page 311. And here again, it's excess appropriation funding on 309. It shows 70, 70.7 million. And then that's in the NCR state-owned lands and historic sites. And then on the next page, 311, it shows a balance of 18 million, 3. Are we not using that money or is that designated funds or how come we have such an excess balance in those two accounts? Yes, sir. So the awards that we've been talking about, the NCRC grant awards that go to general revenue, you know, receiving agencies and state-owned properties, they're two-year awards. So it does have to do with the timing of the awards and the drawdowns that those recipients make. And so while the fund balance looks large, the full amounts of the appropriation are essentially awarded out every year. So the money is committed. Absolutely. But yet it's still in the- Yes, sir. Are we making- Do you have that money invested? Yes, sir. And the interest earned on that trust fund is directly back into that fund for future awards. Do you receive the investment amount of money? Yes, sir. As a trust fund. As a trust fund. As a trust fund. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Seeing no more questions, do I have a motion to approve this executive record? Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I've got a motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now on to number 11. Mr. Parrish, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're on page 312. This is the Parks Heritage and Tourism, Parks and Tourism Divisions. The Parks and Tourism Divisions missions enhance quality of life throughout the experiences, connections to Arkansas Heritage and Resource Management. On page 312, it shows the employment summary and no publications. The next page shows their department appropriation summary. So now we're on page 313. The division has 15 appropriation requests. The total authorized budget in fiscal 27 is 238 million in spending authority. The division requests 202 million in fiscal year 28. That's a $35 million decrease for about 15% reduction. And $197 million for fiscal 29. That's a $40 million decrease for about a 17% reduction in budget. Four sections have a change level for something other than normal salary adjustments being carried over into the new biennium. The executive recommendation provides for the agency requests. The division is funded from General Revenue, Federal Grants, Special Revenue from 45% of the 1.8% conservation sales tax, and catch funds from sales and rentals at state parks. So now we'll go through the change levels and the first one begins on page 321. On page 321 is their conservation tax section. It provides for the special revenue administration of the division and it's supported by a special revenue fund. The next page 322 is the appropriation summary. Again, that third column for fiscal year 27, the authorized appropriation. The total amount is 83.5 million was authorized in 27. The request in 28 is 85.6 million. That's a 2% increase. And in 29, it's 80.6 million. That's a 4% decrease from 27. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency requests. Those change levels begin with salaries and match. And those are just rate changes that are due to adjustments for the employees as authorized by law. Extra help is 2.1 million in 27. In 28, it's 1.9 million. That's a $200,000 decrease for about 9% reduction. This is to align with existing spin transfer seasonal staffing requirements. Operating expenses is 16.3 million in 27. The request in 28 and 29 is 18.3 million. That's a 12% increase. This is to accommodate increased prices for utilities, contractual services and supplies. Professional fees is authorized at 613,000. In 28 and 29, the request is 200,000. That's a 67% decrease. This is to align with the anticipated needs based on current spin patterns. And most of the movement happens here in the construction line item. What's authorized in 27 is 45.8 million. In 28, the request is 40.8 million. That's a $5 million difference. It's a 11% decrease. And in 29, it's 35.8 million. That is a $10 million decrease or 22% reduction. Again, that is to allow for the current spin trends to continue on maintaining support for current projects. If you look at funding sources, the fund balance going into 26 was $46.5 million. The fund collected special revenue in the amount of $48.99 million. Again, that's 45% of the 1.8% conservation sales tax. Transfer a 1.1 million. This is to share services. The division spent 48.98 million in 26. That leaves a balance of 46.1 million going into 27. The next change level is the next page, page 323. This is Keep Arkansas Beautiful. It provides for the special revenue administration of this commission. It's supported by a special revenue fund. On the next page, 324 is their summary. Total authorized in 27 is a little over a million. Request is for zero. This is a request to discontinue the appropriation. The executive recommendation provides for that request. In the 2026 fiscal session, special language transferred all funding. Appropriation positions and responsibilities of the Keep Arkansas Beautiful program to the Department of Transportation. If you look at funding sources, the balance going into 26 was $1.4 million. The fund collected special revenue and amount of little over a million. Again, that's 1% of the 1.8% conservation sales tax. The commission spent $735,026. That leaves a balance of 1.79 million going into 27. And again, that's over at the Department of Transportation now. The next change level is on page 333. On page 333, this is the outdoor recreation and great strides program. It's a grant program for local governments to encourage physical activity and provide health benefits at local parks. It's supported by cash fund account. On page 334 is their appropriation summary. In 27, there was nothing authorized. The request for the biennium is for $500,000. The executive recommendation provides for that request. If you look at fund sources, the balance going into 26 was $587,000. The fund collected. In the interagency fund transfer, that line shows $540,000. That's from the Department of Health. The division spent $468,026. That leaves a balance of $684,000 going into $25. Members appropriation for this program was established through peer and ALC. So the division is now requesting to establish the Aspending Authority and their Appropriation Act. Next, change levels on page 343. On page 343 is the Delta Heritage Trail Construction Program. This section spends a grant from the Walton Family Foundation and a Federal Raise Grant on the development of a Delta Heritage Trail State Park. It's supported by a cash fund account. The next page 344 is their appropriation summary. In 27, 37.8 million was authorized. The request for the biennium is zero. This is requested to discontinue the appropriation as the division anticipates construction completion before the start of the biennium. The executive recommendation provides for that request. Mr. Chair, that is the end of the Parks and Tourism presentation. Mr. Parrish, thank you very much for your presentation. Representative makes you a recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my question actually is on one of the appropriations. You actually didn't touch, but on 326 we've got the tourism promotion section. Looks like as a state, we spent $33 million to promote Arkansas. All for that. I'm just wondering where are we spending the money at? And do we have any way of tracking the success on that investment? Mr. Chair, if it's okay. I'd like to invite Director Thomas to the stage. Yes. Director Thomas, please come recognize yourself and proceed with answering. Representative makes question. Good morning, Delaney Thomas with Parks Heritage and Tourism. Thank you for the question. Yes, we absolutely evaluate on an ongoing basis, the performance of our marketing. So we throughout this program, there is about 22 million that spent on advertising. We evaluate the return on investment with that. And our last study showed that we returned about $140 million or $140 excuse me for every $1 spent. But our two primary ways that we look at the strength of the tourism industry is through our economic impact study that we produced annually. In 2025, we set records for a visitation to Arkansas with over 54 million travelers coming and contributing $17 billion in economic impact to the state. And what revenue? What avenues are you using to spend that? Are we digital advertising commercial? Who are we targeting? Yeah, absolutely. We have an ongoing basis of marketing. So we're always on. We adjust our markets based on seasonality to ensure that we're reading or meeting the best traveler at the right time. Our primary spend is on digital placement through streaming, online, everything that you would expect there. But we do also place some print media and TV media as well and radio where it makes sense. And where are we targeting Texas Oklahoma nationwide? Yes, we separate our marketing into three primary categories. So in state marketing is important for us because about 55% of travel in the state is from in Arkansas. Our primary spend is going to be in our short haul markets, which are all of our touch states. Our Texas is our number one travel market. So we have a deep level of spending there. And then we do have some longer haul markets that are going to be reflected based on direct flights, as well as just travel patterns and where we're seeing some longer haul markets come to the state. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Director Thomas, I think you just answered this question, but I want to ask it directly. So could you help me understand on very high level how we know again if someone is coming from out of state and spending out of state dollars in the state versus you said there were 55% of our travel was in state. Again, high level not down in the weeds. Yeah, we partner with a leader in economic impact studies tourism economics to produce that plan. So we have ongoing research that's conducted throughout the year that helps us look at real visitation to the state and then self reported spending that is occurring from that traveler. So that's going to be our very high level, but then we do get more in the weeds on the digital placements where we're able to look at where we're placing media and where there's a return on travel based on that media market. Does that answer your question? So if tourism tax were increased, it's not just because of inflation. We're looking at other factors besides inflation, not that we're ruling inflation out, but we are specific. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you very much for that. Representative Lutner, you're recognized for your question. Mr. Chairman, I'll be quick. On page 320. Is that is that just a paying account to pay the employees? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Our general revenue for state parks. On page 340 and 342, concerning War Memorial Stadium, we're spending a million, roughly a million six each year out of sum. That's for maintenance. Are we breaking even out there now that the university has decided to move their games to federal? No, we're not breaking even. How do you have an estimate of roughly how much is cost in us? If I could invite Deputy Director Jeff King to the table, sweet. Deputy Director Jeff King for Arkansas State Parks. You're welcome to come to the table, introduce yourself and then I believe her answer the question. I believe her operating deficit is about a million dollars a year. About 500. About a million dollars a year. And that's with Catholic high and poor view using the stadium. That's right. And any other event that may take place out there. That's right. Okay. So roughly it's cost us 500,000 a year. No, about a million dollars a year. About a million dollars. Yeah, our income is roughly 500. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Deputy Director Jeff King, do you want to be recognized and try to clarify that? Jeff King, Deputy Director for the Division of State Parks. I can gather that number. I don't have the exact figure from last year. I will say that though that the, you know, the U of A game was a windfall for the stadium when we were when we hosted in the last year and hosted the University of Arkansas versus Arkansas State. So without that game, our revenues are shorter, but also so are expensive. So let me gather those, those numbers and get those two representative wood. Okay. Well, that'll be fine. That'll be perfect. And one, one more question. It's kind of on the subject yet. It's not. But there's been a discussion about your about all agencies paying into the shared services of the state. How much would that do you have an estimate what that would cost your agency to pay to pay for services being provided? And what are those services? For shared administrative services for the shared human resources functions. It's 270 per position, 326 per position and 270,000 for our department. For your department, 260,000 is your paying to the state. And you haven't paid that before. Is that correct? Correct. In other words, this is an addition for services. They say that they're providing to you. Can you tell a difference in services? We can. It has created an efficiency for us in the HR program specifically in shared services. We have been able to not fill some vacant positions because of that. And then it is also creating an efficiency and kind of lightened our responsibility level of knowledge where we were trying to maintain staff that we're keeping the knowledge base that opium was keeping at the same time. It kind of makes or makes opium the subject matter experts on personnel. Okay. Next thing. I want to come in you and Mr. Chair. And I want to take the time to come in you and your staff. You've been the most adequately prepared and you've been able to answer all the questions that we put forth. Thank you very much. Thank you. You and Mr. Riles and Secretary and your staff. Okay. So hang on right there. Representative Lightingman has a question. And then as soon as representative Lightingman has has his question answered director Thomas. We've had a request for you to provide a little bit more detail. So if you'll come back. Representative Lightingman, you're recognized. My question is for director Thomas actually or maybe or anyone can answer this maybe so you mentioned the Arkansas issue game. And I don't know a million dollars is what I understand that that netted but but the people up at the U of A told me they lost five million. So ASU people made 900,000. So I'm confused about you know what is the financial benefit to the state when we do that. Because you know you have a loses money because the smaller stadium issue gains money because it's a larger stadium for them. And it is an income for you all. So what's the net income that you received on that game? So at War Memorial Stadium it generated the game last year was $548,000 for the stadium itself specifically. When you think about the impact of a razor back game across the region though the impact that it has economically back several years ago. It was estimated at $10 million economic return on investment to the central Arkansas little rock area. But are we causing Northwest to lose money? I mean that's the question. And I think chairman mentioned that but we really need detail on. Is this good for the state or not? Because some of us have talked about wanting to do that game again. But it needs to be an income to the state. Is there any way you can give us some kind of a breakdown? I don't know if we know that specifically. I'll say on behalf of the stadium and the department, we would love to host the razor backs at War Memorial Stadium. I know you would. Again, people that issue probably would too. We would be glad to. The governor issued a letter to the universities at the University of Arkansas State University as well as University of Arkansas to work together to come up with a solution for that. Well, there would need to be changes at the stadium if we had that game again as you will know. And we continue to make investments and repairs for that and to be prepared for for a game there. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to go a little bit out of order so everybody in the queue. I'm not skipping over you. Director Thomas, please come up here. But Senator Hill was in the queue and then came out of the queue somehow. But Senator Hill, you're going to be recognized for your question. Thank you, Director Thomas. If you would go into a little more detail on the research and partnership that you do for the out of state tourism dollars, how you get those. I'd like to hear the who, when, where, why, and how. We determined to make sure it's accurate that we're getting our money's worth on that. I specifically would like to know how we track tourism dollars versus in state dollars. Absolutely. We have, through our digital marketing partnerships. We partner with a company called Adara. They've also, sojourn has acquired that company. And it is one of our primary tools that helps us look at the ads that we're placing in market. And when a consumer is exposed to that ad, if they then take some sort of action in terms of searching for a hotel booking, flight booking, and then all the way through the point of booking. We evaluate that on an ongoing basis with our ad agency partners to eliminate any markets that are not performing well. And then the annual study that I mentioned through tourism economics, which is a company that's under Oxford economics really well renowned for their work in data. And an economic impact. They help us look at that on an annual basis in terms of travelers and who's spending money in the state. How accurate do you feel like that information is? I feel it's accurate. With all data, there's, in my opinion, there's a good check as well that you associate with that. But there's no one silver bullet. So to speak in terms of the data, we have to look across all of our platforms to look at who's coming to our website. And then we compile all of that information to make our decisions in an informed way. Do you feel like that's your most accurate information you're receiving? That is accurate. The most accurate would be the two percent tax collections, though. That is the real number that shows overnight stays visitation to attractions in the state. That is our main metric. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Director Thomas, for that explanation. Representative McGruder, you are recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the commitment you offer being here today. I'm a freshman legislator, so I'm really not even qualified to ask a question, because I have no understanding of what's going on. But I'm on page 318 in regards to the Museum of Natural Resources. It seems if you have a $4 million fund balance, and I'm trying to get a better understanding of what's that for. And also exactly what this museum is doing. So while Jamie's looking for the related to the tax collections there, the Arkansas Museum of Natural Resources in Smackover, Arkansas, and was created for the interpretation and promotion of the Arkansas Natural Resources primarily oil fields found in Union County specifically. So it tells the story of the Arkansas oil fields and the great boom that happened here and interprets that as long as well as the timber industry today and Brian Collection and even into lithium now, too. Okay. So why do we have such a large balance remaining? What are you on page 318? I believe this is 318. I'm not seeing the $4 million number on 318. Funding sources or there's the sources that. Representative McGritter, will you get back in the queue? And I'm going to move to Senator Caldwell so we can keep things flowing. Is that okay? Yes sir. Thank you. Senator Caldwell, you're a recognized per question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, say on the Delta Heritage Trail project, y'all are at Watson, Arkansas going east to the Levy of the Arkansas River, going on a black top road and build a park down there. Is this coming out of the grant or is the state of Arkansas paying for that project? So the majority of the project that's funded the completion of the Delta Heritage Trail has come from a combination of private grants and federal grants. And we're using our balance of those grants to complete both the trail and the roadway project. We are supplementing some of the federal funds with state dollars so I can get you an exact breakout of that project if you'd like for the paving of the roadway. We're partnering with RDOP for that effort. That's fine. But again the park itself, the bath houses and so is that being paid for with the grant money or by state revenue? That's all grant funds right now at this point in our construction. That's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Garner, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a couple of questions. One is the outdoor irrigation grants on page 328. We've gone from 36 to almost 10 million, 171%. I just would love to have an overview of what those projects are and where they are in the state. Just kind of an overview. Yes, ma'am. So the 3 million there that's reflected as the actual expenditures. We have quite a bit more that is committed that's not reflected on that schedule. That is land water conservation funds that come to us. They're federal dollars that are managed by our outdoor recreation team and awarded. We do have a listing of those we could provide. We do have quite a bit still outsteading and committed to be paid out of that appropriation request. I'd love to see just a list and kind of where they are in the state. I'm excited about that. And then I just have a question because I have no idea what it is. And that is on page 313 and just the department appropriation on the wine council tourism facility. I just have a special interest in that facility and where it is and what it is. Director Thomas, if you want to join us back up here again for that. The wine council was moved to the department parks heritage tourism about a year ago. Since that time, director Thomas has been working and attending their commission meetings. And you can get a bit update on where it was. As Secretary Lewis mentioned, it was very recently moved over to our department. So we've been working with that group. It has commissioners from across the state obviously that are in the wine industry. There is right now no wine building. There's no wine tourism building that exists. The funds are still being collected towards that. So our primary conversations have been around how we can better partner to promote wine tourism and agri tourism at large. But that fund needs to grow a bit more before we could have infrastructure developed. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate you all. They have $4.1 million in their account currently. Representative Painter, you're a recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said the 2% collections that we know from that estate. Have we seen what kind of increase have we seen the last couple of years in that 2% from our state? I wouldn't be able to give right now the out of state. We could work with DFA to see if that number is available. We get that based on county level collection. And we're able to see by category of expenditure for hotel stays. But we don't currently receive the number for out of state versus in state. The 2% and its whole is at an all time high. Ended fiscal year 26 just under 27 million total in collection. Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. And we're up 5.79% fiscal year to date. Okay. Thank you. Representative McGruder, did you want to continue? Are you good? Okay. Great. Thank you, Senator Arvin for that. Seeing no further questions, do I have a motion to approve? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Seeing no other business for the day. We are adjourned. We will be back here tomorrow. Senator Arvin will be chairing and Representative Letterman will be the vast chair. Thank you. Thank you.