ALC Peer: Dec. 16, 2025

Senator Jonathan Dismang Members, if you can go ahead and take your seats, we’re going to get started. With that, the Chair sees a quorum. We’ll do this as before. We’re going to go through all of the items in a section, then I’ll come back one by one. And if there’s questions, that is when you’ll hit your mic. For instance, if you have a question on B3, hit your mic on B3. Don’t hit it on B1. Hit it on B3. But with that, Billy, go ahead and kick us off. Item B1. 

Temporary Appropriations

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in section B. These are various temporary appropriation requests. Item B1 is a letter from the Department of Health, Minority Health Commission. This is for $100,000 in spending authority. This is to support the second year launch of the Food Desert Elimination Program. The letter says the program will use Tobacco Settlement funds to make 10 reimbursable grants of $10,000 each. 

B2 is from the Department of Health, Minority Health Commission. This is $150,000. It’s to support the second year launch of the Maternal Health Outreach and Education program. That’s a collaborative that partners with the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine. This program is also supported by Tobacco Settlement funds. 

B3 is a letter from the Auditor of State for $20,000 in appropriation. This is to reimburse and cover future costs for integrating with the state’s new software accounting system. It’s supported by state central services. 

B4 is a letter from the Department of Education, Division of Higher Education. It’s for $7 million in appropriation. This is to fulfill scholarship needs for the Arkansas Future Grants Program. It’s supported by fund balances. 

B5 is a later from Public Safety, Division of State Police. It’s for $560,000 in appropriations. This is to replace live scans and accessories used for automated fingerprinting. It’s supported by fees generated from criminal history searches.

B6 is a letter from Public Safety and Emergency Management for $210,000 in spending authority. This is to cover increased maintenance contract costs and to re-align the coding of existing grant funded travel needs for the division. It’s supported by both general and federal revenues. 

B7 is a Letter from the Department of Health for $500,000. It’s to establish a construction line item to do land acquisition, facility renovations, structural improvements and new construction projects. It is supported primarily by vital records fees. 

B8 is a letter from DFA Revenue Division. It’s for $10 million. This is to cover implementation and increase contract costs to issue physical driver’s licenses. This will help modernize their credentialing systems. And it’s supported by license fees, search fees, and title fees. Mr. Chair, those are all the various temporary appropriation requests. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, thank you. Members, do we have any questions on B1, B2, B3, B4? 5, 6, 7, or 8? All right, seeing no questions, what’s the will of the committee? I’ve got a motion to approve items B1 through 8. I’ve got a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Section C. 

IIJA Appropriations

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in Section C. These are the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act Appropriation Requests. C1 is from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, for $3,060,000 in spending authority. They have a grant from FEMA for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant Program. That’s to do hazard mitigation activities. This is an update to an award that provides more funds for subgrants and admin costs. 

C2 is Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, $368,000. They have a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant Program. This is to protect against the risks that are inherent in transporting hazardous materials. Award will be used for personnel and operating costs, including training and making subgrants. 

C3 is Public Safety, Emergency Management, $8 million in appropriation. They have a grant from FEMA for the pre-disaster mitigation program. That’s to reduce risk from natural hazards and to reduce reliance on federal funding in future disasters. Mr. Chair, that’s all the IIJA requests. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, thank you. Members, any questions on C1? Senator Hickey, C1. You’re recognized for a question. Hold on just a second. I hit something wrong. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one question. A member had asked me that couldn’t be here today. They wanted me to ask the question. They wanted to make sure or at least have knowledge if any of these monies were going to be used in any way that would affect the federal surplus program that was out there. 

Because they thought that the first one, I believe, might be tied to it. And they just wanted to get acknowledgement of whether that was or was not. So I don’t know if staff can do it or the agency can just come down and answer that one question. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang It looks like we have somebody. If you could, just recognize yourself for the committee. And if you can, Senator Hickey, if you will just restate your question to make sure. 

AJ Gary Good morning. AJ Gary, director of the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management. And, sir, the answer to your question is this does not have anything to do with federal surplus property. It’s a mitigation federal grant program. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey They just wanted to make sure that it didn’t tie back in any way, shape or fashion. And I told them that I would ask that question for them since they couldn’t be here. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, do we have any other– Representative Ladyman. Hold on. I’ll get the hang of it again after a couple of months. There we go. You’re recognized. 

Representative Jack Ladyman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I need to have him back down there, I guess. Got a question. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang You’re already recognized. And, representative, you’re recognized to ask your question. 

Representative Jack Ladyman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was reading the details here on this grant, and it says it does so with the recognition of the growing hazards associated with climate change. How are we using this money to combat climate change? 

AJ Gary And I apologize, is this still the building resilient infrastructure, the Brick grant? 

Representative Jack Ladyman I think it is. C1. Are we on C1? 

AJ Gary Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was the right one. So this is a– and I’m going to ask one of our mitigation people to come up to help out on this, but– 

Representative Jack Ladyman Let me rephrase my question. I apologize for asking it that way. What will this money be actually used for? And I know it may be being held. So what things would this be used for? Because when they reference climate change, I would like to know the details on what we plan on using this money for. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang If you could just recognize yourself for the committee, and you’re welcome to answer. 

Jodi Lee Hi. Jodi Lee, deputy director of recovery and mitigation with the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management. The primary purpose of these grants are to mitigate past and future disasters. So, flooding is what this federal grant, FEMA, ties flooding to climate change. So, raising bridges, elevating roads, things like that, are what would primarily tie it to climate change. 

Representative Jack Ladyman It could also be used in response to tornadoes and those kind of events. Is that true? 

Jodi Lee This grant in particular is not used in response to tornadoes. This would be for future planning, mitigation plans, future infrastructure, possible infrastructure damages, in the event– upgrading things that could be damaged in the future. 

Representative Jack Ladyman So it could be used proactively to anticipate major problems. You might do the infrastructure where those problems could be abated. 

Jodi Lee Yes, yes. And also it could be used for safe rooms, public safe rooms too, that do go back to tornado safety. 

Representative Jack Ladyman All right. Thank you. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, thank you. Members, do we have any other questions? All right, seeing no other questions, what’s the will of the committee? Got a motion to approve item C1 through 3. I’ve got a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. D1.

Used Tire Program Funding Request

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in section D. This is a restricted reserve fund transfer request. This letter is from the Department of Energy and Environment Division of Environmental Quality. It’s a $2.5 million transfer from the various general discretionary majority vote set-aside account within the fund. 

According to the letter, these funds will support used tire program reimbursements and other costs associated with the used tire programs. For the committee’s information, the statewide accounting system shows the program’s revenue is relatively flat and expenses are climbing. And that is eating into the program’s fund balance. The balance was $3.4 million at the end of fiscal year 24. The balance is $894,000 as of last month. 

The agency confirms it is in a pattern of deficit spending on the program. And they point to a special report from Legislative Audit in January of 2023 that describes the balance in more detail. The department cites hikes in inflation, fuel prices, machinery and equipment, scarcity of parts for maintenance and repairs, and labor shortages, resulting in the climbing program expenses. ALC approved a $1 million transfer in October of 2022. That was the last time it faced a deficit. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, go ahead and have somebody come up. I know we’re going to have at least a couple of questions. And if you could just go ahead and recognize yourself for the committee and then I’m going to recognize Senator Hickey. 

Lauren Ballard Lauren Ballard, Chief of Staff, Department of Energy and Environment. 

Bailey Taylor Bailey Taylor, Chief Administrator of Environment and DEQ Director. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, thank you. Senator Hickey, you’re recognized.

Stack of Tires in District 4

Senator Jimmy Hickey Thank you, Senator Dismang. I’m up here to y’all’s left. So I guess the thing is, you all are presenting this as a deal for the overall program for the state. However, I’ve received some calls on this. And I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been told because I want to drill down into the specifics a little bit more. So what I have been told is that, I believe in District 4, that they just quit shredding tires completely over in that district. Is that true? 

Bailey Taylor Yes sir, their processors shut down and so they’ve been in the process of contracting a new one, going through procurement, trying to find someone else to take their tires. There have been some other districts that have chipped in where they can and pick up those tires to prevent them from piling up. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Okay, well, I’m going to tell you what I was told and then you can just tell me if that’s true or not true. And Mr. Chair, I may need just a little bit of latitude with that. So then, as to what you said, you said that they were going through the procurement process. But prior to that, I was told that that board actually went out and hired or attempted to hire somebody else without doing bids. And that they we’re going to do around $5 a tire, that they were just going to pay. Are you familiar with that? 

Bailey Taylor It’s my understanding that they had gone through emergency county procurement to find a new processor and they had been utilizing that processor while receiving their previous rate of $2.92. So hired, whenever Jefferson County was processing their– or the rate that they had established whenever their local processor was processing their tires. Then they submitted a revised business plan. 

We asked them to go through procurement to try to see if there was a competitive bid that would reduce that price, because, yes, their existing business plan request was for $5.05 a tire. We countered with a little bit of a lower number and asked them to go through the procurement. That business plan was never instituted. 

They went through procurement. We received a revised business plan with a lower number and a different processor. It’s our understanding that they’re still going through that process. And so we’re anticipating yet another revised plan. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey So after they did the procurement, it was my understanding, which they were doing part of the work in that particular district anyway, was Davis Tire out of Little Rock. Is that correct? What did they bid? What was their bid per tire after they went through the procurement process? Because they did win that, is that correct? 

Bailey Taylor I don’t have any knowledge of who won the contract. I don’t believe it’s final yet. So they did represent that that is the bid that they were going with. And I don’t recall the specific number per tire, but I can tell you what their reimbursement rate was going to be. That includes their admin costs and other transportation, not just Davis’–

Senator Jimmy Hickey That was going to be my next question. So how much was Davis? So you don’t know what their bid was? 

Bailey Taylor I don’t have that with me. No, sir. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey I have been told that, and I don’t have the exact number, that that was somewhere– because this is going to be part of my next question– is that it was somewhere around $1.97 to $2.50 or something like that per tire. 

Bailey Taylor Their overall request was $4.25. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey But that includes– that’s what the county’s put in. And that’s where I’m heading. That’s why I’m asking that. We need to know how much that Davis is doing because if– and I hate to do this by just making it up, especially in this meeting, but I’m going to use a round number. 

So if Davis only bid $2 a tire, and they’re going to get those tires and do them for $2, my question is, why are we going to be paying $4-something a tire? Because we’re going to be paying some monstrous amount for administrative. And none of this is adding up to me. 

Bailey Taylor They do break down their business plan. This is what the processor is charging, this is with the transporter is charging, and then here’s our admin. And so UTP4 has one of the lowest, I believe, it’s the second lowest admin cost in the state. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Overall cost, though, most of them, round numbers, are going to be either a little less or a little more than $2 per tire. Is that correct? 

Bailey Taylor The 2.92 is the highest. 2.90, 2.86, 2.80, those are the– 

Senator Jimmy Hickey So those are the three right now. And we’re talking about $4-something on this next one. Another thing I’m going to ask is, those tires that are stacked up over there when that was not done, are we 100% sure that somebody has not already received money on those tires? 

Bailey Taylor We do think that they probably have. And therefore we will not repay for someone to pick those tires up. There’s currently a proposed enforcement action for the processor facility to clean that up themselves since they had already been paid to do so. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey So what if they don’t? How many tires are we talking about? And a round number, because I’ve heard that it’s a huge stack. 

Bailey Taylor It’s massive, yeah. Thousands, tens of thousands. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey So you’re telling me that that’s going to be on the district to do on their own. So they’ve already– 

Bailey Taylor No, sir, the facility. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey But they’ve already received the funds? 

Bailey Taylor We’ve already reimbursed for that work, so they should have received the funds. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey This whole thing’s– I just don’t know about it. And this is not really anything that’s directed at you all, but if we’ve got a facility and a district over there that, I hate to say mismanagement, but I don’t what else to call it. If they’ve mismanaged it, and there’s a possibility that they’ve received funds and didn’t do the work, I’m not for sure that we don’t need to have Leg Audit or some other entity to look into that to see what’s going on and to see where those funds went before we go forward with funding the rest of this. 

And I know we’ve got an issue with these tires stacking up. But I’m not for sure if we could do something different and just allow Davis Tire or something to go get those tires and we only pay whatever that lesser number is. I just don’t understand throwing another $1.50, $2 per tire towards the facility with this history that I’m hearing about right here. 

Bailey Taylor So that request is not currently ready to be submitted or reviewed. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey If we fund this restricted reserve transfer, this is the funds that you were going to use to do that, correct? 

Bailey Taylor That and the other three districts that are currently over the $2.31 per tire. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey And I guess, Mr. Chair, that’s my issue right here, is if we’ve got the other districts, maybe that’s okay. But I’m just personally not willing to put money towards this other district until we get some clarification on what’s happened and that there’s not more to the story with these maybe getting paid in these tires that are, as you called it, massive. I’ve heard it is a huge amount of tires over there. And that district and the citizens there are going to be waiting for that to get cleaned up, and it never gets cleaned up. 

Bailey Taylor So currently, UTP4’s reimbursement rate is 2.90. So with this request for the restricted reserve transfer, they can only be reimbursed 2.90 until we come before you with a different request.  

Lauren Ballard And Senator, I want to clarify that too. Certainly, they would have to submit a revised business plan with all those variables explained that you’ve been asking questions about. And that would come through us and then it would actually go for review by full ALC before that would become effective. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey I guess that’s where I’m still struggling, even if it’s $2.90. If they’ve been paid for some other tires at $2.90, I don’t know that I’m personally willing to go forward until we get some clarification on this. It doesn’t add up to me, that if we think that there’s a possibility that there may be some mismanagement, why we’re going to continue to go forth with this. 

I don’t know if we can go a different route for a short term and maybe just use the processor, if Davis has got the low bid or whatever, if we can just use those and pay them their number without paying that additional money. Because we may have to use that additional money to go clean up those tires in that district. So Mr. Chair, I think I’ve said all I need to say. Thank you. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Alright, Representative Ladyman, you’re recognized for a question. 

Restricted Reserve Fund conversations

Representative Jack Ladyman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is about where that money is coming from. I mean, why are we taking this from restricted reserve? I thought that was money– when I ask for money from that, they say, well, you can’t really get that for operating. That’s for disasters or whatever. So why are going to restricted reserve instead of somewhere in the budget or the surplus? Why are we using restricted funds for an operating problem? 

Senator Jonathan Dismang That’s probably a DFA response. A little bit of background, I would say there was an agreement to do what we needed to do to keep the districts afloat while they’re still trying to develop a plan. I know that there are numerous members in the room that are engaged in that. But again, this is to keep operations going until whatever is developed is developed. And then when we were in session, we specifically set aside money to be able to accomplish that. 

Representative Jack Ladyman Set aside where? Where is it set aside? 

Senator Jonathan Dismang In a restricted reserve account. 

Representative Jack Ladyman Where’s that document that says we voted on that? I mean, what I’m asking is, there’s people in this room that talked about this. There’s also people in the room that have not talked about this. Okay. So, I mean a back room talk is not us voting on something. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang I can’t say what you do or what your members do when we’re discussing the budget and the bills that do detail outline how we do these things. 

Representative Jack Ladyman But you can say what you talked about in a back room. You just said that. You said there are members in here that decided. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang  I didn’t say anything about a back room. 

Representative Jack Ladyman You said– never mind. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang My insinuation was, and I think that’s one that’s correct, is the members that want to be engaged in this issue or engaged in this issue. And, sir, if you choose to be engaged in this issue, you are welcome to be engaged in this issue. There is no one preventing anyone from being engaged in the discussion on what to do with waste tires. 

And I would also say, I think anybody would want all of the support and help or new ideas they could in relation to trying to get to a solution on this issue. I promise you will not be prevented from being engaged. 

Representative Jack Ladyman Well, my question is, I don’t see this as being something that restricted funds should be used for because it’s operations. I don’t know why we don’t look at other places in the budget. You know, we have a surplus that we could use for this. Why are we going to restricted funds which are supposed to be there for things that we can’t fund in the regular budget? That’s my question. I don’t know who can answer that. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang As far as what I understand, I think I’ve answered it about as well as I can. The belief is that there is a solution that needs to be reached. But there does need to be a temporary bridge until we get there. Instead of putting more money into RSA and increasing the base, this was a way to bridge that gap. And if someone disagrees with that, from DFA or elsewhere, or has more that they can enlighten with it, I would welcome any other information. 

Representative Jack Ladyman I think I agree with Senator Hickey that we need more discussion on this before we pass it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Thank you. All right, Senator Irvin. And Senator Love, can you hit yours? Again, I accidentally clicked you off. Senator Irvin, you’re recognized. 

Questions about tires piling up

Senator Missy Irvin Thank you Mr. Chair. Hi, thank you. Which is the district? So the 2.5 million is for all four? There’s four districts, is that correct? Kind of need a white board here. Okay. So we have four districts. One is where we have this problem. Is that correct? 

Bailey Taylor Four is what Senator Hickey was talking about. District 4. 

Senator Missy Irvin Oh, District 4. 

Bailey Taylor The southeast. They’re quadrants of the state.

Senator Missy Irvin Okay. But there’s four total. One, which is Southeast, is where the issue is, where the tires are being stacked up and not being picked up. Okay, and when we go through the plan, you’re saying we have reimbursed them. We’ve given them money. But they have not used that money towards mitigating for the tires. Is that correct? 

Bailey Taylor Correct. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, do you legally have the ability to move forward with the other three districts and to do something different with this district? 

Bailey Taylor So this district’s current plan is for $2.90. Okay. So they don’t yet have a complete plan to increase that or use a different hauler with a different rate. However, what we are doing separate and apart from this is the facility that stockpiled those process tires that we reimbursed for the processing, we are enforcing them to clean up and mitigate as they said they had done and will do. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, and how are we enforcing that? 

Bailey Taylor Through a consent administrative order. We’re currently working out that consent and those agreements with them to try to get them to clean it up. And we’re working with them with options. We would rather handle this separately than change what their reimbursement is without them submitting their own plan. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, do we run the risk, or is there any language that’s included, if we move forward with this 2.5 million, with this one district, is there any language included that says– 

Bailey Taylor So this district is no longer using the facility that caused the stockpile. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, they’re going to use a different facility?

Bailey Taylor And they have been for about a year using a different processor so that tires are not continuing to stockpile. So reimbursing them the 2.90 or whatever it is their new request is, they’ve been able to operate. The district is separate from the facility that is stockpiling. They contracted the facility that stockpiled. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay. Are we including any language in this that says you will not give money to this facility that is under enforcement? 

Bailey Taylor We don’t have that included in this plan. I don’t know if that’s something we can. 

Lauren Ballard Well, if they wanted to amend their business plan to say, like, they would have to provide us a business plan saying, we are going to use this processor. So we would have the right to approve or give them feedback on that. So if they submitted a plan saying they were going to go back to this processor who has created such a problem– 

Senator Missy Irvin That’s saying if. I understand. You’re trying to be responsive to what they’re going to submit. My question is, you need to be directive and say, You will not use this money towards this facility that is under enforcement action by the state of Arkansas. Do you have the ability to do that? Yes or no? Because that’s the problem. 

We’re giving a district money that was spent at a facility that is now currently under an enforcement action by the department in the state of Arkansas. We feel uncomfortable giving money to that district and then repeating the same behavior. 

And is there any way– I understand you’re being responsive to their business plans they’re submitting. I’m not sure if that’s working. It’s not working with this. Do you have that ability to be directive that says, We will not allow this money to be spent with this facility that’s under enforcement? 

Bailey Taylor I think that is something we can direct them, state to them and let them know, document that in some fashion. And we always check the manifest, where were the tires processed, where were they sent, so we would have that ability to double check, reactively, that they followed through with that directive. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, I just would want like, Yes, we will do that. I just think that it’s important for the state of Arkansas to be demanding of the money that we’re going to spend to people. If they’ve been irresponsible with that money, we shouldn’t fund them again. Or we should say, you may not use money towards the facility that’s under enforcement action. 

I don’t know if you have the legal standing to do that or not. That’s really my question. If you don’t, I sure want to put that in law. Because if there’s somebody that’s got an enforcement action against them from the state of Arkansas, there’s no way I’m going to approve taxpayer money to go back to that facility. And if you don’t have the legal authority to do that, I need to know that. And it should be fixed, in my opinion. 

Bailey Taylor Can we follow up with you? Can we talk with our legal counsel? 

Senator Missy Irvin Thank you.

Senator Jonathan Dismang Senator Love, you are recognized for a question. 

Senator Fred Love Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I’m going back to this district number four. So they have collected– there was a, this district, they have a contractor that has collected the tires. And then we paid for them to collect and dispose of the tires, but they have not disposed of the tires. And so we have a stockpile of tires. That’s accurate, correct? 

Bailey Taylor Correct. And they since moved to a new processor that—

Senator Fred Love No, no, no. Wait a minute. I understand what you’re saying. But I guess, here’s the problem I’m having. So we paid for someone to not only collect the tires, but dispose of them. How do we reimburse for a service that they only do half of the job on? I guess I’m trying to get the full picture of it. Because we don’t only pay for collection, but we pay for disposal of the tire. The process is like two part. It’s collection and then disposal of a tire. 

Bailey Taylor Correct. So each district does it a little bit differently because they use different types of processors. So the manifest documents that the tire was collected, transported, and it may stop at, I dropped it at a permitted processing facility with the understanding that that facility would continue the processing and dispose of it. We don’t always get records from a permitted non-district facility that they actually disposed or recycled the material that they process.  

Senator Fred Love Okay, so I guess therein lies the problem for me, is that we’re not seeing the entire process through. And now we have a stockpile of tires that we have actually paid for. However, they’re not disposed of.

Bailey Taylor So we do inspect those facilities quarterly. And we’re able to tell whether they’re stockpiling or processing on time or not. So we check quarterly to make sure that that process was followed through. 

Senator Fred Love Do you think checking quarterly is– I mean, we have a stockpile of tires now. So do we not think that– we’re talking about people going and getting tractor trailer loads of tires per month, right, or however they– is that adequate? Is that adequate for what we’re talking about? Because now we have the stockpiles of tires, and we’ve paid for them. Do you get–

Bailey Taylor I do think it’s adequate to catch that the tires are being stockpiled instead of properly disposed. There are other factors, as far as getting that facility to take care of the stockpile and the time that they need to do it. In this case, they completely shut down now. We’re looking for someone to take care of that in a different way. 

Senator Fred Love Okay, so if it was adequate, then how do we have a stockpile of tires? 

Bailey Taylor They shut down. They shut their gates. There wasn’t anyone we could talk to to resolve the problem. 

Senator Fred Love Okay. All right. I’ll just leave it at that. I don’t think it’s adequate. And the reason why I’m saying it’s not adequate is because we have a stockpile of tires. And we’ve paid for them. They’re not disposed of. To me, that’s an issue. So now we’re talking about pulling out of the restricted reserve fund to actually pay for the tires that we’ve pay for. Is that not correct?

Bailey Taylor No, sir. 

Senator Fred Love Okay, so what are we talking about now? 

Bailey Taylor So going forward, each quarter, we reimburse more than what we receive from the removal fee. Each district’s reimbursement rate is higher than the $2.31, which is what we receive from the removal fee. So each quarter, we reimburse more than we receive. 

So the $2.5 million is to help cover that deficit each quarter so that the districts are not being reimbursed on a pro rata share. They’re being completely reimbursed to process and transport the tires that they did the previous quarter. And we do check these sort of things to make sure that the tires were actually processed. 

Again, we compare inspection reports, the people that are in the field checking. So we are aware and try to prevent the stockpiling issue. So we would not double reimburse for the tires that are at the stockpile facility. 

Lauren Ballard So if I could, I would like to just reiterate, the 2.5 million today is meant to supplement the tire reimbursement money– I’m sorry, the rim removal fee that’s coming in to pay those tire reimbursements. And as Director Taylor noted, if we have insufficient funds in a quarter, what will happen is what happened in the third quarter of 2022, when we were faced with pro rata distributions, meaning those tire districts, one– well, back then there was more– but one through four now would be receiving only a portion because we don’t have enough money to cover it. 

That’s what the statute requires if we don’t have adequate funds. So back in 22, actually money, I believe from restricted reserve, was used to help bridge that gap. So that’s what the request is here today. As far as District 4 and some of those items, they are at that current rate, that current reimbursement rate. 

If they want to increase that or change their business plan, that does have to come through the department and then goes, due to a change in 23, is actually presented to ALC so that ALC has an opportunity to take a look and see what all District 4 is planning to do to address some of those issues. But no, that money is not intended to go pay for tires that were already reimbursed. It’s meant to supplement those tire reimbursements as needed. 

Bailey Taylor For all districts. 

Lauren Ballard For all districts. 

Senator Fred Love All right, thank you.

Senator Jonathan Dismang  Thank you. And I just want to make sure I understand the general process. So in essence, money’s being collected right now for tires. State holds it. There’s districts that are set up across the state. Those districts create a plan. They submit that plan to the state about how they’re going to take care of the tires, all the way to know how much they’re going to pay for them. 

That district may engage with a processor. So they get money from the state. The district, they pay the processor. The processor is the receiver for the tires. And at some point in District 4, it sounds like to me the processor that they had contracted with just stopped doing their job, right? And that got caught and that got stopped. 

And then District 4 had to submit another plan. And they’re contracted with someone else right now that is a completely different processor that is processing the tires, which there is still a cost for the ongoing processing. This replicates itself amongst each one of the districts in some way or another. Maybe one area is more expensive to live in than the other, whatever it may be, and there’s some different cost factors.

Lauren Ballard And some districts process their own tires. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Okay. And so with all that said, if we do not release the funds, the $2.5 million, which cannot be used for the District 4 issue, only to collect and process tires, what happens? 

Bailey Taylor Then we will reimburse each district every quarter on a pro rata share of what we receive, which would be, an estimate, $400,000 a quarter less than what they’ve requested. 

Lauren Ballard If we do not collect sufficient revenue to cover. Like, if they need reimbursement on so many tires and we have not collected sufficient rim removal tire fees to cover that amount. But whatever the shortfall is will result in a pro-rata distribution to all districts. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Gotcha. Okay, so substantially less to all districts, which means when they’re not processing tires, it’s like vacant lots that folks own in Little Rock that are full of tires. That’s where these tires are going to end up. And we’re going to find the tires, and we’ll pay for them one way or the other. And so my question is, is there a solution? 

So you hear the concern. The concern is District 4 and the processor that they utilize, which they are no longer utilizing, has this backlog of tires. And we don’t want to give District 4 any money that could be even potentially used. But if I’m understanding it correctly, they couldn’t because they’ve already contracted to give the money that we’ve been talking about with this pot to the new processor. 

Bailey Taylor They’re in the process of that, yes. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Okay. I’m just trying to make sure we don’t hamstring the entire state and have tires piled up in your neighborhoods because we don’t have a place to take tires because we can’t economically do that. And I understand the concerns that are with what happened in District 4 and ensuring they don’t continue to happen. However, we need to alleviate that, I think we can. Senator Hickey, you’re recognized. 

Question about bids in District 4

Senator Jimmy Hickey Thank you, Senator Dismang. And I think Senator Dismang had a good little analogy of how it all worked, but I wanted to make sure that there was one more piece. So, and again, I’m round numbers here, but Davis Tire is basically 2.90. And the plan that you think is going to be submitted is going be 4.05. 

So we got 1.15 per tire that’s going to be going to this district. That’s the issue, in my part, is you’ve got this other 1.15 per tire over and above what it’s going to cost to shred them. How much are the other districts receiving for that? Is that what would be your administrative fee, where they’re getting just a few cents? 

Bailey Taylor So the plan that you’re talking about is not a plan that we are prepared to support at this point. We’re anticipating a new plan. So I’m hesitant to speak on a plan that we know is being pulled. But I will say that that extra money also included the transportation of those tires. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey From the retailer? 

Bailey Taylor From the retailer to collection point. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Let me ask you this. In the other three districts, though, is the retailer not paying– they’re paying for the transport in the other three districts, correct? The retailer themselves? 

Bailey Taylor In some cases, the retailer chooses to pay for the transportation themselves. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey I thought it was in every case. Don’t they get something like– I’m sorry, I know we’ve dealt with this for years. Is it like 15 cents a tire? 

Bailey Taylor Yes. They get 5 percent of the $3.

Senator Jimmy Hickey Okay, 5 percent of the $3. All right, so that’s going to be 15 cents, right? 

Bailey Taylor Yes. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Okay, so we got 15 cents. So we got 1.05. We got 1.05 here. So that gets us down to 90 cents. So the 90 cents, we’re going to just send this 90 cents as an administrative fee to that district? Who’s doing what with that other 90 cents a tire? 

Bailey Taylor In UTP4, the tire retailers are able to have their tires picked up for free by the district. That’s their model. That’s their plan. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Again, Mr. Chair, I hear what you’re saying. You’re telling me, we’ve got this plan that you’ve heard something about and it’s coming. It’s the same one that I’m hearing about that’s coming. What are you all going to approve in the end? Are you going to stick with the 2.90? Are you going to stick with something that’s consistent with the other districts? 

You didn’t create this problem unless you all didn’t do your job as far as watching these tires close enough to make sure they didn’t get stacked up. I don’t think that that was the case. So don’t misunderstand. I’m not coming at you all. Other than, I want to make sure that these people that, in my opinion, maybe there needs to be an investigation– I’m not going to sit up here and say they’ve done anything wrong yet and make some accusation that I don’t know is true. 

All I’m saying is there’s a red flag that’s been run up for me. You sit down here and you tell me that somebody’s been paid, that there’s– I don’t remember your word– but basically a monstrous pile of tires over there. I just don’t see paying the same people anything. I don’t seeing paying somebody anything until we get it figured out that there wasn’t some misuse of the money. That’s not who I am. I just don’t understand doing something like that or why we would even be thinking about doing that. 

Bailey Taylor We’re trying to prevent tires from continuing to be stacked up in people’s homes and businesses. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey So this is my thing. I understand we’ve got this over there, and maybe you can’t do it because of the way the law is set up, and that’s something maybe I heard Senator Irvin ask about. 

What I’m saying is, is if we’ve got a shredder that is willing to do it for 2.90 or whatever it is– and I don’t know if that includes them going to pick them up or doesn’t include them going to them pick them up– is there some way, until we figure all this out, that we cannot just pay them their money direct? 

They go pick up those tires at those locations in that district until we figure out what’s going on. And we just pay whatever that bid number was. 

Bailey Taylor So what’s been happening in some cases is that the counties that are close to District 1, District 1 has been lending a hand and picking those up and taking care of those. And we reimburse at District 1’s rate. 

District 3 has also been stepping in, and we would reimburse District 3 at their rate for going across the District 4 border and picking up some things. That hasn’t taken care of every single county, but it has taken care of a lot of counties in District 4 in this interim. So there is that ability for us to do that as a Band-aid. 

Lauren Ballard And if I could add to that, I think Senator Hickey, too, I think the law does prescribe sort of the protocol of how we have to make some of those payments. So I don’t have that right here in front of me today, but I know it directs a lot of our work in that way. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey I don’t mind paying the other districts if that’s what we’ve got to do. But this district that’s in question that’s allowed this to happen. I just think that we’ve got to see that through before we give any more money. And how we get that established in here, that that’s going to happen that way, I don’t know. 

Or if it’s something that we need to pull down, or if it’s something that we need to let y’all think about until Friday’s meeting. Mr. Chair, I just don’t know where we need to go, but that’s the way I see that. Thank you. 

Used Tire item held

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, thank you. Members, any other questions? All right. Seeing none, what’s the will of the committee? Alright, we’ve got no motion. I would need to make sure that– I mean, my hope is we can provide some clarity to members before we come in on Friday and this is something that can be taken up on Friday. 

Because I do believe there’s probably some missing pieces in the conversation that we’re having right here about how the program works, some of the procedures that are in place, even if I’m just listening to what you’re saying. So I understand that we’ve got issues with District 4. I don’t know what those are exactly. 

But I do know that if we don’t pick up tires, we’re going to have a much bigger problem. And if we punish the remainder of the districts because of District 4, I think we’ll all be getting phone calls soon enough. So if we can have some conversations with those that have asked questions. 

I don’t think we’ve asked anything for follow up with the exception of with Senator Irvin and a couple of questions about legal, what that you can and cannot do. I believe it would be helpful to pull the contracts and agreements, because I believe most of that is probably covered in your contract that you have or approved or the agreement that’s been approved. And then probably more specifically the contracts between the district and the processor. Thank you. 

Members, and I’ll just ask real quick for those that were in the discussion, because I want to make sure we’re going to do generally what y’all want to do as far as a committee. Are we wanting to hold that item here in subcommittee, which it could still be pulled out for consideration in ALC? Or do we want to send it to ALC for future action? In other words, are we going to wait a month to hear it or do we want to go ahead and try to get some of these issues resolved before Friday? 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Mr. Chair, I would think it appropriate that we hold it in this committee. And then that way if somebody was to come with a plan by Friday, if that gives us an option to go ahead and pull it away from this committee, that would work. 

So I’d be happy to make that motion, not in any way saying that we’re going to try to do this. There’s going to have to be some, I believe, at least from my standpoint and from what I’ve heard from others, is that we want some answers as far as the tires that are there and how they’re going to handle it to make sure no other money is going to be spent. 

If they can come with that plan, then I think that we at least need to give them the option to go ahead and do it by Friday. So my motion would be to hold it in this committee. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang You don’t need any motion. We’re good. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Okay. Thank you, sir.

Senator Jonathan Dismang We’re going to hold it in committee and then we’ll wait for some information. If we get that, then we will make the motion in full ALC to pull it out of committee. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Thank you Senator. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Thanks. All right now we’re going to move to section E. Department of Corrections. 

Re-Entry Program staffing in Corrections

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in section E. This is a reallocation of resources for the Department of Corrections. There is no appropriation requested in this item. The request is to reassign positions related to the recidivism re-entry system. The Personnel Subcommittee will take up this request on Wednesday. T

he action on this item will be a recommendation to ALC Personnel to approve. In the regular session, the agencies provided more flexibility by allowing them to request a re-allocation of resources to manage and make changes to personnel. So the appropriation requests and the personnel changes are both seen by the appropriate committees, the reallocations will be seen by both the Peer and then Personnel tomorrow. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right. Thank you, members. First, do we have any questions on E1? This will have a different motion. Representative Tosh, you are recognized. 

Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we get the Department of Corrections? I have a quick question. First of all, thank you Mr. Chair. I know I’m not on this committee. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to ask a question. I just want to make sure. I see that we’re transferring 150 positions from the Department of Corrections to the Division of Corrections, the re-entry program, based on a piece of legislation that we passed. Is that correct? 

Senator Jonathan Dismang And then whoever needs to answer, you can identify, then we’ll–

Sonia Wallace Sonia Wallace, Human Resources Administrator for the Department of Corrections. 

Representative Dwight Tosh Did you hear my question? Your agency is transferring 150 positions over to the re-entry program. Is that the way I read this report? 

Sonia Wallace Currently, we’re only doing 50, transferring 50 correctional officer positions or corporals. We’re going to wait and fill those and see how that goes before we take away from our security. We are allowed to do up to 150. 

Representative Dwight Tosh Okay, that’s why I’m saying. You’re asking for authorization for 150, and you’re doing 50 now. I understand that. But I noticed these are vacant positions that you already have within the Division of Corrections. So I guess what I was curious about is, are you telling this committee that you have 150 vacant positions within your agency at this time? And you’re just transferring those over to the re-entry program? 

Sonia Wallace We do have some vacancies. I don’t have the exact number at this time, but we’re constantly filling those correctional officer positions. So that’s why we only wanted to start with 50 at this time. 

Representative Dwight Tosh And I understand that. Mr. Chair, I apologize for a couple of follow-up questions. But the report here says 150 vacant positions. So that’s the reason I asked the question. Are these vacant positions that you’re transferring? Because that’s what I’m reading in this report, and that’s kind of what got my attention as I was reviewing this. So are they new positions or vacant positions? These 150. 

Sonia Wallace They are vacant positions. 

Representative Dwight Tosh They are vacant positions. One last question, Mr. Chair. And I see that when you fill these positions, you’re doing it at the level of a correctional officer at the rank of corporal. So where I’m a little bit confused on that, and help me to understand, these are new positions that you’re moving over to the re-entry program.

 And you’re doing that and you’re asking for permission to reclassify these positions, I guess, or they’re already classified as Corrections Corporal. What is the rank of an entry level correctional officer that enters into the Department of Corrections? What would be their rank? 

Sonia Wallace As far as their grade? 

Representative Dwight Tosh Yeah, well their rank. They’ve got a rank. I’m sure you’ve got an organizational structure and they start out either as a correctional officer or corporal or sergeant or lieutenant. So a level entry officer that goes to work his first day, what is his title? What is his rank? 

Dexter Payne Dexter Payne. I’m the director for Division of Correction. At different facilities, that changes. At our work release facilities, they enter as a Correctional Officer 1. At our more larger facilities, they enter as a Corporal. So this is the entry level for most of our facilities, is a Corporal.

Representative Dwight Tosh So the entry level is a Corporal? 

Dexter Payne At the majority of our facilities, other than our work release facilities and our community correction facilities. 

Representative Dwight Tosh Okay, I’m not going to continue with questions. I do have a couple of issues that I really need to understand. Because my concern is, as an officer that enters at the Division of Corrections, if they’re not going into the re-entry program, they’re actually going to be starting out at a higher level or higher grade than someone that’s actually going into the Division of Correction if it’s not the re-entry program, based on the explanation I just received, unless I misunderstood. 

Sonia Wallace For the re-entry program, we’re requesting that they be– and I don’t know the proper term– reclassified from a corrections corporal over to a corrections program specialist. So we’re turning in these 50 corporal positions so that we can have them reclassify to use the proper title that is needed for this program. 

Representative Dwight Tosh I promise you, I understand all that. I guess my concern is that the Department of Corrections has submitted a report that says they have 150 vacant positions. And those are corporal positions, which to me, a corporal position means someone that’s had a little tenure there, that’s been there for a while. 

And I guess, Mr. Chair, my concern here is that– I won’t continue to restate it– is that, how in the world did we go and be able to accumulate 150 vacant positions in the Department of Corrections. I didn’t realize y’all had that many vacancies and they hadn’t been filled. I don’t know if you can answer that or not, but I’ll close with that. Thanks. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang I think one thing to keep in mind, this is all going to be fully vetted in the Personnel Subcommittee. We are a stop in the process, not because of a rule, not because of anything else, but at the direction of the chairs in case there was an appropriation tied to the request for the transfer of positions. 

So again, the personnel issues may be more in line with some of your questioning. You know, this isn’t the last stop. This is the first. We’re just touching it to pretty much say that there is an appropriation, more or less. All right, I think I got Representative Rye first. 

Representative Johnny Rye Thank you, Mr. Chair. Folks, let me ask you this. We’re talking 150 positions, okay? How many this year between 2025 and 2026, how many do you actually think that you’re going to have to hire? Is it just 50? 

Lindsey Wallace Lindsay Wallace, Secretary for the Department of Corrections. I apologize for my voice. So the act actually contemplates that we can convert up to 150 positions, but we didn’t want to start with that large of a number. The act also requires that we have one of these re-entry coordinator specialists at each facility. So we’re starting with a small number to kind of gauge what we’re going to need once we get it in place. 

We’re going to also create a couple of positions that are a quality assurance position to help with program evaluation and assessment to sort of help us determine the effectiveness of what we’re doing, and also create some sort of regional managers to help with these correctional re-entry folks at the facilities. 

So we may need more, but we wanted to start with a lower number before we went and asked for the whole thing. So that’s why you’re seeing the 50. It was just kind of a starting point. We know we’re at least going to need one, maybe two at some of the larger facilities. Maybe three. But we don’t know what that’s going to look like yet. But it works to create sort of case plans. It works with re-entry coordination out in community and all of those things related to that. So I don’t exactly how many we’re going to need, but that’s what the act contemplates. 

Representative Johnny Rye Follow-up, please, sir. Yes, ma’am, but on page one, it mentions 150 vacant correction officers’ positions. Are you just going to have 50 this next year? I mean, that’s where I’m going with it. 

Lindsey Wallace We don’t quite know the answer to that yet. So, as I said, the 150 is sort of the ceiling. So we can go up to 150 vacant positions if we need to create some more. But we didn’t want to start with 150 because security is very important, right? We didn’t want to start with the whole 150. So we started with the smaller number that we thought would be feasible. 

We’re going to have to see how easily we’re able to hire these folks. Hopefully that salary will get us some good applicants. We also have talked about hiring formerly incarcerated to help with these sort of re-entry navigation tools. So again, I don’t know exactly how many we’re going to need, but we wanted to start with, I guess, the smallest bite at the apple as we could. 

So we may be back asking for some more. But I didn’t want to take all of Director Payne’s security folks all at once until we see what the actual need is going to be for the positions. 

Representative Johnny Rye Okay, so actually we’re only talking 50? 

Lindsey Wallace Yes, sir. 

Representative Johnny Rye Okay, thank you.

Senator Jonathan Dismang Thank you. Representative Painter, you’re recognized for questions.

Representative Stetson Painter  Thank you. It’s just more for a request for information. Can you get us the information on the staffing levels that you have at these correctional facilities, where we’re at on that, please? That way, I think it may help us to understand what you’re asking for in this document. 

Lindsey Wallace Absolutely. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, members, do we have any other questions? All right. Seeing no other questions, again, this is not an actual request for approval. Our motion would be a motion to recommend approval to the ALC Personnel Subcommittee. We’ve got a motion. We’ve got a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. We’re going to move to our review items, section F. And again, we’re going to take these both. And we’ll come back for questions. Thank you. 

Budget transfers

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in section F. These are budget classification transfer requests. F1 is an item for the Department of Labor and Licensing, Contractor Licensing Board. It’s a $10,000 transfer from operating expenses to conference and travel. According to the request, they project a potential deficit in travel costs. 

Staff learned they attended a conference in September. At the same time, there was a system outage that shut down air traffic in the connecting airport, forcing them to extend their stay and nearly exhausting spending authority for the travel line item. 

Next item is F2. This is for the Department of Corrections. It’s a $250,000 transfer from operating expenses to professional fees. This is to cover costs for a dietitian, audits, and pre-employment psychological assessments. Mr. Chair, those are the two BCT requests. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right. Thank you. Members, do we have any questions on F1? On F2? What’s the will of the committee? We’ve got a motion to review. We’ve got a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. 

Members, I want to say this. I should have said it at the beginning. I and J, be reviewing those. If you have any questions, be ready for them. If not, we’re going to move on and adjourn. So again, I and J on the report section, if you have questions, be looking at those, and have those ready. And then we’ll move forward. All right, section G.

Federal Grants

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re in section G. These are miscellaneous federal grant appropriation requests. The first one, G1, is Department of Human Services, Division of County Operations. This is for $590,000 in spending authority. They have a grant from the USDA for a fraud framework implementation project. The project will enhance SNAP administration and increase oversight through analysis of EBT transactions to detect fraud. 

G2 is Energy and Environment, Division for Environmental Quality. This is for 3.5 million. They have a grant from the Department of Energy for the Weatherization Assistance Program to increase the energy efficiency of homes. 

G3 is Parks, Heritage, and Tourism, Division of Heritage, it’s 100,000. They have a grant from the National Park Service to support the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. The state match of 40% will come from the real estate transfer tax. 

G4 is Department of Health, 1.3 million. They have a grant from CDC to provide emergency response for respiratory disease. The request notes increasing cases of avian influenza and says the funds will be prioritized to purchase a mobile local health unit, modernized testing at the lab, purchasing supplies, vaccines and protective equipment. 

G5 is a request from the Department of Health. It’s 3.8 million. They have a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration for the AIDS drug assistance program. 

G6 is Commerce Division of Workforce Services, Office of Skills Development This is $35.8 million and to establish two positions. They have a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor to support the expansion of manufacturing registered apprenticeships. The Personnel Subcommittee will review the position titles and their grades and class at the meeting tomorrow. 

G7 is Military, 200,000. They have a grant from the National Guard Bureau. And it’s for a needed increase in extra help. 

G8 is Agriculture, 160,000. They have a grant from the Department of Agriculture to support the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, specifically detecting emergency diseases and outbreaks. 

G9 is Public Safety, Emergency Management, 4.1 million. They have a grant from FEMA to support the Emergency Management Performance Grant program that develops emergency management capabilities. 

G10 is Public Safety, Emergency Management. Again, this is 2.1 billion. They have a grant from FEMA to support the Nonprofit Security Grant Program National Security Supplement. And that does target hardening and physical security enhancements at nonprofits that are at high risk of terrorist attack. 

G11, Public Safety, Emergency Management, $1.2 million. They have a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to achieve the national preparedness goal. 

G12, Public Safety, Emergency Management, $58,000. A grant from FEMA for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 

G13, Public Safety, Emergency Management,$ 1.5 million. They have another grant from the Department of Homeland Security to support nonprofit organizations at high risk of terrorist attacks. 

G14 is Agriculture. This is 7 million. They have a grant from the USDA to acquire 1,300 acres in the Maumelle watershed to be held by Central Arkansas Water. Members, this is the item that was held last month and then pulled down before ALC. It has been resubmitted with information showing CAW is the subgrantee. Also included with the request is a report in response to the discussion the subcommittee had in the last meeting. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Alright, thank you. If we can go ahead and have someone from the Department of Agriculture start making their way forward. I’m going to read through the rest. I know there’s going to be questions on it. So anyone have questions on G1? Questions on 5, 6, 7, 8? We’ve got a question on 8. That is also Ag Department. Winner, winner. 

I’m going to keep reading through while they’re coming up. Is anyone going to have questions on 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13? So just Ag Department. If you all can go ahead and come up. And then, Senator Irvin, you’re recognized for your question. Just go ahead and recognize yourself for the committee. Yeah, you’re going to have to hit your mic. 

Sharon Pulla Thank you, Senator. My name is Sharon Pulla. I serve as the Director of Laboratory Services at the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. 

Inoussa Zaki Inoussa Zaki, Fiscal Officer, Department of Agriculture. 

Kyle Cunningham Kyle Cunningham, State Forester, Department of Agriculture. 

Senator Missy Irvin Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I wanted to specifically ask how you’re going to utilize this money. First, let me just say thank you for the job you’re doing. You do an excellent job. And just hands down to all the people that work at the state veterinarian and diagnostic lab under USDA and through Department of– not USDA, but Department of Ag. So I appreciate all that you do. But could you speak a little bit more? Are there specifics about the different things that you’re addressing with this money, if you don’t mind? 

Sharon Pulla Yes, ma’am. First of all, thank you for the words of encouragement. We appreciate all the support we get. Yes, Ma’am. We are recognized as a member of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network. We are a level two laboratory recognized by the USDA. 

So these grants will be used to enhance our diagnostic testing capacity, to be able to provide better purchase equipment, micropipettes, instruments, et cetera. And to make sure we have top-notch biosafety and biosecurity for personnel safety as we are handling some of these samples that come in for our testing, and also to provide quality management and administrative support as well. 

Senator Missy Irvin Thank you. And is there any updates or have we had any cases of the EHV outbreak that we’ve seen in Texas and Oklahoma with the equine? Do you know? Could you answer? 

Sharon Pulla Yes ma’am. We are closely monitoring. Our Department of Division of Animal Health personnel are closely monitoring the cases. We have received several calls from concerned individuals asking for our assistance. And we are keeping track of that information. 

Senator Missy Irvin Well, thank you. I want to just, a little more information, but also just to be able to say thank you. And I hope it’s encouraging, but we really do appreciate it. It’s really important work that y’all do. Thank you. 

Sharon Pulla Thank you, ma’am. We really appreciate it. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Representative Ladyman, you’re recognized for a question on G8. 

Representative Jack Ladyman I’m sorry, G12. I’ll get out until they get there. I’ve got a question on G12. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Okay, we already have Ag Department up, so I’m going to jump ahead of you so that we don’t make them go back and forth. For the Maumelle Water Excellence. Do we have any other questions on G8? All right, seeing none, Representative Bentley, you are recognized. 

Lake Maumelle land purchase for Central Arkansas Water

Representative Mary Bentley Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. I would just like to ask a couple of questions and why– I’m over here– we are the number one state in the nation right now for people to move to. We need houses built in Arkansas. So you’re asking us to give approval for $7 million of tax dollars to be spent on property that is prime for development around Lake Maumelle so they can’t build only homes there. 

Given the fact that the Pulaski County Quorum Court has passed resolutions to make sure all of the land there in the Lake Maumelle watershed is properly taken care of, any builders there are making sure they’re not hurting in the tributary, so I really have some serious heartburn about us giving tax dollars to a water department for them to have more land around Lake Maumelle when the water there is pristine and clear, and we need more houses in this area. 

So I have heartburn with this. And I want to understand why we’re giving another $7 million to Central Arkansas Water who just got 2,000 acres out of Perry County, millions of dollars spent over there. I can have no development there. And now you want to get more land, when all around Beaver Lake, all around lots of lakes that we use for water, we have homes around there, beautiful homes. 

We are the number one state in the nation, need new homes. So explain to me why we want to use tax dollars to stop development around that area. 

Inoussa Zaki Okay, also, if I could, could I have Central Arkansas Water join me for this conversation? 

Representative Mary Bentley It’s fine if you want to have someone answer some questions for them, that’d be fine. It’s up to the chairman. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang If you could, just go ahead and recognize yourself for the committee. And then, Representative Bentley, you are recognized to restate your question. 

Bryan Rupar Thank you, Chair. My name is Brian Rupar. I’m the Watershed Protection Manager for Central Arkansas Water. 

Representative Mary Bentley Okay, so just to reaffirm, the Pulaski County Quorum Court has passed a resolution to make sure that any houses that are built in the Lake Maumille watershed are protected, to make sure the water is protected, that the tributaries are protected. We know that’s been passed by the Quorum Court in Pulaski County.

 And now you’re asking us to spend $7 million of tax dollars to stop any housing development around Lake Maumelle. I just have some real heartburn with that. Again, seeing that we’re the number one state in the nation that people are moving to, we need some beautiful homes. We’ve done it all around other lakes that are used for water around the state. Why are we preventing it here at Lake Maumelle? 

Inoussa Zaki Okay, some of those questions I’ll let CAW answer. I will speak to the Forest Legacy Program. It is designed for very targeted specific purchases to protect productive forest lands across the state. There are Forest Legacy areas that are identified and approved by a National Forest Legacy Panel. 

So it’s not just open purchasing of land to remove it from production or development. The watershed in particular here is one that is in high risk of development. And so when we look at this specific purchase, it’s in the headwaters of the Maumelle Lake, of Lake Maumelle. And so it’s really a targeted tract that will help protect the water in that area. 

There’s other benefits here, as well, as we’ll continue to have timber production on this land. The Ouachita National Trail runs through this area to Pinnacle State Park. And so there’s a lot of multiple use benefits to the public for this particular tract. I agree with you overall. We don’t need to be buying land randomly across the state. 

So this started at the local level, went to the regional level with forest service, and then went through national approval procedures. So it’s been transparent. It’s went through the rigor of approval. And so these are very targeted purchases we do with Forest Legacy. Does that help in any way? 

Representative Mary Bentley I can see what you’re saying, with the land coming into the lake around the Maumelle River, which is, again, my constituents have been extremely good stewards of that land, that water coming in from the Maumelle River into Lake Maumelle is pristine. It has been for generations. Those people are taking a great good care of that land. 

But on the other side, we’ve already had some development. That’s not headwaters coming into the lake. That’s prime material by Roland and Little Italy. I care about my district. I want to see development out there. We’ve already taken 2,000 acres out of Perry County that can never be developed, land that could’ve really been some nice houses on there in Perry County. 

The U.S. National Government owns Ouachita National Forest, which has 170,000 acres in Perry County. We take another 2,000 for Central Arkansas Water. And I can understand a little bit there, heading in from like the Maumelle River right at the headwaters. But you’re talking about a lot more around there by Roland and Little Italy and all those places, where beautiful homes have already been built and more can be built. 

Again, I just have some real heartburn. If I could look at the list here of how many millions of dollars has been given to Central Arkansas Water, it’s a water department. It’s not a state park. I would much feel better if it was part of Pinnacle State Park or if it was part of state land. But it’s not. We’re giving it to a water apartment. I have some heartburn with it. 

Bryan Rupar Thank you for your question. This property does protect the streams that flow into Lake Maumelle. It was selected because of its proximity towards feeder streams like along Bringle Creek. This is an additional 239, 240 acres in Perry County under this particular grant. 

We do have plans to work, as we do with all our existing holdings, with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to allow this to be a public asset for public hunting and fishing and recreational opportunities. You’re correct that the zoning was passed for parts of Pulaski County. And that’s just one of our protection methods. Ownership is another. And so to maintain that water quality, the reason it’s high quality now is because it is forested land. And this purchase would ensure that it’s that way for future generations of Arkansans, that it’ll remain forested. 

Inoussa Zaki I need to follow up also. So these Forest Legacy acquisitions are from willing sellers. We don’t force anyone to sell anything. As a matter of fact, if they want to keep a homestead, they’re welcome to do that. We really work with the landowner. This is not a government take of land in any sense. And then also, you mentioned the funding. I just want to point out that these Forest Legacy funds are from the Land, Water, and Conservation fund from the federal Forest Legacy program. This specific purchase is from the Inflation Reduction Act portion that they received. 

Representative Mary Bentley Again, I would say, we have people on the Maumelle River long before it gets to that forested area. And this is– I don’t blame Deltic Timber. They’re struggling financially. They want to sell some property. That’s fine. I understand that. They want to do one big purchase, Deltic Timbers does, to get rid of some property and make some money. I understand that. 

But there’s landowners all around that area mixed in with Deltic. It’s not just all owned by Deltic. It’s just not all forested. There’s a lot of landowners mixed in with that, so all around Little Italy and Wye Mountain and all that. I have some real heartburn with this, and I will leave it at that. I’m not a member of the committee, so I can’t stop it from being voted on. But I have real concerns. 

I just think we’re out a time we should be building houses and not stopping production, when we have, again, Pulaski County has great water protection and land protection to make sure that those developers that put houses in there do it correctly and don’t hurt any of the tributaries, those great protections that have already been passed. So, Chairman, I’ll leave it with that. And I just would ask that we hold it and not move it. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang You’re recognized.

Representative Jon Eubanks Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess my question is, why is Central Water going to be the owner of this property? Why doesn’t the state retain that ownership if you’re trying to protect the watershed? And would they be able to sell that property at a future date? 

Inoussa Zaki First question, we would have to turn that into a state forest. And so we would have to look at the cost associated with us to do that. The other side of that is you start looking at what entity could carry this. Because we’re looking at benefits over decades. We’re not looking at five to ten years. And so what entity is the entity that can do that? And CAW, with their work in that area, to me is the proper entity to do that. 

Representative Jon Eubanks Is there any language in this purchase that would require them to always maintain it? 

Inoussa Zaki There are provisions. If they want to sell the land, it basically takes, I believe, congressional approval to do that. 

Representative Jon Eubanks Could you repeat that? I couldn’t hear you. I’m sorry. 

Inoussa Zaki It would basically take congressional approval for them to do that. 

Bryan Rupar There’s a deed restriction placed on any property that’s included. There’s a notice of grant agreement filed. The property has to remain in perpetuity as forested conditions. If it’s not, if it wants to be disposed of, the secretary of the Department of Agriculture has to approve that disposal. Secretary, I’m sorry. 

And then, the secretary also has to request reimbursement back for that investment. Whatever percentage was paid for that property, they get that same percentage back on any sale. I’ve been working with the Forest Legacy Program for over 20 years, formerly with a state agency. 

The only time I’ve ever seen a conversion was when the highway was expanded in Calhoun County, Highway 167. And it took about two years to transfer that property even though the Department of Transportation had condemnation rights. It was about a two-year process to get rid of it, because it was for another public good. So it is possible to dispose of it. But it’s highly unlikely. And if it does, CAW would never receive the financial benefit or gain for that. It would go back to the program. 

Representative Jon Eubanks Okay, thank you. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Representative Rye, you’re recognized for a question. 

Representative Johnny Rye Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing whatsoever against this right here. But I want to say this. I’ve been wanting to say it for a long time. We’re taking care of larger places, but we’re not looking at the smaller places like we should. 

We have basically $25 million a year for three years that’s going to go to water. That’s not enough. I knew that was not enough money. But what’s bothering me, guys, is I’ve got a town that cannot drink their own water and they’re going to another town to wash their clothes. Just had to say that because for a long time that’s bothered me. And I wish y’all would look into these things a little bit better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Thank you, sir. Senator Irvin, you’re recognized for a question. 

Senator Missy Irvin Thank you. Sorry, can you just, on this, which color is it that you’re proposing to purchase? I have it in color online, but I’m just trying to understand what I’m looking at because it doesn’t make it clear to me.

Inoussa Zaki Let me get to the map real quick. 

Senator Missy Irvin I just want to know what it is that we’re purchasing and how much of it’s in Pulaski County and what’s in Perry County. 

Inoussa Zaki So if you look at the exhibit C, the second map you have. 

Senator Missy Irvin That’s what I’m looking at. 

Inoussa Zaki So the creeks track– the area in the orange color will be the acquisition. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, hold on. 

Inoussa Zaki So it’d be– 

Senator Missy Irvin I see. 

Inoussa Zaki –just east of the national forest land there. 

Senator Missy Irvin So orange. So east and north. Is that correct? 

Inoussa Zaki Yes, northwest, yes. 

Senator Missy Irvin So east and northwest. Okay. All right. Well, what’s the property tax associated with that? That was one of my questions that I had, which was why I held it. 

Inoussa Zaki I know Perry County was in question. And I believe we determined it was about $48 for that because it’s not a large portion actually in Perry County. For the Pulaski, I don’t remember off the top of my head. 

Bryan Rupar For Pulaski County, it’s about $2,000 in annual taxes for about 1,000 acres. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, but that’s not as it’s developed. Like, it has the potential to be more if it were developed into homes or things like that, right? But so we don’t really have that figure. Okay. I understand that Perry County took action opposing this. Is that correct? Did Pulaski County? 

Inoussa Zaki I’m not aware of that either. 

Senator Missy Irvin Well, I understood that to be the case, but. 

Inoussa Zaki That may be a question for CAW.

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, I just didn’t know if you– do y’all go through any of those channels when you’re doing these types– do you go to your county? Do we go to the counties and discuss this with them? 

Inoussa Zaki Not with the counties, no. So there’s process. Applicant submits an application. It goes before the Forest Stewardship Committee. And then it goes to final submission to the U.S. Forest Service for the region eight preparation. It goes to the national panel for review, there for the Forest Legacy Program national panel. The president and OMB then approves it. It goes through Congress. And then comes back through the USDA for final approval. 

Senator Missy Irvin And then you had spoken about a partnership with Game and Fish. Could you restate that for me? 

Bryan Rupar Currently, we lease the majority of our holdings around Lake Maumelle to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the Maumelle River Wildlife Management Area. They were looking for opportunities for recreation near large population centers. 

And so I believe the original agreement was in 2013 to start leasing our properties to open it up. So we provide the property at a discounted rate, about 10% of what they pay private timberlands to lease property for. And then we allow that public access and work with them cooperatively to manage access points, regulations. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay, for hunting, hiking, whatever. 

Bryan Rupar Fishing, birding. 

Senator Missy Irvin Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Senator Boyd, you’re recognized for a question. 

Senator Justin Boyd Sorry. That was an accident. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Hate to hear that. All right. Members, do we have any other questions on G14? Seeing no other questions, thank you. I’m going to circle back. Department of Public Safety, G12. We’re good, thanks. G12. Representative Ladyman. Do y’all know if he is still here? He had a question on G12. Representative Ladyman, do you want to ask your question on G12? All right, thank you. Members, seeing no other question, what is the will of the committee? Representative Vaught, you are– no you’re not. Hold on. You’re recognized for a motion.

Representative DeAnn Vaught Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we pull G14 for a separate vote and that everything else would be approved. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right. We have a motion to review items G1-13. We’ll go take those separate motions. We’re going to move forward. So any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. 

Vote on Central Arkansas Water grant

Now we’re going to take up G14. We’ve got a motion to review because we’re doing separately. Is there any discussion on that motion, on G14? All right. Seeing no discussion, we’ve got a motion. Do we have a second? We’ve got a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed? All right, motion fails. All right. We’re going to move on to section H, pay plan appropriation request one and two. 

Staff Thank you, Mr. Chair, we’re in section H. These are our pay plan appropriation requests. The Board of Examiners and Counselor requests 5,000 in pay plan appropriation for extra help. And the Board of Nurses requests 122,000 for regular salaries, match, and extra help. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang Members, do we have any questions on H1 or 2? All right, seeing no questions, what’s the will of the committee? We’ve got a motion to review, we’ve got a second, any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. We’re out of reports. Members, do we have any questions on the reports? Seeing no questions on reports, they stand as reviewed. Any other business? 

Seeing none, members, with that, I want to back up on the G14. It’s going to be in a very similar posture to what’s happened earlier, except this one had a motion. It just has a motion to not review. I’m assuming that there will be further discussion on G14 in the full ALC on Friday. So just as a heads up. With that, we are adjourned.