►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Brooks
I
am
here,
thank
you.
Please
mark
senator
kikifer
excused
absent
and
mark
the
others
present
as
they
arrive.
A
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
that,
while
we
as
committee
members
and
some
staff
are
here
in
the
committee
room,
the
zoom
meeting
is
still
being
hosted
for
staff
and
agency
representatives
to
participate
remotely.
This
is
due
to
the
current
capacity
limits
on
the
number
of
people
that
can
attend
committee
meetings
in
person.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record
sarah
kaufman
legislative
council
bureau
fiscal
analysis
division.
I
will
be
presenting
the
closing
documents
for
the
public
employees
retirement
system,
otherwise
known
as
purse
purse
provides
retirement,
disability
and
death
benefits
to
long-term
public
employees.
C
The
system
is
primarily
funded
with
a
monthly
per
capita
fee
which
you
can
find
on
your
documents.
On
page
four,
the
system
is
not
subject
to
the
state
budget
act.
While
the
system
is
required
to
submit
a
proposed
budget
for
inclusion
in
the
executive
budget,
the
governor's
finance
office
does
not
review
or
make
adjustments
to
this,
but
to
the
budget
submittal
that
is
being
prepared
by
this
system,
and
that
is
particularly
important
because
there
are
some
budget
amendments
in
here
that
I
will
be
pointing
out
for
all
of
you.
C
C
The
executive
budget
recommended
administrative
fees
of
10.5
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2022
and
9.2
million
dollars
in
2023
for
the
replacement
of
the
systems
pension
administration
system.
However,
there
was
a
budget
amendment
that
was
submitted
on
february
23
2021,
which
revised
that
amount
to
5.3
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2022
and
10.5
10.9
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2023.
C
So
in
terms
of
capacity,
the
the
new
system
would
primarily
create
new
calculations
for
these
pension
tiers,
which
is
the
bulk
of
what
this
does.
But
there
are
some
additional
information
on
pages
four
and
five
that
provide
for
the
the
added
features
that
the
system
would
be
providing
to
the
purge
system,
because
a
request
for
proposal
had
not
been
completed
during
the
time
when
the
2019
legislature
was
reviewing
this
request.
C
The
legislature
requested
a
letter
of
intent
directing
the
system
to
provide
updates
to
the
interim
retirements
and
benefit
committee,
and,
as
such,
the
submit
the
system
submitted
a
report
to
the
december
16
2020
irbc
meeting,
and
in
that
information
they
provided
the
additional
information
related
to
the
contract
that
they
signed
with
to
grit
software
ventures.
Who
is
the
vendor
that
will
be
doing
the
the
system,
modernization
or
the
the
new
pension
administration
system
for
for
pers?
C
That
was
signed
november
19th
and
2020.
The
system
would
provide
payments
in
seven
phases
for
a
total
of
23.5
million
dollars
and
an
estimated
start
time
february,
23rd
of
2021.
So
just
recently
they
they
started
the
the
process
of
the
new
pension
administration
system
and
they
anticipate
the
the
completion
of
this
to
be
october.
23Rd
2024.,
you
can
see
on
page
five.
C
The
project
manager
will
be
responsible
for
pension
administration
system,
project
oversight,
data
management,
project
oversight,
employer
reporting
outreach,
and
I
would
also
note
that
concurrently,
as
they
are,
are
updating
their
system.
Pers
is
also
conducting
a
data
cleansing
in
various
areas
of
the
data
that
they
currently
have,
so
that
when
the
system
is
up
and
running,
they
have
clean
data
to
implement
into
the
new
system.
C
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thanks
for
that
presentation.
I'm
just
curious.
I
see
that
in
2019
that
we
estimated
that
the
system
would
cost
33.6
million
and
we
were
able
to
get
an
rfp
back
for
the
the
final
tally
was
23.5
million
and
I'm
just
wait,
and
maybe
we
never
budgeted
that
maybe
it
was
nothing
more
than
just
an
estimate,
but
I
was
just
curious
to
know
if
there's
some
way
to
get
that
10
million
back,
if
we
ever
put
that
into
a
budget
in
the
first
place
or
was
it
just
an
estimate.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
three
to
seven
tolls.
That
was
just
an
estimate,
so
there
was
the
estimate
of
33.5
million
dollars.
However,
only
the
8.2
million
dollars
was
actually
provided
in
2019
2021
and
of
that
amount
only
1.1
million
dollars
was
spent.
So
essentially,
what
would
happen
in
the
pers
budget
is
that,
for
example,
in
2022
that
8.2
million
dollars
that
wasn't
spent
just
goes
right
back
to
the
the
pers
fund,
and
so
that
doesn't
necessarily
then
get
rolled
into
the
the
systems
expenditures
going
into
the
upcoming
bienniums.
B
C
Mr
chairman,
through
you
to
assemblywoman's,
falls
yeah,
so
the
the
33
million
dollar
estimate
was
wasn't
actually
an
estimate
that
was
based
off
of
an
rfp.
A
D
Thanks
chair
brooks,
I
just
want
to
double
check
on
the
pr
project
management
contract
that
we
have,
that
was
based
on
the
revised
amount,
the
23
million
off
the
33
million,
because
sometimes
those
are
percentages.
Is
that
accurate?
Because
it
looks
like
that
was
in
june
of
21,
and
I
think
we
finalized
the
agreement
in
february
of
21
with
the
software
company.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
through
you
to
senator
sievers
cancer.
So,
yes,
the
the
contract
with
the
project
manager
is,
is
independent
from
the
actual
contract
with
to
grit.
So
there's
a
prevalent
is
the
the
contractor,
that's
doing
the
project
management,
and
so
they
had
come
into
that
contract
in
2021,
with
pro
valiant
prior
to
the
actual
rfp
being
accepted,
and
so
now,
what's
what's
being
requested
is
just
basically
a
three
percent
increase
in
the
amount
that
prevalent
was
being
paid
in
2021
into
2022
and
2023..
D
C
A
A
E
So,
mr
chairman,
if
you'd
like,
I
would
approve
administrative
fees,
I
would
move
to
approve
administrative
fees
of
5.3
million
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
10.9
million
in
fiscal
year
23
as
delineated
by
budget
amendment
six
a214,
four,
eight
two
one
to
continue
the
funding
of
the
replacement
of
the
systems,
pension
administration
system
and
other
various
equipment
costs,
and
also
to
issue
issue.
A
letter
of
intent
requesting
the
system
report
to
the
interim,
fi
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee.
B
A
E
Mr
chairman,
I
would
just
make
one
comment:
being
someone
who
sat
through
the
15
hearings
and
heard
all
the
comments
about
how
hers
was
in
trouble
and
we
had
to
do
something
to
save
it
and
we've
changed
the
system.
We
are
now
spending
more
money
to
change
the
system
than
if
we
had
just
provided
the
retirement
benefits
to
those
state
employees
at
that
time.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you
for
the
history
on
on
that.
That
sounds,
I
don't
know
sounds
like.
Maybe
we
could
go
back
in
time.
We
we
could
right.
A
Having
emotion
and
a
second
any
other
discussion
on
the
motion,
I
don't
see
any
so
all
in
favor,
I
any
opposed
nay,
the
motion
passes
unanimously
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
item.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
next
item
is
item
number
two.
It's
decision
unit
e225,
and
it
relates
to
the
request
for
two
new
positions.
I
would
note
that
this
decision
unit
requested
a
chief
investment
officer
position
and
a
chief
administrative
analyst
position.
However,
on
april
22,
2021
budget
amendment.
C
821-6634821
was
submitted
to
reduce
decision
unit
e225
by
178
287
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2022
and
174
263
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2023
to
withdraw
the
system's
request
for
a
proposed
chief
administrative
analyst
position
with
regards
to
the
chief
investment
officer
being
requested.
According
to
the
system,
over
the
past
15
years,
nevada
purr's
investment
portfolio
has
grown
from
18
billion
dollars
in
assets
to
more
than
46.2
billion
dollars
in
assets.
C
They
currently
have
one
investment
officer
who
manages
their
portfolio
and
for
comparison
purposes.
The
median
public
pension
fund
employs
one
investment
professional
for
every
2.2
billion
dollars
in
assets.
According
to
the
agency,
this
position
would
reduce
the
risk
associated
with
a
single
employee
structure.
C
C
The
chief
investment
officer,
if
approved,
would
oversee
the
existing
investment
officer
position
at
the
the
hearing
it
was
discussed
that
there
was
in
fact,
an
assistant
investment
officer
position
previously
in
fiscal
year.
2015,
however,
that
investment
that
assistant
investment
officer
was
reclassified
to
a
chief
financial
officer.
C
C
During
the
hearing,
the
agency
indicated
that
the
salaries
of
the
chief
investment
officer
were
one
step
above
the
investment
officer
position
within
the
agency's
internal
salary
skills
and
just
by
comparison,
the
assistant
investment
officer
that
they
had
back
in
2015
would
have
had
a
salary
equivalent
to
what
is
now
165
thousand
thirty
dollars,
which
is
a
two-step
below
the
investment
officer.
Currently
and
again,
the
assistant
investment
officer.
C
It
should
be
noted
that
if
this
position
is
approved,
the
chief
financial
or
the
chief
investment
officer
or
the
assistant
investment
officer,
nrs
286
160,
provides
the
salaries
of
the
executive
staff
within
pers
are
fixed
by
the
pers
board
and
by
the
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee.
And
so
if
these
positions
are
approved,
there
would
need
to
be
an
amendment
or
would
need
to
be
revised
in
order
to
account
for
those
positions.
C
And
so
the
committee
may
wish
to
issue
a
committee
bdr
in
order
to
effectuate
that
change
with
respect
to
the
chief
administrative
analyst.
As
I
previously
mentioned,
there
was
a
budget
amendment
that
was
submitted
that
withdrew
that
would
withdraw
the
the
request
of
the
chief
administrative
assistant.
C
As
originally
requested,
the
system
was
contemplating
a
salary
of
137
516
dollars
in
each
year.
For
that
particular
position,
and
so
on
page
10,
there
is
a
box
at
the
top
that
identifies
the
the
three
various
decision:
components
that
are
within
this
decision
unit,
and
so
each
of
these,
the
first
two
can
be
taken
separately
or
independently,
and
then
the
third
relates
to
the
legislation
that
would
be
required.
If
any
of
these
positions
are
approved,
so
the
first
decision
point
with
regard
to
the
investment
position
is
approve.
C
Option
b
would
be
to
approve
an
assistant
investment
officer
and
then
there's
two
different
components
to
this,
as
in
terms
of
salaries
with
a
salary
of
one
grade
below
the
existing
investment
officer
of
approximately
one
hundred
seventy
two
thousand
nine
hundred
nine
dollars
per
year,
as
well
as
associated
benefits
and
operating
expenditures,
or
to
choose
a
salary
two
grades
below
the
existing
investment
officer
position
of
one
hundred
sixty
five
thousand
thirty
dollars
per
year,
as
well
as
associated
benefits
and
operating
expenditures,
or
to
not
approve
the
new
investment
position.
C
C
A216634821,
which
would
withdraw
the
system's
request
for
a
new
chief
administrative
analyst
position
and
then
finally,
three
would
be
if
the
committee
approves
one
a
or
one
b
and
or
decides
not
to
approve
budget
amendment
a
two
one,
six,
six,
three
four,
eight
two
one
but
rather
approve
the
chief
administrative
analyst
position.
Does
the
committee
wish
to
request
a
bill
draft
request
to
add
the
approved
positions
to
nrs
286
160,
which
provides
for
the
approval
process
of
executive
staff,
salaries
for
pers
fiscal
staff
requests
authority
to
make
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
E
E
How
important
these
retirement
funds
are
to
make
sure
and
pers
has
been
criticized
on
a
regular
basis
about
not
performing
where
people
thought
it
should
perform,
such
as
my
comment
about
2015
earlier,
so
being
able
to
establish
this
position
under
a
and
then
do
some
succession
planning,
and
we
all
need
to
start
thinking
about
succession
planning.
We
have
a
lot
of
folks
moving
through.
E
Originally
I
was
leaning
more
towards
b,
but
in
conversations
with
the
chair,
I
I
guess
would
go
ahead
and
go
with
a
and
then
include
the
budget
amendment.
So
if
there's
no
other
conversation,
mr
chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
folks
understood
kind
of
what,
where
we
were
going,
it's
a
10,
000
difference.
I
know
it's
a
very
unique
time
to
be
doing
something
like
this,
but
I
believe,
as
the
system
is
changing
and
a
new
technology
platform
is
being
used
and
everything
that's
going
to
be
going
on.
E
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
right
people
in
place
to
deal
with
this,
because
this
is
the
financial
security
for
people
who
are
going
to
be
leaving
state
service
in
the
future,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
it's
solid
and
not
end
up
in
a
state
where
we
have
a
bunch
of
retirees
that
can't
can't
afford
to
live,
and
we
have
another
problem
on
that
side.
So,
mr
chairman,.
A
I
appreciate
that-
and
this
is
a
individual
and
with
with
someone
coming
up
under
them,
that
that
will
eventually
take
over
when
this
individual
retires,
which
seems
like
a
lot
of
people
are
doing
in
the
next
couple
of
years,
and
this
is
a
46
billion
dollar
portfolio
that
they
manage,
and
so
this
is
a
a
very
consequential
position.
So
I'm
I'm
glad
to
see
that
we're
thinking
about
the
future
on
this.
A
So
I
appreciate
your
clarification,
chair,
carlton,
and
so
I
have
a
motion
for
what
would
be
option
a
under
the
first
decision
with
accepting
of
the
budget
amendment
and
the
necessary
the
necessary
bdr
on
three
to
make
that
happen
with
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
Second,.
E
A
D
A
I
will
so
the
motion
is
on
page
10
in
our
summary
of
of
decisions
on
decision.
1
is
option:
a
approve,
the
chief
investment
officer
position
with
a
salary
of
189
222
dollars
per
year,
as
well
as
associated
benefits
and
operating
expenditures,
and
to
approve
budget
amendment
a
two
one:
six,
six,
three,
four,
eight
two
one
which
would
withdraw
the
system's
request
for
a
new
chief
administrative
analyst
position
and
approve
one
b.
Oh
excuse
me,
and
to
approve
budget
amendment,
and
oh
man,
you
really
got
me
wrapped
around
the
axle.
Thank
you.
D
Okay,
thank
you
and
so
just
for
clarification.
So
we
need
a
a
bill
draft
to
approve
which
positions
then
so
we're
we're
we're
proving
basically,
what
was
originally
requested
were
accepting
the
withdrawal
of
the
amendment
and
then
the
purpose
of
the
bill
draft
is
three.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
the
the
bdr
would
be
to
provide
that
the
chief
investment
officer
be
included
in
nrs
286
160,
in
addition
to
all
of
the
other
executive
staff
that
is
currently
within
that
nrs.
Their
salaries
are
are
approved
by
the
pers
board
and
then
also
by
the
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee,
and
so
that
change
that
bdr
would
just
bring
that
chief
investment
officer
position
into
that
nrs
as
part
of
the
executive
staff.
D
A
B
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question.
I
guess
I'm
I
should
have
asked
this
prior
to
even
having
the
motion
made,
but
not
having
a
real
breakdown
on
the
need
and
what
alternative
we
could
have
had,
such
as
an
investment,
analyst
group
or
something
else
on
this.
I
I
realized
that
it's
a
large
sum
of
money.
We
need
to
be
responsible
for
it,
but
the
accountability
and
and
other
options
versus
expanding
our
government
and
more
more
positions.
B
I
always
get
nervous
when
the
option
is
only
to
hire
somebody
else,
so
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
on
this.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
dr
titus,
and
I
recall
robust
discussion
and
full
committee
on
this
very
topic
and
what
the
need
was
for
that
was
laid
out
to
us
by
the
agency,
and
it
might
be
in
your
notes
from
that
committee
meeting.
But
if
you
had
any
further
questions
to
clarify
that,
I
think
we
probably
have
staff
available
that
can.
D
Thank
you
for
a
second
time,
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion
because
the
the
pension
plan
has
grown
substantially
and,
and
I
I
think
it's
got
to
be
pretty
overwhelming,
with
the
minimal
staff
that
they
have
right
now.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
senator
ganser.
Do
we
have
any
other
discussion,
so
we
have
a
motion.
It
was
clarified
by
by
miss
kaufman.
We
had
a
second
any
further
discussion
on
that
motion,
all
right
all
in
favor,
I
all
in
favor.
Excuse
me
I'll,
oppose,
nay,
and
so
we
have
assemblywoman
titus
as
a
nay.
Everyone
else
is
is
and
the
motion
passes
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
item.
C
C
C
So
in
terms
on
on
page
11
begins
the
personnel
assessment.
The
personnel
assessment
represents
an
allocation
of
state
agencies
of
the
cost
for
recruiting,
examining
and
classifying
and
compensating
individuals
for
training
functions
for
the
division
of
human
resource
management.
There
are
no
recommended
adjustments
to
those
rates.
The
payroll
assessment
is
an
allocation
to
state
agencies
for
the
cost
of
central
payroll
functions
of
the
division
of
human
resource
management,
and
there
are
no
recommended
adjustments
for
that
assessment.
C
Monthly
vehicle
rental
in-state
is
the
fleet
services
division
charges,
agencies
on
a
monthly
basis
for
rental
rates,
decision
unit
e
or
excusing
m.
100
includes
statewide
decreases
to
the
monthly
fleet
service
vehicle
rates
of
about
1.3
million
dollars.
In
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium,
and
there
are
no
recommended
changes
to
those
rates
on
page
12
is
the
employee
bond.
The
employee
bond
assessment
provides
for
lost
cause
loss
caused
by
any
fraudulent
or
dishonest
acts
committed
by
an
employee,
and
there
are
no
recommended
changes
for
that.
Gl
and
property
and
content
insurance.
C
And,
excuse
me,
let
me
repeat
that
from
7141
to
7015
in
fiscal
year
2022
and
from
7058
to
6921
in
fiscal
year
2023..
C
Accordingly,
the
staff
recommends
vehicle
liability
rate,
be
increased
from
192
dollars
and
25
cents
to
195
dollars
and
70
cents
in
fiscal
year,
2020
to
and
from
194
dollars
and
51
cents
to
197
dollars
and
76
cents
in
2023.
C
There
are
no
recommended
changes
for
the
ag
tort
claims
assessment,
which
provides
self-insured
insurance
for
the
general
liability
claims.
I
would
note
on
state-owned
building
rent
there
was
a
significant
discussion
in
the
subcommittees
related
to
the
the
omission
of
rent
for
the
reno
dmv
office.
C
I
would
note
that
the
subcommittee
on
public
safety
and
natural
resource
and
transportation
approved
the
elimination
of
swy
cap
expenditures
of
312
639
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
two
and
three
hundred
twenty
four
thousand
thirty
one
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
twenty,
three
as
it
relates
to
the
president
prison
industries
budget
due
to
solvency
issues
that
the
budget
was
experiencing
and
as
such
a
staff
would
recommend
a
technical
adjustment
to
reduce
sway
cap
by
those
associated
amounts.
E
E
And
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
would
move
to
approve
the
adjustments
proposed
to
the
various
rates
and
assessments
included
in
the
m-100
statewide
inflation
decision
unit,
as
adjusted
for
the
changes
to
the
vehicle,
comprehensive
and
collision
rate,
vehicle
liability
insurance
and
the
statewide
cost
allocation
plan
is
noted
and
provides
staff
with
all
the
authority.
They
need
to
make
any
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
A
F
F
I'm
going
to
discuss
the
various
changes
to
the
enterprise
information
technology
services
or
eats
rates
that
are
recommended
by
the
governor
and
as
well
as
some
technical
adjustments
that
are
recommended
by
fiscal
staff
beginning
on
page
15
of
the
closing
packet.
The
governor
recommends
rates
for
24,
eats
cost
pools
included
in
the
cost.
Pools
are
the
two
eats
assessments,
one
for
the
infrastructure
assessment
and
the
other
is
the
security
assessment
which
are
both
per
fte
assessments.
F
Also
included
are
the
eats
two-tiered
structure,
cost
pools,
web
services
and
silvernet
web
services
are
services
provided
for
website
and
web
application.
Hosting
silvernet
is
the
state's
wide
area
network
or
wan
that
supports
network
and
internet
services
for
state
agencies
regarding
the
infrastructure
assessment,
the
infrastructure
assessment
funds,
the
eats
division,
global
services,
including
help
desk
web
page
development
and
other
centralized
services.
F
The
governor
recommends
increasing
the
infrastructure
assessment
from
276
point
276.59
in
fy,
21
to
324.35
cents
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
and
again
this
is
a
per
fte
rate.
F
The
recommended
infrastructure
assessment
was
identified
to
be
inflated
due
to
the
utilization
of
the
agency
request
budget
to
develop
the
rate
which
included
enhancement,
decision
units
that
were
not
included.
Ultimately,
in
the
executive
budget,
fiscal
staff
worked
with
the
agency
to
adjust
the
assessment
as
a
result
of
this
review,
the
assessment
would
be
adjusted
to
321
dollars
in
fy,
22
and
316.79
in
fy23.
F
Regarding
the
security
assessment,
which
is
used
to
fund
the
state
information
security
program.
Again,
this
is
a
per
fte
assessment.
The
governor
recommends
increasing
the
security
assessment
from
158
or
150
115
dollars
and
88
cents
in
fy,
22,
fy21,
apologies,
227.57,
I'm
sorry,
and
in
fy
22
and
127.32
in
fy,
23.
F
Similar
to
the
infrastructure
assessment,
the
security
assessment
was
inflated
in
the
executive
budget
staff
worked
with
the
agency
to
make
an
adjustment
to
the
security
assessment.
As
a
result
of
this
review,
the
security
assessment
would
be
adjusted
down
to
95
dollars
and
44
cents
in
fy,
22
and
94
dollars
and
19
cents
in
fy
23..
F
The
remainder
of
page
16
of
your
closing
packet
provides
a
brief
discussion
of
the
closing
recommendations
that
came
out
of
the
subcommittee
on
april
22nd.
When
the
eats
budgets
were
closed.
The
subcommittee
recommended
various
changes
to
the
cost,
pools
and
labor
distributions.
F
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
apparently
eats
eats
a
lot
of
money
here.
So
with
that
everybody's
still
asleep
it's
monday
morning,
you
know,
as
I'm
looking
through
this
list.
I
don't
see
the
word
cobalt,
so
I
would
be
happy
to
make
the
motion
to
approve
the
adjustments
proposed
at
the
various
rates
and
assessments
for
enterprise,
information
and
technology
services
as
detailed
in
the
table
and
give
staff
the
authority
to
make
any
technical
adjustments
as
necessary
if
they
understand
that
they're
doing
better
than
I
am
so.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
B
A
A
I
do
not
see
any
so
all
in
favor
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
and
the
motion
carries
or
passes
unanimously
with
the
members
present
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
m300
fringe
benefit
rate
adjustments.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
m
300
fringe
benefit
rate.
Adjustments
includes
adjustment
expenditures
for
the
revised
cost
of
fringe
benefits
for
state
employees,
the
workers,
compensation
assessment,
pers
contribution
rates
and
labor
relations.
Unit
assessments
are
all
recommended
to
be
maintained,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
C
C
Since
the
closing
for
the
public
employees
benefit
program,
budget
was
deferred
by
the
committee
on
may
1st.
The
committee
may
wish
to,
or
the
committee
should
only
preliminarily
approve
the
aegis
and
the
reggie
components
of
the
m
300
decision
unit
contingent
upon
the
closure,
the
closing
of
the
purse
or
excuse
me
pebb
budgets
at
a
later
date,
and
so
does
the
committee.
I'm
sorry.
I
skipped
the
unemployment
compensation
gl
that
is
recommended
to
be
maintained,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
F
C
For
the
record,
sarah
kaufman
legislative
council,
that
is
correct,
there
is
a
decrease,
but
it's
recommended
by
the
governor
and
so
staff
is
not
recommending
any
adjustments
to
what
was
preliminarily
recommended
by
the
governor.
That
makes
sense.
B
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
again
for
the
record
wayne
thorley
lcb
fiscal.
As
the
committee
members
are
aware,
the
executive
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
included
various
budget
reductions
in
order
to
align
expenditures
with
the
general
fund
revenue
forecast
by
the
economic
forum
at
the
december
3rd
2020
meeting.
F
These
budget
reductions
are
generally
included
in
the
executive
budget
as
decision
units
e680
through
685
or
e686
through
699,
as
the
various
subcommittees
and
the
full
committees
have
reviewed.
The
budget
you've
seen
these
decision
units
for
budget
reductions
in
various
places
throughout
the
budget.
F
The
balance
of
recommended
general
fund
reduction
after
removing
that
approximately
100
million
is
465.4
million
dollars
over
the
biennium
of
general
fund
reduction
recommended
by
the
governor.
F
This
is
primarily
accomplished
by
recommending
to
hold
positions,
vacant
or
eliminate
positions
for
all
or
portion
of
the
upcoming
biennium
or
reducing
or
eliminating
direct
services.
F
As
the
committee
members
may
recall,
on
april
1st,
a
presentation
was
provided
provided
to
the
committee
and
preliminary
approval
was
granted
to
to
approve
the
elimination
of
general
funds
and
other
funds.
I've
rec,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
for
307.57
fte
positions
that
are
recommended
by
the
governor
to
be
eliminated
or
held
vacant
in
the
upcoming
biennium
and
based
on
12
days
of
furlough,
leaving
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium
for
the
legislative
council
bureau.
F
This
preliminary
action
taken
by
the
money
committees
generated
total
savings
of
25.2
million
in
fy22
and
6.4
million
dollars
in
fy
23..
F
F
F
This
table
may
look
familiar
to
you
as
provided
a
month
ago,
at
the
april
1st
meeting.
Since
that
time,
fiscal
staff
has
worked
with
the
governor's
finance
office
and
the
various
agencies
to
rev
refine.
The
estimates
in
this
table
both
the
estimates
for
the
number
of
fte
positions
for
which
funding
would
be
restored,
but
also
the
actual
the
the
dollar
amount
of
american
rescue
plan
act,
funds
that
would
be
needed
to
fund
these
positions.
F
I'll
call
your
attention
to
a
few
of
the
changes
from
that
are
included
on
this
table
in
attachment
a
and
that
are
different
than
the
table
that
was
provided
on
april.
1St.
F
First
of
all,
two
positions
were
identified
that
were
included
in
the
original
preliminary
approval,
that
are
positions
that
are
recommended
to
be
eliminated
for
efficiency
purposes
and
not
for
budget
reduction
purposes.
One
position
was
with
the
division
of
human
resource
management
and
another
one
is
with
goed
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
Both
those
positions
were
not
recommended
to
be
eliminated
for
budget
reduction
purposes,
so
they
have
been
removed
from
the
table
and
attachment
a
as
a
result.
F
Staff
has
also
made
various
technical
adjustments
to
the
the
dollar
amount,
both
for
the
the
recommended
savings
due
to
the
eliminations
and
also
the
recommended
amount
of
american
rescue
plan
act,
funds
that
would
be
needed
to
restore
funding
for
those
positions.
F
Those
changes
as
a
result,
one
was
in
the
department
of
taxation
for
seven
positions
that
were
originally
recommended
to
be
eliminated
and
another
a
technical
adjustment
was
made
to
various
dc
r
budgets
for
21
positions.
Those
technical
adjustments
have
been
included
in
the
table
and
at
the
on
attachment,
a.
F
F
The
committee
may
remember
during
the
discussion
on
april
1st
the
what
was
preliminarily
approved
was
funding
in
the
first
fiscal
year
of
the
biennium
fy
22,
to
be
75
of
the
full
cost
for
those
positions,
and
the
reason
for
that
was
to
account
for
an
october
first,
so
three
months
into
the
fiscal
year
start
date
for
funding
authorized
for
these
positions.
F
The
reason
for
that
was
in
the
guidance
from
the
federal
government
regarding
the
eligible
uses
of
the
american
rescue
plan
act.
Funding
had
not
been
received
at
that
time
and
still
has
not
been
received
so
that
additional
timing
or
that
delay
was
built
into
the
recommendation
to
allow
us
to
receive
the
guidance
and
to
review
the
guidance
and
to
ensure
that
the
guidance
indicates
that
an
eligible
use
of
the
arp
funding
is
for
funding
positions
so
in
column
j.
F
Three
positions
in
the
dpbh
environmental
health
services
budget.
F
In
order
to
guarantee
solvency
in
that
budget,
the
governor
had
recommended
the
elim,
the
elimination
of
those
positions
during
the
budget
closing
on
a
subcommittee
closing
april
29th.
I'm
sorry,
the
full
committee
closing
no.
This
is
the
subcommittee
closing
sorry.
F
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
position
eliminations
to
ensure
solvency
of
the
budget.
However,
the
subcommittee
also
recommended
that
the
full
committees
preliminarily
approve
authorizing
expenditure
of
arp
funding
to
fund
those
three
positions
again
effective
october
1st
with
that
delayed
funding
date
in
order
to
allow
those
positions
to
continue
to
be
funded
in
the
environmental
health
services
budget.
F
The
decision
for
this
committees
today
is
in
the
gray
box
on
the
bottom
of
page
21..
F
Do
the
committees
wish
to
rescind
the
previous
action
to
restore
an
administrative
assistant
position
in
the
dhrm
budget
and
a
non-classified
position
in
the
goed
budget,
representing
total
funding
of
eighty
seven
thousand
six
hundred
forty
six
in
fy
twenty
two
and
a
hundred
and
nineteen
thousand
four
five
hundred
forty
two
in
fy
twenty
three
and
provide
staff
with
authority
to
adjust
the
number
of
positions
restored
based
on
possible
actions
taken
by
the
committees
and
closing
budget
accounts
that
are
still
pending
review.
F
Again,
if
approved,
a
total
of
305.7
fte
positions
recommended
to
be
held,
vacant
or
limited
eliminated
would
have
been
restored
by
the
committees,
as
well
as
nine
furlough
days
in
fy,
22
and
12
furlough
days
in
fy
23
for
lcb
staff,
and
do
the
committee's
wish
to
approve
the
restoration
of
funding
for
three
positions
in
the
environmental
health
services
budget,
which
I
just
mentioned,
which
would
require
authorization,
arp
funding,
authorization
of
156,
770
and
fy
22
and
218
thousand
380
off
by
23..
A
Thank
you,
mr
thorley.
This
is
complicated
and
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
still
out
there.
The
the
legislation
passed
and
I
think,
up
seven
weeks
ago
tomorrow
and
we
still
are
waiting
on
guidance,
but
we
know
that
that
money
will
be
coming
and
will
be
coming
through
the
general
fund
and
how
it
can
be
spent
and
on
what
positions
that
provide
services
for
nevadans
still
yet
to
be
determined.
But
I
think
this
is
a
safe
and
conservative
approach.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
the
committee
members,
mr
roberts.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
One,
one
question:
just
so:
let's
say
on
the
off
chance
that
the
guidance
comes
out
and
it
won't
allow
approval
for
use
of
the
money
for
these
positions.
Then
what
would
happen
based
on
a
decision
that
we
did
today?
They
would
just
remain
vacant,
as
we
had
planned
in
the
budget
process.
F
Assemblyman
roberts,
that
is
correct
so
part
the
the
motion
is
a
two-part
motion
both
to
approve
the
elimination
of
funding
for
these
positions,
as
recommended
in
the
executive
budget,
and
then
to
approve
the
authorization
for
use
of
the
arp
funding.
If
it's
ultimately
determined
that
the
arp
funding
cannot
be
used
to
fund
these
positions,
then
the
the
first
part
of
that
motion
to
approve
the
elimination
of
funding
for
these
positions
will
carry
through
and
the
positions
just
won't
be.
They
will
not
be
funded
in
the
upcoming
biennium.
B
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
and
I
just
see
on
page
20,
we
have
listed
out
some
of
the
various
proposed
cuts,
including
191
in
each
year,
191
million
to
education,
but
I
don't
see
education
anywhere
on
the
on
the
charts
on
pages
22
through
24.
Is
that
because
we
didn't
have
any
position
eliminations
or
could
you
just
walk
me
through
that?
Thanks.
F
Thank
you,
assemblywomantools
and,
and
thanks
for
the
question-
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
clarify
so
you're
exactly
right.
The
table
on
the
top
of
page
20
includes
every
budget
reduction
proposed
in
the
executive
budget
for
general
fund
savings,
both
position,
eliminations
and
cuts
to
program
funding.
F
So
if
you
reference
the
education,
the
191.4
million
you're
correct,
there
were
no
positions
recommended
to
be
eliminated
in
the
education
function,
area
for
budget
reduction
purposes,
specifically
talking
about
k-12
education,
but
the
191.4
million
is
our
program
cuts,
not
position
cuts,
so
you
won't
see
education
in
the
table
on
attachment
day.
E
And
if
I
may,
mr
chairman
so
and
mr
thorley,
that
education
line
is
specifically
k-12
just
to
make
sure
the
record's
clear.
F
It
includes
the
education
function.
Area
includes
all
of
education
k12
and
she,
my
comment
about
there.
Not
being
positions
recommended
for
elimination
in
education
was
specific
to
the
k-12
budgets.
E
And-
and
thank
you,
mr
thorley,
and
just
so
that
the
the
record
is
perfectly
clear-
we
have
to
remember
how
much
money
k-12
has
gotten
outside
of
this
building
sr-1
sr2
gear,
the
higher
education
funding
won
higher
education
funding
number
two.
So,
yes,
these
are
general
fund
dollars,
but
there
are
federal
dollars
that
have
come
in
over
the
last
18
months
to
support
a
lot
of
these
programs.
E
There
have
been
a
lot
of
other
federal
dollars
coming
into
the
state
to
support
education,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
our
record
is
explicitly
clear
on
that
point
with
all
those
other
monies
that
are
coming
in
and
we're
still
having
the
conversation
in
the
k-12
higher
ed
subcommittee
on
how
all
those
dollars
will
be
distributed
outside
the
formula
and
inside
the
formula
and
whatever
the
new
formula
is.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
the
latitude.
I
appreciate
it.
A
I
I
think
it
is
incredibly
important
that
we
know
just
in
this
and
and
this
interim
and
then
in
this
legislative
session,
far
more
monies
have
been
approved
and
allocated
to
education
as
a
whole
than
what
is
reflected
in
this
general
fund
reduction
for
education
as
a
whole,
and
so
I
I
mean
it's
on
a
year-over-year,
there's
more
money
actually
going
to
education,
k-12
and
higher
ed
as
a
result
of
some
of
the
federal
actions
than
the
year
before,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
you
bringing
that
up
because
that
gets
lost
in
the
mix.
D
Thank
you,
chair
brooks.
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
positions
that
were
recommended
for
elimination
or
to
be
held
vacant,
and
so
it
sounded
like
staff
went
through
and
talked
to
the
different
agencies,
the
different
departments,
to
make
sure
that
these
were
positions
that
they
needed
versus
ones
that
they
that
so
that
they
were
the
difference
between
they
were
cutting
because
they
no
longer
needed
them
versus
cutting
because
they
were
trying
to
to
make
their
budget.
D
And
so
with
that
there
were
two
that
were
removed
from
this,
so
we
went
from
307
roughly
to
305.
D
These
are
all
positions
that
are
expected
to
to
be
needed,
not
not
cut,
because
they
no
longer
require
those
positions.
F
Correct
the
three
the
wayne
thorley
for
the
record,
lcb
fiscal
senator
seaver's
ganster
at
the
305.57
fte-
represents
a
total
number
of
positions
recommended
to
be
cut
for
budget
reduction
purposes.
F
And
mr
chair,
if
I
may
clarify
one
thing
that
I
should
have
made
clearer
the
table
on
the
top
of
page
20
of
your
closing
packet,
that
is
provided
for
informational
purposes.
Only
the
the
motion
of
the
from
the
committees
today
will
not
be
to
approve
all
the
budget
reductions
included
in
the
executive
budget.
The
various
subcommittees
have
been
working
through
those
throughout
the
month
of
april
during
the
closing
process
and
the
full
committees.
F
Also,
the
the
recommendation
or
the
motion
today
for
the
committee
will
be
to
approve
only
those
budget
reductions
related
to
positions.
A
Thank
you,
mr
thorley,
but
I
appreciate
staff,
including
that
table
in
this
for
the
purposes
of
context
when
we're
talking
about
you
know
what
the
overall
picture
looks
like
as
we're
making
these
decisions
and
and
thank
you,
senator
sieversganz,
because
I
think
it's
incredibly
important-
that
we
know
that
this
isn't
these
positions,
except
for
the
two
weren't
being
eliminated
for
efficiency's
sake.
They
were
being
eliminated
to
try
to
achieve
some
budget
savings
and
they
still
are
very
needed
to
provide
services
for
the
state.
So
I
appreciate
that
clarifying
question.
A
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
member
committee?
Members?
Excuse
me
all
right
so
now
we
will
take
this
and
I
will
not
mess
this
one
up.
Chair
carlton
is
gonna.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
move
to
rescind
the
previous
action
to
to
restore
the
an
administrative
assistant
position
in
the
division
of
human
resource
management
in
a
non-classified
position
in
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
representing
total
funding
of
87
646
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
119
542
in
fiscal
year
23
and
provide
staff
authority
to
adjust
the
number
of
positions
restored,
based
on
possible
actions
taken
by
the
committee
in
closing
budget
accounts
pending
review.
A
E
And
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
the
one
thing
we
didn't
quite
delineate
was
any
other
other
accounts
pending
review.
We've
noticed
in
a
couple
of
the
subcommittees
that
we
found
some
positions
that
weren't
in
the
classifications
that
were
pulled
out
under
the
april
first
discussion,
and
that's
where
you
see
the
environmental
specialist
there.
We
may
enclosing
budgets
continuing
over
this
next
week
or
so
find
a
couple
of
more,
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
the
opportunity
to
address
those
positions
individually
as
we
move
forward
through
all
these
budget
closings.
D
Oh,
thank
you,
chair
brooks,
so
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion.
I
appreciate
staff
having
gone
through
the
various
accounts
to
make
sure
that
these
were
positions
that
were
required
for
ongoing
business.
I
also
appreciate
that
the
majority
of
these
are
in
health
and
human
services
and
that
we've
we've
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do
there.
So
thank
you.
A
All
right
do
we
have
any
other
discussion
or
questions
on
the
motion
and
again
I'm
just
clarifying
that
this
is
based
upon
federal
guidance,
on
federal
guidance
on
how
these
these
positions
can
be
filled.
So
I
see
no
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
so
all
in
favor
I
all
oppose
nay
and
that's
a
assembly.
Woman
titus
is
a
nay
and
so
the
motion
passes
with
all
the
members
present,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
our
our
budgets
that
we
are
looking
at
today
and
thank
you,
mr
thorley.
A
B
G
This
is
kent,
irvin
k-e-n-t
e-r-b-I-n
for
the
nevada
faculty
alliance
good
morning
about
15
percent
of
ng
faculty
and
all
of
our
classified
colleagues
are
members
of
the
public
employees
retirement
system.
First,
we
are
very
pleased
that
pers
is
being
run
well,
both
administratively
and
its
investments
with
very
low
expenses
of
staffing.
G
G
A
request
for
information
issued
by
pebb
last
year
indicated
the
cost
of
such
an
audit
would
be
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
That
is
a
nominal
cost
to
ensure
that
the
state
employee
funds
are
being
used
as
efficiently
as
possible.
But
pebb
declined
to
go
ahead
to
do
the
audit,
while
increasing
the
budget
for
its
current
actuary.
G
B
H
Thank
you
and
good
morning,
my
name
for
the
record
is
terry.
Laird
spelled
t
e
r
r.
I
l
a
I
r
d,
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada,
a
non-profit
organization
founded
in
1976
by
a
small
group
of
retired
public
employees
who
felt
they
had
no
one
to
protect
them
once
they'd
left
their
public
service
careers,
we've
grown
to
nearly
8
000
dues,
paying
members,
and
our
mission
is
still
the
same
to
protect
the
pensions
and
health
care
benefits
earned
while
they
were
working.
H
We
are
happy
to
hear
the
actions
taken
and
testimony
given
today
that
recognizes
the
value
of
protecting
pers
a
fund.
As
you
heard,
that's
grown
to
46
billion
dollars.
Hers
is
the
lifeblood
of
all
of
our
retired
members
and
is
the
only
pension
they
receive.
In
light
of
the
fact
that
state
of
nevada
is
one
of
a
handful
of
states
that
do
not
pay
into
social
security.
H
So,
on
behalf
of
our
pen
and
our
nearly
8
000
members,
we
thank
the
committee
for
your
support
that
recognizes
the
great
importance
of
this
fund
and
to
all
those
who
benefit
from
it.
Both
while
working
and
once
they've
retired,
in
addition
I'd
like
to
give
a
ditto
to
remarks
from
the
previous
speaker,
ken
durbin,
for
his
remarks
relating
to
pebb,
the
public
employees
benefits
program,
as
we
still
await
the
closing
for
that
budget.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
that
brings
our
meeting
to
an
end
today,
and
this
meeting
is.