►
Description
Convene Upon Adjournment of Interim Finance Committee meeting, but no sooner than 9:30 a.m.
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
Yeah,
okay
well
good
morning,
and
welcome
to
the
joint
meeting
of
senate
finance
and
and
and
ways
and
means
and
secretary.
You
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
C
C
E
C
C
F
F
A
Here,
and
so
we
are
going
to
I'm
going
to
go
through
a
little
housekeeping
and
then
we'll
take
a
a
brief
pause,
but
obviously
or
as
always,
keep
your
camera
or
your
microphone
muted,
if
you're
not
talking
and
keep
your
camera
on.
A
While
the
meeting
is
in
in
progress
so
that
we
can
maintain
a
forum,
there
will
be
a
public
comment
period
at
the
end
of
this
agenda
and
again
that
will
be
I'll
limit,
that
to
15
minutes
and
with
two
minutes
per
individual
caller
and
we
are,
and
if
you
need
to
get
a
hold
of
me,
we'll
raise
our
hands
again.
That
seems
to
be
the
most
effective
way
for
me
and
we
have
received
some
closing
documents
that
will
be
posted
on.
A
Nellis
are
being
posted
on
nellis
right
now,
and
so
I
need
to
have
all
the
members
take
a
really
brief,
brief
recess
so
that
they
can
grab
those
closing
documents
for
the
purposes
of
this
meeting
that
we're
about
to
discuss
so
go
download
print.
Whatever
you
got
to
do,
grab
your
closing
documents
and
I'll
give
five
minutes.
It's
158..
A
H
Yeah
time's
off
just
barely
starting
to
come
download
now
to
senator.
A
There's
the
the
three
tables
that
hatched
as
attachment
a
are
pretty
heavy
duty
and
they
just
took
they
just
took
the
the
printer
a
while
to.
A
Joe
brooks
you
are
now
live
to
the
broadcast.
Thank
you.
Welcome
back
to
the
joint
committee
on
senate
of
senate
finance
and
assembly
ways
and
means
we
all
of
the
members
have
their
their
documents
printed
in
front
of
them.
I
verified
on
nellis
and
they
are
available
to
the
public
and
and
so
we
really
have,
we
have
two
agenda
items
today.
One
is
a
statewide
decisions
in
our
budget
closings
and
the
other
is
public
comment.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair
for
records.
Sarah
kaufman
legislative
council
bureau
fiscal
analysis
division.
Today
I
will
be
providing
you
with
a
narrative
or
a
summary
of
the
statewide
closing
decision
for
a
statewide
restoration
of
vacant
and
eliminated
positions,
as
well
as
furlough
restorations
for
the
lcb
fiscal
division
or
department.
F
Currently,
it
is
uncertain
at
this
time
as
to
whether
we
will
be
getting
the
treasury
guidance
and
what
that
guidance
will
entail.
However,
the
american
rescue
plan
act
provides
for
four
various
purposes
that
these
funds
can
be
utilized
for
and
in
your
documents,
those
four
uses
are
identified
in
the
bullets
on
the
first
page.
F
While
it
is
unclear
from
the
authorized
uses
of
funds
listed
in
the
american
rescue
plan,
act
of
fiscal
or
2021,
if
funding
for
positions
identified
to
be
held
vacant
or
eliminated
as
a
result
of
estimated
reductions
in
revenues,
are
an
allowable
use
of
the
coronavirus
state
and
local
fiscal
recovery
funds.
The
committee
may
wish
to
consider
authorizing
the
restoration
of
these
positions
and
the
related
costs
effective
october
1st
2021
utilizing
a
portion
of
nevada's
coronavirus,
state
and
local
recovery
funds.
F
F
If
this,
if
the
guidance
suggests
that
the
funding
cannot
be
utilized
to
restore
the
positions,
the
authorizations
can
be
reduced
through
recommendation
by
the
governor
and
consideration
by
the
interim
finance
committee,
the
governor
recommended
total
savings
of
25.2
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
2022
and
6.4
million
dollars
in
2023
through
budget
reductions
related
to
personnel,
and
you
all
should
have
a
table
that
is
identified
as
attachment.
F
In
addition,
the
the
restoration
amounts
also
include
a
total
of
22
22
intermittent
positions
that
are
recommended
to
be
held
vacant
in
the
welfare
supportive
services
budget.
I
It
is
page
5
of
the
pdf.
If
you
have
it
printed
out,
it'll
be
the
second
page
of
the
tables,
it's
the
table
that
has
yellow
shading
on
the
far
right
side.
So
that's
the
one
I'm
going
to
be
referencing
first,
as
the
members
are
all
aware,
the
executive
budget
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
upcoming
biennium
contains
numerous
decision
units
related
to
budget
reductions.
I
I
So,
on
page
four
and
five
of
the
pd,
or
I'm
sorry,
five
and
six
of
the
pdf
document,
and
and
if
you
just
look
at
the
tables
they're,
the
second
and
third
pages
you'll
see
listed
all
the
decision
units
by
a
functional
area
in
the
executive
budget
and
by
agency
that
staff
has
identified
again.
These
are
decision
units
where
the
recommendation
is
to
either
eliminate
a
position
or
maintain
or
keep
the
position
vacant
and
again.
These
are
these
are
budget
accounts
that
have
positions
in
the
budget.
I
I'll
I'll
walk
through
what
the
columns
mean
you'll
see
at
the
top
of
the
columns
that
contain
numbers
that
they're
labeled
a
b
c,
all
the
way
through
k
and
again,
I'm
I'm
on
the
second
page
of
the
of
attachment.
A
columns
a
through
f,
contain
the
recommended
budget
reduction
amount
from
the
executive
budget
and
it's
broken
out
by
general
fund
reductions,
columns,
a
and
b
federal
fund
reductions,
columns
c
and
d,
and
then
other
funds
reduction,
columns,
e
and
f
again.
I
Then,
moving
over
to
columns
I
and
jay,
as
ms
kaufman
mentioned,
if
the
committee
wishes
to
move
forward
with
this
fiscal
staff
recommends
that
an
adjustment
to
the
fy
2022
amount
to
account
for
the
positions
being
funded,
beginning
october,
1st
of
the
fiscal
year
so
three
months
into
the
fiscal
year,
and
that
would
allow
us
time
to
receive
the
guidance
from
the
federal
government
on
the
allowable
uses
of
the
american
rescue
plan
funds
and
ensure
that
funding
the
positions
is
an
allowable
use.
I
As
an
estimate,
we
took
75
percent
of
the
total
restoration
cost
needed
in
fy
2022
to
to
get
that
amount.
But
again
we,
as
ms
kaufman
mentioned.
We
have
not
run
this
through
the
budgeting
system
to
get
the
the
a
more
exact
estimate.
So
the
column,
I
is
simply
75
percent
of
the
fy
2022
amount,
that's
in
column,
g
and
then
column
j
is
is
100
of
the
amount,
that's
in
column
h
and
that's
for
the
second
fiscal
year
the
biannium
fy
2022.
I
Lastly,
there
are
two
columns
under
under
under
the
heading
k
and
these
identify
the
positions,
the
actual
fte
count
that
would
be
restored
by
this
funding.
I
I
I
This
this
action
would
restore
funding
for
307.57
ftes
in
the
executive
budget
and
then
moving
over
to
columns
j
and
k
under
the
grand
total
row.
As
miss
kaufman
mentioned,
the
total
american
rescue
plan
funding
required
would
be
approximately
4.8
million
dollars
in
fy
22
and
5.3
million
dollars
in
fy
23
for
a
total
of
20.2
million
dollars
over
the
biennium
to
restore
funding
for
307.57
fte.
F
We,
we
did
have
certain
situations
with
the
karazhak
dollars
where
it
was
an
allowable
use
to
have
the
cares,
act,
act
as
a
match,
and
so
I
would
just
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
that
the
federal
funds
component
of
it
was
not
recommended
in
the
calculations
for
the
restorations.
F
First,
to
ensure
that
the
general
fund
savings
are
in
fact
created.
The
committee
may
wish
to
move
to
approve
the
position,
vacancies,
eliminations
and
furloughs,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
and
budgetarily,
by
by
approving
that
that
essentially
restores
that
general
fund
that
is
already
allocated
into
the
executive
budget.
F
Then
the
second
component
of
the
motion
would
then
be
to
motion
to
approve
authorizing
expenditures
of
the
federal
coronavirus,
state
and
local
fiscal
recovery
funds
for
the
vacant
and
eliminated
positions.
Effective
october,
1
2022,
as
well
as
the
furlough
restorations
for
the
lcb
fiscal
department
or
excuse
me,
the
lcb
legislative
council
bureau,
and
with
that
mr
thorley
and
myself
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
with
the
committee.
A
Thank
you,
miss
kaufman
and
mr
thorley
for
for
preparing
this
and
and
working
so
so
hard
to
come
up
with
these
solutions
and
also
for
presenting
this
this
to
us
this
morning.
I
would
like
to
open
this
up
for
questions
to
any
of
the
committee
members
who
would
like
to
discuss
this.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
could
you
clarify
on
the
restoration
vacant
or
eliminate
these
positions
of
the
307.57?
How
many
are
currently
vacant
versus
how
many
would
be
eliminated.
I
This
is
wayne
thorley,
lcv
fiscal
analysis,
division
for
the
record.
Our
understanding
is
that
all
of
the
positions
all
307
0.57
fte
are
currently
vacant.
I
The
the
governor's
finance
office
is
on
on
this
meeting
too,
and
if,
if
the
committee
desires,
they
could
weigh
in
also.
J
Thank
you
because
I
think
that's
important
when
we
talk
about
human
lives
and
the
impact
of
these
decisions,
knowing
that
these
these
positions
are
currently
vacant,
we
would
not
be
if
we
continue
to
for
me.
J
I
think
this
is
a
little
bit
premature
as
we
do
not
have
that
funding,
yet
I
I
think
we
need
to
as
we
are
charged
to
do
balance
our
budget
at
you
know,
city
die
time
and
that
we
can't
count
on
these
funding
sources
unless
we
actually
have
them,
and
then
we
have
to
discuss
this,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
any
decisions
we
make
that
impact
human
lives
is
critical,
so
we
get
a
documentation
or
some
clarification.
Indeed,
they
all
are
currently
not
filled.
A
C
Susan
brown,
for
the
record,
we
will
get
documentation
for
you
on
that.
A
And
I
think
it's
important
to
note,
regardless
of
when
they
they
were
filled
or
or
will
be
filled,
that
they
all
provide
incredibly
important
services
to
the
people
of
nevada
that
that
currently
are
lacking
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic
and
the
economic
crisis
that
it
created.
A
K
F
Mr
chairman
threw
you
to
senator
receivers
cancer.
This
is
the
the
total
fte
that
were
provided.
There
were
positions
that
were
requested
for
hiring,
freeze
and
ng,
as
well
as
some
programmatic
recommendations
for
budget
cuts
and
k-12,
but
those
did
not
actually
include
the
official
fte
counts.
K
L
F
Mr
chairman,
through
you
to
summon
roberts,
yes,
that
that
is
correct,
so
these
positions
are
are
currently
vacant
and
the
the
recommendation
to
start
them
in
october
is
to
provide
timing
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
federal
treasury
provides
that
guidance
to
ensure
that
that
funding
can
be
utilized
to
restore
these
positions.
L
In
a
just
a
short
follow-up,
mr
chair,
so
what
if,
if
we
choose
not
to
do
that,
what's
the
what's
the
alternative
for
possibly
filling
these
positions,
another
way
or
making
the
decision
down
the
road
another
way,
I
was
thinking
back
to
the
conversation
we
had
this
morning
about
fmap
and
everything
else
that
we
didn't
have
the
money
that
we
knew
we
didn't
have,
even
though
we
thought
it
was
coming
and
we
we
made
decisions
on
that
and
we
just
restored
it
today.
F
F
That
would
be
the
only
mechanism
available.
The
agencies
would
also
then
be
able
to
utilize
any
federal
funds
that
may
be
coming
their
way
during
the
interim.
So
in
instances
where
say,
for
example,
other
funds
that
are
identified
in
the
american
rescue
plan
act
unrelated
to
the
state
and
local
fiscal
recovery
funds.
If
those
come
in,
those
can
then
be
utilized
to
establish
the
positions
during
the
interim.
L
A
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question
and
I
have
vice
chair
carlton.
I
believe.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
just
think
it's
really
important
for
us
to
understand
that
this
is
going
into
the
authorizations
act.
It's
not
going
into
the
appropriations
act
in
order
to
go
into
the
appropriations
act.
We
actually
have
to
have
the
money
to
balance
the
budget,
to
do
it
since
we're
waiting
on
the
guidance
and
we're
not
sure
what
the
guidance
is
going
to
be.
D
We
are
merely
giving
the
authority
to
be
able
to
use
these
dollars
if
the
guidance
allows
it
to
be
able
to
fill
these
positions,
and
I
believe,
that's
very
important,
because
we
have
a
very
small
state
government.
If
you
look
at
us
on
all
the
tables
of
state
government,
we
have
a
very
small
state
government
and
basically,
what
we
have
done
is
balance
the
budget
on
the
backs
of
not
hiring
people
and
in
looking
at
a
pandemic
and
trying
to
get
out
of
it.
D
It
is
about
jobs,
and
we
do
need
these
folks
to
be
able
to
provide
the
services
to
our
constituents
that
are
in
a
position
right
now,
where
they
need
the
safety
net
more
than
ever.
So
this
doesn't
guarantee
any
jobs.
It
merely
gives
the
authority
to
be
able
to
use
it.
So
in
the
case
that
was
cited
earlier,
that
was
actually
putting
money
as
what
we
call
on
the
sheets.
This
is
not
putting
money
on
the
sheets.
These
are
federal
dollars,
that'll
be
outside
the
sheets
that
will
be
authorized
for
use.
D
A
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
and
I
am,
I
believe
that
I
had
senator
and
then
assemblywoman
tolls.
G
I
think
mr
thorley,
aside
from
going
through
and
pulling
the
vacant
positions,
did
you
do
a
review
at
all
as
to
to
basically
may
have
had
on
necessity?
For
example,
I
recall
a
discussion
in
dcfs
about
caseload
issues
at
some
of
our
juvenile
justice
facilities
and
whether
those
case
loads
were
still
justified
based
on
reduced.
G
You
know,
dropping
caseloads,
and
so
some
of
those
positions
were
necessary
based
on
dropping
case
loads,
or
is
this
just
grab
and
pull
from
what
was
what
the
positions
that
were
being
held
vacant
with
no
consideration
of
whether
we
would
want
to
approve
them
through
the
normal
budgetary
process?.
I
I
If
there
was
a
recommendation
in
the
executive
budget
to
eliminate
positions
because
of
caseload
decreases
or
if
the
recommendation
is
to
reorganize
a
program
or
eliminate
a
program
that
would
cause
a
position,
elimination
or
position
eliminations.
That
was
not
included
in
our
analysis.
So
there
are
other
decisions,
caseload,
primarily
caseload
decisions
that
include
positions,
and
they
were
they
were
excluded.
From
this
analysis,.
G
As
a
recall
on
the
dcfs
one,
for
example,
it
was,
it
was
sort
of
pitched
as
as
general
fund
savings
right
as
part
of
the
budget
balancing
maneuver,
but,
as
we
looked
at
case
load
and
their
projections,
it
was
they
didn't
really
sync
up,
so
it
was
just
one
example
about
the
mind
is:
if
we
were
to
do
this
today,
does
it
alleviate
us
from
any
of
the
responsibility
and
going
budget
by
budget
and
closing
out
budgets,
as
we
normally
do,
and
is
there
any
strategic
reason
from
a
budgetary
perspective?
I
Yes,
senator
keith,
thanks
for
the
question
it
so
if
the
committee
does
approve
this
action
today,
the
the
committees,
then,
every
time
a
the
subcommittee
goes
to
close
out
a
budget
that
has
one
of
these
budget
reduction
decision
units
in
it
that
whole
information
would
be
just
moved
to
the
back
of
the
closing
packet
and
just
a
short
write-up
would
be
included
under
the
additional
items,
no
action
necessary
section.
So
it
would.
It
would
free
up
the
committee
from
having
to
make
individual
decisions
during
subcommittee
on
these
various
decision
units.
G
All
right,
thank
you
for
your
answers.
I'll
have
comment
when
it's
time
for
a
motion,
mr
chairman,.
A
And
and
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
senator
kieffer,
kika
first
question
and
and
that
when
we're
going
to
close
subcommittee
or
when
subcommittees
or
or
any
budget
is
going
to
go
into,
closing
any
budget
positions
could
still
be
eliminated
or
moved
or
any
any
decisions
in
a
budget
closing
could
still
be
made
by
the
committee
members
and
by
the
chair
of
that
committee
or
subcommittee.
Is
that
correct?
Ms
kaufman
and
mr
thorley.
A
E
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
I
think
that
touched
on.
I
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
why
this
decision
right
now,
so
we
we
have
2.947
billion,
but
we
don't
know
when
we're
going
to
get
the
instructions
from
the
treasury
on
how
to
utilize
those
funds,
but
today
we're
making
a
decision
on
20
for
307
ftes
to
be
implemented
in
october
october,
and
so
I'm
just.
E
F
F
So
all
of
these
were
being
proposed
as
positions
that
would
be
vacant,
but
essentially
they
wanted
to
bring
the
positions
back
into
2023
and
2025
and
without
that
fte.
That
position
essentially
goes
away.
So
then,
going
forward
into
the
2023-25
biennium.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
and
senator
ratty.
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
very
much
appreciate
the
conversation
because
I'm
still
trying
to
get
there
to
totally
understand
what
we're
doing
as
well
so,
but
I
I
think
that
my
question
was
answered
so
basically
all
of
these
positions
that
are
listed
because
I
look
at
them
as
people,
of
course,
but
really
they're
people
providing
services
in
most
cases,
and
so
by
bringing
these
positions
back
on,
we
would
be
restoring
cuts
to
services
that
are
being
and
I'll
just
use
an
example,
aging
and
disability
services,
home
and
community-based
services
or
early
intervention
services.
E
E
At
this
point
or
and
and
trying
to
use
chair
carlton's
words
would
be
authorized
for
restoration,
and
then
they
would
be
fully
restored
budget
by
budget
by
budget.
As
we
close
each
of
these
budgets.
E
E
We
don't
want
to
go
through
the
process
of
for
the
public
for
all
of
these
individuals
who
are
so
dependent
on
these
services
to
think
these
programs
are
going
away
and
then
they're
not
going
away,
and
then
they
are
going
away
and
then
they're
not
going
away.
So
I'm
trying
to
be
able
to
explain
to
constituents
sort
of
where
we
are
in
the
process,
and
so
I
think,
where
we
are
saying,
look
we
think
federal
money
is
coming.
We
want
to
authorize
this
from
a
budget
process
standpoint.
E
I
I
I
There
would
not
be
an
appropriation
made
for
these
positions
at
any
point,
so
appropriation
generally
refers
to
an
allocation
from
either
the
general
fund
or
the
highway
fund,
so
there
would
not
be
a
decision
to
related
to
an
appropriation
so
these
agencies,
if
this
is
approved,
they
would
have
the
authorization
in
their
budget
and
then
that
authorization
authorization
would
stay
there
and
if
the
guidance
comes
from
treasury
that
they
can
use
this
money
to
fund
those
positions,
then,
beginning
october
1st,
they
could
fund
those
positions
if
the
guidance
comes
back
and
says
no
through
the
interim
finance
committee
process,
that
authorization
can
be
taken
removed
from
the
individual
budgets
where
it
would
be
given
as
we
move
through
the
subcommittee
closing
process,
the
recommend
the
recommendation
that
the
committee
makes
today
and
for
argument's
sake,
assuming
the
committee
goes
forward
with
the
recommendation,
then
in
subcommittee,
when
these
individual
decision
units
come
up.
I
So
if
you
look
on
the
table
where
it
lists
the
actual
decision,
unit
numbers
by
budget
account
on
pages
four
and
five
of
the
pdf.
For
the
pages
two
and
three
of
the
attachment
a
when
those
individual
decision
units
come
up
in
the
closing
the
action
the
committee
takes
today
will
mean
that
the
those
don't
need
to
come
up
for
action
against
subcommittee,
and
so
with
the
closing
document.
We'll
just
include
include
a
short
write-up
on
the
action
the
committee
takes
today.
E
Thank
you.
That's
super
helpful.
I
I
think
I
have
a
better
understanding,
so
we
can
commit
dollars
that
we
don't
have,
because
the
approval
is
only
there
if
those
dollars
come
forward
and
if
those
dollars
don't
come
forward,
then
the
interim
finance
committee
needs
to
figure
it
out
at
that
point
in
time
when
we
get
to
those
dates,
but
for
now
this
and
and
like-
and
I
think
I'm
starting
to
understand
what
dear
carlton
is
saying.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I'm
I'm
struggling
with
this
as
well.
I
I
don't
understand,
I
guess
we're
gonna
authorize
it,
but
we
won't
have
the
money
we
won't
know
until
october
1st
and
we're
talking
307
positions
correct.
So
with
that
I
mean,
I
know
it's
it's
a
large
number,
but
it's
it's
really
not
going
to
swing
the
whole
process,
those
307
positions.
I
guess
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
I'm
struggling
with
figuring
out
why
we
would
take
this
action.
I
Senator
guy
cochia
the
wayne
thorligan
for
the
record
as
a
as
a
process
and
again
not
recommending
any
course
of
action,
obviously,
but
from
a
process
standpoint.
I
I
For
that
decision
unit
to
and
then
that
will
obviously
be
presented
to
the
full
committee
when,
when
full
committee
closing
begins
so
from
from
a
process
standpoint,
this
act,
an
action
today
would
would
mean
the
subcommittees
would
not
have
to
take
a
number
of
actions,
because
those
those
actions
would
have
already
taken
place.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
If
I
can
follow
up
on
that,
I
agree
with
you,
and
maybe
it
would
you
know
lighten
the
load,
but
I
think
that's
our
job
to
look
at
those
positions
on
a
case
by
case
some
of
them
are,
I
agree
we
wouldn't
want
to
cut,
but
but
again
we
can
do
the
same
thing,
even
though
we
truly
don't
have
the
appropriation.
A
H
A
Yes,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions.
Go
ahead,
senator
ready.
E
Thank
you
so
to
to
that
point,
I
believe
what
you
said
is:
there's
nothing
they'll,
be
at
the
end
of
each
closing
packet
and
there's
nothing
that
precludes
us
from
considering
those
positions
in
each
of
the
appropriate
budget.
Closings
is
that.
F
Correct,
mr
chairman,
through
you,
two
senator
reddy.
Yes,
that
is
correct,
so
you
will
see
in
the
end
of
your
documents,
there
is
a
informational,
only
no
action
required
section,
that's
going
to
be
in
your
closing
packet
and
that's
where
the
discussion
for
all
of
these
will
be.
F
There
will
be
a
description
of
what
the
positions
are,
that
are
being
recommended
for
elimination,
and
there
will
be
some
information
related
to
today's
meeting
as
to
the
decision
that
is
made
if
it
is
determined
that
this
decision
is
not
made
today,
then
obviously,
all
of
those
those
issues
will
be
brought
up
as
major
issues
in
each
of
the
closings.
For
those
various
budget
accounts.
E
F
Yes,
and-
and
I
would
add
to
that,
we
will-
we
will
be
bringing
this
back
to
the
full
committees
back
in
may,
and
during
that
time
our
analysts
will
be
able
to
work
with
the
agencies
to
determine
if
there
are
any
technical
adjustments
that
should
be
made
during
that
time,
and
at
which
time
we
will,
we
will
bring
back
all
of
those
decision
units
and
if
there
are
recommendations,
you
know
that
either
the
agency
indicates.
No,
we
really
don't
need
this
position.
G
Hey,
mr
chairman,
I
want
to
talk
about
it
from
maybe
a
different
perspective
because,
as
I'm
sure,
all
of
us
have
right,
I'm
keeping
my
running
tally
of
funds
that
we
might
be
able
to
move
around
or
have
some
flexibility
with
the
general
fund
or
other
areas
and
sort
of
do
that
for
the
idea
of
making
hard
decisions
and
prioritizing
right.
So
I
sort
of
see
this
as
alleviating
the
need
for
us
to
actually
prioritize
what
we
want
to
do.
G
G
So
if
we
do
this
now,
ms
kaufman,
we
have
other
items
that
require
no
action
at
the
end
of
every
budget
closing
and
there
are
a
bunch
of
mental
health
tax
at
the
end
of
you
know,
nams
or
scams
we're
not
required
to
take
any
action
on
them.
They're
going
to
be
funded
in
october,
maybe
but
say
we
want
to
we,
we've
got
we've
been
able
to
identify
a
few
million
dollars
that
we
would
want
to
put
into
our
mental
health
budget
to
sure
that
make
sure
that
it's
actually
funded
started
starting
july
1st.
F
Prioritize,
I
I
think
I
understand
the
question,
so
all
of
those
budgets
will
be
receiving
a
closing,
and
so,
if
there
are
certain
positions
that
you
want
to
utilize
general
fund
appropriations
and
have
them
start
july
1st,
you
can
certainly
do
that
and
extract
those
out
as
an
independent
vote
based
off
of
that
direction.
F
F
G
And
then
I
guess
this
might
be
more
of
a
technical
question
that
we
can't
answer,
but
I
know
that
there
had
been
some
prohibitions
in
the
arp
or
yeah
arp
over
using
these
funds
for
state
pension
purposes.
Are
we
able
to
fund
pers
contributions
with
these
dollars.
F
A
Thank
you,
senator
kika,
for
it
a
similar
question
and
I'm
glad
that
you
brought
that
up
and-
and
there
is
nothing
in
this
decision
today
that
would
prevent
us
from
from
from.
In
the
event
there
was
to
be
new
additional
revenues,
recognized
or
revenues
moved
from
one
budget
to
the
other,
adding
them
into
additional
positions
or
or
decisions
that
we
would
make
on
each
individual
budget.
So
I
appreciate
that
question
senator
kikerbreg,
a
similar
one.
A
A
Okay,
I
do
not.
I
do
not
see
any
additional
questions,
so
what
we
would
need
to
do
here
is
we
would
need.
We
would
need
a
few
two
different
motions
and
yeah,
so
I
would,
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
from
the
committees
to
preliminarily
to
approve
the
decision
units.
A
Let
me
let
me
phrase
this
right.
Mr.
A
D
And-
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I
I
apologize
for
interrupting,
but
I've
got
it.
Staff
has
been
wonderful
about
writing
this
out
for
us,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
absolutely
correct.
So
I
want
to
just
be
sure
we
put
this
on
the
record,
so
I
believe
the
motion
would
be
to
give
preliminary
approval
for
the
decision
units
in
identified
and
attachment
a
to
hold
vacant
or
eliminate
307.57
positions
statewide
and
establish
the
12
furlough
days
each
year
for
the
legislative
council
bureau,
which
would
generate
total
savings
of
25.2
million
in
fiscal
year.
D
In
which
the
original
budget
reduction
measure
was
processed
and
75
percent
of
the
general
fund
savings
identified
in
fiscal
year
22
and
a
hundred
percent
of
the
general
fund
savings
identified
in
fiscal
year
23
to
eliminate
legislative
council
bureau
furloughs,
as
identified
in
attachment
a
also
giving
the
staff
authority
to
make
the
technical
adjustments
and
bring
the
final
recommendations
to
this
committee.
To
these
two
committees
at
the
statewide
decision
units
closing
tentatively
scheduled
for
may
the
third.
A
I
would
suck
at
that
mr
chair,
thank
you
for
a
very
clear
and
concise
motion
that
achieves
all
the
goals
of
what
this
proposal
is
proposing
to
do,
and
a
second
from
senator
dennis
and
so
now
do
I
have
any
discussions
for
the
discussion
from
the
committee
on
that
motion.
G
G
So
I
just
I
think
this
is
premature.
Mr
chairman,
I
like
I
would
prefer
that
we
actually
walk
through
some
of
these
budgets
and
make
decisions
about
what
we
want
to
prioritize.
And
frankly,
we
haven't
haven't,
had
a
single
hearing
on
these
funds.
G
We
haven't,
we
haven't
heard
what
we
haven't
had
a
presentation
on
the
american
recovery
plan
know
what's
coming
to
the
state.
This
is
the
first
time
we're
talking
about
it
and
we're
already
allocating
money.
So
I
just
think
it's
a
step
too
fast.
The
governor
released
this
morning,
his
every
nevadan
recovery
framework
and
a
strategic
plan
for
allocating
these
dollars
and
I'm
sure
we're
allocating
it
before
some
of
the
members
of
this
committee
have
even
had
the
chance
to
read
it.
So.
I
Mr
chair,
this
is
wayne
thorley.
Can
I
make
one
clarification
on
the
motion?
Yes,
sir,
the
the
general
fund
savings
amount
so,
on
the
first
part
of
the
motion,
the
preliminary
approval
to
approve
the
decision
units
identified
an
attachment.
A
the
general
fund
savings
in
fy
2023
is
5.0.
D
A
Oh
no
problem,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
and
and
staff
would
we
need
to
we're
still
in
discussion
on
that
motion,
but
would
we
need
to
make
a
another
motion
to
clarify
that
or
would
that
be
sufficient
for
the
purposes
of
the
record.
F
Mr
chair,
this
is
sarah
kaufman,
the
the
clarifate,
the
clarification
is,
is
fine.
You
don't
need
to
take
a
second
motion
on
this.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
recognizing
me.
I
appreciate
the
ability
at
a
comment.
I
support
the
concept
of
keeping
these
positions
open
because
again
they
are
not
currently
filled.
However,
I
think
it's
very
premature
to
allocate
potential
funding
that
we
do
not
have
to
sustain
personnel
positions
that
we
may
or
may
not
want
to
maintain
it's
one
of
my
fears
of
where
this
money
may
be
spent
to
continue
extending
programs
extending
government,
as
opposed
to
one
top
one-time
appropriation.
J
So
I
think
it's
not
fiscally
responsible
to
be
doing
this
at
this
time
and
I
will
be
a
no
on
this
motion.
Thank
you.
A
A
We
have
the
ability
to
open
every
budget
or
or
to
do
anything
we
need
to
do
in
every
budget
as
we
close
it
moving
forward
and
that
this
would
come
back
with
a
recommendation
to
the
to
the
money
committees
and
the
statewide
decision
units
closing
back
in
next
month
and
and
that
we
continuously
talk
about
actually
providing
services
to
nevadans
in
every
one
of
these
committees
and
that's
what
these
employees,
these
state
employees
do
so
senator
seaver's
cancer.
K
Thank
you,
chair
brooks.
I
appreciate
the
discussion
that
we've
had
and
when
I
look
at
some
of
these
positions,
for
instance,
at
nams
we've
got
mental
health,
counselors
psychiatric
caseworkers
at
southern
nevada,
adult
mental
health,
we've
got
psychiatric
nurses,
we've
had
this
discussion
about
authorizing
versus
appropriating
and
I
don't
think
we
should
take
the
risk
on
some
of
those
positions
to
have
them
authorized
and
not
appropriated,
and
I
think
the
process
that
we
normally
go
through.
K
We
look
at
each
budget
and
we
prioritize,
and
then
we
allocate
funds,
whether
it's
these
funds
or
potentially
federal
federal
funds
that
that's
the
best
way
to
to
make
these
decisions
because
again
we're
we've
gone
through
this
whole
discussion
about
authorization
doesn't
mean
appropriation
and
and
if
we
do
appropriate,
these,
they
would
be
put
off
until
october
1st,
and
I
think
some
of
these
are
critical
positions,
given
the
issues
that
we
have
around
mental
health.
I
also
think
that
we
don't
really
have
anything
on
here
around
education
and
that's
a
priority.
K
I
believe
for
most
members
of
this
body.
So
today
is
april
1st
we
have
about
60
days
till
we
we
sign,
you
die.
These
positions
aren't
going
to
be
filled
potentially
until
october
1st.
So
I
think
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
motions
or
motion,
because
I
think
that
we
should
be
looking
at
these
budget
by
budget
like
we
normally
do
and
making
sure
that
the
appropriations
are
where
they
should
be
based
on
the
priorities
that
we
share.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you.
The
process,
we're
going
through
the
way
that
I
heard
everything
is
that
we're
authorizing,
but
we're
not
appropriating
so
they're
only
going
to
be
filled
if
we
in
fact
have
money
that
we
can
put
into
them
and
if
they
are
filled,
they're
delayed
until
october
1st,
instead
of
july
1st,
with
the
the
normal
fiscal
year.
K
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
fill
the
positions
and
we're
the
way
that
we're
doing
this
right
now
from
what
I
understand,
the
difference
between
authorization
and
appropriating
we're
not
appropriating
the
dollars
for
these
they're
going
to
be
contingent
and
and
also
be
delayed
until
october
1st.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
Is
there
anything
that
this
decision
would
do
that
would
limit
this?
These
money
committees
abilities
to
put
money
into
to
the
extent
it
was
available
through
our
budgeting
process,
put
money
into
these
mental
health
positions
that
the
senator
has
identified
that
we're
all
concerned
about?
Is
there
anything
in
this
decision
that
would
preclude
us
from
putting
money
into
them
immediately?
A
If,
if
we
move
that
money
around
through
our
regular
budgetary
process
or
an
increase
in
revenues
through
the
economic
forum
process,.
I
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
so
still
conversations
and
discuss
the
motion
and
the
motion
has
been
made
and
seconded
and
looking
for
any
other
members
committee
members
who
have
any
discussion
that
they
would
like
to
make
on
the
motion.
C
I
just
I
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done,
my
staff
here,
because
government
budgeting
is
so
funky
right
and
we
kind
of
have
this
lag
so
when
we
implement
and
we
make
decisions,
there's
like
a
six-month
lag
for
them
to
happen,
and
then
we
respond
to
a
decision
and
then
so
like
with
this
special
session,
we
had
an
assembly
bill
3
and
the
cuts
we
had
to
make
like
those
were
things
that
happened
the
next
day.
They
were
things
that
happened
five
or
six
months
later.
C
If
we
get
to
you
and
then
we
get,
you
know
we're
we're
playing
this
game
where
we're
trying
to
play
catch-up,
and
so
I
just
appreciated
this
because
to
me
this
is
kind
of
one
of
the
first
times
we
were.
We
were
saying:
how
do
we
be
more
thoughtful
as
a
public
body
about
managing
the
time
and
flow
in
of
how
these
dollars
work
in
a
world
of
uncertainties?
I
think
it's
our
best
option
and
our
best
thinking
at
the
moment
or
how
we
have
continuity
of
positions
within
some
essential
roles
and
functions
of
government.
C
You
know
you
look
at
it
and
we're
talking
about
health
and
human
services,
but
there's
also
a
position
here
within
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
and
with
everything
we're
trying
to
do
right
now.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
say
let
someone
go
july.
1
then
turn
around
and
rehire
them
or
try
to
hire
them
or
try
to
find
someone
else
in
september.
So
to
me
this
is
just
continuity
and
it
gets
us
the
flexibility.
We
need
as
a
large
entity
to
figure
out
how
to
really
make
sure
we're
using
our
dollar
smartly.
L
L
I
Mr
chair,
if
you'd
like
I
can,
I
can
answer
that
question
about
the
motion,
please,
mr
parker
yeah.
So
a
a
yes
vote
on
the
motion.
Would
a
preliminarily
approve
the
decision
units
in
the
executive
budget
to
cut
funding
for
these
positions,
and
it
would
also
preliminarily
approve
authorizing
american
rescue
plan
funding
for
these
positions,
beginning
october,
first
of
2021
or
fiscal
year
2022,
so
the
the
funding
for
the
positions
would
be
would
be
cut
and
then
would
not
be
available
until
october.
1.
I
D
And
mr
chairman,
if
I
could
ask
mr
thorley
to
just
take
that
one
step
further,
a
no
vote
would,
in
my
understanding,
would
actually
mean
that
there
would
be
no
permission
in
the
authorizations
act
to
fill
these
positions.
So
we
would
not
be
going
down
that
road,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
that
on
the
record.
Also,
thank
you.
Mister.
A
H
Thank
you,
and
with
vice
chair
carlton's
comment
that
does
give
me
some
pause
on
what
I
was
going
to
say,
but
but
again
we're
talking
about
307
positions.
We
need
to
evaluate
these
on
a
case
by
case.
I'm
sorry
there's
some
of
them.
We
need
to
be
there
there's
some
of
my
know.
Just
in
in
the
budgets
we've
been
through,
that
probably
don't
need
to
be
held,
held
and
paid
for
so
you
know
I.
I
still
think
we
have
to
go
through
the
process
and
I
can't
support
it.
A
G
Exception
to
the
to
the
characterization
of
the
vote
before
by
ms
carlton.
There
would
be
nothing
that
would
prevent
this
body
from
making
a
decision
about
authorizing
these
federal
funds
subsequent
to
this
meeting
and
the
suggestion
that
voting
against
prohibits
any
future
action
to
fund
these
positions
with
federal
money
is
just
simply
not
true.
D
And
that
was
not
my
intention,
mr
chair,
that
was
not
my
intention.
It
was
only
clarification
on
this
particular
motion.
It
wasn't
on
anything
in
the
future.
It
was
only
on
this
particular
motion.
So
if
I
did
not
make
that
clear,
I
apologize,
but
that's
what's
before.
So
that's
what
the
discussion
is,
we're
not
talking
about
the
other
part.
So
if
I
made
that
if
if
that
was
misrepresent,
if
I
misrepresented
that
I
do
apologize,
it's
merely
in
reference
to
this
particular
motion
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
clarifying
question,
senator
key,
confer
on
the
response
code
carlton.
Any
further
questions
on
the
motion.
A
I
see
no
more,
no
further
emotion
and
all
right.
So,
let's
miss
kaufman.
Could
you
please
call
a
vote.
I
Mr
chair,
I
think
it'll
be
committee
staff
that
would
take
the
roll
call
vote.
A
I
am
stuck
in
ifc
mode.
Thank
you,
mr
thorley.
Yes,
committee
committee
staff,
could
you
please
take
the
vote.
K
A
D
F
F
E
A
K
B
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Motion
carries
with
the
majority
of
the
members
present.
A
And
that
is
the
only
agenda
item
we
had
today,
and
so
we
will
move
to
the
or
not
excuse
me
the
only
business
we
had
on
our
agenda
today,
and
so
that
will
take
us
to
our
final,
which
is
a
comment.
A
And
broadcast
services,
could
you
open
up
public
comment
and
and
see
if
we
have
any
on
the
line,
and
while
we're
doing
that,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
committee
members
for
a
in-depth
conversation
on
this,
this
measure
that
will
help
us
close
our
budgets
and
also
for
being
so
efficient
and
thorough
and
ifc
this
morning.
C
A
Time
all
right,
seeing
no
callers
on
public
comment
and
giving
a
sufficient
call
in.
I
will
adjourn
and
bring
adjourn
this
meeting
and
I
believe,
we'll
all
head
to
floor.