►
From YouTube: 5/6/2021 - Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance, Subcommittees on K-12/Higher Education/CIP
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
Good
morning,
everyone
welcome
to
the
k-12
higher
ed
cip
sub-committee
this
morning
with
that,
I
think
we've
got
enough
folks
to
start
and
we'll
we'll
have
other
people
joining
us.
It's
that
time
of
season
where
folks
are
everywhere.
So
if
I
could
go
ahead
and
have
the
staff
call
the
roll
this
morning,
please
senator.
A
Carlton-
and
I
am
here-
please
mark
the
other
members
present
when
they
arrive-
I
I
know
they're
here
in
the
building
somewhere
and
I
don't
think
we
need
to
send
the
sergeant-at-arms
out
to
find
them
yet,
but
we'll
we'll
cross
that
bridge
when
we
come
to
it
later
this
session.
So
with
that
committee
this
morning
we
have
closing
on
ng
system-wide.
We
have
mr
casara
here
to
walk
us
through
this
document.
Please
ask
questions
if
you
need
to
as
we
move
through
this
and
mr
casara:
let's
go
ahead
and
get
started.
D
Beginning
with
major
closing
item
number
one
are
budget
reduction
measures.
The
figures
in
the
prior
table
are
inclusive
of
governor
recommended
general
fund
budget
reductions
of
84.5
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
21
to
23.
Biennium
general
categories
of
budget
reductions
include
a
hiring
freeze,
which
represents
approximately
47.4
million
dollars
per
year,
reduced
travel
of
1.9
million
dollars
each
year.
D
The
listing
of
the
formula
funded
institutions
on
page
five,
beginning
with
unlv
lists
a
general
summary
of
the
reductions
for
the
major
institutions.
Fiscal
staff
will
note
two
issues
here.
The
first
is
that
unlv
and
dri
utilized
revenues
representing
investment
income
approved
by
the
distribution
of
the
board
of
regents,
to
offset
some
of
their
general
fund
reductions.
D
Additionally,
governor
recommended
general
fund
deductions
for
the
non-formula
budgets
in
professional
schools,
excluding
the
desert
research
institute,
totaled
21.2
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
21
to
23
biennium,
the
tables.
On
page
six
and
page
seven
of
your
closing
packet
detail,
the
governor
recommended
budget
reductions,
the
table
on
page
six
compares
the
annual
budget
reductions
for
each
nc
institution
compared
to
the
fiscal
year.
21
original
legislatively
approved,
amounts
and
note
the
total
84.5
million
dollars
in
reductions
in
each
fiscal
year
of
the
biennium
represents
approximately
12.2
percent
decrease
relative
to
that
fiscal
year.
D
D
Moving
on
to
page
seven
and
page
eight
of
your
closing
packet
through
pandemic,
related
government
funding,
federal
government
funding,
there
have
been
appropriations
of
higher
education,
emergency
relief
fund
or
herf
directly
to
institutions
of
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education.
The
table
at
the
top
of
page
eight
notes
the
second
round
of
her
funding
through
the
coronavirus
response
and
relief,
supplemental
appropriations
act,
and
this
includes
112
million
dollars,
82
million
dollars
of
which
is
slated
for
institutional
support
and
approximately
30
million
dollars
of
which
is
slated
for
institutional
aid.
D
These
federal
pandemic
related
dollars
are
not
included
in
any
of
the
general
fund
reduction
tables
mentioned
earlier.
According
to
information
provided
by
the
system,
follow-up
information
following
the
hearing,
a
third
round
of
american
rescue
planned.
Her
funding
is
expected
to
be
made
available
directly
to
institutions
the
estimated
breakdown
of
which
is
provided
at
the
table
at
the
bottom
of
page
8..
D
According
to
national
organizations,
the
distributions
of
funds
will
be
similar
to
the
first
round
of
funding
through
the
cares
act,
meaning
that
funding
between
institutional
support
and
student
aid
is
approximately
a
50-50
split.
However,
the
allowable
uses
of
both
the
institutional
person
and
the
student
aid
are
expected
to
be
similar
to
the
second
round
of
funding.
Through
the
coronavirus
response
and
relief,
supplemental
appropriations
act,
fiscal
staff,
note
federal
guidance
have
not
has
not
yet
been
received
relating
to
timing
or
the
exact
allowable
uses.
D
A
A
lot
of
information
there,
but
a
lot
of
it
very,
very
similar
to
the
conversations
that
we
had
in
presentation
and
working
through
these
budgets.
So
committee
members.
Are
there
any
questions
or
clarifications
on
any
of
the
items
that
we
just
went
through,
not
seeing
any
at
this
time.
Miss
ottagi
thank.
A
Second-
and
I
I
have
a
motion
for
ms
hatagi,
a
second
from
senator
don
darrell
loop
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion.
Senator
seaversganzer.
E
Thank
you,
chair
carlton.
I
know
we're
closing
right
now
and
we
have
a
substantial
cut
to
higher
education.
A
And
I
knew
this
was
going
to
come
up
today.
So
had
numerous
conversations
with
folks.
There
is
a
lot
of
moving
pieces.
A
A
We've
only
got
we've
got
technically
26
days
left,
but
I'm
aiming
for
like
24
25,
just
because
I
need
to
have
a
goal
so
we'll
we
will
have
those
conversations
in
the
future
can't
promise
anything
on
anything,
but
knowing
where
we
are.
We
need
to
just
get
through
closing
all
these
and
then
have
those
conversations
in
the
future.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
realize
we
do
need
to
close
budgets,
but
we
also
need
to
recognize
the
substantial
funds
that
came
in
so
and
we
need
to
potentially
revise
so.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
comments
and.
A
A
Time
so
I
imagine
with
the
news
that
we
had
yesterday,
this
closing
is
going
to
go
a
lot
smoother
because
some
of
the
thoughts
and
processes
I
had
I've
set
off
to
the
side
so
and
she
you
dodged
a
bullet
from
me
this
time.
So
I
just
want
you
to
put
that
on
the
plus
side
on
my
column
for
this
one
year.
A
Okay,
so
with
that
not
seeing
any
other
questions
or
comments
at
this
time,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present
going
on
to
item
number
two,
mr
casara.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
second
major
issue
with
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
budgets,
is
higher
education,
funding,
distribution,
formula
and
performance
funding
pool
for
instructional
budgets.
This
is
broken
out
into
several
sections.
Each
representing
a
component
of
the
funding
formula
that
will
be
discussed
in
detail.
The
first
section:
a
is
weighted
student
credit
hours,
as
originally
recommended
by
the
governor
for
fiscal
year,
22
and
23.
D
The
governor
recommended
calculated
general
fund
value
of
a
weighted
student
credit
hour
is
167.81
compared
to
the
legislatively
approved
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
of
164.04
and
20
and
164
61.
In
fiscal
year,
21.
available
general
fund
appropriations
are
determined
through
the
generic
base,
maintenance
and
enhancement
funding
methodology,
less
any
pre-formula
allocations.
D
The
executive
budget,
fiscal
staff
notes
utilizes
the
same
credit
hour
waiting
taxonomy
for
fiscal
year,
20
as
approved
by
the
2019
legislature.
However,
there
have
been
some
updates
to
this
as
discussed
at
the
bottom
of
page
9..
The
funding
formula,
as
originally
submitted
by
the
governor,
did
not
include
amounts
recommended
for
statewide
inflation,
which
is
decision.
Unit,
m100
and
statewide
fringe
benefit
rate
adjustment,
which
is
m
300,
both
of
which
are
traditional
components
in
the
base,
maintenance
and
enhancement
calculation.
D
The
original
funding
formula
also
included
a
technical
error
relating
to
the
research
operations
and
maintenance
carve
out
for
unlv.
These
adjustments,
as
made
and
recommended
by
fiscal
staff,
include
no
impact
on
the
budget.
However,
as
these
components
are
integral
to
the
calculation
of
the
weighted
student
credit
hour,
there
has
been
an
impact
on
the
resulting
output
for
fiscal
years,
22
and
23..
D
D
Moving
on
to
page
10,
which
is
the
weighted
student
credit
hour
case,
load
adjustment,
which
is
the
decision
unit
m203
across
the
formula
institutional
budgets,
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
24
million
in
each
year
of
the
21
to
23
biennium,
based
on
an
average
4.9
system-wide
increase
in
the
fiscal
year.
20
weighted
student
credit
hours
compared
to
fiscal
year,
2018.
D
the
table
in
the
middle
of
page
10
details
how
this
caseload
calculation
is
done
at
the
institution
level,
from
unlv
to
nevada,
state
college
and
again
represents
a
4.9
percent
growth.
Noting
the
sums
at
the
bottom
of
the
table,
145
918,
incremental
weighted
student
credit
hours
were
generated
between
18
and
20.
that
number
multiplied
by
the
164
61,
which
is
the
fiscal
year.
D
As
shown
in
this
table,
there
are
institutions
that
receive
additional
funding
that
experience
growth
greater
than
the
average
across
all
institutions,
for
example
on
this
table
that
would
be
csn,
gbc
and
nevada.
State
college
for
those
institutions
that
experience
growth
greater
than
the
system-wide
average
you'll
see
a
negative
amount
in
that
difference
between
caseload
and
distribution
column,
the
other
institutions,
unlv
unr,
tmcc
and
western
nevada
received
growth
that
was
less
than
the
average
and
so
you'll
see
a
positive
difference
in
that
column.
D
The
hearing,
discussion
and
post
update
information
includes
budget
amendments
submitted
by
the
governor's
finance
office.
There
are
several
of
which,
but
the
first
component
that
relates
to
weighted
student
credit
hour.
Caseload
growth
is
budget
amendment
a
21
520
3005
that
makes
a
small
technical
correction
to
nevada
state
college's
caseload
growth,
correcting
it
to
five
million
ninety
three
thousand
seven
hundred
and
seventy
four
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
as
represented
in
your
table
and
supported
by
the
funding
formula.
D
During
the
february
24th
2021
hearing
members
of
the
subcommittee
requested
some
clarification
clarifying
details
about
the
calculation
of
the
weighted
student
credit
hour
case
load
adjustment
and
the
breakdown
at
the
bottom
of
page
11
simply
reiterates
the
information
provided
in
the
prior
table.
That
notes
weighted
student
credit
hour
case
load.
Adjustments
are
based
on
the
difference
between
the
current
base
year,
which
is
fiscal
year
20
and
the
prior
base
year,
which
is
fiscal
year.
D
18
multiplies
that
difference
by
the
fiscal
year,
21
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
to
achieve
a
24
million
dollar
caseload
growth,
moving
to
additional
updates
at
the
top
of
page
12
of
your
closing
document,
members
of
the
subcommittee
also
requested
information
related
to
the
projected
fiscal
year.
21
weighted
student
credit
hour
totals
based
on
information
provided
by
the
system
that
enrollments
were
projected
to
decrease
in
fiscal
year
21..
D
The
system
did
provide
a
response,
however,
based
on
the
partial
completion
of
the
of
the
spring
semester,
all
relevant
factors,
including
withdrawals,
failing
grades
for
non-attendance
and
end
of
term.
Blank
grades
were
not
included
as
a
result.
A
reliable
fiscal
year,
21
weighted
student
credit
hour
estimate
is
not
available
and
fiscal
staff
recommend
the
utilization
of
fiscal
year,
2020
weighted
student
credit
hour
actuals
in
accordance
with
the
previously
established
budget
policy
and
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
D
According
to
the
system,
enrollment
projections
average
82
921
in
fiscal
year
22
and
84
580
and
23
both
years
projecting
growth
compared
to
fiscal
years,
20
and
21..
So,
while
the
system
is
projecting
a
decrease
in
fiscal
year
21,
it
is
expected
that
projected
enrollments
will
rebound
in
22
and
23..
D
The
motion
at
the
top
of
page
12
asks.
Does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
funding
weighted
student
credit
hour
case
load
adjustments
with
general
fund
appropriations
of
24
million
in
each
fiscal
year
of
the
21
to
23
biennium,
based
on
the
fiscal
year
2021
calculated
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
of
1.6461,
including
case
load
adjustments,
totaling
1
399
in
general
fund
appropriations
included
in
budget
amendment
a21,
520,
3005.
A
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
move
the
committee
recommend
funding
weighted
student
credit
hour
case
load
adjustments
with
general
fund
appropriations
of
24
million
in
each
fiscal
year
of
the
21-23
biennium,
based
on
the
fiscal
year,
21
calculated
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
of
164.61,
including
caseload
adjustments,
totaling,
one
thousand
three
hundred
and
ninety
nine
dollars
in
general
fund
appropriations,
including
budget
budget
amendment
a
two
one:
five,
two:
zero
zero.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywomanhottagey,
a
second
from
senator
dondera
loop
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
those
in
opposition
hearing
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present
moving
on
to
small
institution
funding.
Please.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
john
casseroth,
lcb
fiscal
for
the
record.
Moving
on
to
section
c
of
major
closing
item
two
with
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
is
small
institution
funding.
The
governor
recommends
great
basin
college
and
western
nevada
college
collectively
receive
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
756
thousand
four
hundred
five
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium.
The
intent
of
small
institution
funding
is
to
recognize
that
all
institutions
have
certain
fixed
administrative
costs,
regardless
of
size.
D
The
level
of
recommended
funding
for
gbc
and
wnc
is
determined
by
the
actual
number
of
weighted
student
credit
hours
greater
than
fifty
thousand
but
less
than
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
with
a
maximum
amount
for
each
institution
of
1.5
million
dollars
per
year.
As
the
institutions
grow
closer
to
this
100
000
credit
hour
mark,
the
level
of
institutional
funding
for
the
small
institution
factor
decreases
according
to
the
table
at
the
bottom
of
page
12.
D
This
funding
represents
756
000
and
does
show
as
a
32.5
percent
reduction.
This
is
representative
of
increases
in
weighted
student
credit
hours
for
great
basin
and
western
nevada.
So
while
it
shows
as
a
negative,
there
are
still
dollars
appropriated
for
the
small
institution
factor,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
The
m201
decision
unit
again
is
reflective
of
the
net
difference
of
these
figures.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move.
The
committee
recommend
great
basin
college
and
western
nevada
college
receive
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
756
405
dollars,
collectively
in
each
fiscal
year
of
the
2123
biennium
for
small
institution
funding
to
be
appropriated
prior
to
the
calculation
of
the
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
as
a
pre-formula
allocation.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
hatagi,
a
second
from
senator
john
darrell
loop,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously.
If
all
members
present
moving
on
oh
my
favorite
research,
space
operations
and
maintenance.
Here
we
go.
D
Governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
20.5
million
dollars
over
the
21
to
23
biennium
in
research,
space
operation
and
maintenance,
or
o
m
funding
for
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
and
the
university
of
nevada
las
vegas.
The
recommended
funding
for
unlv
represents
an
annual
increase
of
9.9
percent
or
approximately
412
000
compared
to
that
which
was
approved
by
the
2019
legislature
for
fiscal
year
21..
D
This
information
is
recapped
at
the
table
at
the
bottom
of
page
13
and
a
historical
summary
is
provided
at
the
top
of
page
14,
looking
at
appropriated
research
operations
and
maintenance
funding,
starting
in
the
13
to
15
biennium
information
provided
by
ng
following
the
hearing
provided
specifically
by
unr
and
unlv,
noted
that
a
breakdown
of
general
funded
operations
and
maintenance
expenditures
was
not
available
as
they
do
not
associate
o
m
expenditures
with
a
revenue
source.
Fiscal
staff
would
call
this
fund
mapping
the
association
of
specific
functions
with
specific
revenue
sources.
A
Committee
members,
are
there
any
questions
in
the
follow-up
conversations
that
were
had
in
talking
with
with
the
system,
realizing
that
we
couldn't
actually
fund
map?
What
we
call
fund
map
track
these
dollars.
We
thought
it
would
be
important
for
the
future
for
future
legislatures
to
be
able
to
understand
how
these
dollars
were
being
used,
because,
as
we
build
new
buildings
and
the
campuses
expand
and
do
more
work,
those
dollars
do
come
back
as
a
request
to
us
under
research
o
m
to
be
able
to
those
are
state
dollars.
A
So
we
would
like
to
be
able
to
understand
how
those
dollars
are
being
used,
what
the
cost
benefit
might
be
and
what
the
multipliers
might
end
up
being.
Not
all
research
creates
a
multiplier,
but
I
just
think
having
data
and
making
decisions
based
on
the
data
is
better
than
just
a
square
footage.
E
Thank
you,
chuck,
carlton,
just
a
comment,
so
I
was
one
of
the
individuals
who
participated
when
in
the
the
redo
of
funding
for
higher
ed.
If
you
remember,
we
had
this
really
complex
formula
with
maintenance
and
it
really
wasn't
related
to
teaching,
and
there
were
several
iterations
of
what
we
could
do
and
I
think
the
reason
we
landed
on
this
maintenance
piece
is
because
we
broke
out
teaching
right.
E
So
the
weighted
student
credit
hours
are
basically
the
student
portion
of
what
the
work
that's
done
at
the
university,
and
it's
been
very
positive
in
that
those
numbers
have
been
rising
over
the
years
and
some
have
suggested.
Maybe
those
numbers
should
be
truncated
at
some
point,
but
having
more
students
who
are
retained
and
graduate
with
increasing
graduation
rates
is
really
important.
So
that
was
one
component
when
we
redid
the
formula
and
the
other
one
of
the
other
components,
of
course,
was
making
sure
we
took
care
of
the
buildings.
E
So
I'm
not
sure
it's
probably
going
to
be
hard
to
measure
what
your
return
on
investment
is
directly,
because
the
formula
was
redone,
basically
to
make
sure
that
students
were
covered,
but
also
the
the
plant
was
maintained
at
the
facilities
were
maintained.
So
I
think
it's
partly
the
nature
of
the
formula
when
we,
when
we
changed
it
back
in
around
2011.
E
Why
we
have
this.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
record,
because
we
are
benefiting
from
having
two
r1
carnegie
classified
institutions,
which
I
think
is
really
important,
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
work
that
they're
doing
at
the
facilities
and
I
think,
we're
all
very
proud
of
the
facilities
that
we
have.
So
thank.
A
and
was
on
the
education
committee-
and
I
remember
tasking
majority
leader,
horn
and
former
assemblyman
andy
eisen-
to
help
us
get
through
establishing
the
new
formula
at
the
time,
and
I
do
remember
the
conversations
about
research
o
m,
and
it
has
been
a
decade
since
then,
and
I
think
any
data
that
we
get
from
the
system
in
dealing
with
this
can
help
us
move
forward.
A
It
may
not
give
us
the
answers
that
we
want,
but
we
won't
know
if
we
don't
ask
so
this
may
be
the
best
way
to
do
it,
but
in
the
future
I
think
we
need
to
sit
down
and
evaluate
it
and
get
those
numbers
so
that
the
next
legislature,
when
they're
dealing
with
this
issue,
I'd
like
to
leave
behind
a
little
more
information
for
them
to
make
those
decisions.
Moving
forward,
we've
we're
looking
at
approving
an
engineering
building
with
a
very
large
square
footage
attached
to
it.
A
So
I
think
that'll
show
very
positive
results,
but
we
won't
get
the
information
if
we
don't
ask
for
it
and
I
believe
that's
our
responsibility
is
to
request
it,
and
if
there
is
an
issue
getting
there,
we
will
find
out
during
the
interim
as
they
report
to
ifc,
to
see
what
what
the
barriers
might
be
and
how
do
we
address
those
in
the
future.
So
this
is
simply
a
request
for
information
so
that
we
can
make
decisions
based
in
the
future.
On
that.
E
Thank
you,
chair
crawlton.
I
am
in
agreement
with
you.
I
I
just
thought
we
needed
to
have
the
perspective
also
of
how
we
changed
the
formula
dramatically
and
that
we
have
these
components
that
are
broken
out.
So
I
think
that
information
is
good
and
I
again
I'm
sure
the
institutions
are
willing
to
work
on
that,
but
we're
very
proud
of
the
institutions
and
the
work
that
they've
been
doing.
So
thank
you
and.
A
F
Thompson
thanks
so
much
and
I
think
that
the
data
collecting
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
collect
is
gonna
help.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I've
always
tried
to
to
reconcile
in
my
head
and
the
way
that
I
think
of
it
and
it
it
might
be
because
I
came
onto
this
committee
after
the
the
formula
was
put
in
place
right.
So
I've
just
been
kind.
You
know
asking
questions
and
trying
to
see
how
things
come
along
and
at
least
for
onam.
F
I've
always
told
it
in
my
head
that-
and
maybe
I've
been
holding
at
my
head
wrong
that
so
we
have
the
money
for
students
and
then
the
cip
is
where
we
do
all
our
brick
and
mortar
stuff
and
that
the
o
m
was
supposed
to
be
about
the
equipment.
I
remember
that
in
one
hearing
that
when
we
said
okay
well,
what
what
is
this
paying
for-
and
I
thought
I
remember
one
of
the
university
presidents
talking
about
well-
it's
the
equipment,
it's
the
it's!
It's
the
and
part
of
it's
the
the
people
too.
F
I
think
leveraging
grants
I
heard
at
one
time,
but
it
might
just
even
be
helpful
for
us,
as
a
members
on
the
committee
to
see
if
even
what
my
assumptions
are
correct
in
for
in
what
I've
heard
over
you
know
six
years
of
well,
no
it's
longer
than
that
yeah
about
six.
I
can't
remember
how
long
I've
been
on
this
committee,
but
in
all
that
time,
since
2015
and
since
2015
being
on
this
committee,
you
know
asking
kind
of
piecemeal
what
about
this?
What
about
that?
F
I
also
think
it's
a
good
opportunity,
because
now
that
we've
got
the
the
r1
establishment
of
the
two
big
universities,
which
is
great
right,
but
this
is
typically
where
we
see
other
big
university
systems.
Really,
you
know
with
the
conversations
we
have
about
monetizing
the
university's
work
or
or
the
investments
in
the
r.
I
there's
always
been
this
kind
of
weird.
F
You
know
we
have
these
conversations
in
five
different
places,
but
it
always
feels
like
they
should
dovetail
here
right
like
when
we
talk
about
the
knowledge
fund
and
when
we
talk
about
who
makes
money
from
the
knowledge
fund-
and
we
I
always
assume
like
well,
if
we're
doing
research,
how
come
that
isn't
happening
organically
like
if,
if
we've
got
great
institutions,
they're
doing
really
good
research,
that's
the
thing
you
know
private
institutions
and
philanthropic
bases
throw
money
at,
and
so
I've
always
wondered
you
know.
F
F
My
understanding
was
the
grants
usually
pay
for
the
the
you
know,
the
person
doing
the
research
and
the
students
who
might
be
helping,
but
I
it
feels
like
we
could
dovetail
those
kinds
of
conversations
in
a
better
place
when
we
talk
about
research
and
what
we
were
paying
for
research
and
some
of
my
assumptions,
you
know-
maybe
I
asked
a
question
five
years
ago
and
something
stuck
in
my
head
and
something
might
have
evolved
and
been
and
we're
at
a
different
place
now,
but
I
I
I
guess
that
will
help.
A
Sing,
none
saudi.
B
A
B
We
go
okay,
I'll
start
from
the
beginning.
Madam
chair,
I
would
make
a
motion
that
the
committee
recommends
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
10.3
million
in
each
fiscal
year
of
the
2123
biennium
to
fund
research-based
operations
and
maintenance
funding
for
unlv
and
unr
and
appropriate
the
funds
prior
to
the
calculation
of
the
weighted
student
credit
hour
value
as
pre
as
a
pre-formula
allocation.
A
Second,
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
hatagi,
a
second
from
senator
don
darrell
loop,
any
questions
or
comments
on
this
motion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
all
members
present
the
performance
pool
moving
on
yes,
mr
casara.
D
These
appropriations
are
transferred
from
each
institution's
instructional
budgets
to
the
performance
funding,
pool
budget
and
based
on
each
institution's
performance,
which
are
primarily
based
on
the
number
of
certificates
and
degrees
granted.
The
performance
funding
pool
is
then
transferred
to
the
applicable
institution's
budget.
The
table
at
the
middle
of
page
15
notes.
D
Similarly,
in
fiscal
year,
20
and
21
all
institutions
met
or
exceeded
this
performance
funding.
Fiscal
staff
will
note
that
targets
for
years
prior
to
fiscal
year,
23
are
based
on
a
fiscal
year
2013
benchmark,
and
this
is
the
basis
that
serves
as
annual
growth
against
each
each
against
which
each
institution
is
measured
based
on
its
own
performance.
D
With
this
said,
there
was
minimal
risk
of
an
institution
not
being
able
to
earn
bad
performance
funding
based
on
this
prior
methodology,
fiscal
staff
notes
at
the
top
of
page
16
that,
according
to
the
chancellor's
office,
the
baseline
against
which
performance
will
be
measured
for
fiscal
year.
23
and
24
has
been
reset
to
fiscal
year.
2018
actuals
these
institution
specific
targets
will
equal
93
of
the
18
performance,
with
no
targets
being
reset
to
less
than
originally
established
in
20..
D
According
to
the
system,
this
method
was
used
to
address
the
large
performance
increases
experienced
by
some
institutions.
While
acknowledging
that
some
institutions
that
performed
closer
to
their
fiscal
year,
2020
targets
still
would
need
some
sort
of
floor
for
this
performance.
Funding
reset,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
performance
funding
set
aside
for
each
institution,
is
approximately
20
of
the
total
general
fund
appropriations
prior
to
consideration
of
the
recommended
budget
reductions.
D
D
As
noted
by
that
final
budget,
amendment
performance
pool
line,
noting
that
the
funds
remaining
in
the
institutions
are
no
longer
being
transferred
to
the
performance
pool,
also
included
in
the
series
of
budget
amendments,
are
adjustment
to
the
m220
decision
unit,
which
reflects
the
distribution
of
formula
funds
among
the
institutions
as
a
result
of
including
statewide
inflation,
statewide
fringe
benefit
adjustments
and
the
correction
to
the
unlv
operations
and
maintenance
carveout
mentioned
earlier
again.
These
adjustments
do
not
impact
total
general
fund
appropriations
and
are
technical
adjustments
to
correct
the
funding
formula.
D
As
a
result
of
governor
finance
office
submitted
budget
amendments
to
reflect
a
20
performance
funding
pool
after
accounting
for
the
governor
recommended
budget
reductions.
The
technical
adjustments
to
the
m220
decision
unit
are
included
at
the
table
at
the
top
of
page
17
of
your
closing
packet
and
fiscal
staff
notes.
There
are
no
concerns
related
to
these
adjustments.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
know
that
for
the
last
seven
years
we've
used
the
2013
year
to
measure
performance
and
now
we're
using
2018.
D
So,
thank
you
for
the
question.
According
to
documentation
submitted
by
the
system
office,
it's
fiscal
staff's
understanding
that
this
baseline
is
representative
of
the
performance
targets
for
fiscal
years,
23
and
24,
which
is
the
final
year
of
this
biennium
and
the
first
year
of
the
ensuing
biennium
per
budget
policy.
The
board
of
regents
has
been
trusted
with
the
authority
to
establish
and
revise
these
baselines
as
it
sees
fit.
F
Thank
you
so
much
and
I'm
really
happy
with
the
direction
this
is
going
in,
because
it's
exactly
what
needed
to
happen
so
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a.
I
have
a
good
understanding
of
this.
So
typically
the
you
know
the
so
the
2018
years
that
you've
got
the
targets
and
the
actuals
and
those
are
based
on
points
and
now
this
is
it's
going
to
be
93
of
the
2018
for
performance,
and
so
would
it
be
the
2018?
F
It
would
be
the
sorry
the
there's
outcome
points
and
then
weighted
points.
So
is
it
is
it
I
guess
the
the
weighted
points
that
it
would
be
93
of.
I
see
mr
klinger's
shaking
his
head.
So
yes,
okay,
so
we
would
just
do
the
simple
arithmetic
of
that
points
and
93
of
that
and
then
that's
that
new
base.
Okay,.
A
A
A
I've
had
concerns
about
this
performance
pool
for
a
long
time,
but
this
seems
to
be
trying
to
adjust
in
the
right
direction
to
actually
make
it
be
a
real
performance
pool
and
not
just
holding
money
off
to
the
side
and
then
being
able
to
come
back
and
get
it
and
allowing
the
two-year
true
up
on
it
makes
a
difference.
If
someone
doesn't
make
it,
then
they
have
the
opportunity
to
get
themselves
trued
up
and
move
forward.
A
So
with
that
not
seeing
any
other
questions
or
comments.
Mr
casara,
if
you'd
like
to
indicate
the
decision
point
here,.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Happy
too.
The
decision
for
the
subcommittee
asks
if
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
approve
submitted
budget
amendment
821,
518-2987
821-517-2980,
ten,
thirty,
a
twenty
one,
five,
nineteen,
two,
nine
nine,
four,
a
twenty
one:
five,
twenty
one:
thirty
eighteen,
a
twenty
one:
five,
eleven,
three:
twelve,
a
twenty
one:
five:
twenty:
three:
zero:
zero
five
and
a
twenty
one;
five
twelve
thirty
512-3013,
resulting
in
general
fund
performance
set
aside
of
20
after
consideration
of
governor
recommended
budget
reductions,
totaling
93.7
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
94.1
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
23.
D
approval
also
includes
adjustments
to
the
m220
formula
redistribution
decision
unit.
If
the
subcommittee
approves
the
performance
funding
levels
as
amended,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
include
fiscal
year
2020
performance
funding
in
each
institution's
general
fund
appropriation?
Removing
the
need
for
the
institutions
to
submit
work
programs
for
interim
finance
committee
consideration
to
facilitate
a
known
transfer
of
performance
funding
in
fiscal
year,
22.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
beginning
on
page
18
of
your
closing
package.
The
third
major
issue
for
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
is
the
budgeting
of
student
derived
revenues
for
the
21
to
23
biennium,
the
board
of
regents
approved
an
increase
in
undergraduate
and
graduate
registration
fees
at
the
university's
state
college
and
community
colleges
of
approximately
2.8
percent
in
each
of
the
next
two
fiscal
years.
The
board
also
approved
an
increase
in
non-resident
tuition
of
the
same
amount
for
the
universities,
state
college
and
community
colleges
for
each
of
the
next
two
years.
D
This
information
is
detailed
at
the
table
at
the
middle
of
page
18.,
the
tables
on
page
19,
note
the
total
authorized
expenditures
requested
by
the
governor
for
registration
fees
and
non-resident
tuition
revenues
for
ng
over
the
21
to
23
biennium,
looking
to
follow
hearing
follow-up
information
at
the
bottom
of
page
19
and
continuing
to
page
20
of
your
closing
packet.
As
has
previously
been
requested
in
prior
bionia,
fiscal
staff
requested
student-arrived
revenue
projection
updates
from
the
system.
Three
institutions
responded
referring
to
the
table
at
the
top
of
page
20.
D
That
include,
updates
for
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
college
of
southern
nevada
and
nevada
state
college
table
represents
updated
registration,
fee
revenues,
non-resident
tuition
revenues
and
other
miscellaneous
student-derived
revenues.
For
those
three
noted
institutions,
the
decision
for
the
subcommittee
at
the
top
of
page
20
reads:
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
approve
the
student
derived
non-general
fund
revenues
for
the
seven
formula,
instructional
institutions
for
professional
schools,
the
capacity
enhancement
budget
and
the
prison
education
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
and
with
noted
adjustments
for
unr,
csn
and
nsc.
A
So
with
that
committee
members,
are
there
any
questions?
Yes,
ms
hardy.
B
C
Table.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
andrew
klinger
chief
financial
officer,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
assemblywoman
hadiki
the.
I
think
what
you're
referring
to
is
the
three
dollar
surcharge,
and
that
expires
in
this
semester
and
will
not
carry
forward.
A
G
You
I'm
sure,
as
it
relates
to
the
updated
projections
from
the
three
institutions
that
responded.
Did
the
other
institutions
not
anticipate
any
change
from
what
was
included
in
govrek,
or
did
we
just
not
get
updates
in
time.
C
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
going
back
to
the
student
fee
increases
and-
and
I
probably
should
be
able
to
do
my
math
a
little
bit
quicker,
but
maybe
you
know
exactly
so.
What
is
the
total
dollar
amount
that
all
the
institutions
will
receive
as
a
result
of
the
the
fee
increases
that
were
proposed.
C
Assemblyman
roberts-
I'm
not,
I
don't-
have
the
total
of
what
you're
talking
about,
is
just
related
to
the
2.8
percent.
Correct
increase,
I'm
not
sure
what
that
dollar
amount
is,
but
the
the
way
it
works
in
policy
is
that
it's
tied
to
the
higher
education
price
index,
and
so
those
fees
adjust
based
on
that
that
price
index.
But
I
don't
know
the
total
dollar
just
related
to
the
percentage
increase.
H
So
so,
if
the
index
does
it
ever
go
down,
so
is
there
the
likelihood
that
that
these
fee
increases
could
go
down
at
some
point
based
on
based
on
your
budget
outlook.
C
I
have
not
seen
that
assemblyman
roberts.
I
have
not
seen
that
price
index
go
down
recently,
but
like
any
price
index,
I
suppose
it
could
go
down
and
the
way
the
board
policy
is
written
right
now
that
would
adjust,
but
certainly
that's
something
that
the
board
could
could
take
a
look
at
and
change
if
they
wanted
to.
H
Thank
you
for
the
answers
and
I'd
love
to
get
the
dollar
amount
for
that
is.
You
know
if
there's
an
opportunity
to
add
anything
back
or
or
anything
like
that,
depending
on
what
it
is
I'd
like
to
see
what
that
is
and
I'd
hate
to
see
the
students
carry
the
burden.
A
A
F
Just
the
same
continuation
of
the
the
kind
of
conversation
that
we
that
the
same
questions
from
the
beginning,
the
first
hearing
right
so
nothing
new,
and
so
just
I
had
asked
when
we
were
looking
at
the
the
higher
education,
the
happy
index
and
it
looks
to
be
for
2021,
actually
like
a
2.2.
So
I'd
asked
in
that
hearing.
These
are
set
at
higher
than
that
higher
education
index,
and
so
I
think
at
that
time
I
was
asking.
F
And
so
I
think
at
that
time
you
guys
had
mentioned
that's
more
of
a
reference
than
an
actual.
I
think
board
policy
didn't
necessarily
tie
you
to
that
exact
number,
but
it's
just
a
number
that
the
board
references
to
help
guide.
But
as
we
can
see
it,
we
it's
a
little
bit
more
ballparky
than
exact
right.
C
For
for
the
record
andrew
clinton,
chief
financial
officer
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
no,
we
we
use
the
actual
amount,
but,
for
example,
the
most
recent
happy
price
index
number
that
came
out
is
actually,
if
I
believe
I'm
doing
this
from
memory,
I
believe
is
for
fiscal
year
24..
F
I
guess
what
I
guess
the
notes
I'm
reading
I'm
like
looking
at
that
changes
from
2021
to
2022
and
that
percent
change
was
to
like
2.8
2.9.
The
future
change
looks
to
be
about
2.7
and
I
I
want
to
say
the
then
sheet
policy
on
the
reference
to
happy
that
we
had
that
first
conversation
last
session
right.
I
think
that
it
was
it's
been
about
two
or
three
years
since
the
board
tied
it.
F
Sorry,
mr
levitt's
head
keeps
floating
right
in
my
line
of
sight
there
it
keeps
tie,
I
think,
that's
when
we
tied
it.
So
is
that
why
we
did
it
to
just
kind
of
make
sure
that
for
this
biennium
like
do
they,
I
guess
it's
lining
up
in
this
biennium
versus
last
biennium.
Is
that
what
I
would
I
am
I
correct
if
I
say
that.
C
C
So
it's
it's
when
the
heppy
number
comes
out
essentially
think
of
it
as
a
table
that
has
the
registration
fees
out
and
we're
out
to
2024,
based
on
the
2020
happy
when
we
get
the
21
happy
number
next
year,
we'll
add
academic
year
25
to
that
table,
so
you're
always
adding
another
year
based
on
the
the
current
heppy
and
the
reason
we
do
that
again
is
to
so
that
if
you're
a
freshman
coming
in,
you
can
go,
and
you
can
look
at
those
registration
fees
for
the
next
four
years
and
get
an
idea
of
what
your
education
is
going
to
cost.
F
A
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
carlton.
You
know
some
other
information.
I
think
everyone's
concerned
about
the
rise
in
tuition
and
so
some
other
information
that
might
be
helpful
is
our
nearby
states
sort
of
the
willy
states,
the
witchy
states,
of
the
the
programs
that
the
program
that
we
are
part
of
as
far
as
what
their
tuition
rates
are,
because
you
know
in
looking
at
sort
of
the
the
numbers
that
we
have
it's
about:
7
100.
E
If
you
multiply
out
30
units,
so
a
year's
worth
of
tuition
times
the
rates
that
we
have
and
when
I
looked
at
woo
the
last
time.
I
think
it
was
like
9
300,
so
it's
increasing
in
the
state
of
nevada,
but
we're
well
below
from
my
understanding,
we're
well
below
the
average
of
of
neighboring
states.
So
I
think
we
need
to
keep
that
in
mind
too,
when
we
look
at
the
escalators,
because
I
think
we
started
at
a
low
amount
and
now
we're
using
sort
of
this.
E
This
average,
it's
probably
a
regional
average
as
far
as
the
the
index
that
we're
using,
but
we
always
were
low
and
so
we're
still
low
substantially
less
than
the
average.
If
you
were
to
look
at
those
numbers
so
anyway,
that
might
be
helpful
too,
to
have
some
more
data
around
what's
happening
in
neighboring
states
and
even
more
specifically,
maybe
the
witchy
slash
we
states.
Thank
you.
A
And
I'm
sure
staff
can
put
that
all
together
for
us
that
the
system
will
provide
the
number
that
mr
roberts
was
trying
to
get
to
and
we
can
deal
with
getting
the
other
numbers,
so
we
can
have
a
full
conversation
about
it
as
we
move
forward.
Okay.
So
with
that,
I
believe
we're
at
a
decision
point
with
that
emotion,
miss
hoggy.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
would
move
this.
The
subcommittee
approved
the
student
derived
non-general
fund
revenues
for
the
seven
formula,
instructional
institutions
for
professional
schools,
the
capacity
enhancement
budget
and
the
prison
education
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
and
with
the
noted
adjustments
for
unr,
csn
and
nsc.
A
Second,
promotion
from
assemblywoman
hatagi,
second
from
senator
donderelupe
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present
moving
on
mr
casira.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
john
cassareth,
lcd
fiscal.
Moving
on
to
the
next
decision
point
within
the
same
item.
The
budgeting
of
student
derived
revenues
is
based
on
budget
policy
decisions
adopted
by
prior
legislatures,
rather
than
being
a
component
of
the
funding
formula
or
within
statute.
The
2013
legislature
initially
adopted
the
recommendation
of
the
2011-2012
interim
committee
to
study
higher
education
funding
that,
for
purposes
of
determining
the
level
of
general
fund
appropriations
to
be
budgeted
within
ng's
state-supported
operating
budgets,
budgeted
non-general
fund
revenues
should
not
offset
the
amount
of
general
fund
otherwise
appropriated.
D
In
other
words,
this
is
a
section
10
or
previously
section
7
exemption
for
enchi,
the
2015,
17
and
19.
Muddy
committees
approved
the
continuation
of
this
policy
through
the
21
biennium
and
the
governor's
recommended
budget
for
the
23
to
20
21
to
23
biennium
continues
this
policy
and
consistent
with
this
adopted
policy
in
determining
the
institutional
budget
needs.
D
General
fund
appropriations
are
not
reduced
in
conjunction
with
increases
in
non-general
fund
revenues,
for
example,
these
additional
student
registration
fee
revenues
out
of
the
top
of
fiscal
at
the
top
of
page
20,
had
no
impact
to
general
fund
appropriations
and
again
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
legislatively
approved
budget.
Mta
is
exempt
from
section
10
or
previously
section
7.,
as
discussed.
The
executive
budget
continues
this
policy
adopted
by
previous
money
committees
that,
for
the
purposes
of
determining
the
level
of
general
fund
appropriations,
projected
non-general
fund
revenues
do
not
upset
the
amount
of
general
funds.
D
D
Ng
institutions
are
still
required
to
receive
approval
by
the
board
of
regents
and
to
report
to
the
interim
finance
committee.
However,
the
approval
of
an
ifc
work
program
is
not
traditionally
been
required.
The
decision
points
at
the
middle
of
page
21
first
asks
if
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
approve
the
governor's
recommendation
to
continue
the
current
budget
policy,
initially
adopted
by
the
2013
legislature,
that
non-general
fund
revenues
should
not
be
used
to
offset
the
amount
of
general
fund
appropriations
that
would
otherwise
be
budgeted.
A
So,
committee
members
conversation
on
the
decision
points
in
front
of
us.
I
do
remember
this
conversation
in
13
as
we
were
moving
the
the
formula.
A
I
think
I
actually
got
a
call
from
I'm
trying
to
remember
who
it
was
oh
well
moving
on.
Wasn't
a
pleasant
call.
A
This
is
consistent
in
how
we
have
closed
this
since
13
and
I
believe
all
the
components
will
work
and
I
think
the
information
in
the
last
point
authorizing
the
institutions.
A
People
aren't
going
to
believe
I'm
going
to
say
this,
but
actually
authorizing
the
institutions
to
expend
the
increases
in
non-resident
tuition
registration
fee
and
all
the
other
miscellaneous
fees
without
ifc
approval.
The
big
word
is
without
right
there,
but
yet
we
will
know
what's
going
on
will
be
reported
back
to
ifc
so
that
we
know
exactly
what's
going
on
and
then
future
conversations
can
be
had
about
it
from
there.
So
it
gives
us
gives
the
opportunity
to
address
issues
and
report
to
ifc
afterwards
getting
head
nods.
A
This
is
what
is
before
us
at
this
moment
in
time.
Senator
kate,
kepper.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
as
I'm
sure
you
recall,
this
was
really
one
of
the
core
driving
motivators
behind
the
revamp
of
the
formula
to
start
with
right,
because
there
were
certain
institutions
that
were
generating
a
lot
of
money
on
their
own
campuses
and
then
having
us
offset
general
fund
in
a
way
that
was
really
felt
to
be
unfair.
So
this
is
a
recognition
of
that
that
primary
change
and
I
think
it's
it's
an
appropriate
policy
to
continue
driving
forward.
A
And
I'm
pretty
sure
it
was
chancellor
rogers
at
the
time.
I
remember
right
yeah
and
I
pretty
sure
that
was
the
phone
call.
So
some
things
you
don't
forget,
chancellor
rogers,
is
one
of
those
people
loved
working
with
them.
So
with
that
committee
members
any
other
questions
or
comments,
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
miss
harigi.
B
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Moving
on
to
major
issue
number
four
within
the
devout
assistance
of
higher
education
or
capacity
enhancements,
beginning
at
page
21
of
your
closing
packet.
The
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
10.2
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
23
21
to
23
biennium,
to
continue
to
build
capacity,
enhancements
and
support,
workforce
growth
and
development
of
the
states.
D
22
and
23
of
this
biennium
for
the
instructional
institutions.
Additional
funding
for
program
areas
would
result
in
the
generation
of
new
weighted
student
credit
hours.
As
such,
this
funding
requested
for
these
programs,
as
previously
approved
by
the
legislature,
with
the
understanding
that
it
would
provide
startup
funds
and
that
the
programs
would
be
supported
through
the
funding
formula.
D
Moving
to
the
table
at
the
top
of
page
24
information
follow-up
received
by
the
indicated
institutions
noted
the
amount
of
program
support
that
is
expected
to
be
self-sustaining
by
fiscal
year
24..
It
would
be
one
year
after
the
culmination
of
this
five-year
plan,
the
first
column
of
the
table
at
the
top
of
page
24
notes,
the
current
general
fund
capacity
enhancement
recommendation
by
the
governor,
the
difference
there
represents
a
the
difference
between
what
is
expected
to
be
self-sustaining
and
what
is
currently
recommended
for
funding.
D
According
to
the
institutions
responses
the
funding
differences
may
be
addressed,
utilizing
non-state
revenue,
formula
funding
and
or
caseload
growth
or
the
elimination
of
programs
or
services.
However,
no
institution
indicated
an
intent
to
request
general
fund
appropriations
to
fund
future
capacity
enhancement
need
the
decision
point
at
the
bottom
of
page.
D
If
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
approve
this
funding,
the
subcommittee
may
also
wish
to
consider
each
of
the
following
options,
the
first
of
which
is
to
treat
the
enhancement
funding
as
one-time
funding
for
the
21-23
biennium.
If
this
option
is
approved,
the
subcommittee
should
direct
the
system
to
remove
one-time
funding
from
the
base
budget
and,
secondly,
to
recommend
reissuance
of
the
2019
letter
of
intent,
requiring
that
the
institutions
report
to
the
interim
finance
committee
on
a
semi-annual
basis
providing
at
a
minimum
a
detailed
expenditure
report
to
reflect
how
the
capacity
funding
is
being
spent.
D
Inclusion,
inclusive
of
the
identification
of
specific
position,
control
numbers
that
are
supported
with
the
funding.
A
status
update
of
the
various
programs
supported
through
the
funding
and
the
identification
of
generated
weighted
student
credit
hours
by
program
area
that
are
a
direct
result
of
the
funding.
A
As
far
as
capacity
growth
it
was,
it
was
meant
to
get
us
at
a
certain
level,
and
I
remember
senator
keaton
have
many
many
discussions
over
where
this
needed
to
be
and
when
it
needed
to
stop-
and
I
almost
looked
at
this
as
like-
almost
a
hold
harmless
in
some
ways.
I
know
those
two
words
linked
together
give
people
the
heebie-jeebies
in
this
building
right
now,
but
that
was
kind
of
the
the
thought
process
behind.
It
was
to
get
everybody
on
a
level
playing
field
and
sustainable
and
then
move
forward.
A
So
I'm
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
where
we
are
with
this
right
now
and
I
do
think
it's
important
to
do
the
letter
of
intent
again
this
time,
because
I
think
we
need
to
keep
evaluating
this
as
we
move
forward
to
figure
out
when
that
point
in
time
is
going
to
be
where
this
will
no
longer
be
needed
as
we
move
forward.
So
are
there
any
other
questions
from
any
committee
members
at
this
time,
not
seeing
any?
I
would
accept
a
motion
from
miss
hautekey
and
so
indicated
is
perfectly
fine.
Okay,.
H
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Moving
on
to
major
issue.
Number
five
is
the
desert
research
institute
funding
beginning
at
page
25
of
your
closing
packet.
The
executive
budget
recommends
the
continuation
of
the
existing
methodology
for
calculating
general
fund
appropriations
for
dri
that
is
comprised
of
three
components,
the
first
of
which
is
a
research
grants
and
contracts
formula
component.
The
second
is
an
operation
and
maintenance
component
based
on
the
traditional
base,
maintenance
enhancement,
budget
principles
and
an
inflationary
adjustment
intended
to
capture
expenditures,
not
otherwise
budgeted.
D
In
total,
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
12.9
million
dollars
over
the
2123
biennium
beginning
with
the
first
component
of
dra
funding
at
section
a
is
the
m207
institute
funding
formula.
This
is
the
research
grants
and
contracts
component.
Looking
at
the
table
at
the
middle
of
page
25,
this
funding
formula
is
a
tiered
system
dependent
on
the
amount
of
total
grants
and
contracts
received
by
the
desert
research
institute.
D
It
is
12
of
the
first
25
million
seven
and
a
half
of
the
following
five
million
and
then
six
percent
of
the
five
million
after
that,
which
each
incremental
five
million
dollar
block
be
receiving.
Five
percent
general
fund
appropriations,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
decision
unit
m207
for
the
grants
and
contracts
formula
component
for
the
desert
research
institute,
represents
a
196
000
reduction
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
noting
the
difference
between
what
was
recommended
in
the
base
year
and
what
was
and
what
is
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
21
to
23
biennium.
A
And
thank
you
committee
members,
any
questions
or
commons.
I
know
that
last
session
there
were
comments
and
concerns
about
how
this
formula
was
going
to
work.
It
seems
as
though
it's
not
quite
materializing
the
way
folks
thought
it
would
this
isn't
a
mic
drop
moment
or
anything.
So
I'm
not
not
going
to
go
there.
A
So
I'm
hoping
that
we,
you
can
look
at
something
further
in
the
future
for
for
dri
it's.
I
think
it's
very
important
that
it
has
a
better,
stable
funding
mechanism
very
proud
of
this
institution
being
in
this
state.
So
I
realize
it's
a
small
small
cut,
but
in
a
small
budget
a
small
cut
is
still
just
as
drastic,
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
them
being
able
to
come
back
next
session
and
have
a
real
conversation
about
where
dri
needs
to
be
in
in
the
future.
A
B
A
I
have
a
motion
from
ms
hargy,
a
second
from
senator
dan
darrell
loop,
any
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present.
Okay
and
moving
on
to
the
o
m
portion
of
the
discussion.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
you're,
exactly
right.
Moving
on
to
the
second
component
of
the
desert
research
institute,
funding
formula,
which
is
the
operation
and
maintenance
funding
at
the
bottom
of
page
25.,
the
dri
on
funding,
addresses
costs
associated
with
space
utilization
and
is
recommended
to
be
funding
funded
using
the
existing
base,
maintenance
and
enhancement
methodology
based
upon
changes
in
o
m
costs
in
base.
The
executive
budget
recommends
decreases
in
general
fund
appropriations
of
two
hundred
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
sixty
two
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
D
The
motion
at
the
top
of
page
26
asked
if
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
approve
3.8
million
or
3.7
million
in
general
fund
in
fiscal
year.
22
and
3.9
million
or
3.7
million
in
general
fund
in
fiscal
year.
23
for
dri's
operation
and
maintenance
costs
consistent
with
the
existing
funding
policy
and
is
recommended
by
the
governor.
A
D
D
The
governor
recommends
new
general
fund
appropriations
based
excuse
me,
and
the
inflationary
adjustment
unit
m101,
which
is
recommended
by
the
governor
to
be
a
cumulative
277
848
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
and
287
seven
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
23
to
account
for
these
inflationary
adjustments
not
otherwise
accounted
for
in
the
prior
components
of
the
funding
formula.
D
This
recommended
funding
is
based
on
increases
to
retirement
insurance
rates,
salary
reduction,
restoration
and
employee
step
increases.
Fiscal
staff
will
note
that
these
amounts
are
cumulative
and
amounts
appropriated
by
prior
the
prior
legislature
for
amounts
in
base
have
been
removed.
So
these
278
and
288
thousand
dollars
represents
the
sum
total
of
the
inflationary
adjustments
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
desert
research
institute.
D
As
noted,
the
system
has
previously
indicated
an
intent
to
request
a
change
for
this
funding
formula.
However,
the
chancellor's
office
has
communicated
to
fiscal
staff
that
a
proposed
revision
may
be
requested
as
part
of
the
23
to
25
binium
budget.
The
decision
for
the
subcommittee
at
the
middle
of
page
26
asks
if
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
recommend
general
fund
appropriations
of
277
848
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
22
and
287
747
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
23
to
account
for
inflationary
adjustments
not
otherwise
accounted
for
in
the
dra
formula.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
hatagi,
a
second
from
senator
don
darrell
loop,
any
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion.
Seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present.
Moving
on
to
the
nevada
teach
program.
D
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
john
cassette,
lcb
fiscal
for
the
record
major
closing
issue.
Number
six
within
the
nevada
assist
of
higher
education
is
the
nevada
teach
program
details
provided
during
the
subcommittee
hearing
noted
that
150
000
in
general
fund
appropriations
is
recommended
by
the
governor
each
year
of
the
21
to
23
biennium
to
continue
the
nevada
teach
program
at
unr.
D
A
Any
questions
or
comments,
senator
seber's
cancer.
E
And
thank
you
charcoal.
I
just
want
to
comment
on
this
program.
It's
a
great
program,
because
not
only
does
it
increase
the
bandwidth
of
individuals
who
are
going
into
teaching,
we
also
get
subject
matter
experts,
so
I
think
this
is
a
really
strong
program
that
we've
been
funding,
and
I
appreciate
that
this
is
potentially
in
the
budget.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you-
and
I
remember
correctly,
I
believe
speaker
fryerson-
was
involved
in
in
this
particular
conversation
a
number
of
years
ago.
So
thank
him
for
his
work
on
this
also
have
to
grow
our
own
teachers.
That's
the
best
way
to
do
it
so
that
committee
members
are
there
any
other
questions
on
the
nevada
teach
program
not
seeing
any
at
assemblywomanhottagey.
B
A
Senator
anderloo
second,
thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
hodgie,
second
from
senator
donduraloop,
any
questions
or
comments,
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
enough
that
was
pretty
weak.
Okay,
all
this
is
a
nevada
teach
program
all
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
and
any
opposed,
not
hearing
any
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present
moving
on
to
the
engineering
building.
Please.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
seventh
and
penultimate
major
issue
within
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
is
the
unr
2017
engineering
building
debt
service
budget
governor
recommends
the
elimination
of
all
general
fund
appropriations
from
the
2017
engineering
debt
service
budget
through
the
passage
of
the
2017
cip,
your
capital
improvement
program,
41.5
million
dollars
in
general
obligation
bonds
were
approved
with
the
legislature's
intent
that
debt
service
be
paid
from
the
general
fund.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
john
couser,
with
lcb
fiscal
for
the
record.
The
final
major
closing
issue
with
the
nevada
assist
of
higher
education,
statewide
closing,
is
major
issue
number
eight.
The
budget
position,
reconciliation,
fiscal
staff
will
note
that
these
decision
units
and
ensuing
conversation
are
largely
administrative
in
nature
and
represents
a
systematic
difference
between
how
the
board
of
regents
approves
a
budget
and
how
the
legislature
approves
a
budget
for
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education.
D
At
the
end
of
this,
there
will
be
two
decision
units
for
consideration
by
the
subcommittee,
one
recommending
a
change
in
personnel
funding
policy
and
the
second,
including
a
letter
of
intent
with
that
said,
the
first
three
components.
On
page
27
note,
there
are
265
approximately
positions
that
are
included
in
the
base
budget,
as
submitted
by
the
governor's
finance
office
through
nc.
That
includes
three
components.
The
first
are
positions
funded
with
offsetting
reductions
in
operating
revenues
and
operating
expenditures.
D
The
governor
is
recommending
104.8
fte
positions
funded
by
revenue,
neutral
expenditure
shifts
between
ng
operating
categories
and
the
personal
categories.
Again,
these
are
not
new
positions
most.
If
not,
all
of
these
positions
already
exist
in
the
institution's
budget
and
are
currently
funded
as
they
are
being
recommended
to
now.
D
These
decision
units
are
largely
administrative
in
nature
and
are
included
as
results
of
conversations
between
lcb
fiscal
staff,
the
system
office
and
the
governor's
finance
office
attempting
to
reconcile
the
positions
approved
by
the
2019
legislature
and
those
positions
being
requested
by
the
system
office
through
these
budget
decision
units.
The
second
recommends
positions
funded
with
registration
fees.
This
is
17.4
million
in
22
and
17.7
in
23
to
support
approximately
151
positions
again
that
are
largely
already
existing
and
largely
already
funded
with
the
current
funding
sources.
D
The
third
are
additional
authorized
federal
funds
of
1.3
million
over
the
biennium
to
support
7.9
ftes
within
the
agricultural
experiment,
station
budget,
moving
to
the
top
of
page
28.
There
are
some
position,
reconciliation
difference.
Excuse
me,
there
are
some
implications
to
these
position
reconciliations,
the
first
in
years,
where
there's
a
cost
of
living
adjustment
or
a
cola.
The
amount
appropriated
to
support
this
cola
would
likely
increase
as
positions
are
identified
within
the
legislatively
approved
budget.
The
opposite
is
also
true
for
any
position.
D
Related,
salary
reductions
and
again,
fiscal
staff
is
just
noting
that
these
decision
units
are
largely
administrative
in
nature,
based
on
the
current
budget
policy.
Ng
through
the
board
of
regents,
has
the
authority
to
establish
these
positions
and
receive
the
related
funding
and
revenue
sources,
so
these
positions
would
still
likely
exist
and
would
still
likely
be
funded
largely
as
presented
even
where
these
positions
even
were
these
decision
units
not
approved.
D
However,
the
approval
of
these
decision
units
does
allow
for
a
reconciliation
between
the
positions,
as
approved
by
the
board
of
regents
over
the
prior
interim
and
the
current
legislatively
approved
budget
based
on
information
provided
by
the
system.
Following
the
march
17th
2021
hearing
fiscal
staff
requested
additional
details
getting
just
to
this
point:
the
association
between
positions
and
different
funding
sources,
as
well
as
the
process.
D
The
system
utilizes
to
reconcile
positions,
as
approved
by
the
legislature
and
is
approved
by
the
board
of
regents
follow-up
information
provided
by
the
system,
noted
that
positions
are
not
fun-mapped
and
again.
This
means
that
positions
are
not
specifically
associated
with
one
or
more
individual
revenue
sources.
Instead,
according
to
information
provided
by
the
system
office,
the
general
proportion
of,
for
example,
general
fund
revenues
and
student
driven
revenues
used
to
support
a
budget
would
be
deduced
to
describe
the
funding
composition
for
positions
within
that
budget.
D
For
example,
I
believe
the
example
used
in
documentation
was
if
a
budget
is
funded,
70
with
general
fund
and
perhaps
30
percent.
With
student
derived
revenues,
the
positions
within
that
budget
would
be
assumed
to
have
a
similar
funding
structure.
30
student
drive
revenues,
70
percent
general
fund
appropriations.
D
Additionally,
representatives
from
nc
testified
that
budgets
are
approved
by
the
board
of
regents
within
the
limits
approved
by
the
legislature,
but
may
include
detail
not
specifically
approved
by
the
legislature.
The
best
example
for
this
is
the
caseload
adjustments
that
were
just
approved
by
this
subcommittee
that
included
24
million
dollars
of
caseload
growth.
It
is
likely
a
significant
portion
of
this
incremental
caseload.
Growth
will
be
used
to
support
new
positions.
D
However,
those
new
positions
are
not
specifically
identified
or
enumerated
within
the
legislatively
approved
budget,
so
fiscal
staff
would
expect
some
new
positions
to
be
added
over
the
interim.
That
would
show
up
in
the
legislatively
approved
base
budget
for
the
following
biennium
there
are.
There
is
a
budget
policy
that
is
being
recommended
for
consideration
by
fiscal
staff,
and
this
is
being
brought
up
for
two
reasons.
D
One
the
conversation
regarding
the
funding
of
positions
is
is
happening
with
these
264
positions
being
requested
to
be
added
to
the
legislatively
approved
budget,
and
secondly,
there
is
currently
no
cola
recommended
by
the
governor.
So
the
opportunity
to
have
a
policy
discussion
right
now
without
any
funding
implications
may
be
beneficial
still
on
the
middle
of
page
28.
D
This
is
also
true
for
positions
that
may
not
be
100
generally
funded
and
others
may
be
some
combination
of
general
funds,
student
revenues
or
federal
revenues
to
be
consistent
with
the
funding
of
other
executive
branch
agencies
when
future
cost
of
living
arrangements
or
salary
reductions,
for
example,
furloughs,
are
considered
by
the
legislature.
The
subcommittee
may
wish
to
consider
recommending
the
adoption
of
a
new
budget
policy
to
calculate
any
future
cola
funding
or
salary
reductions
for
the
nc
budgets,
beginning
with
the
21
to
23
biennium,
based
on
the
proportion
of
general
fund
appropriations
within
each
budget.
D
Moving
to
page
29
of
your
closing
packet,
the
final
recommendation
within
this
major
issue,
given
the
different
budgeting
practices
of
the
system,
the
subcommittee
may
wish
to
issue
a
letter
of
intent.
Instructing
the
system
to
provide
a
report
to
the
interim
finance
committee
over
the
21
to
22
interim,
specifically
identifying
new
positions
created
and
eliminated
as
a
result
of
actions
taken
by
the
21
legislature.
D
D
A
So
there's
a
lot
of
information
here
and
I
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
have
the
conversation
in
the
19
back
language,
mr
caceref,
if
you
would
just
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
the
discussion
about
merit
pay.
A
If,
if
you
would
clarify
what
we
did
in
19
on
that,
so
folks
remember
and
then
how
that
fits
into
this
just
so
that
everybody's
all.
On
the
same
page,
because
I
know
that
question
is
going
to
come
up.
D
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
the
2017
pay
bill
included
a
prohibition
on
the
utilization
of
general
fund
appropriations
to
fund
merit
and
associated
personnel
expenditure
increases
for
enshi.
This
language
was
removed,
was
removed
in
the
2019
pay
bill
and
is
not
intended
to
be
included
in
the
2021
pay
bill.
So
as
far
as
current
budget
policy
is
concerned,
there
is
no-
and
there
is
not
plan
to
be
any
legislative
restriction
on
the
utilization
of
general
fund
appropriations
for
merit.
D
This
is
in
line
with
the
recommendations
coming
from
the
board
of
regents
to
establish
a
one
percent
merit
pool,
I
believe
not
in
this
current
fiscal
year
but
beginning
in
future
fiscal
years.
This
issue
is
a
tangential
to
that
of
funding.
Colas
were
the
back
language
approved
for
the
2021
pay
bill,
worricola
or
similar
budget
reduction
related
to
personnel
approved
in
this
or
future
biennia
that
increase
or
decrease
in
general
fund
would
be
based
on
the
proportionate
share
of
general
fund
within
each
and
sheep
budget.
A
I
think
it
makes
it
clear
to
everyone,
because
we
know
we
have
a
lot
of
folks
listening
and
I
know
that's
the
thing
that's
going
to
make
my
phone
buzz
and
my
email
go
wonky.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
mr
casara
got
that
out
there,
because
it's
been
a
topic
of
discussion
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember
sitting
in
this
chair,
so
senator
kikepper.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
mr
cucera.
The
language
obviously
had
the
prohibition
back
in
17
it
was
removed.
I
thought
I
think
it
was
the
intent
of
the
legislature
that,
by
removing
that
language,
it
was
giving
our
sort
of
authorization
for
general
funds
to
be
used
for
for
merit.
It's
been
represented,
at
least
to
me
that
the
board
of
regents
may
be
looking
for
a
more
explicit
authorization
to
use
some
of
these
funds
for
for
merit.
G
A
Intent,
I'm
not
going
to
put
mr
casira
in
those
crosshairs,
so
would
do
we
want
the
chancellor,
or
is
mr
mr
klinger,
if
you
want
to
come
back
to
the
hot
seat
and
chancellor,
thank
you
for
being
here
this
whole
morning
with
us.
If
you
would
like
to
to
share
your
thoughts
on
that,
they
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
Melody
rose,
chancellor
of
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education.
I
appreciate
you.
Turning
to
me,
madam
chair,
but
I
see
adam
klinger
is,
is
andrew
klinger
is
there
in
the
room
and
I'll
defer
to
him?
He's
been
part
of
this
conversation
at
and
she
far
longer
than
I
have.
C
Madam
chair
for
the
record
andrew
klinger
chief
financial
officer
through
you
to
senator
key
kiekefer
senator
keith
keffer,
is
correct.
We
did
ask
for
explicit
language
that
would
allow
this,
but
in
discussions
with
staff
and
appreciate
the
chair
bringing
and
putting
it
on
the
record
today,
I
think,
with
a
record
that's
been
created
here.
I
think
we're
good
with
as
long
as
the
restriction
isn't
in
there.
I
think
we're
good
with
with
that
going
forward.
A
F
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
in
keeping
with
my
consistent
themes
of
things
I
talked
about
at
the
first
hearing
or
at
the
pre-hearing,
so
I
had
talked
about
the
fact
that
supportive
of
the
merit
pool
the
one
percent
but
then
had
also,
I
think,
in
not
the
best
articulate
way.
The
suggestion
about
where
that
merit
pool
is
applicable,
and
I
think
it
makes
the
most
sense-
and
I
think
it's
it's
worth
consideration
of
of
of
you
folks
and
the
committee
members
to
say.
F
Could
it
have
it
apply
to
only
the
below
the
dean
so
that
we're
getting
at
more
of
the
classified
positions
we're
getting
at
more
of
those
those
folks
that
when,
when
we
get
emails
from
from
people
who
work
in
nc
and
we
hear
about
you
know,
I've
been
stuck
at
thirty
seven
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
you
know
so.
We
we
get
a
little
bit
more
targeted
and
where
these
funds,
these
merit
pool
dollars,
would
be
applied.
C
Madam
chair
for
the
record
andrew
klinger,
through
you
to
assembly
one
and
benitez
thompson,
so
we
had
a
task
force
that
made
recommendations
and
that
task
force
recommended
the
one
percent
merit
pool
as
part
of
that
recommendation
from
the
task
force.
What
they
recommended
is
that
the
the
merit
pool
policy
be
established
by
the
presidents
in
consultation
with
the
chancellor,
so
we
actually
have
not
yet
developed
what
that
policy
looks
like
and
how
it
would
apply.
F
I
I
I
appreciate
that,
so
I
guess
you
I
would,
I
imagine
our
decision,
our
time
frame,
to
make
that
decision
might
not
quite
line
up
with
your
time
frame,
but
I
do
feel
like
it
would
be
an
important
conversation
for
this
committee
to
consider
so
if
there
would
be
be
an
ability
to
have
some
of
those
conversations
to
come
together
sooner
than
later,
it
would
be,
it
would
be
meaningful.
C
And
madam
chair,
through
you
to
the
city.
C
Clinton
for
the
record
andrew
klinger,
so
we
we
had
planned
on
taking
so
the
board
of
regents
has
not
yet
adopted
this
policy
that
was
recommended
by
the
task
force,
and
so
we
had
recommended
taking
that
policy
to
the
june
board
of
regents
meeting
and
I
think,
as
staff
indicated,
we
would
likely
delay
the
implementation
of
it.
Just
given
the
budget
reductions
that
each
institution
is
experiencing.
In
addition
to
allow
them
time
to
to
develop
that,
so
the
policy
actually
hasn't
been
adopted,
but
likely
will
be
adopted
on
at
the
june
10th
board
meeting.
F
I
thank
you
so
much,
and
then
I
think
what
I'll
just
do
is
look
at
some
additional
conversations
with
with
our
staff
and
take
some
conversations
offline,
because
I
think
the
the
one
thing
we
don't
want
to
do
is
end
up
with
the
one
percent
mayor
increase
landing
in
in
places
where
you
know
you
could
have
a
reasonable
argument
that
you've
you've
got
salaries
that
that
don't
that
aren't
you
know
there
are
some
positions
that
are
struggling
when
the
ng
that
last
salary
study
was
done,
and
I
it
identified
positions
that
where
they
were
seeing
that
compression
and
more
than
others,
and
so
I
I
and
I
imagine,
that's
a
policy-
that's
going
to
be
considered,
but
I
would
want
it
also
reflected
in
our
language
or
have
our
language
help
reflect
and
drive
your
policy
so
that
once
again
we
get
the
dollars
kind
of
matching
where,
where
we're
envisioning
in
this
conversation
right
now,.
A
So,
mr
klinger,
I
think
what
you're
hearing
from
the
majority
leader
is
that
she
may
be
considering
giving
you
some
guidance
before
you
get
to
that
june
meeting
on
where
we
think
the
legislature
might
like
to
have
you
look
at
how
this
will
break
out.
As
far
as
the
merit
pool
goes,
we
know-
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
still
true,
but
it
wasn't
that
long
ago,
where
we
had
system
employees
that
were
on
medicaid.
A
So
I'm
I'm
going
to
hazard
a
wild
guess
to
say
that
the
majority
leader
is
probably
going
to
bring
this
up
again
at
full
committee,
and
I
hope
you
and
she
can
have
further
conversations
between
now
and
then
about
our
wishes
on
how
we
would
like
to
at
least
have
you
know,
a
seat
at
the
table
in
those
future
conversations
as
as
we
move
through
the
system.
So
thank
you,
mr
klinger.
C
Madam
chair
for
the
record
andrew
klinger
happy
to
have
those
conversations.
Okay,.
A
Good
with
that,
I
don't
think
there
are
any
other
questions
or
comments.
So
going
back
to
the
back
language
discussion,
I
I
believe
we've
made
that
fairly
clear
and
then
the
letter
of
intent
as
far
as
identifying
positions
and
funding
and
moving
forward
there.
It's
all
about
being
able
to
have
the
data,
have
the
accountability
and
know
where
the
state
dollars
are
going.
So
are
there
any
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
decisions
that
are
in
front
of
the
subcommittee
at
this
time?
B
A
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
hagie,
a
second
from
senator
dondera
loop,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
and
those
in
opposition
hearing.
None
in
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
members
present.
Moving
on
to
other
closing
items.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
john
cassaire,
with
lcb
fiscal
for
the
record.
That's
the
end
of
the
heavy
lift.
Moving
on
to
the
first
other
closing
items.
Number
one
is
funding
for
the
non-formula
and
professional
school
budgets,
beginning
on
page
29
and
continuing
on
to
page
30
of
your
closing
packet,
the
table
at
the
top
of
page
30
notes,
the
general
fund
reductions
and
total
appropriations
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
non-formula
counts,
as
reflected
in
this
table
and
mentioned
in
major
issue
number
seven.
D
The
governor
recommends
the
elimination
of
general
fund
appropriations
for
the
2017
unr
engineering
building
debt
service,
which
is
why
it's
is
shown
as
zeros
in
the
fiscal
year
22
and
fiscal
year,
23
columns,
other
enhancements
contained
within
the
non-formula
budgets
previously
discussed,
include
governor
recommended
budget
position,
budget
reductions
and
major
issue
number
one.
The
nevada
teach
program,
major
issue
number
six
and
budget
position,
reconciliation
in
major
issue
number
eight.
There
are
no
significant
changes
here,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
as
shown
on
page
two
of
this
closing
document.
D
A
D
D
The
language
authorizes
the
transfer
of
general
fund
appropriations
between
nc's
state-supported
operating
budgets,
subject
to
the
recommendation
of
the
governor
and
approval
of
the
interim
finance
committee.
Apologies
for
the
previous
point
that
should
be
19
to
21..
The
2019
legislature
approved
the
language
in
order
to
provide
nc
with
flexibility
to
respond
to
budget
adjustments
if
necessary.
Similar
language
was
also
approved
in
the
2011
13
15
and
17
legislatures,
in
addition
to
the
transfer
authority
necessary
to
administer
the
performance
funding
system.
A
Second-
and
I
have
a
second
from
senator
don
darrell
loop,
senator
kitcover,
did
I
overlook
you?
Did
you
have
a
comment.
A
G
I
think
this
is
our
last
motion
on
the
agenda.
I
will
we'll
take
the
opportunity.
I
guess
I
think
that
the
the
formula
where
we
just
approved
has
worked
really
well
for
the
better
part
of
a
decade.
It's
got
some
quirks
as
we've
well
known,
and
it
may
be
time
to
take
another
sort
of
look
at.
G
I
see
miss
howard,
you
down
there
perfectly
willing
to
serve
on
an
interim
committee
looking
at
the
funding
formula
right.
So
I
just
think
it
might
be
time
to
do
another
another
review
of
of
how
we
do
this
and
maybe
clean
it
up
a
little
bit.
But
obviously
that's
not
an
opinion
shared
by
everybody
in
this
community,
but.
E
The
train's
drunk,
thank
you
just
just
before
you
know
I
I
missed
saying
something
and
like
two
motions
ago
or
emotion
ago,
just
to
make
a
comment.
I
know
we're
going
to
look
at
restorations,
but
when
you
look
at
the
state
health
lab
and
the
cusp
of
the
state
health
lab
with
everything,
that's
happened
with
cobit.
We
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
prioritize
that
and
also
some
of
our
professional
schools,
and
I
miss
that
comment
period.
So
thank
you.
A
And,
and-
and
thank
you
senator
stevers-ganser-
I
believe
everyone
on
this
committee
could
probably
point
to
something
at
this
moment
in
time
and
wish
to
put
that
on
the
record.
So
I'm
just
going
to
assume
that
everything
we've
cut
in
the
last
100
days
or
80
days.
Everybody
wants
back,
so
let's
go
kind
of
put
that
out
there.
A
So
with
that
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
and
of
course
it
includes
all
the
technical
adjustments
that
the
staff
is
going
to
need
to
make.
So
if
there's
no
other
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passage
unanimously
of
the
members
present
I'd
like
to
thank
the
system
for
all
their
hard
work
and,
and
mr
klinger,
you
know
and
we'll
be
doing
full
committee
closing
and
there'll
be
future
conversations
about.
A
I've
had
the
honor
to
chair
the
subcommittee
and
work
and
or
wrestle
with
the
system
over
the
last
three
or
four
biennium,
and
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
that
they
do.
We
don't
necessarily
agree,
but
we
each
have
a
job
to
do
in
representing
our
folks,
and
I
believe
this
time
it
has
gone
much
better
than
it
has
in
the
past,
because
people
were
willing
to
sit
at
the
table
and
have
honest
conversations
about
where
the
system
needs
to
go
and
what
the
role
the
legislature
is
with
the
system.
A
So
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
and
congratulations,
chancellor
you're
very,
very
lucky
that
this
closed
on
the
day
that
it
did
otherwise
this
could
have
been
a
two-day
meeting.
So
with
that,
I
don't
think
there
are
any
other
comments
at
this
time.
A
H
H
H
The
vacant
positions
and
terminations
on
page
five
of
the
closing
document
cannot
be
refilled
based
on
one-shot
federal
funds.
Those
lost
positions
have
real
effects
on
students,
fewer
course,
sections
available
and
larger
class
sizes
for
other
state
agencies.
You
have
authorized
the
use
of
federal
funds
to
add
back
positions
starting
in
october.
H
The
ng
budgets
will
need
similar
authorizations
from
the
state
portion
of
arp
funds
to
start
faculty
and
staff
searches
and
to
keep
positions
in
the
base
budgets
and
not
make
those
cuts
permanent.
A
couple
of
other
points.
Thank
you
very
much
for
addressing
the
back
language
on
professional
merit,
which
will
allow
implementation
of
the
nc
performance
pay
task
force
recommendation
to
internally
fund
a
merit
pool
within
existing
salary
budgets.
H
H
Stated
that
the
state
would
only
fund
merit
for
deans
and
a
below,
and
that
was
in
effect
for
the
decades
it
was
funded
by
the
state
as
part
of
the
base
budget
and
I'll
note
that
while
there's
a
percentage
pool,
it
has
been
distributed
at
most
institutions
as
a
fixed
increments
amount,
not
as
a
percentage
of
salary.
So
it
doesn't
favor
high
salary
individuals
as
much
as
you
might
think,
from
the
percentage.
H
A
H
H
I
Doug
unger
d-o-u-g-u-n-g-e-r,
unlv
chapter
president
southern
nevada,
government
affairs
representative
for
the
nevada
faculty
alliance.
Thank
you,
chair,
carlton,
under
a
loop
vice
chair,
harugui
and
subcommittee
members
for
your
hard
work
and
deliberations
to
set
a
higher
education
budget
during
this
season
of
such
uncertainty.
I
Better
times
are
coming,
and
I
personally
believe
that
we're
going
to
have
a
bit
of
difficulty,
keeping
up
with
the
boom
and
growth
that
we
foresee
coming
to
our
state
as
much
of
the
reductions
as
you
can
see,
fit
to
restore
and
prudent
to
assign
will
be
very
much
appreciated
and
will
help
us
to
resume
normalcy
after
this
god-awful
pandemic
and
to
better
prepare
our
institutions
for
the
future.
I
We
feel
we
are
permanent
infrastructure
of
this
state,
and
anything
you
assign
to
us
in
the
next
weeks,
as
everyone
is
coming
at
you
for
money,
will
be
very
much
appreciated.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
work
and
thank
you.
Chair
carlton.
I've
listened
to
you
for
years
and
years
and
years,
and
I
very
much
appreciate
your
guidance
of
this
committee
and
all
the
work
you've
done
for
higher
education
in
our
state.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
broadcast
services.
Is
there
another
caller.
A
A
Right,
thank
you,
so
that
does
it
for
public
comment.
Thank
you
committee
for
your
hard
work
this
morning.
Thank
you
for
the
system
for
being
here
to
answer
the
questions
and
keep
us
on
track.
So
with
that
we
are
adjourned,
ways
and
means
members.
I
will
see
you
at
six
o'clock
this
evening
for
ways
and
means
at
dusk.
So
here
we.