►
From YouTube: 4/2/2021 - Assembly & Senate, Subcommittees on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation
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
Okay,
thank
you
good
morning,
this
meeting
to
order
the
subcommittee
on
from
the
joint
ways
and
means
and
senate
finance,
our
subcommittee
on
public
safety,
natural
resources
and
transportation.
With
that
committee
secretary,
will
you
please
call
roll.
C
A
Here
and
so
we
have
on
our
agenda
today,
we
will
be
doing
some
budget
closings
and,
as
we've
seen
the
past
few
days,
those
those
documents
still
will
need
to
be
well
we're
going
to
take
a
pause
because
they
still
need
to
be
loaded.
Give
members
an
opportunity
to
print
them.
Also,
while
we
take
a
quick
pause,
it'd
be
a
great
opportunity
for
anyone
interested
in
making
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
to
make
sure
that
they're
registered
on
nellis
through
the
agenda.
A
So
if
we
could
take
it's
803
right
now,
let's
take
seven
minutes
and
plan
on
coming
back
at
8
10
that,
hopefully,
will
give
everyone
enough
time
to
print
off
those
documents
and
be
back
and
ready
to
go.
So,
let's
go
ahead
and
recess
until
8.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
call
this
meeting
back
into
order.
As
stated
before
on
our
agenda
before
we
get
to
public
comment,
we
do
have
a
number
of
budget
closings
and
we
fiscal
staff
will
walk
us
through
that.
So
if,
whenever
you'd
like
to
begin
with
the
first
budget,
miss
morris
we're
ready.
E
E
E
During
the
february
ninth
budget
hearing,
the
agency
testified
that
it
no
longer
contracted
with
the
u.s
geological
survey
through
the
department
of
wildlife,
because
the
department
of
wildlife's
contract
with
the
u.s
geological
survey
had
expired.
However,
the
agency
anticipated
contracting
directly
with
the
u.s
geological
survey
in
the
future
budget
amendment
a
nine
nine
one.
F
Senator
dennis
I
would,
I
would
move
to
recommend
approval
budget
amendment
821-499-4150
for
additional
general
funds
of
ninety
four
thousand
six
hundred
eighty
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
twenty
one,
twenty
three
biennium
providing
a
hundred
seventy
nine
thousand
six
hundred
and
eighty
per
year
for
sagebrush
conservation,
credit
system
contracts.
F
H
B
A
Can
we
move
on
to
the
next
miss
morris
move
us
to
the
next
budget?
Please.
E
Comparable-Sized
agencies,
looking
at
physician,
counts,
have
between
one
and
three
personnel
officers,
as
shown
on
the
chart
on
the
top
of
page
six,
for
instance
in
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
which
is
authorized
for
1045.16
full-time
equivalent
positions.
As
one
personnel
officer,
the
agency
indicates,
the
deputy
director
currently
spends
half
of
its
time
on
personnel
related
matters,
and
a
100
percent
of
the
positions
time
would
be
spent
on
personnel
related
matters.
If
this
position
did
not
have
other
duties.
E
This
grant
is
administered
by
the
division
of
environmental
protection
and
allocated
to
agencies
within
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources
to
support
direct
and
indirect
costs
associated
with
state
environmental
management
activities
over
the
five-year
grant.
The
anticipate
the
agency
anticipates
receiving
16.3
million
dollars,
which
is
most
of
which
is
included
in
the
base
budget.
E
In
addition,
the
budget
amendment
includes
unsupported
costs
of
twenty
nine
thousand
one
hundred
twenty
five
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
twenty
two
and
twenty
six
thousand
two
hundred
fifty
three
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
three
the
chart
on
page
seven
shows
the
recommended
technical
adjustments
to
this
position
to
adjust
for
the
start,
dates
and
removing
unsupported
costs
and
updating
the
furniture
quote
based
on
an
updated
quote
received
by
the
agency,
which
would
reduce
the
funding
by
54
286
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2022
and
26
253
in
fiscal
year,
23..
E
Does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
budget
amendment
a
2,
1
4
or
to
add
one
personnel
officer
position
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments
funded
with
federal
funds
transferred
in
from
the
division
of
environmental
protection
administration
budget
of
one
hundred?
Ninety
four
thousand
three
hundred
ninety
three
dollars
over
the
2021-23
biennium.
A
A
F
Senator
dennis,
I
would
move
to
recommend
approval
of
budget
amendment
eight
two
one,
four,
four
f,
four:
four
one:
five:
zero
to
add:
one
personnel
offer
officer
position
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments
funded
with
federal
funds
transferred
in
from
the
division
of
environmental
protection
administration
budget
of
one
hundred.
Ninety
four
thousand
three
hundred
ninety
three
dollars
over
the
twenty
one.
Twenty
three
biennium.
A
Okay-
and
we
have
a
second
with
that,
can
we
please
have
a
roll
call
vote
or
I
should
ask
any
further
discussion
before
we
take
take
a
vote
all
right.
Please
take
the
roll
call
vote,
senator
brooks.
F
H
I
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
carries
please:
let's
move
on
to
the
next
budget.
A
Yes,
now
I
couldn't
see
for
a
second,
I
think
assemblywoman
titus.
I
F
A
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
discussion.
J
E
E
C
E
Conservation,
district
and
sage
grouse
grants
in
decision
unit
e-680
the
governor
recommends
reducing
annual
grants
to
the
state's
28
conservation
districts
by
one
thousand
dollars
per
district
per
year
and
sage
grouse
competitive
grants
by
50
000
per
year
from
the
amounts
recommended
in
the
base
budget
for
general
fund
savings.
Totaling
156
000
over
the
biennium.
E
The
2019
legislature
approved
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
twenty
twenty
one:
twenty
nineteen
twenty
one
biennium
for
sage
grouse,
competitive
grants
and
in
fy
2020
the
grants
were
reduced
to
sixty
five
thousand
dollars
as
a
budget
reduction
measure
and
fy
2021
grants
were
eliminated
pursuant
to
assembly
bill
3
of
the
31st
special
session
for
the
2021-23
biennium.
The
governor's
net
recommendation
would
restore
the
grants
at
fifteen
thousand
dollars
per
year.
E
According
to
the
agency.
One
of
the
benefits
of
the
competitive
grant
program
is
the
matching
funds.
Matching
funds
are
not
required
to
apply
for
a
grant,
however.
In
2020
matching
funds
provided
2.86
cents
for
each
grant
dollar
awarded
for
the
conservation
district
grants.
The
2019
legislature
approved
conservation
district
grants
of
five
thousand
dollars
per
district
per
year
for
the
2019-2021
biennium,
and
the
31st
special
session
approved
reducing
2021
grants
by
one
thousand
dollars
per
district
per
year
from
five
thousand
dollars
to
four
thousand
dollars.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
mostly
make
a
comment
I
have
very.
I
can't
accept
this
reduction.
I
have
big
concerns
about
the
impact
on
these
conservation
districts.
They
operate
on
such
a
small
budget
as
it
is,
and
even
during
the
hearing,
as
as
noted
in
our
documents
that
the
reduction
would
definitely
impact
their
ability
to
support
sage-grouse,
sage-grouse,
related
projects
and
other
projects
carried
out
by
conservation
districts
and
thereby
reducing
conservation
work
in
the
state
we've
heard
testimony
or
on
many
different
committees.
I
Many
different
bills
about
how
important
is
the
conservation
work
in
our
state.
We
also
have
heard
multiple
times
about
how
fire
has
destroyed
the
habitat
for
our
sage,
grouse
and
all
the
work
that's
gone
in
to
restore
habitat.
The
28
conservation
districts
in
our
state
are
boots
on
the
ground,
local
volunteers,
projects
that
that
are
out
there
doing
really
good
work
for
the
state.
And
although
this
is
a
simple,
you
know
a
couple
thousand
dollars
to
each
district,
as
it
would
pen
out
the
impact
on
the
three
to
one
match
for
federal
funds.
I
I
think
is
just
really
myopa.
Myopic
of
us
save
a
very
small
amount
of
money
compared
to
what
we're
going
to
be
losing
and
the
impact
on
for
the
conservation
district.
So
I'm
very
well.
I
cannot
support
this
reduction.
A
Assemblywoman
senator
gopitia.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
that.
I
agree
I
I
with
assemblywoman
titus.
It
could
probably
stand
a
thousand
dollar
reduction
per
district,
a
lot
easier
than
the
50
000
per
year,
cut
in
competitive
grants
again
as
a
three
to
one
return.
H
I
don't
see,
and
and
the
sage
grouse
issue
clearly
hasn't
gone
away
and
with
the
enhancement
of
the
sage-grouse
habitat
also
comes
a
certain
amount
of
level
of
reduction,
especially
pinion
juniper
and
our
wildland
fire
threats,
so
we're
going
to
pay
at
one
place
or
the
other.
Maybe
this
50
000
is
cheaper
than
5
million
in
fighting
forest
fire,
so
I
I
would
hope
we
can
restore
this
at
some
point.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
senator
any
other
questions
or
comments.
Senator
dennis.
F
Thank
you
I
I
my
question
would
have
to
do
I
mean
so
we're
looking
at
reducing
it
from
the
5000
to
4000
and
then
the
competitive
grant.
One
of
the
suggestions
in
here
was
that
they
apply
for
grants.
Do
we
know
I
can't
remember
from
the
hearing,
and
maybe
stuff
can
tell
us
if
they've
been
successful
in
in
getting
any
of
those
additional
grants.
E
F
I
think
my
follow-up
question
was
going
to
be
if
they
had,
because
there's
been
other
cuts
that
we've
done
over
the
last
biennium
or
two.
If,
if
any
of
the
projects
that
they
were
doing
had
been
delayed
because
they
haven't
gotten
the
funding,
because
we
did
the
cuts.
E
F
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
do
we
know
if
there's
any
federal
funds
coming
that
would
be
available
to
help
fill
that
gap
for
this
next
biennium.
As
far
as
the
the
the
recovery.
F
H
Madam
chair,
if
I
may
respond
again,
I
think
we
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
this
is
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
over
the
two
years,
and
this
is
match
money
again.
That's
really
what
makes
it
so
key.
Yes,
there
are
federal
dollars
out
there,
but
typically
we
need
to
match
them
or
the
conservation
district
needs
to
match
them
and
that's
where
what's
creating
the
void.
A
Right,
we
also
have
dcnr
on
if,
if
anyone
would
like
to
respond
to
the
question.
B
Thank
you,
deputy
director
dominique,
gets
you
going
with
the
nevada
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
B
I
believe
the
question
is
if
there
is
any
federal
funding
available
to
make
up
for
these
sage-grouse
grants
that
we
aren't
able
to
provide-
and
I
can't
say
that
we
can
make
up
and
fill
this
hole,
but
there
is
always
federal
funding
and
other
funding
sources
that
our
conservation
districts
are
competing
for
every
year
and
they
do
their
best
to
take
advantage
of
those
funds
and
take
advantage
of
those
projects.
An
example
would
be.
B
Currently
there
are
beaver
dam
analog
projects
up
in
in
northern
nevada,
north
of
winnemucca
we've
been
successful,
competing
for
those
grants
but,
like
I
said,
those
don't
replace
these
dollars.
Those
are
grants
that
they
will
always
compete
for
and
do
the
best
that
they
can.
So
I
can't
say
that
we're
filling
that
hole.
A
Necessarily
assemblywoman
tolls.
K
Match
chair-
and
I
just
want
to
point
out-
I
know
in
our
notes-
there
was
nothing
specifically
about
delayed
projects,
but
there
was
a
note
from
the
agency
that
this
impact
could
this.
K
This
cut
could
have
an
impact
on
the
ability
to
conduct
public
meetings
virtually
and,
and
also
that,
in
response
to
some
of
the
questions
from
the
hearing
on
february
9th
that
the
agency
tried
to
identify
if
there
was
other
ways
to
make
up
for
this
gap
through
fees,
and
they
were
not
able
to
identify
any
other
way
to
make
up
for
this
gap
for
fees,
and
I
would
also
just
note
what
senator
gokuchi
pointed
out
that
this,
the
return
could
be
as
high
as
three
to
one
in
terms
of
what
we're
leaving
on
the
table
or
these
cuts
and
the
the
matching
funds
available.
K
H
I
was
just
gonna,
ask
a
question
of
deputy
director.
It's
going
but
listening
to
miss
tol's
remarks.
I
forgot
a
question.
I'm
sorry.
Okay,.
C
Thank
you,
chair
miller,
so,
in
this
decision
unit
there's
also
it's
not
part
of
this
particular
decision
on
on
the
funding,
but
there
it
is
affecting
the
operations
of
conservation
grants
and
and
the
work
that
they're
doing
there's
a
a
position
held
open,
a
reduction
of
of
a
position
here.
C
So
would
I
just
want
to
ask
dc
and
r
would
that
if
that
position
were
to
be
filled
and
that's
a
decision
unit
e681,
if
that
decision
were
to
be
filled,
would
this
the
agency
be
able
to
do
do
more
work,
be
more
effective
in
conservation,
district
and
sage,
grouse
grants,
management
and
implementation.
B
Thank
you
for
the
question
deputy
director
dominique
gets
you
going
with
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
Yes,
we
obviously
could
do
more
if
that
physician
were
funded
strategically.
That
was
a
cut
that
we
made
to
meet
our
budget
reductions.
It
has
and
will
continue
to
have,
an
impact.
Our
conservation
district
program
works
to
support
all
of
those
individual
28
conservation,
locally-led
districts
throughout
the
state
to
ensure
that
they
have
the
technical
assistance
that
they
need.
We
provide
them
other
financial
assistance
as
well,
and
it
does.
B
It
does
have
an
impact
in
having
that
position.
Vacant
as
and
will
be
a
challenge.
We
do
have
one
of
our
resource
staff
specialists
who
has
stepped
up
and
started
to
take
on
that
role.
She
has
done
excellent.
I
am
providing
some
time
myself
to
help
provide
that
technical
assistance,
but
it
is
challenging
and
it
will
have
an
impact,
and
if
we
had
that
position
filled,
we
could
get
more
grants.
I
think
on
the
ground.
B
F
Thank
you.
I'm
just
gonna
ask
staff.
So
if
we
didn't
want
to
accept
this
with
the
motion
just
be
to
not
accept
and
then
they
we
wouldn't
do
the
cut
the
thousand
dollar
one
or
could
we
maybe
leave
the
thousand
dollar
per
conservation
and
then
keep
the
competitive
grant.
J
Madam
chair,
through
you,
two
senator
dennis
yes,
you
can
do
either
of
those
two
options
you
can
choose
to
not
approve
or
you
can
choose
to
do,
an
alternative.
J
F
Madam
chair,
I
would
be
willing
to
to
get
a
little
bit
of
savings.
I
guess
if
we
don't
do
the
thousand,
but
but
put
the
competitive
grant
money
back
in.
I
don't
know.
If
that's
I,
let's
see,
I
don't
know
what
the
I
guess.
The
motion
would
be
to
not
recommend
approval
to
reducing
the
annual
grants
to
the
state's
28
conservation
districts.
F
Well,
let's
see,
let
me
look
at
that
for
a
second
to
to,
I
guess
the
to
recommend
approval
of
reducing
the
annual
grants
to
the
28
conservation
by
a
thousand
dollars
per
year
and
not
reducing
the
sage
grounds
competitive
grants
by
50
000
per
year
for
the
general
fund
and-
and
I
don't
know
what
the
savings
would
be,
but
over
the
21-23
biennium.
H
Okay,
okay,
I
yes,
I
can
support
that.
We
have
to
understand
that.
Probably
two
sessions
ago
we
went
from
three
to
the
five,
so
you
know.
Ultimately,
the
the
conservation
districts
are
still
a
little
bit
ahead
at
receiving
four
thousand
dollars
a
year,
and
I
do
believe
that
again,
as
senator
dennis
stated,
you
know,
the
match
component
is
a
critical
piece
of
this.
Thank
you
and
that
would
be
a
50
50
6
000
a
year.
Savings
is
what
it
is,
a
thousand
dollars
for
each
of
the
28
districts.
Thank
you.
F
I
also
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
discussion
that,
in
the
question
that
senator
brooks
brought
up,
I
think
you
know
with
getting
that,
because
if
they
get
that
position
back,
that
also
will
give
them
the
opportunity
to
apply
for
some
additional
grants
if
they
have
that
person
back.
So
I
so
I
feel
good
about
the
motion
and
I
support
it.
Thank
you.
A
Absolutely
thank
you
and
we're
all
ready
to
work
to
get
to
you
know
where
we
we
can
be
in,
and
we
all
appreciate
the
you
know
the
need
for
funds
and
that
these
are
some
smaller
funded
programs.
So
I'm
glad
we
could
get
there
together
as
a
group.
So
with
that
committee
staff,
can
we
please
have
a
roll
call,
though.
C
H
I
C
My
question
is
on
the
additional
items
that
we
have
a
budget:
the
decision
unit,
e68
the
the
elimination
of
a
position
or
holding
open
of
a
position.
C
So
yesterday,
when
we
made
a
decision
for
the
purposes
of
efficiency
and
moving
through
budgets,
members
expressed
great
concern
over
their
lack
of
ability
to
be
able
to
weigh
in
on
individual
budgets
and
and
and
decisions.
Now
is
the
time
so
to
the
members
who
were
so
concerned
yesterday
about
process.
Are
they
concerned
today
about
decision
unit
e681,
and
this
is
the
time,
do
we
want
to
remove
that
position
and
not
bring
that
position
back?
C
Is
that
something
that
the
members
of
this
committee
want
to
do
and
and
do
they
want
to
make
those
recommendations
so
is,
or
were
we
okay
with
with
actually
bringing
back
some
of
these
folks.
A
I
If
I
might,
madam
chair
yes,
assemblywoman,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
the
comments
senator
brooks
regarding
that
keeping
the
the
position
open
at
we.
I
think
we
would
all
support
filling
this
position
if,
indeed,
we
had
the
funds
approved
and
ability,
which
is
why
it's
important,
that
we
keep
the
position
open
and
that
we
don't
eliminate
that,
as
we
all
heard
yesterday,
there
will
be
opportunities
to
if
we
have
those
funds
in
this
is
one
of
the
ones
that
certainly
could
be
filled
at
the
time
when
that
becomes
available.
I
That,
indeed,
is
why
the
agency,
I
would
assume,
is
keeping
this
position
open.
It's
been
open
vacant
from
october
21st
to
the
22nd,
which
does
allow
us
in
october,
at
some
other
time
to
fill
this
position.
So
none
of
this
is
finite.
All
this
is
moving
parts
as
we
as
we
are
all
aware,
and
one
of
the
wonderful
things
that
our
legislative
body
does
allow
for
is
to
take
another
look
at
this
as
funds
become
available,
so
I
don't
think
that
it's
a
all
or
none
decision
we're
making
today.
I
I
think
this
decision
is
consistent
with
what
we
spoke
towards
yesterday
with
opportunity
always
to
fill
these
as
money's
become
available,
but
I
appreciate
you're
pointing
it
out.
This
is
exactly
one
of
those
positions.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
a
brief
comment
on
that.
Yes,
I
I
agree
with
assemblywoman
titus
and
appreciate
senator
brooks's
question
clearly,
but
in
my
mind
the
question
is
I
I
would
rather
maintain
this
position
vacant
and
again
take
the
previous
and
support
the
previous
action.
Clearly,
this
is
a
vacant
position.
H
C
The
chair
miller,
we
just
took
a
motion
to
close
this
budget
with
out
the
gov
wreck,
adding
money
in
that
we
haven't
yet
identified,
so
so
that's
kind
of.
If,
if
we're,
we
can't
have
it
both
ways
so
we've
either
we've
either
gonna
do
gov
wreck
or
or
we're
making
decisions,
and
so
so
I
I
just
so.
We
we're
we're
okay
with
holding
this
position
vacant,
but
we're,
but
we're
also
okay,
with
with
not
making
the
recommendations
to
cut
the
funding
to
some
programs.
It's
it's
a
you
know.
C
We
can't
have
it
both
ways,
and
so
I
just
I
I
I
wreck,
I
I
support
the
recommendation
and
I
also
support
the
actions
to
to
restore
this.
This
position
to
the
to
the
agency,
and
so,
while
that's
not
a
decision
that
we're
making
today
we're
going
to
look
at
that
later.
I
just
want
it
to
be
crystal
clear
that
we
have
the
ability
to
have
these
conversations
and
nothing.
We
did
yesterday
limits
that
ability,
regardless
of
how
it
was
portrayed
so
rant
over.
F
Thank
you,
and
I
think
this
is
just
what
we
were
just
talking
about,
but
you
know
in
the
decision
that
we
just
made
to
not
cut.
You
know,
obviously
at
some
point
in
order
to
make
it
balanced.
We're
gonna
have
to
something
else.
We're
gonna
have
to
you
know,
cut
something
else
that
we
might
so
as
we
go
through
this
process,
but
I
appreciate
the
discussion
it's
important
for
us
to
keep
in
mind
as
we
do
this.
Thank
you.
E
E
The
office,
the
state
historic
preservation
office,
encourages
the
preservation,
documentation
and
use
of
cultural
resources
through
the
state
and
federal
programs.
There
is
one
major
closing
issue
in
this
budget,
which
is
a
budget
reduction
decision
unit.
E680
is
a
recommendation
to
re,
achieve
general
fund
savings
of
thirty
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
twenty
seven
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
by
replacing
general
funds
with
historic
preservation,
fund,
grant
funds
and
commission
for
cultural
centers
and
historic
preservation
grant
program
bond
proceeds.
E
The
historic
preservation
fund
grant
is
utilized
by
the
agency
to
support
personnel
costs
operating
expenses,
including
grant
related
expenditures
and
cost
allocations.
The
grant
requires
a
forty
percent
match
and
the
funding,
so
the
recommended
funding
source
change
would
align
the
agency's
rent
expense
with
the
40
percent
general
fund,
60
percent
federal
fund
split.
E
The
bond
proceeds
would
support
the
cost
of
the
agency's
carson
city
vehicle
pursuant
to
nrs
383
530
general
obligation,
bonds
of
up
to
three
million
dollars
per
year
to
fund
historic
preservation.
Projects
may
be
issued
and
up
to
five
percent
of
the
bond
proceeds
may
be
expended
for
administrative
costs
to
support
the
commission
for
cultural,
centers
and
historic
preservation.
E
E
E
To
align.
The
funding
with
the
agency's
planned
use
of
the
vehicle
fiscal
staff
recommends,
funding,
90
percent
of
the
vehicle
cost,
with
bond
proceeds
and
10
percent,
with
historic
preservation,
grant
funds
and
general
funds
based
on
the
required
40
match,
as
well
as
the
previously
noted
technical
adjustment
to
align
the
funding
with
the
cost
of
the
vehicle.
E
The
agency
subsequently
identified.
This
was
an
estimate
provided
by
the
national
park
service
and
until
the
grant
is
awarded,
the
amount
is
not
final.
The
agency
does
not
have
the
final
award
and
it
could
be
as
much
as
a
year
before
it
receives
a
final
award
notification
from
the
federal
government
to
provide
the
match
for
the
grant.
The
agency
uses
nevada
cultural
resource
information
system
database,
access
fees
and
general
funds.
E
During
the
budget
hearing
the
agency
indicated
it
could
raise
the
subscription
fees.
However,
pursuant
to
chapter
239
of
nrs,
the
fees
can
fees
related
to
public
records.
Related
requests
can
only
be
increased
when
the
actual
costs
of
providing
records
increases
and
therefore
the
agency
cannot
raise
fees
to
solely
to
provide
more
matching
funds
for
the
grant.
E
Six
hundred
twenty
seven.
Forty
three
thousand
six
hundred
twenty
seven
dollar
increase
based
on
the
agency's
projected
grant
award
with
a
corresponding
increase
of
sixty
thousand
and
sixty
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
twenty
two
and
forty
three
thousand
six
hundred
twenty
seven
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2023
in
the
historic
preservation
fund,
grant
category
to
support
costs
related
to
the
federal
program
areas,
including
review,
and
compliance
of
projects,
national
register
activities
and
surveying
cultural
resources.
E
So
there
would
resulting
in
no
general
fund
savings
of
the
37
827
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2022
and
23,
and
it
would
reduce
the
federal
funds
by
thirty
one
thousand
four
hundred
fifty
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
twenty
two
and
bond
proceeds
of
six
thousand
three
hundred
seventy
seven
dollars
in
each
fiscal
year.
E
option
a
is
to
approve
decision.
Unit
e680
is
recommended
by
the
governor
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments
to
replace
general
funds
of
thirty
six
thousand
nine
hundred
fifty
three
dollars
each
year
of
the
2021-2023
biennium.
This
federal
historic
preservation
fund
grant
funds
of
thirty
one
thousand
seven
hundred
ninety
four
dollars
and
commission
for
cultural
centers
and
historic
preservation
grant
program
bond
proceeds
of
5159
each
year.
E
Option
b,
approved
decision
unit
e-680,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments
to
replace
general
funds
of
thirty
six
thousand
nine
hundred
fifty
three
dollars
each
year
of
the
twenty
one.
Twenty
three
biennium,
with
federal
historic
preservation
fund,
grant
funds
of
thirty
one
thousand
seven
hundred
ninety
four
dollars
and
commission
for
cultural
centers
and
historic
preservation,
grant
program
bond
proceeds
of
five
thousand
one
hundred
fifty
nine
dollars
each
year
and
approve
additional
general
funds
of
sixteen
thousand
four
hundred
thirty
three
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
E
Twenty
twenty
two
and
federal
historic
preservation
fund
grant
funds
of
forty
three
thousand
six
hundred
twenty
seven
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
2022
and
fiscal
year,
2023,
with
corresponding
increases
to
the
historic
preservation
fund,
grant
category
to
align
with
the
agency's
projected
federal
grants
in
the
upcoming
biennium
or
option
c,
do
not
approve
the
governor's
recommendation
to
replace
general
funds
with
federal
funds
and
bond
proceeds
and
restore
general
funds
of
thirty
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
twenty
seven
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
twenty
twenty
one.
Twenty
three
biennium.
H
Madam
chair
and
I
guess
I'm
I
don't
see
it
in
a
document,
but
when
we've
got
the
federal
dollars
that
are
are
projected
by,
we
assume
that'll
be
an
october
one
grant.
E
H
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
follow
up,
then
I
I
guess
this
is
going
to
be
a
different
year,
considering
we're
going
to
have
the
guidelines
in
place
in
october
1.,
and
I
would
think
in
this
one
we
would
probably
be
better
with
you
know,
approving
proc
option
a
and
dealing
with
the
sixteen
thousand
four
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
through
ifc,
which
should
be.
I,
I
think,
the
process
we're
gonna
be
dealing
with,
especially
if
this
grant
award
might
not
be
coming
until
october.
H
Clearly,
ifc
could
deal
with
it
at
that
point.
Sixteen
thousand
dollars
is
not
a
big
lift
for
ifc
and,
and
that
way
we'd
be
sure
we
covered
the
bases.
F
So
I
would
have
a
question
if,
if
we
did
that,
what
senator
goku
chooses
the
staff
that
that
would
just
mean
that
we
would,
how
would
how
would
that
I
mean
I
guess
what
would
about
the
motion,
would
just
be
that
a.
But
how
would
that
look
as
far
as
procedurally,
we
would
just
not
do
it
and
then
hope
that
the
that
ifc
would
then
put
in
the
16
000
so
that
we
could
get
that
additional
federal
grant
money.
J
A
A
A
J
If
item
b
is
selected,
then
the
general
fund
appropriations
would
be
provided
into
the
agency's
budget
and
would
be
provided
beginning
for
the
the
current
or
the
fiscal
year.
2022.
K
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
and
I
appreciate
having
these
two
conversations
back
to
back,
because
the
last
one
was
really
about
a
much
larger
return
on
investment
match
this
one,
although
there
is
a
match
involved,
seems
to
be
much
smaller.
Where
we've
got
the
you
know,
sixteen
thousand
dollars
that
were
is
on
the
table
that
we're
trying
to
decide
which
then
results
in
the
the
corresponding
match
of
got
my
numbers
all
correct
here,
the
27
384.
K
So
it's
not
quite
that
same
level
of
ratio
that
we
were
talking
about
in
the
last
discussion,
but
like
the
last
discussion,
if
we
veer
from
the
gov
rack
of
the
cut
of
the
16
000,
we're
going
to
have
to
go,
find
that
somewhere
else
correct,
whereas
the
option
that
we
have
on
the
table
is,
if
we
choose
option
a
today,
it
still
gives
us
a
the
chance
in
ifc,
when
maybe
we
have
a
better
fiscal
situation
to
be
able
to
approve
it
than
taking
advantage
of
advantage
of
that
federal
match.
J
F
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
it's
16
000,
but
we're
going
to
get
back.
86,
87
000
right
over
the
two
years.
F
E
A
E
Is
that
correct?
The
decision
is
to
add
the
additional
general
funds
in
fiscal
year
2022
to
allow
the
agency
to
to
add
the
general
funds
in
fiscal
year
2022,
as
well
as
the
authorization
for
the
federal
funds
to
provide
the
full
match
authority
in
fiscal
year.
2022.
E
F
So,
based
on
the
discussion
earlier
with
senator
gokuchiya,
was
talking
about
that
they're,
not
gonna,
the
grant
wouldn't
be
till
october
anyways.
I
I
probably
would
be
okay
if
we
had
them
go
to
ifc,
because
if
we
do
it
now
we're
gonna
approve
it
now,
and
I
guess
they
could
I
I
well.
F
Maybe
I
don't
know,
maybe
we
need
to
ask
the
agency,
but
if,
if
that
would
make
a
difference,
if
putting
it
off
three
months
versus
whatever,
but
you
know
I
think
generally,
I
would
be
okay
with
having
them
come
to
ifc
and
that
would
allow
us
to
get
some
savings
in
the
budget
net
today.
A
But
I
also
want
to
recall
something
else
that
was
stated:
it
wasn't
a
guarantee
that
it
would
be
october
1st.
It
was
just
that
those
funds
would
be
available
after
october
1st,
so
there's
a
there's,
a
difference
between
october
1st
and
after
october.
So
I
think
that's
something
we
should.
We
should
consider
as
well.
D
F
Right
so
yeah
mike
so
you've
heard
our
little
bit
of
discussion
here.
My
question
would
be:
is
there
a
difference
between
if
we
wait
and
have
you
come
to
ifc,
to
ask
for
that
60
000
versus
just
approving
it
today?
Is
there
on
your
side?
Does
that
change
any
of
your
ability
to
get
the
work
done,
that
you're
trying
to
do.
D
F
D
For
the
wreck,
for
the
record,
this
is
rebecca
palmer.
We
have
a
grant
agreement
that
we
need
to
sign
in
the
next
two
months
and
that
grant
agreement
requires
a
match
larger
than
my
current
appropriation.
So,
yes,
I
will
be
at
isd,
probably
as
soon
as
we
can
file
the
paperwork.
F
J
Madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
dennis
the
isc
contingency
account,
is,
is
not
accessible
during
the
legislative
period,
and
so
those
funds
would
only
be
available
beginning
in
perhaps
the
june
ifc
meeting.
F
F
B
J
Chair
through
you
to
senator
dennis
the
june
ifc
has
not
yet
been
scheduled.
However,
they
they
typically
are
later
in
in
june,
so
the
agency,
if
the
this
ifc
approved,
could
provide
it
in
june.
However,
if
the
appropriation
is
approved
through
item
b,
that
funding
would
then
be
available
to
them.
Beginning
july
1.
F
If
we
can
get
some
savings
in
the
budget,
then
I
guess
I
would
recommend
going
with
a
and
because
we
get
a
little
bit
of
savings,
they
still
would
get
the
money
in
the
time
they're
only
getting
the
soonest
they
could
get.
It
would
be
the
end
of
june
or
july
if
we
put
it
in
the
budget.
This
would
give
us
some
savings
in
the
budget,
so
I
would
be
okay
with
going
with
a.
A
Okay,
assemblywoman,
peters
and
then
assemblywoman
tolls,
and
those
will
be
our
two
final
questions.
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
have
a
clarifying
question
for
miss.
B
Palmer,
do
you
think
this
to
be
just?
Do
you
need
it
to
be
accessible
dollars
as
through
ifc,
or
do
you
need
this
to
be
approved
dollars
that
you
can
say
it's
in
my
budget
for
the
next
cycle.
D
K
Thank
you
chair,
so,
just
to
be
clear,
you
will
still
be
able
to
get
the
ms
palmer,
the
the
federal
grant
funding
the
question
at
hand
is
not
you
know
whether
or
not
you
can
get
the
federal
grant
funding.
The
question
at
hand
is
the
decision
that
we
make
today
impacts
your
ability
to
get
at
which
level
of
funding
you
get,
and
the
difference
is
that
if
we
approve
this
today,
then
in
the
next
couple
weeks
you
will
have.
K
If
we
approve
today
giving
you
the
additional
16
000,
then
that
puts
you
in
the
next
tier,
where
you
will
receive
874
000,
and
if
we
don't
make
that
decision
today,
we
won't
be
able
to
make
that
decision
up
in
ifc
in
june
or
july,
because
the
the
grant
application
will
already
be
already
be
submitted.
Based
on
the
decision
we're
making
today-
and
I
see
you
raised
you-
you
nodding
your
head.
Yes,
that's
correct,
okay,
so
then
the
question
is:
what
impact
does
that
delta
between
847
000
or
874
000?
K
D
For
the
record,
this
is
rebecca
palmer.
It
would
affect
our
ability
to.
I
D
A
Because
at
this
point
I
think
that
we're
we're
ready
to
move
on,
I'm
ready
to
thank
you
and
thank
you,
miss
palmer
for
being
available
to
respond
with
that,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
senator
dennis.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
based
on
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
I,
although
one
correction,
even
though
we
approved
this
today-
that
isn't
the
final
approval,
because
it
still
has
to
go
to
the
full
committees,
but
that
still
that
that
final
approval
would
still
be
before
anything
else
that
we
would
do
so.
F
I
would
recommend
that
we
go
with
option
a
and
would
make
a
motion
to
approve,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
with
noted
technical
adjustments
to
replace
general
funds
of
36
36
953
each
year
of
the
21
23
biennium,
with
federal
historic
preservation,
grant
funds
of
thirty
one
thousand
one.
One
hundred
thirty
one
thousand
seven
hundred.
Ninety
four
and
commission
for
cultural
affairs,
centers
and
historic
preservation
grant
program
bond
proceeds
of
5159
in
each.
I
G
Madam
chair,
this
is
a
simply
woman,
monroe
moreno
I
I
would
have
to
vote
in
the
negative
on
that
motion.
I
believe
that
be
listening
to
the
discussion
that
we've
had
during
this
this
meeting
and
hearing
from
the
agency
themselves
and
putting
the
agency
and
our
budget
in
the
best
position
for
them
to
bring
in
the
federal
dollars
and
having
that
approval
gets
them
that
higher
dollar.
So
I
I
prefer
the
option
b,
so
I
would
have
to
vote
against
the
motion.
F
I'm
sorry,
madam
chair,
I
in
all
that
discussion
I
got
I
I
actually
didn't
do
what
I
meant
to
do,
because
I
agree.
I
think
we
need
to
do
it
now,
and
so
I
want
to
withdraw
my
motion
because
I
I
really
meant
to
make
the
be
option.
I
think
that
if
we
do
that
that
they
they'll
be
able
to
apply
for
it
now,
which
is
what
I
was
trying
to
say,
and
I
just
in
all
the
discussion,
I
got
confused
on
the
on
the
motion
so
so
anyway,
so
I
withdraw
that
motion.
A
Okay,
just
for
to
make
sure
we're
following
the
process
correct
correctly.
A
Can
I
have
a
second
to
rescind
the
motion,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
resend
okay
by
senator
dennis
we
have
a
second
to
rescind
by
assemblywoman
peters.
J
Madam
chair,
if
I
may
yes
please,
madam
chair,
because
there
was
a
first
and
a
second
already
approved
or
already
accepted,
you
would
need
both
the
the
first
who
is
senator
dennis
as
well
as
the
second
who
was
assemblywoman
titus
to
rescind
their
motions.
B
A
C
F
I
G
I
motion
that
we
approve
option
b
for
decision
unit
e
680,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments
to
replace
general
funds
of
36
each
year
of
the
2021-2023
biennium,
with
the
federal
historic
preservation
fund,
grant
funds
of
31794
and
the
commission
for
cultural
centers
and
historic
preservation,
grant
program
bond
proceeds
of
5159
each
year
and
approve
additional
general
funds
of
16
433
and
fy.
22
and
federal
historic
preservation
grant
funds
of
43
627
and
fy
2022
and
fy
2023,
with
the
corresponding
increases
to
the
historic
preservation
fund.
A
F
K
K
E
On
page
17
of
the
closing
packets,
there
are
seven
other
closing
items,
two
of
which
have
technical
adjustments
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments.
These
recommendations
appear
reasonable
fiscal
staff
recommends
other
closing
items
one
through
five
be
closed,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
and
other
items.
Six
and
seven
be
closed
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments,
fiscal
staff
requests
authority
to
make
other
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
A
I'm
sorry,
you
know
what
any
questions.
A
A
Now
I
will
entertain
a
motion
senator
dennis.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
moved
that
that
we
that
we
approve
the
recommendations
to
the
on
the
other
closing
items,
one
through
five
be
closed,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
Another
item
six
and
seven
be
closed
with
the
noted
technical
adjustments.
F
Do
I
have
a
second
that's
the
motion.
Yep.
F
E
I
will
pause
following
my
presentation
of
each
budget
to
allow
for
questions
when
I
have
presented
the
last
budget
in
this
group,
and
questions
have
been
addressed.
The
chair
may
wish
to
ask
for
a
single
motion
for
closing
cons
for
closing
consideration
on
all
of
the
budgets,
for
which
fiscal
staff
is
responsible
for
developing
recommendations.
E
E
E
E
A
E
Fiscal
staff
is
responsible
for
developing
closing
recommendations
for
this
budget,
which
encourages
the
preservation
of
the
comstock
historic
district,
one
of
the
nation's
largest
and
most
significant
landmarks.
There
are
no
major
closing
issues
in
this
budget.
There
are
two
other
closing
items,
as
shown
on
page
24..
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
move
to
close
the
following
budgets
that
may
be
closed
as
recommended
by
the
governor
and
request
authority
for
staff
to
make
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
Those
budgets
would
be
101-4156
account
to
restore
the
sagebrush
ecosystem,
101-4160
environmental
quality
improvement
and
101-5030
historic
preservation,
comstock
historic
district.
A
Okay,
a
second
by
assemblywoman
any
further
discussion.
B
F
J
J
A
Yes,
and
with
that
the
motion
carries
so
I
believe
that
was
the
last
budget
item
on
our
agenda.
So
our
next
item
is
to
for
public
comment.
So
broadcasting,
can
you
please
open
the
line
for
public
comment
again,
just
want
to
remind
everyone
that
you
have
up
to
two
minutes
to
make
your
public
comment
and
please
make
sure
that
you
state
your
first
and
last
name
for
the
record
and
broadcasting
we're
ready
whenever
you
are.
B
C
A
Okay,
why
don't
we
give
them
just
another
moment
to
see
if
that
was
just
a
the
phone
dropping
off
or
the
individual
intentionally
dropping
off,
because
in
the
virtual
world
we
just
want
to
extend
a
little
more
grace.
We
would
know
if
we
were
physically
in
the
same
room
if
they
walked
out
of
the
room
as
opposed
to.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it
wasn't
the
phone
we
all
have
cell
phones.
We
know
how
they
work
so.
A
B
Sure
the
line
is
open
and
working.
We
have
no
callers
on
the
call
at
this
time.
A
Okay,
well
with
that,
not
seeing
anyone
in
any
calls
in
public
comment
and
again,
the
agenda
item
we're
on
is
public
comment,
so
not
seeing
anyone.
I
will
close
that
agenda
item
so
with
that
that
is
the
end
of
our
agenda
for
the
day.
Thank
you,
everyone!
So
much
for
your
hard
work
again.
These
conversations
and
decisions
are
not
easy,
and
not
always
you
know
what
we
would
wish
them
to
be,
but
they
have
to
be
made.
A
So
I
appreciate
everyone's
hard
work
and
diligence
and
and
sincere
concern
about
making
sure
that
we're
doing
the
best
that
we
can
for
nevada,
and
with
that
I
will
adjourn
the
meeting
and
everyone
have
a
wonderful
and
safe.