►
From YouTube: 4/15/2023 - Joint Meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and Assembly Committee on Ways and Mean
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
A
And
please
mark
assemblywoman,
haragi
absent
excused,
and
if
anybody
isn't
here,
please
mark
the
mat
present
as
they
arrive.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
probably
don't
need
to
tell
you
because
it's
Saturday,
but
please
silence
all
your
devices.
Thank
you
very
much
and
we
will
have
a
full
schedule
this
morning.
First,
we
have
a
closing
on
the
operating
budget
of
the
public
employees
retirement
system.
Then
we
have
a
budget
work
session
for
the
judicial
branch
budgets
and,
lastly,
we'll
have
here
several
reports
with
closing
recommendations
from
various
subcommittees.
A
So
we
will
begin
with
budget
closing
for
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
budget
account
4821
and
I'll
invite
Miss
mangoba
to
the
table
to
walk
the
committee
through
the
closing
packet
and
for
those
in
the
audience
a
clock.
A
copy
of
the
closing
packet
is
available
and
Ms
van
goba.
Please
start
when
you're
ready.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
good
morning,
good
morning,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
jamery,
mangoba
and
I'm
here
to
present
the
purse
Administration
budget,
which
was
heard
by
this
committee
on
February
13th.
There
are
four
major
closing
issues
for
this
budget.
The
first
major
closing
issue
is
a
recommendation
of
administrative
fees
of
11.7
million
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
6.1
million
in
fiscal
year,
25
to
continue
funding
the
replacement
of
the
system's
pension,
Administration
system
and
other
various
replacement
equipment.
C
The
purse
Retirement
Board
approved
a
contract
with
to
greet
software
Ventures
Incorporated
in
February
of
2021
to
develop
the
new
pension
administrative
system.
The
contract
included
seven
phases
for
a
total
cost
of
23.5
million
the
table
on
page
4
shows
the
project
timeline
and
Associated
cost
and
based
on
this
timeline,
the
projected
completion
date
is
January
of
2025..
C
The
2019
and
2021
legislature
issued
a
letter
of
intent
instructing
purse
to
submit
status
reports
of
the
pension
Administration
system
to
continue
monitoring
the
status
of
the
pension
administrative
System
project
throughout
the
2023-25
biennium.
The
Committees
may
wish
to
consider
issuing
a
letter
of
intent
requesting
the
system
to
submit
a
report
at
each
meeting
of
the
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee
of
the
pension
administrative
system
status.
C
Did
a
committees
wish
to
approve
administrative
fees
of
11.7
million
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
6.1
million
in
fiscal
year,
25
to
continue
the
replacement
of
the
system's
pension,
administrative
system
and
other
various
replacement
equipment
costs?
In
addition,
do
the
committee's
wish
to
issue
a
letter
of
intent
requesting
the
system
reported
each
meeting
of
the
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee.
The
status
of
the
system
replacement.
E
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
second
major
closing
issue
is
the
recommendation
of
administrative
fees
of
131
580
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
170
411
in
fiscal
year,
25.
to
support
the
salaries
and
benefits
of
one
it
technician
position
and
a
management
analyst
position
referred
by
purse
as
a
retirement
analyst
position,
as
well
as
operating
expenditures
associated
with
these
two
positions.
C
According
to
the
system,
these
positions
are
needed
due
to
the
continued
increase
in
the
number
of
members.
It
serves
the
table
on
page
six
page
six
provides
the
actual
number
of
purse
active
members,
benefit
recipients
and
public
Employers
in
fiscal
year,
20
through
22
and
projected
for
fiscal
year
23
through
fiscal
year
25..
C
The
system
indicates
that
one
uiit
technician
position
is
needed
due
to
the
increased
workload
in
webmaster
submissions,
which
has
been
the
preferred
method
of
communication
for
members
and
retirees
the
system
further
indicates.
This
new
position
is
needed
to
assist
first
members
with
a
new
pension
administrative
system
which
would
transition
users
to
a
more
self-serve
and
web-based
option.
C
The
decision
unit
includes
personal
assessments
of
474
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
which
the
system
indicates
is
incorrect
and
should
be
eliminated.
Since
the
department
of
administration
no
longer
provides
Human
Resources
services
for
purse
Additionally,
the
system
indicates
the
new
it
position
is
approved.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
for
the
third
major
closing
issue
for
this
budget
starts
on
page
seven,
the
system
recommends
administrative
fees
of
2017
nine
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
196
thousand
one
hundred
nineteen
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
25.
to
support
the
salaries
and
benefits
of
one
new
chief
administrative
analyst
position
in
Associated
operating
expenditures.
C
This
position
is
recommended
to
be
included
as
an
executive
staff
member
in
accordance
with
nrs286.160
assembly,
Bill
461
has
been
introduced
to
effectuate.
The
change
in
administrative
staff
had
provided
additional
information
on
top
of
page
8,
which
provides
the
additional
duties
and
responsibilities
of
this
new
position.
The
system
recommends
a
salary
of
152
152
dollars
per
year
for
the
chief
administrative
analyst
position,
which
is
tied
to
a
salary
schedule
and
is
two
steps
below
the
Chief
Financial
Officer
salary
schedule.
C
In
anticipation
that
the
incumbent
and
other
level
lower
level
positions
will
be
promoted
to
higher
level
positions
in
the
future,
do
the
committee's
wish
to
approve
administrative
fees
of
2017
in
fiscal
year,
20
24
and
196
119
in
fiscal
year,
25.
for
a
new
chief
administrative
analyst
position
contingent
upon
passage
and
approval
of
assembly,
Bill,
461
or
other
authorizing
legislation
and
provide
fiscal
staff
with
the
authority
to
make
any
other
technical
adjustments.
F
A
I
have
a
motion
by
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno,
a
second
by
Senator
cannizzaro,
any
any
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much.
Please
go
ahead.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
fourth
major
closing
issue
for
this
budget
is
a
recommendation
of
administrative
fees
of
167
197
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
167
205
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
25.
for
a
two-step
pay
increase
for
the
nine
existing
executive
staff
positions.
The
system
indicates
the
recommendation
for
a
two-step
pay
increase
for
the
nine
executive
positions
would
provide
an
incentive
for
him
for
employee
retention
and
allow
for
succession
planning
pursuant
to
NRS
286.160.
C
The
table
on
page
9
provides
a
comparison
of
the
existing
salaries.
The
proposed
salaries
of
the
nine
executive
positions,
with
a
two-step
increase
and
the
salaries
of
these
positions
with
the
governor
recommended
cost
of
living
adjustment.
In
each
year
of
the
2023-25
biennium,
the
system
indicates
the
purse
board
approved
revising
its
existing
10-step
salary
schedule
to
reflect
a
two-grade
increase
in
the
salaries
for
all
nine
executive
positions
to
be
competitive.
C
First,
provided
the
results
of
that
survey
conducted
by
the
teacher
retirement
system
of
Texas,
which
can
be
found
at
the
bottom
of
page
nine,
do
the
Committees
wish
to
approve
administrative
fees
of
167
197
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
167
205
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
25.
for
a
two-step
salary
increase
for
the
nine
executive
staff
positions.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
On
page
nine,
there's
only
one
other
closing
item.
The
governor's
recommended
base
budget
includes
personal
assessment
expenditures,
totaling
seventeen
thousand
seventy
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
which
the
system
indicates,
is
incorrect
and
should
be
eliminated.
Since
DHR,
the
department
of
administration
no
longer
provides
Human
Resource
Services
for
purse.
E
A
I'll
accept
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno,
a
second
from
Senator
camazaro,
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed,
say,
nay,
motion
passes.
Please
go
ahead.
Oh
that's!
It
sorry
I
kind
of
get
in
this
role
right.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
This
Saturday
morning.
A
Okay,
the
next
item
on
our
budget
is
a
work
session
on
the
judicial
branch
budgets.
As
a
reminder,
committee
members,
the
goal
of
the
budget
work
session
is
to
provide
fiscal
staff
with
Direction
in
preparation
for
the
budget.
Closings
and
Ms
day
is
here
to
take
us
through
the
work
session
document.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
G
G
G
Judicial
branch
budgets
are
supported
primarily
through
general
fund
Appropriations
and
Court
administrative
assessments
authorized
under
NRS
176059,
which
are
the
fees
charged
to
defendants
and
Criminal
Traffic
cases,
as
included
on
the
table
on
page
one.
The
total
budgets
for
the
judicial
branch
are
recommended
by
the
judicial
branch
at
168.6
million
dollars,
net
of
12
million
dollars
in
interagency
transfers,
and
that
is
the.
G
The
judicial
branch
budget
Reform
Act,
is
proposed
in
the
Senate
Bill
58.
G
The
judicial
branch
is
designating
that
as
their
as
the
judicial
branch
budget,
Reform
Act
of
2023,
which
is
comprised
of
following
reforms-
that,
according
to
the
judicial
branch,
would
support
the
role
of
the
Judiciary
as
a
as
a
separate
and
co-equal
branch
of
government
number
one
is
establish
a
Judicial
fund
number
two
eliminate
Reliance
on
the
executive
branch
to
provide
State
services
and
Technology
by
implementing
Court
managed,
Central,
Services
and
number
three
would
develop
a
unique
compensation
schedule
for
judicial
branch
employees.
There
will
be
three
issues
discussed
for
the
work
session
this
morning.
G
Number
one
is
a
proposed
new
judicial
branch
classification
and
compensation
schedule.
The
judicial
branch
recommends
total
funding
of
13.3
million
dollars,
general
fund
appropriations
of
8.8
million
dollars
over
the
2023-25
biennium
to
move
the
Court's
existing
170
positions,
and
this
excludes
judicial
elected
officials.
G
The
judicial
branch
classification
and
compensation
schedule
as
proposed
would
move
the
Court's
existing
170
positions,
excluding
elected
officials
into
10,
new
non-classified
classifications,
effective
July,
1,
2023
and
effectuate
salaries,
increase
salary,
increases
of
varying
degrees
for
all
of
the
Court's
existing
positions
in
the
base
which
are
detailed
on
attachment.
One
traditionally,
budget
enhancement
requests,
including
requested
salary
increases,
are
presented
as
decision
units
in
the
budget,
rather
than
included
in
the
base
budget.
G
The
table
the
first
table
on
page
three
is
the
judicial
branch
proposed
classification
and
compensation
schedule.
The
new
classifications
would
be
operations,
law,
clerks,
confidential,
employee
analyst,
one
analyst
two
program:
specialist
program
officer
staff
attorney
staff
attorney
program
manager,
division,
director
and
executive
director
for
the
Court's
information
at
the
in
the
middle
of
that
table.
The
minimum
salary
for
the
operations
would
be
fifty
thousand
four
hundred
and
twenty
three
dollars
annually
and
the
maximum
salary
proposed
by
the
judicial
branch
would
be
in
the
executive
director
classification,
which
was
196
733
dollars.
G
There
is
an
attachment
that
is
beginning
on
page
13
of
your
work
session
document
and
that
does
lay
out
the
170
positions
that
are
included
in
the
judicial
Branch's
request
for
reclassification
on
that
table.
All
positions
have
been
converted
to
employee
employer
paid
retirement
and
for
the
positions
that
are
currently
calculated
at
grade
and
step,
the
step
10
or
the
maximum
salary
for
those
positions
is
reflected.
G
D
G
G
According
to
the
judicial
branch,
their
proposed
classification
and
compensation
schedule
is
based
on
a
living
wage
for
all
of
its
employees.
The
salary
is
recommended
by
the
judicial
branch
range
from
a
minimum
salary
of
24.149
per
hour,
which
is
fifty
thousand
four
twenty
three
annually
to
a
maximum
salary
of
94.221
per
hour
or
196
733
annually.
G
The
maximum
salaries
of
the
170
positions,
as
proposed
increase
over
the
maximum
salary,
is
approved
by
the
2021
legislature.
In
specific
ranges
that
are
detailed
on
page
four
of
your
work
session
document,
for
example,
there
would
be
75
positions
in
the
31
to
40
percent
range
and
19
positions
within
the
41
to
50
percent
range.
G
The
judicial
branch
stated
that
it
conducted
a
comprehensive
survey
of
Market
compensation
from
publicly
available
data,
including
the
Office
of
the
Attorney
General,
the
legislative,
Council
Bureau
and
Court
employees
in
Carson,
City,
Clark
and
Washoe
counties.
It
also
analyzed
living
wage
data
to
evaluate
the
efficacy
and
necessity
of
the
Court's
proposed
compensation
schedule.
The
court
determined
that
it
is
significantly
behind
both
the
public
and
private
sectors
in
compensation
and
the
cost
of
living
in
Nevada
is
a
burden
on
its
employees
as
detailed
in
the
previous
table,
except
for
law
clerks.
G
Each
proposed
classification
includes
a
maximum
midpoint
and
minimum
salary.
According
to
the
judicial
branch,
the
salary
range
was
created
and
would
be
applied
to
an
employee's
qualifications
as
evaluated
under
the
hay
methodology
and
current
compensation.
Inflation
and
cola
Trends
using
a
competency
schedule.
The
hay
methodology
is
a
method
used
by
organizations
to
map
out
their
job
roles
in
the
context
of
the
organizational
structure,
and
that
was
described
by
the
judicial
branch
staff
during
that
hearing.
G
Judicial
excuse
me
a
work
session
on
the
senate
committee
on
finance
and
assembly
committee
on
Ways
and
Means
was
held
on
June
30th
2023
that
covered
topics
related
to
state,
employee
compensation
and
benefits,
including,
but
not
limited
to
salary
increases
in
addition
to
the
coal
is
recommended
by
the
governor,
as
well
as
state
and
employee
contributions
to
the
public
employees.
Retirement
system,
in
addition
to
the
coal
is
proposed
by
the
governor,
an
additional
increase
in
salaries
of
two
percent
for
all
state
employees,
including
judicial
branch
staff.
G
Effective
April,
1
2023
was
discussed
as
well
as
state
and
employee
contributions
to
the
public
employees
retirement
system.
That
scenario
scenario
was
presented
to
reduce
the
percentage
of
contributions
made
to
pers
by
state
employees
by
one
half
of
the
normal
cost,
which
would
reduce
the
employee
contribution
rate
from
17
and
a
half
percent
to
10
percent
for
the
2023-25
biennium,
based
on
the
employee,
employer
paid
retirement
plan
for
regular
employees.
G
G
The
tables
in
attachment
2,
which
begin
on
page
19
of
your
work
session
document.
Compare
the
judicial
Branch's
proposed
maximum
midpoint
and
minimum
salaries
for
the
10
proposed
new
classification
position,
classifications
to
the
salaries
for
classified
employees
based
on
grade
and
step,
as
well
as
unclassified,
executive
assistant
staff
attorney
supervisory
staff
attorney,
Deputy,
Attorney,
General
senior,
Deputy
attorney
general
and
division
administrator,
deputy
director
and
director
positions
of
major
executive
branch
departments
such
as
the
governor's
finance
office,
Department
of
administration
and
the
Department
of
Corrections.
G
G
The
first
table
includes
the
colas
of
10
and
4
percent,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
and
the
second
table
includes
the
impact
of
the
an
additional
10,
a
two
percent
Cola.
Excuse
me
an
additional
two
percent
Cola,
as
discussed
in
the
work
session
on
state
employee
compensation
benefits
and
included
in
Senate
bill
440.
G
So
on
that
the
tables
that
are
on
pages
19
and
20
of
your
work
session
document,
there
are
the
grade
and
step
position,
classified
positions
at
grade
and
step
certain
unclassified
positions.
And
then
the
columns
to
the
right
show
the
impact
of
the
proposed
judicial
branch
classifications.
That
would
where
they
would
fall
within
those.
G
If
the
coal
is
for
state
employees
of
ten
percent
and
four
percent
are
approved,
as
proposed
by
the
governor
or
a
classified
grade,
30
step,
one
at
forty,
nine
thousand
five
dollars
annually.
If
an
additional
two
percent
Colo
was
approved
by
the
legislature
as
proposed
maximum
salaries
for
the
judicial
branch
of.
G
94.94.221
per
hour
or
196
733
annually
would
be
thirty
thousand
six
hundred
and
thirty
two
dollars
more
than
the
salaries
for
unclassified
directors
of
major
executive
branch,
Departments
of
166
100
annually.
If
the
colors
are
approved,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
and
27
312
dollars
more
than
the
annual
salary
of
one
hundred
and
sixty
nine
thousand
four
hundred
and
twenty
dollars.
G
If
an
additional
two
percent
Cola
was
approved
by
the
legislature
for
those
positions,
the
table
on
the
mid
in
the
middle
of
page,
six
of
your
work
session
document
does
include
some
comparisons
to
the
judicial
branch
proposed
classifications
to
some
grade
and
grade
step
or
unclassified
classifications
for
executive
branch
employees.
G
The
Committees
may
wish
to
consider
reducing
the
proposed
maximum
salary
recommendations
for
each
of
the
10
proposed
new
position:
classifications,
If.
The
percentage
of
contributions
made
to
the
public
employees.
Retirement
system
by
state
employees
is
reduced
to
one
half
of
normal
costs,
which
would
reduce
the
employee
contribution
from
17.5
percent
to
10
percent
for
the
2023-25
biennium,
based
on
the
employee,
employer
paid
retirement
plan
for
regular
positions.
G
G
Whether
to
approve
a
proposed
new
judicial
branch
classification
and
compensation
schedule,
including
funding
for
salary
increases,
as
recommended
by
the
judicial
branch,
with
an
adjustment
to
the
maximum
midpoint
and
minimum
salaries
to
reflect
a
reduction
in
the
percentage
of
contributions
made
to
the
employ
public
employees.
Retirement
system
by
state
employees
to
one
half
of
normal
costs,
which
would
reduce
the
employee
contribution
rate
from
17.5
percent
to
10
percent
for
the
2023-25
biennium,
based
on
the
employee,
employer,
pay
retirement
plan
for
regular
employees
or
option
three.
G
G
If
this
option
is
selected,
fiscal
staff
will
work
with
the
judicial
branch
to
determine
which
positions
would
meet
these
criteria
and
provide
that
information
at
the
budget
closing
and
if
options
one
or
two
are
chosen,
whether
to
approve
funding
for
judicial
branch
positions
at
the
maximum
salary.
For
each
position,
as
recommended
by
the
judicial
branch
inconsistent
with
the
state
unclassified
positions
or
given
that
the
judicial
branch
indicated
that
not
more
than
58
positions
would
be
at
the
maximum
salary
on
July
1
2023.
Only
providing
funding
for
the
estimated
annual
salaries
for
each
position.
G
A
Stop
there
and
we'll
have
a
discussion
on
that
and
and
I
think
I
would
move
to
approve
funding
for
the
judicial
branch
positions
at
the
levels
approved
by
the
2021
legislature,
including
adjustments
to
positions
made
by
the
judicial
branch
through
April
14
2023,
as
well
as
positions
identified
by
the
judicial
branch
as
having
a
disproportionate
classification
that
should
be
adjusted.
Plus
cost
of
living
adjustments
consisted
with
employees
in
the
executive
and
legislative
branches,
and
this
is
option
four
for
those
of
you.
Reading.
A
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this
Senator
Ganser.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I
appreciate
the
presentation
and
the
concerns
of
the
judicial
branch.
You
know
at
this
time
there's
a
couple
there's
several
things
you
know.
First
of
all,
is
the
inequity
between
branches
and
I
appreciate
the
table
that
was
created
because
we've
got
a
lot
of
Deputy
attorney
generals.
H
Who
will
have
a
pay
disparity
right,
so
we're
going
to
pay
one
branch
of
government
a
different
amount,
if
you're
in
that
that
Branch
versus
the
other
right,
so
we're
going
to
be
creating
gaps
in
pay
and
so
we're
actually
we'll
probably
end
up
competing
within
the
state
for
different
types
of
employees
with
similar
qualifications.
So
I'm
concerned
about
that
I'm
concerned
about
the
the
maximums
that
have
been
presented.
If
you
were
to
look
at
the
top
eight
positions
and
some
of
the
tables
that
I
think
are
on
page
13
through,
maybe
it's
17.
H
I
think
there
would
be
eight
positions
with
the
maximums
that
would
be
greater
than
the
executive
branch
directors
and
so
we're
talking
about
the
director
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Corrections.
You
can
kind
of
go
down
the
list
and
when
you
have
a
disparity
of
of
as
much
as
thirty
thousand
dollars
like
a
little
few
thousand
to
thirty
thousand
dollars
between
branches,
and
when
you
look
at
the
Executive
Branch
the
directors,
they
may
be
overseeing
hundreds
to
thousands
of
employees.
H
The
responsibilities
that
they
have
at
that
level
are
tremendous
and
to
have
that
pay,
Gap,
I
I
think
would
would
have
a
very
negative
impact
on
how
they
in
for
those
folks
who
hold
those
positions
and
I
think
it
would
help
hurt
morale
because
again
they
have
so
many
responsibilities.
And
then
you
know
kind
of
the
global
issues
concerning
the
colas
and
also
purrs
when
we
get
to
when
we
look
at
purrs,
and
things
like
that.
H
H
So
when
we
give
raises,
we
make
sure
that
we
can
continue
to
pay
those
when
we
have
a
downturn
and
in
2020
we
had
to
put
everybody
on
furloughs
right,
it's
not
so
long
ago
that
we
had
to
do
something
like
that,
because
we
were
in
a
case
where
the
economy
took
a
turn
for
the
worse.
So
anyway,
those
are
my
concerns,
and
so
my
option,
my
choice
would
be
option
three
again
until
we
work
out
globally.
H
What
we're
doing
with
some
of
these
issues
and
pay
raises,
but
also
I,
think
the
disparity
between
branches
for
pay
is.
It
is
an
issue,
especially
some
of
the
higher
levels.
It
is
for
all
the
the
attorneys,
but
also
when
I
looked
at
the
director
positions.
I
just
don't
think
we
should
leap
to
such
a
high
level
when
we
have
these
executive
directors
in
the
executive
branch
who
would
be
making
substantially
less.
Thank
you.
A
Okay!
Well
with
that,
then
oh
I'm,
sorry
assemblywoman,
Bacchus.
F
Thank
you
so
much
Madam,
chair
and
I
think.
Maybe
we
may
need
a
little
more
clarification
for
option.
Four
As
I
understood
it
would
be
our
LCB
fiscal
staff
would
work
with
the
Judiciary,
so
we
were
able
to
look
at
that.
We
were
making
sure
that
positions
were
lining
up
and
we
were
kind
of
making
everything
look
the
same
so
when
we're
comparing
it
like
I
was
able
to
look
at
your
multiple
charts
and
I.
Thank
you
so
much
for
all
the
work
you
spent
doing
these
charts
they're
very
comprehensive
and
I.
F
Just
looked
at
one
quickly,
because
I
compared
Apples
to
Apples,
like
staff
attorneys,
for
example,
at
the
Attorney
General's
office,
and
the
requested
increase
here
was
like
a
third
like
close
to
I.
Think
35
000
pay
increase
from
our
attorney
general's
office
to
our
Judiciary
and
that
kind
of
was
what
resonated
to
me
and
echoing
what
my
colleague
said,
but
I
thought
option.
Four
would
be
good
to
give
our
fiscal
staff
some
latitude
in
working
out.
What
we're
looking
at
when
we're
going
further
to
approve
the
budget.
G
For
the
the
committee's
information,
we
did
receive
some
additional
information
from
the
judicial
branch,
the
positions
that
they
have
identified
as
having
a
a
disproportionate
classification.
There
are
five
positions:
there's
an
auditor
guardianship,
investigator
judicial
auditor,
judicial
programs
manager
and
Chief
Information
Security
Officer.
So
it's
it's
five
positions
that
wouldn't
be
a
large
quantity
of
positions.
I
Yes,
just
briefly
I'm
going
to
try
not
to
muddy
this
up
anymore,
I
think
that,
with
respect
to
option
four
that
makes
sense
because,
as
I
understand
it,
some
of
those
Physicians.
You
can
correct
me
if
I
am
wrong,
but
some
of
those
positions
were
adjusted
in
the
interim
and
I
think
it
would
be
unfair
to
kind
of
take
them
back.
I
We
want
to
make
sure
they're
at
that
same
level
and
then
just
adjust
them
with
respect
to
colas
and
some
of
these
other
things
that
we
are
we
are
discussing
and
and
then
just
as
a
sort
of
a
side.
Note
to
that
I
think.
The
important
piece
of
this,
at
least
for
me,
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
very
hard
working
people
in
our
Judiciary
Branch.
They
do
very
important
work.
I
I
think
they
do
deserve
raises
obviously
they're
going
to
be
part
of
that
as
well.
I
think
the
the
tougher
piece
is
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
are
giving
raises.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Assemblyman
Yeager.
J
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
wanted
to
Echo
agree
with
the
comments
from
Senator
cannizzaro
that
I
think
in
this
case,
given
what
we're
doing
for
all
employees
number
option.
Number
four
makes
the
most
option
for
makes
the
most
sense
to
me
because
they're
getting
those
raises,
but
then
we
are
accommodating
some
of
those
positions
that
I
think
everyone
agrees
with
historically
underfunded
or
under
salaried.
If
that's
a
word
for
the
work
that
they
were
doing
so
I
support
option.
Four.
Thank
you.
Chair.
G
A
G
G
The
recommendation
includes
shifting
all
Court
administrative
assessment
revenue
and
judicial
branch
budgets
to
the
administrative
office
of
the
Courts
Court
administrative
assessment.
Revenues
also
known
as
AAS,
have
been
significantly
impacted
by
the
covid-19
pandemic,
as
well
as
the
incorporation
of
Marcy's
law
into
the
Nevada
constitution
in
2019,
which
requires
restitution
to
be
collected
on
many
charges.
First,
additionally,
assembly
Bill
116,
which
was
approved
by
the
2021
legislature,
changes
certain
traffic
offenses
from
Criminal
to
criminal
misdemeanor
to
civil
infractions.
G
Based
on
projected
projections
prepared
by
the
judicial
branch
in
November,
2022
Court
administrative
assessment
revenue
is
estimated
at
31.1
million
dollars
for
the
2023
biennium,
which
represents
a
13.5
million
or
30.2
percent
decrease
as
compared
to
court.
Administrative
assessment
Revenue
projected
for
that.
That
was
projected
for
the
2123
biennium,
the
fiscal
impact
of
assembly,
Bill
116
on
court.
Administrative
assessment
revenue
is
unknown
at
this
time
and
therefore
not
included
in
the
judicial
Branch's
projection
for
the
2023-25
biennium
pursuant
to
NRS
176059,
not
less
than
51
percent
of
Court
administrative
assessment.
G
And
not
more
than
49
percent
must
be
distributed
to
various
various
executive
branch
budgets
to
the
extent
of
legislative
authorization.
Any
Court
administrative
assessments
not
distributed
to
the
judicial
or
and
executive
branch
budgets
must
be
transferred
to
the
uncommitted
balance
of
the
state
general
fund.
G
The
executive
branch.
Excuse
me:
the
executive
budget
includes
total
Court
administrative
assessment
revenues
of
11.5
million
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
11.8
million
in
2025.
In
the
administrative
office
of
the
Court's
budget,
the
governor's
finance
office
seeks
to
deposit
all
Court
administrative
assessments
collected
directly
into
the
general
fund
through
Senate
Bill
448,
which
has
been
referred
to
the
senate
committee
on
finance.
G
The
executive
budget
includes
enhancements
in
executive
branch
budgets
to
eliminate
all
Court
administrative
assessment
revenue
and
instead
support
the
budgets
with
direct
Appropriations
from
the
state
general
fund,
the
judicial
branch
budgets,
which
do
include
the
11.5
million
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
11.8
million
in
2025.
G
G
At
the
top
of
page
nine
of
your
work
session
document,
there
are
two
court
cases
that
are
cited:
Board
of
County
Commissioners
versus
white
and
McKay
versus
city
of
Las
Vegas.
That
are
that.
That
statement
is
related
to
on
page
9
of
your
work
session
document.
There
is
a
decision
box
decisions
to
be
made
by
the
Committees
at
closing,
whether
to
approve
10.8
million
dollars
in
general
fund
Appropriations
over
the
2023-25
biennium
to
reduce
the
Court's
dependency
on
court.
G
Administrative
assessment
Revenue,
as
recommended
by
the
judicial
branch,
or
whether
to
replace
all
Court
administrative
assessment
revenues
with
general
fund
appropriation
in
judicial
branch
budgets.
Consistent
with
the
governor's
recommendation
for
the
executive
branch
budgets.
And
if
it
is
determined
that
all
Court
administrative
assessments
currently
allocated
to
the
judicial
branch
should
be
replaced
with
general
fund
Appropriations.
Whether
to
replace
the
remaining
Court
administrative
assessments
of
11.5
million
in
fiscal
year.
2024
and
11.8
million
in
fiscal
year.
2025
in
the
administrative
office
that
the
courts
with
commensurate
general
fund
Appropriations.
E
Madam
chair
in
hearing
the
conversation
during
the
actual
hearing
we
had
and
knowing
the
direction
that
we
as
a
country
are
growing
I,
think
the
option
b
to
replace
all
the
court
administrative
assessment
revenues
with
general
fund
Appropriations
in
the
judicial
branch
budgets,
consistent
with
the
governor's
recommendation
for
the
executive
branch,
and
we
should
also
go
with
determine
that
all
Court
administrative
assessments
currently
allocated
to
the
judicial
branch
should
be
replaced
with
general
fund
Appropriations.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
Monroe,
Moreno,
Senator,
Ganser,.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
you
know,
I,
don't
have
concerns
about
the
amount
of
money
that
we're
talking
about,
but
it's
the
sources
of
money
and
I
and
there
are
two
courts
cases
that
are
cited,
that
funds
have
to
be
primarily
for
the
benefit
of
the
court
system,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
that
I
don't
want
us
to
set
ourselves
up
for
another
Court
challenge
because
we're
doing
this.
H
So
if
there's
a
way
to
balance
the
funds,
given
the
the
changes
in
the
assessments
and
I,
guess:
I,
don't
exactly
know
what
those
numbers
are
because
I
don't
think
those
were
specifically
presented
here
and
I
think
we
had
a
5149
percent
split
before
to
make
sure
we
did
that.
So
it's
not
really
about
how
much
money
but
to
make
sure
and
I
did
I
I
heard
the
testimony
that
if
we
do
all
of
it,
then
maybe
we're
okay,
but
I.
H
J
Thank
you
so
much
Madam,
chair,
I,
just
did
want
to
note
in
in
response
to
my
colleagues
concerns
I
think
we
do
have
a
bill.
Senate
Bill
448
working
through
the
process
that
I
think
will
take
care.
Hopefully
we'll
take
care
of
that
concern
about
the
court
cases
and
how
the
assessments
can
be
used
and
I
think
we
heard
at
least
some
testimony
during
the
hearing
that
representatives
of
the
Court
believe
that
that
might
solve
the
problem.
J
So
I
am
in
favor
of
just
not
funding
with
administrative
assessment
fees
and
I
feel
obligated
to
again
mention
former
Justice
Hardesty,
who
has
been
really
fighting
for
this
issue
as
long
as
I
can
remember
in
this
building,
I
think
the
very
first
time
I
walked
in
the
building.
He
pulled
me
aside
and
said
this
is
a
really
bad
way
to
fund
the
courts,
and
it's
taken
I,
guess
10
plus
years
to
get
to
this
point
but
I
think
fiscally.
J
It
really
makes
sense,
and
certainly
in
the
times
when
we've
had
economic
downturns
for
the
court
to
have
to
come
back
because
of
declining
administrative
assessment
fees,
so
I'm
fully
supportive
of
of
just
taking
that
funding
source
away
entirely
putting
it
in
the
general
fund
and
funding
through
funding
the
courts
through
the
general
fund
instead
of
administrative
assessments.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
H
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
Stephanie
day,
fiscal
analysis
division
on
page
nine
of
your
work
session
document
is
the
general
fundry
versions.
The
judicial
branch
submitted
Senate
Bill
58,
seeking
to
create
the
judicial
fund
and
provide
that
money
in
the
fund
does
not
revert
to
the
general
fund
at
the
end
of
a
fiscal
year
which
seeks
to
retain
all
general
fund
remaining
in
the
judicial
branch
budgets
at
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
G
And
eliminate
the
requirement
that
a
general
fund
that
general
fund
Appropriations
be
reduced
by
the
amount
of
Court
administrative
assessment
Revenue
distributed
to
the
judicial
branch
budgets
based
on
a
fiscal
note
submitted
by
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts.
There
would
not
be
a
fiscal
impact
to
the
judicial
branch,
since
the
judicial
fund
contemplated
in
the
legislation
would
be
funded
through
savings
achieved
in
the
judicial
branch
out
of
Appropriations
and
applicable
authorizations
made
at
the
beginning
of
each
biennium.
G
Fiscal
staff.
Notes
that
while
there
may
not
be
a
fiscal
impact
to
the
judicial
branch,
there
would
be
a
fiscal
impact
to
the
general
fund.
Since
funds
remaining
in
judicial
branch
budgets
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
of
a
fiscal
year
would
not
would
no
longer
revert
to
the
general
fund
and
general
fund.
Appropriations
would
no
longer
be
reduced
by
the
amount
of
Court
administrative
assessment
Revenue
distributed
to
the
judicial
branch
which,
if
the
legislation
changes
did
go
through,
those
administrative
assessments
would
no
longer
be
deposited
or
distributed
to
those
judicial
branch
budgets.
G
So
that
would
go
away
if
the
Committees
wish
to
replace
the
court.
Administrative
assessment
Revenue
with
general
fund
Appropriations
in
judicial
branch
budgets,
consistent
with
the
governor's
recommendation
for
the
executive
branch
budgets,
the
judicial
branch
budgets
would
be
funded
through
general
fund.
Appropriations
fiscal
staff
would
note
that
if
the
judicial
branch
budgets
are
funded
with
general
fund
Appropriations,
the
budget
should
no
longer
maintain
operating
Reserve
categories
currently
related
to
court.
G
Administrative
assessments
and
any
funds
remaining
at
the
end
of
a
fiscal
year
should
revert
to
the
general
fund
unless
Senate,
Bill,
58
or
other
enabling
legislation
is
adopted.
That
allows
the
judicial
branch
to
retain
any
remaining
funds.
The
executive
budget
includes
Reserves
at
the
end
of
the
23-25
biennium
related
to
court,
administrative
assessments
of
2.1
million
dollars
in
the
administrative
office
of
the
Court's
budget
and
2.2
million
dollars
in
the
specialty
Court
budget.
G
In
response
to
questions
posed
at
the
legislative
commission's
budget
subcommittee
hearing
on
February,
2nd
2023,
the
judicial
branch
stated
that
reversions
to
the
general
fund
from
judicial
branch
budgets
have
totaled
13
million
dollars
from
fiscal
year
2017
through
fiscal
year
2022.,
as
displayed
in
the
table
on
page
10
of
the
13
million
dollars,
reverted
to
the
general
fund.
From
fiscal
year
2017
through
2022,
a
significant
portion
of
the
reversions
5.5
million,
came
from
the
state
judicial
elected
officials
budget.
G
The
state
judicial
elect
official
elected
officials
budget
is
supported
entirely
with
general
fund
Appropriations
that
fund
the
salaries
and
Fringe
benefit
costs
of
the
justices
of
the
Supreme
Court
judges
of
the
court
of
appeals
and
judges
of
The
District
Court.
There
are
currently
seven
justices
of
the
Supreme
Court
three
judges
of
the
court
of
appeals
and
90
District
Court
judges,
the
budget
also
funds
judicial
selection
for
any
judicially
elected
or
appointed
vacancy
that
occurs
before
the
expiration
of
any
term
of
office
in
the
Supreme
Court
court
of
appeals
or
among
District
Court
judges.
G
If
the
Committees
wish
to
approve
the
judicial
Branch's
request,
do
not
revert
General
funds
remaining
at
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
The
Committees
may
wish
to
consider
excluding
the
state
judicial
elected
officials
budget,
since
it
was
primarily
since
it
primarily
funds
costs
related
to
the
salaries
and
benefits
of
judicial
elected
officials.
G
Administrative
assessments
of
2.1
million
over
the
million
dollars.
Excuse
me
over
the
2023-25
biennium
in
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
and
2.2
million
over
the
2023-25
biennium
and
the
specialty
Court,
with
commensurate
reductions
and
general
fund
Appropriations
or
the
other
option,
whether
to
allow
the
judicial
branch
to
retain
reserves
currently
related
to
court.
Administrative
assessments
of
2.1
million
dollars
over
the
2023-25
biennium
and
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
and
2.2
million
dollars
over
the
2023-25
biennium
in
the
specialty.
Court.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I,
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you've
done
to
bring
this
document
together.
But
is
there
a
way
that
I
know
I'm
asking
a
lot
to
bring
to
this,
to
our
closing,
to
provide
flexibility
in
working
with
the
judicial
branch
for
not
retaining
the
funds
but
working
with
them
for
another
option
that
gives
them
the
flexibility
for
the
needs
of
the
courts?
Is
that
a
possibility.
G
E
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so,
in
in
this
option,
for
the
flexibility
is
there
going
to
be
the
because
that
wasn't
SB
right
58
to
to
then
in
that
flexibility?
Once
this
I
don't
know,
I
guess
that
bill
is
coming
to
finance
to
strike
out
that
language
of
the
reversion
is
that
a
contemplated
as
one
of
the
solutions
to
strike
out
the
reversion
language
in
sb58
after
fiscal
works,
with
the
judicial
branch
on
flexibility
of
funds.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Wayne,
Thorley
for
the
record,
LCB
fiscal
analysis,
division,
Senate,
Bill
58,
which
is
currently
in
Senate
finance
and
has
not
received
a
hearing
yet
would
create
section.
One
would
create
a
Judicial
fund
as
a
special
Revenue
fund
for
the
use
of
the
judicial
Department
of
the
state
government.
K
Money
appropriated
by
the
legislature
from
the
state,
general
fund
or
other
money
authorized
for
expenditure
by
the
legislature
would
go
into
the
judicial
fund,
and
then
money
remaining
in
the
judicial
fund
at
the
end
of
any
fiscal
year
would
not
revert
to
the
general
fund,
but
would
instead
be
retained
in
the
judicial
fund
and
roll
forward
to
subsequent
fiscal
years
for
use
by
the
courts.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
just
to
clarify
what
I'm
asking
so
I
would
like
for
you
to
work
with
the
judicial
branch
to
have
some
flexibility
with
the
transfer
of
the
funds
between
budget
years,
but
they
would
have
to
come
back
to
IFC
with
approval
I
I
I.
Don't
want
that
I!
Don't
want
the
friends
not
to
be
reverted
and
stay
in
a
fund.
There.
I
want
them
to
come
back
to
IFC
with
approvals,
but
I
want
them
to
have
flexibility,
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
would
be
worded.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Through
you,
too
assembly,
woman,
Monroe
and
Moreno,
yes,
fiscal
staff
could
will
absolutely
bring
some
options
back
at
closing
and
just
for
clarification,
it
sounds
like
whether
to
allow
the
judicial
branch
to
retain
funds
remaining
in
judicial
branch
budgets
at
the
end
of
fiscal
year
can
of
each
fiscal
year
contingent
upon
approval
of
Senate,
Bill
58
or
in
other
other,
enabling
legislation.
Excuse
me
that
would
be
a
yes
or
no
question,
so
it
with
the
additional
flexibility.
Then
that
would
be
a
no
me.
A
And
thank
you
for
all
your
time
and
expertise
and
with
that
we
will
go
to
sub
committee
reports.
Subcommittee
reports
are
prepared
to
inform
the
full
subcomm
the
full
money
committees
on
the
closing
recommendations
of
various
budget
committees
and
so
we'll
follow
the
order
on
the
agenda
and
we'll
begin
with
the
Department
of
Taxation,
so
Ms
Morris.
M
M
The
joint
subcommittee
on
General
government
completed
its
review
of
the
budget
for
the
Department
of
Taxation.
The
closing
recommendations
of
the
subcommittee
result
in
a
general
fund
decrease
of
1469
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2023-25
biennium.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
following
closing
actions
for
the
Department
of
Taxation
budget
account
2361.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
budget
amendment
a
2312-72361
to
continue
the
replacement
of
the
Department's
unified
tax
system
funded
with
Federal
American
Rescue
plan
act,
coronavirus,
State,
fiscal
recovery,
funds
of
18
million
in
fiscal
2024
and
21.6
million
dollars
in
fiscal
2025..
M
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I'll
accept.
Let's
see,
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno.
A
Thank
you
and
I'll
get
a
second
from
senator
canizarro,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Oh
any
sorry,
any
discussion,
I
didn't
see
any
hands
go
up.
Thank
you
all
those
opposed.
Thank
you
very
much
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
with
that
Ms
Ryan.
It's
a
little
bit
like
musical
chairs
here
hurry
before
somebody
else
gets
your
seat.
N
N
So
the
joint
subcommittee
on
K-12
higher
education
CIP
has
completed
its
review
of
the
state
public
charter
school
Authority
budgets
for
the
2023-25
biennium.
The
following
describes
the
more
significant
recommendations
of
the
subcommittee,
so
state
public
charter
school
Authority
budget
account
101
2711.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
to
add
one
new
business
process.
Analyst
position,
one
new
education,
program's
professional
position,
one
new
grants
and
projects;
analyst
position:
three
new
management,
analyst
positions
and
Associated
operating
and
Equipment
expenditures
funded
with
Reserve
reductions
of
1.1
million
over
the
2023-25
biennium.
N
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
all
other
closing
items
with
technical
adjustments
noted
by
fiscal
staff
and
authorized
other
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
The
next
budget,
the
public
charter
school
loan
program
budget,
account
101
2708.
The
subcommittee
did
not
recommend
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
for
Reserve
reductions
of
200
000
in
each
year
of
the
2023-25
biennium
to
provide
loans
to
Charter
Schools
through
the
state
public
charter
school
loan
program.
N
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
questions.
Discussion
I'll,
accept
a
motion
so
moved
by
assemblywoman,
Monroe
Moreno.
Second,
by
Senator
kenazaro
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
this
morning
and
now
we
will
go
to
Ms
Nichols,
oh
Mr,
Nichols,
I'm,
sorry,
I,
don't
know
why
I
said
that,
as
you
were
walking
up,
there's
and-
and
you
know
my
eyes-
aren't
just
that
working
that
well.
O
O
The
subcommittee
has
completed
its
review
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
director's
office
and
has
made
the
following
recommendations
for
the
director's
office:
2023-25
biennial
budgets.
The
subcommittee's
closing
recommendations
resulted
in
no
change
to
general
fund
Appropriations.
The
following
comments
describe
the
more
significant
recommendations
of
the
joint
subcommittee
for
the
fund
for
resilient
Nevada.
O
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
opioid
settlement
fund
Reserve
reductions
of
6.2
million
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
6
million
in
fiscal
year,
2025
to
support
allocations
to
various
public
and
private
entities
to
address
the
impact
of
opioid
and
other
substance
use
disorders
in
the
state.
This
recommendation
does
not
include
unallocated
authority
of
287
315
dollars
in
fiscal
year
24.
O
and
558
400
in
fiscal
year
25
that
was
originally
included
in
the
governor's
recommended
budget
Additionally.
The
subcommittee
directed
The
Agency
to
approach
the
interim
finance
committee
during
the
2023-24
interim
for
any
funding
requests
that
were
not
included
in
the
spending
plan.
In
the
governor's
recommended
budget
for
the
director's
office
administration
budget,
the
subcommittee
recommended
approving
one-time
general
fund
appropriations
of
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
each
year
of
the
2023-25
biennium
for
contract
staff
to
provide
training
and
support
for
high-level
fiscal
Administration.
O
As
recommended
by
the
governor
Additionally,
the
subcommittee
recommended
approving
the
governor's
recommendation
for
transfers
of
healthy
Nevada
funds,
totaling
a
182
844
000
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
186
510
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
five
for
two
contracts:
staff
to
support
the
office
of
minority
health
and
equity
for
the
grants
management
unit
budget.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommended
spending
plan
for
healthy
Nevada
funds
in
this
budget,
totaling
13.6
million
over
the
2325
biennium
for
allocations
to
sub-grantees
to
align
the
funding
and
expenditures
with
the
spending
plan
the
sub
excuse
me.
O
Regarding
the
data
analytics
budget,
the
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
one
new
biostatistician
position
to
support
the
Nevada
988
Behavioral
Health
crises.
Response
program
costs
associated
with
this
position
would
be
funded
through
transfers
of
mobile
communication
surcharge
revenues,
totaling
84
983
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
24.
O
and
112
794
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
25
from
the
division
of
public
and
Behavioral
Health
crisis
response
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
Given
the
companion
decision
unit
effectuating,
this
transfer
was
not
included
in
the
governor's
recommended
budget.
The
subcommittee
additionally
recommended
approval
of
this
position
contingent
upon
the
approval
of
budget
amendment
a23067-3165
in
the
crisis
response
budget,
which
would
add
that
transfer
funds
to
support
the
biosis
biostatistician
position
in
this
budget
Additionally.
O
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
one
new
biostatistician
position
to
support
the
Statewide
opioid
epidemic
response,
funded
with
the
transfer
of
opioid
settlement
revenues,
totaling
84
983
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
24
and
112
794
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
five
from
the
fund
for
resilient
Nevada,
inclusive
of
a
technical
adjustment
to
revise
the
position
start
date
to
October
1st
of
2023..
O
Finally,
the
subcommittee
recommended
closing
the
following:
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
director's
office
budgets,
as
recommended
in
the
executive
budget,
with
either
technical
or
no
adjustments.
Those
include
the
patient
protection
Commission.
The
developmental
disabilities
budget,
the
grief,
support
trust
account
the
individuals
with
disabilities,
education,
part
C
budget
and
the
family
planning
budget
for
All
budgets.
The
subcommittee
also
recommended
approving
technical
adjustments,
as
noted
by
staff
and
authorized
fiscal
staff
to
make
other
technical
adjustments
to
the
DHHS
director's
office
budgets
as
needed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
any
comments.
Questions
I'll
accept
a
motion.
I'm
still
moved
by
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno
second,
by
Senator
kenazaro.
Any
questions
comments
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
Nichols
and
if
you
have
a
sister,
tell
Ms
Nichols.
Thank
you
very
much
as
well.
P
A
A
Q
Would
have
been
nice
I
wore
my
keep
Tahoe
blue
tie
on
today
to
Mark
the
occasion
so
good
morning,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
Committees
Justin
Luna
for
the
record
fiscal
analysis
division
today,
I
will
be
presenting
the
joint
subcommittee
on
Public
Safety,
natural
resources
and
transportation.
Closing
report
for
the
Tahoe
Regional
planning
agency,
the
joint
subcommittee
on
Public
Safety,
natural
resources
and
transportation
completed
its
review
of
the
budget
for
the
Tahoe
Regional
planning
agency,
trpa
FMA
for
the
2023-25
biennium.
Q
The
closing
recommendations
of
the
subcommittee
result
in
an
increase
in
general
fund
appropriations
of
1.2
million
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
1.3
million
in
fiscal
year
2025.
when
compared
to
the
recommendations
in
the
executive
budget.
As
a
note,
pursuant
to
Nevada
revised
statutes,
NRS
353.246,
the
trpa
is
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
the
state
budget
Act
and
submits
its
proposed
budget
directly
to
the
legislature.
Therefore,
the
closing
actions
reflect
the
agency's
requested
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
subcommittee
and
differ
from
the
recommendation
of
Base
budget
only
funding
in
the
executive
budget.
Q
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
following
closing
closing
actions:
Tahoe
Regional
planning
agency,
101
4204.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
general
fund
appropriations
of
261
310
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
376
286
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
2025
to
fund
Nevada's,
share
of
annual
salary
increases
for
trpa
staff
of
10
percent
in
fiscal
year
2024,
and
an
additional
four
percent
in
fiscal
year.
2025.
Q
Finally,
the
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
general
fund
appropriations
of
330
000
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
346
500
in
fiscal
year,
2025
to
fund
a
33
share
of
the
otherwise
unallocable
portion
of
the
administrative
costs
of
the
Tahoe
transportation
district.
In
addition,
the
subcommittee
provided
direction
that
the
funding
to
support
the
Tahoe
transportation
district
should
be
considered
one
time
for
the
2023-25
biennium
and
indicated
a
preference
for
similar
support
to
be
included
in
the
base
budget
request
of
the
trpa
for
consideration
in
future
future
biennial
budgets.
Q
A
R
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
good
morning
for
the
record:
Alex
Hearts
fiscal
analysis,
division.
The
joint
subcommittee
on
Public
Safety,
natural
resources
and
transportation
completed
its
review
of
the
Department
of
Veterans
Services
budgets
for
the
23-25
biennium.
The
following
comments
describe
the
more
significant
recommendations
of
the
joint
subcommittee
for
the
Office
of
Veterans
Services
budget
account
2560.
R
The
additional
funding
is
projected
to
allow
the
adoptive
at
dental
program
to
serve
up
to
200
veterans
in
fiscal
year,
2024
and
250
veterans
in
fiscal
year
2025.
in
recommending
The
increased
funding.
The
committee
also
recommended
that
the
department
and
the
adoptive
at
dental
program
be
required
to
submit
an
annual
report
on
or
before
September
30th
of
each
year
of
the
on
the
operation
of
the
program
to
include
but
not
be
limited
to.
The
number
of
veterans
served.
R
The
county
of
residents
of
those
veterans
and
a
line
item
breakdown
are
the
program
expenditures
supported
by
the
general
fund.
Appropriations
pertaining
to
the
Northern
Nevada
Veterans
Home
account
budget
count
2569.
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
general
fund
appropriations
of
120
666
dollars
over
the
2023-25
biennium
to
fund
one
new
veterans,
service
officer
position
and
Associated
operating
costs,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
The
new
position
is
to
be
located
at
the
Northern
Nevada
state
veterans,
home
located
in
Sparks
and
as
part
of
the
Department's
contractual
obligation
with
the
homes
operator.
R
Lastly,
the
subcommittee
recommended
Authority
for
fiscal
staff
to
make
necessary
technical
adjustments
and
recommended
closing
the
following:
Department
of
Veterans
Services
budget,
as
included
in
the
executive
budget,
with
a
technical
adjustment
depending
upon
the
action
of
the
interim
finance
committee
at
its
April
6
2023
meeting
and
I'll
just
remind
you
that
was
the
installation
of
the
backflow
prevention
devices
that
they
submitted
the
work
program
to
do
in
this
fiscal
year
that
pertains
to
Southern
Nevada
Veterans
Home
account
budget
2561..
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
That
concludes
my
report.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
any
comments,
questions
seeing
none
I'll
accept
a
motion.
Assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno
moved
to
approve
second
by
senator
canizarro
in
a
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed,
say,
nay,
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
we'll
move
into
our
final
agenda
item
public
comment,
and
so
we'll
start
here
in
Carson.
City
do
I.
Have
anybody
Las,
Vegas
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone?
Bps
will
go
to
the
phone
lines.
H
A
Community
members
that
completes
our
business,
thank
you
to
everyone
for
joining
us
this
morning.
Go
out,
enjoy
the
beautiful
day
and
we'll
see
you
on
Monday.
Thank
you.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.