[0:08] >> I think what we will do is we will

[0:12] go ahead and call this meeting to order.

[0:15] If Mr. clerk, if you could take

[0:18] rollcall, please?

[0:19] >> Roll Call: Brooks, here. Cancela,

[0:38] here. Denis, here. Goicoechea, here.

[0:47] Kieckhefer, here. Parks, here.

[1:05] Settelmeyer, Settelmeyer, here.

[1:31] Woodhouse, here. Benitez-Thompson,

[1:37] here. Frierson, here. Leavitt, here.

[1:55] Jauregui, here. Kremer, here.

[2:04] Monroe-Moreno, here. Neal, here.

[2:10] Spiegel, here. Munk, here. Swank,

[2:22] here. Backus, present. Titus, here.

[2:35] Wheeler, here. Carlton, here.

[2:44] >> Thank you, all very much. I

[2:48] believe we have everyone present.. So

[2:51] with that I will go ahead and began. The

[2:55] first item B will be public comment.

[2:58] As publish on the agenda public

[3:03] comment may be made by mail, fax or

[3:04] calling into the number designated and

[3:06] following the sign interactions on the

[3:16] agenda. Due to time constraints public

[3:23] him and will be limited to two minutes

[3:24] per speaker and I will take up to a

[3:25] proximally 45 minutes of public comment

[3:26] at the beginning of the meetings. And

[3:27] an additional opportunity to make

[3:28] public comment will be available at the

[3:29] end of the meeting. For all those

[3:38] making public comment or testifying

[3:39] before the committee today please state

[3:40] your name and organization you are at

[3:41] the beginning of your testimony. Please

[3:42] come also restate your name in response

[3:43] to any questions that may be asked of

[3:44] your providing testimony to the

[3:45] committee. For all participating in for

[3:46] today's virtual ISE meeting please

[3:47] remember to mute your microphone when

[3:48] you are not speaking. LNV's broadcast

[3:51] production services staff who has been

[3:52] fantastic through this whole thing will

[3:57] be interacting with those making public

[3:58] comment and providing testimony to

[3:59] facilitate, participation in the

[4:02] meeting. Staff and our broadcasting

[4:03] production services will add the callers

[4:09] and the testifier as we move

[4:10] through the meeting. So with that if I

[4:12] could be had and ask our broadcast and

[4:16] production staff to please add the

[4:17] first color under public comment.

[4:22] >> Color with the last three, 525.

[4:25] Please, state and spell your name for

[4:27] the record. You are ready. Hello,

[4:37] caller with a last three of 525, you

[4:43] are ready. I apologize Mme. Chair.That

[4:55] was the only color on the line for

[4:56] public comment and I'm not hearing

[4:57] anything from the line.

[5:00] >> Okay. All right. Then I think we

[5:02] will go ahead and move forward,

[5:06] committee. So, as we move forward,

[5:15] since this meeting is being conducted

[5:18] virtually our Senate fiscal analyst Mr.

[5:21] - - will assist us in conducting

[5:22] rollcall votes for each item requiring

[5:29] action to make sure the vote is

[5:30] recorded correctly. Given the virtual

[5:31] environment is difficult to tell who is

[5:32] present at the time of the vote.

[5:38] Please respond yes or no and when your

[5:39] name is called on a vote as it can be

[5:40] difficult to distinguish between the

[5:41] yeas and nays. So that members I

[5:44] believe we can move on to item C on our

[5:49] agenda. Did I hear someone join? Okay,

[5:58] moving forward. We will go ahead and

[6:02] start with item C-one. So I am C-one

[6:15] office of the Gov. work program. If we

[6:21] would go ahead and bring up the person

[6:22] testifying on this item, please?

[6:33] >> Can you hear us?

[6:36] >> Ms. Brown?

[6:40] >> Yes. Good morning.

[6:42] >> Good morning.

[6:43] >> This is Susan Brown and with me

[6:48] today of Michelle White governors staff

[6:52] >> Good morning

[6:53] >> Good morning.

[6:54] >> Thank you Mme. Chair and

[7:01] councilmembers for the record this is

[7:02] Michelle White governors staff. The

[7:05] request before you today transfers

[7:08] 51,004 and $42 in CARES Actt funds to

[7:12] the governor's office to fund to

[7:16] positions to provide statewide

[7:19] coordination supportive of the states

[7:20] effort in preparing sustaining and

[7:24] expanding the response to the COVID 19

[7:26] pandemic. This is a federally supported

[7:28] state managed and locally executed

[7:33] effort and outlined in the governor's

[7:35] plan. In addition, it will work with

[7:37] federal state and local partners to

[7:41] identify and coordinate funds that the

[7:42] state - - that the benefits the state

[7:47] by Nina be placed in the state account.

[7:51] >> Okay. Thank you very much Ms.

[7:52] White. If you could elaborate on the

[7:56] intended responsibilities of these

[7:59] positions? And the level of pay? We

[8:02] realize the governor's office does get

[8:06] their own amount and then they decide

[8:08] how they will pay people. We understand

[8:11] the process, but we would still like to

[8:18] know exactly with the responsibilities

[8:19] and pay levels will be as we move

[8:20] forward with this?

[8:25] >> Sure. All go through the response

[8:26] was then kick it over to director Brown

[8:27] to talk about the pay. So again there's

[8:31] two positions to CARES Act funding,

[8:32] temper a positions. And the associated

[8:34] operating costs and coordinating the

[8:42] state's response to COVID 19 pandemic.

[8:43] The first position is for a COVID 19

[8:44] statewide response director. This

[8:47] person we tasked with work with federal

[8:48] state and local partners in coordinated

[8:51] COVID 19 contact tracing, testing,

[8:54] coordination of resources part about

[9:06] rebut robust and ongoing effort and

[9:07] expansion of work across the state to

[9:08] address the public health crisis. In

[9:09] addition to other response efforts they

[9:10] will work with all agencies and daily

[9:11] communication with specifically with

[9:12] the agencies like state HHS, divert

[9:20] division of emergency management and

[9:21] Nevada national government within the

[9:22] agencies at the forefront of leading

[9:25] this effort. The second position is the

[9:26] COVID 19 administrator. This person

[9:29] will be tasked with identifying all

[9:31] federal funding related to the pandemic

[9:34] and being the liaison from the

[9:37] governor's office. Again work with the

[9:38] governor's finance office, with

[9:41] legislative leadership, and

[9:45] legislature, with our agencies and

[9:46] federal and local partners to make sure

[9:48] that we are utilizing those funds to

[9:53] the best ways possible to address the

[9:56] crisis both in the immediate and

[10:01] long-term.

[10:02] >> Okay. And these two positions, Ms.

[10:03] White, you have confirmed the cost of

[10:06] these will be supported through the

[10:11] coronavirus act, correct? I never know

[10:16] what acronym to use with this one.

[10:21] >> A lot of acronyms. Correct,

[10:26] Susan if you want to go into the

[10:27] funding?

[10:28] >> Thank you. He was Susan Brown for

[10:31] the record. Where using the coronavirus

[10:32] funds at directly later in these

[10:34] possessions will be directly related

[10:37] to working to COVID 19 issues will make

[10:40] him eligible for payment from this

[10:43] account.

[10:44] >> All right. Thank you. So committee

[10:52] members, any questions from any of the

[10:53] committee members at this point on this

[10:54] item? Mr. Wheeler.

[10:59] >> Thank you Mme. Chair I appreciate

[11:03] it. I'm just wondering, realize these

[11:04] are COVID 19 funds coming from the

[11:06] federal government not going to affect

[11:07] our budget so much but no matter where

[11:14] the funds come from, they still are tax

[11:15] money. Is there anyone who is

[11:16] basically, furloughed right now within

[11:20] our government we can take and move

[11:21] over there and maybe remove some of

[11:30] those funds? Obviously, were looking

[11:31] from funds anywhere we can get them

[11:32] from now. I'm just wondering if we can

[11:33] take someone from a different

[11:34] department that's currently not

[11:35] working, for instance and move them

[11:37] into these positions and reduce that

[11:39] other position? Thank you for your

[11:40] time.

[11:44] >> Thank you. Michelle White for the

[11:48] record. We have identified someone for

[11:51] the position the statewide response

[11:55] director who was on loan at the

[11:59] beginning of this crisis and has been

[12:00] helping to manage the overall effort

[12:02] and wanted to assistedto formalize

[12:05] Errol and expand that role due to the

[12:08] urgent need. But we will certainly

[12:09] continue looking for positions that

[12:14] are available throughout the state

[12:15] government as we explore filling the

[12:19] position.

[12:26] >> Other questions? Sen. Goicoechea

[12:38] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I'm look at

[12:39] these numbers and 51,000 this is just

[12:40] going to carry us until June 30 Isom

[12:42] and then we looking for another

[12:47] appropriation? 51,000 is not a lot of

[12:48] money given a new position so, what is

[12:52] the timeframe? I'm just assuming we

[12:53] are going until June 30.

[12:56] >> That is correct. The funds you

[13:00] are[inaudible] for the rest of the

[13:03] fiscal year annual scene another work

[13:04] for him coming forward probably

[13:08] [inaudible] positions. For another six

[13:11] months.

[13:12] >> Thank you for the clarification.

[13:14] >> Are there any other questions from

[13:19] any other members at the moment?

[13:33] >> Mme. Chair this is Sen. Brooks

[13:40] >> Yes. Sen.

[13:41] >> I will be abstaining from this vote

[13:42] because it creates a positions in the

[13:43] assembly member's office

[13:46] >> Okay. Thank you, Sen. Thank you,

[13:54] Sen. Appreciate that. So if there's no

[13:55] other questions from any committee

[13:56] members come I believe we can go ahead

[13:57] and process at this time with this item.

[14:03] Hearing or seeing no objections I will

[14:04] take a motion to approve this item from

[14:06] Sen. Woodhouse and second from Ms.

[14:14] Benitez-Thompson. Any questions or

[14:15] comments on the motion? Hearing none,

[14:20] please call the role. Remember,

[14:24] committee members just say yes or no.

[14:26] Thank you.

[14:27] >> Roll Call Vote: Benitez-Thompson,

[14:34] aye. Frierson, aye. Leavitt,, aye.

[14:46] Jauregui, aye. Kremer, aye.

[14:56] Monroe-Moreno, aye. Neal, aye. Spiegel

[15:05] , aye. Munk, aye. Swank, aye.

[15:17] Backus, aye. Titus, aye. Wheeler,

[15:29] aye. Carlton, aye.

[15:33] >> Earlier wei Sen. Brooks who is

[15:36] abstaining from the vvote. All indicate

[15:42] him as an abstention

[15:43] >> Roll Call Vote: Cancela, aye.

[15:47] Denis, aye. Goicoechea, aye.

[15:58] Kieckhefer, aye. Parks, aye.

[16:06] Settelmeyer,, aye. Woodhouse, aye.

[16:11] >> The motion passes.

[16:18] >> Be much. We will go ahead and moved

[16:22] to item, number two, Department of

[16:26] Health and Human Services public

[16:27] behavioral health communicable diseases

[16:31] . I believe this has to do with the

[16:32] Ryan White HIV AIDS program that I

[16:33] don't believe staff had any questions

[16:36] or concerns about this. Did we have

[16:41] someone here to testify on this item?

[16:58] >> Mme. Chair this is Jeff from

[17:02] broadcast productions. I see Julia --

[17:05] Please, unmute your microphone.

[17:10] >> This is Julia - - can you hear me

[17:14] okay?

[17:16] >> Yes. We have you now, thanks.

[17:17] >> Good morning everybody. For the

[17:21] record me my name is Julie p deputy

[17:24] ministers for the behavioral health.

[17:27] I'm joined remotely by our service

[17:31] program manager for HIV program and

[17:33] Christina Hardwick who serves as our

[17:35] chief financial officer for the

[17:38] division. To date we are requesting

[17:39] authority for the Ryan White part B

[17:42] COVID 19 response grant. It's received

[17:45] from the Department of health and human

[17:50] services health resources and services

[17:51] administration. This noticeable what

[17:52] provides one time funding to support

[17:54] preventing caring for and responding to

[17:57] COVID 19 as outlined in the coronavirus

[18:01] eight release and economic security

[18:02] act or CARES Act. First it authorize

[18:05] the recipient to incur pre-award costs

[18:07] to be effective date at the federal

[18:09] award dating back January 20, 2020.

[18:12] This grant does not cover match or

[18:16] maintenance of effort required. The

[18:17] Ryan White CARES Act is broken up into

[18:19] five different programs or parts. Today

[18:24] we are looking at part B. Part B rental

[18:26] provides two territories to improve

[18:28] health equity for those living with

[18:34] HIV on AIDS. Sprint provides medication

[18:35] and services to eligible Nevada's

[18:36] living with HIV and AIDS. The assistant

[18:41] program also known as [inaudible] is

[18:42] another program under part B the

[18:43] provides approved medication to people

[18:44] living with HIV who are either uninsured

[18:48] or underinsured. Nevada's formulary is

[18:51] geared towards optimum patient care

[19:01] medications maintained in a

[19:02] coordination with and by the

[19:03] recommendation of our medical advisory

[19:04] committee. This award will give Ryan

[19:05] White HIV AIDS recipients the

[19:08] flexibility to meet the evolving needs

[19:09] in their respective communities

[19:10] including expanding operational hours,

[19:12] increase in staffing hours, purchasing

[19:14] additional equipment, enhancing

[19:17] workforce training and capacity

[19:18] development, and providing critical

[19:20] services to people with HIV during the

[19:24] coronavirus pandemic. Funds will be

[19:25] subject to northern Nevada host and

[19:26] accessed for community and cultural

[19:27] education programs and training.

[19:34] [inaudible] because they are est. under

[19:35] the Ryan White part B recipient

[19:38] who currently provide supportive

[19:40] services and have a proven track record

[19:42] to provide these services to our HIV

[19:55] positive clients. The sub grantees will

[19:56] provide direct services such as home

[19:57] delivered meals, emergency housing,

[19:58] housing assistance and medical

[19:59] transportation to HIV positive clients

[20:00] and their families. The number of

[20:03] clients served are unknown at this time

[20:04] due to the evolving nature of COVID 19

[20:05] pandemic. As noted, the Ryan White part

[20:08] B is looking to utilize Nevadans home

[20:13] delivered meals which also allows for

[20:14] the purchase and distribution of PPE

[20:22] for clients and personnel, housing,

[20:23] which allows for the payment of

[20:24] claimant's rent, and medical

[20:25] transportation for medical and

[20:33] supportive services. This funding is

[20:34] delivered in watershed County but could

[20:35] change as client needs a merge. There's

[20:36] no real providers at this time in Ryan

[20:37] White part B clients are

[20:38] provided washing and often seek care at

[20:41] [inaudible]. Park County receives the

[20:42] Ryan White part [inaudible] a grant

[20:43] serves the entire state including Park

[20:46] County. However as much before the

[20:47] CARES Act funding for this work program

[20:50] will primarily serve Washoe County and

[20:58] Clark County will use Ryan White part B.

[20:59] We are happy to take any questions

[21:00] you may have regarding these funds.

[21:01] Thank you.

[21:02] >> Thank you very much. I think the

[21:03] only question or comment I would have

[21:04] is we would look forward to a report

[21:08] back in the data you accumulate on how

[21:09] these dollars are being spent and the

[21:11] folks that are actual being served so

[21:13] we can use that in the future. That

[21:18] would be the only comment I would have.

[21:19] Are there any other comments or

[21:21] questions from any committee members at

[21:22] this time? Seeing none, don't speak

[21:34] up - - with that, - - guess? Sen.

[21:39] Denis, I'm sorry.

[21:40] >> Just a quick question. She mentioned Clark

[21:46] part B but I thought it talked

[21:47] about in materials part B being used in

[21:52] Washington the roles. Is that correct?

[21:57] >> Julie -- for the record. That is

[21:59] correct.

[22:00] >> Okay. Just want to make sure the

[22:01] record was correct for

[22:07] >> Thank you, Sen. Any other questions

[22:08] or comments from committee members on

[22:09] item number two? Seeing or hearing

[22:17] none, I would go ahead and accept a

[22:18] motion to processitem number two from

[22:27] Sen. Woodhouse and a second from Ms.

[22:28] Benitez-Thompson. Any discussion on the

[22:29] motion?

[22:36] >> Mme. Chair, did you want to add

[22:37] reporting to that motion as you

[22:38] indicated in your comments?

[22:40] >> Yes. Please. If everyone is good

[22:49] with that, sorry about that. Any

[22:56] discussion? If not, we will go ahead

[22:59] and ask to call the role, please.

[23:00] >> Roll Call Vote: Benitez-Thompson,

[23:05] aye. Frierson, aye. Leavitt, aye.

[23:18] How to get the, aye. Kremer, aye.

[23:29] Monroe-Moreno, aye. Neal, aye.

[23:37] Spiegel aye. Munk, aye. Swank, aye.

[23:52] Backus,, aye. Titus, aye. Wheeler,

[24:03] aye. Carlton, aye. Brooks, aye.

[24:14] Cancela aye. Denis, aye. Goicoechea,

[24:25] aye. Kieckhefer,, aye. Parks, aye.

[24:35] Settelmeyer, aye. Woodhouse, aye.

[24:44] >> The motion passes.

[24:45] >> Thank you. With that we will go to

[24:52] item number three, Department of

[24:53] employment training and rehabilitation.

[24:59] If we could go ahead and queue up the

[25:00] person who will be presenting, please.

[25:26] >> Mme. Chair, this is Jeff from

[25:27] broadcast productions. I'm not seen

[25:28] anyone unmute their microphone or way

[25:29] that me.

[25:34] >> I'm seen a wave on my top left

[25:35] corner of the box. I believe it is - -

[25:38] and their staff in their room. There

[25:40] we go. Have they been unmuted on muted?

[26:06] >> Yes. They have. Please unmute the

[26:07] phone at your desk or whatever device

[26:08] you are using, please.

[26:17] >> Good morning. Proceed.

[26:21] >> Okay. Good morning. For the record

[26:23] Christopher Sewall Department of

[26:26] employment training and rehabilitation.

[26:27] Director's office. This morning we have

[26:29] on the agenda work program C 75206.

[26:38] This work program is to establish

[26:42] revenue and expenditure authority for

[26:43] federal pandemic unemployment

[26:45] compensation, also known as FUC

[26:49] in the amount of $5,073,075 and

[26:55] pandemic unemployment assistance also

[26:58] known as - - in the amount of

[27:04] $5,073,075. And pandemic emergency

[27:06] unemployment compensation also known as

[27:09] EUC in amount of 190,000. These

[27:16] funds are for one-time implementation

[27:17] costs for federal pandemic

[27:21] unemployment compensation unemployment

[27:22] systems and pandemic unemployment,

[27:28] division grant programs. The total for

[27:29] the implementation grant is $5,418,000.

[27:40] At our conference room we have our

[27:45] director, our administrator and deputy

[27:49] administrator for the employment

[27:50] security division and our CFO ready to

[27:54] answer any questions.

[28:02] >> Okay. Thank you very much Mr.

[28:03] Sewall and I think as we go forward you

[28:04] may need to get a little closer to the

[28:05] microphone. It was a little low in

[28:09] volume. So with that, I think I

[28:10] will go ahead and open up to Ms.

[28:14] Benitez-Thompson for the first round of

[28:15] questions and we will proceed from

[28:16] there. Ms. Benitez-Thompson

[28:20] >> Thank you very much Mme. Chair I

[28:21] appreciate that. So I was wondering if

[28:22] you could - I'm sorry - I'm asking if

[28:25] you could spell out for us a little bit

[28:26] more about the role that the staff is

[28:28] going to have in this process? For

[28:36] example, taking claims, adjudicating

[28:37] claims, handling appeals. Could you

[28:40] talk about a little different specific

[28:41] task they are going to be doing?

[28:46] >> Thank you. For the record this is

[28:51] Kimberly Goddard. administrator for the

[28:52] employment security division. We have

[28:53] been hired to provide complement for

[28:56] pandemic unemployment assistance,

[29:01] specifically, to December of this year. For

[29:05] all lifecycle cases of both types of

[29:11] claims. So that will include, claim

[29:12] filing which started this week,

[29:15] payments and weekly filing. Assistance

[29:17] on the phone. And adjudication of those

[29:21] claims. That is their current role.

[29:28] >> Thank you very much. We note that

[29:29] you have some existing staff who are

[29:32] trained and have these jobs. So do you

[29:35] have an idea, for example when we talk

[29:39] about adjudication,, are they expected

[29:42] to handle five percent of that with

[29:46] traditional staff doing 95 percent of

[29:56] it? Is it looking to be 50-50? I just

[29:57] did not know if there was a kind of a

[29:58] take away we could walk away with, with

[29:59] an uncertain of how much of the work

[30:00] they will be doing?

[30:02] >> This is Kimberly Goddard for the

[30:04] record again. All the [inaudible] we

[30:11] have oversight with management from B

[30:14] for that function.

[30:21] >> So, I imagine then we can - - we

[30:28] will know in a couple weeks as we take

[30:29] a look back we will be able to ask

[30:30] about the percentage of workload being

[30:31] done by staff vs. contract staff and we

[30:33] will know that in coming weeks then, is

[30:34] that right?

[30:36] >> Yes. We will.

[30:40] >> Okay. Great. Then the last question

[30:43] here, is just, regarding the contractor

[30:50] ,, the call center, can you share with

[30:52] us documentation, or assurances, that

[30:58] we received that your department has

[30:59] received from the federal government

[31:00] that this - - that everything, this

[31:06] contract and this manner of using

[31:07] contract employees at the call center

[31:11] is allowable?

[31:16] >> Mme. Chair this is director of

[31:19] Department of public training and

[31:20] revalidation. Thank you for the

[31:23] question assemblywoman. We have worked

[31:25] in coordination [inaudible]..

[31:36] >> I'm sorry?

[31:38] >> You are breaking up. Were only

[31:44] getting a couple of words I believe.

[31:48] >> Okay. I try to speak slow again. So

[31:50] I was thanking the assemblywoman for

[31:59] her question. And wanted to let the

[32:00] committee know that we worked closely

[32:01] with the Atty. Gen.'s office along with

[32:02] the governor's legal team to work on a

[32:09] directive to the governor's office to

[32:13] allow for the waiver of nonmerit staff.

[32:14] This waiver allows us to use the team

[32:18] to help assist with adjudication of

[32:24] claims. We worked with the state of

[32:26] Indiana, who has an approved waiver,,

[32:31] or proclamation, from there governor to

[32:32] allow, and we worked in lockstep with

[32:35] their legal and our legal to put our

[32:40] proclamation together. If you have any

[32:41] further questions about the directive,

[32:42] we can incorporate conversation with

[32:44] the Atty. Gen.'s office. He was Ms.

[32:59] Benitez-Thompson, any follow-up?

[33:02] >> Yes. I guess, I just the waiver is

[33:12] ushering you have done that with our

[33:13] AG's office, and I think that really

[33:14] answers the state law piece, and I

[33:20] think the federal government is going

[33:21] to probably have to look back about how

[33:22] quick the states went to pivot in

[33:23] different manners in which we have

[33:24] pivoted to try to get staff in a place

[33:27] where we could meet people's needs. I

[33:29] think the ball is probably more in

[33:32] they are core to make sure that that

[33:36] federal piece gets sorted out.

[33:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Ms. - - just on

[33:50] and note for myself, we are always very

[33:51] wary when we subcontract out state

[33:52] functions to other folks because it is

[33:53] our job to do what we understand

[33:56] there's extenuating circumstances here,

[33:57] but we just want to make sure that this

[34:00] doesn't open up the door or try to set

[34:08] a precedent of subcontracting out

[34:09] these types of jobs. Because we need to

[34:10] be able to control the folks were

[34:11] making these decisions over these

[34:12] people's lives because we've seen in

[34:13] the last two months how important this

[34:20] function is to folks survival. So I

[34:21] just want to make sure I put that on

[34:22] the record.

[34:33] >> Mme. Chair, I was just going to say

[34:42] that the federal government allows for

[34:43] the continuation of the claims only

[34:44] through the month of December. So I can

[34:45] assure you that work will come back in

[34:48] house after that is - - this money

[34:52] has run out or authority runs out.

[34:59] >> Okay. Thank you. We are going to be

[35:00] very interested to see how the data on

[35:04] this one also, later on when it is

[35:05] done. I believe Sen. Brooks had a

[35:07] question?

[35:08] >> Yes. Thank you Mme. Chair. I just

[35:10] want to knowyou said programs the 5.5

[35:16] $5.4 million on the CARES Act money,

[35:19] has the agency received approval from

[35:21] the feds to use this money to grant

[35:25] funds that way? And if not, do you

[35:28] anticipate when you will?

[35:32] >> This is David Schmidt, acting

[35:41] deputy administrator for the security

[35:43] division for the record. The

[35:50] supplemental budget request submitted

[35:51] to the Department of labor does

[35:53] identify the contract for the portion

[35:59] of the application. The piece that will

[36:06] pay for the call center, there is only

[36:07] a small piece of that within the

[36:10] contents of this work program.. The

[36:16] implementation cost, there some money

[36:17] set aside in here for training for the

[36:19] call center. But the other expenses of

[36:24] the call center will be paid for to the

[36:26] ongoing reimbursement for the PUA

[36:30] program. However, because this is the

[36:35] training component of the call-center

[36:36] time is included within this grant, we

[36:41] have not got any questions or pushback

[36:42] from the Department of labor on using

[36:47] that call-center for this purpose.

[36:48] Further, the CARES Act does have a

[36:49] section that explicitly allows for

[36:57] relaxation of the use of merit staff

[36:58] through the end of 2020. So it is,, has

[37:00] been especially federally authorized.

[37:06] >> Thank you.

[37:12] I think that answers it. I'm asking if

[37:16] you got explicit approval from the

[37:18] federal government to do the 5.4

[37:19] million in the way you are proposing to

[37:23] use it and it sounds like you are

[37:24] saying, you don't necessarily need that

[37:29] because it's already stated in the rules

[37:31] . Is that correct? did I hear you

[37:34] correctly?

[37:37] >> David Schmidt again director. That

[37:38] is our understanding, yes.

[37:40] >> Okay. Thank you.

[37:41] >> Mme. Chair I have another question

[37:46] if possible?

[37:49] >> Please go ahead senator, follow-up.

[37:51] >> Can you please discuss the agencies

[37:54] plan for the personal services category

[37:59] including overtime? Existing staff,

[38:00] the numbers and types of additional

[38:04] positions that you plan to hire and the

[38:07] timing of that higher?

[38:18] >> Thank you for the question. This is

[38:19] good but we got her for the record. We

[38:20] do have a staffing plan related to

[38:28] that which is HR-62 which is explicitly

[38:31] designed to address our own staffing

[38:34] for the pandemic specifically. We have

[38:40] submitted position requests to the

[38:41] governor's finance office to do

[38:44] additional staffing augmentation, and

[38:46] that is currently in the process right

[38:50] now. But as far as for the care sacked

[38:54] specifically I think we have only asked

[38:56] for them I want to say, 12 positions

[39:02] related to this that would ultimately

[39:03] be absorbed back into UI operations at

[39:07] the end of December this year. In order

[39:12] to continue that expected workload that

[39:13] will go past that date just because of

[39:16] appeals and overpayments and related

[39:20] type of workload. Based on her

[39:22] experience from the great recession.

[39:31] >> Thank you.

[39:37] >> Okay. Ms. Neal did you have a

[39:39] question?

[39:40] >> Yes. Mme. Chair. So, thank you Mme.

[39:45] Chair. I just have a quick question.

[39:50] For deductible income how are you guys

[39:51] handling that? You guys - - there

[39:53] was a press release that can out and

[39:54] said it would take four weeks to get

[39:55] that all rolled in. How does that fit

[39:57] into this overall system change with a

[40:04] deductible income folks who are seeking

[40:08] unemployment assistance?

[40:10] >> Thank you for the question.

[40:12] Kimberly Goddard for the record. The

[40:15] deductible income component is a piece

[40:18] regarding program integrity on the

[40:21] standard unemployment system. We have

[40:25] been running automated jobs to address

[40:35] those claims that have a deductible

[40:36] income component to it. We have held

[40:38] the first four weeks of the filers

[40:47] benefits so we can get through that

[40:48] adjudication process in compliance with

[40:50] law and regulation. And released

[40:56] payments post that fourth week. We

[40:57] realize there may be potentials for

[40:59] overpayments but that was the decision

[41:00] made in order to get benefits out to

[41:05] the constituency as quickly as

[41:06] possible. And we were weighing the

[41:12] information of potential severance pay,

[41:17] or, other pay that was ongoing during

[41:19] furloughedperiods in order to make that

[41:21] determination. And that started now two

[41:25] weeks ago and so we have been releasing

[41:26] payments for those people with

[41:32] deductible income issues on their

[41:33] claims but that issue must be

[41:37] adjudicated per regulation and we will

[41:38] continue to adjudicate that while they

[41:40] are receiving pay.

[41:48] >> Thanks Mme. Chair.

[41:49] >> If I may assemblywoman Neal, jumping

[42:00] or just for a moment. So I heard you

[42:01] say on this particular case with these

[42:02] claims you are going to err on the side

[42:03] of paying people and then after it's

[42:10] adjudicated deal with it that way. That

[42:11] is not how you dealt with the original

[42:12] filers under the current system. Those

[42:13] people are still waiting and have to go

[42:14] through the process. Is that correct?

[42:19] >> Thank you for the question. Kimberly

[42:25] Goddard. No. I was referring to the

[42:26] deductible income issue for standard

[42:27] unemployment. That is what I believe

[42:30] the assemblywoman was asking about. As

[42:37] far as current claims the payment

[42:38] component will be deployed we hope by

[42:39] this weekend. And the intent is to, as

[42:46] soon as presumptive eligibility is

[42:47] determined, we would move to minimum

[42:48] weekly benefit amounts under the act,

[42:53] in order to start payment immediately.

[42:56] As long as we can verify that baseline

[43:04] eligibility. Then, we would adjudicate

[43:05] on the back and if there's additional

[43:06] eligibility to increase the benefit up

[43:07] to the maximum allowed per state law.

[43:14] >> Thank you for clarifying that. I

[43:15] just want to make sure he was clear. Is

[43:20] my understanding, though there is

[43:21] approximately 50,000 out there

[43:22] that have not been dealt with but yet

[43:23] we're taking on another set of claims.

[43:25] So can you tell me where those 50,000

[43:31] are? If you are moving forward and

[43:32] erring on the side of getting the money

[43:33] to the families, and truing it up later

[43:36] how is it we still have 50,000 claims

[43:38] still out there. I just have to tell

[43:41] you I people on the phone every day in

[43:52] tears because they cannot get their

[43:53] benefits and they don't know what they

[43:54] are going to do next. So I just want to

[43:55] understand, about those other 50,000

[43:56] claims that are out there.

[43:59] >> Thank you for the question.

[44:00] Kimberly Goddard for the record. The

[44:03] reference of 50,000 claims are a group

[44:10] of claims we continue to work on groups

[44:13] of claim type issues to see what other

[44:18] additional automation jobs we can start

[44:23] building out and running. But the

[44:26] number of claims left tend to have

[44:32] multiple issues and become more

[44:33] complicated as we have going on. And

[44:35] require full adjudication. So I don't

[44:36] know that I can specifically say in two

[44:41] weeks all 50,000 will have an answer

[44:51] and have a payment. It just has to do

[44:52] with the nature of the claim types and

[44:53] the specifics related to the claims.

[44:54] And we have been instructed on multiple

[44:55] times by the department of labor that

[44:56] OIG is looking at our efforts in order

[45:04] to [inaudible] for integrity. So we're

[45:05] doing everything we can to keep that in

[45:07] balance but we continue to address the

[45:10] buckets of the claims as we are

[45:17] calling it internally, to try to get

[45:18] those moved as quickly as possible.

[45:24] >> Did I hear laughing? So, let's -

[45:31] - here's the thing. If were going to

[45:37] err on the side of make it your people

[45:38] get money so they can survive, I would

[45:40] hope we would figure out how to err on

[45:41] the side of those 50,000 folks even

[45:44] know they are complicated claims. So

[45:46] that they can get where they do be also.

[45:54] So we would just go from there. I

[45:56] believe the speaker had a question?

[46:01] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I think I want

[46:03] to to the concern but I want to first

[46:07] say, we are asking the question and I

[46:10] the chair mention this earlier, we are

[46:12] asking questions not out of undo

[46:14] aggression but for clarity sake. I note

[46:24] your folks are working and taking these

[46:25] calls. We are delivering food and take

[46:26] these calls and emails as well. We are

[46:27] just trying to make sure we get all the

[46:28] information. I appreciate, though, that

[46:30] you are trying to do the claims in an

[46:35] expedited way it's not going to be

[46:36] pretty necessarily because you are

[46:37] trying to get caught up and help these

[46:39] folks. To the chairs point, is there

[46:43] any - - I don't know if this is an

[46:47] opportunity in the right context - -

[46:48] but is there an effort or structure in

[46:49] place to make sure as were working

[46:50] through the claims and in particular

[46:52] more difficult claims, is there a

[46:55] structure in place to do it in order so

[46:57] we are doing the oldest cases first?

[47:03] And work - - is that something in

[47:05] place?

[47:08] >> Thank you, this is Heather - -

[47:14] for the record.I want to just outline

[47:17] a couple of different priorities that

[47:20] the department is working on at the

[47:22] same time so that everyone has some

[47:33] context on - - the work we are doing

[47:35] on and unemployment. So as you are

[47:36] probably aware, this weekend we went

[47:37] out what I would call a significant

[47:38] technological system that has offered

[47:39] up the ability for 38,000 out of 8:30

[47:42] AM Nevadans to file claims for the

[47:46] pandemic unemployment assistance. That

[47:49] was and continues to be an enormous

[47:50] technological lift that is one of the

[47:55] things we're working on. Second to that

[47:56] is working closely with our call-center

[48:00] vendors and trying to stand up some

[48:07] cloud-based call-center and implement

[48:08] in that. The third technological lift

[48:09] that we are working on, and is constant

[48:12] and frequent that is addressing the

[48:13] backlog of c claims and working on

[48:19] resolutions. So we had the ability and

[48:21] continue to run data fixes on a weekly

[48:33] basis to address all of the income

[48:34] deductible issues. We are looking at

[48:35] and working towards resolution for

[48:36] several other buckets that are within

[48:37] that 51--70,000 as of last week's

[48:41] number. We do address each of these

[48:42] claims in order of their coming winter

[48:44] came in fi step we are worki looking at

[48:47] those claims in order of priority that

[48:49] way.

[48:50] >> Thank you very much.

[48:51] >> I believe Sen. Brooks had another

[48:57] question?

[48:58] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I just want to

[49:00] follow-up on my previous question about

[49:03] the federal approval of the funding for

[49:09] the implementation and operation of the

[49:10] three programs that we are discussing.

[49:14] So lacking explicit approval, how is it

[49:20] the agency currently funding the

[49:22] operational cost of those three

[49:25] programs? Is it through the federal

[49:26] funding? Because they don't feel the

[49:27] need the approval, or, is using some

[49:31] other monies?

[49:33] >> This is David Schmidt. Currently,

[49:42] we are awaiting the approval of the

[49:48] grants that have been submitted. The

[49:50] Department of Labor, the delay is not a

[49:59] awaiting for authorization or approval.

[50:00] It is just that they have a couple of

[50:10] hundred applications across all these

[50:12] programs, total across all the states

[50:13] they're looking through their own

[50:14] backlog to try to address. As far as

[50:15] where the funding is coming from in the

[50:16] meantime, we do still have our

[50:17] unemployment administration grant. We

[50:18] do have unemployment administration

[50:20] grant. We do have the 5.3 million in

[50:21] CARES Act funny we received so far. We

[50:22] also haveabove base funding of

[50:29] approximately $8.3 million for the UI

[50:30] administration grant as well. So

[50:31] there's a number of sources of funding

[50:32] that can be used in the meantime, and

[50:33] then adjusted as necessary once the

[50:37] federal revenue for these specific

[50:39] implementation programs is made

[50:40] available to Nevada.

[50:48] >> Thank you.

[50:56] >> Other questions from other

[50:57] committee members at this time? I am

[51:03] pretty sure you discuss this earlier.

[51:07] I'm not sure if it was really clear as

[51:08] far as the authority that you have as

[51:14] far as adjudicating claims. I know

[51:15] there was guidance earlier this year

[51:17] that allows the subcontracted entity to

[51:20] perform different functions, but I am

[51:29] not sure if they are actually allowed

[51:30] to do the adjudication under that

[51:31] guidance. So you had spoke aboutcase

[51:35] out of Indiana. You talk about our

[51:36] Atty. Gen. Does the information that

[51:39] you have substantiate the fact that the

[51:53] subcontracted entity can actually do

[51:54] adjudication because it appears that

[51:55] under the CARES Act they can't actually

[51:56] adjudicate. So I just want to make sure

[51:57] we have a very clear and on the record.

[51:59] >> Mme. Chair Heather - - for the

[52:01] record. Thank you. Yes, so the team has

[52:05] worked closely with the state of

[52:09] Indiana who has a DOL approved waiver

[52:10] that is exactly the same. As ours. DOL

[52:13] is aware that we have made this

[52:18] decision and any other questions about

[52:20] our directive explicitly we can talk

[52:21] with the Atty. Gen.'s office about if

[52:23] you have questions. I am happy to share.

[52:27] >> I guess to

[52:30] >> [Multiple speakers]

[52:32] >> I guess my last question would be

[52:34] is if one of our constituents went

[52:37] through this subcontracted entity and

[52:42] was denied benefits and later found out

[52:43] that they were wrongfully denied, who

[52:46] is going to be responsible for that?

[52:47] The subcontractor or the state?

[52:49] >> The denial, denied applicant has

[52:55] the appeal rights, and that will be

[52:59] worked through the department, and the

[53:06] department is fully responsible for the

[53:07] work that's being done under our

[53:13] contractor.

[53:14] >> Okay. Good. We just need to make

[53:15] sure we get this on the record because

[53:16] you know something is going to happen

[53:17] later onand we will be able to come

[53:28] back and say, this was the discussion,

[53:29] these were the answers and this is how

[53:30] the process was supposed to be. So

[53:31] thank you very much I appreciate you

[53:32] putting that on the record very

[53:33] clearly. Committee members, any other

[53:34] questions on item number three? From

[53:35] anyone? Okay.With that come I believe

[53:42] we can go ahead and proceed. I would

[53:43] take a motion to process item number

[53:44] three from the speaker and a second

[53:46] from vice chair Woodhouse. Any comments

[53:48] or questions on the motion? Hearing

[53:54] none, call the role, please

[53:55] >> Roll Call Vote: Benitez-Thompson,

[54:03] aye. Frierson, aye. Leavitt,, aye.

[54:14] Jauregui, aye. Kremer, aye.

[54:25] Monroe-Moreno, aye. Neal, aye.

[54:35] Spiegel, aye. Munk, aye. Swank, aye.

[54:47] Backus aye. Titus, aye. Wheeler, aye.

[54:59] Carlton,, aye. Brooks, aye. Cancela,

[55:12] aye. Denis,, aye. Goicoechea, aye.

[55:23] Kieckhefer, aye. Parks, aye.

[55:32] Settelmeyer, aye. Woodhouse, aye.

[55:36] >> The motion carries.

[55:39] >> Be much. So I believe that takes us

[55:45] to item, D, statement of the account.

[55:52] I'll go to Ms. Jones.

[55:54] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. Item D is a

[56:00] statement of the account to stabilize

[56:01] operation of state government. Also

[56:08] known as a Rainy Day account. The

[56:09] information by the balance of the

[56:10] account is found on page 71 of your

[56:11] packet. At the beginning of the fiscal

[56:13] year starting fiscal year starting

[56:15] July 1, 2019 the balance in the fund is

[56:21] 331,000,006 94, eight $33. Two

[56:22] transfers have been made to increase

[56:25] the amount in the fund. Went for a

[56:27] little over $25 million based on our

[56:32] estimate. [inaudible]. With this

[56:35] section says is at the end of a fiscal

[56:37] year if the fund balances over seven

[56:40] percent of the appropriations for the

[56:48] next year, 40 percent of that excess

[56:49] balance is transferred to the Rainy Day

[56:50] fund. The second transfer is pursuant

[56:54] to 353.281 B, in the amount of $44.5

[56:58] million and that is the one percent of

[57:02] revenue transfer. At the beginning of a

[57:06] fiscal year the estimated revenue is

[57:08] projected by the economic form, one

[57:16] percent of that revenue mount is

[57:17] transferred over to the Rainy Day fund.

[57:18] The current balance of the Rainy Day

[57:19] fund - excuse me - is $401,186,000.. So

[57:23] that is the amount that would be

[57:27] discussed under the next action item.

[57:30] Thank you Mme. Chair. Happy to answer

[57:34] any questions.

[57:35] >> Thank you Ms. Jones. Any questions

[57:36] For Ms. Jones?Seeing none, I believe

[57:49] we can go to item, E, with that this is

[58:05] a request for approval of transfer

[58:06] funds from the account to stabilize

[58:07] operation of government, the rainy day

[58:08] fund. Following the different

[58:10] declarations. I believe we do have a

[58:16] question for the governor's finance

[58:17] office, if they are available. Is Ms.

[58:34] Brown available? I see Ms. Brown but

[58:59] I cannot hear her.

[59:03] >> Can you hear me?

[59:09] >> We have you now. That is great,

[59:10] thank you.

[59:11] >> Okay. Sorry. This is a red finance

[59:13] office.

[59:14] >> Okay. So I guess the big question

[59:17] of the day is, we are moving the rainy

[59:23] day fund.. We understand that would

[59:24] just go to support the general fund

[59:31] basically, to take care of their

[59:32] sponsor but is that we already have on

[59:33] the books. Can you give us any

[59:36] indication of what future plans you

[59:38] might have in addressing the remainder

[59:40] of the shortfall for this fiscal year?

[59:52] >> Susan Brown, for the record

[59:53] government finance office. We are

[59:54] working through proposals that were put

[59:55] forth by state agenciesand we will be

[59:56] coming forward with a plan to IFC. We

[1:00:01] are also looking at one time monies and

[1:00:09] other ongoing - - this includes

[1:00:10] ongoing and one-shot monies. And there

[1:00:14] are a few other items we are looking at

[1:00:15] doing some research to make sure those

[1:00:16] are valid options to use. To help fill

[1:00:23] the gap

[1:00:24] >> Okay. Thank you. I know this is a

[1:00:25] difficult question and every day seems

[1:00:28] like a week, lately. Maybe, a month for

[1:00:31] you. Do we have an idea of when we will

[1:00:35] be getting some of this information and

[1:00:40] I hope that you will reach out to us

[1:00:41] and to our staff to help. We would love

[1:00:50] to be part of this conversation to make

[1:00:51] sure we are kind of on the same page.

[1:00:52] So do you have any ideas when you might

[1:00:53] be receiving some of this?

[1:00:54] >> Susan Brown for the record. The FY

[1:00:58] 20 numbers come I think at this moment

[1:00:59] are pretty solid. We have gone through

[1:01:01] all of that. I have a few questions

[1:01:03] from agencies on that item more than

[1:01:09] happy to reach across and talk your

[1:01:10] staff about all these proposals that we

[1:01:11] are vetting at this point. We have

[1:01:12] provided them some information at this

[1:01:13] point in time so they can also be

[1:01:16] reviewing proposals that the agencies

[1:01:18] have made.

[1:01:20] >> Well, thank you very much. We

[1:01:21] appreciate that. As I've discussed with

[1:01:23] a number of members and a phone call

[1:01:33] with the governor just recently, this

[1:01:34] is all about communication. We all have

[1:01:35] to be on the same page moving forward.

[1:01:36] It's about what's to invest for the

[1:01:37] state and making sure that Nevadans

[1:01:41] are taken care of. So we look forward

[1:01:42] to working with you on this as we move

[1:01:44] forward.

[1:01:53] >> Thank you.

[1:01:54] >> You are welcome. Speaker did you

[1:01:55] have something? Yes?

[1:01:56] >> Thank you for your indulgence Mme.

[1:01:57] Chair. I just want to reiterate that

[1:01:58] and also reiterate that we rely so

[1:02:00] incredibly heavily on our fiscal staff

[1:02:01] and the decisions we make and when we

[1:02:05] make them are dependent on information

[1:02:09] they're able to get for us. So it is

[1:02:11] fair to say that if fiscal staff are

[1:02:19] reaching out that is us reaching out.

[1:02:20] They do so at our direction. So I just

[1:02:28] one - - I know you guys are taking a

[1:02:29] ton of calls, a lot of them articles

[1:02:30] about people wanting to satisfy

[1:02:31] curiosity. And time is short and we

[1:02:33] realize that, but if our fiscal staff

[1:02:35] are calling, I just wanted to put it

[1:02:37] out there that is from us. So hopefully

[1:02:43] it will help reduce the number of calls

[1:02:49] back and forth if we are able to make

[1:02:50] sure they get their questions answered

[1:02:51] when they call because otherwise they

[1:02:53] call us and they don't have all the

[1:02:55] information and then we end up

[1:02:58] duplicating calls. We don't want to do

[1:03:00] that to you guys.

[1:03:04] >> Okay. With that,committee members

[1:03:15] any other comments from any other

[1:03:16] members at this time? Mr. Wheeler.

[1:03:21] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. Moving this

[1:03:31] money over come I understand we are

[1:03:32] going to have to do it. Were in a

[1:03:33] problem here I believe but before we

[1:03:34] can do that I like to see with the cuts

[1:03:36] and the fiscal moves are going to be.

[1:03:43] Is it a two to one ratio? We are going

[1:03:44] to have a problem here with our bond

[1:03:45] rating of course when we don't have a

[1:03:46] reserve fund the bond rating changes.

[1:03:55] If we need to re-bond if we need to a

[1:03:56] new bond etc. that's got cost us more

[1:03:57] money. I like to see - - we have CIP

[1:03:58] programs I like to see us moving money

[1:04:00] to programs. We could go into furlough

[1:04:01] programs. There's a lot of things.

[1:04:08] There's Medicaid. We did not have

[1:04:09] people in the queue in Medicaid for

[1:04:10] instance over the last couple months in

[1:04:11] less it was an emergency. I like to

[1:04:12] know what those numbers are and save is

[1:04:13] there maybe we can transfer out of the

[1:04:16] HHS into the general fund and back out

[1:04:22] from one account to another. I like to

[1:04:23] see you where they are. Without a 221

[1:04:25] count I don't think I can vote to move

[1:04:26] this money over. As you said Mme. Chair

[1:04:29] and I agree with you completely, and

[1:04:33] some communication here and I just have

[1:04:34] not seen it yet. I know everybody just

[1:04:38] going crazy. This is a true emergency,

[1:04:39] but give us some idea other than we are

[1:04:43] looking at things that I think were

[1:04:44] going to be okay for FY 20. Ms. Brown

[1:04:49] said that if I 20's pre-much done but

[1:04:50] again, as a member of this committee

[1:04:55] and I think all of us members in this

[1:04:56] committee should probably know how it

[1:04:58] is done before we start moving money

[1:04:59] over. And thank you for letting me talk

[1:05:02] about this. I appreciate it

[1:05:05] >> Mr. Wheeler I will address that so

[1:05:12] you understand how it is done.

[1:05:13] Unfortunately my career I've had to do

[1:05:14] this couple times. So I understand

[1:05:15] there's a lot of uncertainty I felt

[1:05:16] that uncertainty the first time that I

[1:05:17] was put in a position to vote for

[1:05:18] something like this. We actually had to

[1:05:25] be called into special session to do

[1:05:26] it. Luckily, now that we could do it

[1:05:27] this way. Basically what we are doing

[1:05:28] is,, Mr. Wheeler, is the state is

[1:05:29] moving its money from its savings

[1:05:34] account to its checking account to pay

[1:05:35] the bills. So everything that you voted

[1:05:36] on and all the budgets that you are

[1:05:37] involved in during the last just of

[1:05:40] session, all those decisions that we

[1:05:41] made in a bipartisan fashion to fund

[1:05:46] the state is where the money from the

[1:05:47] rainy day fund will be going to support

[1:05:56] those issues. Now, knowing full well

[1:05:57] this amount is not going to be enough

[1:05:58] to get there, that is the part of the

[1:05:59] plan that we need to still keep working

[1:06:00] on. I have been looking at different

[1:06:06] things for the other members of this

[1:06:07] committee have been looking at things

[1:06:08] and so has the governor's office. But I

[1:06:09] think it is incumbent upon us to be

[1:06:13] prudent and make sure that we fund the

[1:06:14] government the weight we promised to

[1:06:15] fund it when we voted last June almost

[1:06:16] a year ago, to fund all these programs.

[1:06:18] So that is the purpose of the rainy

[1:06:20] day fund, and that is what we are doing

[1:06:23] right now. I believe you are looking at

[1:06:24] the second part of the discussion that

[1:06:25] needs to be had, which speaker and I

[1:06:28] just discussed with Ms. Brown on where

[1:06:32] do we go from there. But this first

[1:06:33] part, basically moving the money is

[1:06:35] just making sure that we uphold our

[1:06:37] responsibilities to fund the programs

[1:06:38] we all voted for. Excuse me.

[1:06:43] >> May I follow up Mme. Chair yes him

[1:06:46] Mr. Wheeler.

[1:06:47] >> Thank you. I agree with you that

[1:06:48] things have changed. There's no doubt

[1:06:52] about that. When we were looking at a

[1:06:54] very very solvent economy,, good money

[1:06:58] coming in, we voted on a lot of things.

[1:07:02] But, circumstances have changed. So

[1:07:03] going back and saying, we voted on

[1:07:08] these budgets and we need to push them

[1:07:09] through, I think we need to change a

[1:07:10] few things, and that is pretty much

[1:07:12] what we have to do. The governor's

[1:07:15] office can come up with a plan I believe

[1:07:18] , but most importantly, we need to know

[1:07:21] what the plan is before we start moving

[1:07:24] money around. And even we are going to

[1:07:25] try to do this or try to do that and I

[1:07:30] think we can save some money here and I

[1:07:31] think we can save some money there, I

[1:07:34] would like to hear what some of those

[1:07:39] details are. We are just not getting

[1:07:40] that communication and I appreciate it.

[1:07:41] It's a very weird situation. So, don't

[1:07:44] get me wrong to my do appreciate that,

[1:07:53] but I want to thank you for your time

[1:07:54] and take the governor's office for

[1:07:55] their time. I hope we can all actually

[1:07:56] communicate were together and say,

[1:07:57] because everybody -- there are 63 of us in

[1:07:58] the building basically. Everybody would

[1:07:59] have some good ideas I think. So let's

[1:08:02] get together and talk about it.

[1:08:08] >> And, Mr. Wheeler, I believe that

[1:08:09] time will come when it is time to

[1:08:10] address the next fiscal year's budget,

[1:08:16] but I believe all the items that you

[1:08:17] have cited, there would be no gain or

[1:08:18] benefit from the changes between net

[1:08:19] now in mid-May for just six weeks was

[1:08:20] up those impacts of furloughs and CIP

[1:08:22] projects and things along that line

[1:08:28] would not have an impact. We have to

[1:08:29] give state employees a 30 day notice.

[1:08:30] So in essence it would be a two-week

[1:08:32] impact. So I don't believe there is any

[1:08:34] significant changes that we could make

[1:08:41] right now that would impact us until

[1:08:42] June 30. Those discussions will be based

[1:08:45] on the next fiscal year and what

[1:08:46] changes we have to make in the next

[1:08:48] fiscal year. So with that come I

[1:08:49] believe I had Dr. Titus had one had

[1:08:59] wanted to speak to I'm sorry. I've the

[1:09:00] speaker next and then I'll go to Dr.

[1:09:02] Titus.

[1:09:03] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I just want to

[1:09:06] say, that we have projected anywhere

[1:09:11] from five, over $600 million in

[1:09:14] shortfall. We, for the first time put

[1:09:17] money away in the rainy day fund into

[1:09:21] thousands of name for this exact

[1:09:22] purpose and thank God that we did that

[1:09:24] we have this money in the rainy day

[1:09:25] fund. I don't thinkyou stop paying your

[1:09:27] power bill because you don't know

[1:09:34] what's going to happen next week. We

[1:09:35] have bills that we have approved. Now

[1:09:36] with respect to federal aid that's a

[1:09:38] different issue about after the money

[1:09:39] is going to be used. And with respect

[1:09:41] to any proposed cuts, that is an issue

[1:09:43] that we have to deal with, but I think

[1:09:45] it is quite frankly disingenuous

[1:09:50] hijacker rainy day fund that was

[1:09:51] created for this purpose because we

[1:09:53] don't like the way things are going and

[1:09:54] want to have more information before we

[1:09:55] feed our kids. That is essentially what

[1:10:06] we are saying. When are going to feed our

[1:10:07] kids until we get more information. No.

[1:10:08] We fear kids we take care of our

[1:10:09] response was that we move forward. I

[1:10:10] think Susan Brown has indicated that

[1:10:11] though come up with a plan or some

[1:10:12] proposals for the remaining 200 for the

[1:10:14] remaining 200 million may be, but to

[1:10:21] withhold rainy day funds that we put in

[1:10:22] a savings account essentially for this

[1:10:23] purpose, is like leaving money in

[1:10:24] savings account are not paying your

[1:10:25] bills and not putting food on the table

[1:10:26] and I don't think we need to politicize

[1:10:29] using the rainy day fund to try to get

[1:10:35] more information in another capacity. I

[1:10:38] think it's not how we govern. It's not

[1:10:39] how we take care of Nevadans who

[1:10:45] are for hurting. -- the only political

[1:10:46] games. Yes, we need to continue to

[1:10:49] communicate as director Brown has

[1:10:50] indicated you to follow up and provide

[1:10:51] us with direction and information but

[1:10:52] people are hurting right now. Not in

[1:10:54] two weeks not in four weeks. We need

[1:11:00] to put money in the rainy day fund for

[1:11:01] this purpose and so I would hope that

[1:11:02] we would do right by the citizens of

[1:11:08] Nevada and take care of our bills in

[1:11:09] our state's needs and continue to work

[1:11:10] together to address what's on the

[1:11:11] horizon, not just today.

[1:11:13] >> Thank you, speaker. I have queued

[1:11:15] up folks who have wanted to speak. I

[1:11:20] believe Sen. Kieckhefer next. So Sen.

[1:11:25] Kieckhefer

[1:11:26] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I appreciate

[1:11:27] it. To follow along be example, I've

[1:11:33] not heard yet we have a cash flow

[1:11:34] problem that's requiring this transfer.

[1:11:37] If we are transferring money from her

[1:11:38] Simmons account or checking account we

[1:11:41] need to do so because our checking

[1:11:42] account is running out. I've not heard

[1:11:43] that yet. Ms. Brown are we not paying

[1:11:45] her bills? do you have a timeline

[1:11:47] when you're going to need this extra

[1:11:49] cash?

[1:11:50] >>Mme. Chair if someone is speaking I

[1:12:06] don't hear anything.

[1:12:10] >> There is Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown, we

[1:12:11] cannot hear you.

[1:12:17] >> Can you hear me now?

[1:12:18] >> Yes. Thank you.

[1:12:21] >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry Susan Brown

[1:12:22] for the record. As far as cash flow

[1:12:27] issues go, with the DSA payments which

[1:12:31] are in excess of $150 million a month

[1:12:33] and payments to the system of higher

[1:12:36] education we would need some cash to

[1:12:37] buy the end of this month.

[1:12:42] >> Okay. Do you have an estimate - -

[1:12:44] let me follow up with another question

[1:12:45] in. I've seen guidance from the

[1:12:48] treasury is allowing states to use

[1:12:51] their CARES Act money to Acca's cash

[1:12:53] flow. Not spent it for other purposes

[1:13:03] that are not allowed by the CARES Act

[1:13:04] but using it for cash flow and we just

[1:13:05] in our last meeting received $836

[1:13:06] million in cash when the Fed will

[1:13:07] assume our treasury is fairly flush at

[1:13:08] this point? In my correct in that?

[1:13:13] >> Susan Brown for the record. I have

[1:13:16] heard that may be the case that the

[1:13:17] money can be used for cash flow.

[1:13:24] However, that does not change the fact

[1:13:25] that by the end of this fiscal year we

[1:13:26] would have a general fund balance that

[1:13:28] would be below.

[1:13:30] >> I appreciate that. I certainly

[1:13:34] >>

[1:13:35] >> [Multiple speakers]

[1:13:39] >> Ms. Brown, appreciate that I

[1:13:40] sorely don't question the ultimate need

[1:13:41] for this money to be used this fiscal

[1:13:53] year to help us come up with a

[1:13:54] comprehensive solution for a budget

[1:13:55] deficit but the argument has been made

[1:13:56] that we need to pay our bills doesn't

[1:13:57] seem to carry water when we have cash

[1:13:58] in the treasury to pay our bills. I

[1:13:59] think you would make more sense for us

[1:14:01] to come together with a conference of

[1:14:02] solution that can alleviate some the

[1:14:03] concerns that might be faced by rating

[1:14:08] agency by credit rating agencies with a

[1:14:09] look at drawdowns of reserve accounts.

[1:14:15] This is an appropriate use of a reserve

[1:14:16] account. When we have declining

[1:14:17] revenues but it is always put in

[1:14:25] conjunction with spending reductions

[1:14:26] and if needed, tax increases. That's

[1:14:27] how they look at them as a three-legged

[1:14:28] school to stabilize our treasury

[1:14:29] during times of recession. So if we are

[1:14:32] only addressing one leg of that stool

[1:14:33] at this time I think that offers some

[1:14:34] uncertainty over the states plan moving

[1:14:35] forward with the we have one to address

[1:14:37] our broader shortfalls. So if there's

[1:14:40] not a cash flow issue I think would

[1:14:41] make more senseMme. Chair, breast to

[1:14:43] hold back on this. We are going to need

[1:14:46] it more immediately we could draw down

[1:14:47] a part of it but if were needing it

[1:14:49] once or twice a week we could certainly

[1:14:53] drop down more from the rainy day fund

[1:14:54] if we needed to at a subsequent

[1:14:57] meeting, for the end of this month. So

[1:15:00] those are my thoughts at this timeMme.

[1:15:04] Chair.

[1:15:07] >> Thank you Sen. full I Believe Ave.,

[1:15:08] Doctor Titus, next.

[1:15:13] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I appreciate

[1:15:14] the opportunity. I just want to thank

[1:15:15] you for your statement Mme. Chair about

[1:15:32] the need for key mitigation because I

[1:15:33] think is going to be the neck crux of

[1:15:34] this and make sure we all communicate.

[1:15:35] I also appreciate the speaker's name

[1:15:36] about not politicizing all this. To

[1:15:37] that and I think what we need to do is

[1:15:38] be fiscally responsible. And we have

[1:15:39] lessons we learned during the recession

[1:15:40] and in how we manage our funds at that

[1:15:42] time. Lessons we don't want to repeat

[1:15:43] perhaps. I think the bonding issue is a

[1:15:44] real one. I think we need to be

[1:15:45] responsible and not repeat the mistakes

[1:15:46] we made then and lower the bonding

[1:15:48] rating those considered go cost us more

[1:15:49] money in the end. So I echo what the

[1:15:51] senator just said regarding maybe not

[1:15:52] the need to transfer the entire fund at

[1:16:02] this time. Perhaps we do it in document

[1:16:03] to which only have a capability, too. I

[1:16:04] did we need to be a response about this

[1:16:05] and they attention to her the money is

[1:16:06] going out to the will be a need

[1:16:07] everybody on this call I think

[1:16:08] everybody - excuse me - everything the

[1:16:09] state knows we are going to need to

[1:16:10] have good fiscal responsibility. So I

[1:16:12] appreciate the opportunity for that and

[1:16:14] will be my belief that be thoughtful

[1:16:17] about this, not transfer this entire

[1:16:18] fund at this time Make sure we

[1:16:22] understand the process and what we did

[1:16:23] in the past and not repeat that. So

[1:16:24] thank you for the opportunity.

[1:16:25] >> Thank youDr. Titus for I can assure

[1:16:29] you we are all being thoughtful.. Thank

[1:16:33] you. So I believe Ed Sen. Settelmeyer,

[1:16:36] next.

[1:16:39] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I cannot

[1:16:43] support the drawdown of the entire

[1:16:47] rainy day fund I think we need to worry

[1:16:48] about our bond rating. I am afraid we

[1:16:49] can create a situation will cost us

[1:16:53] more with existing bonds are still out

[1:16:58] there without the cost will go up. Vs.

[1:16:59] the money, still in the bank account. I

[1:17:00] also look at this is your were looking

[1:17:06] at deficit by the next year were

[1:17:07] looking at potential a billion-dollar

[1:17:08] deficit. I go back to the fact that

[1:17:09] when the wind shut down a couple days

[1:17:10] later the governor made the right

[1:17:12] decision to shut down the casinos. We

[1:17:14] all knew that's about $100 million a

[1:17:20] month had we not be receiving revenue.

[1:17:21] Yet there was no plan in March to start

[1:17:22] reducing cost. In April, again, no

[1:17:25] plans for reducing cost. May, there

[1:17:27] still no plans to reduce cost. Without

[1:17:31] that I cannot approve it. Thank you.

[1:17:33] >> I believe I've Sen. Cancela, next.

[1:17:40] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. This is for

[1:17:43] clarification or that anything because

[1:17:46] while it is true that we have a

[1:17:51] significant of CARES Act dollars

[1:17:52] sitting in our state coffers, Ms.

[1:17:53] Brown, could you please clarify and

[1:17:56] make sure that it is clear on the

[1:17:58] record that CARES Act dollars cannot

[1:18:00] be used to pay our bills for lack of a

[1:18:07] better description, the same way rainy

[1:18:08] day funds can't and that the two funds

[1:18:10] operate for different purposes?

[1:18:15] >> Susan Brown for the record. The

[1:18:16] rainy day fund dollars are general fund

[1:18:20] and be used to pay the state bills was

[1:18:27] up the CARES Act of these for cash flow

[1:18:28] but there is parameters around how the

[1:18:29] funds can be spent in has to be related

[1:18:30] to costs associate with COVID 19 and

[1:18:32] reacting and responding to COVID 19. I

[1:18:38] would also add the CARES Act fundsare

[1:18:40] only available until December 30 and we

[1:18:43] will be dispersing those funds in the

[1:18:46] near future as plans are approved for

[1:18:52] those funds to got the door.

[1:18:53] >> Thank you Ms. Brown. I just have a

[1:18:54] quick follow-up Mme. Chair. We have a

[1:18:56] real opportunity to be thoughtful and

[1:19:01] forward thinking with our CARES Act

[1:19:03] dollars. I understand they need to

[1:19:05] pay down our bills and I appreciate the

[1:19:14] decision before us today. I think it's

[1:19:15] the right one but as we move forward

[1:19:16] with the CARES Act dollars and with our

[1:19:17] rainy day fund,, we have an opportunity

[1:19:21] to be creative as a state about how the

[1:19:24] two interact in making sure that, while

[1:19:25] they certainly operate for certain

[1:19:29] cost, we continue to be for thinking

[1:19:30] about those dollars.

[1:19:33] >> And, thank you Sen. Cancela. As we

[1:19:41] talk about the CARES Act dollars, if we

[1:19:42] do use those for our cash flow issues

[1:19:43] than they are not available to help the

[1:19:47] Nevadans were truly in the right now.

[1:19:48] So I believe we would be put in a tough

[1:19:50] position of making that choice whereas

[1:19:52] we do have money in the savings account

[1:19:53] right now to help us get through and

[1:19:59] figure out how to get all these bills

[1:20:00] paid. So I appreciate that. I believe

[1:20:05] - - I'm not sure who I have next in

[1:20:06] the queue. I have Ms. Benitez-Thompson,

[1:20:12] and then I will go to you, Sen. Goicoechea.

[1:20:20] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I'm taking

[1:20:21] notes just trying to follow the

[1:20:22] information that's given us.. Ms. Brown

[1:20:23] I heard you say that we have got

[1:20:27] payments for the DSA so payments to

[1:20:30] schools for educating our kids and then

[1:20:32] also payments to our higher education,

[1:20:39] system of higher education. So those

[1:20:40] are the two big payments that we have

[1:20:42] in the next couple of weeks that, once

[1:20:48] we make those, we will - - are fund

[1:20:49] balance will be too low to have the

[1:20:58] cash on hand to pay stuff in June. So

[1:20:59] did I get that right? Those are the

[1:21:00] two big expenditures this month?

[1:21:02] >> Susan Brown for the record. Yes,

[1:21:07] those are the two big expenditures and

[1:21:08] there's Medicaid payments that go out

[1:21:09] monthly as well, and I don't have the

[1:21:17] numbers

[1:21:18] >> Thank you. I was can ask about that.

[1:21:19] I appreciate that. I was going to ask

[1:21:20] just that because we know our biggest

[1:21:21] pieces of the budget, by far our

[1:21:30] education and health and human

[1:21:31] services. So I was wondering about the

[1:21:32] health and human service piece. So if

[1:21:33] we don't move over this money we are

[1:21:34] putting education and Medicaid dollars,

[1:21:36] we tried those up. And we will not be

[1:21:37] able to make those payments as a state

[1:21:40] without moving the savings over four

[1:21:41] DSA and Medicaid payments?

[1:21:44] >> Am I getting it accurately?

[1:21:53] >> Susan Brown for the record.. Yes,

[1:21:55] you are accurate about that. That is

[1:21:59] correct.

[1:22:07] >> Any follow-up Ms. Benitez-Thompson?

[1:22:12] >> I guess, no. I know that the board

[1:22:17] of examiners met yesterday. I know that

[1:22:22] - - or, recently. It feels like we

[1:22:25] have met - - well it looks like we've

[1:22:29] est. all the legal requirements for

[1:22:30] what shortfall is and the provisions

[1:22:32] that this legislature voted on her

[1:22:34] when we could move this money. I think

[1:22:36] that we as a body were very thoughtful

[1:22:40] and reflective last session, even

[1:22:42] though we would not be in this, to say

[1:22:45] if we moved rainy day money over what

[1:22:47] would be the statutory climates for

[1:22:54] doing that. We want to make sure that

[1:22:55] some Dover willy-nilly. We want to make

[1:22:56] sure the state is really in a place

[1:22:57] where it needs these funds and build

[1:23:01] the language you trigger it that way. I

[1:23:02] feel like we have met the precedents

[1:23:03] that we put out there as a body and I

[1:23:05] would sure hate to see educators that

[1:23:10] notice that at school districts get

[1:23:13] noticed in our Medicaid providers get

[1:23:15] notice that they are not going to get

[1:23:19] checks at the beginning of June because

[1:23:20] we are not taking this action here

[1:23:21] today.

[1:23:28] >> So, I want to make sure I understand

[1:23:31] this correctly. Ms. Brown, would you

[1:23:32] repeat again what is the amount, as far

[1:23:35] as the DSA goes?

[1:23:39] >> Susan Brown for the record. The DSA

[1:23:47] payment runs somewhere north of $150

[1:23:48] million a month, I believe.

[1:23:51] >> 150 million a month and you had

[1:23:53] mentioned - -

[1:23:56] >> I'm sorry, 115 million a month.

[1:24:00] >> 115, okay. That's why we repeat.

[1:24:02] >> [Multiple speakers]

[1:24:06] >> There are months where it is

[1:24:07] higher. Because some school districts

[1:24:10] get their payments quarterly rather

[1:24:13] than monthly.

[1:24:14] >> Okay. Does that include the

[1:24:15] shortfall from the - - or is that our

[1:24:17] portion?

[1:24:19] >> That is just our portion.

[1:24:23] >> So, then we need to add the shortfall

[1:24:28] from the LL ST that is documented that

[1:24:29] the state is required to backfill.

[1:24:33] Correct?

[1:24:34] >> Susan Brown for the record that is

[1:24:35] correct.

[1:24:38] >> And, if I think of those numbers, if

[1:24:42] you think over 400 million we are

[1:24:43] moving right now, most of that I

[1:24:47] believe will end up going to education,

[1:24:48] am I correct?

[1:24:52] >> You could say that, yes. It just a

[1:24:57] big pot of money and that is one of our

[1:25:01] biggest expenses. So that would be

[1:25:03] accurate to say that.

[1:25:06] >> Okay. I think there is still a

[1:25:08] little bit of confusion. Sen.

[1:25:11] Kieckhefer had asked a clarifying

[1:25:15] question because one of the answers

[1:25:19] with the majority leader he is little

[1:25:20] confused also Sen. Kieckhefer did you

[1:25:22] want to come back in?

[1:25:23] >> I appreciate that's be one. I heard

[1:25:32] what I heard was different. You

[1:25:33] indicator based on the amount of cash

[1:25:34] we have in the treasury we would be

[1:25:35] unable to pay the DSA and higher Ed

[1:25:37] payments at the end of this month.

[1:25:45] That sounded just different the what

[1:25:46] you told me. That we will be able to

[1:25:47] make those plans based on the cash flow

[1:25:48] flexibility allowed through the CARES

[1:25:49] Act and what we currently have in the

[1:25:53] general fund. Through our natural

[1:25:54] general fund dollars.

[1:26:00] >> Susan Brown for the record. For

[1:26:03] clarification, those payments, we have

[1:26:07] a casual issue in the general fund.

[1:26:10] Obviously, based on what you have said

[1:26:17] with a CARES Act money, that money is

[1:26:18] sitting in our bank account and we can

[1:26:19] use that for cash flow. We cannot use

[1:26:20] it to balance the budget.

[1:26:21] >> Right. So I'm not suggesting we use

[1:26:22] it to supplant revenue,. I'm saying, if

[1:26:31] we have to pay the check, write a check

[1:26:32] to the school district we can use that

[1:26:33] money temporarily to cover that outlay

[1:26:34] to the school district knowing that we

[1:26:41] will have to backfill it with either

[1:26:42] rainy day fund money or some other

[1:26:44] cutdown money, right?

[1:26:48] >> Susan Brown for the record. That's

[1:26:49] my understand but I been told that is

[1:26:50] the case that we can use the CARES Act

[1:26:51] money for cash flow?.

[1:26:55] >> Right. So were not at risk of not

[1:26:56] cutting a check for the school, right?

[1:27:01] C was Susan Brown for the record. Not

[1:27:02] at this time.

[1:27:11] >> Thank you Mme. Chair I patient

[1:27:12] everything for Karthik Asian

[1:27:13] >> And, I appreciate that Sen., but

[1:27:14] there is no guarantees that money will

[1:27:15] be paid, that money will end up going

[1:27:16] back into the CARES Act because we know

[1:27:17] what it takes to deal with revenue in

[1:27:24] this state. So, saying that we should

[1:27:25] push that decision off and I believe,

[1:27:26] would be irresponsible at this time. I

[1:27:27] believe we know we have a

[1:27:33] responsibility to get this money where

[1:27:34] it needs to go. We have the dollars

[1:27:35] available to do it. The CARES Act

[1:27:36] cannot be used to deal with general

[1:27:41] fund type issues. We would have to

[1:27:42] figure out a way to put that money back

[1:27:43] in later on. So you would just in

[1:27:48] essence push the problem out rather

[1:27:49] than dealing with a problem that's in

[1:27:50] front of us right now. So that is my

[1:27:51] concern. We just don't know where we

[1:28:00] will be six, seven months from now. We

[1:28:01] may be in more dire straits then we are

[1:28:02] in now. So come I believe we should

[1:28:03] address the problem that we have in

[1:28:04] front of us now and make sure that we

[1:28:05] go from there. But I do appreciate you

[1:28:14] clarify exactly where we are when it

[1:28:15] comes to these two funds of money. It

[1:28:16] has been very confusing to a number of

[1:28:17] folks how these two funds work in

[1:28:21] parallel, but not really to support

[1:28:22] each other. So, with that, I believe

[1:28:26] Sen. Goicoechea has been waiting

[1:28:29] patiently

[1:28:30] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I don't think

[1:28:31] there's any argument amongst anyone on

[1:28:33] the committee that there is a need to

[1:28:36] transfer at least a portion of the

[1:28:37] rainy day fund. I think it's just a

[1:28:42] time of when and if and how much.

[1:28:43] Clearly, I believe because we do have,

[1:28:46] assuming 800 million, plus from CARES

[1:28:47] Act money that is presently residing in

[1:28:49] the bank account, technically, that can

[1:28:54] be used as an asset just to cover that

[1:28:58] account materially until June 30. So I

[1:29:01] don't think anybody's arguing whether

[1:29:05] be in fact need to transfer from the

[1:29:06] rainy day fund. Just the amount. I can

[1:29:15] transfer half. We are meeting twice

[1:29:16] this week were to continue to meet over

[1:29:17] the next 30 days. I feel a lot more

[1:29:18] comfortable for a feeling where we were

[1:29:22] 15 June for exactly what cuts do we

[1:29:23] have in place, what was going to be

[1:29:24] required and yes, we all understand

[1:29:27] that even additional 200 million if we

[1:29:31] only forwarded half of the committee to

[1:29:32] enter million would be enough, but at

[1:29:35] least we would have an idea where we

[1:29:37] are headed. If we throw the 400 and,

[1:29:40] last time I changed some money from my

[1:29:41] savings to checking, pretty much went

[1:29:45] through it in one day. It rolls right

[1:29:46] along. We've got time we got the body

[1:29:48] in place. Let's take a look at just

[1:29:50] exactly where we are. I can support

[1:29:53] half of the rainy day account but give

[1:30:03] it 30 days. Let's see where we are in

[1:30:04] our plan. I'm afraid we are hanging all

[1:30:05] of this on maybe a federal stimulus

[1:30:06] package that might be coming and might

[1:30:07] not be coming down the road and I do

[1:30:19] want to try to balance the budget on

[1:30:20] that either. So with that I cannot

[1:30:21] support transferring the whole rainy

[1:30:22] day fund. I could definitely go with

[1:30:23] half of it and let's see where we are

[1:30:24] in 30 days. Were going to have to make

[1:30:25] some cuts. We cannot bounce this on

[1:30:26] just the rainy day account and the

[1:30:27] rainy dunce rainy day fund balance.

[1:30:28] Thank you

[1:30:29] >> So, all go to th with that I'll go

[1:30:30] to Sen Woodhouse Woodhouse.

[1:30:33] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. I have a

[1:30:37] comment. I want to circle around to

[1:30:38] some of the information that we know

[1:30:41] and that we've also heard from today.

[1:30:44] First of all, Mme. Chair you and

[1:30:50] speaker Frierson laid that out, very

[1:30:56] good reasons why we need to move the

[1:30:57] entire many day fund today. And I want

[1:31:00] to thank Ms. Brown and everyone in the

[1:31:03] governor's office regarding the

[1:31:05] commitment to us to keep us in the loop

[1:31:10] about what kinds of plans that they

[1:31:13] see,, especially as they look at

[1:31:16] reversions, one time once of times

[1:31:20] they cut one time funding. Things we

[1:31:23] will have to change, and make those

[1:31:25] cuts. We are really fortunate in this

[1:31:31] last legislative session that we put

[1:31:33] some additional - - we put money into

[1:31:34] the rainy day fund.. It's not been

[1:31:37] something that's been there every

[1:31:38] single legislative session. So this is

[1:31:44] our first, I guess you would call, pot

[1:31:46] of money, to go after in order to

[1:31:50] address this huge deficit that we have

[1:31:54] that is probably going to grow. We know

[1:31:55] it's going to grow bigger. So this is

[1:31:58] the way to get started and then we have

[1:32:01] to look at reversions. We have to look

[1:32:05] at one time funding we have to make

[1:32:11] cuts from. A number of us were here

[1:32:13] back in the recession in 2008 through

[1:32:19] 11, and for those of you who have not

[1:32:20] had that experience, I can tell you how

[1:32:24] difficultthat is when we look at

[1:32:26] services and people and really word

[1:32:31] prefer to say people first and then

[1:32:32] services, that are going to be hurt by

[1:32:35] what's happening with the pandemic. So

[1:32:38] I just want to reiterate the comments

[1:32:42] made, particularly by the speaker and

[1:32:47] the chair, in that this is the

[1:32:48] appropriate time for us to move the

[1:32:50] fold rainy day fund. It's 400, plus

[1:32:56] million and a deficit we have is going

[1:33:01] to be exceedingly larger than that. So

[1:33:02] it is time to begin the work that we

[1:33:03] have to do. So thank you Mme. Chair.

[1:33:05] >> Thank you all very much. I believe

[1:33:13] in response, if the conversation with

[1:33:21] moving it twice, it would require

[1:33:22] another BOE. It would require us to do

[1:33:23] the process all over again. So at this

[1:33:25] time I believe it is more appropriate

[1:33:27] to go ahead and move the whole amount.

[1:33:33] We know we are going to need it. We

[1:33:34] know we will be working on this.

[1:33:37] Splitting it in two, I don't believe

[1:33:38] serves any purpose other than to slow

[1:33:43] it down and possibly cause more

[1:33:45] misinformation out there about what

[1:33:48] the state is doing with its rainy day

[1:33:50] fund so, with that are there any other

[1:33:54] comments? Are there any other comments?

[1:34:07] Did I see a hand raised because

[1:34:14] speaker Frierson. I will let Mr.

[1:34:15] Settelmeyer go first and then speaker

[1:34:16] Frierson. Sen. SettelmeyerB thank you

[1:34:20] Mme. Chair. What is the total amount

[1:34:21] necessary in order to cover educational

[1:34:25] BSA expenses and the LLC backdrop you

[1:34:27] mention?

[1:34:30] >> Ms. Brown do you have that number

[1:34:32] available?

[1:34:37] >> Susan Brown for the record. I do

[1:34:38] not have an exact amount at this moment

[1:34:41] in time. But I believe it's pretty high.

[1:34:49] >> Do you have an estimate, by chance?

[1:34:56] >> I do not have an estimate. I don't

[1:34:57] have that right in front of me where I

[1:34:59] am at. Without looks like. But I would

[1:35:01] say, - - while I won't say a number

[1:35:04] because I don't have it in front of me

[1:35:05] and I don't want to misspeak.

[1:35:09] >> Thank you Mme. Chair.

[1:35:13] >> Thank you, Sen. I have some

[1:35:14] forecast but they are not definitive

[1:35:17] and I would hate to put a number out

[1:35:18] there in the public that we cannot

[1:35:23] actually substantiate. Staff has taught

[1:35:24] me very well to be careful about

[1:35:25] approximating certain things, but I

[1:35:26] think we can all agree that it's

[1:35:31] pretty bad and that we are going to

[1:35:32] have a lot to deal with before the end

[1:35:34] of this year. So with that, speaker

[1:35:39] Frierson.

[1:35:43] >> I just want to make clear, I

[1:35:44] appreciate the interest in wanting more

[1:35:47] information. I think that what we do,

[1:35:49] we pick up the phone and call and

[1:35:51] communicate to be statesmen and states

[1:35:58] woman to participate and urge

[1:35:59] communication and collaboration but

[1:36:00] again, for somebody living

[1:36:04] month-to-month they don't get a payday

[1:36:05] loan when they know have money in their

[1:36:06] savings account. What is being proposed

[1:36:07] is that if we transferred in entirety

[1:36:11] recognizing it still less than what

[1:36:15] project meeting, and we still have the

[1:36:16] opportunity, not only to have

[1:36:18] conversations with the governor about

[1:36:23] likely future cuts and how we can

[1:36:24] actually get there, but priorities as

[1:36:28] far as ongoing obligations. But it

[1:36:33] doesn't relieve us of the obligation to

[1:36:34] talk and pick up the phone and call

[1:36:37] instead of withholding to force it.

[1:36:41] So you don't wait until you bounce a

[1:36:42] check to transfer money into the

[1:36:44] checking account easily don't borrow

[1:36:48] from a search of the back when you know

[1:36:49] you have money in your savings account

[1:36:52] to meet those obligations. At that

[1:36:53] point I would get a need to use that

[1:36:54] money for Cashel? Maybe and it will be

[1:36:57] there until the end of the year, but

[1:36:58] again, wedon't have money in the fund

[1:37:04] the rainy financial 2017. So I think

[1:37:05] the fact that we have it there will

[1:37:08] provide certainty to folks that were

[1:37:09] doing everything we can that we will

[1:37:10] continue to look at ways to either cut

[1:37:12] or otherwise get by but doesn't relieve

[1:37:20] us of any opportunity to talk and

[1:37:21] collaborate and communicate. I don't

[1:37:22] think that - - I don't think moving

[1:37:23] the rainy day funds is going to in any

[1:37:26] greater way divided opportunity to do

[1:37:30] that. I think we still need to do that.

[1:37:35] >> Thank you, speaker. With that come

[1:37:36] I don't have anyone else signaling

[1:37:38] they have any questions, or comments.

[1:37:41] So can I believe we can go ahead and

[1:37:45] proceed. With that I will go ahead and

[1:37:49] stay the motion to make sure that we

[1:37:50] are explicitly clear in what we are

[1:37:52] doing. I will accept a motion to

[1:37:56] transfer $401 million from the account

[1:38:03] to stabilize the operation of state

[1:38:08] government to the state general fund as

[1:38:09] recommended by the board of examiners

[1:38:10] on the 14th 2020 in accordance with an

[1:38:14] RS 353.282 subsection 7. I will take a

[1:38:20] motion from the speaker and I'll take a

[1:38:21] second from by chair Woodhouse. Other

[1:38:23] questions or comments on the motion as

[1:38:25] stated? Sen. Kieckhefer..

[1:38:39] >> I was look at a statue the packet.

[1:38:40] It says were supposed to do this by

[1:38:41] resolution. We have a resolution we are

[1:38:42] looking at?

[1:38:43] >> Ms. Jones, do you want to clarify

[1:38:44] that?

[1:38:45] >> Yes, Mme. Chair.. There's a

[1:38:49] resolution to be signed by the chair

[1:38:52] just as resolutions are when we

[1:38:53] transfer funds from the contingency

[1:38:56] account to various programs. If you

[1:39:07] would like we can distribute that to

[1:39:08] members.

[1:39:09] >> I don't a guy need it. I just want

[1:39:10] to know there's a document we are

[1:39:11] looking at. It's transferring a balance

[1:39:12] that's pretty much what it says?

[1:39:13] >> Yes. Sen. Kieckhefer, yes. It's

[1:39:14] prepared by the legal division per our

[1:39:18] resolutions when we do other transfers

[1:39:19] from the contingency account.

[1:39:22] >> Yes, Sen., typically after the

[1:39:27] meeting after the motion and the second

[1:39:28] and a vote before I leave the room Ms.

[1:39:29] Jones hands me the resolutions that we

[1:39:39] have passed so they can be signed. This

[1:39:40] one will be signed with my electronic

[1:39:41] signature. So after the vote is taken.

[1:39:42] So are there any other questions or

[1:39:43] comments? I want to make sure everyone

[1:39:44] is comfortable. Seeing no other hands

[1:39:48] or voices being raised, I will ask to

[1:39:52] call the role, please.

[1:39:53] >> Roll Call Vote: Benitez-Thompson,,

[1:39:58] aye. Frierson,, aye. Leavitt, nay.

[1:40:14] Jauregui, aye. Kremer, nay.

[1:40:24] Monroe-Moreno,, aye. Neal, aye.

[1:40:34] Spiegel,, aye. Munk, aye. Swank, aye.

[1:40:47] Backus, aye. Titus, nay. Wheeler,

[1:41:02] nay. Carlton,, aye. Brooks, aye.

[1:41:13] Cancela, aye. Denis, aye.

[1:41:22] Goicoechea,, nay. Kieckhefer, nay.

[1:41:29] Parks, aye. Settelmeyer, nay.

[1:41:40] Woodhouse, aye.

[1:41:45] >> Mme. Chair the motion carries.

[1:41:47] >> Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

[1:42:10] >> We can hear you.

[1:42:12] >> Okay. Good. I lost you guys for

[1:42:18] moment. Sorry about that. So with that,

[1:42:19] the motion passes. We can go ahead and

[1:42:23] move on to the next item. Item F,

[1:42:27] request for approval to accept gifts

[1:42:34] and grants expeditious program for the

[1:42:35] department of education CARES Act

[1:42:37] elementary and secondary school

[1:42:38] emergency relief funds.

[1:42:40] >> If we could queue up the presenter,

[1:42:56] please.

[1:42:58] >> Thank you Mme. Chair I members of

[1:42:59] the committee. This is Joanbeaver State

[1:43:04] Superintendent of Pub. instruction.

[1:43:05] Today I have with me deputy

[1:43:07] superintendent Heidi parks and as you

[1:43:10] noted we are requesting the acceptance

[1:43:11] and the ability to expand the federal

[1:43:19] funds under the elementary and

[1:43:20] secondary school emergency relief

[1:43:21] funds, which they are referring to as

[1:43:22] [inaudible]. The funds are allocated

[1:43:26] through the coronavirus aid relief and

[1:43:27] economic security act in the amount of

[1:43:31] $170 m 185 - excuse me - $185,045 to

[1:43:38] assist local education agencies

[1:43:39] throughout the state and provide

[1:43:42] support for remote learning. The US

[1:43:44] Department of education made the

[1:43:48] application of Abel on Friday, April 28

[1:43:50] . The Department of Education submitted

[1:43:55] the application on the Tuesday

[1:43:56] following, which was April 20 and the

[1:43:59] state did receive those funds on May 1.

[1:44:03] The department of education was

[1:44:05] allocate 90 percent of the funds to the

[1:44:08] - - according to FY 19 title I

[1:44:13] methodology. And that amounts to

[1:44:18] 105,000,004 and $66,000. MD may set

[1:44:27] aside 10 percent of those dollars which

[1:44:28] is just over 11 million for statewide

[1:44:29] activities, and the funds must be

[1:44:32] expended by September 2022. The

[1:44:37] allowable use for all of those funds,

[1:44:38] even though they are allocated based on

[1:44:39] title Idesignation for those funds may

[1:44:43] be used across the entire LDA as well

[1:44:45] as the public charters and authority

[1:44:51] schools will they must also have

[1:44:52] consultation with private schools to

[1:44:54] allocate those funds. They may use them

[1:44:58] in response to all of the efforts and

[1:45:02] preparation related to COVID 19, such

[1:45:07] as coordination with our school

[1:45:08] districts and our local health

[1:45:14] officials. And they provide

[1:45:15] professional development for educators

[1:45:16] to support families and communities,

[1:45:17] social emotional health.. They also may

[1:45:18] use the dollars to cure educational

[1:45:25] technology which we know we about

[1:45:26] 100,000 devices short in our state to

[1:45:27] provide a one-to-one assistance. Make a

[1:45:31] note of mental and social emotional

[1:45:36] learning supports and the activities

[1:45:37] necessary to maintain the operation of

[1:45:39] and continuity of services and local

[1:45:40] educational agencies such as PPE and

[1:45:56] other equipment needed. So this does

[1:45:57] not represent a list of all the things

[1:45:58] that they may expend their funds on.

[1:45:59] But it does provide you with an

[1:46:00] overview. We have been working with

[1:46:01] school districts to coordinate the use

[1:46:02] of these funds,, not only locally, but

[1:46:08] across school districts. A lot of great

[1:46:09] coordination in that area. And we are

[1:46:10] seeking your approval this morning.

[1:46:11] Thank you.

[1:46:12] >> Thank you very much. I will go

[1:46:15] ahead and open it up for questions. I

[1:46:16] believe I've Sen. Woodhouse, first.

[1:46:22] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. Thank you,

[1:46:25] Superintendent Ebert. This is going to

[1:46:26] be extremely helpful I want to ask you,

[1:46:30] you indicated some guidance they are for

[1:46:35] schools, public schools and charter

[1:46:37] schools. So, what - - in addition to

[1:46:40] the guidance that has been provided

[1:46:42] will you be doing any more in depth

[1:46:45] guidance what kind of oversight will

[1:46:48] they department provide two school

[1:46:53] districts and charter schools when they

[1:46:54] access these cares dollars?

[1:46:59] >> Thank you very much vice chair. So

[1:47:03] these funds and everyone knows this all

[1:47:06] of this work has been moving very

[1:47:07] quickly. At the department we created a

[1:47:10] committee to support schools. I speak

[1:47:13] with assumer tenants at least once a

[1:47:15] week individually, multiple times as

[1:47:18] well. The superintendents have also

[1:47:21] have been creating their committees as

[1:47:22] we learn more what the pandemic - -

[1:47:30] as we try to move forward as a state

[1:47:31] and nation and globally. What that

[1:47:37] means for educating our children to

[1:47:38] ensure continuity of education. The

[1:47:39] accountability piece right now, within

[1:47:42] the application we have built in that

[1:47:44] identify where they expect to expend

[1:47:47] those funds, and we know that there

[1:47:51] will be - - it's not your traditional

[1:47:55] application that we have had in the

[1:47:56] past, where we build including the

[1:47:58] federal government normally has an

[1:47:59] application and timeline for issuing a

[1:48:07] funds. But it's over many months. They

[1:48:08] were actually, once we submitted our

[1:48:13] application, and ensure the funds

[1:48:14] within three days. So we know that the

[1:48:15] process on the front end has built in

[1:48:18] the expectation with accountability on

[1:48:23] the backend. So what we did with our

[1:48:24] application working with[inaudible] as

[1:48:26] well to make sure we can provide the

[1:48:27] funds in a timely manner, that portions

[1:48:32] of identification where those funds

[1:48:33] will be are in the application and

[1:48:37] working with the districts to make sure

[1:48:38] that as we move through accountability

[1:48:42] is there through the entire process.

[1:48:45] Not waiting until the very end.>> Thank

[1:48:53] you. Mme. Chair, I have a follow-up

[1:48:54] question if that's acceptable

[1:48:55] >> Yes. Please, go ahead Sen.

[1:48:57] >> Thank you. It is my understanding

[1:49:00] that there is no math requirement for

[1:49:08] the funding but a maintenance of

[1:49:09] effort. Could you explain the

[1:49:10] maintenance of effort to come in and

[1:49:11] associate with the funding and how the

[1:49:14] department plans to comply with that or

[1:49:15] do you plan to seek a waiver in order

[1:49:17] to handle this issue?>>

[1:49:28] >> Can you hear me?

[1:49:44] >> Yes. Be so these funds do come with

[1:49:45] a maintenance of effort requirements

[1:49:48] and the federal government is asking

[1:49:51] each state to the extent possible to

[1:49:52] continue the level of funding in

[1:49:55] fiscal year 20 and 21. That would agree

[1:50:03] to the average funding they have for

[1:50:04] elementary and secondary education as

[1:50:05] well as higher education in the three

[1:50:09] previous fiscal years. In the event

[1:50:10] that states are unable to do that, the

[1:50:15] secretary of education of the United

[1:50:16] States department of education will

[1:50:17] establish a process they can request a

[1:50:21] waiver. To my knowledge we have not

[1:50:22] received any guidance on how that

[1:50:23] waiver can be requested and until such

[1:50:28] time as we know what if any budget

[1:50:29] reductions are implement it, we don't

[1:50:30] know if we will be able to continue

[1:50:32] funding at the average over those

[1:50:36] three specific fiscal years or if we

[1:50:38] will need a waiver to meet the

[1:50:42] maintenance of expectation.

[1:50:49] >> Thank you. Any follow-up?

[1:50:53] >> Yes. I do have one quick question.

[1:50:55] Do the mental health hospitals that

[1:51:00] have schools, with a qualify for

[1:51:01] receiving any of these funds? Some of

[1:51:04] them had to purchase computers and that

[1:51:05] sort of thing to do the distance

[1:51:09] learning. So is there any assistance

[1:51:10] there?

[1:51:11] >> So that 90 percent of the funds are

[1:51:17] allocated directly to the school

[1:51:19] districts as well as the state public

[1:51:22] school charter authority. The

[1:51:29] additional 10 percent that is set

[1:51:30] aside, we do fully expect they will be

[1:51:31] able to to apply for those funds.

[1:51:36] >> Very good. Thank you very much.

[1:51:39] >> Thank you, Sen. I believe I have

[1:51:42] Sen. Denis the next.

[1:51:44] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. So as was

[1:51:50] mentioned, Ms. Ebert you mentioned

[1:51:51] there were about 100,000 short to do

[1:51:54] one-to-one technology. Is that correct?

[1:51:55] >> That is correct. Last time we

[1:52:01] survey the school doesn't districts

[1:52:02] that the number we were provided.

[1:52:03] >> Because I know we have been adding

[1:52:05] for several years trying to get to this

[1:52:07] one to one and we been short for a while.

[1:52:10] We've already added some during the

[1:52:11] pandemic is that correct?

[1:52:15] >> That is correct.

[1:52:16] >> Do we know what the numbers?

[1:52:18] >> Superintendent Ebert for the

[1:52:22] record, I apologize. The number that I

[1:52:23] quoted you was actually inclusive of

[1:52:29] the devices that have been ordered by

[1:52:30] school districts. When we started

[1:52:31] collecting this data in mid March

[1:52:33] specifically March 18 the school

[1:52:36] districts actually reported they were

[1:52:38] 130,000 devices short They have been

[1:52:40] able to deploy 30,000 devices over the

[1:52:48] last six weeks. So which is about 80

[1:52:53] percent of students have access. It is

[1:52:54] the 20 percent, the last mile that we

[1:52:58] are missing.

[1:52:59] >> Okay. So as I thought about this,

[1:53:03] because we have been emphasizing a lot

[1:53:05] on the one to one so they could get something

[1:53:11] when they're not able to be in a

[1:53:12] building with a teacher. Are we

[1:53:13] allocating money to staff up, to be

[1:53:14] able to maintain these? If you have

[1:53:17] issues with the commuters, have - -

[1:53:19] are they staffing up for training?

[1:53:25] Curriculum development, those kind of

[1:53:27] things? Is that something that is

[1:53:29] going to be monitored as we go through

[1:53:30] this?

[1:53:32] >> Superintendent Ebert for the

[1:53:33] record. Thank you Sen. Sen. These

[1:53:40] questions are spot on. This is a

[1:53:42] system. It doesn't matter - - if we

[1:53:46] provide every single students in our

[1:53:47] state with a device and we don't

[1:53:48] provide family support more parent

[1:53:52] support, teacher support and how do you

[1:54:01] make a shift, we have some educators

[1:54:02] that have great experience in our state

[1:54:03] that have been doing distance learning

[1:54:04] for over two decades, and then we have

[1:54:05] other teachers that are not had the

[1:54:11] opportunity to teach students at a

[1:54:12] distance. So we need to make sure that

[1:54:13] we create a system that has the

[1:54:14] technology and Internet access. So

[1:54:16] hopefully, which is currently in the

[1:54:21] heroes act. We will see additional

[1:54:22] support for broadband for schools and

[1:54:25] familiesdirectly into the home. The

[1:54:26] second bucket, high quality content

[1:54:28] high quality professional development

[1:54:30] for teachers, and to use content and

[1:54:36] then professional development. So we

[1:54:37] are looking at cross the entire system

[1:54:40] to make sure we have all of those

[1:54:41] pieces in place was up the school

[1:54:44] districts have collaborated with that

[1:54:46] we have been working closely with them

[1:54:47] to leverage the teachers that are

[1:54:52] experienced to be able to support

[1:54:53] teachers that are just new to this

[1:54:56] experience. So we are building that

[1:55:01] system out very thoughtfully and are

[1:55:02] very short period of time. Like many

[1:55:03] other test we are doing during this

[1:55:06] pandemic.

[1:55:07] >> Thank you. Then the last concern

[1:55:09] that I have it has to do with the

[1:55:14] actual deployment. When we say one to one,

[1:55:18] are we really saying, one to one. One of the

[1:55:19] concerns I have one a lot of the

[1:55:29] started getting done as they would call

[1:55:30] family and the family has one device

[1:55:31] but they have three kids or for kids,

[1:55:32] it's very difficult for all for kids to

[1:55:34] get access to the device. So I want to

[1:55:35] make sure when were talking one to one

[1:55:40] every child has access to a device. So

[1:55:41] that they are not inhibited in their

[1:55:42] ability to be able to learn.

[1:55:43] >> Thank you Sen. Denis. For the

[1:55:48] record set superintendent Ebert. In my

[1:55:49] mind one to one is one to one, one

[1:55:55] child when device. You are exactly

[1:55:56] right it doesn't make sense to three

[1:55:57] children and household trying to share

[1:56:00] one technology piece. It would be like

[1:56:01] giving them each a pencil were one

[1:56:07] pencil in St., please share this and

[1:56:08] complete your work. So we are making a

[1:56:09] shift and should be one device per

[1:56:13] student. I will make sure we are having

[1:56:14] that same conversation with all of the

[1:56:15] superintendents and charter school

[1:56:19] authority.

[1:56:20] >> Thank you very much. Thank you Mme.

[1:56:21] Chair.

[1:56:22] >> Thank you Sen. Denis. I'll go to

[1:56:25] assemblywoman Neal next

[1:56:31] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. So I had a

[1:56:32] question on the supplanting provision.

[1:56:33] I was reading in the backup that the

[1:56:35] ESS are allows the supplanting and it

[1:56:38] actually allows the funds to take

[1:56:42] place at the state and local funds for

[1:56:44] allowable activity. CSST is getting,

[1:56:50] what is that, 83 million? Have they

[1:56:51] broken out what they're going to use it

[1:56:53] for, and how they are going to fill in

[1:56:55] their budget?

[1:56:56] >> Thank you assemblywoman Neal for

[1:57:03] superintendent Ebert for the record.

[1:57:04] Like the conversation before I think a

[1:57:05] lot of moving parts. The school

[1:57:10] district are looking at what the budget

[1:57:11] reductions will be along with these

[1:57:13] funds. And not looking at each

[1:57:15] individual piece in isolation. So I

[1:57:16] can't speak for the Clark County school

[1:57:23] District specifically. They are aware

[1:57:24] of the dollars that are being made

[1:57:25] available within the CARES Act and

[1:57:29] then I'm sure they will move forward

[1:57:30] accordingly. You're actually right on

[1:57:31] the supplement vs. a plan. They have

[1:57:32] made these dollars extremely flexible,

[1:57:36] that if they choose to use all the

[1:57:37] dollars on devices, and Internet

[1:57:41] connectivity for children, that they

[1:57:44] may and/or use all the dollars, the 83

[1:57:51] Millie Dawes for social emotional

[1:57:52] learning. So it is incumbent upon the

[1:57:53] school district leaders to make sure

[1:57:54] they have a plan that meets the needs

[1:57:56] of their individual school districts.

[1:57:59] Each school district is unique as you

[1:58:01] well know and the public school charter

[1:58:04] authority is as well so we have some

[1:58:06] schools that accelerate and continue to

[1:58:09] accelerate in this arena and others that

[1:58:11] quite frankly, have struggled.

[1:58:17] >> Mme. Chair, just a quick follow-up..

[1:58:23] >> Yes.

[1:58:24] >> Director Ebert, did have to give

[1:58:25] you a plan? At of the listed items did

[1:58:29] have to tell you, we are going to fight

[1:58:30] out of 11 and then show youhow there

[1:58:33] around student learning there is a

[1:58:34] clear equity piece.. Do they have to

[1:58:38] illustrate to you how they were

[1:58:42] equitable with those subpopulations?

[1:58:47] >> Thank you Mme. Chair and

[1:58:54] assemblywoman. The focus is on the

[1:58:57] highest [inaudible] students. The way

[1:59:03] we have constructed this so they can

[1:59:06] achieve, receive the dollars to meet

[1:59:07] the needs of the students quickly is

[1:59:11] that, we have built it out with the

[1:59:13] various categories that I explained

[1:59:14] earlier, and then they are to explain

[1:59:16] how they will focus and meet the needs

[1:59:25] of our low income students come our

[1:59:26] children with disabilities, our English

[1:59:27] language learners, racial, ethnic

[1:59:28] minorities that are not experiencing

[1:59:29] success in our educational system,

[1:59:33] homelessness, foster care, all those

[1:59:34] are high-priority focus within these

[1:59:37] dollars are allocated to the districts.

[1:59:47] >> Thank you. So I believe we can go to

[1:59:49] Sen. Cancela, next.

[1:59:53] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. Dir. Ebert, I

[1:59:57] have heard that procurementof

[2:00:03] materials, whether it is tablets or

[2:00:04] computers, has been a challenge because

[2:00:05] we are up against the entire country

[2:00:09] potentially the whole globe, in getting

[2:00:10] these digital tools to our students and

[2:00:14] getting them ordered and get any orders

[2:00:15] fulfilled. Do you have a timeline of

[2:00:20] when you anticipate these materials

[2:00:21] will actually be in the hands of

[2:00:25] students and is there anything we can

[2:00:26] do to support moving that along as

[2:00:27] quickly as possible?

[2:00:30] >> Thank you Sen. for that question,

[2:00:35] superintendent Ebert for the record. It

[2:00:40] has been roughly, school district are

[2:00:41] reporting in somewhere between six and

[2:00:44] eight weeks for devices to come in. At

[2:00:47] this point in time, it really is a

[2:00:48] matter of funding. The funding needs to

[2:00:51] be made available so they can place

[2:00:55] orders. You are right, the sub supply

[2:01:00] chain with the school district across

[2:01:01] the nation looking, and the dollars

[2:01:02] being made available, for devices, the

[2:01:06] sooner these orders are placed the

[2:01:13] quicker we can get devices and

[2:01:14] connectivity to our students and

[2:01:15] families in their homes.

[2:01:23] >> All right. Are there any other

[2:01:26] questions from committee members at

[2:01:28] this time? Seeing none, I believe we

[2:01:36] can go ahead and move forward with this

[2:01:42] item. So I would accept a motion to

[2:01:47] process item number three - excuse me -

[2:01:48] item 7, making sure I've the right

[2:01:57] number here. Item F. I will accept a

[2:02:02] motion from vice chair Woodhouse and a

[2:02:05] second from Majority Leader

[2:02:09] Benitez-Thompson. Are there any questions

[2:02:10] or comments on the motion? Hearing

[2:02:18] none, I will go ahead and call the role

[2:02:20] >> Roll Call Vote: Benitez-Thompson,

[2:02:28] aye. Frierson, aye. Leavitt, aye.

[2:02:43] Jauregui, aye. Kremer, aye.

[2:02:53] Monroe-Moreno aye. Neal, aye.

[2:03:00] Spiegel, aye., Spiegel, aye. Munk,

[2:03:16] aye. Swank, aye. Backus, aye.

[2:03:31] Titus, aye. Wheeler, aye. Carlton,

[2:03:43] aye. Brooks, aye. Cancela,, aye.

[2:03:53] Denis, aye. Goicoechea, aye.

[2:04:01] Kieckhefer, aye. Parks, aye.

[2:04:09] Settelmeyer, aye. Woodhouse, aye.

[2:04:14] >> The motion carries.

[2:04:19] >> Thank you. So with that item number

[2:04:23] F is taken care of. I believe our next

[2:04:25] item is a discussion point only.. I

[2:04:29] will go ahead and turn it over to

[2:04:31] speaker Frierson,, as far as the

[2:04:33] discussion about establishing a

[2:04:36] committee foroversight and input on the

[2:04:41] COVID 19 money. So speaker Frierson.

[2:04:44] >> Thank you Mme. Chair. As we briefly

[2:04:46] discussed at our last meeting and have

[2:04:51] been abundantly apparent both in that

[2:04:52] meeting and this meeting, there is not

[2:04:54] only a desire but a focus on us in the

[2:05:01] legislative branch, looking at the

[2:05:02] influx of federal dollars.. And having

[2:05:06] hearings on where money has gone and

[2:05:08] hearing from different stakeholders

[2:05:10] about where money should go. And making

[2:05:16] recommendations based on those

[2:05:21] hearings. Again if we did this in 2009

[2:05:22] with federal aid and I would envision

[2:05:25] that the structure and process would be

[2:05:27] similar regarding the composition and

[2:05:32] oversight. This would be done in

[2:05:33] conjunction with the executive and

[2:05:37] having these hearings and making these

[2:05:40] recommendations, and so it would be my

[2:05:44] wish to have that subcommittee formed

[2:05:49] and on Thursday, on Thursday, get

[2:05:57] moving on the creation of that, so that

[2:06:01] we can envision getting more information

[2:06:06] and collectively having some

[2:06:07] conversations about how that money has

[2:06:11] been used and how it should be used. I

[2:06:12] will also say that the intention is

[2:06:13] for it to be broad enough that any

[2:06:18] future federal dollars that may come

[2:06:20] would also be in conference. So we will

[2:06:24] have to do this based on the narrow

[2:06:27] CARES Act in and of itself and rather

[2:06:32] related to coronavirus and the pandemic

[2:06:33] so we continue to do the work of where

[2:06:35] the money is and input from the crayon

[2:06:38] where it should go forward.

[2:06:46] >> Thank you speaker. So committee this

[2:06:47] is a discussion point for now. A

[2:06:48] meeting has been noticed for Thursday

[2:06:49] at 1:30 PM to actually create this

[2:06:57] subcommittee of the interim finance

[2:06:58] committee. So are there any questions

[2:06:59] or comments from other members at this

[2:07:01] time? No vote on this will be taken

[2:07:02] today. This is merely the public

[2:07:05] discussion part of it. Committee

[2:07:08] members? Did I see a hand? Sen.

[2:07:17] Woodhouse I am sorry, yes.

[2:07:19] >> Thank you chair Carlton. I just

[2:07:22] want to say come I want to thank

[2:07:26] speaker Frierson and the chair and Sen.

[2:07:36] for working on this oversight committee

[2:07:37] idea. I believe this is truly a way we

[2:07:38] can make sure that we are using - -

[2:07:44] that we are utilizing the CARES Act

[2:07:45] dollars that will help the Nevadans

[2:07:46] to deal with a crisis at hand and it's

[2:07:49] also an opportunity for us to

[2:07:52] communicate how these dollars are being

[2:07:55] expended in the most efficient way.. So

[2:07:58] that all of the stakeholders in state

[2:08:02] government, legislature our local

[2:08:04] officials as well as well as the

[2:08:08] communities in which we all live, that

[2:08:10] we know what is happening with these

[2:08:13] dollars. Because it is very very

[2:08:16] important that we do adjust the needs

[2:08:17] of our community. So thank you very

[2:08:20] much for the opportunity to make a

[2:08:22] comment.>> Thank you Sen. Woodhouse.

[2:08:27] Any other questions or comments from

[2:08:28] any other committee members at this

[2:08:29] time? I don't see anyone wishing to be

[2:08:38] recognized at this moment. So with that

[2:08:41] committee members will take our

[2:08:42] standard two-minute pause in order to

[2:08:44] allow folks wish to make a public

[2:08:46] comment to be able to dial in and be

[2:08:51] queued up. The clock that I have right

[2:09:03] now is citing about 11:15 AM. In the

[2:09:09] interest to make it your will go until

[2:09:10] about 11:18 AM and will check our

[2:09:11] broadcast services staff to see if

[2:09:12] anyone is in a queue for public

[2:09:13] comment. So with that we will stand

[2:09:14] eddies for the next couple of minutes.

[2:09:15] Thank you.

[2:09:16] >> >> [Recess]

[2:12:13] >> Broadcast services do we have

[2:12:14] anyone in a comment, please be was we

[2:12:16] have one caller. Caller, please were

[2:12:20] the last three numbers 535, please be

[2:12:21] addressed

[2:12:22] >> Good morning Mme. Chair and

[2:12:26] committee. My name is Jim Sullivan. I'm

[2:12:30] here representing the [inaudible]. As

[2:12:35] CARES Act money starts to flow into our

[2:12:36] state the culinary union believes the

[2:12:38] lattice of prioritize getting displaced

[2:12:39] workers back to work to protecting

[2:12:42] those that 142 we remain unemployed.

[2:12:47] As communities plan to reopen casinos,

[2:12:48] it's imperative that CARES Act money

[2:12:50] used for allocated to first ensure that

[2:12:53] all hospitality employees - excuse me -

[2:13:03] first to ensure that all hospitality

[2:13:05] employees are testable for they return

[2:13:07] to work and it's crucial to address was

[2:13:12] sufficient time for workers to receive

[2:13:13] results before their scheduled to

[2:13:14] return to work. In addition, CARES Act

[2:13:16] money should be set aside to assist

[2:13:18] workers for long-term unemployment and

[2:13:22] food housing and rental assistance. The

[2:13:25] culinary union is also demanding

[2:13:42] transparency as Nevada stores plan to

[2:13:43] reopen. We are at all elected officials

[2:13:44] on the interim finance committee to

[2:13:45] contact Nevada gaming commission and

[2:13:46] asked them to do things immediately.

[2:13:47] One, incorporate the culinary unions

[2:13:48] proposed public health guidelines at a

[2:13:49] minimum standard in evaluating casino

[2:13:50] companies individual plans. Second,

[2:13:51] publicly release all reopen plans

[2:13:52] submitted by the gaming establishment.

[2:13:54] The safety of the matter of lady life

[2:13:57] and death for workers with gaming

[2:13:58] comedies are responsible to be

[2:13:59] transparent with another Nevadans and

[2:14:06] [inaudible] control the pandemic of the

[2:14:07] call: are you will can do to be vocal

[2:14:08] and issued to make sure workers are

[2:14:09] saved thank you for your time and

[2:14:10] estimate this as written testimony

[2:14:11] after this meeting. Thank you.

[2:14:12] >> Thank you Mr. Sullivan. Please, do

[2:14:18] submit written testimony. Either any

[2:14:19] other public comment requests?

[2:14:22] >>

[2:14:26] >> Mme. Chair, that concludes the

[2:14:27] public comment queue at this time.

[2:14:28] >> Thank you very much care services

[2:14:29] you are doing a great job keeping us on

[2:14:30] track and this is getting easier and

[2:14:31] easier every time so, thank you very

[2:14:35] much for all your hard work. So with

[2:14:36] that committee members there's no more

[2:14:39] business in front of us for today. The

[2:14:41] meeting has been posted for Thursday at

[2:14:43] 1:30 PM. Please please, do try to sign

[2:14:46] in early on the queue if you can to

[2:14:52] make sure that we are ready to go at

[2:14:53] 1:30 PM. Please, do remember that these

[2:14:57] are broadcast on the Internet and this

[2:14:58] is just like every other meeting. Side

[2:15:03] conversations and other work should be

[2:15:04] kept at a minimum while were doing the

[2:15:06] people's work in this committee

[2:15:07] meeting. I like to say we were

[2:15:10] officially kiddie bombs earlier at Ms.

[2:15:12] Spiegel's residence so we have now

[2:15:13] crossed over into having a pet attend

[2:15:21] one of our meetings. We knew it was

[2:15:22] gonna happen sooner or later so

[2:15:23] congratulations Ms. Spiegel. You're the

[2:15:24] first one to have a pet attend and IFC

[2:15:27] remaining. So with that committee

[2:15:28] members, thank you very much. We are

[2:15:29] adjourned.

[2:15:30] >> >> [Event concluded]

05/18/2020 Interim Finance Committee (25383) - Room 4100

Agenda

Transcript