MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 28, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 28, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the agenda.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Chairman Arberry told the committee some of the budgets to be discussed this afternoon were budgets which had been considered but not closed. Some budgets had been held due to problems with closure.
Mr. Stevens stated the budgets which had been held were the State Museum, Carson City; State Museum, Las Vegas; Historic Preservation; and Comstock Historic District. The discussion on the Nevada State Library had been opened but not concluded and this would be a good starting place. Staff had been requested to outline boards and commissions recommended for consolidation, elimination, change from regulatory to advisory, etc. There are two boards within the library budget which are recommended to be consolidated: the Nevada Council on Libraries and the Literacy Coalition. The recommendation was to consolidate them into a Council on Libraries and Literacy and be advisory in nature. Mr. Stevens pointed out in future budgets, when a board or commission was recommended to be consolidated or eliminated, the staff would bring this information to the committee's attention for discussion.
Mr. Spitler commented he had been informed the boards and commissions were going to be addressed by a select committee. He asked if this was a different manner of addressing the issue. Chairman Arberry explained the committee would make a recommendation to the select committee, but the select committee will make the final decision. This process was to expedite budget closures. Mr. Spitler inquired if he was opposed to the staff recommendation, if that would be a "no" vote when closing the budget. Chairman Arberry replied that was the option of the committee member to vote their wish on any issue. In this particular situation, however, voting "yes" would not set the recommendation in stone.
Mr. Stevens added there was no change from a budgetary standpoint if the consolidation was approved or changed from an advisory to a regulatory board or commission. Some of the members have asked the boards and commissions issue be brought up for consideration when budgets are closed. For example, the Dairy Commission budget had been under discussion as to whether that board should be consolidated with the Board of Agriculture and whether the board should be advisory or regulatory. Although not related to the budget, the committee may want to discuss this issue at the time of closure. It was not necessary to bring up the issue and would be easier on the staff not to have to research and present information at the time of budget closure. However, whatever direction the committee wishes to proceed would be acceptable.
Mr. Spitler inquired if a two-thirds vote was required to reopen a budget. Chairman Arberry replied that was correct. The issue surrounding the boards and commissions does not require action today, but it was an effort to keep the committee informed when closing budgets.
Mr. Price asked if the two-thirds vote was part of the standing committee rules. Mr. Stevens replied that was correct. Traditionally, there were some matters which could be taken care of by staff without having to reopen a budget. For instance, rents could be adjusted depending on the manner in which a budget was closed. The operating category could be changed in a minor fashion if there was a problem with rents. The committee in the past had authorized staff to make those adjustments, advised Mr. Stevens. At issue this session, for example, if the committee did not wish to consolidate data processing activities, the budgets would have to be adjusted after closure. Under normal circumstances, the budgets would be closed normally, when the data processing decision was made, if there was an impact on a particular budget, that budget would have to be reviewed to ensure the data processing decision was applied to that budget. There will be some areas requiring adjustment based upon decisions which will be made during the next few weeks. In general, if there was a desire to modify a budget, it could be reopened with a two-thirds vote of the committee.
Some caution must be exercised, stated Mr. Spitler, in terms of what signals were sent by the committee. It appeared many of the budgets would be reopened because many major policy decisions had not yet been determined. The data processing issue had not been resolved and at the present time, the prison subcommittee was not as yet prepared to be closed due to so many budget concerns. When a "yes" vote was cast, the vote usually stays consistent throughout the budgetary process. In this situation, where broad policy issues have not been decided, a "yes" vote might be cast in order to reach closure, but at a later time, a "no" vote cast.
Chairman Arberry agreed this appears somewhat as if the committee was just going through the motions, but the governor and his staff had presented something very new and different. Trying to expedite the process and put the budget into a format the committee could work with had been very difficult. The chairman understood the reservations of the committee in voting either "yes" or "no." In the long run, when the final decision was made, there may be occasion to reopen some of the budgets for consideration. He reminded the committee they were all out on a limb, but decisions had to be made in order to close the budgets and the committee would move cautiously.
Mr. Dini remarked during the last session the budgets were closed subject to review of the data processing budget when it had been closed by the subcommittee. He believed any budget could be closed subject to data processing and boards and commissions, which will have to be decided separately.
Mr. Marvel agreed with Mr. Dini, many of the budgets can be closed and those that are affected by the boards and commissions issue can be dealt with separately. Chairman Arberry stated that was correct. He needed the support of the committee to reopen those budgets which were out of balance and needed adjustment.
When the committee meets with Senate Finance, Mr. Spitler inquired if a two-thirds vote was required to reopen a budget after a joint closure. Mr. Stevens replied the Senate has similar committee rules where more than a majority was required to reopen a budget. If a budget was jointly closed, a vote of both committees was required to reopen that budget. When the decision was made on the data processing issue which alters a great many of the budgets, staff would need to be informed if they would be allowed to adjust the budgets without the committees reopening every budget which was affected by the decision. There was an understanding now and in the past on the Senate side where staff may do these adjustments. It would be up to the Assembly committee if they would allow the same. However, it would be cumbersome to reopen possibly 100 budgets in order to accommodate the data processing decision.
Mr. Spitler reminded the committee the entire budget was based on the passage of the facilities capacity act, the compassionate release act, advance of the insurance premium tax, slot tax and the hospital provider tax. To his knowledge, none of these taxes have passed. Mrs. Evans commented some have not even been introduced. Mr. Spitler added the chairman would need the committee's support if some of the budgets need to be revisited. None of the funding mechanisms for the budget have passed and the committee must be cognizant of this while closing budgets. Mrs. Evans agreed and one example was salary adjustments for unclassified personnel.
Mrs. Williams suggested regarding those budgets which need to be revisited, the committee agree now in concept to reopen those budgets. It might be possible to suspend the committee rule requiring a two-thirds vote to reopen a budget, so that as further information becomes available, it would be easier to review the adjustments. Chairman Arberry maintained it should not be necessary to reopen every budget, adjustments by staff should be sufficient in some instances. He remarked he had confidence in the staff to make those adjustments. Mrs. Williams agreed; however, if there should be an objection, a revisit could take place in order to move forward.
Ms. Giunchigliani interpreted the discussion to mean there was an understanding that upon request, a budget could be reopened, or in the alternative, was the question that as budgets were closed, other outside factors must be taken into consideration and may not be resolved at the time of closure. Mr. Stevens remarked both instances should be considered correct. The committee could reopen any budget it chose after it had been closed with a two-thirds vote. He stated Mrs. Evans was correct regarding her statement of salary adjustments for unclassified personnel. Those salaries were included in the budget, but usually the matter was handled in subcommittee in both Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means. Any modifications to those salaries were recommended to the committee and a vote taken. If there were any changes, staff makes adjustments without reopening each individual affected budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated the committee needed to move on as long as they were satisfied they were doing the right thing. However, trying to obtain a two-thirds vote of the committee to reopen a budget only one person had a concern with may not be possible. She had no problem with the staff adjustments, but logistically, there was no guarantee a budget could be revisited. Chairman Arberry agreed the committee needed to proceed in order to close jointly with Senate Finance. If there was a major problem with a budget, he was sure the committee would feel comfortable reopening that budget for consideration. There was no guarantee there would be a two-thirds vote to reopen the budget, but on the other hand, if the committee does not proceed, it would have to shut down. At the present time, the committee was behind schedule.
Mr. Spitler pointed out if a member voted to close a budget based on a revenue source being implemented, it was that member's responsibility to vote for the funding mechanism when the time arose.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to the significance of the May 31st deadline. Chairman Arberry replied this was used as a goal in an attempt to move the budgetary process along.
Mr. Dini maintained this session was no different from those over the last 165 years. The money committee never knew what the funding mechanisms would be until the very end of the session and it remained a crap shoot when budgets were closed. Only one revenue bill needs fail in order to have all the budgets reopened for review. This has happened before and to be responsible, every budget must be reopened and cut. It was an unwritten law among the committee members that they must do the right thing, you cannot refuse to cut a budget and then refuse to vote among the two-thirds to reopen the budget. If such was the case, the committee would be here a long time. Chairman Arberry added the May 31st date was not set in stone. It was a mechanism which acted as a guide only and allowed staff to plan ahead.
Mr. Price stated an easy way to alleviate the committee's concerns would be to make a motion to change rule 5, which calls for a two-thirds majority, to a simple majority. He indicated through experience the two-thirds majority or unanimous vote requirements can be upset by one person who can control the destiny of the issue.
Chairman Arberry requested a five minute break to discuss the rule change. The committee reconvened and Mr. Price withdrew his motion.
NEVADA STATE LIBRARY - PAGE 1159
Mr. Stevens advised the committee there were a number of issues under consideration. The first concern was the book budget item at $153,000 each year of the biennium, within the operating category. This was completely funded through gifts and donations and there had been some concern by the committee whether the library would be able to generate sufficient revenue from that source to fund their book budget. There were a number of options available to the committee. One would be to approve the governor's recommendation and fund the state library's book budget completely from gifts and donations. The possibilities would include providing some general fund dollars; adding federal Title I funds which were available in another budget within the state library; or funding a portion of the budget with gifts and donations in any combination. The funding could be a one-third/one-third/one-third basis. If the decision that no general funds were available to fund the book budget, a larger amount of federal Title I funds could be provided with the remainder of funding coming from gifts and donations. Mr. Stevens defined the options available to the committee--the governor's recommendation; some combination of state general fund, federal Title I funds and gifts and donations; or if no state money was available, a larger amount of federal funds could be used in combination with gifts and donations.
Mrs. Evans thanked Mr. Stevens for presenting some good options to the committee. To fund this budget of $150,000 entirely with gifts and grants was unrealistic. If the committee was to decide to utilize Title I funds, she inquired if the funding to local libraries would be reduced. Mr. Stevens replied that was correct. Mrs. Evans commented she would not object to some Title I funding be used, not as much as 50 percent, but she could live with the one-third/one-third/one-third option.
Ms. Giunchigliani added if the state was going to have a library, the state should provide funding to stock it with books. She emphasized during this entire budget process less dollars have been shifted to the counties and this appeared to be another example with the use of Title I funds.
Mr. Stevens continued the next issues could potentially involve adding money into the budget. The assistant state librarian position, the value of which was targeted in reorganization savings, was one such issue. The chairman had asked staff to explain in overall direction how the committee may want to handle reorganization savings. Mr. Stevens said there had been concerns as to whether the value of positions and/or the positions should be specifically identified. There had also been questions regarding transfer authority for general fund appropriations between budget accounts within a department. If a position was not funded in a particular budget, there had been a proposal to take reorganization savings and transfer them to vacancy savings. This transfer would eliminate the reorganization savings line item and add to the vacancy savings line item. The executive branch currently had the authority to transfer monies within a department up to the amount included in the budget for vacancy savings. This would address the concerns of some committee members regarding granting additional authority for transfers of appropriations within a department. The executive branch had current authority, if they came to Interim Finance to move monies within a department to make up vacancy savings when a particular budget could not generate the funds. This would also give the executive branch the flexibility to transfer monies if a particular position could not be deleted, into the budget to keep that position funded, but eliminate a less necessary position in another budget.
Mr. Marvel remarked he liked Mr. Stevens' recommendation.
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO ELIMINATE REORGANIZATION SAVINGS IN EACH BUDGET; EACH POSITION WOULD BE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE POSITION SHOULD BE FUNDED. IF THE POSITION WAS NOT FUNDED, THE REORGANIZATION SAVINGS WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO VACANCY SAVINGS AND THE CURRENT STATUTORY TRANSFER AUTHORITY WOULD STAND IN THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Arberry explained the reason for this proposition was to attempt to deal more effectively with the new budget format. In some cases, certain budgets would not be closed without having certain positions retained. The assistant state librarian was one of those positions which could not be cut. Each budget would have to be carefully reviewed for positions before closure. This transfer as explained by Mr. Stevens would give the subcommittee chairmen some flexibility in closing their budgets and those positions which had been targeted for reorganizational savings.
Mr. Heller commented as he understood the motion, the agency savings would be transferred to vacancy savings. In this fashion, the agencies themselves would be able to decide how to fund the vacancy savings. Mr. Stevens clarified this was nearly the case. In certain cases, the committee may choose to actually fund the position rather than increase the vacancy savings. If the reorganization savings was retained and the position was not funded, the funding shortfall would be transferred to vacancy savings, up to the reorganization savings amount.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Price called attention to page 1159 of the Executive Budget and requested definition of the line item Poets in Person. Mrs. Williams explained this was the poets or artists in-residence program which had generally been funded by the state, or the local humanities committee or arts council to provide a professional poet, artist or musician to be available to the people to help to learn more about the arts. Mr. Price stated he was opposed to the elimination of the poet laureate position and was concerned the Poets in Person was the same position. Mrs. Williams remarked she did not feel this was the same person, but an entirely different position. Mr. Thorne believed Mrs. Williams was correct in her explanation of the program. There were no funds in the library budget for the poet laureate. This Poet in Person position was funded by federal funds and there were no federal funds available for this position in the next biennium.
Mr. Stevens stated the assistant library position was targeted for reorganization savings and based on the motion before the committee, the funding for this position would be transferred to vacancy savings. There had been testimony before the committee the assistant librarian position was very important to the library. If the position was added to the budget, it would be paid for out of the general fund. One option would be to reduce the vacancy savings so the position would not have to be eliminated or if a different position terminated, there would be sufficient vacancy savings from that position termination to allow the assistant state librarian position to continue.
The third issue Mr. Stevens commented, was the bookmobiles. This portion of the budget was funded at $96,000 by the 1991 Legislature and has been recommended this session for $70,000. There were options available to the committee. The governor's recommendation could be followed, funds could be added from the state general fund, federal Title I monies could be available, the library council could be contacted requesting federal Title I funds, or any number of other options in that area.
Mr. Marvel said he had spoken to Joan Kerschner, the state librarian, about the bookmobiles. In the past, federal money had been held for enhancements, but at this time, Mrs. Kerschner felt comfortable the $26,000 shortfall could be picked up in Title I money.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO MAINTAIN THE ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN POSITION AND THE FUNDING BE TAKEN OUT OF VACANCY SAVINGS; THE BOOKMOBILE BUDGET BE INCREASED AND THOSE FUNDS BE OBTAINED FROM FEDERAL TITLE I MONIES; AND THE BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS BE FUNDED 75 PERCENT GENERAL FUND AND 25 PERCENT GIFTS AND DONATIONS.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Dini commented that was a lot of general fund money for this budget. Mr. Stevens added the cost would be $112,500 in general fund dollars in each year of the biennium to fund 75 percent of the book budget. Mr. Dini asked if the assistant library position cost would be in addition. Mr. Stevens explained the position would transfer to vacancy savings, based on Ms. Giunchigliani's motion, and in that event, there would be no general fund cost.
Mrs. Evans asked if the difference between the $112,500 figure and the $153,000 would come from gifts and grants. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that was correct.
Mr. Dini commented if general fund dollars were added to every budget, there would quickly be shortfalls. There should be a more proportionate share coming from other sources of funding. Chairman Arberry agreed. He asked if Ms. Giunchigliani would be willing to revise her motion.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would be willing to split her motion into two parts and withdrew her initial motion.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO MAINTAIN THE ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN POSITION AND THE FUNDING BE TAKEN OUT OF VACANCY SAVINGS. SHE ALSO MOVED THE BOOKMOBILE BUDGET BE INCREASED AND THOSE FUNDS BE OBTAINED FROM FEDERAL TITLE I MONIES.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS BE FUNDED 75 PERCENT GENERAL FUND AND 25 PERCENT GIFTS AND DONATIONS.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Stevens explained at 75 percent, this would cost $112,500 in general funds for each year of the biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated this would impact local governments even more by taking the Title I monies away from them. It was the state's responsibility to fund the state library with state dollars.
MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO FUND BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF ONE-THIRD/ONE-THIRD/ONE-THIRD.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO.
BUDGET CLOSED.
ARCHIVES DIVISION - PAGE 1165
Chairman Arberry inquired if there were any comments on this budget from the committee. There was no discussion.
MR. MARVEL MOVED GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
BUDGET CLOSED.
NEVADA STATE LIBRARY - LITERACY - PAGE 1169
There being no comments from the committee, Chairman Arberry asked for a motion.
MRS. EVANS MOVED GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
BUDGET CLOSED.
NEVADA STATE LIBRARY (CLAN) - PAGE 1174
Mr. Stevens pointed out there had been testimony in committee regarding the data processing consolidation issue. A microcomputer specialist position in this account had been recommended to be consolidated into the data processing budget. There had been some discussion this move would cripple this budget and there was concern among the committee members. It was felt, regardless whether to consolidate data processing functions, this position should stand alone in this account. If the position was to stay in this budget, it would require additional county funding of $4,919 in the first year of the biennium and $11,274 in the second year. Mr. Stevens maintained he was not recommending a decision one way or the other; however, it was an issue the committee should consider. It was believed the counties were in agreement to generate the additional funds if the microcomputer specialist position was retained in this particular account.
Mrs. Evans remarked she had information which corroborated Mr. Steven's understanding that the counties would make up the additional funds to keep this position within the budget. It was not a large amount, but there was concern over loss of control. If the position stayed in the library for the purpose of networking all the libraries in the state, the counties would be willing to help fund the cost. If the position was moved into data processing, the counties would not contribute.
MRS. EVANS MOVED TO CLOSE WITH THE MICROCOMPUTER SPECIALIST POSITION REMAINING IN THIS BUDGET ACCOUNT.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Thorne advised the committee if the data processing positions were dealt with piecemeal in individual budgets, it will have a significant impact on the data processing budget and as that budget changed, it would have a ripple effect throughout every budget with data processing personnel transfers.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
BUDGET CLOSED.
NEVADA COUNCIL ON THE ARTS - PAGE 1177
Mr. Stevens remarked there was only one item which should be brought to the committee's attention. The longevity pay for employees within this account consisted of $800 per year which had not been budgeted. That may not be material enough to cause the committee any concern, and if not, Mr. Stevens suggested the budget be closed governor's recommendation. If the longevity pay issue was addressed, state general fund dollars would be involved, but not a terribly large amount.
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED TO CLOSE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
MR. HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
BUDGET CLOSED.
Mr. Dini asked if a report had been received regarding the Comstock Historic District. He was interested in the exact revenue figures. Mr. Stevens stated the report had been received. There was current statutory authority for the district to charge fees and would be in the $2,000-$3,000 range. He said a memorandum detailing that information would be available soon for discussion and budget closure.
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Reba Coombs, Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
April 28, 1993
Page 1