MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
May ll, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, May ll, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Larry Peri, Program Analyst
Dee Crawford, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jerry Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources
Jerry Ash, President, Nevada Hospital Association
Don Mello, Court Administrator, Office of Court Administrator
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Senator Raggio moved for committee introduction of the following bill draft request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 32-2088: Makes various changes relating to supplemental city-county relief tax.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 32-2088.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 253.
SENATE BILL 253: Requires department of human resources to hold conference and to publish report on improvement of health services.
Senator Rawson testified the bill was developed by an interim committee to address the issue of quality control within hospital settings. He opined it was desirable for the industry to have a quality assurance conference but disagreed with the concept to use state funding to accomplish that goal.
Jerry Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources, referenced the cost of the conference and stated it cannot exceed the amount actually collected. He opined it would be very difficult to estimate the amount of necessary revenue. He suggested, "If we want the industry to pay for it, that we would allow the ability to estimate these costs and if there is extra money left over, it would be carried forward to be spent on the next year's conference...."
Mr. Carlin continued:
When we discussed this issue, when we first implemented the hospital cost-containment efforts back in l987, this issue was discussed at length. I believe at that time we were relying on some internal hospital commissions that would monitor the quality of care. Along with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals [JCAH], I believe that would suffice. I'm not sure what would be gained beyond the quality assurance programs that the hospitals must have in place in order to comply with licensure and... accreditation. It may be that we might want to have some kind of access and summarization of those efforts....
Senator Rawson agreed with Mr. Carlin and maintained there are other vehicles to use to obtain the desired information.
Jerry Ash, President, Nevada Hospital Association, came forward to offer comment that the association would be agreeable to produce a report outlining the quality assurance programs in effect in each hospital in the State of Nevada.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 253.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 253 and opened discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 338.
SENATE BILL 338: Establishes emergency procedure for reducing number of offenders in facilities and institutions of department of prisons.
Senator Jacobsen voiced his understanding that layoff notices would be sent to prison honor camp staff on May 20, l993. He expressed concern over the abrupt layoff notice.
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, recited her recollection that Director Angelone apprised the legislature of his intention to notify employees of the potential closing of the honor camps. She explained the policy of notifying personnel earmarked for layoffs:
We have to have 30 days before you can impact a layoff, and there is no money in the budget to continue them after July l, l993. We recognize that much depends on what this legislature decides, but if you wait until the very end and then decide to do it and do not have those notices out, then it will take another 30 days. You will have to appropriate money to continue to have the honor camps run past July l, l993....
Senator Jacobsen expressed his concern that if the legislature should decide to maintain the honor camps there will be no staff left to run them.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
The proposal was the honor camps be closed and that Jean prison be opened. There was not, in our proposal, any particular layoff. Again, without an indication of what the legislature is going to do, Director Angelone is in a very difficult position because he knows he has no money in July to continue operation of those honor camps. I think what he is doing is a precaution against that....
Senator Raggio requested Ms. Matteucci obtain a report from Director Angelone addressing Senator Jacobsen's concerns. He suggested the notice indicate it is possible the positions may be restored.
Senator Coffin requested amendments to the Facilities Capacity Act be submitted to the committee in ample time to review them thoroughly before the hearing.
Ms. Matteucci responded she would coordinate the request with Director Angelone.
Senator Raggio closed discussion on S.B. 338 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 235.
SENATE BILL 235: Provides definition for accessory roads and clarifies rights of users of such roads.
Senator Raggio reminded the committee this bill does not presently define an accessory road. He further opined the attorney general should not be mandated to take action each time a user complaint is issued. Changing the wording from "shall" to "may" would remove that mandatory provision, he maintained.
Senator Glomb opined if the wording remained "shall" the attorney general would have to represent everyone equally. If the wording "may" was used, "then it's at that person's discretion."
Senator Raggio pointed out an attorney general must first evaluate the complaint to determine whether a violation has occurred, or if there is a basis for bringing such an action. "That's what the amendment that is before us would accomplish," he advocated.
Senator Callister joined the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
Arguing against the proposed amendment, Senator Coffin declared:
....Essentially you have access being denied by the federal government, and it seems to be in the state's interest to mandate the attorney general take action. We do have precedent for this....We have done it before....
Senator Raggio reminded Senator Coffin that those individuals who appeared to testify on the measure did not object to changing the permissive wording.
Senator Callister stated his opposition to the bill unless the wording were changed to "may" instead of "will."
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 235 TO CHANGE THE WORD "SHALL" TO "MAY" ON LINE 39, PAGE 2.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 235 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 235 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 280.
SENATE BILL 280: Creates account for Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park and authorizes expenditures for sewer and water systems.
Senator Raggio distributed Amendment No. 4l4, which amends section l, by deleting lines 5 and 6. Concern was expressed previously that the word "operation" should be included. Amendment No. 4l4 makes those changes, he asserted.
Senator Rawson moved for committee introduction of the following bill draft request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST
(BDR) S-1026: Makes conditional appropriations for establishment of forensic laboratories and purchase of specialized equipment.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1026.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci to provide revenue projection updates at the upcoming scheduled joint meeting.
Senator Raggio requested an update from the subcommittee on purchasing staff.
Larry Peri, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed Exhibit C, Senate Committee on Finance Subcommittee on Purchasing, (Exhibit C - Original on File in the Research Library) to the committee and provided an overview of the subcommittee recommendations contained therein.
Purchasing Division - Page 236
Mr. Peri testified on behalf of Senators Jacobsen, Coffin and O'Donnell, respective members of the subcommittee on purchasing. He testified that after review of the Purchasing Division budget, the subcommittee requested a revised budget that would address several concerns identified during the subcommittee review. The requested revised budget was submitted to the subcommittee, in cooperation with the Budget Division. The subcommittee accepted the revised budget and approved the requested l7 full-time equivalent positions over the next biennium, compared to the original amount of ll recommended in the Executive Budget.
The subcommittee authorized the Purchasing Division to continue its funding mechanism practice of assessing an administrative charge assessed to all agencies using the purchasing system. Mr. Peri explained the administrative charge is set at 5 percent, with a maximum $800 per purchase order. He outlined:
The subcommittee wanted that particular system continued, which resulted in the third entry, the recommendation to delete the purchasing assessment, which had been recommended through the Executive Budget. This assessment proposed to assess a set number of agencies a certain amount. We were provided with a schedule that would be paid to the Purchasing Division regardless if they chose to order commodities or equipment through purchasing.
The subcommittee also agreed to give staff the permission to go into those affected budget accounts, which have purchasing assessments in them, and reverse those transactions. There are certain accounts now that show a payment to be made to state purchasing. What the staff proposed to subcommittee is that if this is approved by the full committee, that we be allowed to go back in, reverse that expenditure item and make the necessary offset in the revenues....
The revolving fund, which is what purchasing uses now to pay their vendors on a timely basis, then they're reimbursed by the agencies at a later date, should be continued and not revert to the General Fund. This is the primary payment mechanism and funding source for purchasing to pay their bills. The reorganization bill, it's my understanding, would ask that this particular revolving fund revert back to the General Fund. It is General Fund appropriation, which has evolved to this figure over the years.
Senator Raggio asked what was the amount that has been historically reverted.
Mr. Peri responded the fund is perpetual, therefore funding is not reverted. Continuing, he explained the direct purchase authority for agencies is currently set at a maximum of $5,000. Numerous suggestions recommended the authority be increased to $l0,000, but the subcommittee decided to maintain the $5,000 limit. If an agency desires to exceed that amount, for items they purchase on a regular basis, they notify the Purchasing Division to obtain authority to increase the $5,000 limit. Thereafter the agency is free to contact the vendor on a regular basis, he narrated.
Mr. Peri drew the committee's attention to the next significant issue regarding the purchasing warehouses in Reno and Las Vegas, which were both scheduled to be closed. The subcommittee on purchasing recommended both warehouses continue to operate, he announced. The Purchasing Division suggested to gradually reduce the number of items carried in the warehouses. Mr. Peri pointed out that concept was also a recommendation made through the Executive Budget.
In conclusion, Mr. Peri noted the actions recommended by the subcommittee on purchasing required no statutory amendments.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURCHASING (EXHIBIT C).
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Commodity Food Program - Page 24l
Drawing the committee's attention to the second page of the exhibit material, Mr. Peri explained the Commodity Food Program was impacted by the suggestion to keep the warehouses in operation. He explained the Commodity Food Program was requested to submit revisions to its budget which would add 3.5 positions more than recommended in the Executive Budget, for a total of l0 full-time positions.
Mr. Peri explained that currently, there is a joint endeavor by commodity foods and purchasing to deliver both commodity foods and office supplies to rural areas and other state agencies. Commodity foods would continue that operation on behalf of the Purchasing Division. Purchasing and surplus property would provide a transfer of funding to commodity foods to support that function, he recited.
Mr. Peri concluded:
There are inter fund transfers to this budget account, and several others within the existing Department of General Services, which are proposed to fund the recommended new Administrative Services Division in the Department of Administration. The Administrative Services Division would be a central accounting pool concept which would provide accounting services to the agencies within the proposed Department of Administration. In the review of the budget, this one particularly, there are minor adjustments that need to be made in the amount paid from this budget to support the Administrative Services Division. Until a lot of the budgets [that] affect the Administrative Services Division are closed, it is difficult for us to make the assessment corrections....The subcommittee agreed to give the staff permission to adjust those amounts, that would support the Administrative Services Division, at a later time when all the affected budgets that would make payments to administrative services are closed.
It was announced Senators Coffin and O'Donnell conducted a site visit of the Las Vegas warehouse to ascertain whether it was a worthwhile investment to maintain. Senator Coffin reported:
The assets were in good shape and should remain in action because of its location and condition....In the ultimate proposal, given to us by state purchasing...it was felt by the state purchasing division that they could operate this warehouse with one person. We disagreed because we felt the risk of operating a warehouse with heavy equipment, particularly an un-air conditioned warehouse in the summertime, is excessive. So two people are needed. Although they do sometimes have volunteers there, it is not a satisfactory condition. That was basically the only big change we made in the revised budgets submitted by state purchasing.
We had a lot of cooperation from state purchasing in this. They recognized that the subcommittee wanted to keep purchasing alive because of our fear of audit problems that we had testimony on, and our worry that we would lose track of goods being purchased by other agencies....We had cooperation from budget, too....
Senator Glomb referenced page l, revolving fund, of Exhibit C and noted it is currently set at $l.25 million. She wondered why it should be continued and not revert to the General Fund. She asked if this funding was used to balance the budget in the Governor's Executive Budget.
Ms. Matteucci responded:
That's correct and if you take it out, that's going to unbalance the budget in our proposal. I might add to Senator Coffin's comment, that we do not agree with this proposal, particularly the funding mechanism. We think this does not accomplish what the Governor was trying to do in providing agencies additional flexibility. The revised suggestion we submitted, we thought...provided the accountability that you proposed. Frankly, I think you...significantly underfunded the Purchasing Division by leaving them at l7 positions and keeping all the accounting duties assigned to them that we had attempted to remove. So we have serious and significant difficulties with this proposal.
Senator Glomb asked how did the subcommittee address the revolving fund issue.
Mr. Peri responded:
I think the subcommittee was aware the...[revolving fund] reversion was a revenue that was built into the Governor's budget that was utilized to fund something else or was built into the revenues. But the decision of the subcommittee was that if...the current funding mechanism was maintained, the revolving fund had to be maintained, and I think it was a conscious decision. The subcommittee felt that there was a potential, at one point, that this could be reduced somewhat. But, again, I think it was clearly communicated; and I think the subcommittee was conscious of the choice that this particular fund had to remain solvent, in the amount that its currently set at, if the Purchasing Division was to remain status quo and continue operating as it currently is.
Senator Coffin interjected:
I should apologize to Ms. Matteucci if I implied that [the] budget [office] was happy with what had happened. [The] budget [office] was cooperative with us and courteous to us. I'm sure [the] budget [office] recognized that we felt, after having a number of public hearings, that the proposed change in the Purchasing Division was a mistake. With best spirit, cooperation between the two bodies, we would assume you would recognize that having had public hearings, as opposed to the construction of this budget in private, we having heard enough testimony, felt this was sufficient information....
Ms. Matteucci countered:
Some of the people that were opposing, most notably the director of the Department of General Services, supported our revised proposal to you. We think the revised proposal embodied what the Governor had intended, as well as took care of some of the accounting concerns that this particular body had, and therefore was a perfectly workable compromise that would have accomplished what both groups wanted to accomplish. By going back to where we are right now, you have removed any of the flexibility for agencies and this is one of the critical components of the Governor's proposal. It was an attempt to give agency administrators more flexibility in purchasing. It would have streamlined the purchasing process and you have put back in the same bureaucratic accounting-laden process that we're currently suffering with. On top of it, I think you probably significantly wounded the Purchasing Division, because you have made them continue to do what they have to do now with 36 people and only giving them l7. So I think you've got some serious problems here. I suspect the Purchasing Division is going to have serious problems through the coming biennium if this is the recommendation that goes forward.
Senator Raggio asked the subcommittee if the Purchasing Division also had a proposed plan of operation.
Mr. Peri responded:
Eventually, the Purchasing Division would like to streamline the warehouse functions. Currently, it is labor-intensive. The profits...don't really support the function in its entirety....That's probably one of the primary suggestions that was made the subcommittee felt was a workable alternative and allowed the agency to exercise some of their freedom in streamlining that particular function.
Senator Raggio asked if the subcommittee addressed the need for maintaining the revolving fund at a level of $l.250 million.
Mr. Peri answered in the affirmative and added the reasoning to maintain it at the current level was due to the subcommittee's decision that the current methods remain in effect. Mr. Peri elucidated:
The revised budget that was presented to the subcommittee had a funding mechanism that was consistent with the Governor's recommendation of the purchasing assessment and the administrative charge. It was a combination and it allowed agencies an option to either go through purchasing or to go to a vendor directly. If indeed that would have been approved by the subcommittee, then the amount in the revolving fund could have been reduced, because not all agencies would have chosen to go through purchasing, who then would not have had to pay all their bills and then be reimbursed. Due to the decision to leave the process intact, as it currently stands, the revolving fund was left at its current amount.
Ms. Matteucci cited her recollection:
...The $l.250 million could have been reverted in the second year in its entirety...as opposed to the first [year] in the revised plan, so that would not have hurt the balance in the Governor's proposal, or essentially, taken $l.2 million out of his revenue structure.
Senator Raggio solicited comments regarding the objection to Ms. Matteucci's statement that the reversion occur at the end of the second year.
Ms. Matteucci interjected:
What we proposed in the revised plan...is that you have part of the proposal that we had originally envisioned was that purchasing get out of some of the accounting business, go to master contracts and allow agencies to buy off of those....Right now, every purchase has to go through the Purchasing Division. The block of positions that were removed from purchasing were really accounting-related positions. The revised proposal was...if some agencies still wanted to use purchasing, then they would have to pay an acquisition charge much less than the current 5 percent. Somewhere between 2 and 3 percent for those who didn't want to set up their own purchasing mechanism. In so doing, we gave the agencies the choice that we were looking for. We preserved the old system, but not at the same level. We did not mandate every one use it, because some agencies are quite capable of making purchases off of master contracts without really using purchasing....[For example], the departments of transportation and motor vehicles....So we preserved some of that flexibility we were trying to look at, plus we could still keep that $l.2 million of reversion. We just had to move it to the second year of the biennium, because it was the Purchasing Division's feeling the use of the revolving fund would go down over time as they move to some of the streamlined procedures....
Senator Raggio asked under what circumstances was she recommending agencies avoid using the Purchasing Division.
Ms. Matteucci responded the revised proposal suggested the Purchasing Division would negotiate master contracts to be used by each agency. Those agencies could access the master contracts directly, as opposed to using the Purchasing Division to place requisitions. "If they wanted to use purchasing, they would be required to pay a l or 2 percent administrative charge. That was our revised proposal which we all supported including Mr. Sullivan. What your subcommittee is recommending is you take the expenditure part but don't take the revenue part and that causes us serious problems...." she proclaimed.
Senator Jacobsen stated:
Most of you realize this is kind of a volatile situation with some other attachment to it that we didn't really hone in on. The revised budget was a product of the agency....Some of these recommendations came from the Peat Marwick study and we had one of the gentlemen here one day. Most of them in the agency indicated they talked to him about l5 minutes. I think everything we've done is realistic and I realize what Judy's intent is....We had this kind of a system years ago and there was no accountability to it. It got so far out of hand. But then Darrel Daines indicated to us, if we're going to go the route they want to go, then we've got to provide some more bodies over in his office to do the accounting. I think what we recommended is realistic....
Senator Raggio asked for comments from Mr. Dan Miles regarding the effect to the General Fund.
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, stated:
The direct assessment mechanism, which is in the Governor's recommended budget, assessed the major agencies sums of dollars for the support of the Purchasing Division. Under the subcommittee's proposal, those would be removed and the agency would have to survive on the business that it currently does today. If that happens, we would go in and remove those assessments. In some cases, those assessments are General Fund dollars. As an example, the Department of Prisons. So there would be some, at least budgetary, General Fund savings by removing those direct assessments.
Senator Coffin pointed out the proposed budget still allows for master contracts and drop shipments. The warehouse inventory will be reduced from 400 items to 200 and agencies will continue to be allowed to purchase those small items.
Senator Rawson expressed his concern that significant amounts of commodity food is currently delivered in Reno and trucked throughout the state. He asked if that procedure was recommended to be changed to allow the delivery location to be closer to its destination.
Mr. Peri said that issue was discussed in subcommittee meetings and it was suggested if the current process is approved, then major distribution points would be Reno and Las Vegas. Storage space is also available on a rental basis as well as additional space being offered by the Clark County School District, he stated.
Senator Raggio suggested the Interim Finance Committee may desire to receive quarterly reports from the Purchasing Division on the operation of the purchasing department, with particular emphasis on the allowance of direct purchasing, the nature of the contracts entered into for major purchases and the method of streamlining and downsizing the warehouse operation. Senator Raggio asked staff to draft a letter of intent outlining those issues.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURCHASING (EXHIBIT C).
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Purchasing Equipment - Page 246
Reading from Exhibit C, page 15, Mr. Peri announced the recommended technical adjustment for the transfer from the Commodity Foods budget, $9,470 in Fiscal Year l994, will align this revenue item with the amount available for transfer from the Depreciation category.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURCHASING (EXHIBIT C), PAGE 15.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Surplus Property - Page 248
Mr. Peri stated the recommended adjustments to this budget, Exhibit C, page l6, reflect the subcommittee's closing actions and add one additional position for the Las Vegas warehouse operation. The half-time Storekeeper IV position is recommended to be deleted in order for this account to fund a full-time Stores Supervisor I position in the Commodity Foods budget. The position would be located at the Las Vegas purchasing warehouse and funded by a transfer from Surplus Property account.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURCHASING (EXHIBIT C), PAGE 16.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Supreme Court - Page 75
Dan Miles distributed Exhibit D, Comparison of Attorneys' Salaries - l993, and Exhibit E, Assembly Ways and Means Committee Budget Closing Action, to the committee and testified while referencing those documents.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Mello if the exhibit material agreed with information he previously presented to the committee.
Don Mello, Court Administrator, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court, responded in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio maintained the exhibit material indicated, with respect to the positions of Staff Attorney III, IV and Senior Judicial Clerk Attorney of the Supreme Court, the proposed salaries would be less than the existing maximum salaries for comparable positions in both the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Office of the Attorney General.
Mr. Mello explained a staff attorney cannot elevate to Staff Attorney III without being a licensed member of the bar.
Senator Glomb asked what would be the total impact on the budget if the increases were approved.
Mr. Mello responded, "$87,000, eighteen positions."
Senator Glomb asked if the adjustment was included in the agency's budget.
Mr. Mello responded in the affirmative and explained it would not affect the General Fund.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT E, ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS BUDGET CLOSING ACTION, WHICH ACCOMMODATES THE COST OF A STUDY OF THE COURTS SYSTEM OF NEVADA AND ADJUSTMENTS TO SALARIES.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN VOTED NO. SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 9:35 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55 a.m.
State Personnel - Page 256
Exhibit F, Budget Closing Action, was distributed to the committee.
Mr. Peri testified:
The meeting that took place several weeks ago with the joint money committees, one item that was discussed and concluded by the joint money committees, was that the personnel department...be maintained at a departmental level. The Executive Budget recommended the current personnel department be downgraded to a divisional status. In following the actions and recommendations of the joint money committees in leaving the Department of Personnel as a department, several adjustments were made.
Continuing, he stated the personnel department will retain its departmental status with adjustment to reorganization savings to restore the value of salary costs for five positions. Adjustments to operating savings will restore costs for an Accountant Technician II, recommended to transfer to the Administrative Services Division in the Department of Administration.
Mr. Peri explained the changes to revenues that assist in balancing the budget are an adjustment in the personnel assessments that are collected from agencies served within the recruitment and examining system. He explained the net adjustments to the personnel assessment represent total estimated collections. The adjustments include the amounts anticipated to be collected from the University and Community College System of Nevada, in the amount of $353,225 in Fiscal Year l994 and $372,3l4 in Fiscal Year l995.
Senator Raggio asked if that action impacts the budget approved for the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Mr. Peri responded it did not. Continuing, Mr. Peri explained the adjustments to inter fund transfers reverse the proposed payment to the Administrative Services Division for departmental supervision and accounting services. The adjustments to data processing of $300,000 per year will more closely align the recommended amounts with anticipated expenditures in each year of the biennium.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification of the agency's request to provide necessary enhancements and modifications to their existing personnel payroll system.
Mr. Peri explained the Reserve category was significant. "The question was, could it be reduced and how would the additional funding within the reserve be used," he stated. One of the alternatives was to increase the authority in the Data Processing category, he explained. Their concern was that "it was underspent in the base year FY l992 due to lack of staff and ability by the data processing division to spend the time on enhancements the system needed. Therefore, $250,000 carried forward....The base was probably a little bit understated," he explained.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN (EXHIBIT F) AND PREVIOUS ACTION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Labor Relations - Page 390
Mr. Miles distributed Exhibit G, Closing List #l2, to the committee.
Senator Raggio reminded the committee it determined the Labor Relations and Employee Management Relations budgets not be consolidated.
Mr. Miles testified this budget is recommended to be combined with Business and Industry under the reorganization plan. Under that proposal, it would absorb the Employee Management Relations [EMR] function. The commissioner for the EMR Board would be transferred into this budget for a 3-month period of time and then eliminated, he explained.
The budget for Labor Relations did not include the board and commission salaries, in the amount of $l,920, for the apprenticeship board, he testified.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET TO KEEP THE AGENCY SEPARATE AND CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN (EXHIBIT G), PAGE 1.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Employee Management Relations - Page l7l7
Mr. Peri testified the suggested closing action for this budget, as outlined on Exhibit G, page 2, restored the agency to full operating level. He explained in the current biennium, the commissioner's position has been reduced to .70 full-time equivalent. It is recommended the position be increased back to full-time.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE A NEW BUDGET FOR THIS AGENCY AND TO CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN (EXHIBIT G), PAGE 2.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Drug Commission - Page 1009
Mr. Miles testified under the Governor's reorganization plan, this budget will be transferred from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Rawson asked Ms. Matteucci if the transfer was made to "get it into the educational arena or the health arena."
Ms. Matteucci responded, "It was made to get it in the substance abuse arena, which I think you've moved into Employment, Training and Rehabilitation." She added:
Our thought was to combine the Drug Commission with BADA [Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse] and...actually have it in the treatment arena more so than education and certainly out of the law enforcement arena....I think both committees have moved BADA, kept them with Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, you may want to keep this with it....
General discussion ensued and it was decided to hold the budget.
State Job Training Office - Page l059
Senator Rawson requested this budget be held.
Veterans Affairs - Page l455
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed Exhibit H, Budget Closing Action, to the committee and testified while referencing that document.
Mr. Guernsey explained this agency has expressed concerns regarding the operation of the agency. The agency has indicated the need for a minimum of $3,000 each year for In-State Travel. Although the agency requested this funding, none was recommended, except for travel funding within the two cemetery accounts, he described. The agency has also indicated they require additional funding for its advisory commission meetings. Agency staff felt they needed $500 for the seven-member commission to hold the required two annual meetings, he mentioned. In conclusion, Mr. Guernsey stated the Executive Budget has suggested use of prison honor camp crews to assist at the two cemeteries.
Senator O'Donnell asked what is discussed at the commission meetings.
Senator Rawson explained the commission meetings are "fairly lively. It seems to be a good forum for the veterans to discuss the issues before them," he opined.
Senator Jacobsen interjected:
...I think it's necessary to keep this kind of an organization, mostly because of their fund-raising capabilities and for the interest of the veterans....I'd have to admit, without Randy Day, we'd be lost at the northern cemetery. He's served out there burying people, mostly because we have inadequate help. That whole organization needs some enhancement, and we depend primarily on all the veteran organizations to raise any additional funds that we require....
Senator Raggio agreed if the commission is required to meet twice annually then "at least provide the funding for them to meet...."
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND THE BUDGET AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT H TO ADD $500 ANNUALLY FOR ADVISORY COMMISSION TRAVEL EXPENSES AND $3,000 ANNUALLY FOR STAFF IN-STATE TRAVEL.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin asked:
If the budget requires the management of the veterans affairs be doing the grave digging and the other things to try and keep up. It doesn't seem like we're adding any personnel....How many do they have?
Mr. Guernsey replied:
They would have to use prison crews to assist at the two cemeteries. They asked for additional personnel for each of the cemeteries. The budget recommends utilizing prison crews to augment the existing staff at the two cemeteries. It's not an excess of staff, but they indicated they could function with the staffing levels as recommended.
Senator Coffin queried whether the agency is authorized to fill the vacant positions. He asked, "Have they, in fact, got ll.5 positions?"
Ms. Matteucci interjected:
I'd have to look. They would have, unless they suggested those positions be held vacant in order to achieve their budget savings for this year. I'd have to check on that for you.
Senator Glomb mentioned her notes indicate the agency requested authorization to use donated funds, but the Budget Division has not responded to that request. She inquired whether that request has been resolved.
Ms. Matteucci responded in the affirmative.
Senator Rawson reminded the committee resolution had not been reached regarding the supervisor groundskeeper positions in the north and south.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Guernsey to research the groundskeeper issue. It was the chairman's recommendation to take action on the motion but hold the budget for final action until tomorrow's meeting.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at l0:35 a.m.
* * * * *
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Dee Crawford,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
May ll, 1993
Page 1