MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 5, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:15 a.m., on Saturday, June 5, 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 Bob Coffin
Senator Diana Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Birgit K. Baker, Program Analyst
Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Sharon Spangler, Employee Representative, State of Nevada Employees Association
Senator Raggio asked the committee to submit a short list of the bills they wish to have heard prior to the end of the session while keeping in mind the financial restraints connected with their selection of bills.
For the committee's review, Senator Glomb submitted Exhibit C, a letter from the Washoe Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., (WARC) regarding the placement of federally funded offices of protection and advocacy in state agencies or in private nonprofit entities outside of state government.
She explained it is the position of the WARC that since the State of Nevada is the primary provider of mental retardation and mental health services, the placement of the Nevada Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA) within state government is inherently conflicted. She pointed out this is explained in Exhibit C, and under federal law, the authority for the placement of these offices lies with the governor of each state.
Senator Glomb wished to state for the record that it is her opinion the OPA should be placed outside of state government.
Senator Raggio said it was the committee's decision to leave the OPA under the Department of Business and Industry with the understanding this decision can be revisited at a future time. He explained the committee's present involvement with the
reorganization proposals as requested by the Governor do not include many stand-alone agencies. He believes Senator Glomb has made a good point and invited her to reopen the issue during finalization of the budget process.
Wildlife - Page 1603
Senator Raggio noted this budget was closed on May 20, 1993. Since that time the director of the Department of Wildlife has contacted him and other committee members concerning four wildlife positions that were requested to be placed into the budget at no expense to the General Fund since his department has the money and the obligated reserve. He explained this money comes from a commitment from the mining industry when they agreed to place $500,000 into the budget. He asked if the committee wished to revisit that decision.
Senator Rawson believed the wildlife positions are needed and since there are funds to support them, he suggested the budget be reopened to include them.
Senator Raggio stated he could only support the positions with the firm understanding the department will not ask for General Fund money at a future date to retain them. He stated he wanted this point to be made clear.
Senator Coffin asked if an increase in the appropriation would be needed to fund the positions. He will support reopening the budget if the reserve could be spent down rather than increasing the appropriation.
Bob Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the action would be to reduce the obligated reserve and establish four new positions. He also noted that according to a request from the director of the Department of Wildlife, two mining biologists and two game wardens were requested.
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration said she recalls that the mining money was added to the wildlife budget during the 1991 session of the legislature. At that time the money was added because of a problem that existed in the budget. The action of the 1991 legislature was not to add the positions because mining money was needed in order to sustain the budget. During the interim the director of the Department of Wildlife approached her office concerning the positions, but she advised him these positions could not be included in the budget because of the decision by the legislature in 1991.
Ms. Matteucci opined:
In 1993 the issue before the legislature is how comfortable the money committees are with the status or ongoing status of the wildlife fund to support four additional positions. That money is ongoing in their budget now and will have to decrease their reserve. You are as aware as we are of the ups and downs of the wildlife budget...they are indicating some problems they may be having with deer tags this year....I think it is a comfort level because if they have those positions they will fill them and that obligated reserve will do down.
Senator Raggio suggested that only two biologist positions that are directly related to the mining operations be added to the budget.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO REOPEN THE BUDGET, ADD TWO MINING BIOLOGIST POSITIONS, AND REDUCE THE RESERVE ACCORDINGLY.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Wildlife Boating Program - Page 1611
Mr. Guernsey referenced the budget closing action sheet reflected on page 1 of Exhibit D. He said there are a number of adjustments within this budget based upon closing actions taken on other budget accounts. One of the primary changes involved moving the boat registration function from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety back to the Department of Wildlife. The positions were established within the main wildlife budget then reimbursed from the boating account.
Mr. Guernsey continued his explanation regarding the adjustments made to this budget account by referring to pages 2 through 8 of Exhibit D, and further discussion ensued by the committee.
Mr. Guernsey pointed out that a 50 percent distribution of boat registration fees between the Department of Wildlife and the Division of State Parks has closely followed past legislative actions. In constructing the budget, in addition to splitting fuel tax revenues between the two agencies, specific portions were also allocated from the Department of Wildlife to the Division of State Parks. This was discussed with the Department of Wildlife who were in agreement with the 50 percent distribution.
Since the intent has always been an equal distribution of funds, Mr. Guernsey suggested something should be added to the Authorization Act indicating that if funding over and above the amounts within the Governor's Executive Budget does come into this budget account, it be distributed 50 percent to the Department of Wildlife and 50 percent to the Division of State Parks.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS SHOWN ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT D TO INCLUDE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IN THE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR A 50 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND THE DIVISION OF STATE PARKS.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
State Parks - Page 1619
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, remarked there are a number of changes recommended in this budget consistent with the action taken in budget page 1611 for an equal distribution of revenue from motorboat fuel tax between the Department of Wildlife and the Division of State Parks.
Ms. Botts continued her testimony by providing the committee with a detailed explanation of Exhibit E, Revisions to Budget Account 4162 - Division of State Parks.
Senator Coffin asked where seasonal salaries reflected in Exhibit E are spent.
Ms. Botts said they did not identify where seasonal salaries are spent. The funding for this goes into a pool for seasonal monies and the Division of State Parks has wide discretion for distribution of the salaries because in some years there may be more activity at one park over another.
While discussing positions for the state park system, Senator Coffin was curious if a position was cut from the Old Las Vegas Morman Fort which is the newest state park located in Las Vegas. He feels this park will require adequate staffing in at least the second year of the biennium as work progresses there.
Ms. Botts believed there is currently one position at Old Las Vegas Morman Fort. She will look into this and advise the committee at a later date. She said in general the district encompassing Las Vegas is one of the better-staffed districts in the state parks system.
Ms. Botts continued her detailed explanation of Exhibit E. She drew attention to suggested letters of intent for the Division of State Parks to report quarterly to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on the status of all park improvement projects, and for the Division of State Parks jointly with the Department of Wildlife to identify projects to improve boating facilities in water-based parks that might be funded by motorboat fuel tax.
Senator Raggio said he would like to have the agencies send this information to the IFC members before an actual meeting takes place so that he could have the opportunity to read the reports beforehand.
Ms. Botts said the Fiscal Analysis Division will comply with this request.
Referring to suggested bill draft requests (BDRs) listed as items 1 and 2 of Exhibit E, Senator Raggio asked if a specific BDR will be needed for item 1 to authorize the expenditure of $136,777 of unused bond funds remaining from the construction of the South Fork Dam for improvements at the dam and park.
Ms. Matteucci replied she did not think a BDR would be necessary. She said she would have bond counsel check to determine if the expenditures are legitimate. She said the Budget Division had recently authorized another expenditure out of this bond account to provide for some additional improvement to the dam, but she could not recall what the improvement was for.
Ms. Botts interjected that a BDR would also not be necessary for item 1 (Exhibit E) regarding the division of motorboat fuel tax.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci to advise the committee what the authorized expenditure was for and if the committee has to take further action regarding it.
Senator Raggio thanked the subcommittee, Senator O'Donnell, Senator Jacobsen, and Senator Callister for the work involved with this budget.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS AUTHORIZED BY STAFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT E, REVISIONS TO THE BUDGET ACCOUNT, AND TO INCLUDE THE SUGGESTED LETTERS OF INTENT.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR JACOBSEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Natural Resources Administration - Page 1625
Ms. Botts commented:
We held this budget because I had indicated the Budget Division had provided $21,000 per year for instructional supplies and that was supposed to be the Western States Water Council dues. You had asked to hold this to receive more information from Pete Morros [Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources] as to whether or not the Western States Water Council dues could be reduced. There was a memo that was received that said they could not reduce the dues and if not paid there would be no vote. That has happened in some states. They have limited their participation in the meetings to just two persons. Either Mr. Morros or Speaker Dini attends from Nevada along with the person from the Colorado River Commission, but the Colorado River Commission pays that person's cost. Conservation has given up their participation in a number of other commissions to assure they can continue participating in this. They feel strongly that this is the most important and only one they are asking for dues to be paid to.
Senator Coffin suggested the dues be paid from mill assessments of the Colorado River Commission, the General Fund in this budget be reduced accordingly, and the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources remain in the water council.
Ms. Botts read a memorandum from the director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to the committee (pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit D).
Senator Glomb believes it is very important that Nevada remain involved in compacts with other states since water is such an important issue for the state.
Senator Raggio opined the committee feels the dues for the Western States Water Council should be retained and that Senator Coffin 's suggestion to look elsewhere for the funding may not be feasible.
Ms. Matteucci said many agencies gave up payment of dues and registration payments during the current biennium. Many of these have been restored as the agencies developed their budgets to meet targets. She believed the dues for the Western States Water Council are very important and does not recommend they be removed. She also advised Senator Coffin these dues could not be legally funded out of the Colorado River Commission.
Ms. Botts continued her discussion by outlining page 9 of Exhibit D. She said the Governor had recommended that four existing boards be rolled together into a new Natural Resources Board. The four were the State Parks Advisory Commission, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, the Advisory Board of Water Planning and Development, and the State Conservation Commission. After hearing considerable testimony, it was recommended that the State Parks Advisory Commission, the Board for Forestry and Fire Control, and the State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands be consolidated into the new Natural Resources Board. It was recommended to leave the Board of Wildlife Commissions and the State Conservation Commission unchanged. It was further recommended that the Natural Resources Board have seven members and they be funded through the director's budget. Ms. Botts then discussed Exhibit F, a memorandum from her to the committee regarding suggested representation on the new Natural Resources Board.
Senator Raggio asked if the new combined board will still perform all of the functions the other boards historically performed.
Ms. Botts replied in the affirmative and said her memorandum (Exhibit F) explains the duties, salaries, and suggested number of meetings the board should have each year.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning - Page 1637
Ms. Botts noted page 12 of Exhibit D. She pointed out representatives of some of the casinos in the Lake Tahoe area believed a consultant position should be retained in this budget account. However, the Governor has recommended transferring this account to the Division of State Lands where the consultant's duties can be absorbed by one of their staff members for considerable savings each year.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR AND TO RESCIND ANY ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Information Delivery and Customer Services - Page 282
Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said this budget is informally known as the General Services Telephone Account because it is funded entirely from charges to state agencies for telephone services.
Mr. Peri referred to the budget closing action sheet shown on page l of Exhibit G and said the recommended adjustments restore two positions along with related travel and operating costs to this account that were recommended for transfer into the proposed
Information Technology Contracting Services budget account. He further stated these recommendations were done in coordination with the proposal not to consolidate all data processing services at this time.
Senator Raggio asked if this budget will be under the Division of Information and Technology Services, and Mr. Peri replied in the affirmative.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Benefit Services Fund - Page 192
Senator Raggio said in connection with this budget the committee heard testimony regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 389.
SENATE BILL 389: Specifies amount to be paid by certain public employers for group insurance for public employees for next biennium.
Testimony was also heard regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 390.
SENATE BILL 390: Specifies amount payable by state for group insurance for retired public employees.
Birgit K. Baker, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 389 is the bill that supports the Governor's budget and provides for amounts to be paid by the state for employee health insurance. Monthly contributions for employee health insurance benefits are recommended at $213.75 for fiscal year 1994 and $226.50 for fiscal year 1995. Also discussed was Senate Bill (S.B.) 278:
SENATE BILL 278: Allows certain additional retired public employees to participate in group insurance plan.
Ms. Baker stated S.B.278, as amended, supports the Governor's recommendation to provide access to health insurance coverage.
She stated to implement this bill, one adjustment will be required to this budget account. This information is explained on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit G and will remove the pass-through of the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) funds to the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation that is consistent with the closure of the budgets for this agency.
Ms. Baker continued her testimony by fully describing the adjustments to the budget as reflected in Exhibit G. She pointed out the Governor's reorganization proposes a change in the status of the Committee on Benefits from policy-making to advisory. In addition, the Governor's plan proposes the new commission should also act as an advisory body on matters relating to the state's Deferred Compensation Program which would result in the elimination of the Deferred Compensation Committee.
Senator Raggio asked what the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means is doing regarding the issue of deferred compensation.
Ms. Matteucci responded the assembly passed a bill for a separate
committee but she could not recall the bill number.
Senator Raggio said he would be opposed to making the committee an advisory board.
Sharon Spangler, Employee Representative, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), said the bill referred to is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 359.
ASSEMBLY BILL 359: Makes various changes regarding administration of program of deferred compensation for state employees.
Ms. Baker said if A.B. 359 passes a separate budget will have to be established for the Deferred Compensation Program.
Ms. Spangler remarked A.B. 359 is the deferred compensation bill that would establish a separate committee and would prevent the administration from taking the money and using it for other purposes.
Ms. Matteucci interjected:
A.B. 359 establishes a separate committee much more formalized than the current committee but would keep it separate from the Committee on Benefits. It will require adjustments to the budget because it has got a $50,000 to $100,000 cost to the participants to do an actuarial study separate from this account.
Senator Raggio said the committee does not have A.B. 359 before them, and he does not believe this is the appropriate time to discuss it.
Ms. Baker said if A.B. 359 is supported the adjustment shown as note 1 on page 2 of Exhibit G would be required to the benefit services budget.
Ms. Matteucci said it would not be necessary for the committee to support A.B . 359. The issue is whether or not the committee would want to keep the Deferred Compensation Committee as currently constituted separate from the Committee on Benefits. She further remarked:
If you do nothing with A.B. 359...it is already constituted in statute...with 7 or 9 people on it appointed by the Governor and one appointment from the Office of the Attorney General....My recollection is they oversee the Deferred Compensation Program. By voting to separate the two you do not necessary have to be supporting A.B. 359. This bill has a tremendous cost to participants in it that I think you will want to evaluate when you hear the bill.
Senator Raggio said his personal desire is to keep the Committee on Group Insurance as it is presently constituted.
Ms.Matteucci said if that is the committee's desire they would want to remove the deferred compensation issues which is not necessarily a commitment to support A.B. 359.
Senator Raggio said he was still not clear on the issue and asked, "The Committee on Group Insurance as currently constituted deals with these benefits but not with deferred compensation?"
Ms. Baker answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Spangler wished to state for the record that the SNEA supports keeping the benefits committee as it is currently constituted.
Ms. Baker concluded her testimony by referencing notes 2 through 7 reflected on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit G as well as the attachments to the budget closing action sheet reflected on pages 4 through 8.
Senator Glomb asked if the coverage for the prison medical administration is separate coverage.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
The costs are being run through the prison medical account, and all they are doing is taking advantage of some of the contracts that were established by the Committee on Group Insurance. It has resulted in a significant decline in the medical costs per inmate. All their costs are not being run in this account. Just administrative costs are in this account so that the state employees insurance does not have to pick up the costs.
Senator Raggio polled the committee regarding the retention of the authority and composition of the Committee on Group Insurance as presently constituted, and it was determined the committee wishes to maintain the committee as currently constituted.
Senator Raggio polled the group regarding having a separate Deferred Compensation Committee, and the consensus was to retain a separate committee as presently constituted.
Ms. Matteucci commented:
I do not know that the makeup of the committee[s] necessarily has to be a part of the decision. There are a number of bills that may or may not come before you for you to discuss that....You may not want to commit yourself before looking at those bills.
Senator Raggio said his statement was purposeful and included the composition of the committees.
Senator Glomb asked if there has been some problem regarding having the Deferred Compensation Committee as a separate board.
Ms. Matteucci said they do not have a very significant administrative structure and they are starting to have a significant amount of funds belonging to participants who are mostly state employees. It is a trust fund and the state has a fiduciary responsibility. She added that once the employee enrolls in deferred compensation the money becomes the state's funds but there have not been continuing audits performed or continuing financial advice rendered. She further said:
Currently they do invest those funds in a variety of options that the administrator offers them. Right now the administrator invests in Hartford. The thinking in this particular budget is you combine them with the Committee on Benefits and they will have a more significant administrative structure that can provide ongoing financial advice and frequent audits and is what our recommendation encompassed.
Senator Coffin questioned:
If we disagree with the Governor's recommendation and keep the Committee on Benefits as currently constituted, would we then be taking care of the problems of the Deferred Compensation Committee?
Ms. Matteucci answered:
No, you would not. If you keep it as it is currently established and do not pass A.B. 359, you allow that committee to continue accepting state's monies and there will not be the significant administrative structure. If you feel comfortable with that...then that is the consequence of the decision. If you do not feel comfortable, then there are a variety of options to go with. A.B. 359 requires an actuarial audit and will cost the participants between $50,000 and $100,000 for them to pay for that audit because right now the restriction is you cannot use any monies to support the deferred compensation administrative function other than those that are participating and the people that are participating now are already paying a significant administrative fee to the administrator for handling of their account and that is the decision.
Ms. Spangler stated the SNEA members are very happy with the company that is now handling their deferred compensation. She said people are upset about a proposed change. She reiterated the SNEA strongly feels deferred compensation should remain separate. She said the employees are the ones that place money into this and should have a say on how it is run. They are happy with the operation as it is presently structured.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF KEEPING THE TWO COMMITTEES SEPARATE AND WITH THE SAME COMPOSITION AND AUTHORITY.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR JACOBSEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked for a motion on S.B. 389.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 389.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked for a motion on S.B. 390.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B.390.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
State Employees Worker's Compensation - Page 197
Ms. Baker referred the committee to the budget closing action sheet on page 9 of Exhibit G and said there were no adjustments made in this budget account but recalled Senate Bill (S.B.) 316 would require a $200 per claim deductible cost which could have an impact on this budget.
SENATE BILL 316: Makes various changes to provisions governing industrial insurance.
Ms. Matteucci reported if S.B. 316 is passed with a $200 per claim deductible, the estimated cost would amount to $240,000 per year which would be the state's deductible payment based on the number of claims that have historically been processed.
Ms. Matteucci remarked:
There is sufficient revenue in this budget as currently constituted because this budget was built without the lower wage thresholds that have now been impacted....I don't know if anybody has made a decision as to where those deductibles should be paid from. The point in S.B. 316 was to try and encourage a safer workplace and if you pay it from a central pool where you assess everybody the same, then there is no incentive to make your workplace safer. If it is decided that the agencies will have to bear the brunt of that, then the agencies that have the most problems will be having to pay for that from their budget....We do not budget for deductibles because you cannot anticipate when accidents are going to happen. I am suggesting that the agency that incurs the industrial accident may have to pay those.
Senator Raggio said he agreed with Ms. Matteucci and asked how this could be established as a policy.
Ms. Matteucci suggested it would be helpful if a letter of intent could be sent to the Budget Division so that they will not include the payment of the deductible from a central pool.
Senator Coffin commented he has had a problem with the deductible aspects involved with S.B. 316 because he wonders how an employer would be able to determine if an injury is work-related which could determine that future benefits might or might not be paid by the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) if the claim exceeded the amount. He asked, "Will the agencies be able to adequately monitor whether or not the claims they will have to pay are work- related?"
Ms. Matteucci replied:
When people get injured on the job they file a claim and then SIIS notifies the employing agency and you have to sign off on whether you are going to contest the claim or whatever. I do not know that anything in S.B. 316 will change that other than you will also get a bill....
Senator Coffin expressed, "Here is what I am worried about. We have made a big cut in the benefits for health insurance...."
Ms. Matteucci interrupted, "Let me say for the record, Senator Coffin, I think you and I have a disagreement. The big cut in benefits was to try and urge people to use the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) arrangements. That was the significant adjustment in the group insurance benefits."
Senator Coffin countered:
This adjustment in benefits that has been recommended by the Governor will create an incentive to claim nonwork- related injuries on workers' compensation. It is just like what happens in the real world every time an employer cuts benefits in the group plan, particularly those with PPO disincentives like the new state plan where you get down to 60 percent payment instead of 90 or 100 percent....Then you run the risk of increasing workers' compensation claims. We will have to anticipate this as it will become a problem with this budget.
Ms. Matteucci said in order for it to become an industrial accident it has to happen on the job. She added, "If the employing agency has to pay a deductible, I suspect that agency is going to be more diligent in pursuing the issue than they are right now where there is no incentive; and that is the point of the deductible."
Senator Coffin wished to state for the record, "There is no incentive for the employing agency to insure that it is work-related or not."
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio suggested the committee entertain a letter of intent that depending upon the final action taken on S.B. 316, any deductible be allocated to the agency in which the accident occurred.
Retired Employees Group Insurance - Page 199
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Baker commented the division received additional information on the number of retirees that are built in the base versus the number of retirees there actually are in fiscal year 1993. She said there was a slight increase so that the amount reflected in the budget is less than is needed to support the level of retirees. She commented she believed the Budget Division can adjust assessments to cover this.
Ms. Matteucci responded, "Normally on all of the assessment budgets if it looks like we are going to run out of money we have the authority to adjust the rate upward during the fiscal year."
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Buildings and Grounds - Page 294
Mr. Peri reviewed with the committee the budget closing action sheet and recommendations for adjustments to the budget as shown on pages 14 and 15 of Exhibit G.
Senator Glomb asked what the rationale was behind the decision to leave the Capitol Police Force under the direction of the Buildings and Grounds Division.
Mr. Peri said the Capitol Police Force provides security for the capitol complex and all other state buildings and was, therefore, recommended to remain under the direction of Buildings and Grounds Division. This also reflects the action taken by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. He added the concept has always been that an agency pays a rental rate for state-owned office space and part of that service is janitorial, police patrols, and other items of that nature.
Mr. Peri stated a letter of intent is recommended which would require the Buildings and Grounds Division to provide a report to the Interim Finance Committee consisting of a detailed accounting of expenditures for category 17, Las Vegas Relocation Expenses, and category 18, Reorganization and Relocation Expenses.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON PAGES 14 AND 15 OF EXHIBIT G AND TO INCLUDE THE AFOREMENTIONED LETTER OF INTENT.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
State Parks - Page 1619
Ms. Botts reported that she checked on the staffing for the Old Las Vegas Morman Fort Park and there is one full-time park supervisor assigned to that park. During the last session of the legislature there was a Maintenance Repair Specialist I position added that the division was never able to fill and the position has since been cut. On a list of positions to be restored, the Maintenance Repair Specialist was ranked as number 7 but funding was only granted through the sixth position. Ms. Botts noted that Senator Coffin asked if the seventh position could be restored so that two people could be assigned to that park and that funding come from the increased amount added to the Seasonal Salaries category.
Senator Coffin pointed out the position was requested in 1991 so the Old Las Vegas Morman Fort Park has gone 2 years without this individual already.
Ms. Botts said if the position could be delayed until the second year of the biennium there would be more revenue available from the Seasonal Salaries category to accommodate funding of the position.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO REOPEN BUDGET ACCOUNT 4162 FOR PURPOSES OF REALLOCATING THE LINE ITEMS RELATING TO SEASONAL SALARIES.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO ADJUST THE LINE ITEM RELATING TO SEASONAL SALARIES BY AN AMOUNT IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE
BIENNIUM TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EQUIVALENT EXPENSES OF A MAINTENANCE POSITION AT THE OLD LAS VEGAS MORMAN FORT PARK.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:17 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 5, 1993
Page 1