The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:15 a.m., on Monday, March 8, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Jim Weston, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Reno, and Chairman, Advisory Commission on Sentencing (ACS), indicated the goals of the commission are to review and analyze the different elements of the criminal justice system that impact sentencing of prisoners and the population of the state prison. He said research over the past two years demonstrated a difficulty in collecting information, statistics, and data in regard to the impact on the district courts of the truth-in-sentencing legislation from the 1997 Legislative Session. Chief Weston stressed the importance of the ACS to be able to gain access to accurate and timely information in order to analyze the impact of sentencing changes and structure and to make determinations on how the laws should be changed. The chief indicated that only 60 percent of the courts in the state report to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. For the ACS to do an effective job the courts must report in a systematized format to one location where anyone can access information on dispositions of people sentenced by district court judges, Chief Weston emphasized.

Continuing, Chief Weston said this situation would impact any court in the state with the ability to sentence a felony-type prisoner. He indicated S.B. 157 would mandate that when state courts receive funding for electronic reporting systems they must follow a set of consistent standards and procedures developed by the Office of Court Administrator and the state criminal history repository. The chief pointed out that funding to automate record systems is in different stages of development within the counties; however, the district courts are not mandated to follow one format to deposit the information into the state criminal history repository. Chief Weston declared that in addition to the ACS, other agencies in the state and local communities would benefit from the information. Courts and district attorneys would find the information valuable when doing background checks and preparing cases for sentencing, Chief Weston remarked.

David R. Gamble, District Judge, Ninth Judicial District Court, Advisory Commission on Sentencing, said there are four sections in S.B. 157. Section 1 relates to the requirements on district courts, section 2 relates to the justice courts, section 3 relates to municipal courts, and section 4 provides for the regulations to be developed to "flesh out" the reporting requirements. He said each of the first three sections begin with the words "to the extent of legislative appropriations," indicating the ASC did not want to directly fiscally impact the counties that are required to fund the district courts and the municipalities that fund the municipal courts. Judge Gamble added that other legislation coming forward will be consolidated and/or reconciled with S.B. 157. The intent of the legislation is to set forth the method by which reports will be received by the state criminal history repository and the funding mechanism to ensure consistency across the board for all the courts, Judge Gamble remarked.

Answering a question, Judge Gamble stated S.B. 157 is intended to cover all felonies, gross misdemeanors, and in the justice and municipal courts, all offenses that are not traffic offenses, with the exception of traffic offenses causing death, bodily harm, and driving under the influence (DUIs). The judge said various reporting requirements are already in place; however, they are not consistently applied, funded, or available from the different courts.

Chief Weston interjected that approximately 60 percent of the courts in the state report; however, there is no consistent system to do so. He explained the smaller courts do not have the resources to deliver reports on time. The chief said electronic reporting is timely and inexpensive compared to the staff filling out the reports manually.

Senator Raggio indicated there is no fiscal note because nothing in the bill was made mandatory. Asked whether there are amendments, Judge Gamble said there is an amendment in section 4 that clarifies who the court administrator refers to in subsection 1, line 3, page 3 of S.B. 157. The judge indicated subsection 2 of section 4 defines the court administrator as the office of the court administrator in order that it not be confused with the court administrators in Las Vegas and Reno.

Senator Neal requested clarification on the obligation of the Advisory Commission on Sentencing (ACS) in terms of the reporting. In response, Chief Weston explained the ACS was created a number of years ago and consisted of 11 individuals: 6 district court judges, 4 Senate and Assembly legislators, and Chief Weston himself representing law enforcement. He said the purpose of the ACS was to analyze the sentencing structure in the state. The chief indicated that after the 1997 Legislative Session, the ACS was assigned to study the truth-in-sentencing legislation to ascertain whether the laws were carried out with the proper intent, to determine the impact on the prison system, to ensure that prison beds were utilized economically, and then to make recommendations to the Legislature based upon the findings.

Chief Weston further explained that due to the breadth of the background of its members, the ACS has field knowledge of how the system is working. He pointed out that a report addressing six or seven items studied over the past two years had been submitted to the Legislature; two of the items became BDRs and one BDR became S.B. 157.

Senator Neal queried whether the courts submit the report subsequent to sentencing. Chief Weston answered that under the truth-in-sentencing law, after a person is arrested, charged, submitted to the court system, prosecuted, and sentenced, the ACS ascertains whether the proper sentence was imposed and compares the length of the jail sentence with before truth-in-sentencing legislation in order to analyze the impact of the new sentencing structure. The chief said the goal is to free up prison beds from people whose crimes do not warrant a confined prison setting and keep the worst criminals in jail longer. In response to a question, Chief Weston indicated a formalized format has not yet been designed.

Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County, indicated no formalized reporting system exists at present. He said that over the past 15 years in Washoe County the district attorney’s office has reported dispositions. Mr. Gammick explained that after the sentence is imposed it is written down by a deputy and placed in a file. The file is placed in a stack to be addressed by the secretary. The secretary copies the disposition to another form which is then reported to the state criminal history repository. Mr. Gammick pointed out this system provides more opportunity for error than the disposition being directly reported by the court.

Further, Mr. Gammick noted, often when criminal histories are obtained there is no disposition because the case was not reported in a timely manner due to the lack of a formal reporting system. He mentioned a program that began two years ago entitled "Early Case Resolution" in which felonies that will be resolved "somewhere through the system" are addressed immediately by district attorneys in the public defender’s office. Mr. Gammick explained that the district attorneys review the case with Washoe County attorneys and within 72 hours of receiving the case there is a disposition and the case is sent to the district court. It is important to obtain timely and factual information on dispositions of any prior criminal history in order to work with the Early Case Resolution, Mr. Gammick remarked.

Mr. Gammick pointed out that the first year the Early Case Resolution program was in effect Washoe County saved over $1.2 million, which is over $100,000 a month, by using two standards: jail-bed space and witness fees. He indicated the program will not include any "soft cost" to the sheriff’s department, the courts, the prosecutors, or the public defender. Mr. Gammick noted the Early Case Resolution program had been successful, but in order to ensure its success and accomplish justice the information is needed as soon as it can be obtained. He said he attended several meetings where the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was working on a statewide program to offer technology and funding to the courts. Mr. Gammick explained that by stating in the bill the courts will adopt the program when funding is available, the AOC will defray much of the expense for the courts, after which other financing might come available. He said the goal is to eventually be in a position to receive the information immediately through technology. Mr. Gammick noted misdemeanors were included because of the provisions of prior domestic violence violations and DUIs, due to their impact on subsequent cases.

Responding to a query regarding other bills heard in conjunction with S.B. 157, Judge Gamble said it was his understanding from AOC and other sources there would be separate reporting requirement bills this legislative session. The judge indicated various interim studies overlapped and had the same kinds of problems.

Senator Raggio commented the reason S.B. 157 was being heard in the Senate Committee on Finance was that the language addresses and requires legislative appropriations. He added that with the budget situation it is likely bills not in the budget cannot be accommodated and will not receive appropriation. Senator Raggio asked whether processing S.B. 157 would be useful in that event. Chief Weston answered yes. He indicated the bill would provide the leverage and ability to move into the future to eliminate the battle of standardizing. Questioned what will happen in the absence of appropriations, Chief Weston indicated other bills will speak to the issue. Senator Raggio expressed concern about taking action on the bill only to be informed later no funding was provided. Chief Weston indicated his point was well taken.

Dennis DeBacco, Supervisor, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, explained he manages the state’s criminal history records repository. He indicated the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and the administration of the repository support S.B. 157. Mr. DeBacco said he and the members of the repository advisory committee perceive S.B. 157 as fixing the responsibility for disposition reporting once and for all. He pointed out the way the process works in the deterrent statutory scheme suggests that whoever reports an arrest event to the repository is ultimately responsible for the disposition-reporting aspects.

Continuing, Mr. DeBacco noted that the repository advisory committee, as well as law enforcement statewide, testified to the Advisory Commission on Sentencing (ACS) that disposition reporting is not a law enforcement function. He said the law enforcement agencies throughout the state do a "pretty good" job of reporting to the repository all the incidences known to them; however, the "big black hole" is the ultimate reporting of the disposition. The court should ultimately have the responsibility to forward disposition information to the repository because the record originates there, Mr. DeBacco asserted. He disagreed with Mr. Gammick’s suggestion regarding manual reporting of the disposition and pointed out the procedure would be more effective if done by the courts.

Answering a question, Mr. DeBacco indicated the problem of case disposition reporting is not unique to Nevada, but is national in scope and affects the FBI national record. He said the conduit to the FBI national record is through each state central repository. Mr. DeBacco noted the Nevada system mirrors the FBI system; hence, if dispositions are lacking in the Nevada system they are also lacking in the FBI system. He pointed out the higher percentage of disposition reports are felonies. There is a breakdown in gross misdemeanors to a lesser extent and misdemeanors to a larger extent.

Senator Raggio clarified case disposition reporting would be the function of the court should funding be provided. Mr. DeBacco responded, "Exactly." Asked whether probation revocations and dispositions of that nature would be reported, Mr. DeBacco answered the court would report the fact that the person was sentenced to a term of probation. He added that the Division of Parole and Probation interfaces with the repository and reports subsequent activities.

Senator Raggio asked whether it would be possible to contact the central repository to find out everything that happened to an individual regarding probation and the like should S.B. 157 be passed. Mr. DeBacco indicated S.B. 157 establishes a mechanism whereby the director, working with the court administrator and the repository advisory committee, would establish regulation as to the case disposition process. Currently probation information is captured, but the process would be strengthened with the adopted regulation, Mr. DeBacco remarked.

Ron Titus, Manager, Division of Planning and Analysis, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), expressed support for S.B. 157, which requires courts to report criminal dispositions directly to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. He said that to ensure accuracy and timeliness the information should be reported electronically and the requirement "dovetails nicely" with the AOC’s strategic plan. Mr. Titus reported the AOC will not seek legislative appropriations to help the courts meet the obligation. He said the AOC believes there are sufficient funds within its uniform systems for the judicial records administrative assessment account, which will help them assist the courts with the necessary technology to meet the obligation over the next two years. Mr. Titus noted there are not sufficient funds to fully meet the need but there are enough to begin to fully assess the cost of the obligation. The AOC will do everything within its power to implement the reporting of criminal dispositions to the central repository, Mr. Titus remarked.

There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed on S.B. 157 and the hearing on Assembly Bill 177 was opened.

John P. Comeaux, Director, Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls, Department of Administration, indicated Assembly Bill 177 would make an appropriation to restore the balance in the Stale Claims Account. He stated the requested appropriation is $1,491,065, which would restore the account to a balance of approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Comeaux indicated the appropriation is included in The Executive Budget with details provided on the Stale Claims Account beginning on page INTRO-40 of Volume I. He declared that as of this date, March 8, 1999, the State Board of Examiners approved stale claims in an amount that exceeds the amount available in the account by approximately $73,000, and it is estimated that by the end of the fiscal year the account will have a deficit of approximately $300,000 should the appropriation not be approved. Mr. Comeaux requested expeditious action on A.B. 177.

Asked the amount of time a stale claim can be kept open, Mr. Comeaux answered, "Indefinitely, I suppose." He said that generally speaking, stale claims are less than one year old when they are processed; however, claims have been processed that were for services or goods provided two years earlier.

Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicating that $200,000-plus will be on the agenda of the State Board of Examiners meeting on Wednesday, March 10, 1999, questioned whether the appropriation requested in A.B. 177 would be sufficient. In response Mr. Comeaux said, "I believe it will be." He pointed out there were a couple of extraordinary claims over the last biennium that there is reason to believe will not occur again; therefore, the appropriation should be adequate, he said.

The hearing on A.B. 177 was closed and the hearing on Senate Bill 113 was opened.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), distributed a document entitled "Comparisons of Various Longevity Pay Systems Within Nevada" (Exhibit C), which was the Department of Personnel Salary and Fringe Benefit study of 1992 that showed the payments for longevity for a 10-year employee. Mr. Gagnier indicated S.B. 113 was introduced at the request of the SNEA. He said the longevity pay system in effect for state employees was established in 1973, and the dollar amounts included in the law have never been increased; hence, the same "flat dollar" amounts have existed in the system for over 25 years. Mr. Gagnier noted there was an increase "a few sessions back" when the accumulation period was raised from 20 years to 30 years.

Continuing, Mr. Gagnier pointed out the longevity pay system provides that employees with 8 years or more of continuous state service will receive $75 for the first year semiannually, and an increase of $25 thereafter. He said S.B. 113 will increase the original amount by $75 semiannually, or $150 a year. Referring to page 4 of Exhibit C, Mr. Gagnier explained the chart shows the semiannual longevity payments under current law, under S.B. 113, and under A.B. 398 (which was introduced in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means). The increase under S.B. 113 is $75 semiannually and does not compound; hence, at the beginning of 8 years of service, instead of being $75 the amount would be $150; by the same token, at 21 years of service, instead of being $400 the amount would be $475, Mr. Gagnier noted.

Mr. Gagnier declared the amount of longevity pay was small when compared with that of some local governments within the state as shown by the examples in Exhibit C. He pointed out that a 10-year employee in Clark County receives $1,859, a Clark County Health District employee receives $450, and the lowest of those surveyed was Washoe Airport Authority at $300; however, a State of Nevada employee receives a longevity payment of $250. Obviously, the proposal does not bring state employees up to the average for other entities, Mr. Gagnier remarked.

Further, Mr. Gagnier said comparisons of longevity pay for an average employee earning $30,000 a year is provided on page 3 of Exhibit C. He indicated many entities pay a percentage of salary as opposed to a flat dollar amount. Therefore, an average employee earning $30,000, which is below-average pay, in Las Vegas with 10 years of longevity would receive $1,500, with 20 years would receive $3,000, and with 30 years would receive $4,500, whereas a Nevada state employee would receive $250, $750, and $1,250, respectively. Mr. Gagnier emphasized the longevity system is "way behind" and because the legislation was originally proposed with a flat dollar amount, the amounts based upon increases in inflation since 1973 have decreased.

Mr. Gagnier indicated he could not in any way fault the fiscal note and said it appeared to be reasonably accurate, with the exception of a couple of payroll centers that did not take into account the legislation will not take effect until October, hence there will be no July payment. He said the Department of Administration’s budget figures take that fact into account; however, the university does not, and it is a rather substantial amount. Mr. Gagnier said the total cost under the fiscal note in the first year would be approximately $800,000, which comprises all funds (not just General Fund), and in the second year of the biennium it would be $1.25 million total funds. The amount can be halved to determine the cost to the General Fund, he added.

In summary, Mr. Gagnier indicated S.B. 113 is a way for the Legislature and the state to recognize long-term employees who remain even though overall state salaries are considerably less than local government salaries. He added that in order to receive longevity pay a person must be continuously employed as defined by the "close" definition of continuous service, and receive an evaluation of standard or better.

Asked what percentage of state employees presently receive longevity pay, Mr. Gagnier indicated he did not possess the exact figure for all payroll centers; however, within the fiscal note under the state’s main payroll, the figure represents approximately 5,000 employees receiving longevity pay under the central payroll system. Mr. Gagnier said he was unsure whether it would hold true for smaller payroll centers; however, generally speaking, the number for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is even higher.

Referring to the fiscal note, Senator Raggio said that in the second year (which would be a complete year), the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) estimates an additional cost of $301,307, the LCB estimates $13,500, the Supreme Court estimates $3,675, the Department of Personnel estimates $812,400, the transportation Highway Fund estimates $135,000, the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) estimates $5,327, and the Employers’ Insurance Company of Nevada estimates $195,000. The total cost would be approximately $1.5 million. Asked whether S.B. 113 would only affect state employees, Mr. Gagnier answered yes. He said that although the Supreme Court and LCB are included in the fiscal note, neither entity is covered in S.B. 113.

Senator Coffin expressed support for S.B. 113 and reported he had it drafted at Mr. Gagnier’s request. Comparing the longevity pay of public attorneys to that paid to state employees, the senator suggested state employees’ longevity pay not only be increased, but perhaps switched to a percentage basis.

Neileen M. Dashiell, Chair, Staff Employee Counsel, University of Nevada, Reno, (UNR), distributed a short document entitled "Reasons to Support S.B. 113" (Exhibit  D). Ms. Dashiell indicated it has been 20 years since UNR employees received the last increase in longevity pay. She said approximately 500 employees at UNR are "topped out" at step 15, can no longer receive merit increases, and can only anticipate cost-of-living increases, which will not be likely this biennium. Ms. Dashiell noted that people remain with their employment when they perceive they are valued but are more likely to leave when faced with penurious longevity pay. She said that when they do leave, the state faces the cost of recruiting and retraining new employees, the financial impact of which is not considered in the fiscal note. She pointed out that knowledge and experience are lost when a valued employee chooses to depart his or her position due to lack of proper remuneration. Ms. Dashiell called attention to the fact the longevity pay of other public entities is substantially more than that of state employees. She indicated longevity pay in Washoe County starts at $500 and increases $100 each year to a maximum of approximately $3,000. Ms. Dashiell said businesses considering a move observe how states compensate their employees, which could reflect upon the desirability of Nevada as a place to emigrate to.

Dorris McFall, Manager, Accounting Services, Staff Employee Counsel, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), distributed a three-page document (Exhibit E) which encompassed her verbal testimony. She pointed out the comparisons between bonuses, minimum wages, federal income tax and retirement between 1975 and 1999. Ms. McFall asserted that state employee longevity pay does not provide incentive to remain with the university when the counties and cities pay more for the same expertise and experience. In addition, it speaks to how the state classified system and the Legislature value long-term employees, Ms. McFall remarked.

Senator Raggio, pointing out S.B. 113 is one of a number of appropriation bills that are not in The Executive Budget, indicated the committee was hearing bills with significant appropriations or fiscal impact. The senator noted that unless funding becomes available either through shifting money in the budget or with new money, the requests will not be considered.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 113 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 119.

Anne B. Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, provided a document entitled "Comparison of Public Attorney Pay Scales" (Exhibit F). Ms. Cathcart indicated that S.B. 119 would require public employers to pay State Bar of Nevada membership dues for attorneys who are exclusively employed within the public area, and also provides that should the attorney leave or accept other employment elsewhere during the year, the membership will remain effective and the attorney must reimburse the public employer for the fees paid.

Ms. Cathcart said the reason for S.B. 119 is to make the state attorney general’s (AG’s) office more competitive with competing agencies. She said the primary competitors are the agencies listed in Exhibit F. During the last biennium, 35 out of 130 attorneys employed in the AG’s office (27 percent) left, and 40 percent departed to take higher-paying jobs. Ms. Cathcart indicated that in the previous biennium the turnover was approximately 25 percent. She stated it is very difficult for the AG’s office to hire experienced attorneys in the Las Vegas area due to the higher cost of living and competitive pay scales. Ms. Cathcart pointed out that three years ago she recommended hiring "a couple of" outstanding attorneys as deputies for the Las Vegas office. The individuals could not afford to accept the positions and were lost due to lack of incentive and overwhelming competition, Ms.  Cathcart remarked.

Referring to the chart in Exhibit F, Ms. Cathcart indicated the Clark County District Attorney’s (DA’s) office pays approximately 20 percent more than the AG’s office, plus the longevity pay is substantially more than the state’s. She reported the Washoe County DA’s office pays approximately 10 percent more for continuing legal education (CLE), bonuses, and longevity. Ms. Cathcart remarked that based upon a survey published in a State Bar of Nevada journal publication one year ago and shown in Exhibit F, 80 percent of private firms pay bar dues and payment of the dues is perceived as a basic benefit. She said although some public attorneys are lost to the private sector, most would prefer to remain with the state if they deem it affordable.

Referring to the fiscal impact in regard to the AG’s office, Ms. Cathcart said 130 deputies attorney general multiplied by $350, which is the basic bar dues payment for attorneys with 5 years’ experience or more, would be approximately $45,500. Senator Raggio interjected that State Bar of Nevada dues for 184 attorneys employed in the Executive Branch would amount to $65,800 the first year and $67,200 the second year, which includes all attorneys reported by the Budget Division. Ms. Cathcart clarified her issue was only with attorneys employed in the AG’s office.

Further, Ms. Cathcart indicated part of the issue is parity with other state attorneys, which is a morale problem to some extent in the AG’s office. Noting UNR pays its staff attorneys more than the attorneys in the AG’s office, and LCB staff receives overtime pay while the AG’s office does not, Ms. Cathcart said the disparities put the AG’s office in a difficult position when recruiting and/or retaining employees. She suggested perhaps a study could be done to ascertain whether all state employees are treated in an equitable fashion. Senate Bill 119 is an attempt by the AG’s office to make things more equal and offer something not available at the present time, Ms. Cathcart remarked.

In conclusion, Ms. Cathcart said the bottom line is the loss of institutional memory and understanding of governmental processes when people leave the AG’s office for more lucrative employment.

Senator Raggio indicated an effort was made several sessions ago to equalize the salaries and perquisites of attorneys throughout the state system, including the attorney general, the courts, and the LCB. He said an inordinate amount of time was spent only to find the agencies had distorted the facts. Senator Raggio speculated that should the state begin paying bar dues or CLE costs for attorneys, other professionals such as doctors, engineers, and architects would expect to be compensated for remaining in good standing in their profession. The senator asked, "Where will the line be drawn?" He remarked, "Everyone in state service belongs to some sort of an association and it must be determined whether the state will pay dues for all of them."

Ms. Cathcart pointed out the attorneys in the AG’s office are not permitted to hold outside legal positions. She said that in some instances deputies have accepted construction and manual-type jobs to earn more money. Senator Raggio commented that LCB attorneys only earn overtime during the legislative session.

Queried how the state benefits by attorneys’ membership in the State Bar of Nevada, Ms. Cathcart answered the attorneys in the AG’s office are required to have membership in the State Bar of Nevada. She indicated membership benefits include periodic publications and current information regarding the public legal area.

Senator Mathews expressed strong opposition to the state paying for CLEs or any other continuing professional education. She indicated she is a registered nurse (RN) and must pay for her own continuing education. She said RNs in state service are required to do the same, and although they earn much less than attorneys, their professional dues are almost the same. Senator Mathews agreed with Senator Raggio’s concern in regard to paying dues for all professional state workers.

Ms. Cathcart said that although it is a policy issue for the committee, the concerns of the AG’s office are the 27 percent turnover and the competition with other public entities. Senator Raggio said the issue is complicated by the fact that other public entities in Clark County, Washoe County, Las Vegas, and Reno, as well as private law firms, pay professional dues and CLEs. Asked whether a study had been done on the issue, Ms. Cathcart said it was her understanding approximately 80 percent of private law firms pay bar dues; however, she was uncertain whether the private sector is the primary competition. Payment of bar dues is generally considered a basic benefit for attorneys, Ms. Cathcart asserted.

Senator Raggio commented the issue is not just bar dues, it is also the disparity in salaries. He said the Legislature has never been able to compete with salaries in Clark County in any professional area, and it is unlikely government will ever be able to compete in that milieu.

Queried whether S.B. 119 will affect all public employers, including cities and counties, Ms. Cathcart answered yes.

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, said that when the measure first came out the counties were polled to ascertain their practices. He indicated the information received from 16 of the 17 counties (Lyon County did not respond) showed that Clark, Douglas, and Washoe Counties currently budget for this expense, and one county reported the payment of membership dues is used in negotiations. Mr. Hadfield noted that 13 counties do not pay membership dues, and it would cost them each $13,800 should they be required to pay.

Continuing, Mr. Hadfield suggested counties be eliminated from S.B. 119. He asserted that in regard to Ms. Cathcart’s attempt to make the AG’s office more competitive the impact on "the competitive situation" will be lost by requiring all public employers to pay State Bar of Nevada membership fees. He stated that should the committee process S.B. 119, the Nevada Association of Counties would request counties be omitted and allowed to continue to use payment of membership fees as a negotiation tactic between county commissioners and various district attorneys throughout the state.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 119.

Senator Rawson requested introduction of a BDR.

*****

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill 250.

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained that S.B. 250 is one of the traditional appropriations to the Budget Division to reimburse the Legal Division of the LCB for the expenses involved in preparing bill drafts requested for state agencies. He said the appropriation is included in The Executive Budget and the amount, $150,000, has been the same for the last two legislative sessions. It is an approximation of the cost of the Legal Division’s preparation of bill drafts for the Executive Branch.

Asked how the amount is calculated, Mr. Malkiewich answered the LCB does not perform detailed accounting on the appropriation and the number is a rough approximation. He explained the hours billed to state agencies are totaled and $150,000 is allocated across the agencies in accordance with their percentage of the total. Hence, the LCB is reimbursed an average of $25-$30 an hour for the total, which does not meet costs but helps offset session expenditures, Mr. Malkiewich stated.

Senator Raggio speculated that BDRs from executive agencies might be limited if the Executive Branch were charged for every bill sent to the LCB but not provided the funds to reimburse the LCB. Mr. Malkiewich responded that a BDR regarding limitations on BDRs is expected later in the session. He indicated the LCB would prefer BDR limitations to be in statute for the Executive Branch, local governments, and legislators to establish a more reasonable number for future legislative sessions. Mr. Malkiewich indicated he would consider the option at the appropriate time.

Questioned how the LCB method of allocating money differs from the manner in which money is allocated to the AG’s office for services rendered to the various agencies, Mr. Malkiewich indicated it is quite different. He explained that part of the AG’s budget is supported by amounts charged to state agencies, and the charge is based upon each agency’s billable rate. Mr. Malkiewich deferred to the fiscal analyst to explain the method by which the charge is determined. Asked whether the amount equals the $20-$30 an hour charged by the LCB, Mr. Malkiewich speculated the AG’s billing to state agencies was more, but he was uncertain of the amount.

Queried whether bill drafters record time calculations on each piece of legislation drafted, Mr. Malkiewich responded the hours are billed by agency. He said there is a basic account center for bill drafting, and subcenters for the agency for which the bill is being drafted. When filling out a time calculation sheet, the bill drafter documents the hours spent drafting for each of the agencies served. Hence, a fairly accurate statement of the number of hours spent drafting bills is created, Mr. Malkiewich explained.

Senator Raggio clarified the information is in The Executive Budget.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 250 and requested action on A.B. 177 and S.B. 250.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU

Nevada Legislature Interim – Budget Page LCB-2 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 327-2626

Janice L. Thomas, Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Branch, Nevada Legislature, distributed the "Nevada Legislature Interim" budget (Exhibit G), which included the Program Description, Base, Maintenance, Enhancement, and Summary. Ms. Thomas indicated the interim budget provides staff for the Legislature between legislative sessions. She said staff is responsible for finalizing the work of the preceding session, preparing for the succeeding session, assisting legislators, and providing information to the public as needed. Ms. Thomas noted the base budget has been increased approximately 4 percent and provides for four permanent full-time positions. She said out-of-state travel funds are requested to allow the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to attend the annual National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and other professional organization meetings, and for staff to attend training seminars. Ms. Thomas indicated the operating expenses include the dues portion of the meetings request as well. Senator Raggio requested a list of the dues.

Ms. Thomas indicated the Interim Nevada Legislature requests funds to restore two Administrative Assistant positions at grade 29. She pointed out that in FY 1998-99, both houses were allowed to maintain a technical administrative assistant to help with development of the front desk computer system and to develop computer programs for the table of contents and index of the Senate and Assembly journals during the interim. Due to advances in technology, Ms. Thomas declared, the interim legislature is moving away from dependence upon the state printing office to produce final camera-ready copies of the journals because the task is done in-house. In addition, she mentioned the interim legislature no longer relies upon private vendors to perform computer operations because the task is also accomplished in-house. The administrative assistants are a valuable asset in maintaining the continuity and expertise needed for front desk operations, both in session and during the interim, Ms. Thomas remarked.

Ms. Thomas indicated upgrades are requested for the full-time administrative assistants to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. She explained the persons in these positions have in effect become office managers in response to the extensive and increasing responsibilities entailed in the overall operation of both houses. The upgrade will provide a 5 percent increase each year and bring the two positions in line with the operating divisions of the LCB, Ms. Thomas said.

Jackie Sneddon, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Legislative Branch, Nevada Legislature, indicated she had nothing to add to Ms. Thomas’ remarks.

Senator Raggio reiterated his request for a list of professional organization dues, as well as proposed travel.

Senator Jacobsen requested a list of interim activities involving the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, and other such entities. Ms. Thomas said she would comply with both senators’ requests.

Answering a question, Ms. Thomas indicated that during the 1997 Legislative Session an additional person was allowed for each house, making a total of six for both houses. Responding to another query, Ms. Thomas said the function of the additional Senate employee is technical in nature and the employee works closely with the Assembly in development of the front desk computer and media systems. Senator Neal indicated it was his understanding that development of the computer system was the overall responsibility of the LCB. Ms. Thomas said that although development of the computer system is the responsibility of the LCB, the Interim Nevada Legislature provides technical support regarding the legislative process on the front desk in conjunction with the LCB.

Legislative Counsel Bureau – Budget Page LCB-1 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 327-2631

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred to two documents: (1) A 33-page summary of the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget (Exhibit H), and (2) The "Expanded Program Narrative¾ Legislative Counsel Bureau" (Exhibit I) which includes performance indicators for the divisions.

Mr. Malkiewich indicated The Executive Budget contains one page on the LCB budget which demonstrates bottom-line percentage changes of –7.9 and –3.4. He clarified that The Executive Budget contains all the appropriations from the last session; hence, the numbers are meaningless. He proposed to work from Exhibit H, which was a more detailed statement of the budget. Mr. Malkiewich said he would begin with an overview of the budget, then present the budgets of the Legislative Commission, the Legislative Committee on Education, and the Administrative Division. The LCB budget presentations would conclude with the individual divisions presenting their budgets, he stated.

Referring to the summary on page LCB-1 of Exhibit H, Mr. Malkiewich said that from the last biennium to the current biennium, appropriations and total resources increased 8 percent. He indicated the numbers demonstrate an attempt to anticipate the needs of the Legislature for the coming biennium. Mr. Malkiewich expressed understanding that in "tight" financial times it may become necessary to scale back; however, he said, he would not come forward with a budget that would not meet the needs of the LCB. He indicated 12 positions are proposed to be added, which would be an approximately 8 percent increase in total personnel resources for the biennium.

Legislative Commission – Budget Page LCB-3 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Mr. Malkiewich pointed out a $2,000 increase in the annual audit of the Legislative and Contingency Funds. Although he did not know how much the audit will cost, he said the budget audit will be bid out for the first time in four years and an increase is anticipated.

Referring to page LCB-4 in Exhibit H, Mr. Malkiewich indicated the numbers decrease approximately $11,000 between FY 1997-98 compared to FY 1999-2000, and increase approximately $9,000 between FY 1998-99 and FY 2000-01. He said the net change is a decrease of approximately three-tenths of a percent. Mr. Malkiewich noted the budget of the Legislative Commission is "roughly flat." He pointed out that annual dues and meeting registrations were broken out to demonstrate the amounts spent for dues and registrations for the different organizations.

Answering a query, Mr. Malkiewich said the NLSSA is the National Legislative Services and Security Association, of which Senator Jacobsen is a founding member. Staff services personnel, security, the Sergeant at Arms and like entities participate in the NLSSA, Mr. Malkiewich reported.

Senator Mathews indicated "for the record" she was not concerned about NLSSA membership dues because they were presented in a block for the organization rather than as individual dues to retain a license.

Legislative Committee on Education ¾ Budget Page LCB-5 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Mr. Malkiewich pointed out the Legislative Committee on Education was established in the 1997 Legislative Session. Senator Raggio mentioned the 1997 budget for the Legislative Committee on Education in 1997 involved a contractual situation and asked whether it would be the same during the upcoming interim.

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated $250,000 is allocated over the biennium to the Legislative Committee on Education for contractual services. She said there is pending legislation that would require standards at each grade, and noted the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools created standards for grades 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12. Senator Raggio speculated an authorization might not be utilized; however, it could be possible. Ms. Botts agreed with the senator’s speculation. She indicated an authorization might also be available for use by the committee itself or by the Commission on Educational Technology, which received approximately $135,000 from the Committee on Education to create the statewide plan.

Administrative Division - Budget Page LCB-6 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Mr. Malkiewich referred to the performance indicators on page 2 of Exhibit I.

Customer Satisfaction Indicators. Mr. Malkiewich indicated the LCB conducted a survey of legislators and divisions on an evaluation of the LCB’s performance. He commended the Accounting Unit for receiving the highest ratings for FY 1997-98 "actual," and indicated the Legislative Police received a grade of 3.99 for courtesy. Mr. Malkiewich pointed out the LCB, as a service organization, recognizes the importance of satisfying its "customers."

Volume and Overall Indicators. Mr. Malkiewich reported the volume of work of the different units is relatively stable at present. He indicated the goal of the Director’s Office is to attain customer satisfaction standards. The standards of the Director’s Office are set high with an intent to provide "straight A" service; hence, only a small number of goals are reached, Mr.  Malkiewich remarked.

Mr. Malkiewich stated, "The Administrative Division’s budget contains increased appropriations from the prior biennium to the appropriations to this biennium of 2.2  percent, which is reflected in the volume indicators." He indicated there was a big increase in volume during the 1997 Legislative Session due to the legislative building addition; however, that is not the case this session. The Administrative Division’s budget did not substantially increase, Mr. Malkiewich remarked.

Mr. Malkiewich said not enough janitors were included when the building was expanded, hence the request for one janitor. In addition, two Media Services technicians are requested due to an increased workload. Mr. Malkiewich explained the additional money requested for the utilities budget is due to the low base. He reported a very good FY 1997-98 "actual." Mr. Malkiewich said the reason for the additional amount is to increase the numbers to amounts anticipated for the next biennium.

Mr. Malkiewich indicated upgrades for four staff persons are requested. He said upgrade of the Chief of the Legislative Police was overlooked in the 1997 Legislative Session. He noted the salaries of the Chief of the Capitol Police and the security officers were increased. He indicated Mary Florey, Legislative Police Safety Coordinator, assumed the safety duties and expanded them through substantive training. Mr. Malkiewich said the salary increase of the Grounds Superintendent is contingent upon assuming additional responsibilities, and he noted that particular unit is anticipated to take over another unit. He pointed out the Senior Video Technician is being upgraded from 31 to 33 to allow for that staff person to supervise and train two new video technicians in addition to assuming the prior duties of that position.

Acknowledging that upgrades are a sensitive issue, Mr. Malkiewich proposed to prepare a memorandum for the committee which will contain a detailed explanation of all upgrades.

Mr. Malkiewich indicated 34 computers are being replaced within the Administrative Division. He noted that Allan Smith, manager of the Information Systems Unit, audited all the divisions and worked with division chiefs to determine which older equipment needed to be replaced. Mr. Malkiewich explained the LCB uses equipment from the legislative session to keep costs down. He pointed out the computers used by secretaries during the legislative session are purchased at a discounted price. He said the passenger van used by the Legislative Police has 97,000 miles on it and needs to be replaced.

Responding to a query, Mr. Malkiewich indicated 34 personal computers were leased for the legislative session and will be purchased at the end of session to pay off their residual value. Senator Raggio speculated whether it makes sense to continue to lease computers and suggested it might be better to purchase them outright. Mr. Malkiewich declared the system used at present works well. He explained some of the computers leased for the legislative session are sent to the Executive Branch to be purchased at a discounted rate. The full cost is not required to be paid at sine die for computers not used during the legislative session, Mr. Malkiewich remarked.

Mr. Malkiewich indicated the Bobcat Loader for the Grounds Unit was leased for the legislative session to be purchased at the end of session for the residual value. He explained the Bobcat Loader is a flexible, multipurpose machine that is useful for removing snow from the top floor of the parking garage. Asked whether the LCB might use a Bobcat Loader from another agency rather than purchase one, Mr. Malkiewich said the loader is used for a number of other purposes. He offered to provide additional information on the many uses of the Bobcat Loader should it be approved.

Continuing, Mr. Malkiewich declared defibrillators are lifesavers and indicated heart attack "save rates" have increased from 16 percent to 80 percent with the use of defibrillators. He said two defibrillators will be available during the legislative session. Mr. Malkiewich expressed a desire to obtain two defibrillators for the Legislative Building and two for the Sedway Office Building after the legislative session, as well as one extra in each building for use during the session. He speculated that having only two defibrillators is "stretching it a little thin" for the amount of space covered. Mr. Malkiewich stressed the importance of reaching a victim within a couple of minutes after a heart attack because the save rate is increased with use of a defibrillator versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Answering a question, Mr. Malkiewich said Alice Lennon, from the Legislative Police office, is not only an emergency medical technician and first aid specialist, but she also trained five individuals on the staff to operate the defibrillators. There are five to eight people in the building trained to use defibrillators, Mr. Malkiewich remarked.

Mr. Malkiewich indicated monitors and cameras are also requested for the Legislative Police. He noted cameras were not installed when the building addition was constructed. Mr. Malkiewich explained that camera coverage of all the hallways in the Legislative Building is gradually being accomplished.

Mr. Malkiewich explained E-730 is a budget instruction item to show FY 1998-99 in the base budget. He indicated there is no increase. He said $239,147 was spent on maintenance of buildings and grounds in 1998, which is less money than was spent in the prior year.

Mr. Malkiewich said four staff members will retire in the next biennium and money is budgeted for that event. In addition, he indicated money is budgeted for the staff to attend technical training sessions.

Referring to the Administrative Division budget summary on page LCB-11 of Exhibit  H, Mr. Malkiewich stated the decrease in total expenditures versus the 1998-99 work program compared with appropriations shows an approximate 2.2 percent increase and an addition of three staff personnel.

Responding to an inquiry regarding the request for cameras for the Legislative Police, Mr. Malkiewich pointed out the entire Legislative Building is covered by cameras. He said the hallways between the Senate and Assembly chambers are observed from the control room of the Legislative Police, and the remainder of the hallways, the parking garage and the stairwells into the parking garage are monitored. Senator O'Donnell commented the cameras are a crime deterrent and an invaluable asset to the building.

Audit Division – Budget Page LCB-12 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Wm. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated the Audit Division budget for FY 2000-01 is a flat budget, as it has been in the past. He said an increase of approximately 5.9 percent over the base year is requested in appropriation, and also a 5.2 percent increase in 2001, totaling 7.4 percent over the biennium. Mr. Crews stated three new positions are requested: two Deputy Legislative Auditors, one in each year of the biennium, and two half-time university intern positions. He said the division will receive assistance from the interns and evaluate their performance with the expectation of adding them to the staff in the future.

Senator Raggio queried, "Why are interns needed?" Mr. Crews answered this is the first time additional positions have been requested by the division since 1991. He said that since 1987, the staff size of the division has increased by two positions, which is equivalent to an 8 percent increase over a 12-year period. By comparison, Mr. Crews said, the number of positions in the Executive Branch increased approximately 54 percent during that time. Although appropriations have increased threefold, Mr. Crews said, the division has been able to address the issue by using computer-assisted techniques during audits, and performing crosscutting audits. He declared that during the last biennium, the division "did an accounts receivable revenue function" on six agencies with one audit. However, the division has reached a point where productivity cannot be increased without additional personnel, Mr. Crews remarked.

Asked whether an additional number of audits will be performed as a result of the increase of personnel, Mr. Crews answered the number of audits will not increase; however, more complex and larger audits will be accomplished. He said the division has entered a format in which a risk assessment of the entire Executive Branch of state government, as well as the Judicial Branch, can be performed. Mr. Crews indicated audits have become more complex, comprehensive, difficult, and performance-oriented, and are no longer the basic financial audits performed in the past.

Answering a question, Mr. Crews indicated some Audit Division positions receive overtime pay during the legislative session, as well as compensatory time for travel outside of session. Money is provided in the budget for overtime because during the last biennium there was a time problem with some of the larger projects, Mr. Crews remarked.

Asked whether professional dues are paid for audit positions, Mr. Crews answered no.

Referring to E-710 Replacement Equipment, and E-720 New Equipment, on page LCB-14 (Exhibit H), Senator Raggio inquired why so many portable printers were needed. Mr. Crews indicated the auditors use the printers in the field, dispersed throughout state agencies.

Senator Jacobsen commended Mr. Crews and the Audit Division for an excellent job. He remarked that information produced by the division is sometimes controversial and expressed concern about collection follow-up. The senator mentioned that $150 million of "trust-type" money owed to the state was never collected. He suggested perhaps a follow-up method for collecting debts owed to the state could be created through the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Asked whether state agencies respond to an audit, Mr. Crews said agencies are required by statute to respond to an audit report. He indicated that often agencies will respond, accept the audit recommendation, agree to follow up, and then fail to do so.

Senator Raggio queried, "What is the biggest amount owed?" Mr. Crews said the audit referred to by Senator Jacobsen was a conglomerate which included the Department of Taxation, the Gaming Control Board, and the Employment Security Division. He indicated the entities lost control of some of their receivables, and recorded receivables were not collected. Mr. Crews explained there are valid reasons for some collection failures; however, others are management’s failure to collect receivables. Asked what the Legislature could do to alleviate the problem, Mr. Crews answered legislation is pending pursuant to recommendations made to Mr. Comeaux regarding the audit in question. He indicated Mr. Comeaux developed some regulations to be placed in the State Administrative Manual which would provide guidance to state agencies; however, there were inconsistencies and statutory problems that needed to be addressed. Mr. Crews pointed out that Mr. Comeaux and the attorney general formed a task force to produce a BDR to address some of the issues, including penalties, interest, and the ability to use collection agencies.

Senator Neal asked Mr. Malkiewich, "To whom do you submit your organizational chart?" Mr. Malkiewich responded the organizational chart was updated during the past interim through internal workings within the LCB. He indicated positions in the LCB were specified when the budget was prepared and included a detailed list of titles, grades, and step authorization. Senator Neal requested two copies of the LCB organizational chart, one in effect during the legislative session and another that will be in effect after sine die. Mr. Malkiewich indicated he would provide the organizational charts.

Fiscal Analysis Division ¾ Budget Page LCB-17 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, indicated the FY 2000-01 base budget was adjusted to continue 24 existing positions and to annualize certain costs, particularly travel and a few operating costs. He said that in base year FY 1998, the full complement of positions was not on the budget because the new education accountability positions came on late in the year. Mr. Miles stated travel expenses were annualized and a onetime cost was removed from the base budget. He pointed out the base budget includes contract funds for maintenance of the Budget Analysis System of Nevada (BASN) computer budget.

Answering a question, Mr. Miles explained that the BASN budget increased from $50,000 in one year to $80,000 in the next because of the need for on-site service in a legislative session year. He said the contractor is located in Sacramento, California, and communication is usually electronic; however, during the legislative session the contractor was required on-site during peak periods.

Mr. Miles said there is a small increase for inflation in the second year for office supplies.

Mr. Miles indicated the major portion of the workload changes request is contract money for the education accountability section of the Fiscal Analysis Division. The funds are to be used to contract outside expertise in the area of accountability for preparation of data tables and other special studies, such as class-size reduction evaluations.

Asked whether the contract would be continuous or bid out, Mr. Miles deferred to Ms. Botts to answer.

Ms. Botts said the outside review of school accountability reports from local schools and school districts will be bid out again. She indicated that although it is an annual requirement under the law, the contractor who performed the task in 1998 will not be available again. The plan was to bid out the contract in any event, Ms. Botts remarked.

Asked whether the amount is realistic, Ms. Botts indicated three bids were received ranging from $20,000 to over $2 million, and the bid for $20,000 was chosen. She said the "in between" bid was approximately $40,000. Ms. Botts explained the accountability review has an increase of $25,000 in the first year and $30,000 in the second year. She said the other amounts are for preparation of data tables for analysis of the accountability program. Ms. Botts indicated it had been assumed the State Department of Education would continue preparing the data tables, but they did not; hence, the division assumed the responsibility. An outside expert in statistics at the university helped with some of the studies, Ms. Botts remarked.

Mr. Miles indicated E-845 contains $29,000 to replace the carpeting in the Fiscal Analysis Division in the Sedway Office Building, and $1,500 is allocated to enclose one office. He pointed out $2,400 is requested for specialized computer training for education accountability personnel. He explained the employees require two more training sessions to be fully competent on the recently purchased statistical software. No new positions are requested, Mr. Miles stated, concluding his testimony.

Legal Division – Budget Page LCB-22 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated the majority of the increase in maintenance is a request for four new positions: two Paralegals, one Proofreader, and one Attorney. She said the positions are continuing temporary session hires; however, the attorney left his employment. Ms. Erdoes declared two paralegal positions are needed to balance the workload and accomplish the large number of bills in a shorter period of time. She explained the paralegals relieve the attorneys of many tasks, which is more efficient overall. Ms. Erdoes claimed productivity is highest with this ratio of paralegals to attorneys.

Answering a query, Ms. Erdoes said two paralegal positions for the legislative session will be retained after sine die. She clarified the paralegals were hired with the understanding they would be temporary session hires. Senator Raggio stated that new positions will be closely scrutinized, not only in the Legislature but throughout the state system.

Continuing, Ms. Erdoes indicated currently there are three temporary session proofreaders. She explained the number of pages have increased and are going through the system in a shorter period of time, both during the interim and during the legislative session, and a proofreader is required to balance the work. Ms. Erdoes said if the workload remains high there will be a need for more temporary session proofreaders. She emphasized the importance of proofreaders, indicating there had been a lack of them in the Legal Division. Ms. Erdoes declared two attorneys left the division one month before the legislative session began. She said an additional attorney will be needed throughout the interim for the following reasons:

• There are more and longer regulations.
• There are more opinions.
• The division is not meeting consistent deadlines on statutory regulations; and
• The division has experienced longer turnarounds on legal opinions and other projects for legislators.

Ms. Erdoes indicated the budget requests include 13 upgrades (7 of which are in the technical services unit relating to proof reading), 4 Proofreaders, and 2 Data Entry Operators. She said this area of the budget has long been ignored and expressed angst that it is brought forward in a "bad" budget year. Ms. Erdoes pointed out the "step in grades" for the positions were set in the 1970s; however, the duties have changed. She indicated that at that time the duties were straight typing and comparison reading; however, currently there are fewer personnel required to possess computer skills commensurate with higher-paid positions. Consequently, the division continues to hire and train these positions only to lose them to the Executive Branch because their "steps in grade" are more lucrative, Ms. Erdoes reflected.

Ms. Erdoes pointed out a one-grade increase is requested for the Editor and the Assistant Editor positions because they have taken on more work this session. She said that during the interim the two positions will gain the additional duties of supervising and coordinating the work of paralegals. Ms. Erdoes indicated the tasks were moved in an attempt to conserve the time of the attorneys who previously performed them. She noted the editor and assistant editor will perform the duties, as well as take responsibility for the electronic and printed versions of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and the new regulation register prepared for the first time during the interim. Ms. Erdoes said the Law Indexer and the Assistant Law Indexer assumed more duties in terms of answering questions in regard to the law, and also directing and answering all generic e-mail that comes to the division. She indicated much of the e-mail consists of questions from people requesting information on a certain topic of the law. The law indexer and assistant law indexer respond to the requests by sending the individuals the applicable section of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Ms. Erdoes commented the law indexer and assistant law indexer do not provide legal advice through that service, although they are attorneys.

Continuing, Ms. Erdoes stated an upgrade for the Publications Clerk is requested. She said the position has changed since its inception. Due to the addition of the gift shop and automation of the publications area, the position requires a person with higher computer skills, including database management. Ms. Erdoes indicated a one-grade increase for the Receptionist is requested because grade 27 is more commensurate with the grade level for comparable positions in the other divisions. She explained the new configuration of the division places the responsibility of answering the calls for all employees on the receptionist, which she said makes the task more onerous.

Ms. Erdoes indicated this enhancement provides for office equipment and computers. She commented that Allan Smith, Manager, Information Systems, informed the division what would be needed to upgrade the computers. Ms. Erdoes said, "The computers do not work when the network is upgraded, which causes the system to be slower; consequently, a slowdown is costly when all work is done directly on computers."

Questioned the disposition of old personal computers that are replaced, Mr. Malkiewich indicated a breakout report is being prepared which will contain information regarding proposed computers throughout the LCB and the details thereof. He explained that old computers which are not obsolete are sent to the State Purchasing Division to be used in other agencies where a "486" or a basic Pentium is sufficient. On the other hand, a computer that is obsolete is "surplussed out," Mr. Malkiewich remarked. Senator Neal reported the existence of a bill that would provide the Purchasing Division the ability to donate obsolete computers to nonprofit organizations.

Referring to the Expanded Program Narrative (Exhibit I), Mr. Malkiewich indicated the performance indicators of the various LCB divisions were listed in alphabetical order.

Ms. Erdoes pointed out page 6 of Exhibit I contained the Legal Division performance indicators. Ms. Erdoes commented the division is ahead because she greatly underestimated the number of BDRs that would be requested for the 120-day session. She said 1,449 BDRs have been completed and the number is anticipated to reach 1,563 by March 22, 1999, which amounts to a total of 1,683 to date. Ms. Erdoes clarified that 120 BDRs were withdrawn before being drafted or were put on hold because they lacked adequate details. Senator Raggio mentioned he had asked the Senate to review any withdrawn requests. Ms. Erdoes indicated the numbers might change because this week the division received a number of BDRs with inadequate details, which were put on hold, and she assumed the situation would continue into the next week.

Ms. Erdoes declared there were 128 more amendments this legislative session than there were at the same time last session, which is to be expected based upon increased activity.

Responding to a query, Ms. Erdoes indicated Nevada Revised Statute sales have increased into the 2,000 range. She said the count was in the 1,500-1,600 range in the 1980s when a competitor company printed the statutes. Ms. Erdoes stated it is difficult to ascertain whether the larger number of sales is due to rapid growth of the state or the regaining of many customers. She explained the NRS can presently be attained gratis on the Internet and indicated the only cancelled orders based on that were from public entities. An entire reprint of the NRS will be done at the end of the legislative session, Ms. Erdoes stated.

Further, Ms. Erdoes declared the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) requested the Legal Division to take over printing of the traffic manual. She said the distribution rate is approximately 1,600; therefore, the cost will be recouped. Ms.  Erdoes indicated the DMV&PS experienced problems in printing and distributing the traffic manual; hence, the Legal Division will perform the task under its publications unit at no extra cost.

Asked whether the professional dues of the Legal Division are paid, Ms. Erdoes answered no.

Senator Neal pointed out the Legal Division was expeditious in providing requests and turnaround time for redrafts was "tremendous." Senator Raggio agreed and indicated the division did "yeoman" work.

Research Division – Budget Page LCB-27 (Exhibit H)

Budget Account 327-2631

Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated two or three factors drive the Research Division budget. He said the reapportionment process and the activities thereof are being considered, including mapping and coordination with the U.S. Census Bureau. Mr. Welden declared the division experienced a 29 percent increase in legislator requests over the past two years. He explained the requests are "background" for bill drafts and constituent service questions, which are growing tremendously. Mr. Welden noted, "Approximately $50,000 will be lost in the transfer from the high-level radioactive waste program in the Executive Branch that came to the Research Division."

Mr. Welden indicated three new positions are requested, the first of which is a Principal Research Analyst, grade 43, whose primary function will be to coordinate the increase in workload with constituent services and supervise employees moved into that area. Mr. Welden said a Senior Research Analyst, grade 41, is requested to prepare for the upcoming reapportionment, to include mapping, coordination with federal agencies, and increased workload. He indicated a Senior Research Secretary, grade 29, is requested to support the increasing workload and reapportionment.

Mr. Welden said one upgrade is requested to reclassify a Principal Research Secretary from a grade 31 to grade 33. He explained the Research Division has an office manager and the next step down is the principal research secretary. Mr. Welden noted the changing workload indicates that duties need to be balanced and some of the overtime work shifted from the office manager to the principal research secretary. He indicated that should the principal research secretary take over time sheet requests, position reviews, and training materials coordination, the position will need to be placed in a broader classification.

Mr. Welden indicated replacement computers are requested because of a move from some laptops as main computers to base units. There are some furniture replacements as well, Mr. Welden remarked.

Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste – Page LCB-31 (Exhibit H) Budget Account 327-2631

Mr. Welden indicated that during the past 3 or 4 years the numbers of transfers from "Executive Branch money" to support the program have dropped. He said staffing shifted a couple of years ago and the Research Division absorbed the loss. Mr. Welden reported the money is allocated for travel, per diem, and salaries for legislators on the committee. The budget request reflects a projection that this money will be lost, Mr. Welden remarked.

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether additional funds were requested from the U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Waste. He indicated the Department of Energy and Nuclear Waste funded a great deal of the program through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Mr. Welden said funds for the Executive Branch in the Nevada program were cut significantly, reducing the portion allocated to the Research Division to zero. He mentioned the NCSL has a high-level radioactive waste working group that receives money from the federal agency. Mr. Welden indicated that once or twice a year the Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste receives travel paid out of the NCSL fund, which will continue.

Senator Jacobsen said, "It surprised me that every time we’ve had something sponsored by NCSL they always tell us we are not spending enough money and there is more money in the trust fund than there is in the highway trust fund." In response, Mr. Welden indicated Congress is responsible for disposition of the money and the decision was made not to send much of it to the Nevada agency.

Legislative Committee on Workers’ Compensation – Page LCB-32 (Exhibit H) Budget Account 327-263

Mr. Welden indicated the program is "pretty flat." He said there is a request for 1.5 positions in workers’ compensation. Senator Raggio commented the division’s performance indicators were very informative. Although the survey results were not available for the meeting, Mr. Welden expressed pride in the results of the survey. He said the division received a grade of 3.64 for timely and thorough information service. Senator Raggio remarked he had experienced outstanding effort and timeliness from the Research Division. The senator mentioned there had been 2,176 projected requests for legislative histories. Mr. Welden stated requests for legislative histories have represented the biggest increase over the years.

Senator Raggio appointed a subcommittee consisting of himself, Senator O'Donnell, and Senator Coffin to deal with the LCB budget. Mr. Malkiewich agreed to work with the subcommittee in an attempt to trim the LCB budget.

Senator Raggio referred to the "Senate Committee on Finance Closing List #1" (Exhibit J) and deferred to Ms. Botts to guide the committee through budget closings.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Ms. Botts indicated the first four accounts are on the consent list.

Other State Programs – Budget Page K12 ED-5 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2699

Ms. Botts indicated Other State Programs is a small budget account containing several small programs funded by state, local, or private funds; however, it does not include any federal grant money. Ms. Botts recommended adjustments that would increase the authority of the State Department of Education to collect $30,000 a year in workshop fees, allowing workshops to be held without IFC approval.

*****

Ms. Botts indicated the Education Gift Fund is an account that is required under NRS. She said gift money decreased in recent years to approximately $10,000. Ms. Botts indicated the department and the Governor recommended authority to collect up to $50,000 and hold it in reserve; however, IFC approval would be needed to spend the money. She pointed out $500 is authorized for an annual Teacher of the Year award. Questioned the location of the $500, Ms. Botts said it was in an expenditure category.

Trust for Education Technology – Budget Page K12 ED-20 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2702

Ms. Botts indicated the Trust for Education Technology account was set up in 1995 and the State Department of Education has approximately $17,000 in the account. Ms. Botts declared existing statute requires the department to establish regulations, which has not yet been accomplished. However, the department is beginning to establish regulations in consultation with the Commission on Educational Technology to set up the guidelines required to donate the money.

Asked whether this will encourage private companies and others to donate computers, technology equipment, and so forth, Ms. Botts answered the State Department of Education has received approximately $17,000 but will not spend any of the money until the regulations are in place.

Senator Rawson queried whether an advisory group on educational technology would be established. Ms. Botts indicated the Commission on Educational Technology, established under the Nevada Education Reform Act during the 1997 Legislative Session, continues as a permanent commission. She reported the Governor’s recommended budget does not contain funding for the group to continue; however, under statute it must continue. Ms. Botts indicated it could be clarified, under law or by letter of intent, that the department is to establish regulations for using the money after consulting with the commission.

Senator Rawson expressed concern that the group will not continue without funds. He asked whether it would be appropriate to make a directive that regulations developed concerning spending out of the Trust for Education Technology include the advisory group. The senator indicated this would provide a potential source of funds for the advisory group. Ms. Botts answered it would be easier for the commission to have a stable source of funding; however, it would be a positive move to encourage the commission to work on raising donations. By letter of intent the department could be directed to work with the commission on regulations and fund-raising, Ms. Botts stated.

Senator Raggio entertained a motion to close the budget as recommended by the Governor with an appropriate letter from the Senate Committee on Finance requesting the State Department of Education to adopt the regulations as indicated by Senator Rawson.

Student Incentive Grants – Budget Page K12 ED-39

Budget Account 101-2606

Ms. Botts indicated the Student Incentive Grants account provides assistance to eligible students with financial needs who attend postsecondary schools. She said the adjustments increase the transfer from the university’s endowment fund, which is the interest from the university’s share of the Estate Tax. Ms. Botts reported the fund was increased by $780 a year to provide operating funds, including office supplies, printing and copying expenses, postage, telephone, and other indirect costs. She said the expenses of this budget were charged against other budget accounts within the State Department of Education. A half-time person in another state-funded budget account assists with administration of this program, Ms. Botts remarked.

Asked the amount the state has historically received on this program, Ms. Botts answered it is approximately $260,000 from the federal government, which the state is required to match. She indicated the state’s match emanates from the transfer of the university’s endowment fund interest, which is the university’s special projects budget account 2977. Senator Raggio clarified the fund is for the benefit of students who attend postsecondary schools and meet a needs test.

*****

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Barbara Moss,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: