MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Seventy-First Session
May 3, 2001
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on General Governmentwas called to order at 8:12 a.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2001. Chairman William R. O'Donnell presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. David Parks
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
Senator Lawrence Jacobsen
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Joseph Neal (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Rick Combs, Program Analyst
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst
Carol Thompson, Committee Secretary
Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary
BUDGET CLOSINGS
AGRICULTURE, ADMINISTRATION BUDGET PAGE AGRI-1
Rick Combs, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 101-4554. He explained the account had been discussed in hearings and the only issue that had not been resolved was a General Fund appropriation for maintaining the public land-grazing database in decision unit E-300. Mr. Combs reminded the subcommittee that Section 6 of A.B. 703 of the Seventieth Legislative Session provided an $80,000 General Fund one-shot appropriation for the development of a statewide database and the completion of a report regarding grazing trends and the effect on private business, rural economies, and county and state governments. He said the funding in the bill was used to develop the database, compile the information, and prepare the report. The funding was not sufficient to continue beyond the current information already in the database. The department had indicated that after going to the work of compiling the information, they would like to keep the information current and were asking for a computer workstation, a wide format color printer, some operating supplies, and contract services for training. Chairman O'Donnell asked if Mr. Combs had contacted Resource Management to see what they would charge to maintain the database. Rick Gimlin, Administrator, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Agriculture, said Don Henderson, Assistant Administrator, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Agriculture, had obtained a quote from Resource Management, which was approximately $30,000 annually to maintain the database.
Chairman O'Donnell asked how much the department had requested to maintain the database and Mr. Gimlin answered $19,500 but added there were some adjustments that had been made by the legislative staff. Mr. Combs informed the committee that with the adjustments the amount was $15,600 in FY2002 and $5,000 in FY2003. Chairman O'Donnell asked if that was an adjustment from the original request and Mr. Gimlin said yes.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED EQUIPMENT AND LET THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAIN THE DATABASE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Senator Neal was not present for the vote.)
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH APPROVAL FOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Senator Neal was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COURTS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
BUDGET PAGE COURTS-9
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, directed the committee to Budget Account 101-1483. He said technical adjustments to the account included adjusting the Administrative Assessment revenues to reflect the appropriate amount in the budget account based on an increase of 7 percent per year, and an adjustment to the price of personal computers and laptops in accordance with the most recent prices furnished by the Purchasing Division.
Mr. Atkinson stated decision unit E-806 requested an unclassified pay increase for the Director and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He explained this request was in addition to what had been recommended by the Governor. Mr. Atkinson said the budget had been developed prior to knowing what the Governor would recommend. He reminded the committee that the Court budgets were not subject to the review of the Executive Branch. He noted that the Director's salary would go from $83,640 to $108,123 if decision unit E-806 and decision unit M-305 were both approved, and the deputy's salary would go from $68,850 to $90,121, by the end of the biennium. He asked the committee if they wanted to approve the unclassified salary increases as recommended in decision unit E-806.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Governor's recommendation for salary increases had been the 9/4 percent increase. Mr. Atkinson answered yes. Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought the reason the increase had been requested was the courts did not know what the Governor had planned.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO NOT APPROVE E-806 AND LEAVE THE SALARY INCREASES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Senator Jacobsen was not present for the vote.)
A. William Maupin, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, in defense of the salary increase as requested in E-806, said the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Director's salary had lagged behind other court administrators in the state of Nevada. The proposed salary increases would provide parity with the other court department heads, the court clerk, two supervisory staff attorneys, and the central legal staff. The raise would also bring the state Court Administrator's salary up to seventh place from ninth place in comparison to other court administrator's salaries within the state. Chief Justice Maupin added increasing the AOC's Deputy Court Administrator's salary would eliminate the current problem of the deputy making less than some of his staff. He added that all the positions would be funded out of Administrative Assessments, not General Fund appropriations. He expounded the state Court Administrator's request was for $95,380 and might be augmented with the increases recommended by the Governor. Chief Justice Maupin stated the top pay range for the state Court Administrator, also known as the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, was currently $83,640 per year. It was the roll of the state Court Administrator to apply management and guidance to many statewide initiatives involving court administrators and judges from the Nevada trial courts. As the director of the AOC, the incumbent, Karen Kavanau, had also been responsible for managing the Supreme Court's administrative business. The top salaries for court administrators in eight of Nevada's trial courts, north and south, were higher than the state Court Administrator. The Eighth Judicial Court Administrator who oversaw 19 judges had a salary of $126,000; the Las Vegas Justice Court Administrator who oversaw 8 judges received a salary of $126,000; the Las Vegas Municipal Courts Administrator oversaw 6 judges and received a salary of $124,000; the Eighth Judicial District Family Division Administrator made $100,000 and oversaw 11 judges; the Second Judicial District Court Administrator in Reno made $100,000 and oversaw 11 judges; the North Las Vegas Municipal Court Administrator was paid $93,000 and supervised one judge; the Henderson Municipal Court Administrator oversaw two judges and was paid $84,672; and the Sparks Municipal Court Administrator oversaw two judges and was paid $84,000. The state Court Administrator was currently paid $83,640 and oversaw all 151 judges in the state. Chief Justice Maupin continued and stated the Deputy Director's salary should also be raised from $68,850 to $79,500 for the same reasons already mentioned.
Chief Justice Maupin noted that until the last four years the Administrative Office of the Courts had been limited to budgets, but the role of the office had changed and the dynamics between the AOC and the lower court system, and the assistance the AOC provided for the Supreme Court Justices, had changed dramatically. He said when he was a district court judge in Las Vegas, it was difficult to communicate with the AOC and things could not get done, but in the four years he had been a justice the role of the AOC had been upgraded, due to efforts by Ms. Kavanau, and the role of the AOC in providing technical support, and other services to the Supreme Court, and the courts around the state had greatly increased. He advised the committee the salary requested would not mean a raise in pay for Ms. Kavanau, because she would be retiring soon. He said he realized the state was having difficulties with the current fiscal crunch caused by the shortfall projections, but felt the raises were an attempt to make the positions competitive.
Mrs. Chowning asked what the 9/4 percent salary increases would total. Mr. Atkinson said the recommended 9/4 percent would give the Director $91,168 in FY2002 and $94,814 in FY2003. The Deputy Director would receive $75,047 in FY2002 and $78,048 in FY2003. Chairman O'Donnell said the amounts were within $1,000 of what was requested by the courts, and Chief Justice Maupin agreed. Ms. Kavanau reiterated what they were trying to do was to get parity with the other department heads in the Supreme Court, and when the other department heads received the 9/4 salary increases, the Director and Deputy Director would be behind again. Chairman O'Donnell asked if the purpose of the request was to raise the salaries to be in parity with all the other courts around the state, or was the purpose to attract a new person to take Ms. Kavanau's position as state Court Administrator. Chief Justice Maupin answered both. Chairman O'Donnell asked if there was someone already in mind for the position, and Chief Justice Maupin answered that at the current time the Court had been discussing Ms. Kavanau's position, but with the 9/4 salary increases the committee was talking about, the position would be paid less than every major court system in the state except for the North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Sparks municipal court systems. He added that he was not sure how much the raise being requested would attract people to the position. Chairman O'Donnell asked what the average salary was for court administrators, and the high and low salary. Chief Justice Maupin said the average was approximately $105,000. Chairman O'Donnell asked the Chief Justice to give the figures he was using to Mr. Beers.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested since the issue had already closed at what the committee thought was appropriate, the salary increase should be referred to the unclassified pay bill where they would deal with the equity issue in a variety of different areas, and it could be considered at that time. Mrs. Chowning said every single agency would like to be in parity with the rest of the state but the first figure of $94,814 versus $95,380 was approximately a $500 difference, which was very close. Chief Justice Maupin explained the court had requested the raise with the understanding they would also be getting the 9/4 percent raise. The true request for a salary increase would be approximately $108,000.
Mr. Beers said the average salary for court administrators was $102,600. Chairman O'Donnell suggested that the subcommittee would keep that figure in mind and deal with the issue in the unclassified pay bill.
Mr. Atkinson said aside from the issues already discussed, staff recommended the account be closed as adjusted.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Senator Neal was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Mr. Atkinson pointed out, since E-806 was not approved, the Work Program's projected reserve after 2001 would be $115,737, after adjustments were taken into account, and would increase to $166,542 in FY2002 and $268,302 in FY2003. He said if the committee looked at the minimum reserve as being the $115,737 there might be $50,000 in the first year and $101,000 in the second year, in excess, that the subcommittee might want to look at when they discussed issues in the Supreme Court budget. He added the figures might change depending on the outcome of the salary issue in the unclassified pay bill discussion.
Chairman O'Donnell asked, in regard to the salary increase for the AOC, when the issue was discussed during the unclassified pay bill hearing, would it still be applicable that the money would come from court assessments and not the General Fund. Mr. Atkinson said the entirety of Budget Account 101-1483 was funded out of court assessments. Chairman O'Donnell said the reserve in the account for the assessments would have to be changed if E-806 was approved through the unclassified pay bill. Mr. Atkinson explained the amounts in the reserve would be $115,737 at the end of FY2001 and would change to $143,903 in FY2002 and $215,610 in FY2003 if the results of E-806 were approved through the unclassified pay bill, which would mean $28,000 the first year and $74,000 the second year that would be the amounts in excess of the $115,737 reserve for FY2001. Chairman O'Donnell said since the subcommittee did not know whether or not the salaries would be raised in the unclassified pay bill, the subcommittee could not depend upon the figures given. Mr. Atkinson agreed.
COURTS, SUPREME COURT BUDGET PAGE COURTS-1
Mr. Atkinson said there were a few technical adjustments to Budget Account 101-1494.
Chairman O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau if she thought that was okay, and Ms. Kavanau answered by shaking her head yes.
Mr. Atkinson reviewed the following issues for the subcommittee:
Senator Jacobsen asked if the court had up-to-date information on the Regional Justice Center. He said the legislators were dependant on what they were told and it appeared that many capital improvement projects were in some kind of "trap," including the Veteran's Center or the Lied Library. Senator Jacobson wondered if there was something wrong with the system. Chief Justice Maupin said there was nothing that the state was doing wrong. He explained the Regional Justice Center was a county project and the Supreme Court was just a tenant. He added it was a very complicated building architecturally and from an engineering standpoint, and there had been setbacks caused by weather, etc. Chief Justice Maupin informed the committee that county management had advised the courts that they would probably not be able to take occupancy until after February 2003. He added it had been planned to move in October 2002. He said they were also advised that the February Certificate of Occupancy date, the earliest anyone could take occupancy, might be later than that date. He explained there was an ongoing dispute between the county and general contractor, but he had received a letter from the county assuring him that everything was being done to expedite the completion of the building. He added the court was in the process of taking other measures with their current landlord in the existing facility to negotiate a lease near the current price and continue operations with an option to vacate when the Regional Justice Center was completed.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the Chief Justice had been a party to any of the meetings that went on between Public Works and the contractor. Chief Justice Maupin said not personally, but the AOC had representatives that attended the construction meetings.
Chairman O'Donnell asked how much money in all of the court accounts was expended out of the court assessments reserve to fund the necessary positions and the hardware, software, and the Web site. Mr. Atkinson said he did not have an immediate answer, but he could put the information together. Chairman O'Donnell asked if most of the reserves were spent down. Ms. Kavanau answered she thought 47 percent of the entire budget was paid from the Administrative Assessments and they had spent down the reserves, and in fact, the manager of finances had told her that she had cut too close. She said the account that appeared to have a large balance was the Uniform System of Judicial Records, Budget Account 101-1486, but actually contained committed funds that were for contracts on file. Chairman O'Donnell said he had a hard time, during the budget crunch, taking any more General Fund dollars and expending it on the court when there was a lot of money that had already been expended, in terms of court assessments. He said the courts had spent a lot of money in the current biennium that had been in reserve for this particular budget account, and it was his thought the reserve might have been spent down to nothing, which would result in using the General Fund budget. He said that was the first time that had happened since he had been a legislator.
Senator Jacobsen stated he had always had a concern about court assessments and asked if the courts thought it was their money, or public money. He said the general public was paying the assessments and he thought it was like the General Fund money. Chief Justice Maupin said the courts did not have any money; rather it was all public money. He said the Administrative Assessments were funds generated by the court system but in a long-standing arrangement the courts took 51 percent of the assessments and 49 percent were reversed to the state for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and other law-enforcement related issues. He explained it was still the obligation of the state under the General Fund to fund the operations of the court. He added what the courts had been asking for was to make sure the validity of the 51/49 percent arrangement was as closely honored as possible, at the same time recognizing the difficulty of the General Fund budget overall in state government, and what the courts were prepared to do was to work with the subcommittee to determine an appropriate balance between General Funding sources for the court and the use of Administrative Assessments. He explained the Administrative Assessments were distributed among various accounts by a formula, by law, and when the monies were committed the formula governed, which meant there was not the option of taking funds from one account to give to another account. Chief Justice Maupin said from the very beginning of the budget process, his office had been offering some sort of substantive discussion between the courts and the legislators to make an appropriate balance between the General Fund commitments and commitments out of the Administrative Assessments.
Senator Jacobsen said during the last legislative session the committee had become aware of the assessments that had been in arrears. He asked where that issue stood currently and if the court was at a maximum level for assessments. Ms. Kavanau said collections were up and the estimate for the current year was 13 percent over what had been predicted for the year. She said the economy would probably have an effect, and explained that most of the Administrative Assessments came from traffic citations, and that was dependant on tourism and cars coming in and out of the state. She said assessments had been on the rise for the last four years and the anticipation was a 7 percent increase for the next year over the current year.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Beers had some thoughts regarding decision unit E-300. Mr. Beers responded for a Web site of the magnitude requested, he would like to see a plan of what it would do, and how. He asked if there was a document with that information. Ms. Kavanau shook her head no. Mr. Beers suggested the subcommittee proceed without the document and thought maybe the subcommittee could request the courts to come back to the IFC with the information. Chairman O'Donnell said it was his belief that the funds for decision unit E-300 would come out of the court assessments. Mr. Atkinson said because the account was supported with both Administrative Assessments and General Fund, all the Administrative Assessments were utilized first. He said any decision of the subcommittee would be from the General Fund.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND WITH A PLAN TO COME FORWARD TO IFC IN REGARD TO E-300, AND TO RECLASSIFY THE CURRENT GRADE 20 POSITION TO AN AGENCY PROGRAM INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST AS REQUESTED IN DECISION UNIT E-301. . .
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the court interpreters were approved, would the cost be split between the AOC and the General Fund. Mr. Atkinson said that he could not answer the question until the unclassified pay bill issue was resolved. He said the reserve for the AOC, if the unclassified pay increase was approved, would be left with only $28,000 available, which would not cover the cost, so the court interpreter program would have to be funded from the General Fund.
. . . WITH THE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM AND IF THE UNCLASSIFIED PAY BILL DID NOT GO FORWARD, TO FUND THE PROGRAM OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS BUDGET ACCOUNT. . .
Chairman O'Donnell said he believed testimony had indicated there was not enough money in the Administrative Assessments' budget so they could not spend money that the AOC did not have. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification and Chairman O'Donnell answered she would need to cut somewhere else. Ms. Giunchigliani asked the amount of funds that were involved in decision unit M-200 and Mr. Atkinson responded $58,910 in FY2002 and $72,571 in FY2003.
IN CONTINUATION OF HER MOTION, ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI ADDED THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS NOT APPROVING DECISION UNIT M-200, THE CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, BUT WOULD APPROVE THE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning said she would like the court's opinion on the issue, because every other agency had been asked to prioritize their positions and she wanted to give the courts a chance to prioritize as well. She explained the motion was to not approve the Case Management System Specialist by reclassifying the M-301 position and to approve the Court Interpreters Court Program, which included a position. Ms. Kavanau said the position mentioned in M-301 was currently in the AOC's Budget Account 101-1483, and asked if the suggestion was to take the position out of that budget account and then add it to Budget Account 101-1494, and reclassify it. Chairman O'Donnell asked why decision unit M-301 was included in Budget Account 101-1494 if it was actually a position funded out of Budget Account 101-1494. Ms. Kavanau said that was why she was asking for clarification. Ms. Chowning asked staff to clear up the confusion. Mr. Atkinson explained the position was in the AOC Budget Account 101-1483, and said the point was that if the position was there to be helping the users with applications and similar activities, which was the description of the position requested in decision unit M-200, was it possible the M-301 position could be modified to accomplish the need in Budget Account 101-1483. Ms. Kavanau explained the position mentioned in decision unit M-310 was currently filled by a college student whose specialty was help desk and lower level network administration. She said the student was not skilled to provide the application support that the justices were looking for.
Ms. Kavanau said if they could not have the Case Management Specialist they would like the subcommittee to consider approving the position for the second year of the biennium because there were many modifications that the court had asked for. She explained the specialist was needed because they had a very complex application and currently there was only one person to do the work, which included problem resolution as well as modifications, and the list was getting longer and longer. She said, however, that the E-350 position was absolutely a top priority for the courts.
Mrs. Chowning asked, if the position requested through decision unit E-301 was reclassified, would the funds to pay for the position come from the Administrative Assessment's budget, or if the subcommittee approved decision unit E-301, then how much of the cost would come from the General Fund. Mr. Atkinson answered the cost of the position as it was requested in E-301 would come from General Fund dollars in the amount of $65,945 for FY2002 and $68,886 for FY2003. Ms. Giunchigliani said her motion would stand to allow the reclassification. She suggested that to assist the courts, there could be a consideration of adding the M-200 position the second year of the biennium if the revenues came in to "kick that position in" in the second year. Chairman O'Donnell suggested a Letter of Intent that would have the courts come before the IFC to request the second position if the funds were available.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT FOR THE COURTS TO COME BEFORE THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM, IF THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE, TO RECONSIDER APPROVING THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SPECIALIST REQUESTED UNDER DECISION UNIT M-200.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING REAFFIRMED HER SECOND.
Mr. Atkinson reviewed the motion as follows:
ALL TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS WERE RECOMMENDED TO BE APPROVED AS ADJUSTED BY STAFF. DECISION UNIT M-200 WAS NOT APPROVED THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM BUT IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO ISSUE A LETTER OF INTENT STATING THE COURTS COULD GO BACK BEFORE THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM TO HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR THE POSITION. DECISION UNITS E-300 AND E-301 WERE NOT APPROVED, BUT THE MOTION GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS' BUDGET AND WOULD ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE RECLASSIFIED. THE E-350 POSITION WOULD BE APPROVED AS REQUESTED. DECISION UNIT E-806 WAS NOT APPROVED. STAFF WOULD BE SEEKING APPROVAL TO ADJUST THE BUDGET TO BALANCE THE CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET ACCOUNT ONCE IT WAS FINALIZED.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the
vote)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COURTS, UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS
BUDGET PAGE COURTS-18
Mr. Atkinson said Budget Account 101-1486 was supported by Administrative Assessments. He said technical adjustments had been made to adjust the assessments to the appropriate amount based on the 7 percent per year increase. The second year the budget was reduced in the amount of $2,000 because the final payment on the loan to the Lovelock Municipal Court would be received in FY2002. Mr. Atkinson added staff would recommend the account be approved as adjusted. He reiterated the account was funded entirely by Administrative Assessments and the money was used primarily for grants to local courts to improve their technology. He added the operations that supported the budget were in the Planning and Analysis Division and there were a number of things requested in that budget. It had been suggested that with somewhat of a slowdown of grants to the local entities, perhaps some of the things requested in the Planning and Analysis budget could be considered and funded in this account. He said the recommendation was to approve the budget as adjusted and would be further adjusted in the grants category if decisions were made in the Planning and Analysis budget that affected this account.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of the recommended motion, in regard to the Planning and Analysis budget. Mr. Atkinson said in the Planning and Analysis budget three positions were requested, and they were supported out of the General Fund.
Chairman O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau for clarification of the request. Ms. Kavanau explained she would like to "strike a deal." She said there were three positions that were being requested out of Budget Account 101-1484 that were totally supported by the General Fund. She said the courts used approximately 90 percent of Budget Account 101-1486 for grants for technology for the courts. She said the courts would pay for any one of the three requested positions with Budget Account 101-1484, if the subcommittee would approve the other two positions. Chairman O'Donnell reminded Ms. Kavanau that the subcommittee was looking for "pennies" and things were really tight. Chairman O'Donnell asked if both positions could be funded out of grants. Ms. Kavanau answered the last four years the court system had been very successful in implementing technology. Not getting the positions would not only hurt their technology progress, but would also slow the division down in regard to the information that the courts provided the legislature, including statistics required by statute.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she shared Chairman O'Donnell's concern about General Fund dollars but did not want to slow the technology progress the courts were making.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1486 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH ONE POSITION AS REQUESTED IN BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1484 AND WHEN BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1484 WAS CONSIDERED A SECOND POSITION WOULD BE APPROVED TO BE FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if the positions were in The Executive Budget as enhancements. Mr. Atkinson said the positions were included in The Executive Budget, and reminded the subcommittee that the Governor could not make a recommendation on the budgets of the Supreme Court. Chairman O'Donnell asked if the positions were included in the General Fund dollars that the Governor had provided. Mr. Atkinson said yes.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COURTS, DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
BUDGET PAGE COURTS- 13
Mr. Atkinson explained staff had made an adjustment to the price of computers in Budget Account 101-1484 based on the most recent prices from the Purchasing Division. Mr. Atkinson stated the account had been receiving federal grant funds in the past, however no grant funds were included in the budget because it was not certain if additional grants would materialize. He added in 2000 the budget had included authorization for $98,000 in grants and in actuality $355,000 in grants were received. In the current year the budget included authorization to receive $73,000 but in actuality $600,000 had been received to date. When the grant monies were not included in the budget it did not leave any opportunity for any of the administrative costs in the budget to be funded with any of the funds received in federal grants. He said the subcommittee might want to make an agreement with the courts that if money became available through federal grants and included a portion that could cover administrative costs, the funds would be set aside as a reserve for reversion. Another option would be to try and became better at predicting what federal revenues were available.
Mr. Atkinson said decision unit M-200 requested three positions, a Management Analyst I, a Management Analyst III, and a Computer Network Specialist. He said since it was agreed during testimony to move one of the positions to Budget Account 101-1486, staff would need to know which position would be moved.
Mr. Atkinson explained decision unit E-806 requested a pay increase for the unclassified deputy position. The position was currently at $68,850 and if decision unit E-806 and the Governor's 9/4 percent increase were approved the position would go to $90,121, which would represent a 31 percent increase.
Chairman O'Donnell said he did not understand all the positions and where they were going. He said it appeared that the Planning and Analysis Division was requesting three new positions, a Management Analyst I and III, and a Computer Network Specialist. He asked for clarification on the functions of the Division of Planning and Analysis. Ms. Kavanau replied the division collected and compiled statistics from the courts and helped the courts implement their technology. Chairman O'Donnell asked who was using the statistics and for what. Ms. Kavanau answered the legislature and the public used the information as a measurement of the performance of the courts.
Ms. Kavanau reminded the Chairman that one position was being moved to Budget Account 101-1486 and would be funded out of Administrative Assessments and she asked the subcommittee to approve the Management Analysis III for Budget Account 101-1484. Chairman O'Donnell asked why. Ms. Kavanau explained the position would help the courts install case management systems that would produce the statistics that the legislature and the Supreme Court had mandated to be reported. Ms. Kavanau stated the request was to keep the Management Analyst III position in Budget Account 101-1484. Chairman O'Donnell asked if that position would be in addition to the other requested position, and Ms. Kavanau said it would be one position instead of the three they had originally requested. Chairman O'Donnell clarified the issue saying the courts were requesting the approval of the Management Analyst III and deleting the Management Analyst I and the Computer Network Specialist.
Mrs. Chowning asked which position would go to Budget Account 101-1486 and Ms. Kavanau answered probably the Computer Network Specialist. She said the division would have to make a decision as to which position they needed less. She said the Computer Network Specialist purpose would be to help the courts, There were 91 trial courts in Nevada and most of them had no technical support and as the technology was implemented someone had to go out and help them.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if the counties had employees that could help with the technology. Ms. Kavanau said in 1995 there was an assessment done resulting in 19 full-time positions (FTE) that supported technology for the courts. Mr. Beers reminded the subcommittee that in the last six years computers had become 8, 10, or 90 percent faster and less expensive as well, and he thought there were considerably more than 19 FTEs supporting computers in the courts at the current time. Ron Titus, Deputy Court Administrator and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Court, said he was the manager of the Division of Planning and Analysis, and explained the larger counties, Washoe County and Clark County, had Information Technology (IT) staff, as did Carson City. He said most of the division's efforts were with the rural counties where help had been needed most and where help had not been available. Mr. Titus said of the local counties, Storey County, Churchill County, Lyon County, and Carson City, only Carson City had an IT department. In Lyon County the Comptroller took care of all the IT needs, and the counties had to contract with outside companies. He reiterated that the rural counties were the areas where the help was needed. Mr. Titus explained that the division was working with Clark County on projects for standardized coordination, but Clark County did not need the division's assistance.
Mr. Beers asked if the division was using a client software written by the division to install in the county courts, and if the software allowed the courts to input their case results. He also asked why the division was sending "computer people" to the rural courts and what the "computer people were doing." Ms. Kavanau answered they were installing case management systems which could range from an Excel worksheet to a highly complex piece of software, depending on what the courts selected, using the standards that had been set. She added they did not tell the rural courts what to buy, but the division did tell them what the programs had to do. Mr. Beers said the rural courts bought a system and then the division went to help the courts install the software. Ms. Kavanau said the division helped the courts if the vendor did not, and the division would pick up where the vendor left off. She said most of the courts had no technology help. Mr. Beers summarized saying the position would be an IT staff for small counties and Ms. Kavanau answered the position would be a circuit IT person. She said there was a demand on the courts for statistics and for the statistics to be presented in a uniform, standardized method, which required at least some basic technology. Mr. Beers said in Lincoln County it would only require a paper and pencil and Ms. Kavanau replied that would not ensure uniformity. Mr. Beers said it would because then the division could get the report and then enter it into a spreadsheet, resulting in 20 hours for a clerk instead of 2,000 hours for a LAN technician. He said a certain volume of transactions had to be achieved before automation made fiscal sense. In response, Mr. Titus explained his office had worked with Lincoln County, White Pine County, and Eureka County to share a system that was supported out of Ely. Mr. Beers commented a LAN technician was the last person they would want to do training. Mr. Titus said they were not asking for a LAN technician out of Budget Account 101-1484, rather a person who would work with the courts in the application of case management software including the training and the standard use.
Mr. Beers asked if the division wanted to hire a person to become an expert in however many different case management court systems that the counties purchased. Mr. Titus responded, not exactly, rather in the effort to try and standardize the courts, the division had a project that would evaluate case management systems, and at least 30 courts had signed Memorandums of Understanding to help purchase and use a standard case management system that would be paid for out of Budget Account 101-1486. The requested position would help those 30 plus courts. It was envisioned that all of the rural courts would eventually use the same case management system. Mr. Titus said it did not make sense for each county to have their own IT person, so the division was asking for one who would go from county to county. Mr. Beers said it made more sense to have a support contract from the vendor. Mr. Titus explained the case management systems for the courts did not provide very good support contracts, although the division would still need the support contracts, but the contracts did not usually take the support down to the individual court level. Mr. Titus asked if a vendor had to deal with Las Vegas Justice Court or the Austin Justice Court, who would get the most attention. Mr. Beers said whoever was paying the most money per hour and Las Vegas would pay more hours than Esmeralda would. Mr. Titus said at the same time, it was not just Esmeralda Court, it was all the rural courts, and the idea was to get a "bigger bang for the buck." Mr. Beers asked how many staff the division had currently. Mr. Titus answered the Planning and Analysis Division had himself, one clerical support position, one management analyst, and one position that handled grants. Ms. Kavanau explained an additional person had been approved during the Sixty-Eighth Session but the position was approved only to work on grants, so she did not contribute to the Planning and Analysis Division at all. Mrs. Chowning asked how the grant person was paid. Ms. Kavanau said the position was authorized in the Planning and Analysis Division in 1995, only on the condition that she worked on a particular grant, which had continued since that time. Ms. Kavanau said the division had added to her responsibilities in that as long as she was administering to one grant, they had made her the grant administrator, but she did not contribute to planning analysis and the division would like to work with the legislative staff to try and figure out where the position correctly belonged.
Mrs. Chowning asked out of what type of funding was the position paid, and Ms. Kavanau answered out of the General Fund. Ms. Kavanau said that the position had added over a million dollars in grants for the courts. Mrs. Chowning said that was a success record and asked, if the description of the position was to be entirely dedicated to finding and administering grants, why couldn't the position be funded out of the grants, freeing up approximately $60,000 in General Fund monies. Ms. Kavanau said that would be ideal, but it could not be certain the division would get the grant from year to year. Mrs. Chowning said so far the position had been successful, so why not make that a motion. Ms. Kavanau said the grant monies had already been allocated, and the usage could not just be changed.
Chairman O'Donnell said the grant funds were encumbered in some way and when a grant was applied for the terms of how the dollars would be spent would be very specific, so it wasn't an option to use the money for salaries. He said there was an anomaly that the court had projected they would get $73,000 in grants in 2001, however, to date they had received $600,000. He was concerned about underestimating the amount. Mr. Atkinson said without budgeting for the federal grants then there was no possibility to budget any portion of the federal grant that could be applied to administrative expenses and use some of the funds for some of the administration of the account. Mr. Atkinson said generally in a federal grant there was a portion that was allowed to administer the grant. Chairman O'Donnell asked if the division could properly estimate the amount of grants they would receive.
Mr. Titus answered the grants did not come to the division directly from the federal government. The grants came via the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS). He said he believed the DMV/PS took an administrative fee from the grant funds. The DMV/PS would go to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and ask for approval to accept the grant and forward it on to the appropriate agencies. The division had not asked for an administrative portion of those grants, rather the money was applied toward consulting or equipment and had all gone straight to the trial courts. None of the grant monies received had benefited the AOC at all.
Chairman O'Donnell explained what the subcommittee was asking was could the division properly, or accurately, give an exact, or close amount of how much they would receive from grant funds. Chairman O'Donnell asked, if they were getting money from the federal government through the DMV/PS, why couldn't there be some kind of administrative costs associated with the grant. Mr. Titus answered in the future they could, but it had not been done that way in the past. Mr. Titus said he did not think the division would be adverse, in the future, to "kick back" to the state money received for administration. Mr. Titus added it was not money that could be counted on, and it was hard to hire people telling them the grant was a one-year grant and they might not have a job in a year. Chairman O'Donnell said in years past the Supreme Court budget had been pretty much left intact and it was his job to save money anywhere he could.
Chairman O'Donnell said he felt the subcommittee should allow the Management Analyst III position and take away the Management Analyst I and the Computer Network Specialist. He said with the number of people already in the division and with the new position of the Management Analyst III it should be enough. He added in two years, hopefully, Nevada's financial picture would be better and the issue could be dealt with at that time.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT III POSITION BUT NOT APPROVE THE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT I OR THE COMPUTER NETWORK SPECIALIST FOR BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1484.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION, WITH CLARIFICATION.
Mrs. Chowning said the subcommittee had already approved putting the computer network position in the 101-1486 budget, but the chairman had said to take away the position. Chairman O'Donnell explained that the two positions were not approved for Budget Account 101-1484, but the Computer Network Specialist would be added to Budget Account 101-1486.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblyman Hettrick were not present for the
vote.)
Chairman O'Donnell referred the subcommittee to decision unit E-806.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO NOT
FUND THE UNCLASSIFIED SALARIES AND TO REFER THE ISSUE
TO THE UNCLASSIFIED PAY BILL.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
(Senator Neal and Assemblyman Hettrick were not present for the
vote.)
Mr. Atkinson said staff would recommend the rest of the budget be approved as adjusted.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE
THE BUDGET AS ADJUSTED.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblyman Hettrick were not present for the
vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF INTERNAL AUDITS
BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-8
Michael Chapman, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 101-1342 and said staff was not recommending any technical adjustments for the account.
Mr. Chapman said decision unit E-900 recommended transferring six full-time positions from the Budget and Planning Division's pre-audit section to the Division of Internal Audit, to continue the rollout of the Integrated Financial System (IFS). This would transfer the base cost from the Budget and Planning Division's pre-audit section to the Division of Internal Audit. He explained decision unit E-901 was the companion to the transfer, which would reclassify five of the six positions from Accountant Technician positions to Auditor III positions. The funding for the decision unit was $58,175 in FY2002 and $125,788 in FY2003. Mr. Chapman said three of the reclassified positions would be upgraded the first year of the biennium and the remaining two positions would be upgraded the second year of the biennium
Mr. Chapman said The Executive Budget recommended a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that, if approved, would move the current staff of Internal Audit and Financial Management and the post-audit staff to the Capitol Annex building. Mr. Chapman continued and said decision unit E-275 was related to the transfer of positions. Currently the positions did not do a lot of traveling as they were clerical positions, but going to the post-audit environment would require that the auditors go into the field to the state agencies where the source documents would be located. The Executive Budget requested travel monies, six additional laptop computers, supporting software, and audit travel bags. The first year of the biennium the cost would be $24,154 and the second year the cost would be $18,487. Mr. Chapman said staff asked for authority to make technical adjustments pending the outcome of the transfer in the Budget Division's budget, which would close the next week.
Mr. Chapman said decision unit E-276 recommended $12,200 in FY2002 and $27,200 in FY2003 for additional training and associated travel costs for the professional staff to maintain their proficiency with continued education. The second year of the biennium $15,000 was recommended for contract services to fund a peer review as provided in the "Standards for Professional Practice of Internal Auditing by the Institute of Internal Auditors." The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353A045(9) required the division to adopt the standards of the Institute of Internal Auditors for conducting and reporting on audits and a peer review was part of the standards.
Mr. Chapman explained decision units E-710 and E-720 were recommended equipment replacements and new equipment. Decision unit E-720 requested six additional portable printers for use by the field auditors.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH THE TRANSFER OF POSITIONS FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE TO THE DIVISION OF INTERNAL AUDIT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblyman Hettrick were not present for the
vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
ADMINISTRATION, ADMIN-ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-103
Mr. Chapman said staff had made technical adjustments to Budget Account 71-1371, which included the updated computer purchase prices, a slight decrease in decision unit E-900 to reflect reallocated building rent for two accounting positions that were recommended to be transferred from the Public Works Board, an increase in the amount of $5,779 in FY2002 and $6,275 in FY2003 in decision unit E-901 for salary reclassifications for two positions that were recommended to be transferred from the Public Works Inspection Board.
Mr. Chapman explained the main component of the budget for the next biennium was the transfer of the remaining Department of Administration's eight accounting positions. Two would be transferred from the Public Works Board, five from the Public Works Inspection Board, and one position would be transferred from the Victims of Crime account, completing the consolidation of the accounting positions for the Department of Administration. Associated decision units would adjust the current funding sources for the transferred positions to reflect funding by the administrative charge assessed to the divisions supported by Administrative Services, which did not change anything in the "paying" division budgets and would not result in a savings in the upcoming biennium.
Mr. Chapman said the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to purchase the Employer's Insurance Company of Nevada's (EICON) building in Carson City would affect the division, moving the various accounting positions from the Public Works Board to the Blasdel Building. He said the administrator of the department had indicated the position that would be transferred from the Victims of Crime account would be relocated to Carson City, even if the CIP was not approved.
Mr. Chapman expounded that other items of note in the account included the replacement of Office Suite software and four desktop computers in the second year of the biennium. He reminded the subcommittee that when the subcommittee had closed the Victims of Crime account there had been a reduction of one computer associated with the accounting position that had been recommended for transfer to the Administrative Services account, so staff had incorporated one additional replacement computer in the decision unit.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH THE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE TRANSFER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, AND WITH THE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE RENT AND COMPENSATION, AND FOR THE EQUIPMENT FUNDING FOR THE VICTIMS OF CRIME POSITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Senator Neal and Assemblyman Hettrick were not present for the
vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Being no further business, Chairman O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 9:46 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kathryn Fosnaugh
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell
DATE: