MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
May 18, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:39 a.m. on Friday, May 18, 2001. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst
Rick Combs, Program Analyst
Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst
Jim Rodriquez, Program Analyst
Carla Watson, Program Analyst
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 518: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for start-up costs for new state college. (BDR S-1426)
Richard Moore, Ph.D., Founding President, Nevada State College Henderson, said A.B. 518 addressed the first year of planning for the new college. He advised the committee there were currently four employees assigned to the college. He explained the issue was how to get from the current point in time to a time when the enrollment was at 500 students. The Board of Regents had recommended a consideration of up to $3 million in funding, although A.B. 518 specified a $1 million appropriation. Dr. Moore said the board wanted the committee to know how the funds were to be disbursed if A.B. 518 was passed. Dr. Moore explained the first allocation would be used to hire a senior administrative team, a provost, a fiscal officer, and a student services officer. The second step would be to add a faculty planning team to help design the courses and curriculum that would be offered the first year. He said if more funds were allotted the college would like to have a schedule produced so that students would know what classes would be available. He added that all those things that other colleges took for granted, the Nevada State College had to build from scratch, including putting together an administrative team, a faculty planning team, and a schedule. Dr. Moore stated the college felt their students should be eligible for financial aid. He added if the state approved funds for an appropriation of $1.5 million a librarian would be hired to help plan the first library. He added there were operations and maintenance funds for management purposes allocated for the first year that had been included in A.B. 518. Dr. Moore said, with limited funds, the first administrative team would only work half the year and if more funds were allocated, they would be used as prioritized in the list he had provided (Exhibit C).
Mrs. Chowning said the beginning of her university study days was at Nevada Southern University (NSU), and now there would be a college called NSCC, which was rather nostalgic to her. She asked for an update on the location for the college. Dr. Moore said in the Henderson region there was a community college that was located right off the freeway on College Drive, and the exit for NSU was one exit past College Drive, and then up one street called Dawson, then cross the railroad track, and there was an 80-acre piece of land, south of the railroad track. The City of Henderson was attempting to give the college 20 acres of that land with all the utilities already built onto the property. He said it was believed the college could be built for $2.6 million less than originally had been anticipated because the utilities were already on the parcel of land. He added that adjacent to the 80-acre parcel was the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and the City of Henderson, along with the college, was in the process of negotiating for 550 acres of that land that would be adjacent to the 20 acres the city was donating. The City of Henderson had agreed to pay all acquisition costs for that BLM land, including all surveying costs, etc., so it would be a zero cost to the state. That would permit the state to have a property that was close to 600 acres in land. He added the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) would be asking for more land in the future as they only had 330 acres. He said the 600 acres would be almost double what UNLV had and should last the state college approximately 100 years. Dr. Moore said there was a building near the 20-acre piece of land that was owned by the city and had been offered to the college, by the city, for rent at $1 per year, and it would be adapted for classes the first year. He said the property had a spectacular view across the valley. Most of the Las Vegas strip could be seen and about a 270-degree array of mountains. He added there was an exceptional access for freeways. Dr. Moore said it was a very attractive site.
Mrs. Cegavske reminded Dr. Moore of the shortage of state funds available for the next biennium, and other concerns such as mental health and an array of areas where funding was needed. She said, unfortunately, university funds had been transferred to the Henderson Community College budget and there were concerns about how funds were being switched around. She asked, if the Henderson Community College had offered space for the state college to operate from, what would be the objection, or concern, to operate out of that college until the state was in a position to have the revenue available for the new campus. She also said she had received several e-mails regarding the college property location since the property had been switched and evidently the residents of the Henderson community were concerned about the new site and asked Dr. Moore to address that issue.
Dr. Moore answered the change from the first site to the second site occurred quickly and that facilitated a need for dialogue, which had currently been initiated, between the residents near the new site. The dialogue was initiated by the City of Henderson, and involved a series of meetings with neighbors and college personnel. He added he had found the dialogues to be useful conversations to help the residents to figure out how they could live next door to a college. Dr. Moore stated he felt those issues would be resolved by the leadership of the City of Henderson since they were the master land planners. He expounded it would be impossible to put a college anywhere without having opposition. Some people just did not want a college next door to them no matter how the college was described. Dr. Moore believed it was possible that 90-95 percent of all issues would be worked out with the neighbors of the college, so that they would actually feel pleased and comfortable. He added it was a "natural first anxiety whenever any government said they were going to put something next to you, a park, a college" and that was healthy. He said he was pleased the dialogue had started and the city had pledged their interest to resolve all issues, not just 90-95 percent. Dr. Moore explained many of the residents had an issue as to whether or not they would continue to have access to the land because they rode their horses on the land, and it was his goal to try and find a way to make sure the residents would continue to have access to the land. He said if the state college was able to acquire more land than it needed initially, there should be a wise use of the land so that the land was preserved. He opined it was possible the college could be a good partner in the caring of the land, with the possibility of a number of biological studies where land was set aside for study of the animals and the environment. He said there were some sensitive, good uses of the property, which would compliment what the neighbors wished to do.
Dr. Moore answered that yes, the college could be housed at another location for some five or ten years, but at what price. He said it might be necessary for the college to be housed elsewhere, as he did not know what the state's finances were. He said if the state college was housed at the community college, it would have to be decided who would have to be displaced. He advised the committee that the plan was to use 12 classrooms the first year and 500 full-time equivalent students was the number the legislature had set. In the second year, if enrollment grew by 500 students, the college would need 20-25 classrooms. He asked what would be the impact on the community college if the state college needed 10-12 classrooms the first year and then the second year 20-25 classrooms. He reminded the committee that the building at the community college that had the most flexibility was being used by the high school during the mornings. That had been a cooperative arrangement where it had been agreed that there would not be a full high school and many of the high school students would be housed at the community college. Currently the building was fully used by the high school and the community college. He said the high school students could be displaced, but that would force the need for more buildings being built at the high school, which had not been the initial plan. Dr. Moore said another option would be to build portable buildings. He said it was known that temporary housing for the state college would be needed for a two-year period because it would take about two years to build a 30 classroom building on the permanent property. Mrs. Cegavske said she had not heard any of those details from the Henderson Community College.
Mrs. Cegavske said at the two state universities did not have a student waiting list for the teaching programs, and wondered where the 500 students anticipated by Dr. Moore would come from, and added maybe there would only be a need for 5 classrooms instead of the 12 planned. She said the school districts were looking for one-shot appropriations to administer the programs already in progress, which was another budget issue. She asked again if the state college would be willing to be initially housed at Henderson Community College to start and then look for the funding at a later date. Dr. Moore reiterated he would have to work out with the community college who would be displaced, and Mrs. Cegavske said the community college had not indicated anyone would be displaced. Dr. Moore said he understood the program quite well and knew the classroom utilization there and there were high school programs in approximately 14 classrooms, and his opinion was that there would be displacement.
Dr. Moore, in regard to the waiting list for students to become teachers, advised the committee there would be 7,000 high school graduates in Clark County in the fall. He said 3,000 might wish to go to college and there was no funding for increased enrollment at either UNLV or the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). His expectations were that at least 500 of those 7,000 students might want to go to college and by offering classes at the Nevada State College there would be more than an adequate enrollment to reach 500 students.
Ms. Tiffany said she had liked the first location the best, and asked how long it would take to build a college on the first site. Dr. Moore asked if Ms. Tiffany meant how long would it take to mitigate the issues that were involved with the first location and she answered yes. Dr. Moore said his intuition was it would take somewhere around three to ten years. Ms. Tiffany asked how many acres were available at the first site and Dr. Moore answered about 270 acres, and the new site had 20 acres of city land and a possible 550 acres of BLM land. He said the total acreage would be close to 600 acres for the second site. He added there were no environmental concerns in regard to the second site. He explained the issue with the first site was not the actual site, but the land adjacent to the site that needed to be cleaned up. The city had not wanted to annex the college property without annexing and requiring the appropriate clean up of the adjacent property. Dr. Moore said he did not believe the appropriate environmental studies had been completed on the first site. There was an attempt to clean up the land twice and each time the "state environmental people" had said the clean up was inadequate and wanted a more thorough agreement in advance about what the work plan would be. Once an agreement was reached, the work plan could proceed. Dr. Moore said it was his belief the city had decided, after 18 months of trying to get the land cleared, that a resolution was not forthcoming. He reiterated it would probably be three to ten years before there was a land clean up deal.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 518.
Assembly Bill 606: Makes various changes regarding compensation of certain public officers. (BDR 1-1435)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said the previous year the Governor had created the Governor's task force on salary compensation for certain elected public officials and A.B. 606 was a result of the task force work. The members of the task force included William E. Martin, Chairman, President and CEO, of Nevada State Bank, who was chairman of the task force, Pat Shalmy, President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Sally Tracy, Eller Media Group, Jim Kelly, Attorney at Law, and Bill Bible, President, Nevada Resorts Association. He said the bill incorporated the recommendations of the task force, which were as follows:
q Recommendation for district courts:
· A recommended annual salary of district court judges to be increased from $100,000 to $130,000 effective January 1, 2003, or as judges became eligible for the increase.
· The amounts to be included in the budget.
· A study of district court judges' salaries be initiated to determine the appropriate manner to ensure equal pay for equal work.
q Recommendations for the Supreme Court:
q Recommendations for the State Legislature:
q Recommendations for elected county officials:
Mr. Hataway said in reviewing the task force report he had discovered some interesting background information. Speaking to the committee, Mr. Hataway said those who received legislative salaries might have some concern about the recommended 31 percent salary increase, but this would be one of the lowest percentage increases over the time period because of the reluctance of legislators to increase salaries. It would also be the longest time the legislators had gone without a pay increase, as the last increase had been in 1985 and was increased to $134. He said the longest time between salary increases for the legislators was from 1915 to 1945 when the salaries went from a grand total of $10 a day to $15 a day, which was a 50 percent increase.
Mr. Hataway said the first five sections of the bill were structural changes, to the commission, to review compensation of constitutional officers, legislators, Supreme Court and district judges, and county officials as listed in the NRS. The rest of the bill implemented the district judges, Supreme Court justices, and county pay proposals.
Gene T. Porter, Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District, Clark County, introduced A. William Maupin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Diane Steele, President, Nevada District Judges Association, and Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, and said they were all in support of A.B. 606 and they supported the Governor's recommendations.
Testifying in support of A.B. 606, Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, said he was speaking on behalf of the county elected officials and the Taxpayer's Association. He said he had worked very hard with the Governor's salary task force and would like the committee to understand that the task force had done exhaustive work and had considered a great deal of information and methodologies to review the situation of setting salaries. He said the recommendation was for the salaries in Clark County and the positions of county commissioner, sheriff, and district attorney in Washoe County be given special consideration in addition to what was presented in A.B. 606. Mr. Hadfield said there was wise planning in the crafting of A.B. 606, allowing provisions to allow those counties, who may, by financial circumstance, be unable to pay the salaries, to be able to defer, and not implement, the provisions of the bill until such time as the counties would be able to pay the salaries. He stated the Governor's task force had presented the committee with a set of recommendations that was believed to be the best that had been completed. He added the association had worked with three different salary commissions and they were pleased that the task force had taken the time and effort, to do the hard work necessary to give the committee the bill in question.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why there had to be a commission and if the reason was because the state must make a recommendation but it had to be done through a "body of a commission" who would then make a recommendation to the state. Mr. Hadfield said he had been involved in all the county salary issues during the last 13 sessions. He said the association had supported the idea of having a separate body review the salary issue because it provided for private sector people to be involved and engaged in the dialogue. He added there was a resolution that would propose to make a constitutional amendment, which would have counties set their own salaries. Ms. Giunchigliani said that made sense and would help to get away from "finger pointing."
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Hataway what the rationale was for striking the original language on the make up of the commission and changing it. Mr. Hataway answered the purpose was to have an independent body who had no theoretical influence from the legislature, judges, etc.
Ms. Leslie said she did not think the public understood that legislators received no salary for the second half of the session, as they were only paid for 60 days, not 120 days. She stated when she explained that to her constituents "they think I'm nuts because I am working for nothing" and she reiterated that people just did not understand that the legislators did not get paid for the second 60 days and instead thought the legislators were making money the entire 120 days. She asked if the task force had looked at a constitutional amendment to change that provision and instead pay the legislators for the entire session, and if not, why not. Mr. Hadfield answered he had attended all the meetings of the task force, but did not feel comfortable trying to represent what was said or thought, but he said the task force members had been very concerned that the legislators were not adequately compensated for the work they did. He added there were several proposals, including taking the number of days worked, taking the average salary of the private sector employee in Nevada, divide it by the number of days in the year and multiply that number by the number of days the legislators were in session. He said since he was not focusing on that issue he did not feel qualified to answer Ms. Leslie's question except to say that the task force had known that something needed to be done. Ms. Leslie said until the legislators were actually paid for the days they were in session it would be hard for her to support legislative increases in her district because people did not understand, looking at the percentage for the 60-day salary. She said she was disappointed that people were not picking up on a constitutional approach.
Mr. Hataway said he did not find anything in the task force's report that referenced the issue of a constitutional amendment. His thought was that this was something that needed to be studied. He added that it would be an evolutionary situation and believed the 60-day salary was tied to the days when there was no limit on the session, and was also a constitutional issue. Now that there was a 120-day limit the issue could be reviewed to see what was an appropriate salary for that 120-day period and then go through a constitutional change. The task force had gone through the constitutional confines currently in place to come up with the recommendation as seen in A.B. 606.
Ms. Tiffany asked what it would take in law to create a standing commission whose responsibility was to look at salaries and the fairness in pay. Mr. Hataway said the bill would address that issue. Ms. Tiffany explained she had meant to empower the commission to give the raises, and Mr. Hataway answered he was not aware of any position that the administration had on that issue. Ms. Tiffany asked if it would take a constitutional change, or a statute change, and recognized that one of the judges in the audience was shaking his head that it would take a constitutional amendment. Ms. Tiffany expounded if there was a standing commission that was actually empowered to give the raises it would have to "bind the legislature." Mr. Hataway said he did not know what other states had done, or if a similar model had been used, but it would be something worth looking into. Ms. Tiffany said she thought she had heard of something like what they were discussing in one of the national meetings she had attended. She added putting the legislators on the spot on the issues of their own raises every session was a difficult situation.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it was right that the 60 days were constitutional and asked Mr. Hadfield if there could be consideration to have the issue reviewed by the public and the possibility of having the 60-day salary limitation repealed, based on limited 120-day sessions. Mr. Hadfield said the task force would support anything that would bring closure and clarity to the issue of legislative salaries because it had been felt that the legislators were not adequately compensated for the time they spent conducting the state's business. She said that would be good because it would be forthright, with the public voting for the change, and then the committee could deal with some salary changes, dependant on what the public voted. She agreed that the public would understand once they realized what went on.
Chief Justice Maupin said the state of Washington had a model that might be an example, with a commission that set the salaries. He said he thought it was a constitutional matter. He said in a recent meeting of chief justices in Baltimore, Maryland, the chief justice of Washington had explained the process to him, and it might be something the committee might want to review.
Jeannine Coward, Assistant State Controller, said in 1997 she had a similar bill she had proposed that had dealt with the establishment of a commission to set salaries. Currently there were 21 states that did have salary commissions and some of them operated under special circumstances. Arizona's commission recommendations were voted on by the citizens of the state; Connecticut General Assembly took independent action based on the recommendations of its commission; in Hawaii the Governor of the legislature could overturn the recommendations and the recommendations did not apply to the legislature under which they were submitted; the Maryland General Assembly had to approve the recommendations; and the Michigan legislature had to approve the recommendations. Her proposal had been that the decision of the commission would be binding, like the Economic Forum, and the recommendations would be included in The Executive Budget, as funds were available.
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys' Association, said he urged support of the legislation on behalf of the 17 elected district attorneys in Nevada. He said it had been a number of years since there had been an increase in salaries for the district attorneys. He said there would be discussion later on about the potential rebasing of a few counties. He added Stewart Bell, District Attorney, Clark County, with 220 deputies that he worked with, ranked 70th on the pay scale, so above him there were 70 deputies who were paid more. He said he did not feel the deputies were making too much, but Mr. Bell was not making enough and the position was not making enough. He said in Washoe County there were about 12 people whose salaries ranked above Richard Gammick, the District Attorney. Mr. Graham said he appreciated the consideration the committee had given to A.B. 606 and would work with the committee and others to find a better way to work out the salary issues of elected officials in the future.
Mr. Hataway said in the task force report there was a section about other states, and the report cited Connecticut, Maryland, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri as states that had "recommending committees," not independent commissions. Ms. Giunchigliani said she had e-mailed the research department asking them to review the Washington model.
Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, said he was speaking to offer a proposed amendment to A.B. 606. He explained in the past he had a case where he had to represent the Nevada Supreme Court before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and although he represented the entire Nevada Supreme Court, he did not necessarily represent each of the individual Supreme Court justices and their opinions. He explained, similar to that situation, he came before the committee to add the constitutional officers to the bill for a raise but he could not say he represented each individual constitutional officer or their opinions. He referred to two handouts, a memorandum to the committee (Exhibit D) and a table representing the proposed constitutional officer raises (Exhibit E). He said when his office was discussing the raises with the Governor's Office and the possibility of adding the constitutional officers to the bill it had been pointed out by some of the officers in Washoe County that there were two competing tables being offered in the various bills being offered for county officer raises. The table shown in Exhibit E originally appeared in another piece of legislation. Mr. Higgins said, as mentioned by Mr. Hadfield, when the task force did their study, it was originally considered that when the positions were rebased, all the Clark County and Washoe County commissioners, district attorneys, and sheriff should receive slightly higher pay increases, as represented in the table. Some of the Washoe County officers noted the lower pay increase in A.B. 606 and had asked him to include the table as a possible amendment to A.B. 606.
Mr. Higgins said the second page of the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) listed each of the constitutional officers and the raises that were being proposed. He said a table included in Exhibit D showed the proposed percentage raises, which would be a 27 percent raise for each of the constitutional officers, which was close to the amount the legislators would be receiving. He said the Governor would get a slightly higher raise, which would match him with the justices of the Supreme Court, $150,000 a year. He said in order for the other constitutional officers to get a raise, the Governor would need a raise as well. Referring again to Exhibit D, he said the chart offered comparative salaries for review.
Mr. Higgins said this was the last opportunity to give the constitutional officers a raise before the next election or they would have to wait until 2007 and the last time they had a raise was in 1997. He said the association was asking that the same approximate percentages be applied to the constitutional officers as to other persons in the bill.
Speaking in support of A.B. 606, Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, and also representing the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association and the sheriffs of the state of Nevada, said they would like to say "me too."
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 606.
The meeting was recessed at 8:25 a.m. and reconvened at 8:58 a.m.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
Ms. Giunchigliani read the Closing Report of May 18, 2001, into the record:
IN CLOSING THIS BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING IN A NET DECREASE IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT OF $31,827 IN FY 2002 AND $40,814 IN FY 2003. IN THE SALARY CATEGORY, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE RESTORATION OF A SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAM SPECIALIST II THAT HAD BEEN ELIMINATED IN THE ADJUSTED BASE BUDGET. THE POSITION, ADDED BY THE 1999 LEGISLATURE THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF S.B. 288 FOR A CHILD WELFARE PILOT PROJECT IN WASHOE COUNTY, WAS SCHEDULED TO SUNSET AT THE END OF THE CURRENT BIENNIUM. THE BUDGET DIVISION REQUESTED RESTORATION OF THE POSITION.
THE BUDGET DIVISION ALSO REQUESTED, AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED, ADJUSTMENTS TO NON-STATE OWNED RENT COSTS FOR SEVERAL OF THE DIVISION’S RURAL OFFICES. THE ADJUSTMENTS INCREASE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT BY $48,153 IN FY 2002 AND BY $49,936 IN FY 2003. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO ELIMINATED THE E-250 DECISION UNIT, WHICH RECOMMENDED THAT THE VICTIMS OF CRIME AND THE FAMILY VIOLENCE GRANT PROGRAMS BE MOVED TO THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT UNIT. AS THAT BUDGET WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THE RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS RESTORE BOTH PROGRAMS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO DID NOT APPROVE THE E-275 DECISION UNIT, WHICH RECOMMENDED FUNDING TO EXPAND AND REMODEL OFFICE SPACE IN THE BELROSE BUILDING IN LAS VEGAS. THE CHILD WELFARE INTEGRATION PROPOSAL RECOMMENDS THAT CLARK COUNTY OCCUPY THAT BUILDING. CLARK COUNTY HAS INDICATED THEY ARE NOT RECEPTIVE TO TAKING OVER THE FACILITY. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT FEEL IT WAS PRUDENT TO INVEST NEARLY $383,000 IN BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AT THIS TIME.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET PRIMARILY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WHICH INCLUDED THE TRANSFER IN OF 12 EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS FROM DoIT. TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS ON COMPUTER HARDWARE COSTS DECREASE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT IN THE BUDGET BY $82,036 IN FY 2002 AND BY $39,471 IN FY 2003.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THE BUDGET PRIMARILY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WHICH INCLUDES SEVEN NEW POSITIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A PROJECTED INCREASE IN FOSTER CARE LICENSING ACTIVITY. THE ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT REQUIRES THAT RELATIVES RECEIVING FOSTER CARE PAYMENTS FOR TITLE IV-E ELIGIBLE CHILDREN MUST BE LICENSED AS FOSTER PARENTS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING IN A DECREASE IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT OF $508,530 IN FY 2002 AND $744,345 IN FY 2003. THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE BASED ON A REVISED REVENUE ANALYSIS COMPLETED BY THE DIVISION AND WITH THE ADDITION OF $150,000 IN EACH YEAR OF TITLE XX REVENUE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT ENHANCEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION OVER THE BIENNIUM FOR PROJECTED INCREASES IN SUBSIDIZED ADOPTIONS AND OVER $9.1 MILLION OVER THE BIENNIUM IN FOSTER CARE RATE INCREASES AND IN ADOPTION SUBSIDY PAYMENT INCREASES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO REMOVED NEARLY $13 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR THE INTEGRATION OF STATE AND LOCAL CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT IF THE INTEGRATION PROPOSAL IS APPROVED, A SEPARATE BUDGET ACCOUNT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO ISOLATE ALL COSTS OF THE INTEGRATION EFFORT.
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PAGE DCFS-36
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY ELIMINATING DECISION UNITS E‑250 AND E-275, WHICH WOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED THIS ACCOUNT TO THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT UNIT AND ALLOWED TWO PERCENT OF THE MARRIAGE LICENSE REVENUES TO BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE TWO PERCENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE PROPOSED IN A.B. 583, ON WHICH NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY REVERSING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT UNIT.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS - PAGE DCFS-45
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET GOVERNOR RECOMMENDS AND ALSO APPROVED THE CONTINUATION OF A LETTER OF INTENT REQUIRING A SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT TO THE IFC ON THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY INCREASING FEDERAL FUNDS TO THE FY 2001 GRANT AWARD LEVEL. THE INCREASED AMOUNT RESULTS IN $21,630 EACH YEAR IN ADDITIONAL FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO THE SUMMIT VIEW JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY BUDGET. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO APPROVED THE TRANSFER OF $324,780 OF DISCRETIONARY FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS TO THAT FACILITY.
IN CLOSING THIS BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHINA SPRING YOUTH CAMP BUDGET. THE AMENDMENTS, SUBMITTED BY CHINA SPRING REPRESENTATIVES, REDUCE THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET DUE TO DELAYS IN OPENING THE PLANNED AURORA PINES GIRLS’ FACILITY. THE FACILITY WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL JULY 2002 AND WILL BE REDUCED FROM 24 TO 16 BEDS. THE AMENDMENTS REDUCE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT BY $181,064 IN FY 2002 AND BY $102,017 IN FY 2003.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM BUDGET. TRANSFERS WERE INCREASED BY $346,410 IN FY 2002 AND BY $21,630 IN FY 2003 AND RESULT IN CORRESPONDING GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RESTORED FUNDING FOR THREE CONTRACT BEDS, WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSFER TO THE YOUTH ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT BUDGET. IF NECESSARY, FUNDS CAN BE EXPENDED FROM THIS BUDGET FOR SPECIALIZED PLACEMENTS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THIS BUDGET BY APPROVING THE ADDITION OF $90,000 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM IN TITLE XX REVENUE. GENERAL FUND SUPPORT IS REDUCED BY THE SAME AMOUNT.
IN CLOSING THE BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE ADDITION OF $125,000 EACH YEAR IN TITLE XX REVENUE. GENERAL FUND SUPPORT WAS REDUCED BY THE SAME AMOUNTS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO APPROVED THE RECORDING MECHANISM DESIGNED TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO MOJAVE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CLIENTS REFERRED FROM NORTHERN NEVADA CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SERVICES. THIS ADJUSTMENT WILL ALLOW FOR THE DISPLAY OF MEDICAID EXPENDITURES MADE ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS REFERRED TO MOJAVE. THE ADJUSTMENT FOR PAYMENTS TO MOJAVE TOTALS $283,981 IN FY 2002 AND $289,661 IN FY 2003.
IN CLOSING THIS BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE INCREASED TITLE XX REVENUE BY $50,000 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO APPROVED A RECORDING FORMAT FOR PAYMENTS TO MOJAVE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN THE SAME MANNER AS NOTED FOR NORTHERN NEVADA CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SERVICES. THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNTS ARE $570,407 IN FY 2002 AND $581,816 IN FY 2003. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO APPROVED 5.51 FTE NEW POSITIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED IN THE BUDGET FOR THE AGENCY’S FISCAL UNIT. THE POSITIONS ARE RECOMMENDED TO IMPROVE THE COLLECTION OF FEDERAL REVENUES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO APPROVED NINE NEW FTE STAFF FOR THE DESERT WILLOW TREATMENT CENTER. RECENT SURVEYS BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE STATE HEALTH DIVISION INDICATED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT STAFFING AT THE FACILITY. UNCORRECTED, THIS COULD LEAD TO LOSS OF MEDICAID CERTIFICATION AND THE INABILITY TO COLLECT MEDICAID FUNDS.
LASTLY, THE AGENCY CONTINUES TO EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN STAFFING AND OPERATING THE ON CAMPUS FAMILY LEARNING HOMES. CURRENTLY, ONLY FOUR OF SEVEN HOMES ARE OPEN, WITH A CAPACITY OF 22 BEDS. ADDITIONALLY, POTENTIALLY HARMFUL MOLD HAS BEEN FOUND IN FIVE OF THE HOMES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERED SEVERAL OPTIONS BEFORE RECOMMENDING THAT NO CHANGES BE MADE TO THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET. INSTEAD, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT A LETTER OF INTENT BE ISSUED REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO REPORT QUARTERLY TO THE IFC ON THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY LEARNING HOMES. THE REPORTS SHOULD ADDRESS ANY CHANGES IN STAFFING AND THE TREATMENT MODEL, AND ON REMEDIATION EFFORTS OF THE MOLD PROBLEM.
IN CLOSING, TOTAL GENERAL FUND SAVINGS BASED ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S CLOSING ACTIONS ARE $1,258,316 IN FY 2002 AND $1,377,688 IN FY 2003, FOR A TOTAL OF $2,636,004 OVER THE 2001-03 BIENNIUM.
Mr. Hettrick commended the committee for not undertaking the Belrose Building project and said he felt they did the right thing. He regretted that he was unable to be present when the hearing had taken place on the Youth Alternative Placement on Aurora Pines. He explained the situation there was the China Spring group came in and said they were not going to start and they had to return their funding. Mr. Hettrick said the China Spring group had been running behind in salaries because the last legislative session, when there was no state pay raise, the state funded 35 percent of the China Spring group's budget with General Funds, and because no state employees received a pay raise, neither did that group. The pay raise was in the budget currently in question and by cutting the budget, the pay raise would not be received again. He said what was needed was to put back the salaries, which would be about $80,000 a year. Mr. Hettrick explained that was important because the group was trying to start up Aurora Pines and also trying to run the existing camp as well, and no one wanted to work there because they were not getting the pay raises.
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the suggested adjustments to the budget, made by the China Spring group, included suggested increases for the China Spring Youth Camp. He said he had totaled the salary and benefit issues and the total was $102,347 for FY2002. The same amount would have to be considered for the FY2003 and with a few small increases would total $118,265 the second year of the biennium. He explained there was a funding formula, which funded the operation of the China Spring Youth Camp, and all counties except Clark County paid into the fund, and the funding was separated between the state General Fund and county collections. The total need of $102,347 in FY2002 would be 36.83 percent state dollars, or roughly $37,694, and the county share would be $64,653. In the second year of the biennium the need would be $118,265 and the state portion would be $43,557 and the county responsibility would be $74,708. The grand total over the biennium would be $220,612 and of that amount $81,251 would be state General Fund and $139,361 would be county collections.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Hettrick if the employees of the China Spring Youth Camp group were county employees or were they split employees. Mr. Hettrick answered the employees were split employees. Ms. Giunchigliani said the budget was funded 35 percent by state funds and 65 percent by county funds, with 16 counties contributing to the county fund. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any salary increase was based on whatever dollar amount was contributed and if the 2 percent raise would be the total raise and Mr. Hettrick said yes. She asked if the Spring Mountain Camp was also treated the same way. Mr. Peri said Spring Mountain was funded a bit different. The contributions included a flat dollar amount from the state for operations, but the only county funding came from Clark County because it was utilized entirely by Clark County.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the Spring Mountain employees would get the county salary then. She said as far as the China Spring group she did not have a problem in regard to the raise as laid out by Mr. Peri, but wanted to talk to her subcommittee members before agreeing with the plan. She said for equity purposes she did not have a problem giving the benefit increase that should have already been included and added it would be an $81,251 adjustment to the budget.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT BUDGET AS DESCRIBED BY THE CHAIR AND ADOPT THE CLOSING REPORT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Assembly Bill 324: Revises various provisions regarding regulation of mortgage brokers and mortgage agents. (BDR 54-491)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 324 would remove the regulation of mortgage brokers and agents from the Division of Financial Institutions and create a separate state entity for the regulation of that industry. He said one of the problems he saw in the bill was that the fees were deposited to the General Fund except for the examination portion. The license fees would be deposited to the General Fund. He explained the Division of Financial Institutions was provided a General Fund appropriation for the expenditure side of the budget. There was no provision in the bill, The Executive Budget, or the legislatively-approved budget, to provide a General Fund appropriation for the operation of the new state entity. Mr. Stevens said if the bill went forward there were a couple of options that could be considered. The first would be to set up a budget for the new state entity but it was late in the session to do that. Mr. Stevens said there could be some language included in the back of the bill that would allow or instruct the Department of Business and Industry to come back to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) after they had split the two functions. He added that had been done with the Public Service Commission when that entity had been split into the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Transportation Services Authority. He added they had approved the Public Service Commission's budget and instructed them to come back to the IFC, after they had split those two functions between two different budget accounts, for approval of how the budget was split.
Mr. Stevens said, in the case referred to in A.B. 324, the regulation of mortgage brokers and agents would have to be removed from the Financial Institutions budget and a new budget would have to be created for the mortgage regulation of mortgage brokers and those two budgets would have to return to the IFC for approval and at the point the regulation of the mortgage brokers and agents would be taken over by the new entity. Mr. Stevens said if the bill went forward, he would suggest that that language be put into the bill because he did not feel there was enough time to address the budgetary side of the bill before the session ended. Mr. Goldwater said Mr. Stevens outlined a realistic option and thought it could be included in the bill as Mr. Stevens had indicated.
Sydney H. Wickliffe, C.P.A., Director, Department of Business and Industry, said she was immensely grateful to the committee for asking her to comment on her enforcement of a law that the committee had a part in passing. She said it was a responsible approach. She stated she understood the dilemma that they found themselves in and found herself in the same dilemma. She added she had yet to look at any kind of a schedule that said what the organization would cost. She said she had seen a fiscal note from the Attorney General's Office and from her financial institutions that said, "Here is the impact on financial institutions," and she felt it would cost more than was being projected because it would be a duplicated effort of what was already being done within one entity. She explained there were certain economies of scale in doing it in the Division of Financial Institutions that would not be found when they started up another agency to do the work. Ms. Wickliffe said she had found inconsistencies within the bill, other than not addressing how the money would be accounted for. She explained there were inconsistencies in what the responsibilities of the agency would be when compared to the rough draft. She referred the committee to page 7 of the bill draft and referenced where it addressed an investigation for suitability as a broker. She said she saw nothing in the proposed fiscal plan that said who would conduct the investigation. She said line 25 said, "an application for a license as a mortgage broker must be verified," and stated someone had to ascertain whether or not the application was truthful and factual. She asked if that person would be the executive director, the C.P.A., or one of the examiners mentioned.
Ms. Wickliffe said page 7, starting at line 41, listed requirements such as including a general business plan, stating the length of time the applicant had been engaged as a broker, included a financial statement, satisfactory proof that the applicant would be able to maintain, on an ongoing basis, the net worth required. She said those items would also require verification.
Mr. Dini said the things Ms. Wickliffe had mentioned were already existing law and the commission just "slipped in there" and did not see what additional costs it would involve. Ms. Wickliffe said the difficulty she had with the issue was the duties were being performed at the present time by an existing agency and the proposed financial plan called for only three full-time employees, an executive director and two administrative assistants in one part of the financial plan. She added in another part of the financial plan it said a C.P.A. would be hired, and there was a reference to two examiners. There was no specific definition of who would perform the verification, how long the verification would take, and how much it would cost to assess the salary levels for the agency.
Mr. Goldwater said he felt Mr. Steven's goal was to develop the things mentioned, and then bring the budget back to the Interim Finance Committee for approval. He advised Ms. Wickliffe that her agency currently did not say a person was funded for a certain amount to perform a function and to do exactly that one job, rather it was said, "Here is the money, and these are the jobs that need to be done," and then perform them.
Mr. Stevens said he could help to propose language that would allow the department to come in and split the regulation of mortgage brokers out from the Division of Financial Institutions to the new entity, however, he had not spent any length of time trying to figure out if the money that could be transferred, or the money that had been identified by the Division of Financial Institutions, was adequate to regulate the mortgage industry in the new entity. He said the revised fiscal note he had received from the Division of Financial Institutions in the Administrative Budget side identified approximately $250,000 that could be removed from their budget based on no longer regulating mortgage brokers. Mr. Stevens added he had not reviewed the budget suggestions the proponents of A.B. 324 had provided to the committee in detail, which had come to approximately $248,000 to cover an administrator and two administrative assistants and some related operational expenses. He said he could not give his opinion or recommendation on whether that amount would be sufficient to regulate the mortgage industry, or not. Mr. Stevens said he could develop transitory language to allow the department to come in and split the division into two different entities, but he did not know if there would be sufficient money to transfer from the Division of Financial Institutions to the new entity and have the industry regulated adequately.
Chairman Arberry asked if an agency like the Division of Financial Institutions had ever been split to create a new commission and take money from a state agency and give it to a new commission. Mr. Stevens said the only time he could recall this happening was when the Public Service Commission was split. He said language similar to what was used then would have to be used if A.B. 324 was moved forward. He added the Public Services Commission's budget had been approved and then the commission was instructed to come back, split their operation into two budgets and then present it to the IFC for approval. Mr. Arberry said his concern was those were two existing agencies, not a created agency. Mr. Stevens said Transportation Services Authority did not exist at that point and Public Service Commission regulated both of the industries at that time and the regulation was switched and the Transportation Services Authority took part of the regulation that had formerly been under the Public Service Commission. He added the Public Service Commission's budget was split between the Transportation Services Authority and the Public Utilities Commission. He said the split was brought before the IFC approximately October after the 1997 Legislative Session.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the bill passed, had it been considered that the location of the new entity would be in Las Vegas instead of Carson City. Ms. Wickliffe answered there would be two offices, one in the north and one in the south.
Mr. Dini said he wanted to be sure there was the authority for fees. Mr. Stevens said currently, the license fees for the mortgage industry were deposited to the General Fund and then a General Fund appropriation was provided to the Division of Financial Institutions to pay for their expenditures, which in the end "pretty well washes out." He said the fees could be raised or lowered, but they would be deposited to the General Fund. L. Scott Walshaw, Commissioner, Division of Financial Institutions, Department of Business and Industry, said it was correct that the licensing fees were deposited to the General Fund, but those fees were established by statute and if the committee wanted to provide provisions to have those fees increased, the statute would have to be reworded. Mr. Stevens agreed. Mr. Walshaw said the hourly examination fees that were levied on licensed mortgage brokers for the purpose of doing examinations were also deposited to the General Fund, as part of the revenue package. Mr. Stevens asked for clarification of the revenues. Mr. Walshaw explained all non-depository licensees had a provision that said they would be billed on an hourly basis for the cost of the examinations performed. The examination billings charge was established by regulation and delegated through statute. The money would then be deposited to the General Fund. In any given year, however, many examinations were given on an hourly basis and that money, along with the licensing fee, went to the General Fund. He added that the fiscal note had provided the anticipated number of examinations to be done, including a best-case scenario if every company was examined and the amount of revenue that would be raised. The theory was that those fees would offset the salary and expenses associated with the examiner position.
Ms. Wickliffe said another inconsistency she had noticed, and felt was more significant, was on page 12 of the bill draft. She said the page spoke to the duties that would be imposed upon the commission. She said line 10 read, "Conduct such investigations as may be necessary to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this chapter, or regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter, or an order of the commission." She said there was a statement within the financial plan that said the agency would not undertake proactive audits or examinations of mortgage brokers and that they would rely on the audited financial statements that were provided to them by the independent C.P.A.s. She said the commission would have to engage the independent C.P.A.s to engage in specific additional special procedures to test for compliance, which would raise audit fees, otherwise, the commission would have to conduct its own investigations. She said line 14, subparagraph c said, "Conduct an annual examination of each mortgage broker doing business in this state," and either the commission would have to conduct an annual examination of every mortgage broker in the state, or that part of the bill would have to be reworded.
Mr. Dini asked how it was currently done. Mr. Walshaw answered what the director was pointing out was the proposed fiscal note by the proponents of the measure only called for the employment of two examiners and a C.P.A. whose duties and responsibilities were not quite clear to him. He said he was not sure if they would actually perform an examination, review financial statements, or whatever the proponents envisioned for the position. The two examiners, if there were to do the annual examinations, would either have to accept an audited financial statement prepared by an independent C.P.A. firm based on some sort of equivalency standard that would have to be put into statute, or they would have to perform the examination themselves. Mr. Walshaw said without a clear picture of how that would be done, it appeared two people were insufficient to examine 300 plus licensees on an annual basis. Mr. Dini asked again if the division did the examinations currently. Mr. Walshaw said the projections that had been provided showed if the division was fully staffed they would do all the examinations. He said that was a best-case scenario as they could not project or budget for problems.
Ms. Wickliffe said she simply did not have enough information to determine if the split was "doable" or not, with the funds presented or the amount of employees requested. She said the plan also did not contemplate the cost for the commissioners' $80 a day salary for when they were meeting, or their travel expenses. She said the cost of the employees' fringe benefits was estimated at 15 percent but within her department 32 percent was used. She said it was obvious the numbers would need to be reworked. She asked if the passage of the bill would put the whole thing in place and if it would start up with some funding, or would the new entity not start up until they went to the IFC. Mr. Stevens answered he did not believe the switch in regulation could happen until the budgets were approved by the IFC and he thought there were provisions in the back of the bill that allowed for the setting of a date for the switch. They would have to coordinate the language and the regulation could not switch until the budget was established and passed. The budget side would have to be done, and then the new entity would have to hire the positions and have them on board before the regulation could begin.
Ms. Wickliffe said if the committee implemented the agency she would gladly take it on, but asked that the committee appropriate the money that it would take to do it right. She said the regulation already existed at the present time, under an existing agency as part of a larger whole, and it was being requested that it be split off for whatever reason, and it would cost more to do it in two agencies instead of in one agency and if it was their wish for her to enforce the law she would request sufficient resources for it. Mr. Stevens reiterated the bill would only provide funding for whatever would come out of the Division of Financial Institutions and was transferred to the new entity, unless some other provision was built into the bill, and that would be the extent of funding that would be available for that entity unless they came to the Contingency Fund for additional funds, because there was no other provision in A.B. 324 to provide funds for the new entity.
Mr. Hettrick said if the bill was moved, he thought it was necessary to allow fees to be charged because during the original hearing on the bill the brokers had indicated they were willing to pay the costs. He said if that was the case they would have to be able to increase the fees if they had to have "warm bodies," so he thought the bill would need to be amended to allow for fees. He said if people were moved from the Division of Financial Institutions, there would be no one left for the division, and one way or another there had to be "bodies" to do the examinations on both entities, so somehow there had to be a way to get funding. Mr. Stevens replied the law would have to be changed to make the entities self-supporting. He said he did not know what the due dates were for the license fees and was not sure if they had already been paid and would already be in the General Fund before the new entity was in place. Currently the way the law was written, the fees could be raised, but had to be placed in the General Fund, and that would have to be taken into account.
Mr. Hettrick said he fully understood that, and he thought what was being discussed was to "shadow" appropriations a little differently than other boards. He said in most of the other boards, a fee was collected and the fee went directly into the board's account, but with the mortgage license fees, the revenue went into the General Fund and then an appropriation had to be approved to remove the fees. He said they were kind of running a "shadow thing" where it was said, "Okay, if we are going to increase the appropriation how do we make sure we go back and raise fees and put enough money in the General Fund to pay for it all." He said it was a "shadow thing" because it was not a direct appropriation to an account with an offset to see if there was enough money for the agency to "run."
Mr. Stevens said the Division of Financial Institutions had an adjustment mechanism to make sure the industry paid for the regulation. However, the problem was, on the expense side, the General Fund appropriation was the General Fund appropriation so if the expenditures were needed, they would have to go to the Contingency Fund. He said unless the committee wanted to make the new entity self-supporting then they would have to go in and see when the license fees were due and when a deposit would be made.
Being no further testimony, Mr. Arberry closed the discussion on A.B. 324.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
Mrs. Chowning read the Closing Report dated May 18, 2001, into the record.
THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWED THE 13 BUDGETS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. THE FOLLOWING HIGHLIGHTS THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT HAVE AN EFFECT ON SEVERAL OF THE ACCOUNTS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. THEY WILL BE DISCUSSED HERE RATHER THAN IN EACH BUDGET ACCOUNT.
· FIRST, SENATE BILL 184 PROPOSES SALARY INCREASES FOR THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES. IF THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT PASSED, ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY IN THE SUPREME COURT BUDGET ACCOUNT AND THE DISTRICT JUDGES’ SALARY BUDGET ACCOUNT. THAT LEGISLATION IS CURRENTLY IN THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
· SECOND, ASSEMBLY BILL 232 PROPOSES A NEW JUDICIAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THIS LEGISLATION IS CURRENTLY IN THIS COMMITTEE. IF THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT APPROVED, ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY IN THE BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT, THE DISTRICT JUDGES’ SALARIES, THE DISTRICT JUDGES’ AND SURVIVORS PENSIONS, AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES’ AND SURVIVORS’ PENSION ACCOUNT.
· THIRD, A NUMBER OF BUDGET ACCOUNTS INCLUDED REQUESTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED PAY INCREASES OVER AND ABOVE THE 9 PERCENT AND 4 PERCENT INCREASES RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR ALL UNCLASSIFIED POSITION. THESE ADDITIONAL INCREASES WERE REQUESTED FOR THE CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DEPUTY FOR PLANNING AND ANALYSIS AND THE LAW LIBRARIAN. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THESE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS, BUT WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THESE REQUESTS BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNCLASSIFIED PAY BILL.
SUPREME COURT, PAGE 1 – COURTS (101-1494)
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURRED WITH THE SUPREME COURT’S SUGGESTION THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR A NEW CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BE WITHDRAWN TO ALLOW THE COURT TIME TO RELEASE AN RFP AND RECEIVE BIDS FOR A NEW SYSTEM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUGGESTED THE SUPREME COURT APPROACH THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE IF NECESSARY, ONCE COSTS ESTIMATES OF A NEW SYSTEM ARE KNOWN.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT INDICATES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER IN LAS VEGAS IS DELAYED AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY UNTIL JULY, 2003. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RELOCATION AND OCCUPANCY COSTS THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED IN THIS ACCOUNT.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A NEW DEPUTY SUPERVISORY STAFF ATTORNEY TO ASSIST THE COURT CLERK IN REPORTING JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND A MANAGEMENT ANALYST III TO COORDINATE A NEW COURT INTERPRETERS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. HOWEVER THE SUBCOMMITTEE DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE REQUESTS FOR AN INFORMATION SYSTEM SPECIALIST, A WEBSITE ADMINISTRATOR AND A CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SPECIALIST.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED COMPUTER NETWORK SPECIALIST TO ASSIST THE TRIAL COURTS WITH THEIR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, BUT RECOMMENDS THAT THE POSITION BE FUNDED IN THE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS ACCOUNT, RATHER THAN THE DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS ACCOUNT.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO REVIEWED THE BUDGETS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS; JUDICIAL EDUCATION; DISTRICT JUDGES’ SALARY; DISTRICT JUDGES’, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES’ AND SURVIVORS’ PENSIONS; DISTRICT JUDGES’ TRAVEL; RETIRED JUSTICE DUTY FUND; JUDICIAL SELECTION; LAW LIBRARY AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THESE ACCOUNTS BE CLOSED WITH MINOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
OVERALL, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECREASE THE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT IN THESE BUDGETS IN THE AMOUNT OF $659,884 IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND $1,240,188 IN FISCAL YEAR 2003.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CLOSING REPORT AS RECOMMENDED.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
(Assemblyman Goldwater and Assemblyman Perkins were not present for the vote.
Mrs. Chowning thanked Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, for his work on the above mentioned budget accounts.
********
Mrs. Chowning read the Closing Report of May 18, 2001, into the record:
THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGETS. THE CLOSING ACTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE RESULTED IN AN OVERALL OPERATIONAL COST SAVINGS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF $2.3 MILLION IN FY 2002 AND $1.6 MILLION IN FY 2003. REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS IN COMBINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S REVISED UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS RESULTS IN GENERAL FUND SAVINGS IN AGENCY BUDGETS OF APPROXIMATELY $2.5 MILLION IN FY 2002 AND $2.4 MILLION IN FY 2003.
DIRECTOR’S OFFICE (BA 1373): THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. IN ADDITION THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED A BUDGETARY AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET AS PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE DEPARTMENT’S REQUEST TO REORGANIZE ITS BILLINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION, RECLASSIFY A CURRENTLY VACANT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT POSITION TO A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE OFFICER (ASO) III, RECLASSIFY ITS CHIEF ACCOUNTANT POSITION TO AN ASO III, AND REORGANIZE ITS BILLING PROCESS. THE DEPARTMENT’S PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP A BUDGETARY ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGERIAL PROBLEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
IN CLOSING THIS BUDGET ACCOUNT THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT A LETTER OF INTENT BE ISSUED TO THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTING THAT THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS ON THE DEPARTMENT’S BILLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE (IFC) AND FISCAL ANALYSIS DIVISION.
PLANNING AND RESEARCH (BA 1370): THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THE PLANNING AND RESEARCH BUDGET WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND STAFF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE MODIFIED THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT STAFF AND ADDITIONAL TRAINING FUNDS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED FUNDING FOR ONE NEW PROJECT MANAGER POSITION AS OPPOSED TO THE TWO POSITIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF INCREASED FUNDING RECOMMENDED FOR TRAINING FROM $2,500 PER FTE TO APPROXIMATELY $2,000 PER FTE, OR 3 PERCENT OF BUDGETED SALARIES. THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT’S TRAINING REQUEST WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT DEFINING INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR RECOMMENDED ANNUAL TRAINING EXPENDITURES. THE ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHOULD ADDITIONAL TRAINING FUNDS BE NEEDED DURING THE INTERIM, THE DEPARTMENT COULD SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE IFC FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.
APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAMMING (1365): IN CLOSING THE BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT’S APPLICATIONS, DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAMMING BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE MODIFIED THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO RECLASSIFY THREE DATA ENTRY POSITIONS AS COMPUTER SYSTEM TECHNICIANS AND TRANSFER THE POSITIONS TO OTHER DoIT BUDGETS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROPOSED THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAIN THE POSITIONS IN THE BUDGET UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 2001, WHEN THE CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL EXISTING DATA ENTRY OPERATOR POSITIONS AUTOMATICALLY CONVERTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROVIDED THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THREE NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM TECHNICIAN POSITION IN THE BUDGET ACCOUNTS ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED TO RECEIVE THE TRANSFER EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2001. THE DEPARTMENT CONCURRED WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN MORE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE DEPARTMENT’S NEEDS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ISSUING A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTING QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS ON THE DEPARTMENT’S DECENTRALIZATION PILOT PROGRAM. THE DEPARTMENT’S DECENTRALIZATION PLAN INVOLVES TRANSFERRING 19 PROGRAMMING POSITIONS AND TWO DATA ENTRY OPERATORS TO THE AGENCIES WHERE THE PROGRAMMING STAFF IS DEDICATED. THE AGENCIES INCLUDED IN THE PILOT PROGRAM ARE PROJECT UNITY, THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
THE DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING PROGRAM EVALUATION CRITERIA AND MONITORING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PROGRAM. SINCE THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT RECEIVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROGRAM THE SUBCOMMITTEE THOUGHT IT PRUDENT TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE QUARTERLY UPDATES ON THE PROJECT’S PERFORMANCE TO THE IFC WHERE CORRECTIVE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN IF NEEDED.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS THE LETTER OF INTENT INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE SIMILAR QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORTS ON ITS PLAN TO TRANSFER ITS MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT (MSA) FUNDING RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE RESPECTIVE AGENCIES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A LETTER OF INTENT IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE MONITORING AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S MSAs TRANSFER AND PROGRAMMER DECENTRALIZATION PLANS ARE PERFORMED.
DoIT’S COMPUTING DIVISION (BA 1385): THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THE DEPARTMENT’S COMPUTING BUDGET WITH SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR’S PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. INFORMATION ON PROJECTED REDUCTIONS IN CPU UTILIZATION PRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT RESULTED IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE DELETING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND AN UPGRADE OF THE DEPARTMENT’S R-46 MAINFRAME COMPUTER TO AN R-56 CONFIGURATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE INCREASED CURRENT CPU COMPUTING CAPACITY BY 12O MIPS (MILLION OF INSTRUCTIONS PER SECOND), OR 25 PERCENT. THE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED THAT PROJECTED USAGE INDICATES AN UPGRADE TO THE STATE’S MAINFRAME COULD BE DEFERRED TO THE NEXT BIENNIUM. THIS ACTION ALONE RESULTED IN A COST SAVINGS IN THE DEPARTMENT’S OPERATIONS OF $1.1 MILLION IN FY 2002 AND $1.2 MILLION IN FY 2003.
THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET RECOMMENDS $1,038,867 IN FY 2002 AND $617,151 IN FY 2003 TO FUND THE DEPARTMENT’S PLANNED WEB DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES AND CAPACITY. THIS INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF EIGHT NEW PROGRAMMING POSITIONS AND OVER $1.0 MILLION IN OPERATING AND EQUIPMENT COSTS OVER THE BIENNIUM. BASED ON THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM USER AGENCIES AND THE BUDGET OFFICE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS RECOMMENDED FROM EIGHT TO FOUR WITH A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN COMPUTING EQUIPMENT. THESE ADJUSTMENTS RESULTED IN A TOTAL COST REDUCTION OF $488,069 OVER THE BIENNIUM.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT FINANCE ITS MAJOR HARDWARE AS OPPOSED TO A CASH PURCHASE. BY TYING THE FINANCING REPAYMENT PERIOD TO THE DEPARTMENT’S ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD SAVE AS MUCH AS $387,668 OVER THE BIENNIUM.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FUNDS RECOMMENDED IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET. THE SUBCOMMITTEE AGREED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR TRAINING SHOULD BE A PRIORITY. HOWEVER, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD THE CAPABILITY TO FULLY UTILIZE THE LEVEL FUNDING BEING REQUESTED. THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET RECOMMENDS THE EQUIVALENT OF 10 PERCENT OF THE DEPARTMENT’S BUDGETED SALARIES BE RESERVED FOR TRAINING. FOR DoIT’S COMPUTING DIVISION, 10 PERCENT OF BUDGETED SALARIES WOULD EQUATE TO APPROXIMATELY $261,750 IN FY 2002 AND $276,350 IN FY 2003 WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 360 PERCENT MORE THAN THE DIVISION’S AVERAGE TRAINING EXPENDITURES OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS.
BASED ON THE DEPARTMENT’S HISTORICAL TRAINING EXPENDITURES, THE SUBCOMMITTEE FELT THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING BEING RECOMMENDED FOR TRAINING IN THIS BUDGET WAS UNREALISTIC. THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR TRAINING AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF $159,000 PER YEAR, OVER THE BIENNIUM, OR APPROXIMATELY 118 PERCENT ABOVE THE DIVISION’S ADJUSTED BASED EXPENDITURES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THIS RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING WOULD PROVIDE THE DIVISION WITH ADEQUATE FUNDING TO ACHIEVE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A “WELL TRAINED” INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STAFF. THE SUBCOMMITTEE MAKES THIS RECOMMENDATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR TRAINING DURING THE INTERIM, THE DEPARTMENT COULD SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE IFC FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
DATA COMMUNICATIONS (BA 1386): THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSED THE DEPARTMENT’S DATA COMMUNICATIONS BUDGET ACCOUNT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH STAFF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO CLOSE THE DEPARTMENT’S TELECOMMUNICATIONS (BA 1387) AND COMMUNICATIONS (BA 1388) BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH MINOR AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
Mrs. Chowning thanked Jim Rodriquez, Program Analyst, for the enormous job he had accomplished while working on the above-mentioned budget accounts.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
(Assemblywoman Cegavske and Assemblyman Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Mr. Parks read the Closing Report of May 18, 2001, into the record.
THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUDGETS OF THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY INCLUDING: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY PATROL AND DIVISION OF INVESTIGATION, PAROLE & PROBATION, CAPITOL POLICE, ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, THE STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION AND THE PAROLE BOARD.
PUBLIC SAFETY, DRUG COMMISSION (B/A 101-4704) PS-36: THE SUBCOMMITTEE DOES NOT CONCUR WITH THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO ADD GENERAL FUNDS TO CONTINUE A PROGRAM OFFICER POSITION, PREVIOUSLY FUNDED WITH BADA GRANTS. BADA FUNDING WILL BE DISCONTINUED AT THE END OF THIS BIENNIUM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE INDICATED THAT ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUNDS WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE LATER THIS SESSION.
PUBLIC SAFETY, JUSTICE GRANT (B/A 101-4736) PS-44: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO ADD TWO POSITIONS TO ADMINISTER THE FEDERAL EXCESS PROPERTY PROGRAM AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PURCHASE PROGRAM ALSO KNOWN AS “FALCONS NEST”. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD GENERAL FUNDS TO PROVIDE THE 25 PERCENT MATCH FOR BYRNE GRANT FUNDS. THE AGENCY PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION INDICATING SUFFICIENT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE FROM THE FY 2000 BYRNE GRANT TO FUND 25 PERCENT OF PROGRAM EXPENSES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A LETTER OF INTENT TO HAVE THE AGENCY REPORT QUARTERLY TO IFC REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROGRAM.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION (B/A 101-3673) PS-49: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN SPECIAL USE EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES INTO A SINGLE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG) CATEGORY. THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) CONSOLIDATED VARIOUS GRANT PROGRAMS INTO A SINGLE EMPG GRANT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONSOLIDATE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL, IN‑STATE TRAVEL, AND OPERATING EXPENSE CATEGORIES INTO THE EMPG GRANT EXPENDITURE CATEGORY.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO INCREASE A HALF‑TIME COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST POSITION TO FULL-TIME. THE POSITION SUPPORTS THE STATE’S EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK THAT INCLUDES LOCAL AND FEDERAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR THE DMV/PUBLIC SAFETY COST ALLOCATION. HOWEVER, IF SENATE BILL 306 IS APPROVED WHICH TRANSFERS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM DMV/PUBLIC SAFETY TO THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ELIMINATE COST ALLOCATION FUNDING.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (B/A 101-3674) PS-57: THIS ACCOUNT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A PASS-THROUGH OF FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND STATE AGENCIES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONSOLIDATE THIS ACCOUNT INTO THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT. THE PASS-THROUGH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE MONITORED IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY.
PUBLIC SAFETY, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (B/A 201-4728) PS-59: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCOUNT WITH THE HIGHWAY PATROL BUDGET ACCOUNT. THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM BE TRACKED IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY WITHIN THE HIGHWAY PATROL ACCOUNT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NRS 459.7052 TO 459.728. THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT APPROVE THE CLOSURE OF THIS BUDGET ACCOUNT. FULL COMMITTEE ACTION IS REQUIRED.
PUBLIC SAFETY, CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY (B/A 101-4709) PS-65: THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE TRANSFER OF POSITIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA ENTRY FOR THE REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS FROM THE DIVISION OF PAROLE & PROBATION. THE TRANSFER WOULD HELP ELIMINATE THE DUPLICATION OF EFFORT FOR RECORD RESEARCH AND THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION BETWEEN REPOSITORY AND PAROLE & PROBATION STAFF. THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND THESE POSITIONS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ASSESSMENTS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION CONSOLIDATION FROM THE HIGHWAY PATROL BUDGET ACCOUNT. CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENTS WOULD REPRESENT SUPPORT OF THE CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY AND TRANSFERS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT FOR STATEWIDE ACCESS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MESSAGE SWITCH IN ONE BUDGET ACCOUNT.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF TWO INFORMATION SYSTEM SPECIALIST POSITIONS FROM CIVIL NAME CHECK PROGRAM TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. THIS TRANSFER REFLECTS COSTS FOR ALL PROGRAMMING AND NETWORK SUPPORT RESOURCES IN ONE BUDGET ACCOUNT. THE AGENCY INDICATED THAT THESE POSITIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CIVIL NAME CHECK PROGRAM.
PUBLIC SAFETY, HIGHWAY PATROL (B/A 201-4713) PS-78: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HIGHWAY FUND APPROPRIATIONS OF $1.1 MILLION EACH YEAR TO PROVIDE FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED OPERATING EXPENSES TO SUPPORT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF THE VHF HIGHBAND RADIO SYSTEM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS REVENUE AUTHORITY IN LIEU OF HIGHWAY FUND APPROPRIATIONS OF $141,694 IN FY 2002 AND $144,985 IN FY 2003 TO ALLOW THE HIGHWAY PATROL TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL COSTS TO REPAIR RADIOS FOR OTHER DIVISIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT.
THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE’S DID NOT ACT ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER IN COSTS FROM THE HIGHWAY PATROL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCOUNT. FULL COMMITTEE ACTION IS REQUIRED.
PUBLIC SAFETY, FORFEITURES – LAW ENFORCEMENT (B/A 101-4703) PS-95: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE THE USE OF FORFEITURE FUNDS OF $390,145 IN FY 2002 AND $420,840 IN FY 2003 TO PROVIDE THE 25 PERCENT BYRNE GRANT MATCH IN SUPPORT OF THE NARCOTICS TASK FORCES IN THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUDGET.
PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIONS (B/A 101-3743) PS-98: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A PROGRAM ASSISTANT POSITION TO ASSIST WITH GENERAL CLERICAL DUTIES AND PROCESS THE COLLECTION OF FORFEITURES AND SEIZURES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE VEHICLE AUTO THEFT UNIT OTHERWISE KNOWN AS VIPER. INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE AGENCY INDICATING LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR VEHICLE AUTO THEFT INVESTIGATIONS.
PUBLIC SAFETY, NARCOTICS CONTROL (B/A 101-3744) PS-107: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE GENERAL FUNDS OF $390,145 IN FY 2002 AND $420,840 IN FY 2003 PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO OFFSET FORFEITURE FUNDS USED TO PROVIDE THE 25 PERCENT BYRNE GRANT MATCH. THE PROJECTED BALANCE OF FORFEITURE FUNDS ($2.0 MILLION BY THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR) IS SUFFICIENT TO MATCH THE BYRNE GRANT.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD GENERAL FUNDS TO OFFSET INCREASES IN THE BYRNE GRANT OF $122,734 IN FY 2002 AND $158,915 IN FY 2003. THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE CONTINUATION OF BYRNE GRANT FUNDS BASED ON THEIR ESTIMATED AVAILABILITY TO FUND BUDGETARY INCREASES BEYOND THE ADJUSTED BASE LEVEL OVER THE NEXT BIENNIUM.
PUBLIC SAFETY, PAROLE AND PROBATION (B/A 101-3740) PS-113: THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET DID NOT INCLUDE ANY NEW STAFF TO ADDRESS CASELOAD ISSUES IN THIS ACCOUNT. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED FROM THE DIVISION, THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURRED WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURRED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL PROVIDE A ONE-GRADE SALARY INCREASE FOR PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS AND AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES TO PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR EACH OFFICER. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURRED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRANSFER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY TO THE CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY AND TO CONTINUE THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM (A. B. 509).
THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET INCLUDES A PILOT PROJECT TO PRIVATIZE THE PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CONDUCTED BY SWORN PROBATION OFFICERS (S. B. 550). THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PILOT PROJECT, BUT RECOMMENDS THE START DATE OF THE PROJECT BE MOVED TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 TO ALLOW THE DIVISION TIME TO RECEIVE BIDS AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS.
IN THE CLOSING ACTIONS ON THE HIGHWAY PATROL BUDGET ACCOUNT, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT FUNDING BE PLACED IN THIS ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE FOR RADIO REPAIRS WHICH WILL BE PERFORMED BY PERSONNEL IN THE HIGHWAY PATROL BUDGET ACCOUNT.
PUBLIC SAFETY, PAROLE BOARD (B/A 101-3800) PS-177: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THIS ACCOUNT BE CLOSED PRIMARILY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH MINOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. HOWEVER, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID APPROVE THE “UNFREEZING OF MERITS” IN THIS ACCOUNT TO HELP ALLEVIATE BUDGET SHORTFALLS IN THE PERSONNEL CATEGORY.
WITH THE PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 160, WHICH ALLOWS SOLE PROPRIETOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO MAKE AN ELECTION TO BE EXCLUDED FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE, FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 EACH YEAR THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THAT PURPOSE, WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THIS ACCOUNT.
PUBLIC SAFETY, HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN & ADMIN (101-4688) PS-139: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A NEW GRANT & PROJECTS ANALYST POSITION TO RELIEVE THE WORKLOAD FOR OTHER POSITIONS AND ALLOW TIME TO APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE CONTINUATION OF THE TRAFFIC RECORDS MANAGER POSITION WITH FEDERAL FUNDS.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING CENTER (BA 101-3834) PS-165: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE REMOVAL OF GENERAL FUND AMOUNTS OF $171,549 IN FY 2002 AND $228,589 IN FY 2003. BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP), TRANSFERS RESULTING FROM THE LOW-LEVEL WASTE SURCHARGE AT THE BEATTY DUMPSITE ARE ESTIMATED TO CONTINUE AT THE FY 2000 LEVEL OF $343,392. IN RECOGNIZING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THIS PROGRAM IF TRANSFERS FROM DEP DO NOT OCCUR AS ANTICIPATED, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS OF $1000 EACH YEAR TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE IFC CONTINGENCY FUND.
THE AGENCY INDICATED THAT INSTANCES ARISE WHEN DEPUTY STATE FIRE MARSHALS COULD BE UTILIZED TO PERFORM FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF FACILITIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL WHICH ARE GENERALLY PERFORMED BY STAFF IN THE FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET ACCOUNT (3816). THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS A LETTER OF INTENT TO DIRECT THAT DEPUTY STATE FIRE MARSHALS AUTHORIZED IN THIS ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING AND LICENSING BUSINESSES THAT STORE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BE CROSS UTILIZED TO PERFORM FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTIONS AND THAT TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED TO PERFORM FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION ACTIVITIES BE CHARGED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL ACCOUNT WHERE THAT FUNCTION IS PERFORMED.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION (BA 101-4729) PS-172: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO INCREASE HIGHWAY FUND APPROPRIATIONS TO FULLY SUPPORT SALARY EXPENSES FOR TWO POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED OPERATING EXPENSES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MINOR OR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS:
· PUBLIC SAFETY DIGNITARY PROTECTION, 101-4738, PS-73
· PUBLIC SAFETY - CAPITOL POLICE, 710-4727, PS-123
· PUBLIC SAFETY, BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM. 201-4689, PS-147
· PUBLIC SAFETY, MOTORCYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM, 201-4691, PS-152
· PUBLIC SAFETY, FIRE MARSHAL, 101-3816, PS-158
· PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS & TRAINING, 101-3774, POST-1
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACCOUNTS RESULT IN GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS OF $547,602 IN FY 2002 AND $636,780 IN FY 2003 AND HIGHWAY FUND REDUCTIONS OF $495,772 IN FY 2002 AND $458,962 IN FY 2003. A SUMMARY IS ATTACHED TO THE CLOSING PACKET.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES, TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR WORK IN FORMULATING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS (PERKINS, CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, MARVEL & BEERS).
Mr. Parks thanked Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, for all the assistance he had provided to the subcommittee.
Chairman Arberry asked if the Senate had closed the budget in the same way as recommended by the subcommittee. Mr. Krmpotic answered that one item mentioned, in respect to hazardous materials, was closed by the Senate the same way as the Assembly, but in the Narcotics Control account the subcommittee had closed the budget by removing General Funds and had proposed the use of Forfeiture Funds to match the Byrne Grant. He said the Senate Finance Committee had closed that account to include half of the match from Administrative Court Assessments, contingent upon staff's review of information provided by the Executive Branch regarding the availability of court assessment funding. Chairman Arberry asked on what the Senate Finance Committee had based their decision. Mr. Krmpotic answered it had been presented to the Senate Finance Committee by the department, unbeknownst to the legislative staff that the department had some other uses for Forfeiture Funds which included equipment purchases over the next biennium for which they would approach the IFC.
Chairman Arberry asked for a representative from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to come forward. Carol English, Assistant Administrative Services Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), came forward to answer questions. Chairman Arberry asked when the department was going to advise the Assembly Ways and Means Committee about the changes that had been requested that morning during the Senate Finance Committee hearing. Ms. English said during the hearing there had been discussion regarding the fact that court assessments were coming in a little bit higher than anticipated, and therefore, the projections into the next biennium would possibly be higher. She explained that Don Hataway had asked her if there was any other place where the department could fund shortages using more court assessments and she had pointed out this was one place they might be able to do it. She added it was not a formal proposal on the DMV&PS's part, or Mr. Hataway's, and it was only suggested as a possibility in lieu of using forfeiture funds for the match.
Chairman Arberry asked when Ms. English was going to let the Ways and Means Committee know what had been discussed. Ms. English said she had spoken to staff several weeks ago about the court assessments coming in a bit higher. Chairman Arberry asked again when she was going to tell the Assembly about the court assessments. Ms. English responded that she thought the department's responsibility was to communicate with the legislative staff and the Budget Office. Chairman Arberry asked "What about the closing this morning?" Ms. English said she was not sure how to answer the Chairman's question.
Chairman Arberry said this was a problem that he had spoken to the Governor about three days previously. Chairman Arberry said it wasn't right for him to "jump down your throat" but since she was the representative of the DMV&PS, a message had to be sent through her to her superiors that the Assembly did not appreciate the way they were being treated, and that was why he had not supported the separation of the department. He said he had asked the DMV&PS to provide the committee with a report, at the beginning of the session, and it appeared that the Assembly did not count. He said he was "sick and tired of it" and that there were two houses, the Assembly house and the Senate house, and the DMV&PS had to learn that they needed to let the Assembly know and not just run to the Senate and assume because they went to the Senate, the Assembly would buy off on what the Senate had decided. He reiterated that he was "sick and tired of it" and the DMV&PS had been the worst agency in regard to going to the Senate only. He said he had mentioned to the Governor that the Assembly wanted to be treated just as equally as the Senate was treated. Chairman Arberry said he had told the Governor he would go along with the separation of the departments and "right off," after only three days, the department had gone was "back at it again," running to the Senate to get what they wanted, and then expected the members of the Assembly to accept it. He asked Ms. English how she thought that made the members of the Assembly feel. Ms. English answered she respected the Chairman's comments and could only offer that it was not the department's intention to have done that during the morning's hearing with the Senate Finance Committee. She added they had not approached the Budget Division with the plan, rather she had been asked a question and had responded. Chairman Arberry said it goes on all the time, and the Assembly was "totally fed up with it" and they were not going to go along with it, and he, along with Speaker Perkins, and Speaker Dini, would be talking to the Governor about that issue, because it had to stop.
Ms. Giunchigliani said unfortunately, Ms. English was the "messenger" but was the person there from the department as a representative of the DMV&PS. She commented that they had all "played the game, or seen the game played before" and just asking a question of someone that had been prepped to come up with an answer was inappropriate. She said the Assembly could read between the lines and the deal had been in the House for a week or so. She said they had known something was up and it was offensive. She stated she used to be Chairman over the DMV&PS budget and she had seen it happen three sessions in a row, and "that was it." She added the department did disservice to the committee and showed disrespect, and that was not going to be tolerated. She asked Ms. English to carry that message back to the department.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
(Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 52: Limits fees which providers of health services that accept insurance payments may collect from patients. (BDR 40-655)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 52 was the balanced billing bill and would require an audit of the University Medical Center by a legislative auditor.
Ms. Giunchigliani said what she liked about the bill was the concept, but did not feel that the audit was necessary to the balanced billing issue.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS BY DELETING THE AUDIT.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 567: Revises provisions governing state financial administration. (BDR 30-358)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 567 would authorize lease purchase agreements for real property. He said it represented a decision that had recently been rendered by the Supreme Court and the legislation was required if the legislature and the state would like to enter into a lease purchase agreement for real property. Section 11, page 2, provided for a dollar threshold and whether the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch would be involved in the decision on whether or not to go forward. The amendment would eliminate that and require that the legislature, when in session, or the IFC, when not in session, would approve any lease purchase agreements that were proposed. An amendment to Section 13, subsection 1, line 37, after the word ". . . agreement . . ." would add ". . . and with the approval with the Board of Examiners. . . ." Mr. Stevens said the final amendment, which had not been proposed by the State Treasurer, but he had discussed it with the Treasurer, was in Section 21, page 7. He informed the committee in 1995 the legislature had authorized $44 million in bonds to build the southern Nevada women's prison facility and the amendment would provide authority to allow the Treasurer to refinance that debt and also would provide in subsection 2, line 35, that not more than $16 million in the proceeds of the bond that were not used originally could be used for construction or renovation of the facility. Mr. Stevens said the committee might want to consider if that was appropriate, and added there were many bills that had unused bonding authority but the amendment would allow $16 million in bonding to be potentially issued to expand, renovate, or improve that particular facility, and that could be done without legislative input at the current time based on those provisions. He said an option would be to allow for refinancing of the current debt and eliminate the outstanding bonds that were not issued, and if the proposal was brought forward in the future then legislative authority would be required to expand the facility.
Mrs. de Braga said the current language in Section 11, item 3, was ". . . before a state agency may enter into an agreement pursuant to this section to acquire real property, or an interest in real property, or pay a total of $50,000 or more in any one year. . . " and asked if the section that said "pay a total of $50,000 or more in any one year," would be removed with the amendment. Mr. Stevens answered between $50,000 and $100,000 would not require legislative approval and would not be required, and as stated in Section 11, subsection 4, above $100,000 would require legislative approval. He added that subsections 3 and 4, were deleted and replaced by stating the purchase must be approved by the legislature when in session or by the IFC when not in session. Ms. de Braga asked if there would be a threshold and Mr. Stevens answered no.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS FROM THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, ALONG WITH THE ADDITION OF THE DELETION OF SECTION 21 REGARDING THE PRISONS.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Hettrick asked if enough of Section 1 was being left to allow for refinancing, and Chairman Arberry answered yes.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 630: Revises provisions regarding system for reporting of information on cancer that is maintained by state health officer. (BDR 40- 1456)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 630 involved the cancer control registry and provided a General Fund appropriation of $100,000 each year of the biennium. He said there had been some discussion on whether or not to restructure the bill and put a penalty provision in, instead of an appropriation.
Mrs. de Braga said the penalty provision was an excellent idea, and would get the results closer to what was needed, which was updating the registry and keeping it up-to-date, adding "some teeth" in it as opposed to the state paying the bill. She said there would still be the requirement that there would be a payment for entering the information into the registry, but at least the state would have the assurance that the hospitals would enter into the agreement. She added that there had been a 15th case of cancer discovered in Fallon. She expounded there was a need for the information to be updated and for the Health Division to compile the information and act on it.
Ms. Giunchigliani said what needed to be done was to take out the new language on Section 1, subsection 3, and instead make it a penalty if the facilities did not provide the information within a timely manner, which might include the assessment of a fine not to exceed $1,000. She added they had wanted language to make sure the division itself had to compile the information in a timely manner, but wasn't sure what the time line would be. Mrs. de Braga said it had been discussed to make it six months, but wasn't sure if that was enough time, and proposed to make it "not more than a year." Ms. Giunchigliani said the wording should state, ". . . agency would be required to compile the information within six months of receipt. . . ."
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS BY TAKING THE MONEY OUT, AND PUTTING IN A FINE IF THE FACILITIES DID NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION WITHIN A TIMELY MANNER TO NOT EXCEED ONE YEAR, AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE HEALTH DIVISION COMPILE THE INFORMATION AFTER IT WAS RECEIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 144: Revises provision relating to payment of certain transitional expenses for governor-elect. (BDR 18-391)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 144 involved the Governor-Elect expenses and took the $5,000 amount out of statute and provided for a reasonable amount.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 249: Makes supplemental appropriation to Secretary of State for unanticipated shortfall in money budgeted for salaries and costs for information services. (BDR S-1253)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 249 was in regard to the Secretary of State's office and provided a supplemental appropriation included in The Executive Budget for $220,000, which had been amended slightly.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the bill was for the cost of Information Services, why couldn't the funds come out of the Expedite Fee. Mr. Stevens said he had not completely "ground this down," other than verifying the amount. He said he would review the information and advise the committee in the afternoon.
Mrs. Chowning said she would like a breakdown of how much of the appropriation was related to salaries and how much was related to cost of Information Services. Mr. Stevens said he would provide that information as well.
Chairman Arberry held the bill for further discussion.
********
Senate Bill 250: Makes supplemental appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for certain shortfalls in budget. (BDR S-1260)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 250 was a supplemental appropriation that had been included in The Executive Budget for the Department of Conservation. He added there had been a slight adjustment in subsection 2. He said staff recommended approval of the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Senate Bill 415: Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of Department of Transportation and Board of Directors of Department. (BDR S-964)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 415 would provide for a legislative audit of the Department of Transportation.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Senate Bill 480: Extends date for submittal of biennial budgets proposed by state agencies. (BDR 31-1441)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 480 was a request from the Budget Division to change the date that the biennial budget requests were due from the agencies from August 15 on even-numbered years to September 1.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 324: Revises various provisions regarding regulation of mortgage brokers and mortgage agents. (BDR 54-491)
Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 324 should have transition language to instruct the department to come back and split the budget "into a couple of pieces." He said there had been discussions on whether there was sufficient funding to do that, or not, and how the revenue would be distributed. He said at a minimum an instruction had to be given to the Department of Business and Industry to break the Division of Financial Institutions' budget into two pieces and come back to the IFC for approval.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MADE A MOTION AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO SEPARATE THE MONEY, GIVE AUTHORITY TO DO FEES, AND HAVE AGENCY COME UP WITH A PROGRAM THAT NEEDED APPROVAL OF THE IFC.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani said, for clarification, the amendment would require transitory language. The Department of Business and Industry would split the two departments and budgets, and have a budget developed and presented to the IFC within the year, or by January, and have them establish and collect the fees and then develop a plan for the next biennium to present a fee-funded, or self-funded agency for the next session.
Mr. Stevens said all that Ms. Giunchigliani had said was correct except most all of the current fees were deposited to the General Fund. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified, saying in the transitory language there would be a request to come back and present a budget that would be self-funded in the next biennium with an account that would collect the fees rather than have them revert to the General Fund.
Mr. Hettrick said the intent of the bill was good and he supported the intent, but felt the committee was moving too fast. He said it should be done right or they would just repeat what had happened with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) when it was divided and the committee would be walking into a fiscal nightmare. He reiterated the intent was good, but he was fearful that they were moving too fast.
Chairman Arberry disclosed that he would be affected by the bill "to a point" but it would not affect him any differently than anyone else.
Mr. Dini asked Mr. Hettrick to explain how the committee could slow things down. Mr. Hettrick answered his understanding was it was not clear how the functions would be performed and if the "bodies" were pulled from the Division of Financial Institutions and moved, taking the budget, then the division would not have the budget. He said two management teams would be created, one in the commission and one with what was left in the Division of Financial Institutions. He didn't think either one would have enough examiners or C.P.A.'s to perform its functions, and ultimately the state would have to fund support out of the General Fund that may or may not be covered by the fees. He said it concerned him that it would be just like what happened with the PUC where it was all "revenue-neutral" when it was created, until they came back to the IFC and it cost the state $600,000 a year.
Mr. Dini said then the committee could modify the motion to reflect that for the first biennium the fees did cover costs, or things would never get off the ground. He added he thought the commission idea was the same thing that was done with the real estate commission, and that had proved to be effective. He said he was not sure of the funding but maybe a date of January 2002 would be appropriate for the fees to cover costs.
Mr. Stevens said there was a mechanical dilemma in that the fees were deposited to the General Fund and the only General Fund dollars that were available, if they didn't go to the IFC Contingency Fund, were the General Fund dollars that had been approved within the Division of Financial Institutions' budget.
Mr. Dini said just divert enough new fee money to cover what was necessary to make the new budget whole. Mr. Stevens said then language would have to be put into the bill that would allow for the raising of the fees and then have the difference go into the new budget account. Mr. Dini agreed.
Mrs. Chowning said she was in support of the bill, and would support an amendment that would make it work. She said mortgage brokers had indicated, not only currently, but two, three, and four years ago that they were in support of the split. She said the real estate market in Las Vegas was currently so vibrant that the people who were causing the abuses were continuing to "hit and run." She added the real estate commission had some bumps along the road but once they were formed then fines were implemented and a lot of people who had not behaved appropriately were taken to task, but currently there were mortgage "folks" that were abusing people and not being held accountable and the state needed to make sure that they were.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a modified motion, which was to split the division, give authority to do the fees, and then bring a plan to the IFC which would create a self-funded agency over the biennium, so that it would not go from the General Fund to agency fee as it would not be enacted until the agency became self-funded. Chairman Arberry asked if the committee could do what Ms. Giunchigliani was suggesting. Ms. Giunchigliani said if the language was changed to say the fees would not divert to the General Fund, and instead establish an account for fees to be collected for the purpose of funding the division, then before the funds could be expended, the agency would have to come before the IFC for approval to become a self-funded agency.
Mr. Marvel said the Audit Committee had made a recommendation that the Division of Financial Institutions become self-funded instead of coming to the General Fund and the director of the division had always fought doing that.
Mr. Stevens said doing what Ms. Giunchigliani had suggested would depend on when the fees were collected the first year of the biennium. If they were collected the first part of the fiscal year, they would go to the General Fund. Ms. Giunchigliani said "unless the language was changed." Mr. Stevens said that could be done if the language was made effective July 1, 2001. Ms. Giunchigliani said then the fees would be held, the plan would be developed, and then the agency would come to the IFC for the allocation of the fees, and to get the program up and running.
Chairman Arberry said there was a motion, but he postponed the vote until Mr. Stevens could put together the language for the committee to review. The committee agreed.
Chairman Arberry called a recess at 10:52 a.m.
Chairman Arberry called the meeting back to order at 2:19 p.m. He then adjourned the meeting at 2:19 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kathryn Fosnaugh
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: