MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
February 6, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 6, 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
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry introduced the Ways and Means committee secretaries to the committee, and offered their services to the committee if necessary. Chairman Arberry then recognized Mark Stevens, who introduced the other Ways and Means staff members.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-1
The Chair recognized Mr. Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Director, who presented the budget for the Office of the Governor.
Mr. Hataway indicated that he was the designee from the Budget Division to work with the committee this session, and that he stood ready to bring a fast closure to the budgets. Mr. Hataway then stated that unless there were any questions pertaining to the base budget or the salary adjustments he would go directly to the three key maintenance and enhancement decision units, M-200, M-201 and E-375.
Decision unit M-200 included a request by the Governor for five additional full time equivalent (FTE) staff to be added. Mr. Hataway enlightened the committee on the history of the staffing of the Governor’s Office by stating that ten years ago in the 1992 legislative-approved work program there were 22 FTE positions authorized, but due to a funding shortfall after the 1991 session that number dropped to 19 FTE, and it had gradually increased to the 24 FTE approved by the 1999 legislature. Mr. Hataway explained that the base budget had funding for 22 FTE, and the proposed increase was needed to keep up with the growing demands of the office.
Mr. Hataway spoke on the three elements of decision unit M-200. The first element that Mr. Hataway discussed was the first of three professional staff positions, a person responsible for working with the legislature. He continued by stating that the Governor had made a concerted effort to work with both parties and all legislative interim committees, and felt that this effort needed to continue. The second element included the other two professional staff positions, a deputy policy advisor and a policy analyst, both of which related to the fundamental review process. Mr. Hataway elaborated on the Fundamental Review of State Government Final Report, which contained idea generators that allowed the Governor to come to the committee with recommendations through legislation or executive orders. This was the reason behind the two new positions. The third element was two executive assistants to meet the growing demands placed on the Governor’s office.
Mr. Marvel asked where the new positions would be housed, and whether anyone would have to be moved. Mr. Hataway announced that the new positions would be housed in the Capitol Building, but he was unsure whether current positions would have to be moved. This would be looked at more in the capital improvement recommendations for remodeling the capital annex.
Mr. Marvel followed up by asking, if the positions were approved, when would the hiring begin. Mr. Hataway indicated the positions were funded effective October 1.
Mr. Hataway began speaking on decision unit M-201, which would establish a family resource coordinator and a supportive clerical staff. This new position could have been placed in the Department of Human Resources, but the position would have a higher profile if placed in the Governor’s Office. Mr. Hataway stated that this recommendation would allow the Governor to develop an overall plan for how services should be provided to family and children in this state. As described, the new position would utilize the new agency contract tracking spreadsheet to develop an overall plan for the services. Mr. Hataway expressed his hope that this would result in higher profile of the needs for this population.
Chairman Arberry expressed his confusion at the placement of this position in the Governor’s Office and not the Department of Human Resources. Mr. Hataway repeated that the Governor would like to make this a high profile position and felt that this would best happen if the position was in the Governor’s Office. The Governor recognized that this position would ultimately end up in the Department of Human Resources.
Chairman Arberry then questioned Mr. Hataway about the logic behind not utilizing the top two people from the Department of Human Resources for the present time, rather than hiring new people. Mr. Hataway explained that the Governor believed that an additional staff person was needed to perform this function.
Ms. Leslie expressed her concern about the difference between how the position appeared in the budget, as a staff person who would receive calls from Nevada citizens and direct them to where they needed to go, and the way Mr. Hataway described the position, as a planning position looking at available services and how the system may need to change. Ms. Leslie then asked which of the two the position would be, to which Mr. Hataway replied that the position would perform both functions. Ms. Leslie then followed up by expressing her disagreement that the two descriptions could function together. She described her doubt about one person being capable of handling both of the two differing job descriptions.
Ms. Leslie then described the Children’s Cabinet, created in 1985. She acknowledged that this organization received hundreds of calls, and that this service was needed, but noted that this service was not sufficient. The people involved needed to sit down with someone who could walk them through the public system. This was the reason the Family Resource Center Network was created, with 40 agencies around the state that could perform this service. Ms. Leslie then noted that these agencies had not received any supplemental funding in the 2001-2003 biennial budget, and that this could be an alternative solution. She then asked if this position was a recommendation of the Governor’s Fundamental Review of State Government.
Mr. Hataway answered Ms. Leslie’s question by saying that this was a recommendation of the Governor. The description of the position was an evolutionary one. From the Governor’s perspective at the present time there was no person to identify all of the family resource services available and what the best possible services should be. With this position, the Governor would be able to identify and make recommendations based on the needs that were identified. The planning portion was the beginning duties of the position, but it could be moved in the future to the Department of Human Resources. Ms. Leslie expressed her desire to have Mr. Hataway rethink the idea behind the position in order to best utilize the planning portion of the position and not have the position bogged down with the direct service component.
Mrs. de Braga expressed her agreement with Ms. Leslie, and then questioned Mr. Hataway about whether the program included or favored combining the Family Resource Center program and the Family-to-Family program. Mr. Hataway noted that that was a recommendation built into the Governor’s budget.
Mrs. de Braga inquired as to whether there would be a cost saving. Mr. Hataway responded that the purpose of the Fundamental Review was not to save money, but rather to provide the best possible services. The issue of saving funds was one that would need further review.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to when the report of the Governor’s Fundamental Review would be ready to be distributed, and when the committee could expect a copy. Mr. Hataway responded that the committee could expect a copy at some point during the week. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the Fundamental Review would be helpful to the committee and Mr. Hataway agreed. He explained that this was just one portion of the Fundamental Review, and it also included the interim studies conducted by the legislature, the work of the internal audit division, and the recommendations of the individual agencies. Mr. Hataway emphasized that the Fundamental Review was an idea generator. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed, and noted that the committee would need to look at the Fundamental Review in order to grasp the idea of the proposed position versus Family-to-Family versus Family Resource Center. After that point more discussion would be possible.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that the base budget had 22 positions, and then asked what the increase would be for the overall budget. Mr. Hataway responded that there would be five new positions in decision unit M-200, two in M-201, and potentially an additional position in E-375. Ms. Giunchigliani calculated that that would represent a 44 percent increase in the number of positions recommended for the Governor’s Office in the 2001-2003 biennium.
Ms. Giunchigliani then requested more information regarding the justification for the five new positions in decision unit M-200. The information provided in the budget indicated the workload had increased, and Ms. Giunchigliani desired further explanation as to what was driving that workload. Mr. Hataway explained that there were approximately one million more people in Nevada, along with a change in the complexity of the issues, since the last adjustment to personnel in the Governor’s Office. This, along with the Governor’s emphasis on establishing good communication with the legislature, accounted for the needed increase in staff.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested confirmation that one of the new positions would be specifically established for communication with the legislature, to which Mr. Hataway responded in the affirmative. Then arose the question of whether information related to The Executive Budget would be available in a more timely fashion. Mr. Hataway expressed that this would be one of the considerations.
Mr. Hataway restated that the Governor’s staff had decreased and increased with economic activity, and was now at 22 FTE. The recommendation was to increase that number by the seven proposed positions.
Mr. Hataway continued his testimony with information on decision unit E-375, which dealt with the transfer of the Science, Engineering and Technology function from the University and Community College System back to the Governor’s Office. Mr. Hataway expressed the Governor’s need for this function to have a higher profile as the reasoning behind the recommendation.
Chairman Arberry asked if the position was currently filled. Mr. Hataway explained that the position was currently vacant, and proceeded to give a short history of the position. He stated that since the office of Science, Engineering and Technology had been established there had been only one director, and most of the funding had been used to provide contractual work for specialty services. The Governor had not made a decision on whether there would be the need for a staff person in this office.
Chairman Arberry then stated the Science, Engineering and Technology office was moved to the Governor’s Office in 1993, then it was transferred to the University System in 1997, and now the Governor was proposing to move it back to his office. Chairman Arberry asked why the office was not eliminated because it was failing to be adequately housed in any department. Mr. Hataway responded that there was no funding recommended by the Governor during the 1999 session, but the legislature approved a one-shot appropriation that continued the program. The Governor had reviewed the function of the office and believed that it should continue in the Governor’s Office.
Mr. Goldwater expressed concern about the crossing over of agencies, specifically relating to Internet gaming. He asked if the state was lobbying against Internet gaming and if so, where that could be found. Mr. Hataway responded that the main function of the Science, Engineering and Technology office would be one of coordination. Mr. Goldwater questioned what the threat of Internet gaming was to the state. Mr. Hataway answered that it was loss of revenue, and this loss went across agency lines. Mr. Goldwater repeated his initial question of whether or not the state was going to lobby against Internet gaming, or was every state agency going to fight it individually. The response from Mr. Hataway was that every agency would have a say in the matter.
Mr. Marvel requested performance indicators for the Science, Engineering and Technology office as well as information regarding grant monies that could finance the office. Mr. Hataway stated that there had been gifts that funded the program when it was initiated, but grants were mainly for one-time expenses. The one technology director that the office had, spent most of her time applying for grants, rather than completing work. A base line level of funding was needed to support the office, and as special projects appeared then grants were possible. He also noted that the office was not very active, but if it was handled properly it would be an asset to the state.
MANSION MAINTENANCE _ BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-5
Mr. Hataway continued his testimony, indicating that there were no real changes to the Mansion Maintenance budget, other than the adjustment of the budget in the second year of the biennium for food and host fund expense, utility rate increases for natural gas and electricity and property and content insurance increases.
Mr. Marvel referred to the recent increase in utility costs and asked if the budget had been increased to account for the possible rate increases. Mr. Hataway responded that the budget recommended a 15 percent increase for natural gas in each year of the biennium and electricity increased 16 percent in each year of the biennium. Mr. Marvel mentioned that this area might have to be revisited before the session concluded. Mr. Hataway agreed and then proceeded to discuss the statistics that had been gathered. These included the utility costs the University System and other budget agencies experienced 12 months ago as compared to what they were experiencing more recently. The budget reflected the best estimate for the increased cost of utilities for the upcoming biennium.
ETHICS COMMISSION – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-18
Chairman Arberry recognized Ms. Polly Hamilton, Executive Director of the Commission of Ethics, and Tracy Raxter, Chief of the Administrative Services Division for the Department of Administration, to give their presentation.
Ms. Hamilton indicated, after the Ethics Commission submitted its budget last summer with performance indicators they were asked to update those performance indicators by a memo from the LCB Fiscal Analysis Division. She explained that after going through old files she could not determine that the projected and actual performance indicators really matched. Ms. Hamilton indicated she had done her best to determine the actual figures for each performance indicator, however, she was not totally sure that all items collected were reflected.
Mr. Raxter elaborated on the base budget for the Ethics Commission. The base budget was based on actual expenses for FY2000. He explained that the exceptions included in-state travel because the amount recommended was based on full attendance for 12 meetings, 6 in the north and 6 in the south, where in FY2000 full attendance was not reached. He then mentioned continued funding for investigation and court reporting services, and the slight reduction in information services due to one-time equipment purchases in FY2000. Mr. Raxter then spoke on decision unit E-275, indicating that this could provide $1,120 for training for the three staff members. In FY2000 no monies were spent on training and Mr. Raxter indicated that there were some opportunities that the department would like to take advantage of.
Mr. Marvel inquired who the members of the Ethics Commission were. Ms. Hamilton listed the members; Chairman Peter Bernhard, Vice Chairman Todd Russell, Raymond Avansino, William Flangas, Lizzie Hatcher, Rick Hsu, James Kozinski, and R. Hal Smith.
Todd Russell, Vice Chairman of the Ethics Commission, introduced himself and thanked the committee for the appropriation made by the 1999 legislature that allowed the committee to reduce the backlog of cases, establish training and release opinions. He also recommended that all members of the committee should always remember to disclose their potential conflicts.
Mr. Dini asked about the boards and commissions that were having problems being staffed and whether the people on those boards should be exempt. Mr. Russell indicated that he believed the people on those boards were exempt. If a person was not paid then they did not have to file the required financial disclosure forms. Mr. Russell then indicated that there had been an attempt to coordinate all the boards and commissions and provide them with notification on filing. Notification had been a problem in previous years, and most fines assessed against small boards were waived by the Ethics Commission due to a lack of accountability for delivery and receipt of notices.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the commission had reviewed the disclosure forms and their lack of information, specifically regarding the sources of revenue received by individuals required to submit financial disclosure forms. Mr. Russell indicated that this was a point that needed further investigation and the commission would be willing to work with Ms. Giunchigliani on that point.
Ms. Chowning clarified that the Ethics Commission did not act along partisan lines.
The Chairman recognized Don Hataway. Mr. Hataway informed the committee that there was one Bill Draft Request (BDR) related to the Ethics Commission budget. This BDR eliminated the sunset clause placed on the position of legal counsel when it was created by the 1999 legislature.
Chairman Arberry explained there had been a change in the agenda and stated that the committee would now hear from Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, and then would return to the agenda.
Mr. Crews introduced Steve Wood, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor. Mr. Crews proceeded to explain that the Legislative Counsel Bureau Audit Division had provided committee members with a binder outlining the Audit Report Summaries (Exhibit C). The binder contained the summaries of the audits that were conducted in the previous biennium.
Mr. Crews gave a brief background presentation. In 1987 the Legislative Commission became concerned with Executive Branch agencies implementing the Audit Division recommendations. Due to the concern, legislation was passed to outline a follow up process with regard to those recommendations. The Legislative Commission also suggested that the money committees form subcommittees to work with the auditors during the legislative session to ensure that recommendations were implemented. The process had been beneficial, and Mr. Crews referenced Introduction to Office of Legislative Auditor (Exhibit D) to show some of the results of this process. Mr. Crews calculated that during the last biennium $20 million in savings had been realized due to implementation of the audit recommendations.
Mr. Crews explained how the Audit Report Summaries Binder (Exhibit C) was used. He demonstrated with page 66, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services-Nevada Mental Health Institute. This summary indicated there was $650,000 in bad debts that could have been realized from Medicare if billings had been processed. He continued to give alternate examples from the binder. Mr. Crews then stated his belief that some success had been seen.
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL – BUDGET PAGE PERSNL-1
The Chair recognized Jeanne Greene, Director of the Department of Personnel. Ms. Greene introduced Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer for the Department of Personnel.
Ms. Greene indicated that she would not speak on the base budget, inflation, or pay adjustments unless the committee requested her to do so. Ms. Greene then proceeded to testify from the Department of Personnel Budget Presentation to Assembly Ways and Means (Exhibit E).
M-200, a request for a new clerical position for the Las Vegas office, was the first decision unit Ms. Greene addressed. The logic behind this request was that southern Nevada had continued to grow and therefore had a higher need for state workers to service the population. As Ms. Greene described the position, it would be utilized by the Training Officers to fulfill their need for clerical support and would provide clerical support for the Employee Management Committee and the Hearing Officers. Ms. Green noted that hearings in southern Nevada had increased 63 percent in the previous year.
Ms. Tiffany inquired as to what type of training was being provided. Ms. Greene responded that the department provided training to all state employees on supervisory skills, management techniques, work performance standards, employee evaluations, as well as coordinated training through the safety program, retirement program and employee benefits program.
Ms. Greene progressed to decision unit M-201 and noted that this contained three items. The first item was the increase in IBM maintenance for the Integrated Financial System (IFS) RS6000 computer; this computer housed the Integrated Financial System-Human Resources (IFS-HR) application. The increase for the FY2002 was $14,456 and for FY2003 it was $15,979. The original maintenance agreement had been negotiated and prepaid, and was no longer available. Ms. Greene noted that the upgrades to the computer, additional processors and memory increase, also played a part in the maintenance price increase. The second item was the increased software maintenance agreement with American Management Systems (AMS), at a cost of $38,257 for FY2002 and $44,478 for FY2003. Ms. Greene stated that the software maintenance agreement covered costs related to the IFS-HR application. It was originally thought that the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) would be running a second IFS-HR application and NDOT would be charged for this system, but that had not been implemented. Because of this, the price increases were projected.
Mr. Beers inquired who was providing the server maintenance for the IFS RS6000 computer. Ms. Foster responded that she believed the maintenance was being provided by IBM. Mr. Beers asked whether that contract had been put out to bid, and upon Ms. Foster’s response in the negative he suggested that putting the contract out to bid could generate savings. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the department research the possibility of collecting bids on the maintenance and return to the committee with that information.
Ms. Greene continued her testimony with the third item in decision unit M-201, which was a cost of $30,056 for FY2002 and $28,566 for FY2003 relating to written communication and the necessary materials for the IFS-HR rollout. The funds requested would cover the costs for printing system implementation documentation, policies and procedures, training documentation and materials and correspondence intended to keep agencies informed about the IFS-HR system and rollout.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the status of the rollout, citing that there had been three new positions granted in 1999, and a request for three more from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Ms. Foster indicated that the rollout was being done in phases. At the present time 85 agencies had received inquiry only access to be used to gain acquaintance with the system. The next phase scheduled to happen would be time sheet entry; 37 agencies had reached that stage. Ms. Foster stated that the following phase would be the input of personnel actions. The rollout was expected to affect 800 employees, or 420 different sites. Ms. Foster then described how the initial rollout was proceeding. The rollout was occurring in a centralized fashion within each agency, rolling a few people in each department or division into the system. Ms. Foster explained that the next step was to complete the Implementation Notebook. She stated that the notebook outlined the step-by-step process of the rollout. Ms. Foster expressed the hope that the time sheets would be decentralized and some business processes would be streamlined as this process continued.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that 37 agencies had completed the time sheet portion of the rollout. Ms. Foster explained that there were 85 major areas with 420 sites that would complete the rollout. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked to receive a schedule of the rollout, and performance indicators. Ms. Foster responded that she would be able to send copies to the committee.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested the department’s justification for the overtime built into the budget. Ms. Foster responded that because the system was so new, and in the past they had come across some surprises, the department felt it would be beneficial to continue the overtime into the coming biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether those monies were in the reserve account or actually budgeted. Ms. Foster stated that the monies for the overtime were actually budgeted.
Mr. Hettrick inquired about the use of the private information on forms utilized by the IFS-HR system, specifically the social security number, and whether the system was secure. Ms. Foster answered that there was a high level of security within the system. Only certain groups of people had access to different portions of the system. She mentioned that in the course of using the system the social security number was run against an algorithm and the resulting number was used when the employees were paid. The only group of people who had access to the social security numbers was those working with the personnel action forms and the payroll time sheets. Mr. Hettrick followed up by asking whether the process would eventually be done completely on the computer systems, with no paper forms. Ms. Foster responded that a hard copy was necessary, and it contained both a signature and a social security number. The idea of whether the social security number could be changed to the algorithm number was introduced by Mr. Hettrick, to which Ms. Foster answered that at the current time the process would be extremely labor intensive. Mr. Hettrick expressed his hope that the idea of eliminating the social security number would be considered, as a paper trail would break down the security of the system.
Ms. Tiffany explained the option of giving a social security number or using a created number that had been implemented in the voter registration process. She then questioned whether IFS had eliminated or consolidated any of the payroll systems. Ms. Foster explained that where there were some stand-alone systems for tracking purposes, the new system would enable the tracking to be done on the central system. Ms. Tiffany confirmed the consolidation and inquired as to how many major payroll systems would remain. Ms. Foster clarified her definition of consolidation. Certain agencies, the University System, Public Employees Retirement System and Legislative Counsel Bureau maintained a separate payroll system, but all other agencies were paid out of central payroll’s new system, now including NDOT. Ms. Tiffany explained that in 1993 Bob Seale, State Treasurer, noted that there were multiple payrolls and Mr. Seale planned to consolidate them. This was the driving force behind her inquiry. Ms. Foster confirmed that NDOT had been consolidated with the central payroll system and the three aforementioned agencies still remained on stand-alone systems.
Ms. Tiffany asked if job openings were being posted on the Web site, and at the one-stop centers. Ms. Greene replied that all of the job notices were on the Web sites, and she would investigate the probability of putting the notices at the one-stop centers. Ms. Tiffany also noted that she believed that state jobs also needed to be posted.
Ms. Greene continued her testimony with decision unit E-225 and E-908. These decision units were removing the costs paid to the Department of Information Technology for utilization of five data entry positions. Two of the data entry positions were transferred to the Department of Personnel’s budget. Ms. Greene explained that because of the rollout of IFS the number of data entry positions had been cut from five to two, for a savings of $82,556 for FY2002 and $7,178 for FY2003.
E-275 was the next decision unit that Ms. Greene addressed. This decision unit continued funding for a Program Assistant III. This position was created in the FY1997-1999 biennium to support the development of IFS and had continued through the current biennium. Ms. Greene then addressed several of the responsibilities of this position, including help desk support, maintenance of IFS-HR Web site, tracking and logging all of the problem reports and special requests, assisting users in obtaining access to the system and ensuring proper security, assisting in training classes, scheduling and organizing user group meetings, and providing administrative support to the team.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification on this position’s role in security. Ms. Foster answered that this person may help to update some security screens, but establishing the security structure and bases would be left to the system administrator. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked how quickly the committee could expect a report back on whether the change from the social security number to another number would be possible. Ms. Foster explained that the social security number was used as a key to the system and not as a security measure, but they would report back to the committee on the possibility of removing the social security number as the key of the system.
Ms. Greene then spoke on decision unit E-300. This decision unit had requested $20,400 each fiscal year for travel for the IFS-HR rollout team. This team would require travel for an anticipated 24 sessions per quarter conducted to train users, eight would be held in Las Vegas, and two would be rural loops requiring travel. The second item in E-300 was a request for $6,664 each fiscal year for Internet access so that all employees could be on-line. Ms. Greene noted that this would also allow applicants to answer posted job listings in a more timely fashion.
Ms. Greene then referred to decision unit E-710, related to the replacement of hardware and software in conformance with the Department of Information Technology’s replacement policy. The total monies requested were $77,549 in FY2002 and $52,283 in FY2003.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the Personnel Department was completing all of the inputting on the IFS themselves, or whether that was being handled by other agencies. Ms. Greene responded that currently the department was handling a majority of the inputting, but as the rollout continued this would shift over to the different agencies. Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that this was reflected in the budget through decision units E-224 and E-908, which explained the loss of three data entry positions.
Ms. Greene completed her prepared testimony with a discussion of decision unit E-720. This dealt with a request for $1,060 in FY2002 for 20 licenses for Hummingbird software and $1,100 in FY2002 for four modems. The needed equipment allowed employee access to the state mainframe and the IFS from off- site locations.
Mr. Marvel desired to know whether the 2000 Salary and Benefits Survey (Exhibit F) had been released when the budget was created. Ms. Greene verbalized that the salary study had been released in December 2000 and the Governor took it into consideration when he recommended the budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested that Ms. Greene spend some time going over the salary survey and Ms. Greene indicated that she would be willing to do so. Ms. Greene stated that the Nevada Revised Statutes required the department to complete a salary survey every two years. The survey was completed by looking at 10 western states, 15 public employers, 4 school districts, 7 hospitals and 21 private employers within the state of Nevada. Ms. Greene believed that a key item gleaned from this survey was that state government salaries were lagging behind the Nevada marketplace by 26 percent. Ms. Greene expressed that in the department’s opinion Nevada was the main marketplace for hiring, as shown by the fact that 95 percent of the previous year’s hirers came from Nevada. The Governor was recommending a 4 percent increase each year for all employees plus an additional step for positions that had received the highest step on the salary schedule, which included over 50 percent of Nevada state employees. This step would be implemented on July 1, 2001, if the legislature concurred with the Governor’s recommendation. Ms. Greene indicated that the department recommended that correctional officers receive an additional one-grade increase, because the study showed that they were approximately 65 percent behind the marketplace within Nevada. They received a one-grade increase January 1, 2001, and the correctional officers in Ely and Lovelock received a one-grade increase in July of 2000. Ms. Greene expressed her hope that the additional one-grade increase would help with recruitment and turnover problems.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what the increases would bring the correctional officers up to in light of the 65 percent gap. Ms. Greene noted that with the 13 percent increase the Governor was recommending, there would be a total of an 18 percent increase, which would close the gap between the Nevada pay scale and the national average. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that this did not seem to have affected the hiring, as there remained a number of vacancies. Ms. Greene stated that although there were quite a few vacancies, the hope was that with the revision of the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) standards and the increased pay scale there would be a positive change reflected in recruitment.
Ms. Greene discussed the recommendation for engineers to receive a two-grade increase. The salary survey showed that engineers in Nevada were about 36 percent behind. There had been trouble recruiting because of this gap. Ms. Greene then described the one-grade recommendation for parole and probation officers. She explained that there were no appropriate comparisons within the state because the state was the only entity that had adult parole and probation employees. In comparison to other law enforcement agencies within Nevada, parole and probation officers were 30 percent behind, and in comparison to parole and probation officers employed by the federal government in Nevada they were 34 percent behind.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that a majority of the engineers were located in NDOT. Ms. Greene agreed, but stated that there were some located in the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as well as the Health Division.
Comments on social workers and forensic psychiatric nurses were requested by Ms. Giunchigliani. Ms. Greene stated that social workers were 28 percent behind, while nurses were 27 percent behind. These numbers were fairly comparable to state employees as a whole, which came out at 26 percent behind.
The Chairman recognized Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association. Mr. Gagnier commended the Governor for the attention that he had paid to state employees, but then opined that there were some holes in the equity increases. Mr. Gagnier explained that his view of the criteria that the law specified for special raises indicated that others, besides those that Ms. Greene had mentioned, should have received special raises. Mr. Gagnier then elaborated on the specifics of the law. The law specified that salary increases would be based upon five criteria: cost of living, salary surveys, difficulty in recruitment, turnover, and maintaining equitable relationships among the classes. By utilizing the salary survey and turnover rates found in state records, Mr. Gagnier was able to compile statistics that showed percentages and turnover rates. These included statistics on supervisors from the Elko and Caliente training centers that were 30.48 percent behind in the salary survey (Exhibit F) and their turnover was 30.7 percent, and social workers that were 28 percent behind with a 24 percent turnover rate. The average turnover rate in the state was 13 percent in comparison. Mr. Gagnier also indicated that the steps Ms. Greene discussed for correctional officers were insufficient. He continued with examples, and agreed to provide a written copy of his testimony to the committee later in the day (Exhibit G).
OFFICE OF THE MILITARY – BUDGET PAGE MILITARY-1
Brigadier General Giles Vanderhoof, Adjutant General of Nevada, was recognized by the Chairman, and introduced Miles Celio, Administrative Services Officer. Brigadier General Vanderhoof then proceeded by reading a written statement to the committee (Exhibit H). This testimony outlined the fact that the budget was created by General Clark and Governor Guinn, and that Brigadier General Vanderhoof fully supported the budget. He continued to state that the Nevada National Guard was one of the finest in the country, as demonstrated by the efforts that they had participated in.
Brigadier General Vanderhoof explained that the budget had no enhancements, and was solely a base budget. This was due in part to the federal monies that were received. Brigadier General Vanderhoof emphasized that the federal monies did not diminish the state monies, but rather that the state monies were very significant.
Ms. Giunchigliani alluded to the fact that there was an error with the cost allocation within the mix of federal and state monies in The Executive Budget. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, explained that the percentage of General Fund dollars increased, but the percentage of federal dollars decreased. Mr. Stevens noted that it appeared that General Fund dollars could be reduced, and additional federal funds could be built in. This idea was still being looked at by the Budget Division. Mr. Stevens continued to say that it seemed as though there was a shortfall in utilities, as reflected in decision unit M-100.
Brigadier General Vanderhoof asked for clarification regarding which line of The Executive Budget Mr. Stevens was addressing. Mr. Stevens indicated that he was addressing M-100, the utilities expenditure line. The total of $11,311 recommended for FY2002 did not appear to be enough to cover the Governor’s recommendation of a 15-16 percent inflationary increase for heat and electricity.
Brigadier General Vanderhoof inquired as to whether Mr. Stevens took into account that some utilities were 100 percent funded by the federal government, some were a mix of state and federal monies, and others were completely funded by the state. Mr. Stevens noted that a further look at the mix of federal and state monies was needed, but the initial question was whether or not there were sufficient total dollars for utilities, and if not, what dollars needed to be added, and then to look at the spilt between federal and state monies. According to the initial calculations it appeared that the budget was short by $102,700 for FY2002 and $155,024 for FY2003 in a mix of state and federal monies. Brigadier General Vanderhoof replied that he would further investigate the matter and give the committee an answer in writing on the morning of February 7th.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested information about the National Guard Readiness Center in Carson City. Brigadier General Vanderhoof indicated that the belief was that the readiness center could be operational by December of 2001. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to the status of the project. Brigadier General Vanderhoof stated that it was predicted that the move-in date would be November. Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that the monies granted for the positions for the readiness center had not been used because the readiness center was not operational. At Ms. Giunchigliani’s request, Brigadier General Vanderhoof confirmed that the Public Works Board was overseeing the construction.
Mrs. Chowning requested that information about the approximately 258 percent increase in the Teen Challenge Program be presented before the subcommittee. Brigadier General Vanderhoof indicated that he would be willing to do that, and continued by stating that the program had grown and was now combined with the Arizona program. Approximately 20 students were sent through a class at a time, and federal monies paid for a majority of the costs. There had been an increase, and that was approved by IFC. This explained the large increase in the budget. Brigadier General Vanderhoof went on to state, that when the program began the split was 75-25 federal to state monies, and every year that had decreased by 5 percent so that it was currently close to 60-40, and would not decrease further. Mrs. Chowning inquired as to why this program could not be run in Nevada. Brigadier General Vanderhoof explained that there were not enough facilities in Nevada, and the ones that were being built were going to be filled to capacity. The cost of implementing this program in Nevada would cost millions of dollars and Brigadier General Vanderhoof mentioned that down the road he would be interested in seeing the program moved to Nevada, but currently it did not appear possible.
Chairman Arberry requested that Brigadier General Vanderhoof touch on the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP). Brigadier General Vanderhoof mentioned that the rural county armories were badly in need of repair, including updating kitchen facilities to meet with Fire Marshal standards, and updating the buildings to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The federal government had agreed to provide funds to the rural armories to match state contributions, where previously this had been funded entirely by the state. The other CIP project that Brigadier General Vanderhoof spoke on was the construction of another National Guard Readiness Center in the southern Nevada area. Although the site had not been selected, it appeared that the site would be on Bureau of Land Management land that Henderson was annexing. The federal government had contributed $225,000 to date toward the advance-planning phase. Brigadier General Vanderhoof was requesting $75,000 in state monies toward the advance-planning phase. When this portion was finished they could proceed toward obtaining the rest of the 75 percent federal dollars expected to fund construction, and return to the legislature next session for the state share of the construction costs.
NATIONAL GUARD BENEFITS – BUDGET PAGE MILITARY-8
Brigadier General Vanderhoof continued his testimony with the National Guard Benefits Program. He explained that the legislature had approved up to a 50 percent consolidated fee reimbursement for Nevada National Guardsmen attending Nevada universities or community colleges. This was used as a recruiting tool. In the 1999 legislative session the request was made and granted for the authorization to be increased to 100 percent with no additional monies budgeted. Brigadier General Vanderhoof noted that there were additional educational benefits that were paid; including the federal Montgomery GI Bill, which paid $243 per month for a full-time student attending any university or college. He restated that educational assistance was a useful tool in recruitment for the National Guard. Brigadier General Vanderhoof then noted that this budget concerned him and the Governor considerably. There was no request for an increase at the present time, but the limited monies meant that while in the past they were able to pay 50 percent it had dropped to 42 percent in 2000 and it could drop further to 35 percent. Brigadier General Vanderhoof was planning to further investigate the matter, and make recommendations to the Governor. He then gave the example of the expansion from undergraduate degrees to graduate and postgraduate degrees, and was looking at reconsidering this expansion.
Mr. Marvel asked how many students were currently in the program. Brigadier General Vanderhoof responded that there were approximately 300 students, but then clarified that some students would be counted twice because it included people attending the fall semester and people attending the spring semester. Mr. Marvel questioned how many of these students were part-time as compared to full-time students. Brigadier General Vanderhoof answered that most were part-time, because they were working full time and were in the National Guard. He noted the figures had recently been skewed due to the fact that the Guard had been called on with greater frequency and students were forced to temporarily discontinue their education.
Mrs. Chowning was interested in whether the “C” average that students were expected to maintain was matched to other states’ expectations. Brigadier General Vanderhoof indicated that he was unable to provide that information, but to his knowledge most states required a “C” average.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the budget appeared underfunded, and inquired as to when Brigadier General Vanderhoof could return to the committee with information regarding the shortfall. Brigadier General Vanderhoof replied that there would be a shortfall in the current fiscal year, and he desired to take a further look at that. Upon Ms. Giunchigliani’s request for what Brigadier General Vanderhoof thought the shortfall might be he responded that he believed it could go as low as 30 percent reimbursement. This shortfall was one of the driving reasons behind looking at the program as a recruitment tool, and the rescinding of the program expansions. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the program might have been expanded and therefore lost some focus. Brigadier General Vanderhoof stated that that was one of his questions, and that his main concern was helping the junior enlisted people. Ms. Giunchigliani observed that Brigadier General Vanderhoof’s insight would be appreciated, and indicated her desire to make sure that the program benefited the people truly in need. She requested that the shortfall predictions be projected for the upcoming biennium.
Brigadier General Vanderhoof concluded his testimony with an expression of thanks to the committee for their attention and support of the National Guard over the years.
Chairman Arberry asked the committee to take action to introduce the following Bill Draft Requests (BDR):
(A.B. 65)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-144.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-753.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-202.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-876.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 11-110.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-66.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-43.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 10:12 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Andrea Carothers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: