MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
April 4, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:43 a.m., on Wednesday, April 4, 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
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Lynn Hettrick (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mike Chapman, Program Analyst
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomson, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry indicated that the committee would be hearing A.B. 596 and A.B. 597 out of order.
Assembly Bill 596: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for computer upgrades at Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1381)
Assembly Bill 597: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for purchase of computers for Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1382)
The Chair recognized Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Lutzow explained that the division was requesting funding for an additional 94 computers, 21 printers, associated software, and for wiring the hardware for networking hubs. The total appropriation was $431,046.28. The addition of the 94 computers would bring the division to a 1:1 ratio of computers for all staff. Mr. Lutzow noted that currently the supervision officers were at a 2:1 ratio. The division was having difficulty with the retrieval of over 17,000 active offender records. There were a total of 68,000 records in the system, active and inactive. The problem of retrieval was magnified by officers who were not able to have immediate access to a computer. Currently the division was able to transmit information to all 15 offices, and soon would be able to receive and transmit information to and from other law enforcement agencies, the courts, the district attorney’s office, the Parole Board, and the Nevada Department of Prisons. All the records were currently being automated, including accounting records, offender notes, photos of offenders, pre-sentence investigations, and violation reports.
Mr. Lutzow noted that the supervision officers were faced with a daily inability of accessing a computer. The most common occurrences were when an offender was in the Las Vegas or Reno office, the officer was forced to look for an office with an available PC, sit the offender down, and access the computer system before conversations with the offender could begin. The officer safety was compromised because a substantial amount of time was being spent with the offender. Mr. Lutzow explained that if there were no computers available then the officer would have to hand write the information, and input it at a later time. The problem came from the fact that since all the information was stored inside the computer, the information was not available to the officer at the time the information was handwritten. This caused case management problems, and could potentially cause public and officer safety issues. Information about the 11,000 supervised offenders was updated daily. There would be a minimum of 11,000 transactions on a monthly basis, and the information was needed for officers to complete their jobs. Mr. Lutzow said that as the division moved into the automation system, the officers would be advised of individuals that they needed to see given the division’s standards, but if a computer was not available to the officer they would not be able to receive that information. Additionally, the division was unable to respond in a rapid manner to other agencies requesting information.
The final issue was communication. Mr. Lutzow explained that the Legislative Counsel Bureau audit completed had shown that the division did not send information to the staff in a timely and complete manner. Through the e-mail system the division was able to send information on a real time basis to the staff that had computers. Mr. Lutzow indicated that the division understood there was a budget shortfall in the current legislative session, so the division was willing to acknowledge that there were 31 vacancies, and the 94 computers represented all positions filled, and if the division cut those 31 computers from the request there would be a savings of $35,854. There would be infrastructure costs that would remain due to the hardwiring request.
The Chair confirmed that with the deletion of 31 computers from the request there would be a savings of $35,854.
Mr. Lutzow commented that he had provided a handout that listed issues that he had not discussed (Exhibit C). The second request in the bill was a memory upgrade. The division had begun to purchase computers during FY1997 with money provided by the legislature. The memory that was purchased at that time was outdated. The division was requesting $20,209 to purchase a memory upgrade. This would allow the division to upgrade existing hardware to standards that were compatible with the automated system. The request would upgrade 201 computers that were currently on-line.
The Chair stated that due to the possible budget shortfall, the division needed to re-look at the request and make a 10 to 15 percent cut. Mr. Lutzow stated that the division had anticipated being asked to make the cut, and had eliminated 31 computers from the request, for $35,854 savings. Chairman Arberry indicated that the committee needed the division to look at the request and to determine if it would be possible to reduce the amount by an additional 10 to 15 percent.
The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 596 and A.B. 597, and opened the hearing on A.B. 502.
Assembly Bill 502: Makes appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for development of automated licensing system for real estate agents. (BDR S-1386)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, explained that the department director was requesting that A.B. 502 be withdrawn.
The Chair withdrew A.B. 502 and opened the hearing on A.B. 503.
Assembly Bill 503: Makes appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for replacement of certain computers in Office of Labor Commissioner. (BDR S-1387)
Chairman Arberry recognized Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry. Mr. Johnson commented that the bill before the committee was for replacement computers for the Office of Labor Commissioner. It provided an appropriation to replace five computers for each of the next two fiscal years, as well as covered the cost for the installation of the workstations and provided for backup systems. The request was based upon a four-year computer replacement cycle.
Mr. Bob Beers indicated that the committee had received an audit report that said the agency’s software application was not working correctly, and asked if the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) had warranty money to solve the problem. Mr. Johnson stated that a representative from DoIT was available that could answer the question in regard to warranty money. The audit had been released, and Mr. Johnson had meetings regarding software applications. A plan had been completed that addressed the audit and attempted to incorporate the recommendations before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that there had been problems that were identified by the audit in terms of applications. The division was hoping to resolve the problems, and to prevent the problems from happening in the future. Mr. Johnson opined that the way programs were tested by DoIT and the user agency needed to be looked at, as well as utilizing similar agencies’ programs.
Mel Watson, Application Development Manager, DoIT, explained that the DoIT policy was replacement every three years, and the division was requesting a replacement based upon four years. Mr. Watson was unaware that there would be discussion about the audit, and was there in support of the computer replacement requested.
Mr. Beers asked if the application used by the agency would work on a computer running Windows 2000. Mr. Watson answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani asked Mr. Johnson if he believed that the software would work on a computer running Windows 2000. Mr. Johnson explained that there had been discussions between the agency staff and DoIT staff about this subject. The understanding was that the system had not been tested on anything subsequent to Windows 95 and there had been concerns addressed by both staff as to whether the programs would or would not work on Windows 95. The agency would discover the compatibility relatively soon. Due to the audit the agency would be examining the technology needs of the office, and it was encouraging to hear Mr. Watson say that the applications would work on operating systems subsequent to Windows 95. Ms. Giunchigliani asked DoIT to confirm that the applications would run on Windows 2000, and reply to the committee within three days.
The Chair reiterated the need to have the request cut an additional 10 to 15 percent, and asked for the information to be given to the committee as quickly as possible.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 503 and opened the hearing on A.B. 533.
Assembly Bill 533: Makes appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for replacement of computers in Consumer Affairs Division. (BDR S-1384)
Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, explained that A.B. 533 was a request for five computers for FY2002 and five computers for FY2003. The division currently had 20 full-time employees and a total of 27 computers, including 3 servers, 4 laptops, and 20 desktop computers. During FY1999 and FY2000 the agency had enacted a fine on businesses for egregious behavior in the marketplace. Due to that fine the agency was able to replace half of the computers, which reduced the amount of the request. Ms. Jarman-Manning noted that computers were purchased in 1997 and in 2000, as the software was upgraded, computers were not compatible with the software. She reiterated the request for five computers during each year of the biennium.
The Chair asked to have the request cut 10 to 15 percent.
Mr. Hataway indicated that the Budget Office would not support an across-the-board 10 to 15 percent decrease. The Budget Office was examining all one‑shot requests and could possibly make recommendations. He explained that with regards to A.B. 503 and A.B. 533 the revised unit prices on the computers and a small adjustment to the hourly rate for the installation costs, created a reduction of $17,432, or 8 percent. The Budget Office was planning to work with the committee to reduce expenditures as much as possible, but the fact that those two bills were small items, and were on a replacement schedule, should be considered.
The hearing on A.B. 533 was closed, and the hearing on A.B. 587 and A.B. 588 was opened.
Assembly Bill 587: Makes appropriation to restore and increase balance in stale claims account. (BDR S-1511)
Assembly Bill 588: Makes appropriation to restore balance in emergency account. (BDR S-1510)
Mr. Hataway explained that the stale claims account had a current balance of $20,569, however, on the April Board of Examiners (BOE) agenda there were claims of $30,590. There needed to be action on this bill so that vendors could be paid in a timely fashion. When the Budget Office came before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in December for additional allocations, it was thought that the funds would last until mid-April. Mr. Hataway explained that the division did not wish to delay payment. In the 1999 Legislative Session $1,491,065 was appropriated to the stale claims account. The Budget Office appeared before the committee in FY2000 for an additional $800,000 and again in the December FY2001 meeting for another $375,000 allocation. In order to minimize the impact on the IFC contingency fund, the Budget Office felt that the requested $2,500,000 was appropriate to maintain a timely payment schedule.
In regard to the emergency fund, Mr. Hataway noted that the current fund was at $314,891 with claims on the April BOE agenda in the amount of $75,000. The office held the opinion that the $400,000 requested was appropriated to begin the biennium with, and would like to recommend an adjustment to A.B. 588. The $400,000 could be reduced to $160,000.
The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 587 and A.B. 588, and opened the hearing on A.B. 593.
Assembly Bill 593: Makes appropriation to State Department of Agriculture for support of Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products. (BDR S- 1467)
Joseph Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38, stated that the bill had been brought to the committee because there was no appropriation in the budget for Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products. The council had been created a few years previous in order to assist the organic farmers in the state. Mr. Dini stated that the council was achieving good results in the marketing of products, but needed to continue to receive government help. The numbers were not large enough to carry the load, and the $15,000 subsidy needed to be continued. Mr. Dini introduced Virginia Johnson, Chair, NOCP Advisory Council, and Paul Iverson, Director, State Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Iverson explained that the council had worked hard to create an organic program in Nevada, and was a new program three years ago. The program was growing, and organic food was popular. The legislation for the federal program had passed, and it would be important that an organic organization was maintained at the state level. He noted that there would be additional inspections and there would be additional cost to the growers to be inspected. The requested money would go to promote and help producers, and pay for the expenses of the board. The market had small producers and large producers that were involved with the council.
Ms. Johnson explained that besides being the current chair of the Organic Advisory Council, she was also a producer from the Silver Springs area. She read from her handout (Exhibit D). This was a brief history of the council that had been established in 1997 and was allocated $10,000 for start up costs. The council returned $5,000 because they were not allowed to utilize the money for outreach. In the 1999 Legislative Session $15,000 had been appropriated to the council with a provision for outreach. The council had revised the goals and the public outreach, as well as designed brochures for the council. The council would also be funding travel and related costs to send department staff to out-of-state training. There were currently 19 certified organic producers and 2 handlers. Ms. Johnson noted that information indicated there would be five additional producers entering the program in the spring. She stated that the general public was not aware of the organic producers in Nevada, and the council hoped to decrease the amount of imported goods entering the state. She also noted that the council would be willing to take the 10 percent cut that Chairman Arberry had asked of the previous bill testifiers.
Mr. Dini stated that he had submitted a letter in support of A.B. 593 from the Nevada Farm Bureau (Exhibit E).
The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 593 and opened the hearing on A.B. 604.
Assembly Bill 604: Makes various changes relating to awards for state employees. (BDR 23-1307)
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, explained that the division was not requesting money to implement the bill. The funds would come from the agency’s operating budget. She noted that the division was requesting to remove the definition of the longevity reward from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 285. NRS 284 provided a longevity plan for state employees with eight or more years of service. The definition in NRS 285 was redundant for the purpose of recognizing and rewarding longevity. The division had prepared an amendment to Section 2, subsection 3 (Exhibit F). The amendment was consistent with the longevity award language in the previous section of the bill. The proposal was to improve the original concept by defining “service award” as a suitable symbol other than money that recognized employees’ faithful and exceptional service. The state salaries were not currently competitive with other Nevada employers, and although the salary issue needed a long-term solution it was easy to see the immediate benefits of providing symbolic appreciation to the most dedicated employees. Ms. Greene said that the division believed that employees that were recognized for superior service would continue to work at a high level. Visible recognition for a well-done job would motivate employees. The final point was that although the same level of pay as other employers offered was not possible, the division believed that morale could be maintained and loyalty and commitment could be encouraged through material recognition to employees that faithfully embodied the spirit of public service.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in support of A.B. 604.
Mr. Iverson stated that the Division of Agriculture was in support of the bill. He noted that the bill was important because there were employees that went beyond expectations. He explained that currently there was no appropriate way to recognize those employees and A.B. 604 would provide the opportunity to award and recognize outstanding service.
The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 604.
Ms. Sandra Tiffany stated that she had been in a DoIT technology meeting in the recent past, and had examined 19 instances of computer purchasing projects throughout the different state agencies. What was recognized was that there was no basic governance over the computer purchasing to standardize the process for all agencies. She explained that with the millions of dollars that were being placed into computers, there was a continual “mishmash” of how the computers were being handled and integrated. With the Web technology there was no person coordinating the efforts. The Chair thanked Ms. Tiffany for her comment and noted that the committee would be watching for that issue.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, stated that the committee needed to make a decision about how to provide the cost of living salary increases, recommended in The Executive Budget in each year of the biennium, and the additional step, which were included in The Executive Budget, before discussing individual budgets. Those issues were included in each individual budget account in the decision unit M-300 series. Traditionally the dollars for those areas had been pooled and distributed by the Board of Examiners on a need-basis. Mr. Stevens noted that this issue had been discussed with Chairman Arberry and the Senate Committee on Finance Chairman, Senator Raggio. The staff had then discussed the issue with Perry Comeaux, Director, Budget Division, and it was the desire of the chairmen to extract the decision unit M-300 series from the budget and place the money in a salary adjustment pool as had been traditionally done. This would not involve reducing the amounts that were recommended by the Governor. Mr. Stevens explained that due to the way in which the salary increases had been recommended there might be a shortfall situation with some of the budget accounts if they were approved the way the Governor had recommended. This would require language in the appropriations act to enable the transfer between budget accounts to ensure all accounts were completely funded for the 9 and 4 percent increase, specifically the budgets that had frozen merits. If the monies were pooled then the agencies would be able to apply for the maximum eligible amount, and the shortfall problem would not exist. Mr. Stevens reiterated that a decision needed to be made regarding whether to pool the salary increase and additional step monies or to leave the monies in the individual budget accounts.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO POOL THE FUNDS.
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
COMMISSION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT –
BUDGET PAGE ECON DEV & TOUR-1
Mr. Stevens introduced Mike Chapman, Program Analyst. Mr. Stevens noted there were technical adjustments and decision units within the budget. The technical adjustments were as follows:
The decision items that the committee needed to consider included decision unit E-250, which was a total of $45,000 in General Fund appropriation for each year of the biennium. This amount included $25,000 as the state’s contribution for applying for a State Environmental Initiative Grant. The agency had noted that the $25,000 would be used for partially satisfying the $150,000 matching requirement of the grant. There was also $20,000 per year requested to maintain and improve the commission’s Internet presence. Mr. Stevens stated that the committee needed to decide on approval or non-approval for the decision unit.
The second decision item was decision unit E-710, which was for replacement equipment including $11,030 for a new telephone system and $47,567 for five desktop computers, three laptop computers, a file server, and three printers. The staff had made technical adjustments for the pricing of the equipment.
Mr. Beers asked if there had been testimony regarding how the $20,000 for the Web site would be spent. Mr. Chapman stated that he did have backup information on the plans for the $20,000, but noted that there was agency personnel in the audience that might be able to clarify the issue.
The Chair recognized Karen Baggett, Deputy Director, Division of Economic Development. Ms. Baggett noted that the $20,000 had been requested for Web site development and maintenance. The reason behind the request was that the agency was attempting to be proactive in attracting businesses that would provide high paying jobs. The agency needed to ensure that the Web site was similar to other common Web sites. When this was originally placed in the budget there was insufficient funding, and the agency had a bare minimum Web site. Ms. Baggett explained that the agency was examining contractors that would enhance and maintain the Web site. The requested $20,000 would include items for the Made in Nevada Program. This Web site needed to be enhanced and maintained. Originally there had been 35 companies, and currently there were over 250 companies on the Web site. The agency was also compiling a global directory to enable companies from outside the United States to contact the agency through the Web site. The agency had been offering training to employees on maintaining a Web site to enable them to complete the maintenance, but at the current time maintenance had to be completed through contractors.
Chairman Arberry asked if the contracts had been signed. Ms. Baggett stated that the agency had not signed any new contracts, and the current contract was for the existing site and would run through July 1. The Chair asked for additional information to be provided about the plan for the $20,000, and asked if the agency would have a monthly maintenance fee. Ms. Baggett stated that there would be a monthly maintenance fee, and the agency was holding conversations regarding the fee matter.
Mrs. Vonne Chowning commented that the $25,000 had the possibility of producing a large amount of income for the environmental companies. The belief that $2.5 million in new export sales within two years after the grant expired seemed like a positive result of decision unit E-250.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH APPROVAL OF DECISION UNITS E-250 AND E-710.
MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
MOTION PICTURES – BUDGET PAGE ECON DEV & TOUR-7
Mr. Stevens explained that there were two technical adjustments in the budget, which were as follows:
Mr. Stevens noted that the decision units were funded from Room Tax revenues and not General Fund. Decision unit M-200 was a transfer of in-state travel to out-of-state travel in the amount of $4,604 per year. The agency was hoping to increase their presence out of state and rather than requesting additional funds were proposing the transfer. Decision unit E-250 added training dollars to increase the skills in the production of directories. Decision unit E-710 requested replacement equipment.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – BUDGET PAGE ECON DEV & TOUR-12
Mr. Stevens noted that there were a number of technical adjustments to this budget, as well as a revised budget that had been received by the budget division. The technical adjustments were as follows:
The decision item for this budget was decision unit E-275 that increased the amount for the Revolving Loan Program to the federal loan grant award amount.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
PROCUREMENT OUTREACH PROGRAM –
BUDGET PAGE ECON DEV & TOUR-17
Mr. Stevens noted that there had been a revision to this budget completed by the Budget Division. A majority of the technical adjustments had been made based on the revisions, one of which was the reduction of decision unit E-225 by $45,829 in FY2001-2002 and $50,190 in FY2002-2003 due to an elimination of the purchase of the Softshare computer program. The decision item for this budget was decision unit E-710, which recommended the replacement of six desktop computers and one laptop computer in FY2001‑2002 and three laptops in FY2002-2003.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens said that the Tourism budget was being held for a future hearing.
NEVADA MAGAZINE – BUDGET PAGE ECON DEV & TOUR-30
Mr. Stevens commented that there were no technical adjustments in the account, but there were decision units included in the account. Mr. Stevens noted that this budget was self-funded from a General Fund perspective, but there was Room Tax revenue and subscription revenue.
The Chair noted that in decision unit E-175 there was a 72.7 percent increase for in-state travel. Mr. Chapmen stated that decision unit E-175 was recommending bringing the travel appropriations up to FY2001 work program levels. During the base year of FY2000 Nevada Magazine had not incurred out‑of-state travel, resulting from a shortfall in actual revenues and vacant staff positions. Mr. Chapman explained that the vacant positions had been filled and if the money was allocated the staff would be traveling. Chairman Arberry asked if the agency had indicated where they would be traveling.
Mr. Stevens noted that decision unit E-806 recommended the reclassification of an unclassified position. If the reclassification was approved by the committee there would be further review of unclassified positions during the session, to examine the pay scale. The Chairman confirmed that if the committee approved the reclassification, and did not agree with the results, there would be an additional opportunity to adjust the results. Mr. Stevens explained that if the decision unit was approved, the requested money would be placed in the budget based on the current salary level, however, salaries were controlled by the unclassified pay bill and the maximum salary included there would be the maximum that the position could earn.
Mr. Chapman answered the Chair’s earlier question relating to the travel destinations of the agency. He commented that the travel was for three individuals to go to publishing seminars and conferences outside the state. Chairman Arberry was concerned because there was a substantial increase, and he desired to ensure that the funds were being properly expended.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MRS. CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the committee desired to include the 72.7 percent increase in decision unit E-175. She noted that she was uncomfortable with the increase. Chairman Arberry indicated his agreement.
Mrs. Chowning stated that there was confusion because the agency had spent no money in FY1999-2000 and had spent no money to date for out-of-state travel. She asked why there had been no previous travel costs and why the agency was requesting $4,000 for out-of-state travel.
MR. MARVEL WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS MOTION.
MRS. CEGAVSKE WITHDREW HER SECOND.
Ms. Giunchigliani recommended adjusting decision unit E-175 to the FY1999‑2000 actual, and split the travel costs between out-of-state travel and in-state travel.
The Chair asked if the agency needed additional money would they be able to request the funds from the IFC. Mr. Stevens answered in the affirmative, but he believed that the in-state travel funding was more crucial than the out-of-state travel. If the agency had spent $3,000 in in-state travel in the previous fiscal year then that amount might need to be spent again. The committee could consider appropriating the actual amount for in-state travel, and appropriating $1,200 for out-of-state travel. This would retain the agency’s need to travel within the state, and grant authority to travel out-of-state. There would be the ability to transfer monies within the account under $20,000.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH THE IN-STATE TRAVEL AT ACTUAL FY2000 LEVELS, AND $1,200 INCLUDED FOR OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens noted that there would be General Fund savings in the amount of $169,932 in FY2002 and $162,204 in FY2003 if the committee approved the staff recommendations within the prisons’ budgets.
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-157
Mr. Stevens noted that this budget had traditionally been closed in subcommittee, but the full committee needed to review the budget before staff responsibility for the budget accounts for prisons were closed. The Correctional Facilities account was the one that collapsed all the institutional and honor camp accounts into one budget account. The first threshold question that the staff had was whether the committee desired the collapsing of all institute/camp accounts or whether the committee would like to have the institutions and conservation camps continue to have separate budgets. This was the budget account that contained the collapsing recommendation and action needed to be taken on it before action could be taken on the additional budgets that would be discussed during the current hearing. This idea had been discussed with Chairman Arberry, Senator Raggio, and the Governor. The information provided by staff would provide one budget account for each institution and conservation camp commensurate with the way in which the budgets were currently constructed. Additional flexibility was provided to allow the Department of Prisons to transfer funds within and between budget accounts. Mr. Stevens explained that the language suggested to enable the flexibility was similar to that of NRS 353.220 in reference to work programs and allotments. The language would allow the transfer of up to $20,000 between budget accounts. In addition, based on current language if the Governor determined that there was an issue involving the protection of life or property, he would be able to immediately approve a transfer. There was also a provision that stated if there was no issue of protection of life or property the Budget Division or Governor could declare an expeditious item work program, and the IFC had up to 15 days to review the item or it would be approved. This language was the proposed language to provide the Department of Prisons with the needed additional flexibility.
Mr. Stevens stated that there had been $125,000 removed from the budget for each year of the biennium. The monies were recommended by the Governor to provide additional emergency monies for the Department of Prisons. If the account was not approved, then staff was proposing that the dollars be transferred to the Director’s Office and the determination of the funds would be made in the closing hearing for the Director’s Office budget.
Mr. John Marvel commented that he approved of the idea of providing the prisons with additional flexibility. He noted that because the prisons were inmate-driven it was hard to determine how the prisons would be impacted.
Mr. Stevens explained that the Senate Committee on Finance was reviewing the consolidation issue, and Gary Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst, would be providing that committee with the same information that Mr. Stevens had provided to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Stevens opined that the suggested language was acceptable to the Executive Branch.
Mr. Marvel commented that with the unpredictable power costs, it would be beneficial to have the flexibility within the budgets.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Chair clarified that the motion was not to collapse the budgets, but to provide for the additional flexibility with the language that Mr. Stevens had recommended.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens introduced Carla Watson, Program Analyst.
PRISON WAREHOUSE FUND – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-26
Ms. Watson stated that the department was currently operating five warehouses, which provided the ability to volume purchase and serve as a distribution center to the facilities. There were two staff recommendations for the account, both of which pertained to purchasing assessments. The Warehouse Fund was a pass-through account for the five existing warehouses. The account historically was 100 percent funded by Warehouse Sales revenue and had not had a General Fund appropriation. The purchasing assessments for the Warehouse Fund were not allocated by the Budget Division to the respective facility budgets prior to finalizing The Executive Budget. To correct the oversight the staff recommended the elimination of the General Fund appropriation in the base budget, in the amount of $112,078 per year, with corresponding increases to Warehouse Sales. The other staff recommendation was the elimination of the General Fund appropriation in decision unit M-100 in the amounts of $44,685 in FY2002 and $41,592 in FY2003, with the corresponding increases to Warehouse Sales. Ms. Watson stated that staff would be allocating the assessments to the respective facilities and institutions once the final allocation amounts had been received from State Purchasing. The current information indicated that there would be a reduction of approximately $88,000 for each year of the biennium.
Mr. Marvel asked how the General Fund monies had been originally placed in this budget. Ms. Watson explained that there had been an oversight by the Budget Division. The division had indicated that they had intended to allocate the purchasing assessments and there had not been enough time before The Executive Budget was finalized.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
RESTITUTION CENTER-SOUTH – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-94
Ms. Watson stated that the Governor was recommending closure of the facility in FY2002. She noted the facility had been officially closed effective January 18, 2001, and the 11 FTE staff had filled existing vacancies in other facilities. The Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) indicated that the program had become less cost-effective to operate because other programs such as the Therapeutic Substance Abuse program, the Enhanced House Arrest Program, and the Re-Entry program resulted in fewer candidates assigned to the center, which resulted in the closing. The NDOP also indicated that the facility was in poor condition and it made fiscal sense to choose alternatives. Ms. Watson noted that staff agreed with the Governor’s recommendations for the budget. She explained that the Governor’s recommended budget indicated 60 inmates were projected to be housed in the facility in July 2001. The inmate drivens were not provided for in the Governor’s Budget. The staff would work with the department to identify which alternative facility would house the inmates and provide the inmate drivens. This would have to be completed in a major institution because the center had been closed.
Chairman Arberry asked what would happen to the current inmates housed in the center. Ms. Watson noted that due to the other programs that had been implemented, the candidates for the center were dwindling, and that, with the condition of the facility, resulted in the decision to close.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the Re-Entry program was not currently running, and asked how the inmates could have been diverted to that program. She noted that one of the issues had been that in order to be eligible for release the prisoner needed to have housing. The facility that was being closed was a housing unit, which would cause inmates to need to continue to be housed in prisons. Ms. Watson stated that the NDOP had indicated that the remaining candidates were transferred to the Indian Springs Camp, and many were up for parole. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated that the inmates would not be released without housing, and with the closing of the facility the housing option had been removed.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the idea to close the facility had originated in the Budget Division. Ms. Watson stated that this was the proposal in The Executive Budget.
Chairman Arberry inquired as to whether the facility was currently closed or was in the process of closing. Ms. Watson stated that the facility had closed January 18, 2001.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that inmates that were not in the facility were taken to alternative camps, where they stayed, pending parole, but could not be paroled if they did not have housing.
Mr. Hataway said that the number of people that were housed at the facility had declined and the alternative facilities were available. He was unable to say if Ms. Giunchigliani was correct in her previous statement. The Chair stated that this was a concern, because if the inmates were unable to be released they would remain in the facilities. Mr. Hataway indicated it was his belief that the inmates were being released in a timely fashion, but he was unaware of the policy behind the release. The Chair asked for more information to be provided on this matter.
Mrs. Chowning asked how the facility could be closed when it was projected to house 60 inmates in July. Mr. Stevens reiterated that there would need to be an adjustment to a major institution to house the 60 inmates. There would be adjustments made on inmate drivens.
The Chair held the budget for a later hearing.
********
Ms. Watson stated that the rural camps budget accounts, Wells Conservation Camp, Humboldt Conservation Camp, Ely Conservation Camp, Carlin Conservation Camp, and Tonopah Conservation Camp, had similar items and recommendations. She would first testify on the similarities and then would progress into the individual accounts.
The population projections for the five rural camps were at an emergency threshold level in the NDOP Biennium Plan and in The Executive Budget, and required no adjustments for inmate populations. In decision unit M-100, to provide for inflation, the budget provided an increase of 16 percent for electricity and 15 percent for natural gas, and no increase for propane. The Assembly Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation had requested that the NDOP provide projections for utilities for the biennium. The results had been provided but staff had not had a chance to analyze the information. Staff was recommending that decision unit M-200 for Room and Board be reduced to FY1998 levels due to the high fire season in the base budget year. Recommended adjustments to decision unit E-710 included reductions for duplicated equipment funded in one-shot appropriations. The NDOP had also requested staff to create a separate category for maintenance contracts to improve fiscal management.
WELLS CONSERVATION CAMP – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-117
Ms. Watson noted that decision unit E-710 recommended funding of $4,115 in FY2002 and $741 in FY2003 for a washer, dryer, ice machine with storage bin, and two portable radios. Decision unit E-720 recommended funding of $4,306 in FY2002 for an 800 MHz base radio and a camp toolbox.
The adjustments recommended by staff were as follows:
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
HUMBOLDT CONSERVATION CAMP – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-123
Ms. Watson noted that decision unit E-710 recommended funding of $3,619 in FY2002 and $741 in FY2003 for a washer, floor buffer, typewriter, and three portable radios. Decision unit E-720 recommended funding of $3,924 in FY2002 for an 800 MHz base radio and camp toolbox.
The adjustments recommended by staff were as follows:
MR. PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
ELY CONSERVATION CAMP – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-129
Ms. Watson said that decision unit E-710 recommended funding of $7,659 in FY2002 for a 74.7 cubic foot refrigerator. The Governor’s One-Shot for Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds contained an appropriation for a water disinfection system for the Ely Conservation Camp and the annual cost to purchase chlorine was estimated at $300. This would be an ongoing annual cost if the legislature approved the disinfection system.
The adjustments recommended by staff were as follows:
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
CARLIN CONSERVATION CAMP – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-145
Ms. Watson explained that in this budget decision unit E-710 recommended funding of $3,887 in FY2002 for a food/meat slicer, floor buffing machine, washer and dryer. Decision unit E-720 recommended funding of $3,447 for FY2002 for an 800 MHz base radio and a camp toolbox.
The adjustments recommended by staff were as follows:
MR. PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
TONOPAH CONSERVATION CAMP – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-151
Ms. Watson said that decision unit E-710 recommended funding of $2,842 in FY2002 and $1,842 in FY2003 for a washer, dryer, four phones and four portable radios. Decision unit E-720 recommended funding of $5,258 in FY2002 for an 800 MHz base radio and camp toolbox.
The adjustments recommended by staff were as follows:
MR. PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
DESTITUTE PRISONERS’ ACCOUNT – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-208
Ms. Watson said that the account had been established by the 1989 legislature in the Prisoners’ Personal Property Fund to receive the balance of funding from discontinued plasma operations per NRS 209.383. The interest and income earned on money in the account, after deduction of any applicable charges, must have been credited to the account. The NDOP utilized funding in the account to pay monthly stipends to indigent inmates housed on death row. The monthly payment was $5 per inmate. The NDOP indicated 75 inmates were currently on death row with 8 deemed as indigent. The Executive Budget recommended a decrease of three indigent inmates per year on death row because the NDOP indicated that inmates were receiving more money from the outside.
Ms. Watson noted that A.B. 580, as introduced by the 2001 legislature, eliminated provisions pertaining to contracts concerning sale or donation of blood or plasma by offenders by repealing NRS 209.383. The bill in effect would eliminate the Destitute Prisoners’ Account. The bill had been referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Staff recommended transitory language be included in the legislation to allow for the continuation of this fund within the Inmate Welfare Fund under a separate category if A.B. 580 was approved.
Ms. Watson explained that staff was not recommending any adjustments to the account.
Mr. Marvel asked how much money was currently in the account. Ms. Watson said that there was currently approximately $13,000 located in the account.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDED TRANSFER IF A.B. 580 PASSED.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 26: Requires legislative auditor to conduct audit of University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR S-370)
Mr. Stevens noted that A.B. 26 required a legislative auditor to conduct an audit of the University and Community College System. There had been an amendment proposed by the University System, which Mr. Stevens would present to the committee. The proposed amendment would remove “without limitations,” from “the cost of athletic programs, including, without limitations, the sources and uses of money for such programs.” The University System was also opposed to financing the audit, and believed the state should fund the cost of the audit.
Mr. Richard Perkins explained that he had spoken to the legislative auditor about the proposed amendment, and the auditor’s feeling was that to remove the “without limitations” language would prevent him from completing a thorough audit. The other portion of the amendment, which addressed funding the audit from General Funds, was contrary to the committee’s hope to reduce the amount of General Fund monies spent. Mr. Perkins stated that he believed the bill as written would be beneficial to the legislature.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 26.
MR. BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 71: Makes appropriation to Clark County for new facilities at Spring Mountain Youth Camp. (BDR S-66)
Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 71 was an appropriation over the biennium of $13.5 million to provide General Fund support for a new school, youth services center, and gymnasium at Spring Mountain Youth Camp.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 71.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 216: Makes appropriation for costs relating to coordination of efforts to attract biotechnological companies to this state. (BDR S-661)
Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 216 was an appropriation of $200,000 over the biennium for costs related to coordination efforts to attract biotechnological companies to the state.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 216.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 269: Makes appropriation to Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for use by Tule Springs Preservation, Inc. to restore “Old Adobe” building at Floyd R. Lamb State Park. (BDR S-881)
Mr. Stevens noted that A.B. 269 would make an appropriation to the Division of State Parks for Floyd R. Lamb State Park.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B 269.
MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Division of State Parks endorsed the bill. Mr. Stevens explained that the Division of State Parks did not endorse the bill, and had previously provided a letter to the committee indicating such.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 288: Makes appropriation to Lincoln County for improvement of facilities at fairgrounds in Panaca and in Caliente. (BDR S-1194)
Mr. Stevens said that A.B. 288 was related to an appropriation to Lincoln County for improvement of facilities at the fairgrounds in Panaca and in Caliente.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 288.
MR. BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 587: Makes appropriation to restore and increase balance in stale claims account. (BDR S-1511)
Mr. Hataway asked for action on A.B. 587.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained that it appeared that the money in question was increased. It appeared that when a committee overspent their budget, they would re-request from the stale claims account, and then there were legitimate claims that were late. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a possibility of segregating the two. Mr. Hataway explained that this was a tough issue, and the Budget Division was approaching vendors and if the claim was legitimate and had not been paid it would need to be paid. He agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani that there had been situations where overspending had occurred. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who completed reviews of that issue. Mr. Hataway stated that staff reviewed claims for legitimacy. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a way to flag legitimate versus non-legitimate claims, and have the non-legitimate ones appear before the IFC. Mr. Hataway said that this idea could be discussed. He noted that in the past $1.5 million had been appropriated, and the bill was an increase but because of state growth there was justification for the larger amount.
MR. PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 587.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Hettrick was absent for the vote.)
********
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:45.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Andrea Carothers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: