MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
May 2, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:25 a.m., on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
ElizaBeth Root, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Katy Wilson, Senate Attaché, Senate Committee on Finance, 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature
Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, American Resort Development Association
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Appraisal Institute
Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Office of Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors - LV
Berlyn D. Miller, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractor’s Association
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
John L. Balentine, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Chairman Raggio:
Committee staff will present the report of the State of Nevada Economic Forum and tell us, for the record, what the final projections are for General Fund revenues.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The first handout distributed is the report sent to the Legislature by the Nevada Economic Forum (Exhibit C) and the second handout is entitled, “Statement of Projected Unappropriated General Fund Balance – Fiscal Years 2001-2003” (Exhibit D). Basically, the letter states the forecast for General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 have been reduced by $34,395,400. The revenues for FY 2002 have been reduced by $46,664,600 and the revenues for FY 2003 have been reduced by $40,375,400. Additionally, the revenue estimates for the sales tax revenue also has an impact on the Distributive School Account (DSA). The impact is a reduction of approximately $4 million this fiscal year, a reduction of approximately $3.5 million in FY 2002, and a reduction of approximately $1.5 million in FY 2003.
Exhibit D compares the Economic Forum’s revised revenue forecast to recommendations by the Governor when he submitted his budget. The differences are noted in the far right hand column. Please note on the bottom on the far right‑hand column the difference currently is estimated at $128,972,224. That takes into consideration the reductions in the DSA funding and the sales tax that will have to be made up by General Fund revenues or other mechanisms of funding.
There have been no adjustments incorporated on this schedule for appropriations recommended by the Governor. This assumes approval of all the appropriations and funding recommended by the Governor. Please note that at the end of FY 2003, if no adjustments are made, there is an estimated negative fund balance of $22,119,407.
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, this means the revenues that will not be available that were anticipated for this current fiscal year are $38,394,777, which includes the $3,999,377 funding in the DSA. We are looking at potential reductions in that amount for this current fiscal year. Similarly for the first year of the biennium, we are looking at a $46,664,600 revenue differential, of which $3,537,448 includes DSA. Also, the $88,596,824 difference in the fund balance is a cumulative figure for FY 2001 and 2002 combined. Then in FY 2003, there is a potential reduction of an additional $40,375,400.
We sent a joint letter from this committee and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means to the Governor’s office. The Governor has responded with proposed recommendations for potential modifications. Our committee staff has been working with the Governor’s staff on this issue. Next week we will be looking at that resolution. I need to indicate to the committee that our closing budgets are tight. We will be closing budgets throughout all of next week with the final budget closing for the DSA scheduled on Friday, May 11.
Committee, we will have a heavy schedule from now through the end of next week, which is the final date for all the subcommittees to close all the budgets and report recommendations to the full committee. I advise you that time is valuable and we need the cooperation of everyone on the committee, as well as staff.
At this time I would like to formally introduce Katy Wilson to the committee. Ms. Wilson has been with us during this session and has been an intern with the Senate Committee on Finance. I understand from staff that she has been of great assistance and help to us. We would like to recognize her. Katy is a senior at Carson High School and a Senate attaché this session. She is going to be embarrassed, but I am going to tell everyone that she is not only on the school honor roll, but she has a varsity academic letter; she was a Silver Scholars Award winner, and she is in the prestigious publication of “Who’s Who Among American High School Students.”
I understand that after graduation, she wants to attend Brigham Young University and major in political science. Afterwards, Katy would like to attend law school, which is probably one of the highest professions attainable. Subsequent to law school, Katy aspires to be a political advisor. I tell you, Katy, we could use you right now.
We have found Katy to be very energetic, very bright, and cheerful. The staff of the Senate Committee on Finance adores her and we want Katy to know: this committee appreciates all of her efforts. We are going to give you a round of applause in lieu of any salary increase.
I understand there are students here from the government class at Carson High School. If you are here, please stand up. We want to welcome all of you here and appreciate your coming down today. We thank you all for being here and, Katy, would you like to say anything for the record?
Katy Wilson, Senate Attaché, Senate Committee on Finance, 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to giving political advice behind the scenes.
Chairman Raggio:
We did not want to embarrass you, but to express to you how much we appreciate your efforts.
I sent letters to all Senators who have sponsored bills that are in this committee. First of all, I am going to go through the list of those bills that sponsoring senators have said can be indefinitely postponed. I would like to take that action at this time and each of the members has a handout entitled, “Bills in Senate Finance” (Exhibit E).
Chairman Raggio:
The first bill, introduced by Senator Amodei, is Senate Bill (S.B.) 9.
SENATE BILL 9: Makes appropriation to Tricounty Railway Commission of Carson City and Lyon and Storey counties, or its successor in interest, for reconstruction of Virginia & Truckee Railroad. (BDR S-602).
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 9.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 9 is worthwhile and we would like to finance it, but we are all trying to face reality, particularly after we received the Economic Forum report.
SENATE BILL 68: Makes contingent appropriation to Carson City to assist in construction of three-story public parking garage in downtown Carson City. (BDR S-864)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 68 was sponsored by Senator Jacobsen and he indicated that bill may be indefinitely postponed.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 68.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
The next matter is S.B. 246, which came from the Budget Division.
SENATE BILL 246: Makes supplemental appropriation to Office of Attorney General for unanticipated shortfall caused by overestimation of revenues in budget. (BDR S-1252)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 246.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 275: Makes appropriation to White Pine County for replacement of antiquated steam heating system in White Pine County Courthouse Complex. (BDR S-895)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 275 was sponsored by Senator McGinness and he indicated it may be indefinitely postponed because of our financial situation.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 275.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 322: Makes appropriation to Mineral County for expenses relating to continued renovation of Hawthorne National Guard Armory into facility to house juvenile offenders. (BDR S-1221)
Chairman Raggio:
Senator McGinness sponsored S.B. 322 and he indicated this may also be indefinitely postponed because of our financial situation.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 322.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 341: Requires Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources to conduct study of feasibility of establishing program for assisted living for certain low-income persons. (BDR S-303)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 341 is Senator McGinness’ bill and he indicated this may also be indefinitely postponed because of our financial situation.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 341.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 342: Establishes pilot program to provide support services for persons who provide care for certain persons with brain damage. (BDR S‑302)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 342 is Senator McGinness’ bill and he indicated this may also be indefinitely postponed because of our financial situation.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 342.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 343 is Senator McGinness’ bill and he indicated this may be indefinitely postponed because of our financial situation.
SENATE BILL 343:Requires board of public employees’ benefits program to provide long-term care coverage for state employees and retirees. (BDR 23‑299)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 343.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 386:Requires certain school districts to use electronic textbooks to extent practicable. (BDR 34-1099)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 386 is Senator Porter’s bill and he indicated this may also be indefinitely postponed.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 386.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
That is all of the senate bills that may be indefinitely postponed today. Are there any members of this committee who have any bills they have sponsored that can be heard and indefinitely postponed?
There being no response, I would like to go over the list of bills that have been requested by various senators and need to be heard by this committee. We will schedule these bills that need to be heard, or have been requested to be heard, beginning this Friday, May 11, 2001, following the meeting of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs at 4:00 p.m. Any bills not heard on that date will be continued for hearing on Saturday morning, May 12.
Chairman Raggio:
The first bill that will be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 41 sponsored by Senator Jacobsen.
SENATE BILL 41: Makes appropriation to Carson City Fire Department for enhancement of Northern Nevada Regional Fire Training Facility. (BDR S‑687)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill that will be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 84, which is the parity bill for the Nevada Highway Patrol requested by Senator Amodei.
SENATE BILL 84: Provides formula to calculate salaries of officers of Nevada highway patrol of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 23‑750)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 160 will be placed on the hearing list.
SENATE BILL 160: Creates position of seed bank coordinator within division of forestry of state department of conservation and natural resources. (BDR 47‑725)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 178, sponsored by Senator Titus, will be placed on the hearing list.
SENATE BILL 178: Makes appropriation to Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. (BDR S-136)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 230.
SENATE BILL 230: Makes various changes relating to juveniles. (BDR 16-575).
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 232. Some of these bills will not take a lot of time. We will hear as many bills as we can on Friday, May 11, and carry over on Saturday, May 12, if necessary.
SENATE BILL 232: Provides for collection of information on economic background of child referred to system of juvenile justice and requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to determine whether children of racial or ethnic minorities and children from economically disadvantaged homes are receiving disparate treatment in system of juvenile justice. (BDR 5-573)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 276.
SENATE BILL 276: Increases amount of longevity payments to state employees. (BDR 23-1137)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 325, which was sponsored by Senator Titus and Senator Wiener.
SENATE BILL 325: Makes appropriation to Nevada Association for the Handicapped for expansion of Developmental Child Care Program. (BDR S-953)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 326, which was sponsored by Senator Jacobsen.
SENATE BILL 326: Makes appropriation to State Public Works Board for construction of veterans’ home in northern Nevada. (BDR S-709)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 331, which was sponsored by Senator Amodei.
SENATE BILL 331: Makes appropriation to Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association for repromulgation of regulations governing disputes. (BDR S‑776)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 332, which was sponsored by Senator Amodei.
SENATE BILL 332: Makes appropriations for historical facility in Virginia City and for preservation of cemeteries within Virginia City National Historic Landmark District. (BDR S-947)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 335, which was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
SENATE BILL 335: Enacts provisions pertaining to problem gambling. (BDR 41‑1105)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 346, which was sponsored by the Senator James.
SENATE BILL 346: Creates position of coordinator of requests for grants in department of education. (BDR 34-1218)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 371, which was re-referred to this committee and sponsored by Senator Schneider.
SENATE BILL 371: Creates state committee on pain management issues. (BDR 40‑1242)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 379, which was sponsored by Senator Titus and others.
SENATE BILL 379: Provides for payment of retention bonuses to certain state employees. (BDR S-1166)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 388 sponsored by Senator Porter.
SENATE BILL 388: Requires establishment of program to distribute donated books to certain pupils enrolled in preschool programs and elementary schools. (BDR 34-1100)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 407 sponsored by Senator Porter.
SENATE BILL 407: Makes appropriation to Interim Finance Committee for allocation to certain public television stations and public radio stations. (BDR S-1046)
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill to be placed on the hearing list is S.B. 417 sponsored by Senator Schneider. I received a letter signed by all nine Democratic Senators who would like that bill heard.
SENATE BILL 417: Requires combined expenditure per pupil for public schools to equal or exceed national average. (BDR 32-968)
Senator O’Donnell:
Committee, you are going through a number of bills. With the financial situation the state is in, would it be incumbent upon the people sponsoring a bill to present evidence on each respective bill to suggest where the source of revenue will come from?
Chairman Raggio:
That is part of the hearing process. These are all of the senate bills for which I have letters regarding scheduling a hearing. I have a letter from Senator Rawson who indicates he has a few additional bills.
Senator Rawson:
I have two bills that need to be heard. These bills will have proposed amendments and we will be able to deal with these this weekend or whenever you desire, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
There are other bills that we have prepared to work on today that have proposed amendments. Let me quickly go through my list and make sure that all of these requests have been honored.
Senator Jacobsen and Senator Care requested S.B. 135 be heard and it has been heard.
SENATE BILL 135: Makes various changes concerning veterans’ homes. (BDR 37‑1032)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 141 has been heard and it has been passed out in another committee. Senator Rhoads requested a number of bills.
SENATE BILL 141: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning State Fire Marshal Division of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. (BDR 42-404)
Chairman Raggio:
S.B. 97 was requested to be heard by Senator Rhoads and that was heard in this committee. That can be included in the revenue bond proposal of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).
SENATE BILL 97: Makes appropriation to State Public Works Board for construction of residence facilities at Great Basin College, Elko campus. (BDR S-697)
Chairman Raggio:
Senator Rhoads also requested S.B. 14 be heard and that bill was heard in this committee. He has indicated that he will review his other “spending” bills to determine whether any can be indefinitely postponed.
SENATE BILL 14: Makes appropriation to Department of Education for vocational student organizations. (BDR S-98)
Chairman Raggio:
Senator Porter had a number of requests, some of which were on our list. S.B. 385 was heard in our committee. Senator Titus had a number of bills in addition to the ones we have listed for hearing.
SENATE BILL 385: Authorizes expenditures from state distributive school account for educational technology for school libraries. (BDR S-1216)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 95 was heard in our committee. As you may recall, committee, that had a fiscal note of $1 million each year.
SENATE BILL 95: Revises provisions authorizing state employees to obtain additional retirement credit as payment for unused sick leave. (BDR 23-210)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 40 was requested to be heard by Senator Washington and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 40: Makes appropriations to Department of Administration for allocation to Board of Regents to provide scholarships for certain students enrolled in medical and dental schools. (BDR S-646)
Chairman Raggio:
Senator James had a long list, some of which we have included on this committee’s hearing schedule. S.B. 193 was requested to be heard by letter from Senator James and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 193: Makes various changes concerning department of prisons. (BDR 16-311)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 181 was requested to be heard by letter from Senator James and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 181: Makes various changes to retirement benefits of justices of supreme court and judges of district court. (BDR 1-518).
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 184 was requested to be heard by letter from Senator James and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 184: Adjusts prospective salary of supreme court justices and district court judges. (BDR 1-517)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 197 was requested to be heard by letter from Senator James and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 197: Revises provisions governing date on which offender is eligible to be assigned to participate in therapeutic community. (BDR 16-23)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 241 was requested to be heard by letter from Senator James and was previously heard in our committee.
SENATE BILL 241: Revises provisions relating to determination of whether certain offenders constitute menace to health, safety or morals of others. (BDR 16‑435)
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, that concludes the total list of requests. Are there any other bills from this committee to add to the list of those to be heard? As of next week, if requests have not been received, we will proceed to indefinitely postpone all remaining bills.
Senator Coffin:
You gave us a breakdown of the report of the Economic Forum. We know what we need to do, as far as the current year. What about the budget in general? Have you entered into discussions with the Governor as to whether he should revise some portions of the budget? For example, if we are closing the UCCSN budget tomorrow, it sounds as if the Governor is leaving that to our judgment. Is that a fair statement?
Chairman Raggio:
As I indicated, we sent a joint letter to the Governor telling him we recognize the shortfall that would occur from projected revenue. In response to that letter, the Governor indicated he would send us a list of recommended modifications in the “one-shot” appropriations for this year, as well as the budgets. That has been done and our staff has reviewed that list. Mr. Arberry, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and I have reviewed it with the Governor. At this point, no decisions have been made. Regarding the UCCSN budget, I know the Governor has talked with UCCSN representatives, advising them of the potential cuts. Apparently they are now in discussion as to how to handle that matter. We will be dealing with that tomorrow morning. No decisions have been made, and the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education and Capital Improvement Projects will have to make that recommendation tomorrow during the hearing.
At this time let us open the hearing on S.B. 261.
SENATE BILL 261: Makes various changes to provisions governing time-shares. (BDR 10-819)
Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, American Resort Development Association
My group has worked on this bill through the interim with a number of people. I distributed a handout (Exhibit F), which indicates our proposed amendments to S.B. 261. This shows the specific changes, but the bottom line is we are going to remove four sections.
Chairman Raggio:
Since this committee has not heard this measure, tell us what the bill is in its present form and, then, if you are proposing amendments, tell us what they are.
Mr. Craigie:
The bill deals with timeshare law in Nevada. Over the last two years, the Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, and the industry have worked to put together a bill to remove the timeshare law from Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 116 and place it into its own chapter so there is one chapter that has all the timeshare law in it. That new law on timeshares would be in Chapter 119A of NRS. This is done because the regulations have been split between two chapters, and as Chapter 116 of NRS grows and matures into homeowners’ associations, there are a number of areas for which the homeowner association law does not work well with the timeshare law. They are just not consistent.
Additionally, this bill includes a number of improvements suggested and universally agreed to by all parties. This was not a contested bill before the Senate Committee on Judiciary. There were a couple of questions and issues that required a second reprint. For example, some of those changes would be in the area of “association of timeshares,” which would include provisions regarding that issue because these associations are generally made up of absentee owners.
There were changes made such as, “Any time a manager of these timeshare units has a contract to sell or do business with a supplier or provider of services, they must disclose, under certain circumstances, to their Board of Directors that they have another source of income that is a direct result of the activities they are performing for that group of owners.” These are example of the proposed changes.
There might be other issues that Ms. Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, may want to discuss. But, in general, that is the face of this bill.
Senator Coffin:
Is there anything in this bill pertaining to gambling?
Mr. Craigie:
No, Sir. The reason this bill came to this committee is there are four sections in the law that were proposed to be repealed by this bill, each of which is reprinted in my handout, and each of which, if repealed, would have taken money out of the General Fund.
The bottom line of our proposal is that all four sections are being removed from the repealors. The bottom line is the state keeps its money. After we received our “wake-up call” from Mr. Ghiggeri, my clients, both instate and out, were willing to renew their commitment to this great state on these issues.
With the amendment, two of the sections would be deleted, leaving the law exactly as it is currently. Two of the sections would be slightly changed. NRS 119A.240 and NRS 119A.250 were requested in the bill to be repealed. The amendment draws a line through that section so that it would be repealed. The exhibit reflects emphasis where I have underlined each section that refers to fees, so you can see where the fees are located.
Chairman Raggio:
What page are you talking about?
Mr. Craigie:
I am talking about page 36 of the bill, which reflects the fees provided for in this chapter. The amendment would provide that these registration fees would continue to flow to the state.
With the amendment, provisions governing the reinstatement fee and registration fee are all being restored in this bill. Section 79 on page 3 of my handout shows that NRS 119A.165 is the only one of the three sections that will be repealed. The other two would be restored with the amendment.
In this case you do need to look at the handout (Exhibit F), not at the bill. The handout shows these sections were going to be repealed, and now they are going to be maintained, but slightly amended. Throughout this handout, the only change is the process for timeshare advertisements. Whenever these persons advertise around the county, their advertisements in Nevada are required to be submitted for approval. Two weeks previously everyone agreed that we did not have to submit them to the Real Estate Division. However, in order to justify a fee, there must be a filing.
Chairman Raggio:
How will you control the problem of misleading advertising if it is not approved?
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry:
All timeshare projects have a project broker that answers to NRS Chapter 645 and the standards of advertising.
Chairman Raggio:
Are you in agreement with these proposed amendments?
Ms. Buchanan:
Yes.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone else here on this measure? Thank you for your presentation. We will consider the proposed amendments, if possible, this morning. Let us close the hearing on S.B. 261.
At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 307. We are looking at the first reprint of this bill.
SENATE BILL 307: Provides for employment of special investigator to assist commission of appraisers of real estate and for increase in certain fees of real estate division of department of business and industry. (BDR 54-1062)
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Appraisal Institute:
This bill is a result of an audit conducted by the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). A law was passed several years ago that provided for the certification of appraisers so that Nevada appraisers would be recognized on any federally insured loans. Although we did well on the audit, there was a concern about the number of complaints that had not been resolved by the Real Estate Division.
The American Institute of Appraisers came forward with this bill, initially to request General Fund revenue and to establish a new position, which was not in The Executive Budget. We come to you today saying that, after reconsideration and discussions with Mr. Ghiggeri and Ms. Buchanan, there will be no General Fund impact in our revised proposal. We have decided that, based on the number of examinations that would be required in a potential for field audits, rather than the $125 increase in fees that was recommended in S.B. 307, we are prepared to recommend an annual $40 fee, or $20 fee increase. The fee will go into a fund to hire consultants to do these more complex types of reviews where there have been complaints.
Chairman Raggio:
That is seen on page 3, Section 4, subsection 2 of the bill, which provides for, “not
more than $125.”
Mr. Hillerby:
That will be changed, Mr. Chairman. At this time, we do not have that proposed language prepared for the committee.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, has reviewed this and discussed this issue with Joan Buchanan from the Real Estate Division. We are concerned about setting up a special revenue fund. All the fees that are received currently from licensed appraisers flow to the General Fund. It was our suggestion the $40 fee be increased, and the fee flow to the General Fund and that a General Fund appropriation be provided in this legislation to fund the cost associated with the investigations. Ms. Buchanan has indicated the investigations would cost $2,000 to $3,000 per investigation. She anticipates five investigations per year. That would be $15,000 per year. The $40 fee per licensee or certificate holder would be paid by an estimated 800 appraisers in the state.
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry:
Currently there are 884 licensed appraisers. There are different categories of appraisers and different fees. There are about 350 certified general appraisers and a higher number of certified residential appraisers. There are also residential appraisers, as well as interns. Interns gain experience in the industry and there is a fee for them.
One fee that is not included in the Fiscal Analysis Division’s calculations is the fee for temporary permits. Temporary permits are issued for people who come from out of state to conduct appraisal assignment. Currently, they are charged a $75 fee to conduct business. A majority of these people are doing complex property appraisals, such as golf courses or hospitals. Therefore, it is appropriate to include their fees in this calculation and that the total figure be raised to $23,680.
This cost is an unknown factor. We requested bids for our first investigation for a contract, and the bidder was willing to do it for $100 plus costs. He will have to travel to Las Vegas from his residence in Reno. That low cost is going to be a rare occasion. There are a few complex cases that involve the state’s losing money, that may be so complex the reviews could cost as much as $5,000. I do not know
because it is difficult to predict. I went through the records and, for FY 1999, I found there were three complex properties; for FY 2000 I found six complex properties, and for FY 2001 I found two complex property appraisals. Those are impossible for my current staff to do because they do not have the expertise.
By federal law, under the Uniform Standards of Practice, certain reviews have to be conducted by a certified appraiser, so we have managed well with an appraisal officer who has been trained and has learned from experience. This legislative session increased her support staff from .5 to 1 position. However, the division needs to get out and do audits. For every real estate transaction in Nevada there is an appraisal and there is one person overseeing it, so it has not been adequate.
Chairman Raggio:
I am not sure where this is taking us, Ms. Buchanan. What changes are you agreeing to? Let us start with the fact that we do not believe a special fund is appropriate.
Ms. Buchanan:
The appraisers are increasing their fees and they would like to ensure that this money is dedicated to compliance issues.
Mr. Hillerby:
The appraisers are looking for additional staffing to be able to deal with the high number of complaints so we do not lose our federal certification. This special fund would allow for consultants, rather than hiring full-time staff. These are very complex properties, which a staff person may not be able to handle. It is better to be able to hire the consultants that are needed for the complex property appraisals. We would like to see the Real Estate Division be able to be proactive, rather than only responding to complaints, and to be able to do field audits to be sure appraisal companies are doing their jobs appropriately. We are willing to fund that through this fee increase and we are here to support this bill on behalf of our members. In exchange for an increased fee, we are requesting, with all due respect, that a fund will be used to be sure that we do not lose our certification.
Chairman Raggio:
Committee staff, can we accommodate that without setting up a special fund?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Currently, the certificate holders pay $250 for a certain level of appraisal and $350 for another level of appraisal. That fee is paid every two years and was established by statute in 1989. There has been no increase in the fee since 1989. The Governor did recommend an increase in the staffing in this account by one half‑time position, which has been approved by both subcommittees in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance. Increased General Fund support has been provided.
We are reluctant to split that fee and put part of the fee in the General Fund and part in a special revenue fund. Our suggestion is to increase the fee, provide a separate General Fund appropriation specifically for the purpose of the contract and stipulate that in this legislation. That way, if the fee increase is approved, then the legislation is approved.
Chairman Raggio:
Would that be done by an amendment to this bill?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, that would be done by an amendment to this bill.
Chairman Raggio:
Would you agree to that, Mr. Hillerby?
Mr. Hillerby:
Yes, Sir. I probably misspoke. What Mr. Ghiggeri suggested to me earlier is what Mr. Ghiggeri just stated and we do support that.
Chairman Raggio:
Your concern is that there be enough funding to provide for this function and that you are not going to be penalized by being decertified because you do not have the funding available to carry this out.
Mr. Hillerby:
Exactly.
Chairman Raggio:
We are trying to accommodate that without setting up a special fund. Through the years we have tried to eliminate special funds because of the mischief that can occur with those types of accounts.
Senator Neal:
What type of backlog do you have?
Ms. Buchanan:
When the audit was done we were around 50 applicants behind. Now, we are down to 30 applicants behind. The complex property appraisals are a problem for us to get concluded because of the level of expertise we have on staff.
Mr. Hillerby:
Part of the problem was not necessarily the number of complaints that were behind in being investigated by the Real Estate Division, but rather those complaints in the process of being investigated taking over a year to conclude. Again, that was attributed to the complex nature of the matter.
The length of time to conclude those ongoing cases was one of the main concerns identified in the audit report from FFIEC. Again, the concern was there were several cases that were taking over a year to conclude and a rule promulgated by the FFIEC indicates these complaints must be resolved in less than a year after being investigated.
Ms. Buchanan:
That rule went into effect January 1, 2001.
Senator Neal:
How many cases do you have that are over one year old?
Ms. Buchanan:
I have one case that is over 25 months; six cases that are 19 to 25 months; and seven cases that are 13 to 18 months. With this assistance, we should be able to get caught up.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there anything else you want to offer at this time?
Mr. Hillerby:
We will work with committee staff, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
Please work immediately with our staff so we can get the bill processed with the suggested amendments. Is there any objection from the committee? There being no objections and no others to testify, we will close the hearing on S.B. 307. At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 560.
SENATE BILL 560: Makes various changes to provisions relating to employment practices and prevailing wages for public works. (BDR 28-559)
Terry Johnson, State Labor Commissioner:
First, I want to speak to what I understand to be some confusion regarding the fiscal impact of this bill on state government. Based on conversations I had as recently as Monday afternoon, the Attorney General’s (AG) office had prepared a fiscal note for this bill. However, I have been advised that the AG’s office reviewed its fiscal note and the note was subsequently revised.
Chairman Raggio:
The committee has received a letter (Exhibit G) dated May 2, 2001 from Kimberly Maxson Rushton, Chief Deputy AG indicating that, “After a thorough review of the bill and extensive conversations with the labor commissioner, the Office of the AG has determined that costs associated with additional responsibilities created by the bill can be absorbed by the office at this time.” Therefore, there would be no fiscal impact to S.B. 560. That may solve all of the concerns of this committee.
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, I understand the AG’s office did zero that out, but there are some other fiscal issues that may come before this committee that I wanted to speak to today. Primarily, my concern centers on the fact that down the line there will be a fiscal impact because without this bill, the state labor commissioner will need additional resources to perform the functions that this body has asked us to accomplish. So, this bill actually helps us in that regard.
I want to speak to the fiscal impact of the provision in this bill regarding “awarding bodies.” [NRS Chapter 338.010, Section 9, states: “Public body” means the state, county, city, town, school district or any public agency of this state or its political subdivisions sponsoring or financing a public work.]
There has been considerable amount of concern expressed in this area. I want to clarify that, even without this bill, those same duties that this bill references are still the duties of those awarding bodies and have been since 1937. Therefore, this does not impose a new duty upon the awarding body, but clarifies an existing duty. Even without this bill, that duty still exists.
The Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) has opined that duty exists not once but twice. Awarding bodies have a revenue stream regarding public works that is not available to the labor commissioner. For example, if the awarding body finds a contractor that is not following the public works laws, the awarding body is required to invoke forfeiture provisions. The awarding bodies have funds available to ensure appropriate resolution. However, we are proposing to increase those forfeiture amounts, which the awarding bodies can then use to pay for enforcement.
I want to reiterate this is not a new duty. This bill clarifies an existing duty. There are revenue sources available for the awarding bodies. It needs to be examined, if an argument is presented, that we, the awarding bodies, whether we are state agencies, school districts, cities, or counties, require being monitored by the state labor commissioner.
I hope the discussion will not turn to the awarding bodies’ inability and lack of funding to enforce and monitor their own projects because that is going to open the discussion to new issues. It also will open the “flood gates” to other public bodies throughout this state who may decide they can monitor their public works projects. In that event, and because of the lack of staff, it may burden the state labor commissioner to monitor those projects. I ask careful consideration be given by this committee to that argument.
This is not a new duty upon the awarding bodies. This is clarifying existing duty and we in this administration recognize that we in the Office of Labor Commission inherited a problem, which was a 3-year backlog of work. While we recognize and acknowledge we inherited this problem, we know that if we do not fix it, it becomes our problem. This bill provides for corrective remedies to fix this, and it does so without asking for one additional dollar of General Fund appropriation.
Chairman Raggio:
This bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and we are looking at the amended version. The committee can see from the bill what the changes are. For example, Section 3 makes provision for fines “not more than $5,000 for each violation,” where previously there was not a cap. The Labor Commissioner will, by regulation, establish a sliding scale by duly promulgated regulations.
Then on page 6 there is a provision which restates the expectation today, that “Any person may submit information to the labor commissioner that would support a change in the prevailing wage of a craft or type of work by 50 cents or more per hour....”
Mr. Johnson:
That part on page 6 relates to setting the wage rates that are to be in effect.
Chairman Raggio:
I understand that, but any person may submit information to you to support a change in the prevailing wage.
Mr. Johnson:
Yes.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there anything else you would like to point out?
Mr. Johnson:
I would like to point out just the part that is likely to generate the most discussion, which is Section 9 where the law for the past 65 years had indicated that, “Any public body and its officers or agents awarding a contract shall take cognizance of complaints of and determine whether a violation has been committed and inform the labor commissioner of any such violations.” We want to clarify that so it is in line with the Legislature’s intent that public bodies investigate complaints.
Chairman Raggio:
It is their duty to investigate, not the labor commissioner’s duty to investigate.
Mr. Johnson:
That is their primary duty.
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, those of us who serve on the Senate Committee on Government Affairs heard extensive testimony on this issue. Are there any questions from the committee at this point? Are there any others to testify?
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors - LV:
We support S.B. 560. It has been unfair for our members to have bid on public works projects expecting to pay the public works prevailing wage and then to have been undercut by businesses that were not paying the prevailing wage. So, we are in favor of S.B. 560.
Chairman Raggio:
You understand there is currently no fiscal note on this bill?
Mr. Milliken:
Yes, Sir.
Berlyn D. Miller, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractor’s Association:
We are in support of S.B. 560. To carry on the labor commissioner’s comments about the other public agencies and bodies, I have been in the construction business for more than 40 years. We are not asking the labor commissioner to investigate or check every contactor on every job. Most of our contractors in this state are legitimate and pay the proper prevailing wages and other benefits required by law. We need that level playing field. We need the level of enforcement that Commissioner Johnson is bringing. We are supportive of it, but the contractors should know they will be checked periodically and there may be spot checks by the agencies. That knowledge, alone, will make more of them comply with the law.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any other questions?
Senator Neal:
Mr. Johnson, how many members do you have on your staff?
Mr. Johnson:
There are currently 20 staff members of the Office of Labor Commissioner.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there anyone else to testify? This can be passed without amendment. Does anyone object to this bill?
Rose McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I have a letter (Exhibit H) from Mr. Frederick C. Smith, who is the construction manager for the Clark County School District. In that letter, he clearly commends the labor commissioner for bringing this measure forward. However, he points out a problem with respect to his interpretation of the measure related to the need for entities, such as the school district, to move beyond simply checking the veracity of prevailing wages, and moving to the role of investigation.
Chairman Raggio:
This substantive issue was heard in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
Ms. McKinney-James:
Yes, that is my understanding.
Chairman Raggio:
The prime concern of this committee is the fiscal impact, which no longer exists on this bill. However, go ahead and make your point.
Ms. McKinney-James:
The issue raised in this letter has to do with the impact on the school district with respect to investigations. In this letter, Mr. Smith does speak to resources. I heard the chairman reference a letter from the AG’s office. It was my understanding that Mr. Johnson was offering clarification with respect to fiscal impact on the state.
Chairman Raggio:
What the AG’s office said, via Kimberly Maxson Rushton, Chief Deputy AG, was that, after a thorough review of the bill and extensive conversations with the labor commissioner, the Office of the AG has determined that costs associated with additional responsibilities can be absorbed by the office at this time. That relates to Section 3 of the bill, which designates the AG, rather than each county’s district attorney, the duty of prosecuting violators.
Ms. McKinney-James:
I will leave this letter with the committee. The letter speaks to what Mr. Smith believes is a shift in responsibility from a centralized effort to investigate to a decentralized effort. There is concern regarding this additional responsibility for the Office of Labor Commissioner.
Chairman Raggio:
Rhetorically, how much change is in Section 9. The existing law says that any public body and its officers or agents awarding a contract shall take cognizance of violations committed in the execution of the contract. That is what the law now states. This bill states “When making payments to the contractor of money becoming due under the contract, withhold and retain all sums forfeited….” Would it be implied that if the public body takes cognizance and withholds payments, they would have to make some kind of investigation, even under the existing law? It would seem to me that is what the statute means.
Ms. McKinney-James:
I would not disagree with you, Mr. Chairman. However, I simply point out that, according to our personnel at the district, including our assistant general counsel, there is a concern as to moving the level of current investigation or inquiry to a level that will require additional resources. That is what Mr. Smith points out in his letter (Exhibit H).
Chairman Raggio:
Is there other testimony on this measure?
James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:
We have provided a handout (Exhibit I), which is a summary regarding S.B. 560. We disagree on one point with the interpretation of the labor commissioner. Overall, we admire and respect what the labor commissioner is doing with Nevada labor law. Other than with this one interpretation of the law, we have no qualms with what he is doing and what he is proposing.
Page 7, Section 9, essentially changes current law from “take cognizance of” to “investigate possible” violations and determine whether a violation has been committed. After that has been concluded, the public body awarding the contract is to inform the labor commissioner of any such violations. In contrast, current law requires a public body to take cognizance of complaints and violations. We believe the framers of the statute were very wise in their choice of words. In our summary we distinguish between the words “cognizance” and “investigate” and then address the duties thereof. There is one definition of “cognizance” that is a judicial definition, but we are not the judiciary.
Current law requires action by a public body when it receives complaints of violations. This bill requires a public body to investigate possible violations. We believe there is a significant difference in duties and responsibilities. Complaints of violations require a public body to receive any information from any source and do something with it. Current statutes state if an officer or agent of a public body fails to do that, the person should be charged with a misdemeanor.
The labor commissioner asserts that NRS 338.070 already requires those public bodies to conduct full investigations. This provision only requires a full investigation of money withheld, retained or forfeited, and only if that money is withheld, retained or forfeited from progress payments. The provision the labor commissioner cites says nothing about who investigates the causes or the violations of the law that led to money being withheld, retained or forfeited.
The correct reason for this reference is fundamental to good purchasing and contract law for two reasons. First, anytime anyone requests that money be withheld from a contractor who has performed the contract, a full investigation of that request must ensue. A purchasing manager is professionally and ethically bound to investigate and verify such a serious request. Secondly, progress payments are the cash flow of a contract and the necessary lifeblood of the contract. General contractors and subcontractors rely on that cash flow to continue contract performance. Therefore, that money should not be withheld, retained or forfeited without the most thorough determination that such is proper.
Additionally, there are many references in the statutes to the obligation of the labor commissioner to “investigate” and “determine.” We have several that refer to his duties and ability to recover costs of the proceeding, including investigative costs and attorneys’ fees. The labor commissioner may assess, after a hearing, unpaid prevailing wages along with administrative fines for costs. Public bodies do not have the responsibility, authority or power to independently investigate, adjudicate, fine, or impose administrative costs for alleged labor law violations.
This bill also ignores NRS 338.150, which requires all disputes between the public body and the contractor regarding the terms of the contract to be resolved by arbitration. This would mean that the public body is in conflict with one statute or the other if it investigates and does not arbitrate, or arbitrates and does not investigate.
S.B. 560 requirements contradict several principles and procedures of professional contract administration. Technical violations of any number of laws or contract provisions are always forwarded to the “experts” for investigation. These experts are supposed to be knowledgeable in several areas: the legal and technical requirements, investigative techniques and special knowledge of the many ways the laws can be violated. No single public body possesses that expertise. In many instances a public body is the last to know when an investigation is taking place in order to not arouse the suspicion of the violator. I personally have had a number of experiences with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, local law enforcement, and other agencies. Requiring the public body to be an expert investigator would surely risk the gathering of evidence.
We are concerned with this shift in responsibility, the burden, as well as the expense, differing logistics, and different administrative requirements this bill would place on us. For example, the Clark County School District, in a part of their letter (Exhibit G), notes the school district is concerned that multiple municipalities in the Las Vegas Valley could review the same contract regarding the same violations and come up with different conclusions.
We have proposed an amendment to this bill. It is the only one that we would propose that changes the wording back to what is currently law. Our purchasing management position asked our members to circulate our analysis of this situation, along with the labor commissioner’s comments about the law, statutes, and interpretations thereof. Our members solicited the opinion of their municipal attorneys. All of those attorneys agreed with our interpretation of the statute. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Chairman Raggio:
We will make this part of the record, along with your proposed amendment, which would delete Section 9 of S.B. 560.
John L. Balentine, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:
The question this committee is being asked to decide is what role should the various government entities play in the investigation of possible prevailing wage violations and enforcement of those statutes. In making that decision, it is essential this committee understand it is a question of resources. Whatever governmental entity has the responsibility for investigating the possible violations of the prevailing wage statute is going to need those resources.
Should this function be decentralized and performed by various local governments, or should the function remain centralized, being performed by the state labor commissioner? Very simply, the proposed legislation would decentralize that responsibility by requiring each of us in local government to investigate possible violations. This could produce inefficiencies and inconsistencies that would impact the effectiveness of the prevailing wage statutes and unnecessarily cost the taxpayers money. For instance, the different local governments could come to totally different conclusions and render conflicting rulings on basically identical information. The potential inconsistencies resulting from multiple governments reaching different conclusions compared to the consistencies of a single governmental entity making the determination should, indeed, be obvious. Therefore, from a perspective of the efficiency and consistency, we believe the responsibility for investigating possible violations of the prevailing wage statutes should remain centralized with the office of the state labor commissioner.
Regardless of the outcome of S.B. 560, we will continue working cooperatively with the labor commissioner and his staff to ensure the enforcement of the wage laws.
Chairman Raggio:
Was this information presented to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs?
Mr. Keenan:
We were prepared to testify before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs from a purchasing management perspective, which is what our group represents. When we heard the labor commissioner testifying from his perspective with regard to statutes, LCB legal audits, and interpretations thereof, we felt it necessary to pull back and seek our own legal advice. We believe this because, even though we may have felt we were correct, and still do from a purchasing perspective, we are not lawyers and we are not qualified to interpret the law. That is why we pulled back and sought the legal advice of the municipal attorneys of our membership before testifying to make sure that, while we believe we are on firm purchasing ground, we now believe we are also on firm legal grounds with regard to our interpretation of that one provision. But, at that time, we were not prepared to address legal issues.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there any other testimony on this matter? Would you like to respond to this, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson:
You were correct, Mr. Chairman, when you said the law already exists. It has been the law for 65 years. This committee cannot close the barn door after the horse is out after 65 years. Now we are coming forward and our agency does not have the resources.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Keenan’s point is that cognizance, by their definition, does not mean this type of full investigation. They point out, for example, that without the labor commissioner’s office doing these kinds of investigations, there would likely be inconsistencies. Each public body will come up with a different conclusion and interpretation. How do you respond to that issue?
Mr. Johnson:
First of all, regarding Section 9, please note that public bodies have two duties. We discussed in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs how the meaning of the word “shall” imposes a duty to act. As you can see in Section 9 of the bill, existing statute says a public body shall take cognizance of complaints of violations, and withhold and retain all sums forfeited pursuant to this section. Existing statute also states in subsection 2 of NRS 338.070 that no sum may be withheld, retained or forfeited, except from the final payment, without a full investigation being made by the awarding body or its agents. It does not say by the labor commissioner or his agents. That has been the law for 65 years.
Chairman Raggio:
What about that language, gentlemen? Mr. Johnson is citing the language in the existing NRS 338.070, which is in Section 9 of S.B. 560, which reads, “No sum may be withheld, retained or forfeited, except from the final payment, without a full investigation being made by the awarding body or its agents.”
Mr. Keenan:
Our interpretation of that section is that after the labor commissioner or other experts find violations of the labor law and ask us to withhold, retain or forfeit money, then we investigate the reason for that. That is our interpretation.
Chairman Raggio:
But before the final investigation, as you determine it is made, you are going to be withholding the money?
Mr. Keenan:
Not without a basis for it. Our basis is the recommendation or the direction of the labor commissioner after we have forwarded to him a report of suspected violations.
Chairman Raggio:
Would that not be too late after you make the payment?
Mr. Keenan:
It would not be, because there is a complete stream of progress payments, as well as the final payment. If there are claims, suspicions, or any possible forfeitures, we have the right to withhold final payment.
Chairman Raggio:
Committee staff, please advise the Legal Division of this conflict of interpretation regarding this section in S.B. 560. Please ask them to give us a report.
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Chairman, a second opinion was requested of the LCB Legal Division about 3 or 4 weeks ago. The second opinion says the same thing. The first opinion was heard in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs when we were discussing the merits of the case. I thought today we were just going to be talking about the fiscal impact.
Chairman Raggio:
We did not have this kind of testimony in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. It is my understanding this testimony was not presented at that meeting. However, Mr. Keenan has now explained that, and there are legal interpretations that are of concern to this committee. I would like to have LCB counsel check this out. Mr. Johnson, you are welcome to offer legal input.
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Chairman, you gave me the opportunity to respond and I would like to talk about the decentralization issue. In the Senate Committee on Government Affairs we discussed the labor commissioner’s duties and we have proposed regulations. We will finalize them after the session is over, but now I would talk about the centralization issue. Once the awarding body makes a decision, any party can appeal it to the labor commissioner. The labor commissioner will act as the coordinating element as the Legislature intended. The labor commissioner was not even in the law when it was first written, but was added 40 years after the fact.
Chairman Raggio:
Do you have a formal legal opinion that supports your position, Mr. Keenan?
Mr. Keenan:
Mr. Chairman, we do not have that in writing, but we can solicit the various municipal attorneys again that we previously talked to.
Chairman Raggio:
This committee needs to act promptly. By mid-week we would need whatever you would like to present reflecting your position.
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Chairman, my final comment is that we can follow the law as it is written, or we can make it up as we go along.
Chairman Raggio:
We need to determine what our legal counsel states the law is on this issue. Are there any others present to testify on this bill? We will close the hearing on S.B. 560.
SENATE BILL 320: Requires managed care organizations to establish system for independent review of final adverse determinations concerning allocations of health care resources and services. (BDR 57-676)
Chairman Raggio:
I understand there is a proposed amendment to S.B. 320. We cannot hold the hearing today because it has not been noticed. However, we will place it on the agenda for May 3, 2001, at 4:00 p.m., which is the next meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance. We have the amendment analysis. Committee staff will be prepared to hand that out to us.
ASSEMBLY BILL 609: Extends authorized period of expenditure of certain money appropriated to department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR S‑1319)
Chairman Raggio:
Let us now open the hearing on A.B. 609.
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
This bill is to extend the date of reversion of any funds left over from the original appropriations from June 30, 2001, to December 31, 2001. The final part of the project is scheduled for completion on September 15, 2001. We need to extend the reversion date so that we can finish the last purchase of modular furniture and equipment.
Chairman Raggio:
Does staff have any objections to this?
Senator Neal:
How much money are we talking about?
Mr. Colling:
The original appropriation was $1,185,476. We have remaining approximately $435,000. We have spent about $750,000.
Chairman Raggio:
What are we buying for all this money?
Mr. Colling:
Mr. Chairman, we are purchasing a modular unit which includes a “U-shaped” counter with a separation for each employee to have his or her separate area, chair, shelving, and five-drawer file cabinet. This allows us to make greater use of our space.
Chairman Raggio:
Is this in the newly-remodeled facility?
Mr. Colling:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. This will be for the top floor of the east building of the two buildings.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Staff will be recommending, in the closure of the budgets of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, to utilize a portion of this funding for positions recommended in The Executive Budget. Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, has been in communication with the agency, and part of that remaining funding will be used to fund those positions.
Chairman Raggio:
Are you aware of that, Mr. Colling?
Mr. Colling:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there anything further on this bill?
Senator Jacobsen:
Are you purchasing anything made by Prison Industries?
Mr. Colling:
No, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
We will now close the hearing on A.B. 609.
SENATE BILL 261: Makes various changes to provisions governing time-shares. (BDR 10-819)
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, let us look at S.B. 261. If there are no objections from the committee, we can take a motion to amend and do pass.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 261.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, let us look at A.B. 609. Unless there are any objections, I will take a motion to do pass.
ASSEMBLY BILL 609: Extends authorized period of expenditure of certain money appropriated to department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR S‑1319)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.609.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 307, which was heard earlier in this meeting, requires work on an amendment. We need legal guidance on S.B. 560, which was also heard earlier in this meeting.
Next, we will turn to budget closings on Closing List Number 10 (Exhibit .).
Gaming Control Board – Budget Page GAMING 1 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-4061
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative counsel Bureau: (Note: Mr. Chapman’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 1.)
Staff recommends the following technical adjustments:
1. Reduce decision unit M-100 by $9,046 in FY 2002 and by $21,476 in FY 2003 for state-owned building rent for the Gaming Control Board’s (GCB) Las Vegas office space in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building.
2. Reduce decision unit E-275 by $7,275 in FY 2002 and increase decision unit E‑275 by $5,156 in FY 2003 for stated-owned building rent for additional space in the Sawyer building.
In the base budget the Governor recommended $177,500 in each year of the biennium to continue the credential pay program, which committee staff recommends be removed from the base budget and included in the unclassified pay bill.
The supplemental unclassified salary adjustment is the main component of this budget for this biennium. Decision unit E-806 recommends over $2.1 million in each year of the biennium for additional salary adjustments for 341 unclassified professional staff, reclassification of 20 positions, and to provide supplemental funding of $222,500 per year, which is above the traditional $177,500 approved by the Legislature to allow the full $5,000 credential payment to all qualified employees.
Chairman Raggio:
That is over and above the recommended cost of living adjustment (COLA) for state employees.
Mr. Chapman:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I have provided an attachment (Exhibit J, page 5), which shows the total funding and salary and benefits costs associated with decision unit E-806. Another attachment (Exhibit J, page 6) provides a breakdown by position of how the salary adjustments would be applied. It is not a straight across-the-board percentage calculation. This allows the agency to realign salaries within the agencies. A third attachment (Exhibit J, page 7) shows the reclassification of the 20 positions with current titles and recommended titles along with the associated salary changes.
The additional $222,500 per year for the credential pay program would be in addition to the previously Legislative-approved amount of $177,500 per year. The committee may wish to consider including this amount in the unclassified pay bill as a separate item similar to the $177,500.
Chairman Raggio:
It would be consistent to put it in the unclassified pay bill.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The $177,500 has historically been provided in the unclassified pay bill. If I understand it correctly, the additional $222,500 is coming out of the Investigative Fund, which is something new. The proposal by the agency would provide for the $5,000 payment to all 80 staff members that are currently eligible.
Mr. Chapman:
It would provide payment for up to 80 individuals. In FY 2000 there were 65 individuals that qualified.
The funding for this total compensation package comes from the Investigative Fund, which is obtained from fees assessed to licensees and applicants. The decision items before the committee are whether to approve the funding necessary to finance the salary increases, whether to approve the supplemental pay plan to supplement the current $177,500 per year and increase it by an additional $222,500 per year, and whether that should be included in the unclassified pay bill with specific language for its usage similar to that utilized for the current pay plan.
This committee must determine whether to issue a Letter of Intent requiring funding of salary adjustments in this decision unit to come from the Investigative Fund in future biennia.
Chairman Raggio:
Before this, has it come out of the General Fund?
Mr. Chapman:
For the most part, the General Fund funds salaries for the agency. There are transfers of investigation fees from the investigation account to the main account to offset the cost of conducting investigations, thereby reducing the burden on the General Fund.
The Governor recommends funding of $16,320 in each year of the biennium to expand the agency’s Las Vegas offices in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, currently occupied by the Secretary of State. Assembly Bill 522 would provide funding to relocate the Secretary of State’s office into space occupied by the Division of Environmental Protection.
ASSEMBLY BILL 522: Makes appropriation to Buildings and Grounds Division of Department of Administration for moving expenses of various agencies to and from Grant Sawyer State Office Building. (BDR S-1356)
Mr. Chapman:
The last item is the recommendation to transfer funding to establish a new budget account for the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC).
Chairman Raggio:
Let us consider each item. Are there any objections by the committee to approve the funding to finance the salary increases for unclassified personnel? Even though we may not object to that, I think it should be included in the unclassified salary bill. Does the committee wish to approve the funding of $222,500 for the supplemental credential payment program? That is that $5,000 bonus that is given for retention of employees. Are there any objections from the committee? On the supplemental payment, do we want to include language that we have had in the past that outlines which individuals qualify for the payment plan allowing up to $5,000 per year payment. We would put that in the unclassified pay bill, correct, Mr. Chapman?
Mr. Chapman:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
We would include language previously specified. Is that agreeable with the committee?
Committee staff suggests a Letter of Intent that in the future these salary adjustments that are being funded out of the Investigative Fund continue to be funded out of the Investigative Fund.
Mr. Chapman:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The concern is that at least this portion of the salaries be covered by this type of funding, as opposed to taking that revenue out of the General Fund.
Chairman Raggio:
Does anyone object to a Letter of Intent for that purpose? As I understand the funding request on expanding the offices, that is contingent upon the Assembly bill being approved?
Mr. Chapman:
Assembly Bill 522 would fund the remodeling cost. The GCB staff would move to a space currently occupied by the Division of Environmental Protection.
Chairman Raggio:
Our action would be contingent upon passage of that bill and Mr. Chapman’s appropriate adjustments for rent?
Mr. Chapman:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The rent in decision unit E-275 reflects the space that is proposed to be occupied and is funded through the General Fund.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there any objection from the committee? Are there any objections to decision unit E-900? With that in mind, I will take a motion to approve this budget with the adjustments recommended by staff.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4061 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO STAFF ADJUSTMENTS, SUBJECT TO PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 522, AND INCLUDING A LETTER OF INTENT REQUIRING FUNDING OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS COME FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE FUND IN FUTURE BIENNIA AND THAT THESE BE PLACED IN THE UNCLASSIFIED PAY BILL.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin:
I need to make a disclosure. I have a gaming client. I have looked at these three budgets and none of these budgets would affect my client any differently than any other client in this business. So, I will declare that and be voting.
Chairman Raggio:
I will disclose that I serve on a board of a company that has a gaming license and am a director of the Santa Fe Gaming Company.
Senator Neal:
Does the motion include the salary increases listed in both attachments?
Chairman Raggio:
There was no objection from the committee that I heard. I think those were referenced to be in the unclassified salary bill.
Senator Neal:
Thank you. I do not have a problem.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I would like to clarify that the motion would include that the unclassified pay subcommittee would review the recommended salary increases for the unclassified positions.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Gaming Commission – Budget Page GAMING 7 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-4067
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst: (Note: Mr. Chapman’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Budget Closing List Number 10, page 8.)
Staff is not recommending any technical adjustments. The first decision item for the committee is the transfer of current costs for the agency salaries, travel expenditures and some operating costs from the GCB budget account to this proposed new account.
The other item is decision unit E-175, which recommends two additional positions, one Senior Research Analyst Specialist position and one Program Assistant III position. This decision unit would be funded through the General Fund with $227,983 in the first year and $213,925 in the second year.
There was not a lot of specificity included in the information provided by the GCB in support of this decision unit. I have made checkpoints on the major items included in the decision unit. For example, out-of-state travel expenditures of $15,255 each year are based on three international trips and four national trips. Again, there was not a lot of detail supplied by the agency regarding the type of trips they intended to take or the purposes of the trips.
Operating expenses are $48,545 each year for legal, technology, and financial contract services to assist the agency staff in researching issues. Again, there was not a lot of detail provided by the agency as to the type of contract services anticipated.
The last item is the electronics services laboratory category requesting funding of $13,990 in the first year and $6,890 in the second year of the biennium. This will provide for the purchase of computer and communication devices for the laboratory. Based upon the information provided, staff has not been able to determine whether these additional costs are reasonable.
Chairman Raggio:
Since this is a new budget, we will have to monitor it over the course of the biennium.
Mr. Chapman:
I agree. These figures are based upon estimates. As I indicated, there was not a lot of detail.
Chairman Raggio:
As I recall from previous sessions, one of the problems was that various chairmen of the NGC and the GCB did not always agree on administrative matters. The NGC was then placed in a position requiring it to supplicate to the GCB for authority to travel and complete administrative business. That is not the situation today, but for purposes of administrative independence, this account resolves that past concern.
Senator Neal:
Based on the past international travel record, are the three trips that are listed justified?
Mr. Chapman:
With respect to past travel, I looked at FY 2000 and there was no international travel included in the category. In my discussion with the GCB and from the budget hearing, both of the agency chairmen indicated a desire to be involved with international gaming issues in Europe and Australia. Obviously, Internet gaming is a big concern for both agencies. Both agencies feel their interaction is necessary to be up-to-date on these issues. That is the justification provided for this travel.
Senator Neal:
I gather you were not able to determine what issues would be useful to the state regarding this travel?
Mr. Chapman:
Nothing specific, no.
Senator Coffin:
On that issue, I am not troubled by the travel for this reason. In the past, members of the agency – and I do not believe they are prohibited from traveling – have traveled as guests of the organizations in this business. I could be wrong, but at the very least they were required to disclose that they did. I would rather see them travel openly on the state’s expense than be sponsored by an organization they might regulate. This might help us have more confidence in their abilities to remain impartial.
Chairman Raggio:
We can cut this kind of expenditure if the committee is of that mind. The agency could also request funding from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). What is the committee’s pleasure?
Committee staff has also pointed out the issue on the two Research positions are in The Executive Budget.
Mr. Chapman:
Correct. The Executive Budget includes these two positions as new positions.
Chairman Raggio:
Can that be funded out of the Investigative Fund?
Mr. Chapman:
I do not know that answer.
Senator Neal:
In relationship to the electronic laboratory category, I see the purchase of the computer and communication devices. Why would this agency require that? It seems to me that equipment exists with the GCB.
Mr. Chapman:
The agency indicated the Senior Research Analyst position would be working in conjunction with the GCB staff in evaluating different devices and computer software. My understanding is the NGC is concerned about Internet gaming and proposed regulations for its implementation. In order to recommend proposed regulations for online gaming, the NGC would be testing different computer systems and software packages to evaluate the impact and integrity of Internet gaming.
Senator Neal:
I have this question because it seems as if this position would overlap into the jurisdiction of the GCB.
Mr. Chapman:
My understanding of this funding request would be to allow the Nevada Gaming Commission to conduct its investigations independently. NGC staff would use the assistance of existing laboratory staff, but they wish to do their own independent analyses.
Senator Neal:
Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with this. We are talking about the electronic laboratory category and the Senior Research Analyst to study research technology issues. That seems to me to be the responsibility of the GCB. Apparently, the NGC needs someone to oversee what the GCB has done. If you do not trust the GCB, then we are in trouble.
Chairman Raggio:
What is the committee’s pleasure? Do you want to delete that position?
Senator Neal:
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be deleted.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I believe they are requesting the Senior Research Analyst to provide research support for the NGC, similar to the analyst who provides that function for the GCB. Regarding the electronics laboratory cost, I am unclear as to why the Senior Research Analyst would be looking in that area. I do believe, however, the Senior Research Analyst would be providing the support in other areas to the NGC similar to that provided for the GCB. They have asked for salary parity for the two analysts, so the one working for the GCB and the one working for the NGC are equal.
Chairman Raggio:
We should hold this budget account over until tomorrow’s meeting. Committee staff, will you please contact the NGC and GCB to appear, respond, and justify these requests. Please express to them Senator Neal’s concern.
Gaming Control Board Investigative Fund – Budget Page GAMING 9 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 244-4063
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau: (Note: Mr. Chapman’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 11.)
Staff has no recommendations for technical adjustments.
Chairman Raggio:
I will take a motion to close this budget as recommended by the Governor.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 244-4063 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Public Utilities Commission - Budget Page PUC -1 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 224-3920
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst: (Note: Mr. Chapman’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 12.)
Minor technical adjustments are recommended by committee staff. The first decision item is revenues and reserves. As the committee may recall, there was some discussion during an IFC meeting in May 2000 regarding the reserve issue. At that time, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) reduced its mill assessment in order to reduce reserve levels for this account.
The committee may recollect the audit report regarding collection of assignments from commercial mobile radio service (CMRS). There have been disputes between that industry and the PUC regarding regulatory assessments. Currently, S.B. 210 has a section in it where the mill assessment would not be applied to the CMRS providers, and instead they would pay an annual license fee of $200. Also, the PUC does collect a mill assessment on behalf of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
SENATE BILL 210: Makes various changes concerning regulation of utilities. (BDR 58-540)
Chairman Raggio:
Is there any decision the committee needs to make on that?
Mr. Chapman:
No, Mr. Chairman, this is only provided as information.
Module M-200 recommends eliminating 6 positions, which results in a reduction of $440,757 in the first year and $457,327 in the second year of the biennium. This would reduce the staff from 86 positions currently to 80.
A chart of the PUC recent reorganization is provided (Exhibit J, page 14). If the committee approves, these positions will reflect the new titles in the unclassified pay bill.
Chairman Raggio:
I think that would be appropriate, committee. When we do the unclassified pay bill, committee staff will note these new titles. I do not believe the committee has any objection to what the agency calls these positions.
Mr. Chapman:
At the time of the budget hearings, the PUC indicated the elimination of the 6 positions would provide adequate staffing. Since the hearing, A.B. 369 has been approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor on April 18, 2001.
ASSEMBLY BILL 369: Revises and repeals various provisions governing the regulation of public utilities. (BDR 58-1156)
Mr. Chapman:
As a result of the passage of this bill, the PUC will be required to review new deferred energy filings and accounting cases. As a result of additional workload, the PUC has requested to reinstate the two financial analysis positions that were slated for elimination. Based upon the information supplied by the agency (Page 17 of Exhibit J), it appears the workload statistics would support reinstatement of these two positions.
Chairman Raggio:
The net result would be eliminating 4 positions, but reinstating 2 positions of the 6 positions originally recommended for deletion.
Mr. Chapman:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. For decision unit E-710, the agency requests $159,602 in the first year and $57,560 in the second year of the biennium to replace office equipment, computer hardware, video conferencing equipment and a 4 x 4 vehicle. Staff has reviewed the equipment requests and they appear to be reasonable.
Senator Coffin:
Last fall I expressed concern about the agency’s reduction in staff. I met with Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, and he convinced me his agency had sufficient staff. So much has changed, and this committee should reconsider not only reinstating two positions, rather than more, because of the increased regulatory duties of this agency.
Chairman Raggio:
Committee staff is advising me that if we do this, the agency would have the authority to come to IFC and request additional staffing.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The PUC operates using the mill assessment revenue. Any unused revenue is placed in reserve. The PUC can always request funding for additional staff through the IFC to add positions with funding, either from an increased mill assessment from the reserve.
Chairman Raggio:
It would be prudent to honor the PUC request and defer to their staffing decisions, with the understanding they can request additional positions, as part of change in their work program, from the IFC. Is there a committee motion?
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 224-3920 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE AGENCY APPROACH THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE SHOULD ADDITIONAL STAFFING BE NEEDED.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Commission on Postsecondary Education– Budget Page K12ED-43 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2666
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau: (Note: Mr. Ghiggeri’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 25.)
The Commission on Postsecondary Education is an account that was assigned for staff review and closure. Page 25 (Exhibit J) reflects staff recommendation for closure of this budget account.
There are a couple of issues with this budget account. One issue is S.B. 237, which the Senate has approved and is currently in Assembly Committee on Education.
SENATE BILL 237: Removes commission on postsecondary education from department of education. (BDR 34-1145)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
There would be an adjustment required in this budget if that legislation is approved. Otherwise, staff is recommending approval of this budget as submitted by the Governor. Staff would recommend the provision of authority to make required adjustments if that bill passes.
Chairman Raggio.
I will take a motion to that effect.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-2666 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
OFFICE OF THE MILITARY
Military – Budget Page MILITARY-1 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3650
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau: (Note: Mr. Rodriquez’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 21.)
Staff recommends two technical adjustments to this budget account. The first is in the base budget. In compilation of The Executive Budget, the funding mix between the General Fund and the federal funding sources were slightly misaligned. This technical adjustment realigns that funding.
Chairman Raggio:
This adjustment would augment the federal funding, is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman, with the corresponding reduction in the General Fund.
The second adjustment is for the inflation factor for utility costs that were not correctly applied. This adjustment corrects that. Unfortunately, it results in a net increase of $102,028 in FY 2002 and $220,203 in FY 2003.
Chairman Raggio:
Is that factor 15 percent?
Mr. Rodriguez:
That is 16 percent for electricity and 15 percent for gas.
Chairman Raggio:
Was that merely an oversight?
Mr. Rodriguez:
The agency had incorrectly charged those utilities to general ledgers that the Budget Division did not pick up automatically in its inflation calculation. This adjustment captures those costs.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3650 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
National Guard Benefits – Budget Page Military-8 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3653
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative counsel Bureau: (Note: Mr. Rodriquez’s brief overview of this agency is documented in Exhibit J, Closing List Number 10, page 22.)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3653 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Chairman Raggio:
We will defer discussion of the budget for the Office of Consumer Health Assistance, budget account 101‑1003, which is the last matter on Closing List 10 until the next hearing of the Senate Committee on Finance. Also, we will continue discussions of the Nevada Gaming Commission budget account 101-4067 at the next hearing.
Chairman Raggio adjourned the hearing at 10:36 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
ElizaBeth Root
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: