MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
March 19, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:12 a.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 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. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. David Goldwater
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, BUDGET ACCOUNT 4821 - BUDGET PAGE P.E.R.S. 1
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), introduced Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, and Laura Wallace, Investment Officer. Mr. Pyne presented a summary of the scheduled contribution rate increases effective July 1, 2003. Exhibit C, titled “Public Employees’ Retirement System 2003 Contribution Rates,” was distributed to the Committee.
Mr. Pyne stated that PERS contribution rates were adjusted, if necessary, each odd-numbered year in accordance with the previous year’s actuarial valuation. The June 30, 2002, actuarial valuation would determine if any adjustments in rates were necessary. The retirement statute also stated that any time rates were adjusted, the increase or decrease must be shared on an equal basis between the employee and employer.
Mr. Pyne stated the first page of Exhibit C showed the actuarially determined contribution rates under the employer pay contribution plan. Approximately 80 percent of PERS membership utilized the employer pay contribution plan. For regular members the existing rate was 18.75 percent, the 2002 actuarial rate was 20.32 percent, and based on a rounding mechanism in the statute, the scheduled increase, effective July 1, 2003, for regular members, would increase to 20.25 percent. Mr. Pyne stated that the PERS’ actuary had reported that much of the rate increase was attributable to losses from investments. Those market declines had an impact on the PERS investments just as they had on personal investments.
Mr. Pyne commented that the police and firemen rates would not be raised because the spread between the actuarial rate and statutory rate was less than .5 percent. The statute provided that as long as the actuarial rate was within 1/2 of 1 percent of the statutory rate, no adjustment was needed. Police and firemen rates would remain at 28.50 percent.
The second page of Exhibit C showed similar results for both funds for members contributing under the employee/employer contribution plan. Approximately 20 percent of PERS membership participated under the program, which was a matching, after tax, employee contribution. For regular members the rate was currently 9.75 percent, which was matched by the employer at the same rate. The statutory rate for regular members, effective July 1, 2003, would increase in the aggregate by 1.5 percent. Both the employee rate and the employer match increased from 9.75 percent to 10.50 percent. The police and firemen’s contribution rate remained the same.
Chairman Arberry noted that the Governor had submitted a budget adjustment requesting additional General Fund support of $10.1 million in FY2003-04 and $10.6 million in FY2004-05 to finance 100 percent of the retirement contribution increase for K-12 employees. However, no funding was recommended in The Executive Budget to increase retirement contributions for the University System professional employees while state employees would continue to be responsible for 50 percent of the increase in retirement contributions. Chairman Arberry asked why there were so many different plans and why everyone was not under the same plan.
Mr. Pyne stated that in the mid-1970s the law was changed to allow the professional staff of the University System to opt out of the Public Employees’ Retirement System. The majority of the professional staff of the University System now participated in the University’s retirement program. Mr. Pyne said that it was his understanding that the University System just did a match into their program at the present time. The statute referenced that program, but it was a totally separate retirement plan, not administered by PERS. The University System’s classified employees did participate in the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Mr. Pyne explained that teachers and state employees were all in the same retirement program with the same benefits, the same benefit accrual rate, and the same retirement eligibility. In state government, employees had the choice to participate under one of two programs, either the employer-employee contribution plan, or the employer paid program. All teachers in the state of Nevada were under the employer paid contribution program. There were two different paths that could be taken to participate in the employer paid program. Historically, since 1984, when state employees were first offered the employer paid program, their pay had always been reduced for that participation. The statute said that an employee could participate in the employer paid plan by, 1) a salary cut equivalent to approximately one-half of the total contribution rate, or 2) forego a pay raise equivalent to one-half of the total contribution rate. For instance, in 1975, when the employer paid program began, in lieu of receiving a 7.5 percent pay increase, teachers in Clark County enrolled in the employer paid plan, and when state employees enrolled in the program their pay was reduced by approximately the same percentage.
Mr. Pyne commented that different paths could access the employer paid plan. It appeared that the budget had a built-in reduction of 0.75 percent in state employees’ pay, which represented one-half of the increase for the employer paid contribution plan. Mr. Pyne stated that he was not familiar with the budget, but it appeared that the Governor had not built in a reduction for the teachers.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, stated The Executive Budget, that came out in January 2003, treated the K-12 employees and the state employees the same, with both the employer and employee responsible for one‑half of the 1.5 percent increase in the retirement contribution. Subsequent to The Executive Budget being submitted, a budget modification was submitted to the Legislature that indicated there had been a mistake, and the General Fund should be paying for 100 percent of the retirement contribution increase for K‑12 employees. Based upon the Governor’s revised recommendation, K-12 employees, if the Legislature concurred, would not be responsible for one-half of the retirement contribution increase and the entire 1.5 percent increase would be financed in the budget through the General Fund. For state employees, one‑half of the contribution, or 0.75 percent, was built in as an increase in the retirement contribution rate on behalf of the employer. The state employees on the employer paid plan would have 0.75 percent reduction in gross salary to contribute the remaining 50 percent of the increase. Mr. Stevens noted that in the University System there was no increase built in for University professionals that were not members of PERS.
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System, introduced herself and presented testimony regarding the budget. She stated that the overall proposed budget for the coming biennium was “trending downward” from the base year primarily due to capital expenditures that were removed from the base budget when building the 2004-05 budget. If the Information Technology portion were removed from the budget there would be a downward trend of approximately 3 percent from the base year. If you added Information Technology back into the budget, it was decreasing by a little over 3 percent in each year of the biennium.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that in decision unit M-150, adjustments to base, there was one correction for the record. While reviewing the budget for purposes of testimony, Ms. Bilyeu had noticed that the judge’s actuarial evaluation costs had been included in the overlying PERS budget. Ms. Bilyeu requested that the amount of $22,218 be removed from the base budget, as it was in a different budget category.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that decision unit M-150 showed the removal of fairly substantial dollars due to the completion of the “backfile” imaging project. The project imaged approximately 120,000 files so that all staff had electronic access to files at their desktops. Also removed from the base budget were the contract dollars associated with Web-based enhancement to the underlying computer replacement project. Included in the adjustments to base was longevity pay for staff, as well as minor adjustments to in-state and out-of-state travel. Printing costs were adjusted to return the PERS to the quarterly schedule for printing of member statements, which had been enhanced in the last biennium. The Public Employees’ Retirement System would be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the independent audit contract in FY2004. Currently, the PERS used the national firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent auditor and they were about to complete a five-year contract. Ms. Bilyeu commented that partially in response to issues related to the national accounting firms, the costs associated with gaining the expertise needed from those firms had increased; therefore, additional costs had been added to the budget for the coming biennium.
Ms. Bilyeu noted that the PERS had changed office locations and increased the staffing in the Las Vegas office, which explained the additional cost for rent in southern Nevada.
Ms. Bilyeu stated one last highlight in adjustments to base included the continuing technology consultant contract, as well as software and hardware maintenance. Those services were invaluable to the PERS given the relatively small staff size. There were firms that provided pension industry specific technology consulting services, which kept Nevada PERS abreast of changing technology and trends.
Ms. Bilyeu said hardware and software maintenance included ongoing system support provided by Covansys, their technology vendor. The project was complete and support contracts had been transferred to the PERS and were reflected in adjustments to base. The successful partnership with Covansys would continue through the coming biennium.
Ms. Bilyeu continued her testimony and addressed decision unit M-200. Decision unit M-200, Maintenance, contained some minor upward adjustments due to caseload increases, which historically had been approximately 3 percent.
Ms. Bilyeu explained that decision unit E-225 dealt with incentives to operate efficiently. This decision unit included costs for travel, registration and instructional materials to enable staff to maintain proper and current knowledge in areas such as retirement administration, investment administration, and software applications. Education and continuing professional training for staff improved overall performance of the agency and kept employee turnover to a minimum.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that the PERS was also enhancing their in-state travel to provide additional payroll clerk and liaison officer training regarding contribution reporting. The PERS had found increased time in the field at the employer sites assisted the agencies with their reporting responsibilities.
Decision unit E-275 addressed appropriate staffing levels. Ms. Bilyeu stated that PERS was requesting a new Information Technology (IT) position. Currently, the duties of a Database Management Specialist II were split between the PERS IT staff and the Covansys staff, with the most technical issues being addressed by Covansys. The manager of IT performed the first investigation of data issues. Depending upon the complexity of the problem and the availability of staff, data issues were resolved by the manager, senior programmer, or senior technician. The external auditor had raised concerns regarding the ability of programmers and operations staff to access the production database, but due to the small size of the staff, it was occasionally unavoidable. The addition of the Database Management Specialist II would provide separation of duties and the full expertise required in complex sequel queries and transaction processing.
Ms. Bilyeu stated the PERS had also requested the addition of two Administrative Assistant I positions. One of those positions would be used in the Carson City office to handle imaging related duties, which had greatly increased since all member files had been imaged. The other position would be employed as support staff in the Las Vegas office. Because of increased counseling abilities in the south, telephone volume in the Las Vegas office had increased to between 3,000 and 4,000 telephone calls each month. Counselors had been rotated to the front desk for telephone coverage as a way to staff the reception area, however, while at the front desk counselors were unable to perform their primary function. The addition of support staff to this office would allow counselors to perform private counseling services at any given time.
Decision unit E-300 addressed technology improvements. Ms. Bilyeu stated that the following items were included in this decision unit:
· Maintenance on hardware and software to be newly installed or upgraded
· Security costs for interactive Web site
· Communications for Web site and Las Vegas office
· Hardware/software purchases required to remain current
· Costs to open a small satellite office for disaster recovery
Ms. Bilyeu explained that as the PERS moved to the new interactive Web site, which allowed members to access their own accounts, figure benefit estimates, and allow employers to report wage and contribution figures, security assurance became very important. Additional funds were being requested for a security assurance contract. The security assurance vendor would provide a fixed fee service that integrated and used an automated software model, database, and professional analyst team to regularly map the information. Ms. Bilyeu stated that the PERS would be updating to more current versions of the software application used by the system. Those upgrades were necessary as the manufacturers would be ending support of the software versions used by PERS in the coming biennium. Ongoing maintenance costs would also increase as they included installation costs associated with the upgrades as well. It would also be necessary to upgrade hardware as equipment reached the end of its lifecycle.
Ms. Bilyeu stated the last enhancement in this decision unit concerned funding for an alternative disaster recovery site located in Carson City. Currently, disaster recovery was maintained with the vendor, Covansys, but their main pension site was in Columbus, Ohio, and a closer disaster recovery site was needed. A minimal office in Carson City would house current versions of the financial accounting system, imaging software, internal payroll, and production environments. A more readily available disaster recovery site had been recommended by an internal control audit performed by an independent audit firm.
Ms. Bilyeu explained that decision unit E-350 had created a communications initiative in the last biennium designed to coordinate all member communications and publications. This budget reflected the reorganization of the funding sources for publications and better identified efforts in this area. The Public Employees’ Retirement System had budgeted for 22 more programs in the Las Vegas area, as well as 12 additional trips to the rural areas of Nevada for outreach to members.
Decision unit E-500 contained costs associated with the five-year banking contract that would expire in June 2005. During 2005 PERS would be conducting an RFP process in keeping with statutory requirements. This process included due diligence trips to participating banks. Also included in this decision unit were costs associated with fiduciary training and system governance services. Ms. Bilyeu stated one of the most important issues facing retirement systems had to do with system governance. Establishment of clear roles and responsibilities for the board and management, and creating and enhancing governance policies would effectively guide the conduct of the system. Those services were not unlike an audit of current practices, as well as a process in which the best practices in the pension industry could be incorporated into the structure in a comprehensive way. Finally, in this category were costs associated with performance benchmarking on the operations side. Performance benchmarking was already in place on the investment side. This had been developed in the pension industry in the past few years and it was basically a cost-effective measurement. This tool would allow the PERS to measure cost-effectiveness against sister pension funds across the nation to provide invaluable data as to service standards.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that decision unit E-710 contained funds to replace the current telephone system as it was at capacity. The replacement cost was in the mid-range at $50,000.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that concluded her remarks pertaining to the underlying budget, but wanted to mention that Budget Account 4824 and Budget Account 4825 were associated with PERS.
Chairman Arberry informed the representatives of the Public Employees’ Retirement System that the Committee would be making cuts in budgets, so they should prioritize according to what was really important.
Assemblyman Beers commented that long-range technology planning was somewhat oxymoronic. Ms. Bilyeu responded that Mr. Beers was correct, five years was a long time for technology. The PERS did have a long-range, 5-year strategic technology plan, however, in the retirement industry technology turned over roughly every 18 months to 2 years, so the agency was attempting to stay abreast of current information.
Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance, stated for the record that if Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), were not unavailable he would be present, because he had expressed great concern about the developments in The Executive Budget concerning the retirement contributions for UCCSN professionals. The Executive Budget, in its original format, did not include the additional funding for those who were not members of the PERS, which represented a significant change of policy. Mr. Richardson stated that in a conversation with Mr. Miles, he had indicated that he believed there was a statutory requirement for equal treatment of PERS members and non-PERS professionals. There was a policy within the UCCSN that retirement contributions were equal, whether a PERS member or not. The UCCSN had a small number of employees enrolled in PERS, and, if you were a member of the PERS when employed in the UCCSN, you stayed in the PERS. Mr. Richardson said he was also concerned about the second change of policy where some state employees would have 100 percent of their contributions covered, but not others. For the record, Mr. Richardson wanted to remind the Committee that those were very big issues for the UCCSN and represented a sizable amount of money.
Chairman Arberry thanked Mr. Richardson for his testimony and recessed the meeting at 9:38 a.m.
Chairman Arberry reconvened the meeting at 10:12 a.m.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU, BUDGET ACCOUNT 2631 - BUDGET PAGE LCB-1
Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), presented Budget Account 2631. Exhibit D, “Legislative Counsel Bureau Combined Budget Request,” and Exhibit E, “2004-2005 Information Technology Projects Appropriation,” were presented to the Committee.
Mr. Malkiewich said the first thing he would ask of the Committee would be to ignore the budget. The Executive Budget document had everything rolled into base except for two one-shot appropriations. It also included some misinformation. The agency request line was something the LCB had never seen before and had no idea what the figures represented. The amounts had not been requested by the LCB. The Budget Office did not review the LCB budget.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he would be presenting the entire budget for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, but division chiefs were present to answer questions, if necessary.
The Information Technology Subcommittee met during the last interim and initially submitted a proposal of $994,000, which was reviewed, along with the rest of the budget, by the Budget Subcommittee. The Budget Subcommittee deleted a request for the purchase of new volumes of Nevada Statutes and Nevada Reports, reduced the Information Technology Appropriation from $994,000 to $840,000, and eliminated the proposal to separate the Director’s Office from the Administrative Division. Mr. Malkiewich stated that after the Budget Committee met, the LCB received some information from the Budget Office, which included, in the M-300 category, substantial adjustments in personnel costs. The majority of the adjustments were the large increase in the group insurance premiums. Those adjustments increased the LCB budget by $740,000. After the Legislative Commission had approved the LCB budget, the Budget Office had requested further cuts in the final stages of budget preparation. Mr. Malkiewich had informed John P. Comeaux, Budget Director, that he did not believe further cuts were possible since the budget had already been approved by several committees. Mr. Malkiewich had told Mr. Comeaux, however, that had the request come before those meetings, LCB would have made further cuts. When the budget arrived from the Budget Office, the LCB had received another surprise. In the past the one-shot appropriations for information technology and capital improvement projects were paid out of current year money and were not included in the budget. Those amounts fluctuated greatly from year to year and could create some real anomalies if the amounts were included in the budget. There was no funding available in FY 2003, so the funds were included in the FY2004 budget. The bottom line on FY2004 was somewhat “out of whack” because of $1.5 million in one-shot appropriations that had been included in FY2004.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he would review Exhibit D for the Committee. The first two pages of the exhibit illustrated the base budget for the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The adjusted base budget request included funding for 231 full-time employees in five divisions, Administration, Audit, Fiscal, Legal, and Research. The Legislative Commission was part of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and their budget was included as well. The base budget also provided funds for the Legislative Commission’s annual dues to various agencies. The expenditures for the divisions and the Legislative Commission were shown on page 2.
The Maintenance category started on page 3 of the Combined Budget Request. The Administrative Division requested approval for 3.5 new positions in the next biennium. Mr. Malkiewich noted the vast majority of increases in the Administrative Division were attributable to the proposed 3.5 new employees. Mr. Malkiewich recognized that this was a very difficult session to add employees, but two of the positions would not actually add new people. The building maintenance specialist was previously employed as an intermittent employee and a clerical position had been working in both Media Services and Building Units and those two positions were combined. During the interim, one of the concerns had been that there was no one in Media Services full time to do room reservations. The new clerical position now coordinated video conferencing and also coordinated requests for hearing rooms during the day so that full use of the building could be realized. The only new people that would be hired would be a half-time Internet technician for Information Systems and a janitor.
Mr. Malkiewich stated that one of the largest increases contained in the Maintenance category was for utilities. The FY2002 budget had included $405,000 for utilities. In closing the budget last session the Legislature had set aside funds for increased utility costs for state agencies, but the LCB had not participated and instead had absorbed $71,000 of overrun in the first fiscal year. In an effort to avoid that situation in the coming biennium, the LCB was seeking increased funding of $73,000 in the first year and $123,000 in the second year. Mr. Malkiewich commented that the agency had lived with overspending the utility budget in the past and if the Legislature needed to make cuts the utilities budget could be decreased substantially. Decreasing the utilities budget would be preferable to cutting services. Demand on services had been increasing because the demand on legislators was increasing. In making budget cuts there were areas where money could be saved without affecting the LCB’s ability to provide service to legislators.
Mr. Malkiewich continued by stating that the amounts requested from the other divisions were much smaller. In the first year of the biennium substantial cuts had been made with the knowledge that substantial cuts could not be made in the second year of the biennium because of the coming legislative session. As a result of those cuts only $11.5 million would need to be appropriated for this session, although it would cost $15 million. Over the years savings had been generated from the LCB budget to be used for costs during the legislative session.
Mr. Malkiewich referred to page 4 of Exhibit D, which outlined increases in the cost of employee benefits in the next biennium. Based upon recommendations from the Budget Office of the Department of Administration, increases had been budgeted for group insurance, retirement, and industrial insurance for FY2004 and FY2005.
Page 5 of Exhibit D outlined reclassifications as requested for six positions in the next biennium. Mr. Malkiewich stated that position reclassifications requested by the LCB were approved by the Legislature and not by the Department of Personnel. Position reclassification requests were as follows:
· A Janitor with supervisory responsibility from grade 23 to grade 25
· An Imaging Technician from grade 25 to grade 26
· A Program Analyst to a Senior Program Analyst
· Two Assistant Librarians from grade 34 to grade 36
· A Library Assistant to grade 25
Mr. Malkiewich said page 6 of Exhibit D outlined two one-shot appropriations. The first appropriation request was for funds to enhance the information services system in the amount of $840,000. The second appropriation request was for funds to complete building improvement projects begun in the last biennium in the amount of $647,000. Exhibit E, outlined the “2004-2005 Information Technology Projects Appropriation.” The Information Technology Subcommittee had proposed a $994,000 appropriation, but the LCB had reduced the amount requested to $840,000. Mr. Malkiewich noted the Information Technology appropriation request varied from year to year, and that was the reason it was not usually included in the budget.
Mr. Malkiewich stated that a couple of the building improvement projects had been deleted from the appropriation requested in decision unit E-276 when “the budget situation went from horrible to disastrous.” Those funds had been returned to the Executive Branch, and another $100,000 was being returned today from money that was not being expended out of appropriations.
The exterior surface of the Legislative Building would be repaired out of decision unit E-276, as well as remodeling the front entrance of the building. Remodeling the front entrance had been deferred from the last biennium.
Mr. Malkiewich commented that replacing the roofs on the two buildings, A and B, was a necessary priority and he would prefer that it not be deferred. Problems had already been occurring in certain areas when there were heavy rains. Because of mold, this had become a serious issue beyond the obvious leak problem.
Mr. Malkiewich stated that carpet stock was something that was not absolutely necessary; it was a matter of making a conscious decision that no carpet would be replaced for the next two years. Carpet was wearing out in many areas, but the carpet that was in stock from the building addition had run out, so the choice became either 1) when the carpet wore out, replace it with carpet that did not match or, 2) purchase a new stock and when replacements were needed, get matching carpet.
Replacements for older fire doors in buildings A and B, installation of a fire system in the mechanical rooms, as well as the purchase of telex switching equipment, were necessary but could be deleted from the budget. Mr. Malkiewich stated he would prefer to make cuts in this area rather than in an area that would affect positions.
Decision unit E-710 primarily concerned replacement of computer equipment and some maintenance equipment. The maintenance equipment being replaced was a lawnmower, vacuum cleaners, and extractors for the janitorial unit. Mr. Malkiewich stated the vacuums and extractors presently in use were being held together by the repair expertise of the maintenance crew. The janitorial crew cleaned hundreds of square feet of building every day and it was important for them to have decent equipment or they would not be able to clean the building. Mr. Malkiewich said that most of the funds were for replacement of computers, which were replaced on a rotating basis in order to reduce the cost of computers. The LCB purchased computers that were used during session, which meant that they were not quite new, but there was cost savings.
Page 8 of Exhibit D outlined decision unit E-720, which was new equipment. The Fiscal Analysis Division had requested funds for new file cabinets.
Mr. Malkiewich stated that on page 9 of Exhibit D, some of the anomalies that were previously referred to appeared. Total expenditures appeared to take a huge jump in FY2004 and then dropped again in FY2005. If the expenditures between FY2003 and FY2005 were reviewed, the increase in that 2-year period was 4.75 percent. Mr. Malkiewich stated he felt that was more indicative of the level of increase and further stated the LCB could do better than that and could cut more funds from the budget. He did not want to cut the budget to the extent that it would impact the LCB’s ability to provide services.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed there was a pending bill draft request that would create partisan positions within the LCB and asked if Mr. Malkiewich knew the status. Mr. Malkiewich said he believed the bill she was referring to was one introduced by Senator Joe Neal. That bill was in Senate Committee on Finance, and it would allow the establishment of a partisan staff to make sure each of the caucuses had their own research staff. Mr. Malkiewich was not aware of what was happening with the bill at the present time. His suggestion was, if the Legislature wanted to have a small, partisan staff without the restrictions placed upon the LCB staff, it should be outside the LCB. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the Committee could deal with the budget separately if that was the direction they chose to make. Mr. Malkiewich agreed that was correct.
NEVADA LEGISLATURE INTERIM, BUDGET ACCOUNT 2626 - BUDGET PAGE LCB-4
Jacqueline Sneddon, Clerk of the Assembly, introduced Claire Clift, Secretary of the Senate and presented Exhibit F, a handout entitled “Interim Nevada Legislature.”
Ms. Sneddon stated there had not been many changes or requests in the budget. The changes that appeared were due to cost factors associated with personnel and benefits. The only other change in the budget was a request for restoration of funds that were not expended due to the events of September 11, 2001, which resulted in the cancellation of a national seminar that staff would have attended in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Funds were requested to allow staff to attend this training seminar in FY2004 and FY2005.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Anne Bowen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: