MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on General Government
Seventy-Second Session
April 18, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on General Government, was called to order at 8:27 a.m., on Friday, April 18, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 2134 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.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Josh Griffin
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Sandra Tiffany
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeffrey Ferguson, Program Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
ADMINISTRATION (101-4554)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-1
Jeffrey Ferguson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated Budget Account 4554 had been created during the 1999 Legislative Session to separately track the administrative expenditures of the Department of Agriculture. It was initially funded primarily through General Funds, but in the 2001 session the Department had been asked to create an internal cost allocation plan to cover many of the costs of Budget Account 4554. This account dealt with accounting, payroll, personnel, fiscal planning, and other support services.
Mr. Ferguson stated the major issues in Budget Account 4554 were:
Mr. Ferguson stated that in decision unit E-901, The Executive Budget recommended transferring an Administrative Assistant III position from Plant Industry to Budget Account 4554. In the Plant Industry account the Administrative Assistant position was funded 100 percent with General Funds. By transferring this position to the Administration account it would be funded with 52 percent General Funds and 48 percent through the Department’s cost allocation plan. The transfer of the Administrative Assistant position provided a General Fund savings of approximately $50,411 for the biennium.
In decision unit E-902 the Governor recommended transferring an Administrative Assistant IV position from the Veterinary Medical Services account to Budget Account 4554. Mr. Ferguson said that this position had been funded 100 percent from the General Fund and by transferring it into the Administration account, it would be funded 52 percent General Funds and 48 percent through cost allocation, with a savings of approximately $54,582 for the biennium. Mr. Ferguson noted that staff had reviewed those transfers and believed they had merit.
The Executive Budget recommended a new Accounting Technician position in decision unit E-375. Mr. Ferguson stated that the position would be funded 52 percent General Funds and 48 percent cost allocation plan, similarly to the transferred positions. Mr. Ferguson commented that the original budget contained a breakdown for this new position of 50 percent General Funds and 50 percent cost allocation plan. Staff had adjusted the funding mix for this recommended position, which increased the General Fund impact by $1,768 for the biennium. Mr. Ferguson stated that this position had been requested to assist with the increased number of financial and administrative requirements in the Department.
Mr. Ferguson commented regarding decision unit E-376, the removal of the Nevada Beef Council (NBC) operations from the Department of Agriculture. Historically, the NBC had provided $7,500 per fiscal year to the Department for administrative and fiscal services. There was a proposal contained in S.B. 486 that would make the NBC a private organization. Staff requested authority to remove decision unit E-376 from Budget Account 4554 if S.B. 486 did not pass.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if S.B. 486 had been heard before the Senate. Mr. Ferguson replied that he believed it had been heard, but did not know its current status.
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Department of Agriculture, responded to Chairwoman Chowning’s question by stating that S.B. 486 had been heard in Senate Natural Resources, passed out of Committee, and was currently on the Senate Floor. Mr. Henderson stated there had been a slight amendment to the bill, a wording change.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if that amendment would affect the funds. Mr. Henderson responded that it would not.
Mr. Ferguson continued with his presentation by commenting on decision unit E‑225, in which the Governor recommended $1,350 for each year of the biennium for a pilot program to provide job-related awards to employees for more efficient operations. The awards would not be cash awards, but rather would consist of chairs, training, and software. Funding for this proposal would come from an increase in the Department’s cost allocation plan. Mr. Ferguson pointed out that the state currently had a Merit Award Board to offer awards to state employees employed by all state agencies. Staff was unaware of any other agency that had a similar award program, and approval of an employee award program would set a precedent for such programs within state government.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if this award program were established, would some other need be deprived, or what other need could the cost allocation plan pay for if the award program was not established.
Mr. Ferguson stated he could not really answer that question, but the cost allocation amount of $1,350 per fiscal year for the awards program would remain in the budget.
Chairwoman Chowning questioned whether the Department of Agriculture would prefer to have less cost allocation or an “employee of the year award” worth $350.
Senator Tiffany opined that to move forward with decision unit E-225 would set a precedent, and while she did not believe an award program was a bad idea, she thought it should be done within the system that was already in place.
Senator Rhoads stated that he was somewhat familiar with the proposed awards program and had tried for the past 20 years to get an awards plan passed by the Legislature. According to Senator Rhoads there was no incentive in government, at any level, to save money or improve conditions, and an awards program could provide an incentive for an employee to take the lead. Senator Rhoads stated he would support decision unit E-225.
Chairwoman Chowning requested that a representative from the Department of Agriculture testify as to what types of incentives, other than cash, would be offered to enhance the employees’ job.
Assemblyman Beers recalled that an employee incentive program had been removed from the Administration budget earlier in the week because it was largely unused and requested that staff address that question.
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded that in the Assembly, the Committee on Ways and Means had eliminated funding for the Merit Award Board, however, that funding had been retained in the Senate. The difference between the Houses would have to be resolved in a joint subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Henderson stated that the criteria for the existing state award program was for employees to discover a cost-effective way to save money in their jobs and for the state. The Department of Agriculture award program would focus on providing an incentive to do a better than average job by each employee. Mr. Henderson believed there was a difference between the statewide program and the program the Department of Agriculture had proposed. The funding for the proposed awards program would come from the cost allocation plan and no General Fund money would be used. Mr. Henderson said that the industries that were paying the fees supported the employee award approach. The State Board of Agriculture had identified the program as a high priority for the Department in order to recognize those employees doing their job and doing it well. When an employee was given an award they would be consulted as to what item, within a certain dollar amount, would help them the most to do their job.
Chairwoman Chowning commented that the award truly would help the winning employee do their job better. Mr. Henderson stated that it would focus on their job and work environment. Chairwoman Chowning asked if the amount of money for the awards was $1,350 for each year of the biennium. Mr. Henderson replied that was correct. Chairwoman Chowning asked how the Department had arrived at the amount of $1,350. Mr. Henderson referred that question to Rick Gimlin, Administrative Services Officer (ASO), Department of Agriculture, for response.
Mr. Gimlin responded that the amount of $1,350 per fiscal year was based upon $250 per quarter year, and $350 at the end of the year for an annual Employee of the Year award. If all the awards were distributed, five employees would benefit each year.
Senator Tiffany stated that she had some personnel background and what she usually did for recognition of a job well done was provide a positive employee evaluation, and if the employee was very good they received a promotion. In addition, Senator Tiffany stated she used plaques and various other special recognition items as well and believed the program could be handled in that manner as opposed to creating a new program.
Chairwoman Chowning commented that once in a while someone came up with a good idea and perhaps it was something that might take off and other agencies would ask for it, but it seemed to her as though a chair or software would be more meaningful to an employee than a plaque.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-225.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH SENATOR TIFFANY VOTING NO.
Mr. Ferguson continued his presentation with cost allocation. The M-800 decision units distributed the Department’s costs for rents, utilities, and information services. The E-800 units dealt with costs related to the Administration budget and took those costs and distributed them to the various other accounts.
Mr. Ferguson commented regarding decision unit E-399. The Department had testified that it was negotiating new leases for two of its current offices in Reno. Those leases had been negotiated and the costs had been determined. Staff had modified and made some changes to the budget to include additional rent costs for Reno offices. The totals for those rent increases totaled $37,265 in FY2003-04 and $34,405 in FY2004-05.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH APPROVAL FOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PLANT INDUSTRY (101-4540)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-10
Mr. Ferguson stated that the Division of Plant Industry was responsible for numerous regulatory programs, including licensing and regulating nursery sales outlets, proclaiming and enforcing interstate and intrastate quarantines against agricultural commodities and packing materials that might be infected with diseases. In the 2001 Legislative Session the transfer of four positions from the Livestock Inspection Account to Budget Account 4540 was approved in order to create the Agriculture Enforcement Unit (AEU). Budget Account 4540 was funded primarily with General Funds but also received fees and federal grants.
Mr. Ferguson stated that there were a couple of decision units and a proposed amendment to The Executive Budget that would transfer two Pest Control Operator positions from the Plant Industry account to the Agriculture Registration/Enforcement account. The Plant Industry account contained the operating costs and five of six positions that dealt with the Pest Control Operator Program. The Agriculture Registration/Enforcement account had one Pest Control Operator position and that position was funded with fee funds. The Executive Budget, in conjunction with the amendment that had been submitted, recommended transferring two positions, the Pest Control Operator Program’s operating costs, and all Pest Control Operator fees to the Agriculture Registration/Enforcement account. Mr. Ferguson stated that would essentially place all fees in a non-General Fund account. This action would be a departure from the Legislature’s historical position that within budget accounts containing General Funds, fee revenues should be utilized first, and all remaining General Funds should be reverted. Mr. Ferguson stated that this budget was complicated and he would be happy to clarify any questions at any time.
Mr. Ferguson mentioned that A.B. 130, as it was originally introduced, contained language that would statutorily require all of the Pest Control Operator fees to be deposited into the Agriculture Registration/Enforcement account. A.B. 130 would accomplish the same action that was contemplated in this budget proposal. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had amended A.B. 130 to remove that language.
Mr. Ferguson stated he would discuss decision unit E-904 and the budget amendment to the Plant Industry account, which encompassed the total package to shift those fees and positions to a non-General Fund account.
Chairwoman Chowning called for discussion on Budget Account 4540, as it was a vast departure from the policy that the Legislature had practiced for many years.
Senator Rhoads asked what the consequences would be if the fee revenue was used first, or if General Funds were used first; what difference would it make.
Mr. Ferguson responded that as it was presented in The Executive Budget there would be three Pest Control Operator positions that would remain in the Plant Industry account. Those positions would be funded with General Funds. There would be three positions in the Agriculture Registration/Enforcement account after the transfer of two positions. Those positions would be funded with fees, which would also be transferred from the Plant Industry account to Agriculture Registration/Enforcement. Mr. Ferguson stated that those transfers would lock the General Fund into paying 50 percent of the total personnel costs for three positions in the Plant Industry account.
Mr. Stevens stated that presently there was a program in place that was funded from two sources, fee funds and General Fund. What had been done for many years when those situations existed was to attempt to fully fund the program based upon the budget that was presented, and General Fund dollars were spent last. By spending the General Fund dollars last, whatever was left was reverted. That increased the amount of General Fund reversions, which was budgeted as a revenue source when the overall fund balance budget was built. Revenues were taken from the Economic Forum, budgeted reversions were added in, and that amount was used to appropriate funds. Mr. Stevens said that if every agency that had a combination funded program were allowed to spend the General Fund dollars first and the fees last, it would impact reversions by a large amount. In this particular instance the General Fund would not be affected by a great deal, however, if one agency was allowed to use General Fund dollars first, every other agency should be able to use General Fund dollars first, which would affect reversions in the long term.
Senator Tiffany commented that Pest Control employees were spread across two budgets, some paid by General Fund dollars and some by fees. She wondered what would happen if all Pest Control employees were placed under one budget and supported by fees.
Mr. Stevens responded that the Department could probably answer that question better than he could, but it would require the increase of fees. If the Department had a self-supporting budget the question of reversions would not apply because there would be no General Fund dollars and, therefore, no reversion.
Senator Tiffany asked what the Department of Agriculture would need to do to have all of the Pest Control employees supported by fees.
Mr. Henderson referred the specific question to Rick Gimlin, but commented that the Legislature had requested the Department of Agriculture to develop fiscal policies, which had been done some time ago. In Budget Account 4540, the Department believed it had a program that benefited the public and the Pest Control Operators. The Department had a policy for the program to fund it 50 percent General Fund and 50 percent fees.
Mr. Henderson continued by stating that the Pest Control Operators had approached the Department because one of the problems in Las Vegas had been that not everyone was operating equally. There were operators that followed the law and tried to do well and there were those operators who tried to “skate by” and cut costs. There had been a concern within the pest control industry that the state needed to run a good program, put everyone on the same playing field, playing by the same rules. The Department worked with the Pest Control Operators and they significantly raised their fees to help support the state program in the fastest growing region in the nation. Mr. Henderson said that due to the funding policies that were in place, the Department had not been able to recover the benefits from those added fees because there had been a reversion to the General Fund. The policy of using fees first and then reverting General Funds had caused problems, and the Department had difficulty getting the money to the right place so a program could be built. Mr. Henderson was hopeful that the fees might support a position in the future, but the Department had not gotten to that point yet.
Chairwoman Chowning commented that if the Pest Control Operator Program were totally self-funded the Department would not have to worry about any funds being reverted.
Mr. Stevens stated that he believed the philosophy the Legislature had taken in the past was that a program would budget an amount of money that it was felt would adequately fund that program. Once that amount of money was decided upon, if less money was spent than anticipated, General Fund money was spent last. Mr. Stevens said he was not trying to say that less money should be spent on the Pest Control Operator Program. The Subcommittee should decide what the correct level of funding was for that program. If you followed the principles that had been used for decades, once you decided what that funding level was and it was budgeted, if less money was spent the General Fund dollar was spent last and reverted.
Chairwoman Chowning asked how the Subcommittee could get to that point with those two budgets.
Senator Rhoads asked if the fees were spent first, and then General Fund dollars, and the program ran out of funds, could the Department go before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for more money.
Mr. Stevens replied that the Pest Control Operator Program was a General Fund account and they could go before the IFC. However, the question might be, was the program adequately funded in the budget. If there were something that was not in the budget that needed to be in the budget, it would have to be added. The Subcommittee would need to determine if something was needed that was not currently in the budget. If the program was a combination of General Fund and fee funds, the General Fund dollars were spent last.
Senator Tiffany stated that she had not really received an answer to her question about the fees and asked what the present fee structure was for Pest Control Operators.
Mr. Gimlin responded that the way it was presently set up, the program had three positions that were General Fund, two positions that were part of the Pest Control Operator Program funded by fees, and one position that was funded entirely by another fee source. If all six positions were funded from Pest Control Operator fees the fee structure would have to be doubled.
Senator Tiffany asked that the fees be enumerated.
Mr. Gimlin stated that he did not have the fee amounts at the present time.
Senator Tiffany asked if Mr. Gimlin could tell her what the categories were for the fees.
Mr. Gimlin responded that by his quick calculation, the Department would be increasing total fees from approximately $210,000 to more than $420,000.
Senator Tiffany asked if Mr. Gimlin could tell her what types of fees the Department charged.
Mr. Gimlin stated the Department charged the following fees for the Pest Control Operators Program:
Senator Tiffany stated the Subcommittee had told the Secretary of State to go back and look at the fees that were charged, because in the last biennium those fees had supported teachers’ salaries. Senator Tiffany asked how long it had been since the Department had raised those fees.
Mr. Gimlin replied that it had been approximately two years since those fees had been increased and at that time they had been almost doubled.
Senator Tiffany asked if a person were to apply for a new license to operate as a principal from the Pest Control Operator Program would it cost $500 or $250 out-of-pocket.
Mr. Gimlin responded that he did not have that amount “off the top of his head,” but believed it would be more like $100 to $200 to be licensed as a principal.
Senator Tiffany commented that amount was not exactly onerous, and when considering doubling fees, those were the numbers the Subcommittee would like to have on the table if they were to go to a 100 percent fee-based program.
Mr. Gimlin added that going to a 100 percent fee-based program totally ignored what the Board of Agriculture had put forth in terms of a funding policy. One of the members of the Board of Agriculture was a Pest Control Operator and represented that industry. Mr. Gimlin believed that implementing a totally fee-based program was sending the message to the Pest Control industry that the state did not feel the program was worth supporting and if the industry wanted any type of regulatory program they would have to support it themselves, regardless of the benefit to the general public.
Senator Tiffany stated that if funding for other accounts was considered, including boards and committees, it was all fee-based, so it was not an unusual practice. She noted that the Department did not even have the numbers for the Subcommittee, so obviously they had not considered making the program 100 percent fee-based.
Mr. Gimlin stated that was not the budget proposal, so Senator Tiffany was right, the numbers were not there specifically for those reasons.
Senator Tiffany asked if the Department had thought about doing that before coming before the Legislature to ask for General Fund dollars.
Mr. Gimlin replied that the Department had considered 100 percent fee-based funding and the Board of Agriculture had decided that, based upon their funding policy, having an entirely fee-based program was not appropriate.
Mr. Beers stated that he recollected there was a bill before the Commerce and Labor Committee, last session or the session before, addressing regulation of Pest Control Operators and substantially increasing the scope of that regulation. That action was what had precipitated the increase in fees. Mr. Beers did not remember there being any discussion about whether or not it would be fully funded by fees, or partially funded by the General Fund, because it was a foregone conclusion in the Commerce and Labor Committee that fees solely funded all regulatory agencies. It was not a consideration that the General Fund supplement those fees, and Mr. Beers stated he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the General Fund.
Chairwoman Chowning stated that if there was something else truly needed by the Department, the Subcommittee should be informed.
Mr. Henderson stated that the people the Department was regulating were the people who were hired to enter homes to spray for pests, and there was a public safety concern involved. Public safety was the primary reason the state became involved. Mr. Henderson commented that he had participated in only two budget cycles, so he could not speak with a lot of history, but the Department did not anticipate being able to attract the General Funds that were needed to run a bona fide program. The Department anticipated that, over time, in order to run a program that had a value to the public, there would be increased fees. Mr. Henderson said the 50/50 split of fees and General Fund was what the Board and the Department felt comfortable with at the present time.
Senator Tiffany stated that the Department made it sound as though what Pest Control Operators did was all for the public benefit, but the Pest Control people she knew came to her house and it was a service and a business and they made money. It was about setting up a business and making a nice living, and those Pest Control Operators thought nothing about paying fees for licensing.
Senator Coffin stated that he recognized some of the functions of the Pest Control Operators. The residents of the state depended on Pest Control Operators for vector control to supplement what counties, particularly the small counties, could do. Senator Coffin remembered that in the discussion of Africanized bees, generally a Pest Control Operator handled that menace; the counties did not do it. Senator Coffin was not sure who the Pest Control Operators charged, if anyone, for the service because it was impossible to identify the responsible party. Also, in the summer of 2003, Nevada was due to get the West Nile virus, the disease that was afflicting the birds and was spreading to humans. Pest Control Operators would be called upon to mitigate that disease because even the large counties did not have enough personnel to handle the problem. Senator Coffin stated he wanted to reinforce the point Mr. Henderson had made, that there was a public service requirement that demanded the best people be involved in pest control. The quality of the contractor depended on how much training they received and the quality of the licensure. Senator Coffin did not believe there were enough General Fund dollars available to do all that should be done. He wanted to make sure the Subcommittee realized that Pest Control Operators did not just go to homes to eradicate cockroaches and spiders; they served a larger public service.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if anyone was interested in making a motion to close Budget Account 4540 and not approve the position transfers, decision unit E-900, decision unit E-904, and decision unit E-903.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITHOUT APPROVAL FOR DECISION UNIT E-900, DECISION UNIT E-903, AND DECISION UNIT E-904.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified the motion by stating that the transfer of the two positions in decision unit E-900 would not be approved. The transfer of the Administrative Assistant to the Administration budget as provided for in decision unit E-901 would be approved. Decision unit E-903, the transfer of the cost allocation assessment, would not be approved because the positions would not be transferred. Decision unit E-904 would not be approved because the positions would not be transferred. In other words, the policy of spending General Funds last would still stay in place. Chairwoman Chowning stated that she felt it was important to send the message to the Department of Agriculture that once the budgets were closed if there was something they still needed, the door would be open to work with staff and the budgets could be opened later.
Senator Rhoads suggested that the Subcommittee write a Letter of Intent to the Department of Agriculture to come before the Interim Finance Committee should the need arise.
IN CONTINUATION OF HER MOTION, SENATOR TIFFANY ADDED THAT A LETTER OF INTENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO COME BEFORE THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE IF NECESSARY, BE INCLUDED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE REGISTRATION/ENFORCEMENT (101-4545)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-23
Mr. Ferguson commented that Budget Account 4545 would be rather easy because the main issues had already been discussed in the previous budget account. Decision unit E-501 would have to be removed based upon the actions taken in Budget Account 4540. Mr. Ferguson noted that there was laboratory equipment in decision unit E-710 that would be purchased through reserve reductions in this budget account. There would be the same technical adjustments in this budget account as there had been in the other budget accounts.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, INCLUDING TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the motion should remove decision unit E-501.
Chairwoman Chowning indicated that would be made a part of the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
NOXIOUS WEED & INSECT CONTROL (101-4552)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-29
Mr. Ferguson indicated there were no significant issues in Budget Account 4552. The Department had consolidated fee-based, federally funded, and reimbursable weed and pest control programs into this budget account. As a result, this account was funded entirely through federal funds and reimbursements.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VETERINARY MEDICAL SERVICES (101-4550)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-33
Mr. Ferguson informed the Subcommittee that the main issue in Budget Account 4550 was the funding for the Virginia Range Wild Horse Program. In decision unit E-850 the Governor recommended a General Fund allocation totaling $70,782 during each year of the biennium to continue the Virginia Range Wild Horse Program. Mr. Ferguson stated that the recommended funding was not included in the base budget; however, the Subcommittee should note that in FY2002 the Department of Agriculture received $90,136, and in FY2003 the Department of Agriculture received $72,919 from the Board of Examiners (BOE) Emergency Fund. In addition, the budget requested the creation of a new, permanent, full-time position. The position would take seasonal salary funds that were contained in the base budget and convert those into a permanent full-time position to oversee the Virginia Range Wild Horse Program. The Department testified in the budget hearing that a permanent full-time position would be more beneficial than part-time or seasonal positions to handle those issues.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there had been any performance indicators built into the proposed permanent position so that the Subcommittee would have some idea of what goals were to be accomplished.
Mr. Ferguson responded that the Department had provided staff with some information indicating that the desired herd size should be approximately 600 horses.
Chairwoman Chowning asked what size the herd was at the present time.
Mr. Ferguson deferred to the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Henderson stated the best estimate the Department had was that the present herd was approximately 1,200 horses. Mr. Henderson continued by stating that each member of the Legislature would be receiving a fact sheet about the Virginia Range Wild Horse Program in the near future. The Department’s goal was to remove approximately 250 to 350 horses per year over the next 4 or 5 years in order to achieve a herd of 600 head. While horses were being removed, however, mares were continuing to have foals, so there was a recruitment number involved. Mr. Henderson stated if the Department could keep the base funding and adopt out 150 to 350 horses a year, the 600 head level could be reached within 5 years.
Senator Tiffany asked where the office space would be if someone was hired full time.
Mr. Henderson responded that the person in this position worked out of their house as they lived out on the range.
Senator Tiffany asked if the Department had someone in mind for the position.
Mr. Henderson stated that the Department had an individual in a seasonally funded position that could move into the permanent, full-time position.
Senator Tiffany said the idea was to stabilize the position, go to the General Fund, and give the Department an opportunity to get those horses adopted. She further indicated that she had a tendency to support that concept although she wondered why all of those horses were concentrated in the Virginia Range.
Mr. Henderson said he would attempt to answer that question. Prior to the mid- to-late 70s those horses were considered wild horses under the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Because most of the area was privately owned the BLM went through a land use planning process and decided they could not manage a wild horse herd in this area.
Senator Tiffany stated she believed a full-time person was necessary to support the program.
Chairwoman Chowning stated that if the Subcommittee approved decision unit E-375, the Department needed to provide a good set of goals and potential accomplishments that could be added to the position.
Mr. Ferguson said the other major closing issue in Budget Account 4550 was in decision unit E-600, which was the continuation of the 3 percent budget reduction in General Fund expenditures. The Department had indicated that the veterinary diagnostician position could be held vacant for only six months during the first year of the biennium, not six months in each year of the biennium. The effect of that reduced the account’s General Fund allocation by $40,968 each year. Staff had made that adjustment in the budget and the Department had indicated that there were no other resources to compensate for the loss of that reduction.
Chairwoman Chowning restated for clarification that the Department had made the reduction, which meant the General Fund was approximately $40,698 less than originally stated.
Mr. Ferguson continued with his presentation by stating that the transfer of the clerical position to the Administration account had already been discussed.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH THE FUNDING FOR THE VIRGINIA RANGE WILD HORSE PROGRAM TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-375 TO CREATE A PERMANENT FULL-TIME POSITION TO OVERSEE THE VIRGINIA RANGE WILD HORSE PROGRAM, AND TO KEEP THE VETERINARY DIAGNOSTICIAN POSITION VACANT FOR SIX MONTHS OF THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM, AND OTHER TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
LIVESTOCK INSPECTION (101-4546)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-40
Mr. Ferguson stated that the major issue in Budget Account 4546 was the recommended partial funding for the Livestock Inspection Administrator from the Plant Industry account. As had been discussed earlier, the Agriculture Enforcement Unit (AEU) was located in the Plant Industry account and had been created by the last legislative session. Funding for the four AEU positions was set at 75 percent General Fund support and 25 percent from fee revenue in the Livestock Inspection account.
The Administrator of Livestock Inspection oversaw the AEU. Mr. Ferguson commented that currently there were no General Funds in Budget Account 4546. The proposal in the budget recommended funding the Administrator position 50 percent with General Funds, which would introduce General Funds into the account. The Department had provided information to staff that showed that the Administrator spent approximately 50 percent of his time working on issues and managing the Agriculture Enforcement Unit. Mr. Ferguson pointed out that in The Executive Budget the funds from the General Fund would be deposited into the reserves of Budget Account 4546. Historically, it had never been the legislative position to allocate General Funds to be reserved. As a result, staff did not recommend approval of decision unit E-500. However, if the Subcommittee wished to fund the Administrator position with 50 percent General Funds, staff had proposed two options: 1) The Subcommittee could provide General Funds for 50 percent of the Livestock Inspection Administrator’s salary by transferring that position into the Plant Industry account. This option would keep General Funds out of Budget Account 4546. 2) The Subcommittee could allow the Livestock Inspection account to retain laboratory testing fees during the biennium, which equated to 35 percent of the Livestock Inspection Administrator’s salary. This option provided a reduced level of assistance, but would still provide significant assistance to fund the position. This option would keep the Livestock Inspection Administrator in the Livestock Inspection account and require the removal of decision unit E-600 in both years of the biennium, thereby reducing the Department’s General Fund savings during the biennium.
Senator Tiffany stated that if the second option was chosen and lab fees were used to offset the salary, there would still be 15 percent that would have to be made up in fees. She asked how the Department would accomplish obtaining the additional 15 percent.
Mr. Henderson stated he did not believe Budget Account 4546 could handle larger fees than were presently being charged.
Senator Tiffany asked staff if 15 percent more salary would have to come out of fees in Budget Account 4546.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the way the budget was currently constructed there would be reserves, comprised of fees, at the end of FY2004 in the amount of $353,000, and in FY2005 in the amount of $230,000.
Senator Tiffany asked if the 15 percent needed to fund the salary of the Livestock Inspection Administrator would come from reserves.
Mr. Ferguson replied that it could come from reserves, but historically, Budget Account 4546 had trouble generating sufficient fees. In the past, the Livestock Inspection Administrator position had been left vacant because there had not been enough funding to support it. There had been fee increases to attempt to increase revenue, but there could be problems in the future with reserves dwindling to low levels.
Senator Rhoads indicated that the problem had been that livestock numbers had decreased drastically over the past ten years because of economic conditions, droughts, and fires. Senator Rhoads asked the Department which option they would be more comfortable with, number one or number two.
Chairwoman Chowning noted that there were three options, 1) transfer General Funds to the Livestock Inspection account as recommended in decision unit E‑500; 2) move the position to the Plant Industry account and transfer 50 percent of the salary from the Livestock Inspection account; or 3) allow the Livestock Inspection account to retain laboratory testing fees that would otherwise be transferred to the General Fund.
Mr. Ferguson clarified that option 1 related to leaving decision unit E-500 the way it was presented in the budget, which staff did not recommend.
Chairwoman Chowning observed that option 1 was still one of the options, and Mr. Ferguson agreed that it was.
Mr. Gimlin stated that the Department believed that option 2 was the best choice for all involved. Option 2 kept the General Fund out of a fee-based account and put the Livestock Inspection Administrator position in a General Fund account.
Chairwoman Chowning asked about the reserves and the savings and if the Department would be required to keep $45,000 in General Fund savings and $300,000 in reserves.
Mr. Ferguson responded that was correct and there would still be a transfer of the increased laboratory fees from Budget Account 4546 to the General Fund and the reserve levels would be approximately $353,439 at the end of FY2003‑04 and $230,231 at the end of FY2004-05.
Mr. Henderson added to Mr. Ferguson’s response by stating that Budget Account 4546 had experienced a reserve problem for years, if not decades, because fees were somewhat cyclic and expenses varied. The Department had a very difficult time adhering to the state’s policy about retaining a certain level of reserve in fee-based accounts. Mr. Henderson further stated that the industry was being paid for their product at 1960s levels, but they were paying added costs of inflation. Budget Account 4546 had recently implemented a significant and controversial fee increase. Mr. Henderson stated he was somewhat dubious about the fee reserve.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND TRANSFER THE LIVESTOCK INSPECTION ADMINISTRATOR POSITION TO THE PLANT INDUSTRY ACCOUNT, AND TRANSFER 50 PERCENT OF THE SALARY FROM THE LIVESTOCK INSPECTION ACCOUNT.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Parks was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (101-4551)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-47
Chairwoman Chowning stated there were no major closing issues in this budget and the Chair would accept a motion.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Parks was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GAS POLLUTION STANDARDS (101-4537)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-52
Chairwoman Chowning noted that there were some closing items in Budget Account 4537, but nothing major.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PREDATORY ANIMAL AND RODENT CONTROL (101-4600)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE AGRI-57
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the rats had been eradicated in the Spanish Trail area in southern Nevada.
Mr. Henderson stated he believed that had been a success story. While he could not say the Spanish Trail area was completely free of rats, good inroads had been made toward controlling and managing the rat population.
Chairwoman Chowning stated there were no major closing issues in Budget Account 4600 and asked Mr. Ferguson if he wanted to talk about the new quarter-time position.
Mr. Ferguson stated there were a couple of issues in Budget Account 4600. The first issue was the new quarter-time position requested by the Department to assist with the program. Currently, a federal employee had met the clerical needs of 12 staff. The employees of this program were also housed with a number of employees from the federal side of the program. Recent developments had made it impossible for the federal government to continue to provide the clerical support. The Department was asking for a new quarter-time position of 10 hours per week to provide clerical support for 12 field staff.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was anything in decision unit E-500 that the Subcommittee needed to discuss.
Mr. Ferguson stated that decision unit E-500 requested $8,466 during the biennium to fund a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase for a federal employee in Ely. The Department had a contract with the Federal Wildlife Services to fund the salary for this position. Due to contract constraints the Department was unable to fully fund that position when it received a COLA increase. Decision unit E-500 sought to allow the Department to compensate fully the cost of funding for the COLA difference.
Chairwoman Chowning requested the Department review this decision unit because it seemed odd to her that the state of Nevada had to help the federal government.
Mr. Gimlin stated that actually the state was not helping the federal government. In this particular case the Department had taken a state position and turned it into a federal position. The Department agreed to pay at the rate that position was at that time; from that time state employees received a COLA. The Department’s agreement in doing this was to maintain parity with whatever the state had done. In other words, if there had been a state employee in that position, they would have received a COLA and the Department was doing exactly the same thing for the federal employee. Mr. Gimlin said the intent was not to give a federal employee a raise; it was to maintain parity with the state system.
Senator Tiffany restated for clarification that the Department had taken a state position that was receiving state retirement and state benefits and moved it to a federal program; that position no longer received state retirement or benefits.
Mr. Gimlin stated that was correct. The Department had a person who had retired out of the state position, so that position was turned into a federally funded position. The idea was that there was a better labor pool to draw from on the federal side than on the state side.
Mr. Beers said “To echo one of my colleagues who just said this without the microphone on, ‘that makes no sense.’” He asked for further explanation because it made no sense to make a state position into a federal position.
Mr. Henderson interjected that he believed there was a misconception because this was not “soft” federal money; it was a bona fide United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that was conducted in partnership with the state of Nevada. The federal government was contributing roughly 60 percent of the total program expenses and the state about 40 percent. It was not a grant; it was a line item appropriation from the United States Congress.
Mr. Beers asked if the Department was picking up 40 percent of the position’s Cost of Living Allowance (COLA).
Mr. Henderson said no, across the program about 40 percent of the employees worked for the state and 60 percent worked for the federal government. There were 12 individuals involved.
Mr. Beers reiterated that it made no sense to him that there was a program with state and federal employees working together and the state was paying for one of the federal employees.
Mr. Henderson explained that a state position had been transferred to the federal government. Mr. Beers asked why. Mr. Henderson said for less cost to the state and because the federal government had the money to pay for the position.
Mr. Beers asked why the Department was asking for money for the position.
Mr. Gimlin responded that he would try to answer the question. He stated he believed there was still confusion between the Department giving a raise to a federal employee based upon the federal pay rates and giving a COLA that a state employee would have received over the past two years.
Mr. Beers commented that because it was a federal position there were COLAs over the past four to six years that state employees had not received.
Mr. Gimlin replied that this had nothing to do with the federal rate of pay; it only had to do with the rate of pay if the position had remained a state position. Mr. Gimlin said he was not certain he could present it in a way that would clear it up for Mr. Beers.
Mr. Beers stated that was because it did not make sense. He further stated, “Forget about the money, let’s talk about the policy. We have a program that we engage in, in conjunction with the federal government, that is 60 percent federal, 40 percent state. Let’s say hypothetically there are five people working in this program and that three of them work for the federal government and two of them for the state government. One of those three for the federal government gets federal pay, federal benefits, federal medical plan, and cost-of- living raises from the federal government when the federal government gives them out. They have the benefit of being able to just print money, we have to actually go out and get it from people. Now, we are going to take General Fund, give it to the federal government for them to pay one of these three people more salary.”
Mr. Gimlin interjected that it was the same salary. Mr. Beers asked “same as what.” Mr. Gimlin replied, the same as the state position at the time.
Mr. Beers restated that one of the three federal employees in this five-person, joint program, did not get COLAs as the other two federal employees in this program did for the years in which the state did not give COLAs. Mr. Gimlin stated that only a two-year period was involved as the COLA had been implemented last session. Mr. Beers asked why. Mr. Gimlin stated at that point in time the Department had an employee who retired, there was a vacant position on the state side, and there was a better labor pool available on the federal side.
Mr. Beers stated he failed to understand why there was a better labor pool on the federal side.
Mr. Henderson stated that previous to last session the Department’s cost share agreement was more equalized. What had basically happened was that the Department had a position in the Ely office become available and the state did not have the money to fill the position. The federal government volunteered to make the position a federal position. Part of the cooperative agreement with the federal government was that the state would be responsible for any state COLA increases for that particular position. Mr. Henderson said there had been a reduction of state obligations overall to this state and federal program.
Chairwoman Chowning noted by transferring this position to the federal government the state of Nevada saved approximately $50,000 and now $8,000 was being returned to a federal position because of the agreement between the state and the federal government. Chairwoman Chowning asked if the COLA increase would happen every biennium.
Mr. Gimlin stated that it would not happen next biennium because it did not appear that there would be any salary increases for state employees. Mr. Gimlin stated that the idea of this agreement was to create a “wash.” If this position had remained a state position the same increases would have happened as with the federal position. It was certainly not meant to pad the federal budget or reduce the state staff.
Mr. Beers inquired whether the person in this position was working in New York, or Florida, or someplace with a larger labor pool. He presumed the person was working in Ely, which was still in Nevada the last time he checked. Mr. Beers asked how the federal labor pool was better than the state labor pool for meat inspectors in Nevada.
Mr. Henderson said he thought there was a misunderstanding of what this position did. The position did not inspect meat, this was the position that took care of predatory animals, such as trapping rats, trapping feral cats, and removing geese from airport runways in metropolitan areas.
Mr. Beers noted that all of those projects in Las Vegas were a very long drive from Ely.
Mr. Henderson replied that this function worked across the state and the point he was trying to make was that this was a specialized position. It was attached to the federal government which had several hundred employees across the United States and they had the ability to transfer people where needed.
Mr. Beers asked why the state was paying for this position.
Mr. Henderson stated the bottom line was that the Department had a vacant state position and the state did not have the funding to fill that position.
Mr. Beers commented that instead of cutting the position, the Department made a deal with the federal government.
Mr. Henderson stated that the position was filled with a federal employee.
Ms. McClain stated it was a drop in the bucket when you looked at the entire budget, but “one person was cut a sweet deal.” She felt it set a bad precedent for agencies that wanted to let someone retire and then hire them back under a different fund.
Mr. Gimlin clarified that the person who retired from the state position was not the same one rehired for the federal position.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, APPROVING THE NEW QUARTER-TIME POSITION IN DECISION UNIT E-275, BUT NOT APPROVING DECISION UNIT E-500, COLA FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL POSITION.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED ON THE SENATE SIDE WITH SENATORS RHOADS AND COFFIN VOTING NO. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE.
The following motion was offered for Senate consideration:
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE SENATE SIDE WITH SENATOR TIFFANY VOTING NO.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Chairwoman Chowning noted that the Assembly had closed differently than the Senate in Budget Account 4600.
MINERALS (101-4219)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE MINERALS-1
Mr. Ferguson stated the only issue in Budget Account 4219 was unclassified salary modifications. Testimony during the budget hearing indicated that the Division of Minerals wished to pursue increases to the unclassified salary levels, even though the increases were not contained in The Executive Budget. Subsequent to the budget hearing, the Division had notified staff that they wished to withdraw that request.
Alan Coyner, Administrator, Division of Minerals, stated for the record that Mr. Ferguson’s statement that the Division did not wish to pursue the salary increases was essentially correct, but it was an action of the Commission on Mineral Resources. The Commission had submitted the request for the increases for the unclassified salaries to the Budget Division first, and was referred to the Governor’s Office. The request was submitted to the Governor’s Office and the Commission was told that the request was not supported. The Commission still supported the salary increases and Fred D. Gibson, Jr., Chairman, Commission on Mineral Resources, had appointments with Senator Raggio and Assemblyman Arberry to discuss the matter.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Beers stated that he recalled from testimony previously heard that there was concern on the part of the Division regarding the Attorney General’s cost allocation and asked if staff had any further information regarding that matter.
Mr. Stevens stated that staff expected to receive the Attorney General’s cost allocation changes today and if they arrived the changes would be studied and staff would provide the information at the next Subcommittee meeting.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
ADMINISTRATION (101-3272)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-1
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated there were two major issues in this budget. The first issue was in decision unit E-500, the addition of a Maintenance Repair Worker III. During the Subcommittee hearings the issue of cost versus control of the work product had been considered. Staff had pointed out that the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) had only spent $26,649 for contracted maintenance repair services, while the proposed new position would require $31,602 in FY2003-04 and $41,800 in FY2004-05. The addition to the budget account would be $6,259 in FY2003-04 and $16,791 in FY2004-05 because of reduction in operating costs to cover some of the costs of the position in this biennium. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the cost difference seemed to outweigh the utilization of a full-time position. The Department’s position was that they needed control of the position and the quality of work.
Ms. McClain stated that she understood the contract was for both northern Nevada and southern Nevada and asked if there were two contracts.
Mr. Rodriguez replied that there was one contract for maintenance and repair that covered both the north and south.
Ms. McClain said that one company was going to take care of both and asked if when they hired someone full time it would be just for the north.
Mr. Rodriguez replied that it was not really a contract but contract services. In the category of contract services the Department paid for the maintenance and repair work in the north and the maintenance and repair work in the south. The Department would still maintain some expenditures in the contract services to cover the maintenance and repair in the south and this would be a full-time position for the north.
Ms. McClain said that was her question: the $26,649 that would not be needed for the contract was only the northern portion of the contract.
Mr. Rodriguez replied that was correct.
Chairwoman Chowning stated that it came down to cost of service versus quality of work.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Chairwoman Chowning said that it would be cost allocated and the increased amount would be $6,259 in FY2003 and $16,791 in FY2004-05. Mr. Rodriguez replied that was correct.
Mr. Rodriguez said that item number two was a recommendation to change the employment status of the two assistant director positions from classified to unclassified. The issue arose in the Subcommittee and the Department supported the change. Staff would note those positions were currently filled and approval of this decision unit would require legislation through the unclassified pay bill.
Mr. Rodriguez stated there were some other items to be considered. Decision unit E-605 was a budget reduction recommending elimination of an Administrative Services Officer I position that had been vacant since October 11, 2000. The savings to the budget account would be $58,778 in FY 2003-04 and $63,498 in FY2004-05.
Decision unit M-525 was a request for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) funding to be restored to its FY2003 level of $4,745 in each year of the biennium. Staff had adjusted the recommended ADA funding for the Rehabilitation budget accounts to $60 per FTE consistent with the Subcommittee’s closing of the Department’s Rehabilitation budget accounts.
The Department had requested replacement of a pickup truck in Budget Account 3272. Mr. Rodriguez stated that staff had reviewed that request and indicated the pickup truck was a warranted replacement, but would note that if the truck was replaced, an adjustment to the vehicle maintenance category for the maintenance expended in the current biennium would be warranted.
Chairwoman Chowning asked why a half-ton truck had to be replaced with a one-ton truck.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Department indicated it was because of capacity and better utilization.
Marty Ramirez, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), stated that the office services truck that was being requested was used to move furniture from offices around the Carson City-Reno area, as well as to move large pallets of supplies from the DETR warehouse to other buildings.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR AND APPROVE DECISION UNITS E-500, E-805, E-605, AND M-525.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESSING (101-3274)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-7
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the first item in this budget was the request for eight new positions and the conversion of a part-time position to full time. Recommended positions included three computer network technicians, two computer system technicians, two programmers, a database management specialist position, and the conversion of a part-time programmer position to a full-time programmer position.
During previous Subcommittee meetings there had been issues regarding the request for the three computer network technicians. Mr. Rodriguez noted that data provided by the DETR did not support the workload demand that three full-time positions would require. The Department responded to that deficit by providing information indicating that the three network technicians were needed to support increasing calls for technical services and assistance from the department resource centers, job-link sites, and one-stop operations shops. The Department also had an issue with the quality of work being performed by contract workers currently doing the work. Mr. Rodriguez added that the initial information from the DETR did not reveal the total workload of those positions. The Department also provided workload demand statistics for programmers in the database positions. Staff had reviewed those programs and workloads and had determined there was sufficient workload to support the new positions, and, in fact, there was probably more work than would be covered by the eight and, one-half positions. Mr. Rodriguez stated the workload that was presented seemed to be long-term in nature.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if when everything slowed down in the future would the DETR relinquish those eight positions.
Mr. Rodriguez said he hesitated to predict what the DETR’s workload would be in the future, but noted the Department indicated that the workload they had currently identified appeared to be long-term and did not appear to be decreasing.
Chairwoman Chowning requested comment from Myla Florence, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation.
Ms. Florence responded that in the world we live in today she did not envision the workload or technology needs slowing down. For example, the Department had been notified very recently that the President was likely to sign another extension for unemployment benefits only for airline workers and those who either supplied or manufactured components directly related to the airline industry. Ms. Florence stated that in terms of a programming element, those benefits were far different than normal unemployment benefits. While Ms. Florence did not foresee any decrease in the workload, she stated if people did not have enough work, the Department would notice and take the appropriate action.
Mr. Rodriguez continued with his presentation by stating that decision unit E‑301 requested $101,097 each year of the biennium for standby pay and training. In previous subcommittee meetings issues had arisen concerning the standby pay as to whether it was adequately scoped or needed to be scaled back. Currently, the Department did not have a process for standby pay and it was shifting to a full 24-hour, 7-day-per-week coverage. Mr. Rodriguez said that staff had no reservations about the standby pay concept, but did have an issue with the scope of coverage. The Department had averaged from $3,000 to $4,000 per year in overtime pay that related to 24-hour coverage or emergency calls, and the current request was for $31,252 for five positions to cover that standby pay. If the Subcommittee chose to approve funding for standby pay, staff would advise that the Department track and monitor the use of standby pay in order to provide a baseline for the next legislative session.
The second component of decision unit E-301 was to provide $69,845 in each year of the biennium for developing Oracle-based applications. Mr. Rodriguez stated training costs were significant at $16,000 per class and the Department wanted to provide four classes. Staff had checked with the vendor and cross‑checked with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and verified that the cost for training was correct.
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-170 recommended funding of $545,158 in FY2003-04 and $533,983 in FY2004-05 for the replacement of PCs, miscellaneous office and computer equipment, printers, computer operating supplies, and increases in annual software maintenance. Staff had made technical adjustments to computer equipment, printers, and software based on revised pricing from State Purchasing.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL OF DECISION UNITS E-300, E-301, E-170, AND E-720 AND WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS (101-3273)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-12
Mr. Rodriguez stated that there were no major issues in this budget account. He did note, however, that decision unit E-350 recommended $43,937 in FY2004 and $38,937 in FY2005 to develop and implement a marketing plan to promote the Department’s Nevada Career Information System (NCIS). Funding would be used to purchase promotional materials and equipment, presentation displays, and provide NCIS training. According to the Department, the DETR would fund the cost of providing the NCIS software to the state’s schools and employment service providers.
Decision unit E-710 was the equipment request. Mr. Rodriguez noted that staff had adjustments to the cost of software, PCs, and printers based upon the revised pricing from State Purchasing.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (205-4770)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-18
Mr. Rodriguez stated there were no major issues associated with Budget Account 4770, however, there were several decision units that should be brought to the Subcommittee’s attention.
Decision unit E-500 dealt with intermittent positions. In past budgets intermittent positions had been built into the Division’s base. Staff recommended approving the Governor’s recommendation to reinstate $1.2 million in each year of the biennium to allow the Division the ability to hire the equivalent of up to 30 intermittent positions.
Decision units E-710 and E-720 recommended $1.3 million in FY2003-04 and $518,306 in FY2004-05 for the replacement and purchase of office and computing equipment. The major item in those decision units was $733,500 to replace the Department’s call routing units. The Department indicated the system was comprised of four call routing units that were experiencing compatibility problems that could cause system interruptions and complications.
Mr. Rodriguez noted that decision unit E-501 recommended additional funding to raise the standard level of training allocation per FTE to $110 per FTE, which would amount to the addition of $2,998 in each year of the biennium.
Decision unit M-525 pertained to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expenditures. Mr. Rodriguez said the Subcommittee might recall that $60 per FTE had been established as the level of funding for this particular expense. However, in this account there were a large number of positions and based upon the ADA expenditures for this budget account over the past four years, staff would recommend that a funding level of $5,000 be accepted.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-500 AND WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
CAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (205-4767)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-27
Mr. Rodriguez stated there were no major issues contained in Budget Account 4767 but pointed out that decision unit E-450 requested $2.6 million in FY2004 and $2.7 million in FY2005 to address caseload growth for the current program and to expand the program to include training for incumbent workers. Incumbent workers were defined as not being unemployed, but workers who wanted to receive additional training, attain career goals, or change career fields. The current program was mandated to serve only unemployed workers; therefore, legislation would be required to include employed workers in the program. S.B. 423 had been referred to the Committee on Commerce. In order to accommodate the expansion of the Career Enhancement Program, The Executive Budget recommended that $1.0 million in each year of the biennium be dedicated to training and career enhancement for incumbent workers. There had been a study conducted to determine if there was sufficient demand for Incumbent Workers Training (IWT) and it had been determined that there was considerable demand and a significant need for more such training.
The Executive Budget recommended funding in the amount of $1.1 million in FY2003-04 and $1.2 million in FY2004-05 to provide funding for training services for unemployed workers. Also included in the recommended funding was $500,000 in each year of the biennium for the Nevada Commission on Economic Development in support of their Train Employees Now (TEN) program pursuant to NRS 231.148.
Chairwoman Chowning commented that if the Subcommittee wished to approve decision unit E-450 it would be subject to the passage of S.B. 423.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-450 AND WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY SPECIAL FUND (235-4771)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-33
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Employment Security Special Fund was funded through penalty interest and forfeitures collected from employers for non-payment or late payment of unemployment taxes.
Mr. Rodriguez stated, as an informational item for the Subcommittee, the federal government had informed the Department that there would be significant cuts in unemployment funding to the states. The Department was notified that Congress planned to under-fund the national Unemployment Insurance Program by approximately $94 million for FY2002-03. In addition, the President’s proposed budget for FY2003-04 will probably reflect a $2.6 million reduction in Nevada’s base unemployment insurance funding from FY2003 levels. Due to the erratic funding by the Department of Labor (DOL) the Department recommended using Budget Account 4771 as a contingency account to fund equipment and provide support to other budget accounts.
Decision unit E-850 recommended funding for a new administration building in Las Vegas. Mr. Rodriguez said the Department was fortunate to receive federal Reed Act funds to replace the previous funding planned for the building. Previously, the building was to be funded with $1 million from the sale of properties in Las Vegas and Reno and $2 million from Budget Account 4771 and the remainder financed with bonds. With the new Reed Act funds, the $2 million from Budget Account 4771 would remain in the Penalty and Interest (P&I) account and the total project would be funded by Reed Act funds and the sale of the property. The Interim Finance Committee had authorized a revision in the scope of the project to include the purchase of additional land for the building. Decision unit E-850 provided for an additional change in scope for the project that would increase the square footage of the facility from 40,000 square feet to approximately 60,000 square feet. Mr. Rodriguez noted that this particular adjustment would have to be handled through the budget. The Department indicated that any redirection of P&I funding would have to be presented to the IFC for approval.
Decision unit E-300 was an Unemployment Insurance Contributions System Rewrite. Mr. Rodriguez stated this project had been around for some time. Phase I had been completed in the time frame from March 1998 to July 1999. Phase II of the rewrite had been authorized by the 1999 Legislature and the 2001 Legislature. There had been delays due to mandates from the federal government to complete other projects. Mr. Rodriguez commented that the delays had been both good and bad. The positive side was that the project had been delayed to the point that $900,000 in federal funds had become available since the delays began. The negative side was that it had taken four to six years to get the project implemented and in the meantime costs had been increasing.
Chairwoman Chowning requested that a representative of the Employment Security Division testify as to when the project might be completed and as to the total cost.
Birgit Baker, Administrator, Employment Security Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, responded that, as Mr. Rodriguez had indicated, by securing the additional federal funds another component consisting of Internet, business registration, and tax and wage reporting, had been added to the project. Ms. Baker stated that component would be completed no later than December 2004 and the total project, which included the rewrite of the core accounting system, would be completed no later than December 2006. The total cost of the project, including the federal component, was $7.5 million.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL FOR DECISION UNITS E-301, E-720, E-850, AND E-300.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY (101-3156)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DETR-58
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Governor had recommended transferring this agency from the Department of Business and Industry to the DETR. The funding source would change from General Fund to Section 110 and General Fund match. This budget account was previously called the Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities and its role would change from an advocacy/facilitator function to a policy-oriented function. General Fund support for this budget was decreased by $223,161 to $19,549.
Chairwoman Chowning stated the Subcommittee understood and agreed with the policy and asked for a motion.
SENATOR TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Senator Coffin was not present for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Anne Bowen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE:
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Chairwoman
DATE: