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 28, 2003

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on General Government, was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Monday, April 28, 2003.  Chairwoman Sandra Tiffany 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 Sandra Tiffany, Chairwoman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst

Julie Brand, Program Analyst

Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

 

Chairwoman Sandra Tiffany called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. and opened the budget hearings with the Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division.

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, HOUSING DIVISION (503-3841) EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-89

 

Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 503-3841 and said that staff recommended the account be closed as recommended by the Governor.  She said closing items included decision unit M-597, the tax credit program audits that requested $41,700 in FY2003 and $83,400 in FY2004 for additional funding to perform audits as required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  She noted that the additional audit activity would be funded through additional audit fees.  In decision unit E-150, the IRS tax credit award program, the Governor recommended a $143,000 increase over the next biennium for program expenditures.  Tax credits awarded to the Housing Division by the U.S. Treasury Department would increase from $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

 

Ms. Garrett said that in the Special Needs Projects, decision unit E-151, the Governor recommended $750,000 over the biennium to issue an additional $15 million in bond debt financing for housing projects that addressed one or more of the special needs population that had been identified as senior population, disabled, HIV, or Alzheimer’s.  Additionally, the budget requested minor spending for replacement equipment, a telephone voice mail system, two laptop computers and a server, and under new equipment, decision unit E-720, the agency requested $4,999 in FY2003-04 to purchase a color printer.

 

Charles Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, introduced himself and said that in Senate Bill 78 they requested authorization to purchase sophisticated data processing systems independent of DoIT because the Division was close to a $1 billion financial institution.

 

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, said that they had also requested a file server replacement in the second year of the biennium.  He said the replacements in S.B. 78 were replacements and upgrades of their existing server system.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if those replacements were in the budget.  Mr. DeWeese responded that they were in the budget.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning applauded the Housing Division’s good record and asked them to continue to remodel and develop as much affordable housing as possible for all Nevada’s population.  She noted she had not seen anything in the Special Needs Project budget having to do with prisoners’ reentry into society.  She asked Mr. Horsey for an update on that project.

 

Mr. Horsey noted that Mr. Parks was also interested in the prisoners’ reentry project.  He said they had set aside funds from their low-income housing trust fund for two projects.   One fund set aside $400,000 to purchase land for a transitional facility for parolees, and another fund allocated $400,000 in each year of the biennium for the state-of-the-art assisted living project being developed in southern Nevada for senior citizens.  The deadline for application submission for both projects was April 11.  He said they had received applications for the assisted living project but none for the transitional facility for prison parolees.  He said that Section 42 of the federal tax code would not allow them to use the tax credit program for transitional housing for inmates and he had been advised that they would pursue conventional financing.  Mr. Horsey said the $400,000 for the land purchase was still available but absenting the tax credit program, he could not inform Mrs. Chowning how the prisoners’ reentry project was going.  He confirmed that the assisted living project was moving forward.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 503-3841 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

LOW INCOME HOUSING TRUST FUND (101-3838)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-96

 

Ms. Garrett introduced Budget Account 101-3838 and said that staff recommended the account be closed as recommended by the Governor.  She said decision unit E-400 had been discussed earlier and there would be technical adjustments to that account as other Business and Industry budgets closed.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the Special Needs Housing Projects, that would provide assisted living housing for people with Alzheimer’s, would be located in Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Horsey said the assisted living project would probably not house Alzheimer’s patients.  He noted that Assemblywoman Buckley had spearheaded the assisted living project that involved an $800,000 donation from the Harrah’s Foundation matched with low income housing trust fund money.  He said the project would probably be designated for persons with 50 percent of median income or below.  He did not think they would be able to address the Alzheimer’s groups yet.  He said that group would be addressed in the near future.

 

Mrs. Chowning noted that their backup information needed correcting.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if that changed the budget.  Ms. Garrett said she did not believe so.

 

Mr. Horsey offered clarification and said they addressed the area of Alzheimer’s specialized needs in Senate Bill 78 but were not able to get that portion of the bill successfully out of committee.  When S.B. 78 reached the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs the provision for the Alzheimer’s group was no longer included.  Mrs. Chowning said that had to be put off for another biennium.  Mr. Horsey said that was correct.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3838 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, WEATHERIZATION (101-4865)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-100

 

Ms. Garrett introduced Budget Account 101-4865 and said the budget was recommended as a status quo budget by the Governor.  She said that staff recommended the account be closed as recommended by the Governor with technical adjustments as needed and as other budgets closed.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4865 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Senator Rhoads asked why total revenues for Budget Account 101-4865 increased 297 percent in FY2002-2003.

 

Mr. Horsey responded that prior to the 71st Legislative Session the weatherization program received its entire funding from the federal government and those monies had been declining every year.  In the 71st Legislative Session the Legislature increased funding for the weatherization program about fourfold.  He noted that the delivery system was up and running, and doing well.  He said the Committee would be very pleased with the results of that program.  Mr. Horsey said the state was able to significantly augment the amount of monies going into the program where before there had been only federal funds.

 

Assemblyman Beers asked for clarification regarding whether or not the state was able to augment the federal funding with funds generated from the tax on power bills rather than with the General Fund.  Mr. Horsey confirmed Mr. Beers’ statement.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, DAIRY COMMISSION (233-4470)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-69

 

Ms. Garrett introduced Budget Account 233-4470 and said that staff recommended the account be closed as recommended by the Governor with one technical adjustment for the purchasing assessment and additional technical adjustments that would be made as other budgets closed.

 

SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 233-4470 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (101-3835)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-103

 

Ms. Garrett introduced Budget Account 101-3835 and said there were no major closing issues.  Staff recommended closing the budget as recommended by the Governor with one technical adjustment.  She said decision unit E-125 proposed to convert Financial Institutions from a General Fund agency to a self-funded agency.  Decision unit E-125 contained information regarding the change, including a General Fund adjustment for the allocation they had been receiving from the General Fund.  In the first year of the biennium she said Financial Institutions would receive a loan of $357,000 from the General Fund, which would be repaid at the end of the fiscal year.  In FY2005 there would be a $1,000 General Fund appropriation, which would be repaid at the end of that fiscal year.  Those funds would provide the Division with access to the Interim Finance Committee if there were a funding deficit.  The $1,000 loan would continue forward in each fiscal year.  Ms. Garrett noted that Assembly Bill 493 provided the authority for Financial Institutions to establish a special revenue account so the revenues and assessments collected by the Division could be deposited to the fund and used to pay their expenses.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning moved to close Budget Account 101-3835 as recommended by the governor with technical adjustments.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, ATHLETIC COMMISSION (101-3952)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE B&I-162

 

Ms. Garrett introduced Budget Account 101-3952 and said the budget was a status quo budget recommended by the Governor.  She said that staff recommended the account be closed as recommended by the Governor and there were no technical adjustments other than those that might occur when other budgets closed.

 

SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3952 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

Mrs. Chowning praised the Athletic Commission for the professional job they had done bringing in $1.8 million in revenue to the General Fund.  She noted that even with the downturn in the economy they had brought in very close to what was deposited prior to the downturn and deserved some credit.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BUDGET AND PLANNING (101-1340)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-1

 

Julie Brand, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 101-1340 and said there were two closing issues.  She said there was funding requested in the amount of $125,000 in FY2004 for an external contractor to evaluate current information technology services.  Previous correspondence between fiscal staff and the Division requested confirmation on the feasibility of using Internal Audit staff to perform some of the recommended services.  Ms. Brand noted that the response provided by the Division on April 11, 2003, confirmed that the Division would consider using Internal Audit services to the extent that resources and expertise were available.  However, a corresponding reduction in the cost to conduct that study was not reflected because the Division was unable to determine the extent to which existing staff could be used.  Furthermore, the Division indicated that prior to commencement of the study the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), Internal Audit, and the Department of Administration must mutually agree to the scope and measurement parameters of the study.  Ms. Brand said the Subcommittee might want to revisit that issue when closing the DoIT budgets on April 29, 2003.

 

Ms. Brand said that in decision unit E-300 the Governor recommended funding of $225,000 from the state General Fund to enhance the Nevada Executive Budget System (NEBS).  She said the $225,000 was the contract price for a software consultant.  The decision unit would add funding source maps, internal service fund rate structures, and provide more flexible reporting.  She said the Subcommittee should note that subsequent to the March 28 budget hearing, the Division had been requested to provide supporting documentation from the consultant for the $225,000 contract price.  The Division’s response noted that the contractor had agreed that essential budget functionality could be developed for a fixed price of $225,000.  Ms. Brand said the Subcommittee should also note that the NEBS was a modified version of the Budget Analysis System of Nevada (BASN) used by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).  As modifications were being considered, LCB staff raised concerns as to the effects of NEBS on BASN.  She said that a recent response by the Budget Division assured the LCB that the enhancement would in no way alter the format of the NEBS data transfer to the BASN system.  In order to further ensure that the transition would not negatively impact BASN the Budget Division suggested LCB staff attend weekly project status meetings.  Ms. Brand said the Subcommittee might wish to consider funding decision unit E-300 at the recommended amount with a proviso that the Budget Division guarantee that the project would not impact functionality between NEBS and BASN.

Ms. Brand said the Governor recommended funding of $15,000 each year to replace computers, software and hardware.  Staff concurred with that recommendation adjusted for technical pricing.

 

Ms. Brand said there was a recommendation to transfer ongoing system operation maintenance costs of approximately $95,000 in each year of the biennium for the Integrated Financial System (IFS).  Fiscal staff concurred with that recommendation pending final approval of the DoIT budget accounts because there was related DoIT pricing within the $95,000 yearly allocation.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked Mr. Comeaux to discuss the NEBS system and invited Mr. Beers to participate.  She asked how they arrived at $225,000.

 

John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, introduced himself and said he had staff present who could respond to Chairwoman Tiffany’s question.

 

Assemblyman Beers suggested that if the Subcommittee approved decision unit E-300 that in addition to requiring a guarantee that the format for the transfer of the data between NEBS and BASN would be impact free, they require a member of the LCB fiscal staff to attend the weekly project status meetings.  He noted that was not part of the requirement but thought that would be a critical component to making the budget process run smoothly in the future biennium.

 

David McTeer, Project Manager, Integrated Financial Systems, Department of Administration, introduced himself and said the $225,000 figure had been arrived at after many discussions between the contractor, Budget Division analysts, and himself.  He said there was agreement on the number of hours it would take to develop the required functionality and the design phase had already begun.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked what would happen to the project if it were only funded at $150,000.

 

Mr. McTeer said the functionality that was needed to enhance the system would not be possible if not funded at $250,000.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that any time she received a budget she set her priorities and accomplished as much as possible.  She asked what could be accomplished for $150,000.

 

Mr. McTeer said he did not know.  He said the number of hours required to put in the enhancements necessary to make the project worthwhile had been reviewed.  He said the contractor provided a 50 percent discount of the normal billing rate for a fixed number of hours.  He said the Department had negotiated as much as possible with the contractor and no further reduction was likely.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked who was the contractor.

 

Mr. McTeer said the Department had contracted with Aeris Enterprises, Inc.  He said the Department was currently involved in three projects with Aeris Enterprises, Inc.

 

• Aeris Enterprises, Inc. had been the developer of the HR Data Warehouse and had been the contractor for the Integrated Financial System (IFS) project since 1999.


• Aeris Enterprises, Inc. had been the developer, in partnership with the state, of the Nevada Employee Action and Timekeeping System (NEATS) that was the state’s online timekeeping and personnel action and training system.

 

• Aeris Enterprises, Inc. was the contractor for the design phase of the NEBS enhancement.

 

Mr. McTeer said the Department had a long history with the contractor and the work had been excellent.  All deliverables were completed within the amount budgeted.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if it was a sole source contract.  Mr. McTeer said yes.  Chairwoman Tiffany remarked that the contract had not gone out for bid.  Mr. McTeer said that was correct.  Chairwoman Tiffany said she believed there was a policy that required a bidding process.  Mr. Comeaux stated a bid was required unless authority was obtained for a sole source contract, which he believed was the case with that contract.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked how much the contractor charged per hour.  Mr. McTeer said normal rates were $225 per hour, which was not out of line for that kind of work.  In the case under discussion the contractor gave a 50 percent discount on the NEBS development contract.  Mr. McTeer said he had been in consulting and development and $225 per hour was not out of line.  Chairwoman Tiffany asked what the fee covered.

 

Mr. McTeer said the contract covered developing the system to the agency’s specifications and providing the knowledge transfer for state staff so that they could support the system after the contract was completed.  Mr. McTeer pointed out that because of the relationship between the agency and the vendor, the vendor wanted to take both the NEATS and the NEBS products to market after the project was completed.  He said that was part of the reason for the 50 percent discount.  He said as a result the state would not have any ongoing license maintenance fees, and the state would get all additional upgrades to the systems at no additional cost.  Mr. McTeer said he tried to avoid buying a cheap product and then having to continuously pay for replacements.  He said he believed the contractor had done a good job for the state with the NEBS contract.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if Mr. McTeer could ensure that the BASN interface would be flaw free.  Mr. McTeer said yes, that was part of the design parameters and was guaranteed.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) fiscal staff should be present at the systems meetings and she assumed Mr. McTeer would be the project manager.  Mr. McTeer stated that was correct.  Chairwoman Tiffany said he could assure the Committee that LCB staff would be present.  Mr. McTeer said LCB staff would be welcome.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked who had provided approval for the sole source contract.

 

Mr. McTeer said the Department obtained sole source approval from State Purchasing, which by statute was the only entity authorized to give sole source approval.  He said the justification for sole source approval was that the developer would use several of the same tools, techniques, and security models that had been used in the NEAT System.  Mr. McTeer added that state staff was already learning that system so the state would receive a knowledge transfer without a totally separate technology to support.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said the portion of decision unit E-500 that involved DoIT would be omitted and that decision unit would be covered when the DoIT budget was reviewed.  She suggested that the budget be closed with technical adjustments as recommended by staff.

 

Assemblyman Beers said he would like to have language included in the motion to have fiscal staff attend the weekly briefings for the development of the NEBS project.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked Mr. Beers if that was his motion.  Mr. Beers said that would be his motion and added that decision unit E-500 was not being acted upon.  Chairwoman Tiffany agreed and said the Subcommittee would cover decision unit E‑500 the next day.  Mr. Beers added that decision unit E‑300 was included in the motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1340 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR INCLUDING TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, TO ADJUST DECISION UNIT E-300 TO HAVE Legislative Counsel Bureau FISCAL STAFF ATTEND WEEKLY BRIEFINGS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEBS PROJECT, AND TO HOLD DECISION UNIT E-500 UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET HEARINGS.

 

SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF INTERNAL AUDIT (101-1342)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-7

 

Ms. Brand introduced Budget Account 101-1342 and said there were no closing issues in that budget.  Staff recommended a technical adjustment for computer pricing.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1342 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS (101-1325)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-14

 

Ms. Brand introduced Budget Account 101-1325 and said it was a new budget account that represented costs for information technology that exceeded $500,000.  Funding for the various projects depended on the nature of the projects and currently the General Fund, Highway Fund, and some federal fund and internal agency transfers funded the three proposed projects.

 

Ms. Brand said the first decision unit for consideration was M-501.  Currently the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (MH/DS) utilized Advanced Institutional Management Software (AIMS) to maintain its client information billing system.  Creative Socio-Medics Corporation (CSM) acquired the assets of AIMS in May 2001.  CSM established an AIMS product support sunset date of October 2002 with support continuing beyond if customers chose to upgrade to the Avatar System.  The proposal in decision unit M-501 recommended upgrading to the Avatar System for a biennium cost of $2.5 million.  She said that the cost included overtime costs of $10,154 in FY2004 and $7,690 in FY2005 for MH/DS employees.  Ms. Brand noted that the Governor’s budget recommended $5,700 per year for four individuals to travel to New York State for an annual Avatar user group workshop and work sessions.  She said the Subcommittee might consider allowing one or two individuals to attend the user group workshops each year who would then update and advise Division employees.

 

Ms. Brand explained that due to the acquisition and subsequent discontinuance of the AIMS software license by CSM, the vendor for the Avatar products, it appeared the Division had little choice but to transition from the AIMS into the Avatar environment.  She said that if decision unit M-501 was approved in that account and the MH/DS Information System account, Budget Account 3154, the Subcommittee might wish to recommend a Letter of Intent directing the Division to provide quarterly reports, including project cost information, to the Interim Finance Committee during the 2003-05 biennium.

 

Ms. Brand said that the replacement request in decision units M-502 and M-503 for the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) in northern and southern Nevada paralleled the same system conversion situation as for MH/DS in decision unit M-501 and was for a conversion of the AIMS billing system to the Avatar System.  Decision unit M-502 recommended replacement for the Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services (SNCAS) at a cost of $757,000 in FY2004 and $195,000 in FY2005.  Decision unit M-503 recommended replacement for the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services (NNCAS) at a cost of $354,000 in FY2004 and $398,000 in FY2005.  She said that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) had indicated that $145,000 of the total figure requested in each year in decision unit M-502 was for project manager services for both southern and northern Nevada.  Similarly in decision unit M-503, $173,000 of the total amount recommended in FY2005 was for United Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) interface services for both northern and southern Nevada.

 

Ms. Brand noted that the budget also recommended a new information specialist position for both agencies.  She said the new positions were not contained in The Executive Budget but were in the respective southern and northern Nevada budgets.  The Division indicated that the new positions were necessary to coordinate installation and ongoing operation of the new program and hardware.  Estimated future costs in FY2006 as provided by DCFS totaled $987,000 with continuing implementation costs of $629,000.

 

Ms. Brand said as noted in the discussion for decision unit M-501 for MH/DS it did not appear that DCFS had any other option than to transition to the Avatar system.  She said it was unclear if the Division had pursued other options.

 

Ms. Brand said that Amendment Number 106 to The Executive Budget submitted by the Budget Division reduced costs incorrectly included in decision units M-502 and M-503 for HIPAA contract services and for some additional adjustments for personal computers and software.  The combined reduction was $50,000 for each year of the biennium.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said the Subcommittee needed to decide whether or not to send one or four people to the Avatar workshops, and whether or not to include a Letter of Intent to the Interim Finance Committee directing the Division to provide quarterly reports that included project cost information.

 

Senator Rhoads asked the agency to discuss why they needed four individuals to attend the Avatar workshops.

 

Troy Williams, Program Evaluation and Information Technology Manager, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, introduced himself and said the request to fund four individuals for the workshops was based on the fact that their agencies were spread throughout the state.  The Division wanted one person from each agency to attend the workshops, after which each individual would have the responsibility to train agency staff in the material and work that resulted from the user group meetings.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if four people had attended in the past.

 

Mr. Williams said he and one other individual had attended a CSM user group meeting in October 2002.  He said they met with representatives from other states and discussed the Avatar system, getting input on the implementation and transition process from AIMS to Avatar.

 

Mr. Beers said he recommended reducing the number of attendees to two and that those two would be individuals other than the two who had attended the last sessions.  Mr. Beers suggested that the Division should alternate years between technical staff and operations management staff.  He said it was understandable that the operations manager would attend as the Division went into the system enhancement but added that the user group workshops were intended for both operations and technical staff.  Mr. Beers said given the budget constraints he did not think four individuals should be sent to training at the same time.

 

Mr. Beers then asked for clarification about the request for $120,000 for the two-year contract position associated with the project.

 

Mr. Williams said the $120,000 reflected $60,000 a year for a contract position to assume his responsibilities with Mental Health Services so that he could assume the position of project manager for the project.

 

Mr. Beers asked if the project was an upgrade.

 

Mr. Williams said the project was an upgrade and a software upgrade and that it was a whole new architecture for them.  He said a centralized server system would be utilized to replace their existing system of separate servers and AS400 type servers.

 

Mr. Beers asked whether the new server would be Windows 2000 compatible.  Mr. Williams said it would be Windows 2000.  Mr. Beers clarified that it would be a Windows 2000 server.  Mr. Williams responded that it would be a Windows 2000 server.

 

Mr. Beers asked if anyone in the organization had experience with a Windows 2000 server.

 

Mr. Williams indicated that staff did not have such experience, and grant money was available to fund some technical training for system administration in Windows 2000.

 

Mr. Beers asked if the Division was exempt from the Department of Information Technology (DoIT).  He said that DoIT was invested in Windows 2000 server technology and he did not want to fund unnecessary duplication of resources.  He said it was expensive to acquire the technical knowledge to support Windows 2000, and the knowledge was somewhat like flying an airplane in that it was needed one day out of every 200 work days once the system was up and running.

 

Mr. Williams testified that the Division already had people supporting the Division’s technical infrastructure, computers, and networks.

 

Mr. Beers asked if the Division had staff cognizant of a Windows 2000 server environment.

 

Mr. Williams said the Division had one Windows 2000 server in the rural clinics.

 

Mr. Beers said the Division had one Windows 2000 server outside Carson City.

 

Mr. Williams said yes, and indicated that the Division’s remaining two servers were AS400s, one located in northern Nevada and one in the south.  Mr. Williams commented that those two servers would be converted and the technical people that currently supported the AS400s would be trained to support the Windows 2000.

 

Mr. Beers remarked, “that’s silly.”  He explained that there was a whole separate mind-set involved in supporting an AS400 system compared to a Windows 2000 system.  He said he did not know that the Division could retrain an individual who was an expert on an AS400 to a Windows 2000 system without a tremendous investment.  The proposal to retrain seemed particularly expensive when the state had individuals within DoIT who had that training and experience.  Mr. Beers asked if there would be one Windows 2000 server serving both the northern and southern regions of the state.

 

Mr. Williams said the Division planned to have the application server in the north and shadow server in the south for redundancy.

 

Mr. Beers asked again if the Division was exempt from DoIT.  Mr. Williams said they were not.  Mr. Beers noted that the Division was not planning on locating the server in the DoIT server farm.  Mr. Williams said they were not.  He said the shadow server would be located in the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Services, with the application server in the northern Nevada agency.

 

Mr. Beers asked why the Division located a server at the other end of the state from where their staff expertise was assigned.

 

Mr. Williams said they had gone over the information technology infrastructure review with DoIT and with some other divisions to evaluate the facility, the bandwidth, and the feasibility to have a server, since their biggest market was in southern Nevada.

 

Mr. Beers asked why they were putting their primary server in northern Nevada.  Mr. Williams responded that the Division had better technical support for the main application server in northern Nevada.  Mr. Beers noted that Mr. Williams had just said that the Division did not have technical support in northern Nevada, but would have to retrain all their AS400 people in the Windows 2000 end server system.

 

Mr. Williams said the Division had one very capable individual in the rural clinics.  Mr. Beers asked if the Division had an individual in Carson City.

 

Mr. Williams said there was a staff member in Carson City who was very capable of handling the application server.  He said the Division also had some very talented individuals who would have the necessary capability of handling the system administration once they attended the training.  He said the Division would install the software and have a system administrator to maintain the server, and software support would come from the vendor.

 

Mr. Beers said he continued to have a “major disconnect” with the plan.  He said he saw several flaws in the plan.  The Division had a primary market to serve in Las Vegas, and the primary server was to be located in Carson City with the back-up server in Las Vegas.  He said he saw three errors thus far, and the entire concept had not been fully explored.  Mr. Beers said to the best of his knowledge servers required individuals with very specialized training that had nothing to do with the agency mission.  Typically one individual could handle a large number of servers, which is why the servers were usually in a centralized location.  He said the Division server was not planned to be in a centralized location, and the back-up server would not be in a centralized location nor would it be in the same location as the primary server.  Mr. Beers said the architecture of the plan did not make sense to him.

 

Mr. Williams said the Division had met with DoIT and conducted a technical review and there was agreement with the plan.  He added that the Division wanted to separate the servers for security reasons.

 

Mr. Beers asked for clarification.

 

Mr. Williams explained that the Division did not want to have the applications and shadow servers in the same room.  He said their plan to separate the servers was similar to that of the Health Division.

 

Senator Coffin asked Mr. Williams to elaborate.  He asked if the security issues had to do with persistent power supply problems, or was there a threat or some additional vulnerability if the servers were housed together.

 

Mr. Williams said the Division did not have any current security problems.  He said it was a common practice in the information technology business to have separate locations for the application and back-up server.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said the Subcommittee should hold that particular section of the budget until after DoIT was consulted.  She said the Subcommittee could make a decision about how many individuals to send for training.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if Mr. Beers had the same kinds of questions with regard to the other systems in the budget and should the Subcommittee hold those until DoIT was consulted.  Mr. Beers said yes.  Chairwoman Tiffany said the Subcommittee would hold all the technical parts of the budget until the meeting with DoIT.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if the Real Estate Division could answer similar questions as to their hardware configurations, sole sourcing, and what the consultants were paid per hour.

 

Gail Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Division, introduced herself and said the Division had worked with DoIT on their project and part of their technical information response was based on the information received from DoIT.  She said the Division was not seeking a sole source provider and that DoIT would be conducting the request for proposal (RFP) process.  She said the number of vendors was limited for the type of system the Real Estate Division required and the RFP’s would target those vendors.  She said the Division was working with DoIT on the technical aspects of the system and the Division’s application program was part of the DoIT server farm.

 

Mrs. Chowning disclosed that she was a real estate licensee and would be affected by the response to her next question.  She asked how much of the $744,527 recommended in General Fund support would be offset by fee increases.

 

Ms. Anderson said Senate Bill 428 projected fee increases of $237,721 in FY2004, and $233,104 in FY2005 to offset General Fund support.  The fee increases were proposed to support program needs for the Real Estate Division and included the integrated licensing system.  She said their budget had not closed and the enhancement units had requested two and one-half positions.

 

Ms. Anderson said that their Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) budget analyst had asked her to explain how she would allocate the fee increases.  She said it was difficult to respond to the request because her Division was supported by the General Fund and she did not determine where funding was allocated.  She said, making a theoretical allocation from the projected fee increases, she divided the total projected revenue increase equally among the eight enhancement units at $29,714 each, thereby meeting all of the costs for each enhancement unit.  Because some enhancement units costs were less than the equally divided portion of $29,714 each, there would be an excess or remainder of $84,979 of the theoretical allocation from the fee increase that would specifically cover the integrated licensing system.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that there were three options for decision unit E-300 in the Real Estate Division; to transfer, use system commercial off-the-shelf software, and custom development.  She asked Ms. Anderson if she had a preference.

 

Ms. Anderson said as a result of DoIT recommendations the Real Estate Division would use an off-the-shelf software program.  She said the program would be customized for the Division’s specific programs and needs.  She said DoIT concluded that was the most cost-effective solution and she concurred with their conclusion.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted there was $175,000 for additional development.

 

Ms. Anderson concurred and said their programs needed some customization.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany commented that $175,000 was a considerable amount of money.  She asked if DoIT would be doing the additional development as well as project management.

 

Ms. Anderson said either DoIT or the budget analyst would have to answer her question.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said she wanted to hold that budget until after the DoIT hearing.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

INSURANCE AND LOSS PREVENTION (715-1352)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-17

 

Julie Brand introduced Budget Account 715-1352 and said the Division of Insurance and Loss was comprised of two sections, Insurance and Loss Prevention and Worker’s Compensation.  She said there were two closing issues for that account, an increase in the Worker’s Compensation Insurance premiums and increases in the property and contents insurance premiums.  She said the Governor recommended an increase in the Workers’ Compensation insurance premiums of $10,635,814 in FY2004 and $6,379,059 in the FY2005.  The Division noted that the majority of the premium increases were due to significant increases in the insurance market resulting from several factors:

 

• Catastrophic losses on September 11, 2001.
• Projected payments to close the retrospective plan years for the Employer’s Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN) component.
• Increased claim cost based on actuarial projections as of September 2002.
• Additional funding to restore the reserve.

 

The net recommended rate increase was $.0159 per gross payroll dollar up to the maximum salary of $36,000 per calendar year for FY2003 and $.0466 per payroll dollar in calendar year FY2004, reduced to $.0152 in the calendar year FY2005.  Ms. Brand noted that those rates were based on a calendar year causing the state fiscal year average rate actually to move from $.0144 to $.0313 in FY2003 and $.0309 in FY2004.  She noted that the claims costs funded in decision unit M-100 were based on actuarial projections using a $1 million deductible.  She said the Subcommittee should be aware that claims exceeding $1 million but less than $2 million, the current deductible, were not currently funded in proposed rates and there was a duplication in the estimated payments to EICON.  However, staff did not recommend adjustments to that category given the potential of increased risk exposure beyond currently proposed funding levels.

 

Ms. Brand said that under the property and contents insurance premium the Governor recommended funding of $760,000 in FY2004 and $862,000 in FY2005.  She said the recommendation was due primarily to the projected increase in property and content insurance of $945,000 in FY2004 and $1 million in FY2005 and was offset by decreases in automobile and comprehensive and collision insurance of $257,000 and increases in other lines of insurance.

 

Ms. Brand said the Division indicated that the increase in property and contents insurance was due primarily to projected increases in property claims and the restoration of the reserve.  She said included in the property claim category was funding of $250,000 in each year of the biennium to the Public Works Board for mold remediation.  She noted that the projected revenue from rates did not cover the cost of the insurance line, including a reserve level of $896,000 in FY2004 and $1.1 million in FY2005, without the consideration of adequate cash balancing forward from FY2003 and FY2004.  Ms. Brand added that the Subcommittee should be aware that on March 20, 2003, the Division implemented a supplemental assessment to agencies for $385,000 due to unanticipated increases in insurance premiums and claim costs combined with a shortage of cash flow.  Therefore, the anticipated cash projected to balance forward for that line of insurance in FY2003 and FY2004 might not be realized.  Staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendations, but recommended a thorough evaluation of the rate models be conducted at a later date.  She noted specifically that on April 25^th the Budget Office indicated that the Division would not be assessed an annual Attorney General (AG) cost allocation.  As such there was a technical adjustment of $150,000 each year that was included in the closing document.  She said that the validity of that adjustment might require further review based on the closing of the AG’s budget.

 

Ms. Brand continued and said that in decision unit E-720 the Governor recommended to increase funding $9,700 in each year of the biennium for special equipment needs such as ergonomic equipment.  For agencies that did not have available resources as of the current date the Division had available authority of $26,900 within decision unit E-720 and had only obligated $12,000.  Staff recommended elimination of decision unit E-720 because it appeared that cash flow could be reduced from levels originally projected and no definitive need had been established.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that there were two areas of concern in the budget, the reserves and the rates.  She said she was concerned that the rates would not yield enough revenue to pay for insurance premiums, maintain the reserve, and remove the Attorney General cost allocation of $150,000 each year of the biennium.  She said those two items made the budget appear to be “built on a house of cards.”

 

Mr. Comeaux said the budget was very tight.  He said with regard to the Attorney General adjustment the Budget Division had just sent information to fiscal staff.  He said he believed the Division was proposing a postponement of the Attorney General cost allocation payment.

 

Stephanie Phenix, Budget Division, introduced herself for the record and said the figure was based on the actual cost allocation for the Attorney General’s Office due to the balance forward.  She explained that the Attorney General’s Office would not be assessed anything for the next biennium.  She said the Attorney General’s Office had enough balance forward funds in their cost allocation plan to carry them through the next biennium.

Mr. Stevens noted that the Fiscal Division had just received the Attorney General’s updated cost allocation spreadsheet.  He said fiscal staff might not be aware of the new information, as they had not had time to go through the spreadsheets.

 

Mrs. Chowning said she had two questions with regard to decision unit M-100.  The first had to do with the mold remediation.  She wanted to know how many properties were covered by the $250,000 request.  She noted that mold remediation was becoming quite expensive and she wanted to know what the basis was for the $250,000 figure.  She said her second question related to the claims.  There had been some unusual and unfortunate claims during the last biennium.  She was concerned that there might not be enough funds available if there were several unforeseen claims in the next biennium and what would happen if insufficient funds were budgeted.

 

With regard to the mold remediation, Mr. Comeaux said that during the current biennium Risk Management had transferred $500,000 to the Public Works Board to pay for those costs.  The $250,000 a year request for the next biennium was based on that figure.  Mr. Comeaux indicated that additional mold problems were likely, but he did not know which specific buildings would be impacted.  He said $250,000 was the “best guess” on the amount needed each year.  Mr. Comeaux stated the amount could be excessive or inadequate depending on what was discovered during the biennium.  In response to Mrs. Chowning’s concern about additional claims, Mr. Comeaux said the Division would feel more comfortable with higher reserves.  He said some exceptional and unfortunate events had been experienced, and if something exceptional were to occur again and there were insufficient funds to cover it, the problem would need to be addressed at that time.  Mr. Comeaux indicated the Division would probably look at additional assessments to budgets, and noted it was very difficult to anticipate that kind of event and their best estimate was utilized to determine the amount recommended.

 

Senator Coffin said the Division could anticipate some mold problems from the age of buildings, leaks, and sprinklers dousing buildings.  He said it was a question of when the problem was reported.  He said mold in government buildings was more expensive than a residence to remediate because government thrived on paper.  Each piece of paper on file had to be cleaned with vacuuming systems that literally sucked the spores off as the paper moved through the system.  He said each file had to be emptied and refilled and that any paper-laden business would cost much more than an ordinary residence to remediate.  Senator Coffin noted that the Division would be under-funded for mold remediation as well as in the insurance reserves.  He said every mold claim was a catastrophe.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he thought Senator Coffin was correct that the Division should be able to predict where to find mold problems.  He said it was difficult to predict the extent of the problem and how much it would cost to remediate.  He said the state was trying to be proactive and when problems were discovered in one building the search would be expanded to similar types of buildings.  Mr. Comeaux indicated that the problem was definitely an employee health and safety issue.  The $250,000 a year recommended was a “best guess.”

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said, “This is really a house of cards.”  She wanted to know what the Subcommittee could do as there was no interim financing.

 

Mr. Stevens said there was no General Fund in that particular account and therefore the Division would not be able to approach the Interim Finance Committee for emergency funds.

 

Mr. Comeaux said they could impose additional assessments if it became necessary.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany clarified and said “rate assessments.”

 

Assemblyman Beers presumed that a change in the assessment would be reviewed by the Interim Finance Committee.  He asked whether there had ever been a multiagency assessment to fund a common activity where an agency approached the Interim Finance Committee with an adjustment to the assessment rate during the middle of a biennium.

 

Mr. Stevens said that he was not sure that a change in the assessment rate would necessitate Interim Finance Committee approval unless there was a work program change large enough to meet the threshold.  He said in the example under discussion that would probably not be the case so the assessment rate could be changed without Interim Finance Committee input.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said that staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendations and suggested the Subcommittee close the budget as recommended by the Governor.  She suggested the Subcommittee recommend a thorough evaluation of the rate model be conducted at a later date.

 

Ms. Brand noted staff had made some adjustments in the closing items as opposed to the Governor’s recommendations.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany rephrased her summary and suggested the Subcommittee close the budget with staff recommendations, technical adjustments, and recommend a thorough evaluation of the rate model be conducted at a later date.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 716-1352 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF A THOROUGH EVALUATION OF THE RATE MODEL TO BE CONDUCTED AT A LATER DATE.

 

Senator Rhoads seconded the motion.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

MOTOR POOL (711-1354)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-36

 

Ms. Brand introduced Budget Account 711-1354 and noted that during the 71^st Legislative Session there was a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 01-C4 approved for $2.9 million to construct a new Motor Pool facility on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) campus.  She explained that recently the Public Work’s Board had requested, through action of the Interim Finance Committee, to withdraw the CIP and that neither meeting had resulted in withdrawal of the CIP.

 

Ms. Brand said the first closing issue covered privatization of the daily rental fleet in Las Vegas.  During previous testimony the Governor had confirmed rejection of a recent proposal to privatize.  The Department of Administration therefore amended the budget as recommended by the Governor to allow for the additional costs associated with relocating the Las Vegas Motor Pool facility.  The Department evaluated the cost effects to privatize based on a rate comparison between the lowest bidder on the proposal and existing rates charged by the Motor Pool.  Not including fuel costs the Department estimated the state would incur an additional annual increase of $1.4 million.  Items not considered in the cost analysis were reductions in the current Motor Pool operating costs associated with the discontinued operation of the facilities.  Ms. Brand said that since there was not sufficient time to properly evaluate the privatization of the Motor Pool, staff recommended the Subcommittee reference further analysis of decision unit E‑277 for approval of relocation costs and the associated recommendation to rates.

 

Ms. Brand noted that the Governor recommended funding decision unit E-276 for costs associated with the Division’s original plan to move to the new Motor Pool facility to be constructed on the UNLV campus.  The recommendation included the cost to demolish the current facility and travel costs.  Staff recommended deferring approval of decision unit E-276 with a legislative Letter of Intent to come to the Interim Finance Committee for funding of the demolition and travel costs when moving plans were firm.  Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-277 provided for the relocation of the Motor Pool to a Thrifty Car Rental site.  Costs included non-state building rent estimated for the Motor Pool’s apportionment at $10,000 per month.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that at the original Motor Pool budget hearing the rent had been recommended at $19,000 per month.  She asked Mr. Comeaux if the contract with the Thrifty Car Rental was for $19,000, requiring the Motor Pool to rent out part of the building.  Mr. Comeaux said $10,000 was recommended based on the Department renting the remaining 4,500 square feet to another party.  Chairwoman Tiffany noted that the Motor Pool would therefore be responsible for the entire lease as well as identifying other state agencies to lease the excess space.  She questioned whether or not the $10,000 was the correct budget figure since the Motor Pool would be responsible for the entire rent.

 

Mr. Comeaux explained that the timing would be coordinated so that another state agency would occupy the space simultaneously with the Motor Pool.  He said the arrangement was being negotiated and they thought it was a workable plan.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said she thought that was another “house of cards.”

 

Mrs. Chowning asked, with regard to costs, whether or not the Motor Pool would be able to stay at the existing facility at $8,167 per month until 2005.  She noted that would save money as well.

 

Mr. Comeaux said Clark County Aviation had proposed a lease amendment that set the monthly lease at the existing site at about $8,100 a month with a proposed extension date to December 31^st, 2005.  Mr. Comeaux said a bail-out clause was being negotiated with Clark County Aviation that, with notice, would allow them to terminate the lease.  He said such a bail-out clause would allow the Motor Pool to move.  He added that those negotiations had not been completed.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the Motor Pool budget had been built using the higher amount and if the bail-out clause was negotiated would the agencies be assessed the increased per-mile rate.

 

Mr. Comeaux said the budget was built using the higher proposed lease rate of $10,000 a month rather than $8,100.  He said if the Motor Pool remained at their current site for an extended period of time, the increased rate could be continued putting the excess revenue in reserve or the rate could be reduced.  He said the Division had not determined which option would be pursued.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted there was some time before the budgets closed.  She said the Motor Pool would have made some of those decisions before June.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he did not know how long the Clark County Aviation negotiations would take.  He said a bail-out clause would remove some of the urgency of having to negotiate the Thrifty Car Rental site or some other site.  He noted that the Thrifty Car Rental site was preferred because the location was good and the facility was well-suited for them.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said in spite of numerous requests staff had not gotten satisfactory numbers to demonstrate that privatization was not an economically sound option.  She said that if the Motor Pool could get a lease extension at their present location to December of 2005, the privatization could be delayed until the next legislative session.  She said that route was her preference, that the Motor Pool stay at their present location, extend the Clark County lease agreement, and have staff examine some real numbers on how the Motor Pool was building its rates.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany suggested closing the budget with technical adjustments and staff recommendations.

 

Ms. Brand corroborated Chairwoman Tiffany’s statement.  She pointed out that in the event the Subcommittee decided the Motor Pool should remain at its current facility at $8,100 per month, there would be an annual savings of $21,996.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that staff also recommended deferring approval of decision unit E-276 with a Letter of Intent to come to the Interim Finance Committee for funding of the building demolition.

 

Ms. Brand corroborated Chairwoman Tiffany’s statement.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said she would support the decision that the per month rent be $8,167 with $21,996 in annual savings, that the Motor Pool return to the next legislative session with a more fully developed plan, including a Letter of Intent to the Motor Pool that the Committee wanted a complete financial analysis of their plan, including how the rates were determined. and how their figures demonstrated that privatization was more costly than a state operated organization.

 

Mr. Comeaux said all of the information currently available had been given to fiscal staff.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said staff needed to do a thorough evaluation to compare the figures from the private sector and from the Motor Pool.

 

Ms. Brand said the Fiscal Division had received numbers based on a rate option only, looking at the private companies moving forward based on a rate, and the Motor Pool operation as it currently existed.  There was no consideration for the change in the operation, that being that a segment of the operation would be discontinued, and what the effect would be to the current staff levels, the current inventory of vehicles, and other operations that would be considered for continuing the Motor Pool operation.

 

Mr. Comeaux responded and said the information that was provided to Fiscal Division staff showed rates as bid by the private vendors compared to the Motor Pool rates for the two segments of their operation, the daily and monthly vehicle rentals.  He noted he was not clear what staff thought they were missing.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted some of the missing information:

 

• Lease payments.
• Staffing adjustments.
• A van, which may or may not be included.
• The number of vehicles to be added or removed.

 

She noted that the $10,000 lease and the demolition cost had been built in.  She said there were some numbers missing.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning MOVED to close budget ACCOUNT 711-1354 as RECOMMENDED BY staff with regard to the move, and with an amendment that the lease rate be $8,167 per month, and INCLUDING technical adjustments.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Chowning said the Subcommittee had two options to consider regarding funding for the lease rent for the non-state building.  The first was to fund decision unit E-277 as recommended by the Governor.  Mrs. Chowning suggested not to approve that option but endorse the second option, which was to fund at the amended lease rate of $8,167 that would realize a savings of $21,000 per year.

 

Mr. Comeaux expressed concern with the motion.  He explained that eventually the Motor Pool would have to leave its current site and there were other sites where negotiations were ongoing to house the Motor Pool operation.  Mr. Comeaux indicated that if the decision to move was delayed by two years with a firm date of December 31, 2005, the ability to negotiate for one of the current sites might be lost.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany assumed that the Motor Pool could approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) if problems were encountered.

 

Mr. Stevens noted that if Motor Pool rates were raised that would generate a certain number of dollars; if the Subcommittee did not approve $10,000 a month for rent, that money would be held in reserve.  He said the difference would not go into the operating category for rent but would go into reserve.  He said even if there were a firm lease-end date of December 2005, eventually the Motor Pool would have to leave that facility.  Mr. Stevens said fiscal staff would need to be much more involved if the Subcommittee wanted them to comment on the Thrifty Car Rental site.  He said Mr. Comeaux had been heavily involved in those negotiations and should be a good source of information.  Mr. Stevens said if the Subcommittee passed the proposed motion, $8,167 per month in rent would be approved, and the balance would go into reserve unless the rates were adjusted.  The Subcommittee could ask the Motor Pool to come back to the IFC once a firm recommendation had been negotiated regarding the exact cost of the new facility.  He said part of the problem was the situation was ongoing and all the details had not come to fruition.  The one certain eventuality was that the Motor Pool would have to leave its current facility in the next few years and the administration had indicated that it did not want to pursue the capital improvement project to build a state facility from scratch.  The administration had decided to pursue purchasing an existing car rental facility.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said Mrs. Chowning’s motion would fund the Motor Pool for the time being.  She added that the Subcommittee did not have enough information on the table to evaluate the other options.  She said she was uncomfortable as to whether or not to privatize because there was not enough information.  She said she was more comfortable with the Motor Pool coming back to IFC once it had more defined numbers.

 

Mrs. Chowning noted that the Department was assuming that the rates to the agencies would be raised and the difference would be put into reserve.

 

Mr. Comeaux said yes.

 

Mr. Stevens said the Subcommittee might want to make it clear that if the motion passed and if the Subcommittee wanted to be informed on the status of the negotiations, the Motor Pool should report back to the IFC.  He noted that the present recommendation would put the Motor Pool in its existing facility, based on a known rent rate, and to extend through the end of the biennium.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany noted that the Motor Pool had reserve funds as a resource if needed.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SAID SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE MOTION THAT THERE BE A LETTER OF INTENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE WITH THE UPDATED INFORMATION.

 

Assemblyman Griffin said he needed clarification as to what would be coming back to IFC.  He said he was not clear as to whether or not the IFC would be making a policy decision.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany surmised that where the Motor Pool was located or if it was privatized would be a policy decision and that when that decision was made the Motor Pool could access the money in reserve raised from the rate increase.

Mr. Griffin continued and said that if the Subcommittee deferred a decision regarding privatization and relocation for 30 months to the end of December 2005, and if the IFC could not make the policy decision, then they might have waited too long and put themselves in a situation where there was only 6 months in which to make a decision and act.  He said the Subcommittee could be backing itself into a corner.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany responded that the Subcommittee knew a decision would need to be made to either privatize or move.  She said she wanted the delay because the Subcommittee had not been involved in the decision nor did it have sufficient information.

 

Mrs. Chowning added that the motion provided for funding and housing for the Motor Pool for the current biennium rather than considering a move versus privatization.  She said that decision would be addressed in the next biennium.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany concurred and said she envisioned the Subcommittee would determine whether or not the Motor Pool privatized or moved at a future date.

 

Mrs. Chowning continued and said that the Motor Pool would only approach the IFC when it had new budget figures or a request to utilize some portion of the reserve.

 

Mr. Griffin noted that the concern was that the Subcommittee did not have sufficient information to make a proper policy decision on the longer-term issues.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany concurred and said she wanted fiscal staff to be more involved with the numbers.

 

Mr. Stevens reiterated the motion to ensure that it was correctly implemented.  He said the motion was to increase the rent rate based on the recommendation from the administration to include $8,167 a month for rent at the existing facility.  Negotiations would go forward regarding where the state facility should be located.  During that period, the difference between the $8,167 and the $10,000 a month in rent would go to reserve.  The reserve funds could be accessed based on a recommendation the administration might bring to the Interim Finance Committee once the negotiations were finalized. The request to utilize the reserve funds could be communicated in a Letter of Intent.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

MOTOR POOL VEHICLE PURCHASE (711-1356)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-42

 

Julie Brand introduced Budget Account 711-1356 and said that the Governor recommended the purchase of 68 replacement vehicles in FY2003-04 and 36 replacement vehicles in FY2004-05 at a cost of approximately $1 million and $584,000 respectively.  Sixteen of the 104 vehicles were intended for use by Motor Pool facilities and the remaining 88 vehicles for use by the various agencies.  She said staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendation as verified per pricing sheets provided by State Purchasing.

 

Ms. Brand noted a budget amendment in decision unit E-711 requesting $50,000 for a shuttle bus for the Las Vegas Motor Pool facility.  The age of the current shuttle bus necessitated its replacement.  She said staff concurred with that recommendation based on final verification of pricing from State Purchasing.  Staff also requested approval to adjust the decision unit.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-720 recommended $418,000 in funding from reserves for 23 additional vehicles in FY2004.  She noted that all of the requested vehicles were intended for use by various agencies.  Staff concurred with the recommendation as verified per pricing sheets from State Purchasing and also requested approval from the Subcommittee to adjust the decision unit for vehicles eliminated in other budget account closings.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked for clarification as to why the vehicles proposed for purchase were not included in the privatization contract.

 

Mr. Comeaux said the replacement vehicles were not directly included.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked if the administration had not planned on privatizing the vehicles to the state agencies.

 

Mr. Comeaux said they had requested and received proposals from private vendors to take over the daily and monthly rentals.  He said they received bid rates for both.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said she had talked with the bidding vendors and was told there was an issue with the stipulation to buyout existing state vehicles without receiving any details about the vehicles, the mileage, or the year, so that they could evaluate the costs.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he was not sure about that.  He said that in the RFP vendors were asked if they would be willing to assume responsibility for their fleet.  He said the responses were mixed, but were mostly negative.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said that the vendors had indicated to her that it was unclear what vehicles were in the fleet, its composition, age, or what absorption would actually cost.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he was unsure how to respond to that because he knew the RFP process always included an opportunity for the vendor to ask questions.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany reported that the vendors said a response to their questions had not been received.  She continued and asked if the requested $418,000 was for new vehicles and if the $418,000 for new vehicles would have to be added into the cost if the Motor Pool operations were privatized.

 

Mr. Comeaux responded and said that included in the Motor Pool’s rate was the depreciation on those vehicles, which was what funded that budget and financed vehicle replacements. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning made a motion to close Budget Account 711-1356 as recommended by the Governor with staff adjustments.

 

Assemblywoman McCLAIN seconded the motion.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning noted that the motion included decision unit E-711, and that the Subcommittee would give staff the ability to adjust that decision unit for vehicles eliminated in other budget account closings.

 

Motion passed unanimously.

 

Ms. Brand clarified that the staff’s ability to adjust the decision unit for vehicles eliminated in other budget account closings would apply to decision unit E-710 and decision unit E-720.

 

Budget Closed.

 

********

 

Assemblyman Parks asked, with regard to replacement of vehicles, if the Department continued to apply the 80,000-mile limit as the point of trade-in and sale.

 

Mr. Comeaux said yes, as a general rule, although other factors were used as well, depending on the vehicle and its maintenance history.

 

Mr. Parks noted that automobiles ran longer and provided more mileage before needing to be replaced.  Mr. Parks followed up and asked, with regard to the maintenance of the vehicles, whether or not the Motor Pool used inmate staff.  He said that had been the case when he was a budget director at the City of Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Comeaux indicated inmates were utilized from time to time although he was unsure that was currently being done.  He said inmates were routinely used at the Carson City Motor Pool facility.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION VICTIMS OF CRIME (287-4895)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-107

 

Julie Brand introduced Budget Account 287-4895 and said there were two issues to note in that account.  There was an increase of $908,000 each year of the biennium in the federal Victims of Crime (VOC) grant and that was currently reflected as an adjustment in the closing document.  The increase in the grant provided for additional payments to victims.  In decision unit E-124 the Governor recommended an increase in the court assessment revenue estimated at $593,000 in FY2003-04 and $647,000 in FY2004-05.  The increase was based on Assembly Bill 29, which was introduced and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on April 21, 2003.  A.B. 29 recommended an increase of $10 to the court administrative assessment on misdemeanors.  The assessment increase was revised from $9.80 to $10.00 and that would add $4.90 for use by the Executive Branch rather than $4.80 as indicated in The Executive Budget.  The budget had originally proposed a $9.80 increase and A.B. 29 amended the amount to $10, which would result in an increase of $0.10 or a total increase of $4.90 for each administrative assessment for use by the Executive Branch.  If the bill passed the $0.10 increase would result in an increase in court assessment revenue of potentially $12,000 in FY2003-04 and $13,000 in FY2004-05.  Staff concurred with the recommendation, which assumed that A.B. 29 would be approved by the Legislature.

 

Ms. Brand said that in decision unit E-276 the Governor recommended a reduction in victim payments to fund the additional administrative staff to address the ongoing backlog of cases.  Also recommended by the Governor in decision unit E-276 was the relocation of the Victims of Crime office in conjunction with the Hearings and Appeals Division that had been previously approved in the budget closing dated April 16.  Staff concurred with both recommendations in decision unit E-276.

 

Senator Rhoads moved to close Budget Account 287-4895 as recommended by the Governor including technical adjustments.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Budget Closed.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (717-1363)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PERSNL-1

 

Julie Brand introduced Budget Account 717-1363 and said that funding for the Department of Personnel was provided by uniform assessments to all state agencies for personnel and payroll services.  She said that the first closing issue was a proposal to increase the personnel payroll system General Fund repayment to $1,400,000 as included in the base for the FY2004-05 budget.  She noted that estimated costs of $997,000 to complete the Integrated Financial System (IFS) project in 2003 had not been included in the revised repayment amount.  The estimated increase was associated with the additional cost that would generate an additional repayment of approximately $50,000 to the General Fund.  Ms. Brand said that the federal reimbursement could not be collected on estimated costs and actual completion costs would not be available until October 2003.  Therefore staff concurred with the department to delay the increase in the General Fund repayment until costs were finalized.

 

Ms. Brand said that the second closing item concerned the Department’s operating reserve that was projected to decrease from approximately $1.6 million in FY2002 to $495,000 by the end of FY2005.  She noted a 60‑day operating reserve at the FY2005 levels would be approximately $1.6 million.  The agency indicated that the assessments collected in FY2003 would actually net $275,000 more than projected.  The agency projected that a 30-day reserve of approximately $800,000 was adequate and resulted in no additional assessment to the agencies.  Ms. Brand said that the current reserve level of $495,000 as recommended in the budget, plus the additional projected $275,000, would net about $770,000 in reserve funds.  She said that staff concurred with the recommendations.  The Department indicated that cash flow would be provided regularly via quarterly automatic payment vouchers, and adjustments in other decision units within the budget could actually improve the reserve balance.  Ms. Brand said that if the Subcommittee approved the budget on the basis of a 30-day reserve, staff requested approval to make necessary adjustments to the amount balanced forward in FY2004 and FY2005.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-275 requested funding to relocate the payroll and records section to the Fairview Plaza office location where the Integrated Financial System-Human Resources section resided.  Staff concurred with that recommendation.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-276 recommended funding of roughly $75,000 in each year of the biennium to establish a discrimination/harassment unit.  The recommended funding in E-276 also included funding for one new Personnel Analyst position and reclassifying one Computer Systems Technician II to an analyst position.  Staff concurred with the recommendations.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-277 recommended $82,000 in FY2004 and $120,000 in FY2005 to establish a Certified Public Manager program that met the accreditation standards of the National Certified Manager Consortium.  The Department noted the ongoing costs of the program would be approximately $67,500 per year.  After the initial introduction participating agencies would be requested to cover costs of the program.

 

Ms. Brand said the Subcommittee might consider the following funding options for decision unit E-277:

 

• Fund as recommended by the Governor with no adjustments.
• Reduce funding each year by one-half and request the Department report to the IFC in December, June, and September respectively on the results of the training program for evaluation of continued funding in future biennia.
• Eliminate funding of the decision unit since it appeared adequate management training currently existed within the personnel system.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-281 recommended $38,000 in FY2004 and $2,000 in FY2005 to convert an existing indexing records system to digital imaging technology.  The Department had been requested to evaluate the possibility of sharing the system with other state agencies such as the Archives Division.  The Department indicated that sharing would be a favorable option and projected a reduction in costs of $17,000 in FY2004 in decision unit E-281.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-282 recommended funding of $33,000 in FY2004 and FY2005 to support additional training classes in the rural areas for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace program.  Ms. Brand pointed out that decision unit E-282 also included a recommendation to increase a current Equal Employment Opportunity officer position from part-time to full‑time, an increase of .49 FTE.  She summarized the options for funding decision unit E-282 as:

 

• Fund as recommended by the Governor.
• Combine operating expenses with decision unit E-276, the decision unit that established the sexual harassment and discrimination training, thereby eliminating the increase of the .49 FTE as new staff was requested in decision unit E-276.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-285 requested $50,000 each year of the biennium to provide consulting services for workforce planning to handle the large projected number of mid- and high-level management positions that would be eligible for retirement in the next ten years.  The consulting cost was based on 400 hours at $125 per hour.  She said the Subcommittee could consider the following options:

 

• Fund as recommended.
• Eliminate the funding to an outside consultant within this decision unit in lieu of the Department implementing similar efforts with existing staff.

 

Ms. Brand said that decision unit E-901 and E-910 recommended $60,000 each year of the biennium for the transfer of one program officer position from the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) to perform help desk responsibilities for the personnel/payroll system, and the transfer in each year of the biennium of $500,000 from the Department of Administration for the support of ongoing costs of the personnel/payroll component of the IFS system mentioned earlier.  Staff concurred with those recommendations.

 

Ms. Brand said small technical adjustments were also included for pricing on computer hardware and software.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany suggested that the general motion should be for staff recommendations with technical adjustments.  She said some of the decisions that the Subcommittee needed to make were first, whether or not to concur with staff on delaying the increase in the General Fund repayment; second, to approve a 30‑day reserve with $775,000 in reserve; third, to eliminate the proposed certified public manager program in decision unit E-277; fourth, to combine the personnel training courses; and fifth, to eliminate the workplace planning consultant in decision unit E-285 and have the department do the training in‑house.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning said she thought it would be appropriate to eliminate the .49 FTE in decision unit E-282.  She asked Personnel to discuss whether or not the tasks could be accomplished without an increase of .49 FTE positions.  She suggested eliminating the workforce planning in decision unit E‑285 and said it could be accomplished within their existing job-training program.  She asked for input from Personnel to discuss the eliminations.

 

Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, said she would respond to the questions regarding decision units E-282 and E-285 and Kim Foster would respond to the question regarding E-277.  With regard to decision unit E-282, she said organizationally she believed it was appropriate that the Equal Employment Opportunity training and investigation divisions be separate.  She explained that the investigators functioned as an enforcement arm of the Department whereas the trainers heard issues, and provided information and guidance.  She said employees were not as receptive to open discussion when investigators were providing training, and therefore the Department needed to increase the half-time EEO officer to provide expanded training and keep the three investigators separate from the training function.

 

Mrs. Chowning reiterated that Ms. Greene did not think the operating expenses could be combined.  Ms. Greene confirmed that she did not.  She said she thought the two items should be viewed as two separate issues.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked staff if the operating expenses were combined for the decision units did that imply that the staff functions would be combined to conduct training and investigations.

 

Ms. Brand said she did not believe that the functions performed by the staff under that decision unit would have to be combined.  She said she saw no obstacle to separating the employment functions.

Ms. Greene said she thought the discussion centered on not increasing the EEO officer to full time.  She said she believed it was necessary to increase the FTE in order to provide expanded training in sexual harassment.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked Ms. Brand to provide more information on the point under discussion.

 

Ms. Brand said at the time of the budget hearings the Department had indicated that there could be a combination of decision unit E-282 and E-276.

 

Ms. Greene said she did not know about combining the decision units.  She said that decision unit E-282 dealt with bringing more training in sexual harassment to the rural areas and required the training to be ongoing rather than a one-time session when entering into state service.  Decision unit E-276 involved the investigation of complaints.  She noted that those two areas were separate functions in two separate divisions of the Department.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning said the Subcommittee needed clarification.  She said they were discussing combining the operating expenses of decision unit E‑282 and decision unit E-276, and that would eliminate increasing the EEO position to full time.

 

Ms. Brand said her understanding of the discrimination/harassment unit in decision unit E-276 was that there would be a training component that worked together with an investigative component, and that the training would reduce the numbers of investigations.

 

Ms. Greene said that was correct.  She said there was considerable interaction between the two units.  She said the investigators identified trends and issues, identified departments that required additional training, and provided information to the trainers.  Trainers reviewed issues that came up in the training classes and that information was provided to the investigators.  She said there would be considerable communication between the two units.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked whether Ms. Greene agreed or disagreed with combining the units.

 

Ms. Greene said that the EEO officer position needed to be full time to adequately accomplish the functions of the training unit.  She said investigations should not appropriately be part of the training arm of the Department.

 

Mrs. Chowning said the Subcommittee needed to decide whether or not to combine the units.  She said she was inclined to agree with Ms. Greene because the area was extremely important in all state agencies, and if sexual harassment was not prevented the long-run costs could be significant.  She asked Ms. Greene to discuss decision unit E-285 further.

 

Ms. Greene said with regard to workforce planning, the Department did not have staff with the appropriate skills and expertise to lead them in that project.  She said the Department proposed to hire a consultant to identify where state agencies would be in five and ten years with regard to skills and knowledge that would be required for employees to perform their jobs, and then to identify the skills of current employees to identify surpluses and deficiencies.  Finally, the consultants would identify a training program to bring people in or provide the necessary training.

Mrs. Chowning said Ms. Green’s description of what the consultant would do indicated that the Department knew what was needed.  She said Ms. Greene might not feel the staff had the time to do it.

 

Ms. Greene agreed that staff did not have the time, but she also contended that they did not have the expertise.  Mrs. Chowning said it did not require expertise.  She said she could do it if she had the time.  Chairwoman Tiffany said she did not think that it was “rocket science.”  Ms. Greene said the Department believed a consultant would help lead them.  Chairwoman Tiffany said she thought it was more that the Department did not have the staff to do it.  Ms. Greene said that was a part of the discussion.  The Department would have staff that would work with the consultant but they did not have staff that would be able to devote all of their time to the project.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said that the end result of the $100,000 funding was to train people.

 

Ms. Greene said she thought the program would help the agencies identify where they were going, what skills would be needed, and what staff members had those skills.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany asked whether or not any agency had requested this to be done for them.  Ms. Greene said the Department had been working very closely with the agencies.  Chairwoman Tiffany repeated her question and Ms. Greene said it had been a trend in governmental entities for the last ten years and she said there were many agencies interested in the project that had asked to participate.

 

Ms. Greene added she thought the project was critical in order to have well‑trained staff in the future; otherwise state agencies would be floundering.  She said the state of Nevada would be losing nearly 40 percent of their workforce in the next few years and that many retiring individuals were at higher echelons in the departments.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said that the Subcommittee had heard the discussion.  She said she did not know whether or not the Senate would agree with the Assembly.

 

Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Personnel, introduced herself and referred to the Certified Public Managers program in decision unit E-277.  She said that from research and discussions with other states that had implemented the program, the Department determined it would bring the state great benefits and cost savings.  The program offering far exceeded the state training program for supervisors and managers.  She said it was very aggressive, provided a much higher level of training, required certification, 310 hours of class work, and testing for participants.  She said specialized outside teachers would be utilized who provided a better grade level of teaching through the program.  Cost savings would be realized because the students were required to do a quality improvement project where areas of improvement within their agencies were identified.   Ms. Foster said that other states had seen significant cost savings.  Oklahoma had realized $6 million in cost savings through the CPM program.  Of the students who attended the CPM program 70 percent of graduates were promoted and 5 graduates became agency administrators.  Ms. Foster said that kind of training would help them prepare for the significant number of future retirements.  She said there was also evidence of fewer grievances filed because supervisors and managers were better prepared.  She noted that Mississippi realized an immediate $1 million savings through a quality improvement project due to a change in the audit procedures.  She concluded and said that savings through quality improvement projects would exceed the costs of the program and would prepare the workforce for the future losses of the higher level positions, and prepare individuals at lower levels to move into the more demanding positions.

 

Assemblywoman McClain said she thought that education through the National Certified Managers Consortium was a good idea.  She suggested that within the curriculum items be included, such as quality control projects for workforce planning with agencies.  She said with some creative planning the two concepts could be combined, save money, and accomplish their long-term goals.  She added that she wanted to fund decision unit E-282 with no adjustments.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said in state governments the next-in-command deputy traditionally took the senior position when it was vacated through retirement and therefore a training manager program was not a justifiable use of funds. She asked Ms. McClain which decision unit she supported.

 

Ms. McClain said she supported decision unit E-282.  She said she thought the Certified Public Manager program was an appropriate use of funds.  She added that the Department could accomplish the goals laid out in decision unit E-285 through hiring a consultant within the Certified Public Manager program.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany said she could not agree with Ms. McClain and that the two houses might close the budget differently.  She said that there was adequate management training currently and would therefore eliminate decision unit E-282.

 

Assemblyman Beers said when the budget was heard earlier the Subcommittee had asked for a list of Nevada jurisdictions that paid for the CPM program for their employees.  He asked whether or not the state would be first to participate in the program or if the cities and counties had already participated in the program.

 

Ms. Greene said no agencies in the state of Nevada had the CPM program.  She said they hoped to establish the program and that all the cities and county governments, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and the Judicial Branch would participate in it.

 

Mr. Beers asked whether or not the program was national.  Ms. Greene said the CPM program was national.  Mr. Beers noted that an individual government employee could become CPM certified by participating in the classes.  He said he was equating the program to Certified Purchasing Managers, Certified Internal Auditors, and a number of national trade organizations that offered certification programs for their members.

 

Ms. Greene said there were existing personnel programs.  She said their proposed program differed somewhat and occurred on-site.

 

Mr. Beers said the Certified Accountant Program promulgated by the Institute of Management Accountants, in which he was active ten years ago, had a chapter in Las Vegas.  Individuals could become members.

Ms. Greene said the CPM program under discussion differed somewhat.  She said the Department would have a customized CPM program where they established the criteria and requirements for the program.  She said the CPM program had some broad criteria, but the Department would actually identify what classes were required for individuals and would establish eligibility criteria.

 

Mr. Beers asked whether or not the classes would be open to City of Henderson employees.  Ms. Greene said the employees from other organizations would be welcome.  She said they would have a governing council and would anticipate that there would be city and county government representatives on the council that would establish regulations.  Mr. Beers asked whether or not other governmental entities contributed money to start the program or was it purely a state initiative.  Ms. Greene said at that point the money was from the state.  She said if other agencies wanted their employees to go through the program they would have to contribute money.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning moved to close budget account 717-1363 as recommended by the Governor with staff adjustments, with Option B in decision unit E-277 to approve the Certified Public Manager program but reduce the funding by half each fiscal year and ask the Department to report the results to the Interim Finance Committee, to evaluate for continued funding in the future BIENNIA; and to fund decision unit E-282 as recommended by the Governor with no adjustments; and to eliminate funding to an outside consultant in decision unit E-275.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE Motion passed with CHAIRWOMAN TIFFANY AND ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS VOTING NO.

 

Budget closed.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION (101-1339)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PERSNL-10

 

Julie Brand introduced Budget Account 101-1339 and said it was proposed to close as recommended by the Governor.  She said the state unemployment compensation account provided for extended unemployment insurance protection through a uniform assessment on the gross salaries of all participating employees.  The Governor recommended continued funding for support of the quarterly unemployment compensation benefits.  The rate as recommended would decrease the unemployment assessment from the current rate of .16 percent of employee gross salaries to .15 percent in FY2004 and increases the rate to .19 percent in FY2005.  Staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendation.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning moved to close Budget Account 101-1339 as recommended by the Governor.

 

Assemblyman Griffin seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Budget closed.

 

********

 

Mark Stevens noted that there was a General Government Subcommittee at 4:30 p.m. the following day.

 

Chairwoman Tiffany adjourned the meeting at 10:34 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Catherine Caldwell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Sandra Tiffany, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: