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
May 1, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on General Government, was called to order at 8:31 a.m., on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Josh Griffin
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)
Julie Brand, Program Analyst
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Chairwoman Chowning called the meeting to order and indicated the Subcommittee would be closing Judicial Branch budgets.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGES AND WIDOWS PENSION (101-1491)
BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 1
Julie Brand, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented Budget Account 101-1491. She explained that it was a pass-through account to the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) for the funding of the first annual payment of the Judicial Retirement System under the actuarial accrued liability form. It would be approximately $1.4 million in FY2004 and $1.5 million in FY2005. Ms. Brand indicated that staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendation.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. (Senator Coffin and Mr. Griffin were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
SUPREME COURT (101-1494)
BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 3
Ms. Brand explained the closing issues in Budget Account 101-1494. She indicated that the courts had experienced a reduction in their actual collections for court administrative assessments for FY2002 and the projections for FY2003 had proven to be lower than estimated. As a result, the courts had requested a supplemental appropriation in FY2003 in the original amount of $500,000. The Subcommittee should note that the supplemental amount as proposed under S.B. 246 was amended to $610,000 by the Senate Committee on Finance on April 9, 2003, and was currently in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. Brand noted that there were a few closing issues, including the current increase in the request for General Fund support, the fiscal impact of proposed legislation A.B. 29, and requests for new positions.
Ms. Brand addressed the increase in General Fund support and said there was a 76 percent increase from the work program amount in FY2003 to the FY2004 request in General Fund support. That was strictly the General Fund request; overall, the budget request was a 23 percent increase comprised of General Fund and other funds from the court assessments. She noted that, with that increase, there were some discretionary and non-discretionary increases involved within the General Fund. Ms. Brand explained that as the court assessment volume and dollars decreased, there was a corresponding effect to the General Fund. The base amount that had been increased from FY2003 to FY2004 was approximately $1.5 million. That amount was primarily for increased salaries and unavoidable costs with the passage of S.B. 184 of the 2001 Legislature and the resultant effects of salary enhancements.
Ms. Brand indicated there were decision units to consider as well. M-100 and M-300 provided funding for unavoidable costs associated with inflation and fringe benefits. M-200, M-203, M-205, and M-400 were requests for additional positions and the move to the Regional Justice Center.
Moving to the next issue, Ms. Brand said there would be a fiscal impact if A.B. 29 were passed, and the courts had indicated the direct offset to the General Fund was estimated to be approximately $1.4 million.
Ms. Brand said there were requests for new positions to consider. The courts had requested four new positions: a Case Management System Programmer, a Supreme Court Program Information Specialist, a Court Business System Analyst, and a Court Internet/Intranet Analyst. She noted that the court was asked during the February 27, 2003, budget hearing to prioritize position requests for the budget account. The response provided by the court indicated that all positions were essential to achieve the court’s technology goals for the next biennium and had all been identified as number one priority.
Ms. Brand directed the Subcommittee’s attention to decision units M-200, M‑201, M-202, and M-203. M‑200 requested the addition of a Case Management System Programmer. She explained that the position would provide support to the court’s automated system. The court currently had one position dedicated to the support of that system. M-201 requested the addition of a Supreme Court Program Information Specialist. The court had reviewed the request and determined that position could be added by reclassifying an existing clerical position, resulting in a General Fund savings of $44,974 in FY2004 and $46,034 in FY2005. M-202 requested the addition of a Court Business Systems Analyst to provide business and technology expertise for the development of the court’s strategic planning efforts and to conduct ongoing business systems review. M-203 requested the addition of a Court Internet/Intranet Analyst to provide further development, implementation, and maintenance of a Web site serving the Supreme Court.
Ms. Brand provided the following options for funding the decision units:
Chairwoman Chowning commented that the Subcommittee had requested prioritization of the positions, but the court had indicated all positions were priority one, which did not provide guidance to the Subcommittee. She requested that a representative of the Supreme Court come to the witness table and address the Subcommittee.
Senator Coffin said that the Senate Committee on Finance had heard the Court’s fee increase bill, but no action had been taken, and he felt it was important to know what portion of the budget was not dependent on those fee increases as that would provide a clearer picture of the situation.
Chairwoman Chowning said the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had heard A.B. 29, which provided for fee increases, the previous day, while the Senate Committee on Finance had heard S.B. 106.
Senator Coffin asked if the fee increases would provide the necessary funds for the requested positions. Ms. Brand clarified that S.B. 106 was a bill to fund technology and to fund the Retired Justice Duty Fund. That bill would not affect the Supreme Court’s budget and the influx of the assessments that had been referred to in the budget account. The Supreme Court was funded by the General Fund and the court administrative assessments under A.B. 29, as currently proposed. Ms. Brand explained that, in terms of the allocation for the cost of the positions coming from the General Fund or court administrative assessments, currently the courts received their administrative assessments and applied that to their budgetary needs as the first priority and then the General Fund was used as a backfill to the remaining portion of their budget. The courts had indicated that the passage of A.B. 29 would be a $1.4 million increase, thereby offsetting the General Fund requirement for any of the budgetary needs by that $1.4 million. Senator Coffin remarked that every action the Subcommittee chose to take was dependent on the passage of those two bills, and Ms. Brand agreed but pointed out that S.B. 106 would not affect the Supreme Court budget. Senator Coffin commented that he just wanted the Subcommittee to be aware of those bills and the possible effects that legislation might have on the budget.
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, interjected that the budgets as submitted were balanced, but what the courts had done, based upon the annual receipt of court administrative assessments, was increase the requirement for General Fund. If A.B. 29 passed, then the General Fund would be reduced and the court administrative assessments would replace that funding. He pointed out that the budgets were balanced as presented, but there would be a General Fund savings if A.B. 29 were passed.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti of the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the Subcommittee and said the requested positions were needed, and she asked that they be approved contingent upon the passage of A.B. 29. If A.B. 29 passed, the General Fund obligation would be reduced by the collection of fees, and she said the courts had projected there would be a $1.4 million increase that would reduce the General Fund obligation by that same amount. Chief Justice Agosti said that ultimately A.B. 29 would allow a 50 percent General Fund contribution and a 50 percent administrative assessments contribution to the budget, which was a ratio that had existed in the past. She emphasized that the administrative assessments were spent and then the General Fund appropriations were spent. At the conclusion of each year, unused General Fund monies were returned to the state. Chief Justice Agosti indicated that approximately $150,000 had been returned in 1999, $500,000 in 2000, $630,000 in 2001, and $338,000 in 2002, for a total of approximately $1.6 million dollars in General Fund savings. She said the court had made every effort to be as responsible as possible in managing the funds that had been approved.
Senator Coffin thanked Chief Justice Agosti for providing that additional information and said that had helped clarify the situation.
Chairwoman Chowning said that there had been an amendment proposed to A.B. 29 in Section 8 of the bill, which would change the distribution from a 50 percent contribution to a 90 percent and 10 percent contribution. She asked if that would affect any of the decisions made today regarding the budget because the 90 percent would be credited to the fund for the compensation of victims of crime and the other 10 percent would be placed in a special account establishing specialty court programs.
Chief Justice Agosti explained that the section referred to by Chairwoman Chowning related to bail forfeitures rather than administrative assessments. In the past 100 percent of bail forfeitures had been dedicated to the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund. Chief Justice Agosti indicated her staff had met with the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund representatives and there had been an agreement that the court would receive 10 percent of the bail forfeitures in order to monitor bail forfeiture compliance statewide. She pointed out that the purpose of the amended section and the 90 percent and 10 percent distribution would enable the courts to monitor bail forfeiture and increase compliance, thus increasing the funding the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund received. Chief Justice Agosti emphasized that the bail forfeitures would not affect the administrative assessments.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified that the proposed amendments would not affect the budgets, which was confirmed by Chief Justice Agosti.
Chairwoman Chowning wished to address the requests for positions before continuing to the other closing items. She asked Chief Justice Agosti to explain why each position was needed.
Chief Justice Agosti said a study had been performed on the case management system at the Supreme Court during the last biennium, and she indicated a copy of that study had been provided to the Subcommittee. The study had indicated that the current case management system was antiquated and out-of-date and the study recommended getting a new system or finding some way to update, improve, and maintain the current system. The case management system was very complicated, especially as it related to the Supreme Court’s cases. At the trial level there was competition among vendors because there were many trial courts in the country so there were many off-the-shelf software programs for case management systems. Appellate courts, however, did not have those off-the-shelf programs available and generally had to customize their own software.
Chief Justice Agosti noted that the software the court used currently had been problematic from the beginning, and the study had concluded that either a new system was needed or major improvements to the current system were needed. She said there was one individual maintaining the system currently, and one other staff member, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Janette Bloom, was spending her spare time constructing the templates for the Court’s opinions and decisions so they could be entered in the case management system, but that was merely maintaining the system, not improving it. Chief Justice Agosti said the additional position was needed in order to improve the system rather than replacing it. She indicated Ms. Bloom was present to answer any questions regarding specific duties or specific problems with the case management system if necessary.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if Ms. Bloom was the current programmer, and Chief Justice Agosti explained that Ms. Bloom was not the current programmer, and the current programmer was not present.
Chairwoman Chowning commented that there was one person dedicated to the support of the system, but the court was requesting an additional position in order to have two individuals dedicated to the support of the system. She asked if the two positions were necessary in order to fix the system. In reply, Chief Justice Agosti said that one individual was necessary to maintain the system, the second was necessary to modify and improve the system.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, said that one of the reasons all four positions had been given the same priority was that they were part of a unit. He pointed out that decision unit M‑200 would be funded in the second year of the biennium. The court business systems analyst requested in M-202 would be hired in the first year of the biennium to analyze the existing systems and determine the needs of the court in order to best design the systems. In the second year, the programmer requested in M-200 would be hired, and those two individuals would begin modifying the system, which was a complicated system. Mr. Titus said the study had indicated the current system met most of the functionalities that were required for an appellate court, but it needed to be improved as the architecture of the program was antiquated. While the needs of that system were addressed, the support position being reclassified in M-201 would be working to train staff in order to ensure maximum utilization of the system. Once those goals had been accomplished, the position in M-204 would work to improve public access and electronic filing through the Internet.
Senator Tiffany commented that if the strategic planning had not been done in order to identify the needs, but positions were being requested to fill those possible needs, it appeared to be a situation of “putting the cart before the horse.” She asked Mr. Titus to explain why a request was being made to add a position for planning when the courts already knew what they needed to do.
Mr. Titus conceded there had not been any detailed feasibility studies conducted, but there were several reports that had been provided to the Subcommittee that had provided a general “road map.” The business systems analyst would develop that plan in more detail, and the programmer would become necessary in the second year of the biennium.
Senator Tiffany pointed out that Mr. Titus had seemed to indicate that the needs of staff were known without the study, and she did not see the importance of the business systems analyst. Mr. Titus opined that the business systems analyst was the most important position because it was the position that would translate the needs of the courts into the language that a programmer would use to program.
Senator Tiffany commented that the programmer seemed unnecessary if a clerk had been able to perform some of those duties, such as updates to the system. Mr. Titus explained that the clerk did not perform those duties, the existing programmer did; the clerk’s time was dedicated to running the court, not running the system.
Senator Tiffany noted that M-201 would reclassify an existing clerical position, which was vacant, and she commented that a program information specialist would be used as a trainer. She requested more information. Mr. Titus said the program information specialist was not a programmer in the sense that the position in M-201 would be a programmer. The program information specialist might be able to expand the functionality of spreadsheets, but more importantly, the program information specialist would conduct training to ensure staff would get the maximum usage of the applications available, including the case management system. He pointed out the case management system was of no use if staff could not use it effectively.
Senator Tiffany referred to the Court Internet/Intranet Analyst position and asked what the job description for that position would be. Mr. Titus indicated that the position would open the court to the public by providing Internet access, including electronic filing of documents and document management. He said the Supreme Court did not have a sufficient Web site and customers were unable to track their cases. Senator Tiffany requested specific detail of the duties for the position. Mr. Titus said the individual filling the position would work with the business systems analyst to develop the architecture for providing access via the Internet, he would always work with the Web page and its contents, and work on a system for publishing opinions of the court.
Assemblyman Beers remarked that the Supreme Court needed help with its technology, but the plan seemed unclear. He said the Supreme Court needed a technology chief, and he was not sure the court had an understanding of what would be needed to enhance the technology. Mr. Beers pointed out that it might not be the time to attempt to fill all those positions and address all those needs at once. He was unsure which of the areas was the most important, but he commented that the Web site might be less important than the internal case management system, and he would place the case management and the people who could plan future direction and assist the current staff in maximizing the benefit from resources at the top of a list of priorities. Mr. Beers reiterated that the plan seemed unclear, but there were obvious needs.
Chief Justice Agosti insisted there was a plan, and she explained that the Supreme Court had originally requested seven positions. After the initial budget hearing, that number had been reduced to four due to budgetary constraints. She said the positions had been examined and it was determined that four positions with one position being reclassified would relieve the burden of the request. Chief Justice Agosti said the M-202 position, the planning position, was necessary so that further decisions the court might make in terms of hardware and software purchases were intelligent and tailored to the needs of the court. She said that denial of the position due to lack of planning would merely hinder the Supreme Court’s ability to provide an appropriate plan as that position would aid the court with its needs in the future.
Chief Justice Agosti stated that the position in M-201 was crucial to ongoing needs. She said that she had a computer at her desk, but if there was a computer problem there was not an individual she could call to fix that problem, and she pointed out there were over 100 members of staff in that same situation. The position in M-201 would be able to address that need.
Chief Justice Agosti then referred to M-200 and said that the Supreme Court had submitted a request regarding the case management system in the previous biennium. That request had been denied and the Supreme Court was told a study was needed. The study had since been conducted and had shown that the system needed to be replaced or fixed. In order to fix the system, the position in M-200 was needed.
Chief Justice Agosti indicated that the Supreme Court did have a Web site that was approximately two to three months old, but it was a static Web site. The Web site would not accommodate electronic filing or any kind of communication or interaction with the public, which the public demanded from every public agency. The position in M-203 would be able to develop that Web site and address the needs of the public. Chief Justice Agosti apologized if the plan seemed unclear, but the court had worked hard to reduce the positions request while still addressing those technology needs.
Assemblywoman McClain commented that she felt the additional four positions were justified, particularly as one was a reclassification and another would not start until the second year of the biennium, which seemed reasonable. She expressed support for those decision units.
Senator Tiffany said it appeared that the members of the Subcommittee were in favor of approving all four positions, but she was not necessarily in agreement. If the positions were approved, she advised the Subcommittee to sunset the Court Business Systems Analyst position in two years, as the planning would then be completed and the position would no longer be needed.
Mr. Beers noted that the cost for the position in M-202 was $87,942 in the first year of the biennium and increased to $130,216 in the second year, and he questioned the disparity.
Judy Holt, Administrative Office of the Courts, said the second year included equipment money to purchase the rudimentary document management system that would be implemented at that time.
Chairwoman Chowning asked why that cost was included in the request for the position. Ms. Holt repeated that the equipment purchase was the reason for the difference in the cost, and it was included in that decision unit because the assumption was that furniture, equipment, and other items associated with that position should be included with the position request.
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, agreed with Ms. Holt and explained that the first year request for M-202 included nine months of salary and had an October effective date. The second year reflected a full salary and included $30,000 for equipment and related expenses associated with that position.
Senator Tiffany expressed her confusion and said she did not understand why a strategic planner needed to be hired in order to develop a document management system. She said the planner should produce a document that gave a “road map” and details about where the courts were supposed to go in the future, but she did not understand why there would be a hardware cost added to the planning.
Mr. Abba said he could not explain how the piece of equipment related to the business plan, and he indicated that Mr. Titus would provide that information. Mr. Titus said that the Court Business Systems Analyst position in M-202 would assist in planning but was not a planner. The purpose of the position was to examine the needs of the court and interpret them into the functional requirements and the system specifications and then interface with programmers and developers to develop and improve the system. The $30,000 was included in the second year of the biennium because one of the tasks for that position was to analyze the document management needs of the courts and then begin some initial purchases for a document management system.
Mr. Titus added that the analyst’s job would not be done when the plan was complete as it would be the analyst’s job to understand the needs of the Supreme Court, which were constantly changing. He pointed out that the most recent change was the judicial panels; the current case management system was not designed for panels but had been modified. Those modifications and enhancements would continue, and he did not advise placing a sunset date on the position.
Senator Tiffany said it appeared that the Supreme Court was trying to build a smaller version of the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) with planning, database administrators, Web site developers, management analysts, and programmers. She asked if those automation functions had been centralized.
Mr. Titus explained that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had two major responsibilities: the trial courts and the Supreme Court. He said the inability to meet the technology needs of the Supreme Court had led to the requests in the budget. Mr. Titus said that the four positions would be a very small technology department and the positions would not be specialized as they were at DoIT with one position devoted to analysis, one position devoted to planning, and so on. The four positions would perform duties more general in nature. For example, the position in M-202 would work on planning, analysis, and possibly programming. Mr. Titus conceded that the trial courts were much more centralized because there was staff that addressed the needs of the trial courts. The current requests would give the Supreme Court that ability. He added that the infrastructure was centralized, but the Supreme Court’s need was in applications and the training to maximize those resources.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified that there was only one programmer and one clerk who performed those duties currently, and the requests were the Supreme Court’s attempt to start moving toward improved information technology.
Mr. Beers agreed that the Supreme Court needed the positions in order to improve its technology, but he was concerned about the number of positions that were needed for an agency of that size. He said he did not think a generalist who performed many functions would be able to perform some of the more specific functions the Supreme Court needed. Mr. Beers opined that a technology department with a traditional department structure within the court system, including the trial courts and the Supreme Court, would be more effective.
Mr. Titus explained that there was staff in the trial courts, but even if they were placed into an information technology department, the additional positions were still needed.
Mr. Beers interjected that he would like to commend the Supreme Court for presenting the most sensible technology request that he had seen in the three sessions he had participated in the budget process.
Senator Tiffany questioned how long centralization would take because it was not unusual to have a cycle of centralizing and decentralizing as technology needs changed. She opined that the Supreme Court had reached a point where the positions could be cost allocated and used to address the needs in the Supreme Court and the trial courts, but she wanted to know how that process could be accomplished.
Mr. Titus said that, in order to centralize, the additional four positions would be needed and then the Supreme Court would have to make the decision to centralize. He reiterated that, regardless of that decision, the four positions were still needed.
Ms. Brand continued her presentation and said decision unit M-205 requested General Fund support of approximately $700,000 in FY2004 and approximately $500,000 in FY2005 for the move into, and the occupancy of, the Supreme Court’s area within the Regional Justice Center. In response to the Committee’s request to confirm the anticipated move-in date, the Supreme Court had indicated the planned relocation would occur in July 2004 as opposed to the prior requested date of July 2003. In conjunction with the recommendation by the court, staff recommended adjustments to the decision unit, reducing the General Fund support by $473,000 over the biennium. That would defer the cost of the relocation to FY2005. In the event the relocation would occur prior to July 2004, the Supreme Court would request funding for rent and operating costs applicable in the FY2004 period from the Interim Finance Committee. Ms. Brand indicated that staff concurred with the request.
Ms. Brand addressed decision unit E-600, which was a budget reduction in compliance with the 3 percent reduction, and said the Supreme Court had applied reductions of approximately $265,000 in FY2004 and approximately $293,000 in FY2005, realized primarily by a reduction in personnel costs.
Ms. Brand indicated the next items to consider were technology requests and said the Subcommittee should note that the Supreme Court was asked during the February 27, 2003, budget hearing to prioritize those requests for Budget Account 101-1494. The response provided by the court prioritized the decision units and recommended reductions of approximately $117,000. She pointed out that decision unit E-710 requested replacement of two database servers that were currently approximately four and five years old, one e-mail server that was three years old, and one digital linear tape (DLT) auto-changer for backup. Ms. Brand said the court had indicated the servers had exceeded their useful life; however, the court did intend to recycle them in other areas. The total equipment request of $272,430 equated to a cost of $3,095 per position reduced from $4,197 in the original request.
Chairwoman Chowning questioned the $3,095 cost per position and asked if that was separate from the new positions and the $30,000 mentioned in the other decision units. Ms. Brand indicated that was correct.
Ms. Brand presented decision unit E-713 and explained that it was the replacement request for ergonomic furniture in the amount of $22,640 each year of the biennium. If approved, that would provide replacement items for approximately 84 FTEs at a cost of $539 per position.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if other agencies had submitted a similar request for ergonomic furniture replacement at a cost of approximately $500 per position. Ms. Brand replied that she was unfamiliar with other agencies’ specific requests for ergonomic furniture. Mr. Abba interjected that there had been no analysis of the cost per employee for ergonomic equipment in all the agencies and indicated that staff would be willing to gather that information if the Subcommittee wished. Chairwoman Chowning said the cost seemed too high and she did not feel a decision could be made without some comparison between agencies.
Mr. Titus said that it was a one-time request and would not be repeated. Chairwoman Chowning pointed out that it was a cost in each year of the biennium. Mr. Titus agreed and said it had been spread across the two-year period.
Chairwoman Chowning inquired as to how the cost had been derived and what had prompted the request. Mr. Titus explained that there had been several instances in which employees had experienced problems, such as carpal tunnel or back injuries, and he had contacted the Risk Management Division, which had recommended an ergonomics specialist. The specialist evaluated staff and their working environments and submitted the results. Mr. Titus said the needs of staff had been broken into three levels of importance. The critical needs were addressed first and the necessary ergonomic equipment had been purchased using existing funds. The request in E-713 was the equipment that had been given a lower priority. He indicated he could provide the report to the Subcommittee.
Senator Tiffany commented that she had never seen a general per employee ergonomic accommodation included in the budgets, only a vocational rehabilitation need for a specific employee. Chairwoman Chowning added that it appeared the court was trying to prevent problems.
Ms. McClain said that the cost per FTE had been determined by LCB staff, meaning the court had made a request and staff had done the calculation per FTE; it did not necessarily mean that $539 would be spent on each employee.
Ms. Brand responded to Ms. McClain and said that LCB staff had done the breakdown. She said her understanding was that the cost was appropriated to approximately one-half of the Supreme Court staff in the first year of the biennium and the remaining half in the second year of the biennium. She noted that the amount might be more heavily apportioned to those employees who had a more critical need.
Assemblyman Parks voiced his opinion that while ergonomic furniture was more expensive, it prevented worker’s compensation claims and was a good investment.
Chairwoman Chowning reiterated that she would like to compare the Supreme Court’s requests with other agencies’ requests. Senator Tiffany asked staff to review what equipment was included in E-713. Ms. Brand indicated she had a breakdown in terms of the numbers of items, such as articulating keyboards, and the cost per unit. The list included: 21 adjustable chairs for a cost of $428 each, 22 slant board document holders for $74 each, 23 articulating keyboard trays for $235 each, 22 seat cushions for $36 each, 23 lumbar supports for $52 each, 9 cordless headsets for $250 each, and 16 footrests for $43 each. The total was $22,640 each year of the biennium. Ms. Brand noted that the Supreme Court had indicated that as only half of the employees had been evaluated, it was anticipated that the needs identified for the remaining employees would produce similar retrofit and new purchase requirements.
Chairwoman Chowning said the Subcommittee would need to decide whether to approve E-713 or wait for additional information. She requested that Ms. Brand continue her presentation.
Ms. Brand indicated that decision unit E-805 requested $55,970 in FY2004 and $56,480 in FY2005 in order to reclassify ten Justices’ Judicial Assistants to Judicial Chambers Administrators. She said that based on a recent salary survey of lower court chambers’ judicial positions, it was noted the salaries for the Supreme Court Judicial Assistants lagged 15 percent behind the state average. E-805 would align the salaries with those positions in the two largest judicial districts as well as Carson City, Reno, and the Las Vegas Municipal Courts. Ms. Brand indicated that staff concurred with the request.
Ms. Brand addressed the final item, restructure authority, and said a request by the court to restructure the legal staff of the Supreme Court had not been included as a decision unit. It was a cost-neutral request, and the court indicated the purpose of the restructuring was to equitably structure the classification schedule within the three legal divisions of the court. Initially, the cost to restructure would be cost-neutral, and it was estimated to be approximately $59,000 each year in future biennia. Ms. Brand said that since the proposal was cost-neutral, the Subcommittee might wish to approve the proposal, or defer it until the next biennium.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the Subcommittee wished to discuss the restructure authority. Senator Coffin asked why the matter was brought to the Legislature, and Ms. Brand explained that the positions included in the restructure would be considered in the Unclassified Pay Bill if they were not approved within an enhancement decision unit. Senator Coffin agreed that it was simpler to consider it as a decision unit.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were any other issues that the Subcommittee wished to discuss. She referred to several decision units that had not been discussed, including E-710, E-711, and E-712. She noted the replacement of the timing system in E-711 had been reduced by approximately $9,000.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND TO APPROVE THE FOUR NEW POSITIONS, WITH THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE POSITION IN M‑201; TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO EXAMINE AND REPORT TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CENTRALIZATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND THE TRIAL COURTS; TO APPROVE OPTION B WHICH WOULD FUND E-710 AT 50 PERCENT, E-712 AND E-711 AT 100 PERCENT, ELIMINATE E-714 AND E‑715, AND ALLOW STAFF TO ADJUST THE ERGONOMICS COSTS PER FTE IN E-713 BASED ON OTHER BUDGETS; AND TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR RESTRUCTURE AUTHORITY.
Chairwoman Chowning questioned the ergonomics decision unit and requested a price comparison for all the agencies as well as a comparison of cost per FTE. She commented that she did not recall seeing a request where 100 percent of the FTEs received new ergonomic equipment over one biennium.
Senator Tiffany added that she would like staff to adjust the list of requested items to reflect which needs were high priority and to ensure there were not duplications.
Ms. Brand clarified that option B indicated a reduction of 50 percent of decision unit E-710.
Senator Rhoads asked Senator Tiffany to repeat her recommendation and clarify the motion regarding the ergonomic furniture request. Senator Tiffany opined that E-713 did not need to be funded at 100 percent but there were some things on the list that made sense, and she felt the cost per FTE could be reduced.
Senator Rhoads disagreed and said he preferred option A, which would fund all equipment as requested, including technical adjustments for pricing and the Court’s requested elimination of decision units E-714 and E-715.
Ms. McClain indicated she would like further discussion of decision unit E-710, and Ms. Brand explained that E-710 was a request for servers and hardware. She pointed out that option B would reduce E-710 by 50 percent and actually eliminate E-713 entirely.
Chairwoman Chowning requested that Senator Tiffany repeat her motion and focus on each decision unit individually.
Senator Tiffany repeated that E-710 would be funded at 50 percent; E-712 and E-711 would be funded at 100 percent; E-713, E-714, and E-715 would be eliminated, but the list of ergonomic equipment should be evaluated and a new cost per FTE should be submitted.
Chairwoman Chowning pointed out that the motion should be changed to reflect an adjustment to E-713 rather than the elimination of E-713. She requested an explanation for the request in E-710.
Mr. Titus indicated that the request in E-710 had already been cut by 25 percent and said that cutting an additional 25 percent would create difficulties for the Supreme Court as the current systems were inadequate and antiquated. He noted that he had provided a list to staff outlining the age of every piece of equipment that would be replaced. Much of the equipment was older than seven years, and Mr. Titus felt the request for replacement equipment was justified. He said that the Department of Information Technology had recommended $40,000 for a server, but the Supreme Court had been able to reduce that to $20,000, and the overall request had been reduced 25 percent.
Ms. McClain said she assumed that the equipment was needed for the people who were going to upgrade the system. Mr. Titus said that was correct and it was necessary in order to maintain functionality and minimize the equipment needed when the case management system was upgraded as that was on existing servers.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Brand if all the equipment requests had been reviewed. Ms. Brand said she had received the list with equipment and ages that Mr. Titus had mentioned. She said the servers were in the four to five year range, and that they were further utilizing those servers by other means within the court system. She said some of the additional equipment, such as laptop computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and the 23 personal computers would be used for a longer period of time. She said her recollection of the listing indicated that some of those assets were approximately four years old. Chairwoman Chowning said the issue was whether to reduce the requested amount of $273,000 to approximately $136,000, and then allow the court to decide what equipment to purchase.
Mr. Beers pointed out that funding that line item in the budget account would not necessarily force the court to purchase that equipment. There would be some flexibility as the new positions would be able to give a more coherent strategic direction and the recommendations on the specific line items might change.
Senator Tiffany recalled that in the information regarding the hardware portion of the budget, the cost per PDA had been $1,000. She indicated that she had purchased her own PDA for approximately $350. She indicated she was concerned about the pricing of the items and the number of laptops and new computers as the number requested and the price seemed excessive. She felt funding that decision unit at 50 percent was reasonable.
Chairwoman Chowning questioned whether 50 percent of E-710 would be 50 percent of $369,315, the original requested amount, or $272,430, the reduced amount. Senator Tiffany repeated that it was 50 percent of the request in E-710. Chairwoman Chowning said she was assuming it would be 50 percent of $369,315, the original amount.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning said staff needed to have the ability to make the adjustment if A.B. 29 passed. Mr. Abba agreed and explained that if A.B. 29 passed, staff would need the authority to make adjustments due to the additional court assessment money. An adjustment of $1.4 million each fiscal year would need to be added and then the General Fund would need to be reduced in a like amount.
MOTION CARRIED ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE AND FAILED ON THE SENATE SIDE WITH SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR RHOADS VOTING NO.
Senator Tiffany indicated that one of the other Senators might wish to make a motion in order to close the budget on the Senate side as well.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF THE 25 PERCENT REDUCTION IN DECISION UNIT E-710 AND OPTION A FOR E‑713, WHICH WOULD FUND ALL EQUIPMENT AS REQUESTED.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning repeated that the motion was to fund the computer hardware in E-710 for $272,430, and fund all equipment as requested in E-713, including technical adjustments for pricing and the court’s requested elimination of E-714 and E-715, for a total General Fund cost of $359,518 and a savings of $117,931.
MOTION CARRIED IN THE SENATE WITH SENATOR TIFFANY VOTING NO.
BUDGET CLOSED DIFFERENTLY IN THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE BUDGET CLOSING IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE BUDGET ACCOUNT IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE SENATE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Beers verified that the motion made by Senator Rhoads included the ergonomic furniture cost in the amount of $539 per FTE.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SENATE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Chairwoman Chowning explained that she was opposed because she did not believe there had been sufficient justification for approving decision unit E-713.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (101-1483)
BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 12
Ms. Brand presented Budget Account 101-1483 and said the budget was funded entirely by court administrative assessments. The major item to note was the fiscal impact of A.B. 29, and the courts had indicated that with the passage of A.B. 29, the influx of additional court assessments would be approximately $442,000. If A.B. 29 was passed, the courts were requesting three additional positions: a Staff Attorney, a Personnel Analyst III, and a Management Analyst III. The Staff Attorney would be hired in October 2003 at a cost of $69,684 in FY2004 and $92,912 in FY2005. The Personnel Analyst would be hired in FY2005 and would assist the two existing staff members in the Human Resources Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The Management Analyst would be hired October 2003 and would serve as staff to the Judicial Council of Nevada.
Ms. Brand indicated there were two options for the Subcommittee to consider in funding the requests. The options were to fund all three positions from increased court assessments or defer one of the new positions and fund the requested Judicial Branch Auditor position in the Planning and Analysis Division, Budget Account 101-1484, with increased court assessments rather than General Fund monies. She indicated that the Planning and Analysis Division budget account was a General Fund account and would be discussed later.
Ms. Brand said there were other closing items to note. The proposed budget for the AOC included funding of $26,675 each year for the statewide cost allocation. However, based on revised information provided by the Budget Office, the AOC’s allocation increased to $236,766 each year as a result of the reapportionment of costs associated with the law library. Ms. Brand indicated that the courts disputed the new allocation as it appeared to be inaccurate, and she said the Subcommittee might wish to have the courts address the issue with the Department of Administration for correction in the next biennium as staff was uncertain how to resolve the issue prior to closing of the budget account. Ms. Brand pointed out that additional increases in the allocation also affected other budgets for the Judicial Branch to a lesser degree and would not be addressed separately.
Ms. Brand referred to decision unit E-710 and said it was the funding request for the replacement of computer hardware and software in the amount of $24,700 in FY2004 and $26,200 in FY2005. Staff recommended an adjustment reducing those costs to reflect revised pricing. Ms. Brand noted that replacement was in accordance with the 25 percent replacement schedule from the Department of Information Technology. Decision unit E-713 provided for the replacement of ergonomic furniture apportioned to the number of FTEs similar to the request in the Supreme Court budget.
Senator Tiffany referred to the two aforementioned options regarding the three new positions, and she asked which position was the Judicial Branch Auditor. Ms. Brand explained that the Judicial Branch Auditor position was currently in the Division of Planning and Analysis budget. Senator Tiffany clarified that the Judicial Branch Auditor position was not included in the request for the three new positions, and the Subcommittee needed to make a decision regarding the three positions as well as a decision regarding the Judicial Branch Auditor.
Senator Tiffany referred to those three new positions and said she did not see the need for the new Staff Attorney or the Personnel Analyst as there were only 154 employees and the two current staff members in the Human Resources Division were sufficient. She added that the Management Analyst position appeared to be a reasonable request. Senator Tiffany asked for justification of the positions.
Ms. Brand said the courts had indicated that, unlike agencies of the Executive Branch, the AOC did not have a Deputy Attorney General to consult regarding the operations of its courts. Although the court employed many staff appellate attorneys, those individuals were prevented from giving advice to the AOC on any cases that the Supreme Court might also hear.
Senator Tiffany asked if there was a reason why the Subcommittee should not approve the Staff Attorney position. She felt one full-time attorney to address the needs of 154 employees and give recommendations was excessive. Ms. Brand deferred to Mr. Titus who responded to Senator Tiffany’s question and said the AOC served the entire judiciary, not just the Supreme Court. The AOC offered advice and information, but the Supreme Court was precluded from giving that advice because those cases might be heard by the Supreme Court at a later time and that would create a conflict.
Senator Tiffany asked how many requests were received, and Mr. Titus said there had been a significant number of requests concerning administrative assessments. He indicated that the Staff Attorney would also assist the Judicial Council and work with various contract and personnel issues. Mr. Titus added that the Supreme Court was reluctant to address those legal issues and questions because of the conflict of interest.
Chief Justice Agosti added that there had been a personnel issue and outside counsel had been hired, which was a major expense for a one-time situation. She said there was a need for additional training for supervisory staff with respect to personnel issues and the most current federal laws in that area. It was the AOC’s hope that those situations could be handled without hiring outside counsel. Chief Justice Agosti emphasized that many of the lower courts included justices of the peace who were not attorneys and had questions and needed direction on a weekly basis regarding legal matters.
Chief Justice Agosti added that she had convened the Commission on Administrative Assessments in order to achieve consensus among all the lower courts with respect to consistency in when and how administrative assessments would be assessed and collected. The Commission had been needed because the court was unable to direct the lower courts. She indicated that the courts not being unified might become a legal issue that would have to be decided in the context of a lawsuit if one of the courts was sued for treating people differently. Chief Justice Agosti commented that an attorney who could advise the courts might obviate the need for a commission that she intended to convene as well as eliminate the need for hiring outside counsel.
Chairwoman Chowning inquired as to the reason why the two current staff members in the Human Resources Division were unable to perform that function. Mr. Titus explained that one of the positions was a technician position with the responsibility of handling payroll for the AOC and the district court judges, and with the additional work in the area of personnel with respect to enforcement and standardizing of policies, an additional position was needed. He indicated the current personnel analyst was working a significant amount of overtime.
William Maupin, Associate Justice and former Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, addressed the Subcommittee and said the inclusion of the counsel position for the AOC had been his idea. He explained that while he was Chief Justice, the AOC had approached him at least twice a week for consultation regarding legal issues. In addition to all of the inquiries about personnel problems that came from throughout the state legal system, there were also questions about construing the pension laws for judges and for court employees. Justice Maupin stated emphatically that it was inappropriate for the Chief Justice to give legal advice on those matters, particularly since those issues might be brought before the court in the context of individual litigation. He felt the staff attorney was a priority in terms of the effectiveness of the AOC and its administrative functions within the court system.
Senator Tiffany commented that an additional personnel analyst was not needed if the request for the Staff Attorney was approved. Justice Maupin said he would leave the explanation of the mixture of the functions to Mr. Titus, but he felt the counsel position was critical.
Senator Coffin agreed with Justice Maupin regarding the conflict of interest and said a Staff Attorney was necessary.
Mr. Titus explained that the current intent was to fund as many of the positions as possible from the reserve or from the proceeds of A.B. 29, but due to the recent decline, it might not be possible to fund all the positions without the General Fund because the reserve needed to be bolstered. An adequate reserve was approximately three to four months of operating costs, which was between $300,000 and $400,000. The current reserve was less than $150,000.
Mr. Titus added that the current personnel budget was approximately 75 percent of the budget, but with an unstable funding source 55 percent would be better.
Mr. Titus pointed out that the Legislature had complete authority to fund positions and General Fund budgets, but the Judicial Branch had the authority to fund and authorize positions in those budgets fully funded by administrative assessments, and he said the AOC would like to exercise judicial discretion in which positions to hire.
Chairwoman Chowning said it seemed appropriate that the auditor position be funded through assessments because it was a position that aided all the courts in the Judicial Branch. She noted that if the auditor position was to be added to the AOC budget, the reserve amount would still be $175,000 in the first year and $253,000 in the second year, and the 60-day reserve amount would be $190,000. Chairwoman Chowning mentioned a Senate bill regarding collection of fees and vehicle registration that would be heard in the Committee on Transportation. She noted that similar legislation would ensure additional monies would be collected, and she asked why a 60-day reserve was inadequate.
Mr. Titus said the problems of the past two years demonstrated why a 60-day reserve was inadequate. He said that when he had been hired at the AOC, the AOC budget had not had an adequate reserve, and the AOC had gone “into the red” by the end of that November.
Mr. Titus addressed the auditor position issue and said the position had been requested in order to satisfy a legislative audit that had been conducted. He explained that 80 percent of collected administrative assessments benefited the General Fund; 49 percent was given to the General Fund directly and 60 percent of the other 51 percent that went to the courts was used to offset the General Fund for the Supreme Court budget. Mr. Titus reiterated that the auditor position was requested as a result of a legislative audit. He said it was not a “mission critical” position for the Judiciary. Those positions dealing with personnel and administration of the Judicial Council of Nevada were “mission critical.” He pointed out that the courts were locally funded and there was not a unified system, which meant the courts should be audited by the counties that funded them. However, whether or not to have that position was at the discretion of the Judiciary, and the Legislature could decide whether or not to fund that position. If the Legislature decided not to fund the auditor position in Budget Account 101-1494, the Judiciary could choose to fund it in Budget Account 101-1493.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the personnel analyst was a “mission critical” position. Mr. Titus responded affirmatively. Chairwoman Chowning questioned whether the three requested positions, and the auditor position, were “mission critical” positions. Mr. Titus clarified that he was requesting that the AOC retain the right to fill those positions when the funding was available. He indicated that the three requested positions were perceived as “mission critical” in support of the Judicial Council of Nevada and in support of personnel efforts and administration efforts within the Judicial Branch.
Senator Tiffany indicated that she felt the Staff Attorney and Management Analyst III positions should be approved but the Personnel Analyst III should not be approved. She agreed with the request to move the Auditor position into the AOC budget account, and she felt E-710 should be approved. Senator Tiffany commented that E-713 needed to be discussed in more detail, especially as Senator Rhoads had questions as to why the cost for ergonomic furniture in the AOC budget account was $1,238 per FTE while the cost in the other budget account was $539 per FTE.
Chairwoman Chowning dismissed the $1,238 per FTE ergonomic cost and said it was offensive considering the same items were being purchased for $539 per FTE in the other budget account.
Ms. Holt responded and said the costs were the result of an individual ergonomic consultation; the higher cost was most likely a result of the employees in the AOC needing more specialized accommodations. She emphasized that the request followed the recommendation of the consultant and different employees had different needs.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO FUND DECISION UNIT E-713 AT $539 PER FTE RATHER THAN $1,238 PER FTE, APPROVE THE THREE REQUESTED POSITIONS, FUND THE AUDITOR POSITION WITH INCREASED COURT ASSESSMENTS, AND ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated that he had requested the presence of Mark Stevens, the Assembly Fiscal Analyst, so that Mr. Stevens could address concerns regarding legislative discretion over funding in the Judicial Branch. Mr. Guernsey said it was his understanding that the Legislature had discretion in funding positions supported by the General Fund, but the court would have the discretion in choosing which positions were hired or not hired through the court administrative assessments.
Chairwoman Chowning added that the motion on the table was that all three of those positions would be approved, the judicial branch auditor would be funded through court administrative assessments, and the court would determine when and which positions to fund based on the amount of funds.
Mr. Abba indicated that the motion included funding the ergonomic equipment at $539 per FTE similar to the Supreme Court budget account. He concurred with Mr. Guernsey’s statement regarding legislative and judicial discretion.
Mr. Stevens added that he had worked for the Legislative Counsel Bureau for 25 years, and the Judicial Branch budgets had always been presented to the Committee on Ways and Means for review; the Budget Division of the Governor did not review those particular budgets. He opined that when the Legislature approved those budgets, there was an expectation that those positions outlined in the court budget would be the positions created, but the courts did have the discretion to change that and the courts were not under the control of the Interim Finance Committee.
Mr. Stevens reiterated that there was an expectation that the information provided to the Legislature would accurately reflect what would happen in the courts, but in some cases there were conditions that necessitated a change. In that instance, staff would remind the Subcommittee that other positions and programs had been proposed and ultimately included in the budgets as approved by the Legislature, and then there would be a review to determine why those expectations were not met. Mr. Stevens added that he was not an attorney, but it was his understanding that the Legislature appropriated funds from the General Fund as well as authorized funds from other sources, such as court administrative assessments. He pointed out that there were many positions in the Executive Branch that were not funded with General Fund monies and were approved by the Legislature, and he assumed the Legislature had the same authority in regard to the budget accounts in the Judicial Branch.
Senator Coffin interjected that the Legislature had a charge to reasonably fund the courts; otherwise, the courts could tell the Legislature what they needed and the Legislature would be forced to comply.
Chairwoman Chowning reminded the Subcommittee that even with the four additional positions, there would still be a reserve balance of $175,000 in the first year and $253,000 in the second year of the biennium, and the 60-day reserve amount would be $190,000. She pointed out that the courts had indicated that the 60-day reserve was too low, but that was a decision that needed to be made by the Legislature, and she opined that the reserve amount would grow.
Mr. Stevens agreed with Senator Coffin and said that if the courts determined they were not adequately funded by the Legislature, the courts did have recourse and those funds could be appropriated. Senator Coffin added that the courts had not indicated the Legislature was being unreasonable, and he felt the Subcommittee was merely being selective. He said he would have been more willing to support some of the motions if they had been more clear and concise.
Chairwoman Chowning said there was a motion on the floor and asked if anyone wished to make additional comments before the vote was taken.
Senator Tiffany commented that she would vote against the motion because she did not approve of adding a third personnel analyst for 154 FTEs for the entire court system. She said she was not aware of any agency or company that had three people in personnel for 154 FTEs. She said the transfer of the auditor was fine, but she did not agree with the request for funding of ergonomic furniture at $539, and she would have voted in favor of the budget if the personnel analyst had been eliminated, but she did not think both the ergonomic furniture and the personnel analyst should be funded. She requested that the motion be altered. Senator Rhoads said he would not change the motion. Chairwoman Chowning indicated the vote would be taken.
MOTION CARRIED WITH SENATOR TIFFANY AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO. (Mr. Parks was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS (101-1484)
BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 16
Ms. Brand presented the budget for the Division of Planning and Analysis and explained that the budget was entirely funded by General Fund monies. She indicated there were two closing issues to be addressed: an increase in General Fund support and a request for new positions.
Ms. Brand said the current increase in General Fund support was approximately $230,000 and was due primarily to the requested increase in personnel, travel, and operating costs associated with the addition of two new positions being requested. The new positions being requested were a Judicial Branch Auditor position and an Assistant Court Research Analyst position. She pointed out that the courts prioritized the positions, and the Assistant Court Research Analyst position had been given first priority.
Ms. Brand said there were several options for funding the positions; however, she noted that the prior motion had included funding the Judicial Branch Auditor position through increased court administrative assessments realized with the passage of A.B. 29. Ms. Brand indicated the Subcommittee could vote to fund decision unit M-202 with General Fund monies and transfer the Judicial Branch Auditor position to the Administrative Office of the Courts, contingent on passage of A.B. 29. The Subcommittee could also choose to defer funding of either of the positions; however, Ms. Brand indicated that option might not be available due to the motion taken previously.
Ms. Brand addressed other closing issues and said there was a reduction of the General Fund in the amount of $3,472 in FY2004 and $22,077 in FY2005 in decision unit E-600 as a result of general cost containment. E-710 contained a request for hardware and software and had been deemed priority number one by the courts. The second priority was E-713, which was the request for ergonomic furniture as discussed previously with a per position cost of $1,242 each year.
Chairwoman Chowning commented on the higher cost for ergonomic accommodations and asked for a motion.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF OPTION B, WHICH WAS TO FUND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AUDITOR POSITION WITH COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS AND TO FUND THE ASSISTANT COURT RESEARCH ANALYST POSITION WITH GENERAL FUND MONIES, CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF A.B. 29, AND FUND E-713 AT $539 PER FTE, AS WELL AS APPROVAL FOR OTHER TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were any further questions or comments.
Mr. Beers observed that there had been a reduction from approximately $183,000 to zero in federal funding for the budget account and he requested an explanation. In response, Ms. Holt explained that the grant funding was not guaranteed into the next biennium, so that money had not been factored into the budget.
Mr. Beers said that he expected that action to result in a reduction in the amount of work required, and he did not understand why additional personnel were needed. Ms. Brand answered and said that increase would be attributed to the request for the two new positions that were being requested. Mr. Beers reiterated that the workload should have decreased as the federal grants came with work requirements, and he did not understand why additional personnel were needed.
Mr. Titus said the grant monies were the court improvement project grant funds and were not guaranteed from year to year. Federal grant funds could not supplant budget items, and those funds were distributed to family courts to aid the program to reduce the time to permanency for children. He repeated that the funds were not included in the budget account because they were not guaranteed. Mr. Beers remarked that receiving money from the federal government and then giving it to another entity was called a “pass-through.”
Chairwoman Chowning indicated the Subcommittee would vote on the motion.
MOTION CARRIED WITH SENATOR TIFFANY AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO. (Mr. Parks was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Chairwoman Chowning explained that the Subcommittee would be unable to finish the budget closings as it was time for the Floor Session. She adjourned the meeting at 10:54 a.m.
Susan Cherpeski
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE:
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Chairwoman
DATE: