MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
General Government
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
May 9, 2003
The Joint Committee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Sandra J. Tiffany at 8:15 a.m. on Friday, May 9, 2003, in room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Bob Coffin
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Stout Chowning, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
Ms. Kathryn A. McClain
Mr. David R. Parks
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel
Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Michael Archer, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charles Chinnock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry
Kathy Ryan, Deputy Chief, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology
Department of Taxation – Budget Page TAX-1 (Volume-1)
Budget Account 101-2361
E-600 Budget Reductions – Page TAX-3
E-710 Replacement Equipment – TAX-3
E-720 New Equipment – TAX-4
E-850 Special Projects – Page TAX-4
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I will review budget account (B/A) 101-2361 on pages 1 through 3 of budget Closing List #10 (Exhibit C). Enhancement unit E-850 recommends an appropriation to the Department of Taxation for start-up costs associated with its assumption of lockbox services. The Budget Division has submitted an amendment to delete four new positions and seasonal salary and operating costs that were recommended in the Executive Budget. Additionally, staff has adjusted the recommended funding for a study of the financial impact of electronic commerce on Nevada retailers, which the Department of Taxation is required to make before Senate Bill (S.B.) 314 can be implemented.
SENATE BILL 314: Requires Department of Taxation to collect and report data concerning electronic commerce that is conducted in this state. (BDR 32‑36)
Also, funding to implement the new or increased taxes, as recommended by the Governor and the 2003 Legislature, is not included in the operating budget for the department at this time, but will be considered when a tax plan has been adopted. Other closing issues are E-600, which recommends the addition of a computer network technician, in lieu of using a Department of Information Technology (DoIT) technician, and would produce savings over the biennium. Decision unit E‑710 provides funding for computer hardware and software for which staff has made some technical adjustments. Enhancement E-720 will fund two fax machines and a cash register in the Elko office.
For the subcommittee’s information, the Governor has recommended an increase in funding from estate tax revenue to support the operation of collection and distribution of estate tax revenue. The subcommittee should be aware that revenue from the estate tax will be diminishing through FY 2005. In addition, staff has been advised that the recommended attorney general (AG) cost-allocation assessment will be increased, and will be funded by an increase in audit fees. Besides these closing issues, staff has made some technical adjustments for vacancy savings, buildings and grounds assessments, and copier and equipment lease costs.
Senator Tiffany:
Since we are going to change lockbox services, did they go for a request for proposal (RFP)? Was it on a 1-year or 2-year basis?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes. They went through a bidding process and there were a number of responses. I believe they selected Bank One. It was on a 3-year basis.
Senator Tiffany:
I would like to see us be aggressive about using electronic transfers so that in 3 years we can be off the lockbox system.
Charles Chinnock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation:
We would like to see that too. It would lower costs because it would reduce the workflow to the lockbox, and all mailing and handling at the Department of Taxation.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
How many responded to the RFP? Can this be totally converted to electronic filing and collection before the 3 years elapse?
Mr. Chinnock:
We had 16 companies respond to the request for information (RFI) form. Some intended to bid on a comprehensive unified tax system, some on modules, or portions of tax systems. We are reviewing those now and will give you an idea of the cost by next week. I initially anticipated that it would take at least 2 years to develop a tax program. Some of these companies claim they can develop these programs faster than that. I am confident that up-front returns, such as on-line registration and on-line filing, will be up and running within a year. If there is something that has to go into the third year of development, it will be final conversion of our existing database to the new database.
Assemblyman Beers:
You will not be able to get people to fully cooperate with this in 3 years. I do not have confidence that we will do away with paper checks being remitted by our citizens for a number of years. It would be helpful to have a performance indicator for next session that would indicate the volume of dollars and transactions going thought the lockbox. Hopefully, we will eventually see such a decrease in the volume of transactions that we can do away with the lockbox.
Mr. Chinnock:
I concur with that. We may need to provide some incentive to electronic filing. Some states have mandated electronic filing.
Assemblyman Beers:
Historically this State has had an environment conducive to the start-up of small businesses. Those are the people who will have difficulty coming up with an infrastructure right away that will allow them to file electronically. That is my objection to mandating electronic filing.
Senator Tiffany:
When a tax plan is adopted, will we need to create a separate bill that addresses the implementation of new or increased taxes?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
There are a number of scenarios the Department of Taxation has developed to deal with potential tax plans. Funding for that would hopefully be included in the taxation bill that is finally approved.
Senator Tiffany:
If we approve the computer hardware and software requested in E-710, we want to be sure this is not duplicated in the new licensing system.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
This has concerned us and we would like the opportunity to review this to avoid duplication.
Senator Tiffany:
Have we looked at giving a portion of any existing, new, or increased tax, to the Department of Taxation for administrative purposes?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
It would probably not be feasible because even such things as the sales tax handling fees, now collected by the Department of Taxation, are all deposited into the General Fund. You could draft legislation that provides the department with some of that revenue, but that would reduce the General Fund.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Why is the AG cost–allocation going up so rapidly?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Full committees will be reviewing the AG budget next week. The Fiscal Division has received different versions of the AG cost-allocation from the Budget Division.
Mr. Chinnock:
We have six attorneys working full time on cases. There is recognition from the AG that if they do not provide the support, budget money would be in jeopardy.
Assemblyman Beers:
Is your AG assessment on an hourly basis, like a law firm?
Mr. Chinnock:
I do not know.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That assessment is among the items we will be reviewing to see what the various non-General Fund sources did to allocate these costs. It is completed by an outside consultant and given to the Budget Division.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
How much time does staff need to close all budgets?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
We have targeted May 15, 2003, as the date to have all budgets closed in full committees. After that there are a number of mechanical issues staff needs to take care of, which might throw off these budget balances and require later correction.
Senator Rhoads:
Which is going to be the most expensive tax to administer, the service tax or the gross receipts tax?
Mr. Chinnock:
Since it is accounts-driven, the one with the most accounts would be the most expensive to administer. By that standard, the service tax would cost more to administer.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you already have a sales tax collection administrator in place?
Mr. Chinnock:
Yes, we could initially implement a services tax through out existing system. With the gross receipts tax, we would need new technology immediately. But we would eventually need to replace our current system to administer the service tax also. So on the information technology issue, the playing field is somewhat level.
Senator Rhoads:
Would those people under $450,000 still have to provide a form?
Mr. Chinnock:
In Assembly Bill (A.B.) 281 there is a proposal to offset the business tax paid against the gross receipts tax. This decoupled the Governor’s plan. Because of that decoupling, there remains the concept that when the business license is sent out, so is the gross receipts form. We would do that as a tracking mechanism. The Legislature could set a threshold so not everyone is included.
ASSEMBLY BILL 281: Imposes and increases certain taxes and fees and makes various changes to provide additional state revenue and to stabilize revenue base of state. (BDR 32-756)
Assemblyman Beers:
The real amount of data you need to store appears to be much higher than indicated. For example, would you have to multiply these records by 12 months for monthly filing?
Mr. Chinnock:
That is correct. We have monthly and quarterly records, in addition to the registration and correspondence we must keep. We have about 1.5 million records currently in our database. Any gain in accounts will produce a corresponding gain in records and archives. That is why we have requested additional costs to include the increase in manpower.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE B/A 101-2361 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, FUNDING FOR THE STUDY IN S.B. 314, AND A PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REGARDING THE LOCKBOX SERVICE.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Beers:
We should make it clear that it is the intent of the subcommittee to consider the expenses of the Nevada Tax Commission, which will be overburdened after we pass a new tax bill. We may have to consider enlarging the commission.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
In FY 2002, Nevada Tax Commission member salaries were approximately $12,800, which is what the Governor recommends we continue, and staff concurs. If additional costs are required due to a new tax package, funding could also be included in that tax bill. Ideally, whatever tax bill is approved will have an appropriation from the General Fund or some other funding source, appropriate to the costs of implementing the new tax legislation. Staff will need an itemized list of what is in the bill so we can monitor this.
Senator Coffin:
The Governor did send us a letter requesting we not increase the amount of travel funds. We must make an exception, though, or risk losing some members of the Nevada Tax Commission.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
B&I, Real Estate Administration – Budget Page B&I-9 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3823
Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Senate Bill 428 includes fee increases and the establishment of new fees, due to operating costs and the increase in the number of applicants for licensure. If passed, S.B. 428 would produce additional fee revenue of $460,825 over the biennium. Staff recommends the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) programming and data communication charges be decreased by $17,997 in FY 2003-2004, and $18,459 in FY 2004-2005, in order to eliminate expenses not required if the integrated licensing system is approved in enhancement E‑300 B/A 101‑1325. The Director’s Office the Department of Business and Industry (DBI) has agreed to this change. The Governor also recommends one program officer and two administrative assistant positions. If the subcommittee chooses to approve these positions, software and hardware costs would be reduced by $133 each. Also, the Governor recommends the elimination of a compliance investigator position. The amendment on page 7, submitted by the Budget Division, subsequently changes the position recommended for elimination from a compliance/audit investigator to an auditor. In decision unit E‑710, staff has reduced the Governor’s recommendation by $18,952 over the biennium. The Governor also requests funding for out-of-state travel, training, and operating costs. Staff has made some minor technical adjustments.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page B&I-14
Senate Bill 428:Makes various changes regarding certain state agencies that regulate real estate practices and professions. (BDR 54-471)
Information Technology Projects – Budget Page ADMIN-14 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-1325
E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page ADMIN-15
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I would like the record to reflect that both Assemblyman Parks and I are licensed real estate agents in this state. What are the amounts of the fee increases, and what total amount goes to the General Fund?
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry:
The fee increases are $10 for existing 2-year license renewals and $20 for a new real estate license. There are changes to make other fees more consistent with our actual administrative costs.
Ms. Garrett:
Of these fee revenues, $286,265 will go directly to the General Fund.
Senator Tiffany:
I would remind the department that anything used with the integrated licensing system should be backed-out of that budget. Is B/A 101-3823 dependent on the passage of S.B. 428?
Ms. Garrett:
This budget is not dependent on the passage S.B. 428.
Assemblyman Beers:
The base budget has increased about $500,000 over the prior year’s spending. How did that happen?
Ms. Garrett:
The last Legislature approved revenue for this budget of $1.1 million. The department did not spend it all and reverted $543,000 to the General Fund at the end of the year.
Assemblyman Beers:
Will there be a similar reversion this year?
Ms. Garrett:
The DBI director’s office has advised us that $400,000 will be reverted from the FY 2003 appropriation back into the General Fund.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I do not see any performance indicator that addresses the audits of the broker trust account; I see one for property management trust accounts. There are problems out there that need investigation, so I am in support of this. I would like the projected results that would come from these positions to be built into the performance indicators.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE B/A 101-3823 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
B&I, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers – Budget Page B&I-137
Budget Account 101-1013
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page B&I-139
Ms. Garrett:
The next account is B/A 101-1013, the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW). It is funded through a transfer from the Worker’s Compensation and Safety Fund. In enhancement E-275, the Governor recommends $230,382 in FY 2004, and $128,060 in FY 2005, to relocate the Las Vegas Office from the Grant Sawyer State Office Building to the Rancho Sahara Corporate Center. The request to relocate is due to the proposed move of the Hearings Division from the Grant Sawyer State Office Building.
Staff would note that the Hearings Division budget, which includes funds for a move, has been closed and approved by this subcommittee. Included in their moving costs is an increase in rent of approximately $46,000 per year. Additional expenses associated with the move include $84,000 to purchase new office furnishings and equipment, and $19,000 for DoIT services, which includes $ 13,600 for new telephone equipment. If the subcommittee chooses to approve this decision unit, staff guidelines. Staff recommends reducing the new furnishings cost by $16,356 to reflect budget note that the Hearings Division office has also requested new furniture to replace furniture that was built in to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building and cannot be removed. Their closed budget included new furniture that was in line with the guidelines
Senator Tiffany:
What are the guidelines?
Ms Garrett:
The statewide budgeting guidelines provide furniture for secretary and executive positions, and includes desks and filing cabinets. Some additional funding has been provided to provide for credenzas, as it was determined they needed more desktop space.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Is this consistent with the amount allocated to the Victims of Crime office when they moved from the Grant Sawyer State Office Building?
Ms. Garrett:
Yes.
Assemblyman Parks:
It is my understanding that the furnishings that are currently in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building cannot be taken to the new location.
Ms. Garrett:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Parks:
Modular furniture is difficult and expensive to take apart.
Ms. Garrett:
The Governor recommends $13,600 to fund the replacement telephone system for the new office space. The agency recommends an increase to reflect recent pricing adjustments; staff would note that 24 percent of this new telephone system would be shared with the Hearings Division office.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
The furnishings are the same as those being allocated for the Hearings Division. How do you feel about the proposed change in the telephone system appropriation?
Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry:
The permanent modular furniture that you were just discussing is what we have had in both the Las Vegas and Carson City offices since 1995. The figure for the telephone system is appropriate. With modular furnishing, you must have privacy panels to muffle the noise from the telephones. There should be an additional $3000 for adding privacy panels.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Ms. Garrett, is that flexibility allowed within the amount allocated here?
Ms. Garrett:
I have not had the opportunity to evaluate that dollar amount. It has not yet been factored in.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
That is a valid concern, especially since they have already had that in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building.
Senator Tiffany:
I do not think that they are saying it has to be done in a certain way. Did we give the Hearings Division an allocation?
Ms. Garrett:
Yes, they were funded within the budgeting guidelines for each position.
Senator Tiffany:
The Hearings Division has a pool of secretaries and I am sure they will be dealing with the same issues. We are not saying exactly how the money has to be spent.
E-277 Working Environment & Wage – Page B&I-140
E-605 Budget Reductions – Page B&I-141
Ms. Garrett:
Correct, it is funding for furniture. In the next item, E-277 on page 9, the Governor recommends hiring a deputy attorney, a legal secretary, and a legal research assistant. These positions are to handle caseloads and staff workloads in the Las Vegas office. Staff would note that a legal research position is being eliminated in decision unit E-605, and this is adding the position back. Staff would also note that the agency is currently authorized 12 full-time deputy attorney positions, three full-time legal research positions, and seven legal secretary positions. The agency’s order of priority for these positions is deputy attorney, legal secretary, and legal research assistant. There are two options for the subcommittee to consider. The first is to assign a half-time deputy attorney position from the Carson City office to Las Vegas, as turnover occurs, to address the heavier caseload in that office. The second option for consideration is to change a half-time deputy attorney position to a full-time position in the Las Vegas office. The additional salary costs for this would be approximately $35,600 in each year of the biennium. However, the subcommittee should note that their performance indicators, provided in the Executive Budget shows caseloads have not changed significantly since 1999. In some years they actually went down. Over the last 7 years there has been an average annual increase in caseloads of less than 1 percent.
Senator Tiffany:
Since most of our cases are down in Las Vegas, it does make sense to migrate our staff down there to save travel expenses. Can you give me a reason why we would want to move the half-time position to a full-time position?
Ms. Garrett:
One benefit in turning a half-time employee into a full-time position is that the fringe benefit costs are already being paid. A new hire would add another set of fringe benefit costs. The agency has indicated that they have Carson City attorneys traveling to Las Vegas on a regular basis to assist with the caseloads.
Senator Tiffany:
Would there be a half-time position in the Las Vegas office?
Ms. Garrett:
Yes.
Senator Tiffany:
If we do not approve all three positions, what would staff recommend we do?
Ms. Garrett:
Staff would recommend deferring the legal secretary and legal research assistant positions and assigning the half-time deputy attorney position from Carson City to the Las Vegas office.
Senator Tiffany:
Why is that reasonable?
Ms. Garrett:
In part due to the caseload numbers I have indicated. The workload and caseload are hard concepts to get a handle on. The NAIW could do some file and information sharing with Hearings Division office and eliminate some of the work that is required to establish a case. There could be some timesaving and reduction in the staff workload burden.
Senator Tiffany:
That makes sense. Because we are locating them all together, there should be better communication, better workflow, and better business processes.
Ms. Garrett:
Yes, moving NAIW near the Hearings Division is not only to have them nearby for daily court appearances, but also to share information.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I would like to hear from Ms. Leeder about these alternatives. Also, why is the research assistant position being eliminated in one decision unit and put back in another?
Ms Leeder:
I already did move one attorney from Carson City to Las Vegas. I cannot move any more because that will overload the Carson City office with work. I once tried to hire a half-time attorney. It is difficult to hire any attorney in Las Vegas, but it was impossible to hire a half-time attorney. We have two half-time positions, so my understanding of Ms. Garrett’s proposal is to increase both half-time positions to a full-time position. This is what we discussed earlier.
Ms. Garrett:
My recommendation is an option to assign a half-time attorney from Carson City to Las Vegas, or to change a half-time attorney position to a full-time attorney position in the Las Vegas Office.
Ms. Leeder:
That would then leave us with one half-time position. We currently have two half-time positions. I once tried to shift a half-time position to Las Vegas when I had someone who was interested in going to half time in Carson City. But that did not work because I could not hire anybody in Las Vegas.
We cannot share information with the Hearings Division. The Hearings Division are the judges, and we are the attorneys. We cannot share documents. That would be a conflict in law and is prohibited. It is efficient for us to move close to the Hearings Division because it will save us travel time to the hearings.
Senator Tiffany:
I would like to contact our Legal Division to see whether it is true that the Hearings Division staff cannot share any case files, any background, and any information with NAIW. I would like to have a legal opinion.
Assemblyman Parks:
This is not a budget funded by the General Fund. Most of this budget is driven by workload, and my past experience dealing with the workers’ compensation issues leads me to believe that this operation is certainly not glamorous, nor has it been given adequate support and funding. At this point, I would like to hear more about the workload and capability. I think we have put Ms. Leeder into a “Hobson’s choice” of situations. Also, the Hearings Division and NAIW are both currently in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building and they will be relocating to the same office complex. There is still going to be that proximity.
Senator Tiffany:
Driving long distances to hearings was never an issue, and work efficiencies should have always been there.
Ms Leeder:
That is correct; I am saying there would be a lack of efficiency if they moved and we did not move. But we cannot share documents. Out attorneys and secretaries have tremendous workloads. There are seven attorneys assigned to the Las Vegas office, but seven attorneys left in the last biennium because of the crushing workload. The workload, per attorney, would be reduced by the addition of the one attorney and the one legal researcher. The legal researcher takes care of the preliminary medical and legal research, and then presents it to the attorney for review. The attorney then prepares the documents. Our secretaries handle the majority of their work on the telephones. All of the positions are critical. It is true our caseload has remained relatively flat, but the increase in the workloads is because we cannot get those cases handled. This causes delays, more phone calls, and more document preparation because of motions to continue. That is what constitutes most of our crushing workload.
Senator Tiffany:
The NAIW would like a deputy attorney, a legal secretary, and a legal research assistant. Staff has recommended giving them the deputy attorney, but deferring the legal secretary and the legal research assistant. This may be the way we decide to go.
E-500 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page B&I-141
Ms. Garrett:
The next is item E-500 on page 10. The Governor recommends $6452 in additional in-state travel funds to allow NAIW attorneys in Carson City to travel to the Las Vegas office to assist with the caseload. The additional funding will provide $23,417 for travel in each year. This equates to about 70 trips per fiscal year. The agency indicated that part of the recent travel was due to an ill employee whose caseload had to be taken over by a Carson City attorney. Staff feels that should be represented in the base as $16,859 for in-state travel. That equates to approximately 50 trips per fiscal year.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Can you explain why you will require so much travel?
Ms. Leeder:
We had to assign some Las Vegas work to a Carson City attorney. The attorneys go down there when they can, and work during the flights. At one time the Hearings Division would work with us to schedule all of the cases on certain days. That has become more difficult. The Carson City attorneys still have to complete their own cases because of the inefficiency created when you change from one attorney to another. However, if we get the three new staff we are requesting, travel will become less necessary.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
If the positions you requested are approved, how much of the travel will be cut down? Are you saying it will be fewer than 50 trips, or just the difference between 50 and 70 trips?
Ms Leeder:
I am saying the additional trips would be reduced.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Why would 50 trips still be necessary? This comes out to about 1 round-trip per week. Are the trips all from Carson City to Las Vegas?
Ms. Leeder:
The 50 trips will be necessary to complete the cases. Sometimes there are trips necessary from Las Vegas to Carson City because of legal conflicts, lack of staff, and Supreme Court cases.
Senator Tiffany:
I have a question for Ms. Needham. We were told that the Hearings Division files on a case cannot be shared with the NAIW staff. Is this correct?
Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative counsel Bureau:
At first glance, it looks like there will be a conflict of interest. I will have to look into this more.
Senator Tiffany:
Can they share any information at all?
Ms. Needham:
I do not know whether it is all information, or just some information. I will have to check.
E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page B&I-140
Ms. Garrett:
At the bottom of page 10 is decision unit E-300 regarding a new data management system. This is recommended to replace the existing system at a cost of $144,990 in FY 2004. The ongoing annual cost would be $17,820. This would be an off-the-shelf system designed for law offices to facilitate case management. This project has been reviewed by DoIT.
Senator Tiffany:
Is the $144,990 just for the software license? Also, there are three different areas here where we are looking at some equipment. One is on the case management system, another is the replacement equipment, and the third is new equipment. I want to make sure there is no duplication. It looks like one may be software, but that is a lot of money for an off‑the-shelf software license. The others appear to be for use in case management and office automation.
Kathy Ryan, Deputy Chief, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology:
The cost of the software license was estimated at $15,900. Another $20,000 is for customization to fit the needs of NAIW.
Senator Tiffany:
Who would do the customization?
Ms. Ryan:
The vendor will work with NAIW staff and also train them on how to do some of the administration. Another $4000 was for testing and verification of the system.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that in addition to the $20,000? Should not customization include the testing?
Ms. Ryan:
Yes, they broke it out separately. About $5000 was for documenting the customization and configuration, and making copies of instructions for the NAIW offices so they will know how to maintain it. There was $20,000 for legacy data conversion and integration, $2400 for installation and implementation by the vendor, $7200 for customer training, $4800 for vendor product management, $14,640 for hosting this application at the DoIT computer facility, and $2720 for DoIT technical support.
Senator Tiffany:
That comes to about $100,000.
Ms. Garrett:
Staff has made an adjustment to this decision unit to take out funding for contingency reserve and quality assurance. That would represent $19,332 in the first year, and $9606 in the second.
Senator Tiffany:
Will the vendor interface the network and the hardware to the server, as well as load the software?
Ms. Ryan:
The vendor would be loading the software, but DoIT technical consultants will be working with our computer facility people and database administrators to make sure that everything is working properly.
Senator Tiffany:
Who will do the physical hook-up?
Ms. Ryan:
I am not sure.
Ms. Leeder:
I think the original planner put in the contingency reserve to take care of little things like that.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page B&I-141
Ms. Garrett:
In decision unit E-710, page 11, the Governor recommends $71,669 in the next biennium to replace equipment. This includes software upgrades of $25,000, two laser jet printers, four laptop computers, and network equipment. With DoIT assistance, staff has determined that the network equipment is justified. If the E-300 decision unit is approved, staff requests the authority to delete funding in FY 2004 of $2132, and in FY 2005 of $2555. This is for supporting other software that would be replaced by the new management system. In addition, staff recommends funding of $2400 in the first fiscal year to purchase three docking stations for the laptop computers. The docking stations would eliminate a duplication of computers.
E-720 New Equipment – Page B&I-142
Decision unit E-720 is for new equipment. The Governor is recommending $69,786 in the first year, which includes $36,000 for computer equipment, two additional back up drives for each existing server, and $11,222 to replace the existing telephone system in the Carson City office. Staff notes that the other telephone system was for the Las Vegas office. Staff recommends the elimination of $36,769 in duplicate expenses in FY 2004-2005 that have been identified in discussions with DoIT. This completes staff recommendations with the exception of some technical adjustments in the base.
Senator Tiffany:
The big issue so far in this budget seems to be about staffing. It appears the Assembly side wants to approve the three positions. I have not heard from the Senate side.
Senator Coffin:
This was an inevitable outcome of the deregulation of workers’ compensation. I do not think their initial request was outrageous. I do not know how many they really need, and I do not know how many they asked of the Governor. I would support all the extra positions.
Senator Rhoads:
I could go along with staff recommendations.
Senator Tiffany:
I too am leaning toward staff recommendations. Let us split it out and get two motions on this part of the budget.
Assemblyman Parks:
This agency has been absolutely inundated for years, and I can see why there might not be changes in the number of caseloads. How much of a caseload should the average attorney working in this office be carrying?
Ms. Leeder:
Private attorneys who work on the defense side for employers and insurers have caseloads of between 40 and 60. Our NAIW Carson City office averages 88 per attorney. In Las Vegas, it is more like 125-130 cases per attorney. We get more and more of a backlog. The longer that cases are open, the more contacts have to be made.
I would now like to answer a question Assemblywoman Chowning asked earlier, as to why we asked for a legal research assistant now, when we had not asked for one earlier. In the general budget reduction that took place last winter, we locked the legal research assistant position up until July, knowing that we would be putting it into this budget. That is why we had to make a deletion and then an addition.
Senator Tiffany:
I support Senator Rhoads’ position because they had seven attorneys who were new, vacant, or changing positions in Las Vegas. I now hope this will be stabilized. We are giving them another attorney. Even if you have 120 in your caseload, you do not have all those cases open at the same time. One may be a case for a year, and one may take 6 months. I am comfortable with that position. Is there a motion on the Assembly side?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO APPROVE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION WITH ALL THREE POSITIONS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVING THE ATTORNEY BUT DEFERRING THE OTHER POSITIONS.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THREE POSITIONS.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
Senator Tiffany:
We will now vote on the remainder of the budget.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT E‑275 WITH GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE RELOCATION, BUT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ALLOCATION FOR THE FURNISHINGS AND THE TELEPHONE; TO CLOSE E-550 DELETING THE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL; AND CLOSE E-605 WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE ONE POSITION; TO APPROVE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS REGARDING THE EQUIPMENT TO BE MADE BY STAFF; AND CLOSE E-710 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND E-720 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Tiffany:
There being no further business at this time, and no other questions, this meeting is adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Michael Archer,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Chairman
DATE: