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 8, 2003

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on General Government, was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, May 8, 2003.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Josh Griffin

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Sandra Tiffany

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)

Julie Brand, Program Analyst

Jeff Ferguson, Program Analyst

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

Lila Clark, Committee Secretary

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS (101-1486)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 21

 

Julie Brand, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented Budget Account 101-1486 and said the major function of the account was the standardization and implementation of technology to assist the Supreme Court and the trial courts in managing their caseloads.  The account was funded by administrative assessments and user charges.  There were two closing items:  the effect of A.B. 29 and the implementation of the Nevada Rural Courts System (NRCS).  Assuming passage of A.B. 29, the courts had estimated an additional influx of revenue in the amount of approximately $215,000 each year of the biennium, which would fund three additional positions in support of technology and the NRCS.  The positions would be a Management Analyst III, a Database Management Specialist III, and a Master Information Specialist I. 

 

Ms. Brand indicated there were other closing items to note; namely, the potential impact of S.B. 106, which would provide a $30 filing fee for each additional party in multi-party cases.  Of the $30 filing fee, $10 would be distributed to the courts for statewide technology projects.  It was estimated that S.B. 106 would provide approximately $392,000 each year of the biennium in additional funding for technology.

 

Chairwoman Chowning requested that Ms. Brand clarify the difference between S.B. 106 and A.B. 29.  Ms. Brand explained that A.B. 29 would increase the court administrative assessments, which historically had funded the NRCS, and S.B. 106 would be in addition to that and would fund technology projects.

 

In response to Chairwoman Chowning’s question regarding S.B. 106, Ms. Brand indicated that the bill had previously been heard in the Senate, but she was not sure what the status of the bill was currently.

 

Ms. Brand said that E-710 was a request for replacement hardware and software, and staff recommended a technical adjustment if approved.  E-713 provided for the replacement of ergonomic furniture at a cost of $938 per position.  She informed the Subcommittee that previous Judicial Branch budget closings had allowed for a cost of $539 per position.

 

Senator Tiffany mentioned that there had been a previous discussion regarding centralization of information technology within the Supreme Court, and she indicated she would like a Letter of Intent asking the Court to explore the possibility of placing all the information technology positions in a central location and establishing a cost allocation system.  She pointed out that the Court’s technology would grow, and she opined that it made sense to have information technology specialists that could be shared across the court system and funded through cost allocation.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked that a representative from the Court address Senator Tiffany’s request as well as explain why three new positions were needed in addition to the existing two positions.

 

Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, responded to Senator Tiffany’s request and said the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had assumed more responsibility for providing technology to the district courts and limited jurisdiction courts, particularly in the rural areas where they were unable to fund positions dedicated to technology.  He said the AOC needed to focus on the appropriate organization of an information technology department and would comply with the Letter of Intent. 

 

Senator Tiffany asked if that organization could be implemented in the next biennium.  Mr. Titus indicated that it was relatively early in the process and should be implemented in two biennia.  He then replied to Chairwoman Chowning’s question regarding the five positions.  He said one of the current positions was a project manager to manage the NRCS project and the Multi- County Integrated Justice Information System as well as other minor projects.  The other position was a wide area network specialist as the AOC was supporting courts statewide with an extensive network.  The three new positions would provide more direct support to the Court in the actual operation and maintenance of the applications.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Titus if he felt that all five positions were critical in order to accomplish what needed to be done, and Mr. Titus replied affirmatively.

 

Mr. Titus explained that the AOC supported more than 40 courts and more than 400 users, and the five positions were critical.  He observed that, as the court system grew, more positions would be needed, but the current request would be funded through administrative assessments. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning noted that there were other judges present in the audience, and she asked them to indicate whether they were in agreement with the request.  The judges in the audience nodded affirmatively.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH A LETTER OF INTENT, A REDUCTION IN E-713 TO A COST OF $539 PER POSITION, AND OTHER TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

MS. McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED.  (Senator Coffin was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

Chairwoman Chowning called a brief recess at 8:45 a.m.

 

The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 a.m.

 

JUDICIAL EDUCATION (101-1487)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 25

 

Ms. Brand explained that the Judicial Education Program provided for the continuing education of district court judges, justices of the peace, municipal court judges, and court personnel.  The account was funded entirely by administrative assessments.  The only closing issue was the potential impact of the passage of A.B. 29.  A.B. 29, if passed, was projected to generate an additional $215,000.  With that money, the court would fund additional education programs for the Supreme Court staff, lower court judges, court administrators, and district judges.

 

Chairwoman Chowning questioned the Supreme Court staff education program, which included one professional conference for staff attorneys at the Supreme Court, and she wanted to know how many staff attorneys would be able to attend that conference for $5,000.  Ms. Brand said she was not sure and indicated that Mr. Titus would be better able to answer that question.  Chairwoman Chowning requested additional backup information regarding the various education programs. 

 

Mr. Titus explained that the $5,000 in the Supreme Court staff education program was for an appellate conference that three to four attorneys would attend.  Chairwoman Chowning asked if the $5,000 request was consistent with past requests, and Mr. Titus indicated that was correct.

 

Christina Van Hook, Manager, Judicial Education, Administrative Office of the Courts, explained that the seminar attended by the court staff was the only training the staff received in terms of additional education throughout the year.  She said the goal was to send half the staff every year, but due to the decrease in administrative assessments, there had been reductions.  She said the request for $5,000 would allow the court to reach that goal.  The $60,000 for lower court judges’ education was training for limited jurisdiction judges.  She emphasized that the additional $215,000 from increased assessments in A.B. 29 in FY2004 would merely allow training to resume at the level at which it had been done in the past.  Ms. Van Hook commented that the first priority was to ensure that all the lower court judges received the mandated education required by law, the second priority was to ensure that judges received the required 12 hours of education per year at AOC sponsored statewide seminars, and the third priority was providing optional education for the judges, particularly those judges who were not attorneys and had no legal training. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning confirmed that the education expenses would allow education to resume at the previous level as well as provide initial and ongoing training.  Ms. Van Hook indicated that assessment was correct.

 

Ms. Brand continued her presentation and pointed out that the budget account included decision unit E-713, which was a request for replacement of ergonomic furniture at a cost of $591 per position.  She noted that decision unit E-710 requested funding from reserve for computer hardware and software, and staff recommended a technical adjustment of the pricing. 

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROVAL OF E-713 AT A COST OF $539 PER POSITION.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

SUPREME COURT RURAL DRUG COURT (101-1495)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 31

 

Ms. Brand presented the issues for the next budget account and said the Supreme Court Rural Drug Court was funded with a General Fund appropriation provided in Senate Bill 143 of the 2001 Legislative Session.  The amount requested was $150,000 each year of the biennium for a total of $300,000 and would provide funding for the rural court districts: the First, Third, and the Ninth Judicial Districts, which included Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties. 

 

Ms. Brand directed the Subcommittee’s attention to the primary closing item, which was the potential impact of A.B. 29.  With passage of the bill, there would be an influx of revenue in the amount of approximately $2.5 million each year of the biennium.  She pointed out that on April 29, 2003, the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety had approved the elimination of $525,000 in General Fund monies from the Parole and Probation budget account for the support of the drug court programs in the Washoe and Clark County District Courts.  The Subcommittee had then authorized that $525,000 be placed in the Rural Drug Court budget account.  In addition, the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety had recommended that funding related to specialty courts be accounted for in one budget under the umbrella of the courts, which would include the drug courts for $1,050,000, rural courts for $300,000 and the mental health court for $628,000. 

 

Ms. Brand said that if the Joint Subcommittee on General Government approved funding in the budget account, staff would request approval to separate the revenues and expenditures related to each program from the revenue and expenditures related to the rural drug program. 

 

Ms. Brand indicated that, with the passage of A.B. 29, there were several options for funding Budget Account 101-1495.

 

·        Fund all specialty courts with General Funds as recommended by the Governor for a cost of $947,711 in FY2004 and $1,030,628 in FY2005 for a total cost of $1,978,339 over the biennium.

·        Fund all specialty courts with administrative court assessments in lieu of General Funds.

·        Provide start-up funds from the General Fund in the amount of $236,927 for the first quarter of FY2004 as A.B. 29 would not be effective until July 1, 2003, and then fund with court administrative assessments thereafter.

 

Chairwoman Chowning said that the original budget request had been for $150,000 per year for the rural courts; however, the other joint subcommittees had made decisions that had bearing on the decisions to be made by the Joint Subcommittee on General Government.  The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety closed the Parole and Probation budget and recommended bringing the drug courts, the rural courts, and the mental health courts into one budget account.  The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources recommended that the mental health courts should be funded entirely with General Fund monies.  Chairwoman Chowning commented that the Subcommittee could choose to close in a manner consistent with the decisions made by the other subcommittees or they could make their own recommendation. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning said she would like to hear from a representative of the drug courts in order to ask what was envisioned for the expansion of the drug and rural courts as current funding would not allow for that expansion.  She indicated that with the passage of A.B. 29, the increased assessments were projected to raise $2.5 million per year.  Of that $2.5 million, $1.3 million would be used for the drug and rural courts, leaving $1.2 million.  Chairwoman Chowning wondered how the courts would use that $1.2 million, which would factor into the Subcommittee’s first decision. 

 

The second decision would relate to the period of time at the beginning of the biennium before the assessments were collected, and Chairwoman Chowning indicated the courts would need General Fund monies during that interim.  She said that a bill had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Transportation that would prohibit people from registering vehicles if fines were not paid, and she felt that would increase assessments.   

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented that the third decision would be how to address the mental health court portion of the budget as the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety had recommended placing that into Budget Account 101-1495.  The Joint Subcommittee on General Government would need to decide whether to close consistently with that recommendation or try to place the mental health court back into the other budget account.  Chairwoman Chowning requested that a representative from the drug courts speak to the Subcommittee in regard to what was envisioned for the program. 

 

Senator Tiffany asked Ms. Brand if it would be acceptable to keep the mental health court portion the way that it had been closed by the other subcommittee while moving the rural and drug courts into the same budget account. 

 

Ms. Brand said she believed that maintaining mental health courts within the Rural Drug Courts budget account was a policy decision.  The account would merely serve as a pass-through account.  Maintaining the mental health courts within the mental health budget was the other option, and Ms. Brand opined that either option would work.  Senator Tiffany remarked that it would be easier to close that portion consistent with the other subcommittee.

 

Senator Coffin expressed confusion and said there appeared to be “too many cooks stirring the stew” with three different joint subcommittees making decisions regarding the budget accounts and the full Assembly Committee on Ways and Means considering A.B. 29.  He opined that there should be a way to avoid that situation in order to clarify and simplify the decisions. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning emphasized that all decisions regarding the Judicial Branch budgets were contingent upon the passage of A.B. 29 and S.B. 106.  Senator Coffin pointed out there was another issue that needed to be decided, which was whether the account should be funded through the General Fund or with administrative assessments.  Chairwoman Chowning indicated that would be an important policy decision to make if A.B. 29 and S.B. 106 did not pass.  Senator Coffin said the drug court in Clark County, which had expanded into Washoe County and then to the rural counties, was a good program and had been funded with General Fund monies.  However, it appeared that there needed to be a discussion regarding whether to continue funding the courts with the General Fund or to use administrative assessments.  Senator Coffin asked if the courts had made the decision to use administrative assessments. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning clarified earlier comments and said the budget could be funded with $1.3 million from the General Fund or it could be funded with court administrative assessments, which was the plan presented by the courts.  Senator Coffin pointed out the revenue generated from assessments depended on the passage of two pieces of legislation, which was an uncertain situation.  Chairwoman Chowning indicated it appeared that both A.B. 29 and S.B. 206 would pass as there had been much discussion and refinement of the bills.  Senator Coffin opined that if those bills were going to pass, the courts should be funded with administrative assessments in order to save General Fund monies.  Chairwoman Chowning agreed that there was a responsibility to save General Fund monies, and with the increased assessments, the rural and drug courts would receive approximately $5 million over the biennium.

 

Deborah Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada State Supreme Court, indicated that she had asked Judge James Hardesty, Second Judicial District, to accompany her and explain the situation with the specialty courts.  Chief Justice Agosti said that because the proposal for General Funds in the Parole and Probation budget, as requested in The Executive Budget, had only recently been moved into the Rural Drug Court budget, the Joint Subcommittee on General Government had not had the opportunity to review the budget account at the original budget hearing in February.  Consequently, the Subcommittee had not heard the current status of the drug courts’ budget or the plans for expansion of the drug courts.  She commented that the courts hoped to expand the mental health court in the Second Judicial District, which had been functioning on a limited basis and without any funding, as well as establishing a mental health court in the Eighth Judicial District, but she was concerned about the pass-through of funds. 

 

Chief Justice Agosti explained that the $677,965 for the mental health courts was placed in the mental health budget because that included Medicaid Title XIX money and General Fund money for housing and medication for people who might come into the drug court.  She opined that using the Rural Drug Court budget as a pass-through account did not make sense as she was not sure how the courts would administer Title XIX money, particularly as that money would not necessarily be used for the administration of the court, but it might be used for housing and medication, which was not under the purview of the courts. 

 

Chief Justice Agosti indicated that at the budget closing for Parole and Probation it was just simply deemed that the question of the account itself, and whether it be General Fund or administrative assessments, was placed in the Rural Drug Courts’ budget so that the question of administrative assessments could be raised.  She did not think there had been a recommendation to eliminate the General Funds.  Due to the changes, the representatives from the trial courts had not previously had the opportunity to explain their needs and expectations, and Chief Justice Agosti turned the time over to Judge Hardesty for amplification.

 

Chairwoman Chowning acknowledged that there was some confusion with two different subcommittees making decisions independently of each other, but Chief Justice Agosti had summarized the situation accurately.  Chairwoman Chowning pointed out that of the $677,965 mentioned earlier, $628,339 was General Fund and the Medicaid portion was fairly minimal.

 

Judge James Hardesty, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, addressed the Subcommittee and indicated he would share an overview of the situation with the drug courts after he commented on issues relating to the mental health court.  He explained that the structure of the budget provided for 45 defendants or clients per month in Washoe County, but there had been no funding for any other court.  Clark County hoped to start a mental health court, but there was no funding.  Washoe County had been operating a mental health court for the past year and a half on donated time and labor by the judge and the staff during their noon hours without any financial support.  In addition, staff members of the Nevada Mental Health Institute donated time and funding for medications and counseling. 

 

Judge Hardesty said the Legislature had prudently adopted a series of statutes in the 2001 Legislative Session that allowed for the district court to start mental health courts, but funding had not been provided.  Nevertheless, Washoe County had chosen to proceed with a mental health court and had been serving approximately 20 defendants per month.  The budget presented by the Administrator of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., had provided for 45 defendants per month; a large portion of the requested $628,000 would be used for housing, which depended upon an individual risk assessment for the defendant in the program. 

 

Judge Hardesty reemphasized that no funding had been requested for Clark County, and A.B. 29 had been proposed in an effort to resolve a number of important issues that affected each of the district courts differently.

 

Referring to the drug courts, Judge Hardesty responded to Senator Coffin’s earlier questions and said that the second option provided by Ms. Brand would not adequately fund the drug court programs.  He contended that the funding in The Executive Budget was critical.  The drug courts had depended on that one-shot appropriation for the last four legislative sessions.  Several judges, including Judge Breen and Judge Blake, had approached the Governor and asked for the funding as it provided needed stability.  The Governor had agreed and placed the appropriation in The Executive Budget.  He did point out that the drug courts were funded through other sources, including county funds and federal grants.  Clark County received a portion of its funding from a traffic school in Las Vegas, but none of those sources provided the same level of stability. 

 

Judge Hardesty pointed out that the initial proposal in A.B. 29 had included a $15 increase in administrative assessments.  By working with the limited jurisdiction judges and reallocating the funds, that amount had been reduced to $5, although that would still not provide sufficient funding.  Clark County was actually losing approximately $500,000 in federal grants as the President had recently announced that funding would not be available. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning clarified that the amount mentioned was per year, which would make it a loss of $1 million in federal funding over the biennium.

 

Judge Hardesty added that the Clark County drug court would be losing $200,000 of its portion of the traffic school revenue as that money was being shifted to the justices’ courts by the Clark County Commission.  That would be a loss of $400,000 over the biennium as well as an additional loss of approximately $100,000 in interest over the biennium.

 

Judge Hardesty pointed out that none of the available funding for Clark County allowed for a mental health court, which the judges in Clark County had hoped to establish.  He said a mental health court would cost more than a drug court—approximately $3,800 per defendant.  The cost could be as high as $4,000 per defendant depending upon provider and housing costs. 

 

Judge Hardesty reiterated that the goal was to establish a mental health court in Clark County using revenue generated from A.B. 29.  The reason for A.B. 29 had been to provide a replacement of funds that were being lost as well as to create opportunities for new programming.

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented that would create two different sources of funding for the mental health courts: Clark County would be funded through the administrative assessments in A.B. 29, and Washoe County would be funded through the General Fund.  Judge Hardesty disagreed and explained that the funding for Washoe County only provided for 45 defendants per month, but the demand was for over 70 defendants.  It had been assumed that some of the revenue generated from A.B. 29 could be used to meet the needs of the mental health court in Washoe County as well as Clark County.

 

Chairwoman Chowning inquired whether Judge Hardesty was referring to operating costs.  Judge Hardesty explained that of the $628,000 approximately 80 percent was used for housing costs.  The remainder was used to pay for treatment, medication, and provider costs.  Chairwoman Chowning asked if Judge Hardesty was including all those costs in his estimates.  Judge Hardesty indicated that those costs had been included, and he asserted that the mental health court was a unique situation as, in order to be successful, housing needed to be provided for each defendant, in addition to the treatment and the medication that was needed, and the housing had to be specific to each defendant.  Many of the defendants were repeat offenders and were homeless so the drug court would be ineffective without the housing component.

 

Chairwoman Chowning pointed out that there had been significant donations of time and money to the program, and she asked Judge Hardesty to provide specific details regarding the costs of operating the program. 

 

Regarding the operating costs, Judge Hardesty surmised that if Washoe County’s projected need was 70 defendants per month, Clark County’s need would be approximately 200 defendants per month.  With 200 defendants at a cost of approximately $3,800 each, that meant Clark County needed approximately $760,000 for a mental health court.  He pointed out that amount was in addition to the $500,000 of federal grant money that had been lost as well as the $200,000 in revenue from the traffic school that had been rerouted, and the $50,000 as a result of lost interest.

 

Chairwoman Chowning indicated that would mean Clark County needed approximately $1.2 million.  Judge Hardesty commented that a large portion of the state did not have a drug court program nor did those areas have the resources to start drug courts without additional funding.  The proposal had been to use approximately $700,000 from the revenue generated by A.B. 29 in order to start drug programs in some of those areas. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning questioned which areas would be affected, and Judge Hardesty said the funding would affect Elko, White Pine, Pershing, Humboldt, and Lincoln Counties.  Chairwoman Chowning indicated that the additional $700,000 would bring the earlier total up to $1.9 million.

 

Judge Hardesty continued and said there were several additional funding concerns in Washoe County that had not yet been addressed—the mental health court was funded to provide for 45 defendants while the need was closer to 70 defendants, but the portion provided by Washoe County had been reduced by 7 percent.  In order to serve the additional 25 defendants at a cost of $4,000 each, an additional $100,000 was needed for the mental health court.

 

Referring to the drug court budget, Judge Hardesty emphasized that the total budget for the drug court, the family drug court, and the adult drug court was about $1.2 million, which only paid for approximately 18 defendants per month and had been capped at that amount due to the county’s financial limitations.  However, the demand for drug court defendants was approximately 34 per month at a cost of approximately $2,200 per defendant.

 

Chairwoman Chowning noted that in order to pay for the additional 16 defendants the cost would be approximately $35,000.  Judge Hardesty agreed and pointed out that was $35,000 per month, which meant the total was approximately $425,000 per year.  He reminded the Subcommittee that Washoe County was cutting its portion of the drug court budget by 7 percent due to the county’s financial situation, which was a decrease of approximately $80,000.  Judge Hardesty said that the combination of meeting the mental health court and drug court demand and accounting for the budget cuts would cost approximately $825,000 per year. 

 

Judge Hardesty referred to the rural drug courts, which included Carson City, Churchill, Lyon, and Storey Counties, and said the budget for those drug courts was $150,000 per year and they were dependent upon the General Fund for that money.  The problem for the rural drug courts was the inability of the defendants to pay provider costs.  The program cost approximately $3,400 per defendant, and the current funding represented an approximate reimbursement of $1,000, and the defendants were required to pay the rest.  He wanted to increase the amount of money in the Rural Drug Court budget in order to reduce the amount of money that very poor and indigent drug court defendants would have to pay.  Judge Hardesty said the budget would be increased to $235,000 per year, which was an $85,000 increase from current funding and would be provided by the increased revenue generated from A.B. 29.

 

Judge Hardesty pointed out that the reduction to a $5 increase in A.B. 29 would not be sufficient to pay for all the needs, but it would move the courts “down the football field.”  He emphasized that removing the funding provided in The Executive Budget would be a major step backward and would make it more difficult to accomplish the goals he had outlined in regard to the drug courts and mental health courts.  He pointed out that language in A.B. 29 referred to specialty courts, not the drug courts, and the reason the bill had been written in that manner was to provide funding for the mental health court program in Clark County.  Judge Hardesty remarked that A.B. 29 had been a collaborative effort by the entire judiciary.

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented that, according to the numbers provided by the judge, approximately $5 million was needed over the biennium.  Judge Hardesty said that amount would provide a “slush” fund of approximately $2 million, but an important point to be considered was that while the increase in assessments would become effective July 1, 2003, the funds would not be available right away and the estimate had been that the courts would receive approximately $1.8 million for the first year of the biennium, rather than $2.5 million, which would be needed in order to address that $5 million need. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning assured Judge Hardesty that the Subcommittee was aware of that need, and she pointed out that the second option given by Ms. Brand addressed that issue by providing start-up costs.  Chairwoman Chowning noted that the budget was $1.3 million over the biennium, but an additional $5 million was needed to address all the needs outlined by Judge Hardesty.

 

Judge Hardesty disagreed with the total cost, and Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Abba to clarify.  Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, explained that the judge had indicated that the total amount needed, not including what was reflected in the budget or the Parole and Probation budget mentioned earlier, was $1.2 million in Clark County, approximately $85,000 in the rural courts programs, $700,000 for various rural counties, and $400,000 for the Washoe County program.  Those were all in addition to the funds provided in the budgets.  Judge Hardesty interjected that the Washoe County total should be $800,000 because the mental health court portion should be included as well as an additional $78,000.  The total cost was in excess of $2.5 million.

 

Judge Hardesty emphasized again that the total was in addition to the appropriation in The Executive Budget, and the intent had been to use the revenue generated from A.B. 29 to pay for those programs.  He reiterated that the existing programs relied upon the funding in the Governor’s budget, and the $2.5 million in assessments would be in addition to that. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning summarized the information and said the $5 increase in administrative assessments would generate $2.5 million, and when all the numbers were added up the total was $6.9 million.  She reminded the Subcommittee that the total amount Judge Hardesty was discussing would fund every single need he had described.  Chairwoman Chowning reiterated that the administrative assessments would generate $5 million over the biennium.  Judge Hardesty agreed but pointed out that $5 million of the $6.9 million left the budget short by $1.9 million, which had been provided in The Executive Budget.  He emphasized that the $1.9 million was needed to fund existing programs, the $5 million would allow for expansion and new programs. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning remarked that she had been present when the drug courts had been put in place, and she was an ardent supporter of the concept, but the concern was the money, particularly in the state’s current financial situation. 

 

Judge Hardesty said the Legislature’s endorsement of the drug courts had led to the court’s ability to expand to other jurisdictions which were not being served currently and to meet additional needs in the existing courts in Washoe and Clark Counties.  The expansion of the program had been the purpose for the proposals in A.B. 29 and he expressed a desire to continue that improvement and expansion to serve the needs in the state.

 

Chairwoman Chowning thanked Judge Hardesty for the information he had provided and summarized the situation by saying the assessments would generate $5 million, but an additional $1.9 million was needed.  She commented that A.B. 29 was still in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and it was possible that the rates proposed could be increased to cover the $1.9 million shortfall.  She thanked Judge Hardesty again for providing a comprehensive picture of the situation.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND TO LEAVE THE MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET AS IT HAD BEEN CLOSED IN THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE, TO TRANSFER THE DRUG COURTS INTO THE RURAL COURTS BUDGET ACCOUNT, TO REMOVE THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE DRUG COURTS, AND TO CHOOSE THE SECOND OPTION WHICH WOULD BE TO FUND SPECIALTY COURTS WITH REVENUE GENERATED BY A.B. 29, ALLOWING THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS THE OPTION OF FURTHER INCREASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS, AND TO PROVIDE START-UP COSTS FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD OF TIME.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning clarified that the motion included $337,500 for a six‑month start-up cost.  The specialty courts would be funded through A.B. 29, which would be $1.9 million less than the need described by Judge Hardesty, but that could be remedied by changing the assessment if the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means chose to do that.

 

Mr. Abba pointed out that the second option included funding the mental health court with administrative assessments, and he wished to clarify that point as Senator Tiffany had indicated in the motion that the funding for the mental health court would remain in the budget for the Nevada Mental Health Institute.  Chairwoman Chowning indicated that was correct, and said that would reduce the $1.9 million to approximately $1.3 million.

 

Ms. McClain said she felt Judge Hardesty had made his case for the $1.9 million in the General Fund and she could not support the motion as she did not think the administrative assessments would be increased in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Chairwoman Chowning disagreed and said that she believed those administrative assessments could be further increased, and she would support the motion.

 

Mr. Parks said that he would support the motion with the possibility that his vote would change when the budget was brought before the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  He requested that Judge Hardesty provide a written report detailing the needs of the courts in order to clarify the situation.

 

Chairwoman Chowning agreed with Mr. Parks’ request and asked Judge Hardesty to provide that report within the hour.

 

Senator Coffin indicated he would support the motion as well, but he hoped to resume the discussion in the Senate Committee on Finance.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was any further discussion.  There being none, she indicated the Subcommittee would vote.

 

MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. McCLAIN VOTING NO.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

Chairwoman Chowning expressed her appreciation to staff and to the witnesses for the information that had been provided to the Subcommittee.

 

DISTRICT JUDGES’ TRAVEL (101-1493)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 33

 

Ms. Brand presented Budget Account 101-1493 and said there were not any closing issues other than an inflationary adjustment in M-100, with which staff concurred.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED. (Senator Coffin was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

RETIRED JUSTICE DUTY FUND (101-1496)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 36

 

Ms. Brand explained that the Retired Justice Duty Fund was entirely funded with court administrative assessments.  The only issue to note was the potential impact of A.B. 29, which, if passed, would provide an increase in the current level of salaries as provided by S.B. 184 of the 2001 Legislative Session, which would be a 30 percent increase.  The only other item was pending legislation in S.B. 106, which would create a $30 filing fee for each additional party in multi-party cases.  Of the $30, $5 would be distributed to the Retired Justice Duty Fund, which would raise approximately $177,000 each year. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning said the budget could be closed as recommended by the Governor contingent upon the passage of A.B. 29 and S.B. 106.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF A.B. 29 AND S.B. 106.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

LAW LIBRARY (101-2889)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 40

 

Ms. Brand explained that the Law Library budget was funded with General Funds.  She indicated that there were no closing issues, and the only item of note was M-101, which was a request for an inflationary increase of 9 percent for legal publishing.  The increase appeared to be a conservative estimate given the legal publications inflationary increases of 10 percent compared to 7 percent for the Nevada State Library.  Staff recommended funding as requested.  Ms. Brand referred to decision unit E-710, which was an equipment request for the replacement of one personal computer and related software.  Due to pricing errors, there had been a technical adjustment of $14,123 in FY2004 and $2,918 in FY2005.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE (101-1497)

BUDGET PAGE COURTS – 43

 

Ms. Brand said that the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline investigated complaints against judges and justices.  It was funded with General Fund monies, and the General Fund level was similar to the base.  The only request was to maintain Interim Finance Committee (IFC) funds allocated in FY2002 in the amount of $44,653 for the cost of two cases, which were expected to continue into FY2005.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Beers indicated that he would be voting no as it was a 16.26 percent increase in the General Fund.

 

MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS VOTING NO.  (Mr. Griffin was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN (101-1325)

BUDGET PAGE ADMIN – 14

 

Ms. Brand explained that the Information Technology Plan budget had been presented to the Subcommittee the previous week in the budget hearings for the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and the Department of Administration.  The budget account included funding for a client information and billing system in the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, a licensing system in the Real Estate Division, and a billing system for the Division of Child and Family Services.  In addition, there was a microwave transmission upgrade funded by money from the Highway Fund for the DoIT for $4.6 million in FY2004 and $2.2 million in FY2005, which had been discussed in the DoIT budget hearing as well.

 

Chairwoman Chowning noted that E-300, the licensing system for the Real Estate Division, was the only item in question.  E-300 requested $744,527 from the General Fund and a transfer of $253,012 from the Real Estate Division.  Ms. Brand indicated that was correct and said the total was approximately $1 million.

 

Senator Tiffany commented that a small group of Subcommittee members had met to discuss E-300, and she indicated that she had also been conversing with Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, on technical issues relating to E-300.  Senator Tiffany said she had been in correspondence with Gail Anderson, the Administrator of the Real Estate Division, and Ms. Anderson had expressed concerns that the course of direction had been changed since the specifications for the project had been done.  Ms. Anderson had also indicated that she had been directed to use the DoIT services. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning requested that Ms. Anderson come to the witness table in order to respond to questions from the Subcommittee.

 

Senator Tiffany continued her remarks and said the Real Estate Division had 18 different real estate licenses, and with each license there could be as few as 10 people or as many as 20,000 people holding that license, which was a fairly small database.  She pointed out that a database that small needed to be built in such a way that the Division would be able to access the information easily, but there was a cost-benefit question as to the number of people being served and the services provided.  Senator Tiffany added that there were four small databases on the mainframe that were written in COBOL, which meant they were antiquated, and those databases should be removed from the mainframe.  She opined that those databases could be maintained in an Excel spreadsheet and were not an appropriate use of the mainframe. 

 

Senator Tiffany said that the Department of Business and Industry needed more technical expertise so a database administrator could be added to the overall Department rather than to the Real Estate Division as there were other divisions within the Department that could use that service.  The position could then be cost-allocated across several budget accounts.  Senator Tiffany emphasized that technical expertise was needed as part of what Ms. Anderson hoped to do was provide the public with information on the Internet.  However, it would be better to post that information on the Web site as opposed to allowing the public access to the actual licensing program, and a technical position would be needed to handle the Web site.  Senator Tiffany stated that a technical position should be added to the Department and cost-allocated, and Ms. Anderson should then review the DoIT recommendations with that person, eliminate the Web interface requirement, and establish a system for posting information on the Internet.  She opined that there were simply not enough people in the licensing division to make it a cost-effective effort, and once the recommendations had been reviewed, the Department would receive $500,000 rather than $1 million and could return to the Interim Finance Committee if more was needed or leftover money could revert. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the $500,000 would include the technical position in the Department.  Senator Tiffany said staff would need to determine how that technical position could be funded if placed in the Department, but the $500,000 would include the position and all related costs.

 

Ms. Brand requested clarification, stating that the project funding allocation had been $744,000 from the General Fund and $253,000 transferred from the Real Estate Division budget, and she asked if the $500,000 reduction would be taken from both sources.  Senator Tiffany indicated that the $500,000 savings would be in General Fund.

 

Mr. Beers commented that he felt Senator Tiffany’s proposal would be a step in the right direction and the technical position would be able to perform the necessary functions for the Division.  He added that special instruction should be given with regard to the technical position directing that individual to remove the database from the mainframe as quickly as possible.  Chairwoman Chowning agreed and said that was included in the intent of the proposal.

 

Ms. Anderson addressed the Subcommittee and said her staff had researched a question asked at a previous meeting and had found that of the 50 states, 37 had online licensee systems; 3 had online posting of licensees, which was Senator Tiffany’s proposal; 2 were unknown; and 8, including Nevada, did not offer any online services.  She said she had a high interest in examining the Web-based factor if that could be accomplished within the parameters of budgeting, but she was concerned that the proposed cost-allocation would preclude her from further investigating that option.

 

Senator Tiffany requested that Ms. Anderson bring an implementation plan, including the budget and the DoIT recommendations, to the IFC and those options could be examined at that time.

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented that she did not think other options would be precluded as it was not the intention of the Subcommittee to have Nevada be ranked last among the states.

 

Mr. Beers asked where Nevada currently ranked in terms of the number of licensed real estate agents.  Ms. Anderson indicated that Nevada was in the lower one-quarter of the nation, but she did not have specific detail.  She pointed out that some of the states that were not online had more and some had fewer licensees.  She offered to provide that information.  Mr. Beers asserted that the Real Estate Division was a “1 on a scale of 10,” but the addition of the technical position should move the Real Estate Division up that scale and then plans should be reevaluated in order to help the Division meet its ultimate goal. 

 

Doug Walther, Chief, Office of Business Finance and Planning, Department of Business and Industry, addressed the Subcommittee and said the DoIT recommendations had been discussed within the Department as well as with the Governor’s Office, and he was concerned that the Subcommittee’s current proposal would essentially ignore the two years of study on the functional requirements.  He was uncomfortable with the assumption that one technical position would be able to design and build the system alone, and he indicated that the Web enablement part of the system had not been a significant portion of the cost.  Instead, it was an attempt to make the system more convenient for customers and allow them to find information and renew licenses via credit card online.  Information could be posted to a static Web site, but would not allow for electronic commerce.  Mr. Walther concluded by stating that the Department would be willing to work within whatever parameters were established by the Legislature and to return to the IFC if necessary.

 

Chairwoman Chowning said the intent was to allow the Department to return to the IFC.  She said she was concerned about a time frame, and she felt a direction needed to be established and presented to the IFC at the meeting in September 2003.

 

Mr. Beers asserted that spending two years on a study and requesting $1 million to computerize 40,000 records was “silly.”  Mr. Walther replied that the DoIT study had been statutorily required.  Mr. Beers said he was not placing blame, but he felt the end result of the study was nonsensical. 

 

Mr. Walther explained that the Department had removed a request for funding in the previous biennium because there had been inadequate planning.  However, with the two-year interim study, he was confident in the plan presented.  He pointed out that the number of records was small compared to a Department of Motor Vehicles database, but the Real Estate Division and its operation was very complex.  There were many documents and procedures and processes that went through the approval process, and there were many different chapters in the Nevada Revised Statutes that pertained to those processes.  In addition, there were different types of licenses and registrations involved and there were many interested parties affected by those processes. 

 

Mr. Walther conceded that he was not a technical person and could not determine whether the $1 million amount reached through the study process was excessive, but he felt comfortable that the technical experts had been made aware of the needs of the Division and the functional requirements, and the plan was much better than it had been two years before. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the intent was to remove the Real Estate Division from the mainframe.  Mr. Walther said he recognized the need for the removal, and he was responding to Mr. Beers and speaking in defense of the process.  Mr. Walther commented that it was impossible to “overplan” with such a complex system, and it had taken two years to understand those complexities and what needed to be accomplished with functionality requirements.  He said the Real Estate Division would follow the course determined by the Legislature provided that the required functionality was maintained.

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented that the $1 million request would remove the Division from the mainframe, and she noted that the large request, not the plan, was the source of concern. 

 

Mr. Beers remarked that the planning process had been of value.  He said that when he had come to the Legislature four years earlier, the concept of commercial off-the-shelf software was new, and he had worked to further that concept.  Mr. Beers said he would like to see three different commercial off-the-shelf software packages with a list of customizations that would be required by the Division because that would demonstrate that it would be less expensive for the Legislature to change current law and eliminate the Division’s need for customization than it would be for the Division to customize.

 

In response, Mr. Walther said that use of off-the-shelf software was a laudable goal, and an effort to reduce the complexities of the system had been included in the two-year study in order to allow the use of off-the-shelf software.  However, there had been too many variations in the processes and it had not been feasible to use off-the-shelf software.

 

Mr. Beers argued that he had personally taken off-the-shelf multi-modular business management systems and fit them to 225 widely disparate businesses without modification and generally without modification of the business processes at play.  He said that as commercial off-the-shelf software was further developed and advanced, the developers would come to “a fork in the processing road” and would build a software switch that would allow companies to configure the software to meet their needs.  Mr. Beers added that selling land in Nevada was no different than selling land in New York, except that in Nevada there were far fewer people doing it.  He opined that as commercial off-the-shelf software capabilities improved, it would be an easy way to identify unusual processes in Nevada that were somewhat unnecessary, and could be easily changed to save money.  Mr. Beers pointed out that as soon as a commercial off-the-shelf product was customized, there would be yearly licensing fees and upgrades as long as the product was in use.  He conceded that there might be differences in the real estate business in Nevada, but those differences needed to be outlined and the costs needed to be discussed.

 

Senator Tiffany commented that Mr. Walther’s approach was inappropriate and she disagreed.  She said many hours had been spent working on the Real Estate licensing system, and she was well aware of the issues.  She said that E‑commerce could only be accomplished by little agencies in the state of Nevada once there was a centralized E-commerce engine.  Otherwise, it would not be cost-effective, and government was not any different than the private sector.  E-commerce did not make any sense in a database as small as the Real Estate Division database, but that did not preclude the Legislature from examining the possibility of a centralized E-commerce engine to be used by small agencies. 

 

Senator Tiffany added that there was more than one way to access industry information, and while it would be nice to have it online, it was not necessary.  The American Chiropractic Association maintained a Web site that listed licensed chiropractors, and the Real Estate Division had far fewer records and should be able to maintain a similar Web site. 

 

Senator Tiffany emphasized that the results of the study were not being dismissed, but a different approach would be taken.  She appreciated that the Division had done what was required of them, and she requested that the Division take the differences recommended in the budget, reexamine the functional specifications, consult with the technical position, and return to the IFC in September 2003 with a comprehensive plan for implementation. 

 

Mr. Walther apologized and indicated that he was confused regarding the Subcommittee’s directions.  Regarding the E-commerce, he conceded that the number of Real Estate Division records was rather small, but he did not think that the functional requirements precluded the Division from becoming part of an enterprise-wide approach with E-commerce.  He said that was probably necessary under the circumstances and the system specifications just made the system E-commerce enabled.  That could be implemented at a later time and a statewide approach could be used in order to achieve economies of scale. 

 

Mr. Walther requested clarification regarding the technical position for the Department and whether that position was a database administrator or a network administrator.

 

Senator Tiffany said the position would be a grade 40 position, and Mr. Beers interjected that the individual should be proficient in programming.  He said that if the Division could place the 20,000 active real estate licensees into a single database, that information would be ready to be placed on the Web and there would no longer be problems with the mainframe.  The Department of Business and Industry appeared to suffer from a lack of technology utilization, and the individual in the current technology position was a 28-year state veteran who was adapting to modern technology.  Mr. Beers noted that the Division had approximately 17 databases, and those needed to be incorporated into a more streamlined system. 

 

Mr. Beers referred to the earlier E-commerce discussion and said he had looked into the number of inquiries the Division received regarding real estate licensees.  He had discovered that the number of inquiries received since August 2002 was less than half the number of inquiries Mr. Beers had received from constituents since the beginning of the session in February 2003.  He pointed out that he had been able to find all those constituents in the Clark County voter database online, which was a database of over 700,000 records.  Mr. Beers opined that the Real Estate Division should be able to streamline their records quite easily for less than $1 million, but the Division had not utilized the technology wisely. 

 

Mr. Beers indicated that of that $1 million, 30 percent had been designated for project management, which he felt was excessive, and he thought much of the plan had similar flaws.  He repeated that the Division needed help with technology, and he felt the technical position would be a “general purpose” programmer proficient in Microsoft Access, Visual Basic, and Sequel. 

 

Mr. Walther requested clarification regarding the placement of the position.  Senator Tiffany explained that the position would be placed at the Department level in order to be a resource for the entire Department as the Department of Business and Industry had many small divisions that needed technology help so that position could be cost-allocated to the various divisions that wanted to use that position.  However, the first priority would be the Real Estate Division, but the position would be a Department employee at a grade 40.  It was difficult to categorize the position as it was a database administrator, a project manager, a technologist, and a programmer, so it would be the Department’s choice as to what title they wished to give the position as long as the position was the equivalent of a grade 40.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO APPROVE A GRADE 40 TECHNOLOGIST TO BE PLACED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY WITH AN ALLOCATION OF $500,000 FOR THE REAL ESTATE LICENSING SYSTEM PROJECT, AND REQUESTED THAT THE FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS BE REVIEWED AND THE DIVISION RETURN TO THE IFC IN SEPTEMBER 2003 WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

 

SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning and Mr. Parks disclosed that they were state real estate licensees and would not be affected any differently than any other real estate licensee.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Ms. Anderson addressed the Subcommittee and said she wished to clarify that the 200 inquiries that Assemblyman Beers referenced previously were received by e-mail and did not include approximately 4,000 telephone calls or personal visits to the Real Estate Division.  She requested clarification of the $500,000 allocation. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning explained that the $500,000 would include the transfer amount of approximately $253,000 from the Real Estate Division and approximately $250,000 from the General Fund.

 

Ms. Brand indicated there were a few items left to consider including the implementation of a new client and information billing system for Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS) in decision unit M‑501.  MHDS currently used the Advanced Institutional Management Software (AIMS) and would upgrade to the Avatar system.  The Division had indicated that product support of the AIMS system would no longer be available unless upgraded to the Avatar system.  Ms. Brand said the Subcommittee might wish to recommend a Letter of Intent directing the Division to provide quarterly reports including project cost information to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) during the 2003-2005 biennium. 

 

Ms. Brand said that the second items to consider were decision units M‑502 and M-503, which were the replacement of the Synergistic Office Solutions Billing System for the Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services and the replacement of the AIMS billing and data collection system for the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services.  As similarly noted in M-501, it did not appear that the Division of Child and Family Services had any other option than to transition to the Avatar system.  M-502 would be approximately $900,000 to implement over the course of the biennium and M-503 would be approximately $700,000.  The only other item of note was E-301, which was funding from the Highway Fund for the Department of Information Technology microwave transmission upgrades.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND OTHER ITEMS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED. (Senator Tiffany was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (101-1320)

BUDGET PAGE ADMIN – 113

 

Ms. Brand presented the Technology Improvement Plan budget and said it represented a new program as funding for the budget account was previously provided as part of the Integrated Financial System (IFS) development project, which was a one-shot appropriation in prior biennia.  The primary mission of the Technology Improvement Plan was to protect the state’s investment in the IFS and to provide ongoing system oversight and coordination.  The program would fund the required ongoing operational costs of the IFS that could not be readily apportioned to other agencies, including the IFS training facility expenses, continuing application support, and disaster recovery.  The total cost for the budget as recommended in The Executive Budget was approximately $953,000 in FY2004 and approximately $905,000 in FY2005. 

 

Ms. Brand pointed out that the closing adjustments for decision unit E-300 included budget modifications recommended by the Department of Administration and to adjust for programming hours provided by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT).  As a result of those adjustments, there was an increase in the General Fund allocation of $8,876 in FY2004 and $32,106 in FY2005. 

 

Ms. Brand continued and said the first functional unit was the Division’s management expenses, which were $147,318 in FY2004 and $152,392 in FY2005 as the recommended costs to fund salaries and operating expenses for two positions—a Division Chief and an Administrative Assistant III.  Both of those positions had been operating within the ongoing implementation of the system. 

 

Ms. Brand indicated there were also IFS site expenses of $100,904 in FY2004 and $104,650 in FY2005.  Those costs included the building communications, network, and related expenses for the site currently located in Carson City.  She pointed out that approximately one-half of the allocated expenditures within that functional area were due to an allocation of 900 hours per year for the services of a DoIT technician dedicated to the IFS.  The cost of the remaining 900 hours was allocated to the IFS training facility functional unit. 

 

Referring to the next functional unit, Ms. Brand said the training facility expenses of $118,411 in FY2004 and $119,892 in FY2005 provided for rent, communications, and network access, which included the other half of the DoIT technician at 900 hours.  The expenses also included equipment replacement, maintenance, and related expenses to support the operation of the two PC‑equipped classrooms in the IFS training facility.  The Department indicated that, when not in use for IFS-related training, the facility would be made available to other state agencies with the intent to monitor the utilization over the course of the upcoming biennium.  Ms. Brand noted that in accordance with DoIT’s 25 percent replacement schedule, the requested amounts included the costs to replace nine personal computers in FY2004 and two in FY2005.  As utilization of the training facility had not been fully determined, staff recommended reducing that recommendation to include only the two personal computers in FY2005 for a General Fund savings of $10,800 over the biennium.

 

The IFS application support in the amount of $443,555 in FY2004 and $381,892 in FY2005 provided for software and hardware maintenance for the overall system, an enhancement to the Nevada Employee Action and Timekeeping System (NEATS) by Aeris, and also DoIT programmer and database administrator support for the system, additional contract hours, and on-call support from the primary implementation vendors.  Ms. Brand noted that the costs related to the contract financial analyst, the NEATS enhancement, and on-call support provided by independent consultants was a total of $353,338 in FY2004 and $290,550 in FY2005.  The contract costs included the AMS on-call support at approximately 300 hours each year of the biennium, the Aeris on-call support at 80 hours in FY2004 and 160 hours in FY2005, and the contract financial analyst at 2,000 hours each year of the biennium.  The contract financial analyst had primary experience as the consultant on the IFS project during the five-year implementation phase.  The ongoing support services the consultant would provide included assisting with integrating other financial systems within the state and assisting with the ongoing training of the IFS.  Ms. Brand indicated that, according to the Department, the state functional staff did not have the level of expertise necessary to transition the system into the next biennium, and without the services of the consultant, integration of future IFS modules would be impaired. 

 

Ms. Brand commented that the Subcommittee might wish to have the Department clarify whether the Department envisioned continued contract support of the IFS indefinitely or if the long-term goal was to support the system with state staff once the projects identified had been completed during the current biennium.  Ms. Brand pointed out that other data processing systems developed by the state had retained contract support after implementation to assist with unanticipated problems and to ensure the system was running effectively before transferring total support of the system to state staff.  If it was determined that the ultimate goal was to have state staff support the system, the Subcommittee might want to discuss the time frame in which that transition should be accomplished. 

 

The final item that Ms. Brand addressed was the disaster recovery and contingency functional unit.  She indicated the cost was $143,671 in FY2004 and $146,093 in FY2005 and would provide for hardware maintenance; the DoIT server support for the contingency servers, which would be $118,063 in FY2004 and $119,158 in FY2005, apportioned among the Department of Administration and the Department of Personnel by the number of processors; and the contingency contracts for business continuity following disaster recovery.  She recommended a technical correction for duplication of a service contract at a cost of $2,090 each year of the biennium.  Ms. Brand indicated that the Department anticipated recovery of the cost of the budget account through a statewide cost allocation effective in the next biennium.

 

Chairwoman Chowning requested that a representative from the Department of Administration respond to questions regarding contract support.

 

Dave McTeer, IFS Project Manager, Department of Administration, addressed the Subcommittee and explained that the goal of the Department was to eventually transition away from full-time consultant support, but it was unclear when that would happen.  The IFS project, which cost approximately $55 million, was in the final two months of a six-year implementation phase, and Mr. McTeer indicated that he was uncomfortable having to make a decision regarding the transition as the state IFS staff had not yet completed one fiscal year and closing of the fiscal year without both the contractor and his consultant available to help in that endeavor.  He felt the consultant was needed for another biennium and then a transition plan would be developed as part of the next biennium’s budget building process.   

 

Senator Tiffany said the IFS project was in maintenance mode as the system had been implemented in all the divisions over the past six years.  She indicated that Mr. McTeer, as IFS project manager, and an additional employee would be the permanent positions on the IFS oversight, and they would need office space.  Senator Tiffany inquired as to where the IFS staff would be placed if the requested office space and training facilities were not approved. 

 

Mr. McTeer explained that the cost of office space was not included in the Technology Improvement Plan budget account.  That cost had been included in a budget account for the Department of Personnel as the central payroll and records staff of the Department of Personnel were relocating to the IFS building.  In return for the Department of Personnel placing that cost in its budget, the cost of communications had been included in the Technology Improvement Plan budget account.  Mr. McTeer indicated that method had been chosen to simplify the process rather than exchanging general vouchers and each department paying a portion of the costs to the other. 

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the communications cost was a one-shot appropriation, and Mr. McTeer replied that it was an ongoing cost paid to the Department of Information Technology for the communications hook-up as well as for a technician.   

 

Senator Tiffany indicated that she did not like the training facility, and she indicated that the number of computers in the facility had been reduced.  Ms. Brand interjected that the replacement of 11 personal computers had been requested, but staff had recommended approving the replacement of only 2 computers in the second year of the biennium. 

 

Senator Tiffany questioned whether the training facility was needed.  Mr. McTeer indicated that the training facility was used quite frequently, more than once a week, and since he had last appeared before the Subcommittee, he had spoken to the project managers of other technology projects and they had expressed an interest in using the training facility for something other than IFS-related training.  Other agencies had already been using the training facility for the past several months, and Mr. McTeer said he was actively promoting that in order to validate the cost of the facility.  Senator Tiffany remarked that the government was often guilty of spending money and then trying to justify the cost.  She pointed out that if other agencies had been in need of a training facility they would have requested that in their budgets and it would be unnecessary to try and “round up” business for the IFS training facility. 

 

Mr. McTeer assured Senator Tiffany that the training facility had been used during the rollout of the IFS.  Senator Tiffany conceded that but pointed out that in order to keep the facility Mr. McTeer was recruiting other agencies.  Mr. McTeer said the money had already been spent for the computers and for the rent, and he indicated that he had already instituted a more detailed accounting and tracking of that facility, and if those classrooms were not being utilized fully, one of them would be shut down. 

 

Senator Tiffany reiterated her earlier point and said it was “upside down” logic and was reverse of what the private sector would do, which was create a training facility when it was absolutely necessary and was cost-effective.  The IFS training facility had been created and the logic was that since the rent had to be paid and there were already computers in place, Mr. McTeer would have to find another use for the facility because there had not been enough demand for it.  In response to Senator Tiffany’s question regarding the rent, Mr. McTeer indicated the space for the facility was being rented from an outside landlord.  Senator Tiffany asked if it would be possible to terminate the lease agreement if the training facility was eliminated.  Mr. McTeer said he could attempt to break the lease agreement, but then there would not be a training facility to use for the ongoing rollout of the IFS. 

 

Senator Tiffany then asked where the training for the new projects for the DCFS and the MHDS would take place.  Mr. McTeer said he did not know, and Senator Tiffany said maybe the training should occur at the IFS training facility as that would not be needed for IFS training once the implementation was complete.  Mr. McTeer indicated that training was still required on other aspects of the IFS, such as the accounting module and the advanced receivables module.  Senator Tiffany asked if the IFS training would require the use of the facility every day.  Mr. McTeer said he was not sure.  Senator Tiffany reiterated that the needs should be known before building a training facility.  Mr. McTeer contended that if he were requesting a new training facility, he would have that information, and Senator Tiffany insisted he should have that information in order to keep the existing facility open.  Mr. McTeer said the facility was being used and once it appeared that it was no longer being utilized, he would close it.  Senator Tiffany repeated that she did not like the training center.   

 

Mr. Beers disagreed with Senator Tiffany and said the training facility was critical to the ongoing success of the IFS.  He pointed out there would be changes and enhancements to the IFS as well as new employees that would require training.  Mr. Beers commented that he would like to encourage other agencies with new systems to use the training facility.  Senator Tiffany pointed out that one of the new systems would be implemented in southern Nevada.  As for the others, Senator Tiffany asserted that Mr. McTeer should coordinate with other agencies to use the facility, and she requested that Mr. McTeer produce a schedule for the training center at the next IFC meeting.

 

Mr. McTeer said there was not a training facility in southern Nevada, and he utilized the Department of Human Resources’ facilities for the training in the south.

 

Chairwoman Chowning indicated that she would accept a motion to close the budget as recommended by staff with approval of technical adjustments.

 

Senator Tiffany pointed out that staff had recommended a reduction in the number of replacement computers, and she said the Subcommittee needed to make a decision regarding the consultant.

 

Chairwoman Chowning said that the agency had stated that the consultant would be eliminated in the next biennium.  Mr. McTeer interjected that the agency would examine the need in order to determine how best to use the consultant.  He said that the consultant would not be eliminated but would be used less in an effort to transition from the consultant to state staff.  Chairwoman Chowning commented that using the consultant less would save money, but she wanted the agency to move closer to eliminating the consultant. 

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

Chairwoman Chowning acknowledged the death of Paul Iverson, Director of the Department of Agriculture, and expressed her condolences and her appreciation for his 30 years of service to the state of Nevada.

 

AGRI, VETERINARY MEDICAL SERVICES (101-4550)

BUDGET PAGE AGRI – 33

 

Jeff Ferguson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented Budget Account 101-4550 and said that the Subcommittee had heard the budget at a previous hearing, but there had been several questions concerning decision unit E-600.  He explained that the original request in The Executive Budget had been to fund the Veterinary Diagnostician position for only six months in each year of the biennium.  The Department had then clarified that they wished to change that request and asked for the position to be funded for six months in the first year of the biennium and for the entire second year of the biennium.  The Subcommittee had previously voted to allow General Fund monies in the amount of $40,698 to be used to fund the additional six months in the second year.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked what needed to be done in order to ensure the position continued through July 1, 2004.  Mr. Ferguson said if the Subcommittee wished to fund the position through the end of the next biennium the cost would be an additional General Fund allocation of $40,698. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the funding for the fringe benefits and inflation was accounted for in M-300.  Mr. Ferguson indicated that was correct and M‑300 would not be affected by E-600.

 

Chairwoman Chowning commented on a statewide dog bite prevention program and said the program was nearing completion and statistics had been gathered.  The program was an effort to prevent the spread of rabies and was taught in every first grade classroom in Nevada.  She opined that it was a “shining light” in the Department of Agriculture, and she would like to see it completed.  Chairwoman Chowning related the story of a child in Clark County who had been attacked by a dog, but due to the training the child had received, he was able to respond appropriately and his life was saved.  She recommended that E‑600 be funded in order to continue that and similar programs. 

 

Donald Henderson, Acting Director, Department of Agriculture, thanked Chairwoman Chowning for her comments regarding Mr. Iverson.  Mr. Henderson provided clarification of E-600 as he felt there was some misunderstanding.  He explained that E-600 was related to the Department’s efforts to comply with the Governor’s 3 percent reduction request.  The Department had put together a package of several items in order to accomplish that reduction, and the proposed layoff of the Veterinary Diagnostician position had been included in that package. 

 

Mr. Henderson pointed out that the $40,698 savings mentioned did not consider the substantial benefits package that accompanied the position.  The intent had been to lay off the position on July 1, 2003, and accrue the cost savings to pay off the benefits for the position over the next six months.  If the Legislature wished to continue funding the position for another year, the Department would still have to pay those benefits at some future date so the reality of the cost of the position was approximately $117,310 per year, including the fringe benefits. 

 

In addition to that, there was another cost related to the position that needed to be considered and that was the development and distribution of a dog bite prevention video targeted for children in kindergarten through fourth grade.  Mr. Henderson indicated that the Department had been able to obtain approximately $18,000 for that project, but an additional $42,000 was needed to complete the project.  There were grants available, and Mr. Henderson was hopeful that the state would receive grant funding, but approximately $60,000 was needed. 

 

Mr. Henderson indicated there were three options for funding decision unit E‑600.  The first would be a one-shot appropriation to the Department of approximately $68,200, which would provide for two months of the Veterinary Diagnostician position’s salary to oversee the production as well as related costs, such as travel and per diem costs, and the production and distribution of the video.  The second option would be to fund the position for another six months as well as fund the cost of producing and distributing the video, which would be approximately $100,655.  The third option would be to fund the position for the entire year as well as the cost of producing and distributing the video, which would be approximately $159,310. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning questioned the second option and asked if that $100,655 included costs for the educational video.  Mr. Henderson indicated that was correct and said the cost for the video was approximately $42,000 of that $100,655.  Chairwoman Chowning said donations had already been made and she personally would continue her efforts to obtain more grants and donations from hospitals and other sources.  She said she did not think that $42,000 should be appropriated from the General Fund, as the money would be raised.  She added that she believed the cost of producing the video would be less than estimated.

 

Mr. Henderson said the costs he had given the Subcommittee were estimates and it was possible that there were some inaccuracies.  His concern was that if the budget was augmented for an additional one year of funding for the position yet the funding for the video was not available, there would be no reason to have the position and the Department would be unable to accomplish its goals for the dog bite prevention program.  Chairwoman Chowning conceded that was a valid concern, but she did not believe the cost of production would be as high as Mr. Henderson had stated.  Mr. Henderson replied that the $42,000 mentioned would be the cost of producing and distributing, and it was his understanding that the total cost was actually closer to $60,000, but the Department had raised approximately $18,000 in donations already. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning opined that the cost of production could be significantly reduced if one of the local channels in Las Vegas handled the production.  She indicated that the Subcommittee might wish to reduce that cost to $20,000, which would mean that the second option would cost approximately $80,000 to fund the position for six months and include $20,000 for the video production.  Mr. Henderson stated that the Department would be willing to work with that amount if that was the pleasure of the Subcommittee.

 

Mr. Ferguson concluded his budget presentation and indicated the other issues had been discussed at a previous hearing.  Chairwoman Chowning said she would accept a motion for staff recommendation with inclusion of the second option provided by Mr. Henderson.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND FUND E-600 AT APPROXIMATELY $80,600 FOR SIX-MONTH FUNDING OF THE POSITION AND FOR PRODUCTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

********

 

Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Susan Cherpeski

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Sandra Tiffany, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: