MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session March 23, 1995 The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:10 a.m. on Thursday, March 23, 1995, Chairman Morse Arberry presiding, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Ms. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BUDGET - Page 19 Chairman Arberry welcomed Lt. Governor Lonnie Hammargren, who came forward to review the budget for the Lieutenant Governor's office. Before the committee, he remarked, was a budget reflecting a 50 percent increase, which was quite a modest increase considering the type of work product the state could expect from his office, and the quality staff he had working with him. The projects he had undertaken and events either he or staff had attended were as follows: 1. He and staff had worked in Las Vegas to promote a new awards program called the "Casi" [Casino] Award; 2. He had staff at various events such as the Rocky Mountain Oyster Feed in Virginia City, Nevada; 3. Staff had driven to Tonopah for a Rural Economic Development meeting; 4. He had greeted an international symposium of NASA scientists -- Russian, German and from other countries around the world -- in gravitational physiology; 5. He had greeted the Austrian Ambassador who wished to form a trade mission office in Nevada; 6. He had greeted Russian Judges visiting the Judicial College; Lt. Governor Hammargren told the committee that the last eight out of nine evenings he had attended various meetings. He reviewed an informational sheet entitled "Enhancement Budget Notes" (Exhibit C) and a copy of the budget (Exhibit D). Each item was reviewed and Lt. Governor Hammargren shared with the committee his ideas on future projects for his office and staff. He predicted he would return to the Legislature in 1997 with a request for a wage upgrade to one half the Governor's salary. This, he believed, was in line with the position, the number of hours he worked and the progress he anticipated. Chairman Arberry asked Lt. Governor Hammargren to provide the committee a breakdown of the additional staffing positions requested. Bob McCaffrey, Chief of Staff for the Lt. Governor, told the committee the staffing requests were for four staff people, two Lt. Governor Assistants and two Assistant Secretaries. Mr. Arberry asked them to provide the breakdown in writing. He also asked them to break out each salary. Regarding the request for out-of-state travel, Mr. Arberry asked the Lt. Governor to explain how they intended to use the $12,000 requested. Lt. Governor Hammargren explained he had attended a Lt. Governor conference in Washington, and another in Michigan, and he anticipated there would be numerous out-of-state meetings in his efforts to publicize Nevada. Lt. Governor Hammargren discussed the problems of obtaining federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permission to make movies in Nevada. The process was so time consuming, he had arranged a meeting with Department of Interior representatives, and through this meeting the process had been shortened to three days to obtain the necessary permits. Chairman Arberry acknowledged it was impossible for Lt. Governor Hammargren to pinpoint every trip he would make out-of-state, but the committee did need the highlights of where the Lt. Governor planned to go during the next two years. As a brief overview, Lt. Governor Hammargren said he would be going to Washington, Michigan, California, probably Mexico, Thailand, the Pacific Rim countries, and perhaps Japan. Chairman Arberry questioned the requests for printing, copying, postage, telephone, dues, registration, periodicals, professional services, etc., and asked Lt. Governor Hammargren to explain these requests. The Lt. Governor said they had bought business cards for three staff members and one ream of paper, and this had put his office over present budget. Chairman Arberry asked for more details regarding the request for supplies, as well as a breakdown for professional services. Noting the request for in-state travel from Las Vegas to Carson City each week, the Chairman asked Lt. Governor Hammargren to explain this more fully. Lt. Governor Hammargren indicated he and his staff planned to cover the state. Two of his staff had gone to Elko for the Rural Roundup, for instance, and attending other state events would mean a great deal of driving. He indicated he would supply more details. Mr. Marvel asked for more specific information in writing regarding education outreach. The Lt. Governor told Mr. Marvel he was referring to the University system and economic diversification through education for business and industry. He hoped to see: 1) A responsive workforce; 2) education for a Nevada Economic Development Network; 3) an "800" number on which any business in the state could tap into the University system immediately and in two days receive a response of the correct person who could define a problem, and within two weeks an answer on whether the specific training was available, as well as what outreach programs were available. Mr. Marvel asked if the Lt. Governor favored merging of the two Commissions, i.e., Economic Development and the Lt. Governor's office. He suggested the Lt. Governor might be addressing the wrong budget. In response, Lt. Governor Hammargren said he could work with either one Commission or three -- the success would depend on the cohesiveness of the groups. He continued saying he believed the University system was so important, this was where he was concentrating his efforts. One year ago at a special session of the Board of Regents, the Governor had asked for input. Of the 20 or 30 suggestions put forward, the Governor accepted only one, and this was to have a Commissioner (or representative) on the Commission for Economic Development from the University system in order to "integrate and combine." In response to Mr. Marvel's query, Lt. Governor Hammargren said this was all incorporated in the Lt. Governor's education outreach. Mr. Marvel insisted this might be in the wrong budget. Regarding equipment needs, Lt. Governor Hammargren told Mr. Marvel his most urgent need was for computers to replace his own personal computers which had been placed both in the Las Vegas and Carson City offices. Mr. Fettic asked the Lt. Governor to prepare a prospectus which would show just what kind of return the state could expect for the investment in the Lt. Governor's office. Lt. Governor Hammargren said he would do this. Lt. Governor Hammargren stated the previous Lieutenant Governor had received a 222 percent increase in the budget when she took office. He was asking for only a 50 percent increase -- with the knowledge this might mean he did not have to ask for another position in Economic Development. Chairman Arberry reiterated his request for written details on the Lt. Governor's requests. ASSEMBLY BILL 246 - Makes appropriation to motor pool division of department of administration for purchase of additional vehicles. Coming forward to represent the Department of Administration, were Tracy Raxter, Chief of Administrative Services and Lyn Callison, Accountant for Motor Pool Division. Mr. Raxter explained there was one adjustment to make to the bill. In discussions with the Budget Division, it was decided the number of vehicles should be reduced to 81, and the dollar amount should be reduced to $947,652. Mr. Raxter called attention to a handout entitled "Additional Rental Vehicles Requested by Agencies in 1995-97 Biennium" (Exhibit E), wherein the last page described the reduction more completely. The handout showed the requesting agency and explained the need. Additionally, the decision unit and budget account were shown in order to aid fiscal analysts in their review of the various related budgets. The reduction was further discussed. Mr. Raxter indicated when the Budget Division was preparing the Executive Budget, a decision was made to not recommend three different agencies in the budget, thus eliminating the need for the vehicles requested by those agencies. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raxter to describe the numbers and kinds of vehicles making up the total of 81. Mr. Raxter said this was for 71 sedans, and 10 (for the motor pool division) would be for alternative fuel vehicles. Referring to the vehicles assigned to Parole and Probation, Chairman Arberry noted the staff in this agency were currently driving very small vehicles. He asked Mr. Raxter if there was anything in the budget to address Parole and Probation's concern for larger cars. Mr. Raxter replied he was not aware of the concerns indicated by Parole and Probation, however, he would contact the agency to see what was needed. Using the Purchasing Division bid sheets, Mr. Raxter said it was possible to determine the price of larger sedans for Parole and Probation. The price of larger vehicles like the four-door, six passenger Dodge Intrepid or Chevrolet Capris driven by the Highway Patrol, would cost $15,500 each. After some discussion it was agreed neither the Dodge Intrepid or Chevrolet Capris were particularly high-performance vehicles. Mr. Marvel asked if any of the agencies were capable of purchasing their own vehicles with funds other than General Fund monies. In reply Mr. Raxter said he was concerned that the vehicles be under Administrative Services' supervision so they could be properly maintained. He agreed there could possibly be other funds available, but believed the Budget Division might be able to answer this. He said the usual routine was for the requests to come into the Motor Pool Division. These were then passed onto the Budget Division for review and determination of funding. It was also brought to the committee's attention, Mr. Marvel observed, that the original price per unit was $9,600 which was then increased to $11,212. Mr. Raxter said the $11,212 price reflected current bid prices to the Purchasing Division for a Chevrolet Cavalier (as of December 1994) plus a 3 percent inflation factor to come up to the $11,212. The window of opportunity for purchasing at that price from the manufacturer would close the first week in April 1995. Since it would be almost impossible to meet that date, the 3 percent was added in anticipation of prices for 1996 models. Referring again to testimony from the representatives of Parole and Probation, Mr. Spitler mentioned the committee had been told Parole and Probation planned to redesign their delivery service by having fewer officers in the field. He wondered if the vehicle request from that agency reflected this reorganization. In answer, Jim Manning, from the Budget Division, said he was unaware of this proposed reorganization within Parole and Probation, and since the budget figures were finalized some two months previously, the change in Parole and Probation would not be shown. Mr. Spitler suggested this should be investigated. Mr. Manning said he would check this out. In reference to Mr. Marvel's question regarding the use of federal funds, Mr. Manning said he would revisit this question and work with staff on alternative sources. Mr. Close voiced some objection to receiving the budget only the day before being asked to discuss it. He also asked how many vehicles were predicated on the decisions the committee would make in the enhancement and maintenance budgets during the session. Mr. Raxter said two or three were in base budgets, but every other request affected a decision unit. Mr. Close said he then had an objection to discussing the vehicles and moving forward on the bill until the financial status of the state was determined and the budget was closed. Mr. Arberry assured him there would be no action on the bill until late in the session. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned how other industries dealt with replacement vehicles, and what was done with vehicles which were being released. Mr. Raxter answered he was investigating this question, and agreed to provide the committee with a list of each vehicle owned by the state, by agency. Mr. Raxter pointed out statutorily his Division was responsible only for vehicles assigned to the Motor Pool Division, and there was an inventory showing where each vehicle in the Motor Pool was assigned. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the committee request each agency to submit a similar inventory of the vehicles assigned to their unit. Ms. Tiffany believed Mr. Raxter needed to better prepare his request for vehicles. There were questions regarding how reorganization had changed the agencies, whether personnel changes would affect the numbers of vehicles needed, etc. Mr. Raxter indicated this was most likely a policy decision the Department of Administration would have to make. However, adding to Ms. Tiffany's remarks, he said when the committee reviewed the bill, they would have to keep in mind: 1) That vehicles were being earmarked to specific positions; and 2) if the Motor Pool Division did not have vehicles available, outside rental agencies would have to be used to meet the fluctuating demand. Currently, outside rental agencies were being used 1 to 5 percent of the time. While Mr. Raxter did not say this was a problem, he did believe it was something the committee needed to consider. Ms. Chowning agreed the requests needed to be much more specific before proceeding. Referring to the 3 percent increase for inflation, Mr. Allard asked if there was a hard bid figure offered by the Purchasing Division. Also, if the window of opportunity closed in April, Mr. Allard believed the Purchasing Division should be able to obtain definite prices, rather than having to estimate the cost of inflation. In response, Mr. Manning said in his discussion with Dennis Colling, the previous Motor Pool Administrator, Mr. Colling indicated the typical cost of inflation was 3 percent, and this was the amount put forward in previous sessions; however, there were no hard bids at the present time. He promised Mr. Allard to investigate the possibility of a hard bid price. As for the Capitol Police, Mr. Allard noted there was a proposal to merge the Capitol Police with the Highway Patrol. If this was done, would the request for two additional vehicles be affected? Mr. Manning opined with the way the budget was structured and the way it would transfer, this was still a valid request. Mr. Allard also wondered if possibly the Highway Patrol did, already, have vehicles which would fulfill the needs of the Capitol Police. Mr. Manning said he was not sure. Mr. Dini cautioned the committee not to become so tight-fisted the fleet was reduced to old, inefficient vehicles. Recalling some discussion regarding mileage reimbursement for employees using their own vehicles, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested some research should be done to determine if this was a more efficient and economical way to take care of the need for vehicles. With no further testimony on A.B. 246, Chairman Arberry asked for committee consideration of the following bill draft requests (BDR): - BDR 26-1866, making various changes concerning sale, lease or exchange of state land. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 26-1866. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - BDR S-322, relating to state employees and increasing the salaries of classified state employees. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-322. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - BDR S-1805, making a supplemental appropriation to the Division of Child and Family Services. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1805. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - BDR S-301, classifying state employees to receive retention bonuses. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-301. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - BDR 18-1894, requires Governor's Advisory Council on Education relating to the Holocaust Development Program to raise money for its use. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 18- 1894. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU - Page 157 Director Lorne Malkiewich, representing the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), presented budget 327-2631. A 36-page document with a great deal of budget information would be the basis for their presentation (Exhibit F). He also submitted his written testimony and read his remarks into the record (Exhibit G). Rather than review the overall budget, Mr. Malkiewich said, he would go through the components making up the total budget. On page 8 could be seen the Legislative Commission which funded Legislative travel, the Legislative Commission subcommittee meetings, dues for national associations, etc. He called attention to the fact the budget showed a decrease in in-state travel, and an increase in out-of- state travel. The reason for this difference was because in 1993 the Western Legislative Conference annual meeting was held in Las Vegas. It would ordinarily be held in another state. The other adjustments to the budget had to do with where the meetings were held. Referring to a $70,000 request for interim studies, Mr. Marvel asked if this amount had been fairly stable. Mr. Malkiewich commented this was fairly stable, and plans and accommodations were made around that particular amount. Possibly this would have to be adjusted upward at some point in time, but this depended on how many meetings the interim studies committees were to have and how many members would be appointed to those committees. Mr. Malkiewich then discussed the Administrative Division, which, he noted, had no measurement indicators in the past. He stated many of the indicators were inadequate, so in an effort to determine the effectiveness and the needs, the various units had been surveyed and asked to respond to a detailed list of questions concerning each unit within the Administrative Division in the three basic categories of timeliness, quality and courtesy of the service provided. Suggestions on how to improve the service had also been solicited, and Mr. Malkiewich said by addressing the suggestions he hoped to see continued improvement. In response to Mr. Close's question regarding the number of responses, Mr. Malkiewich said they had sampled the Divisions who had then contacted the employees of that Division. When the Session was finished, Mr. Malkiewich indicated he intended to also survey the Legislators and each of the Division and the Legislative staff. Taking up the budget itself, Mr. Malkiewich noted the two positions in the Information Systems Unit, were currently being paid as Session hires. The request was to have them continued as permanent positions. The biennial cost would be $218,000. Four new positions were being requested, one as a Health Safety and Personnel Officer and three building maintenance people. The three Maintenance personnel were presently being paid as Session hires, but with the anticipated expansion of the LCB in Carson City, and the anticipation these workers would be required to go to Las Vegas on occasion, the additional cost was easily offset by the in-house capability to deal with asbestos. While it was originally thought a Health, Safety and Personnel officer was unnecessary, the increased workload necessary to keep pace with federal regulations such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) made this position essential. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Malkiewich to submit to the committee a list of all the reclassifications and positions being requested for LCB. Mr. Malkiewich agreed to do this. In the area of maintenance and grounds, Mr. Malkiewich indicated a lighting retrofit program had been started in the building. It was highly effective and in the past, he said, Sierra Pacific had provided a rebate; but the availability of rebates were now in question. Additionally, he said they wished to replace the diesel storage tank in the east parking lot. While it was not leaking, it was 25 years old and not state-of-the-art. Replacement would mean a greater level of comfort and safety. Again referring to the Las Vegas complex, Mr. Malkiewich explained there was a request for approximately $250,000 each year of the biennium. He reported the office was up and running and being frequently used, along with the videoconferencing unit. Mr. Malkiewich further discussed the various uses being made of the videoconferencing unit and in response to Mr. Arberry's question, said currently there was no charge for the use of the rooms, but there was a charge for the videoconferencing. State agencies were charged $25/hour, he explained, while non-state agencies and businesses were charged approximately $100/hour. Ms. Tiffany asked which rooms were set up for video teleconferencing, and in response, Mr. Malkiewich said there were two fixed locations, one at each end -- Room 119 in Carson City and Room 4401 of the Sawyer Building. She also asked if there was enough video teleconferencing equipment on hand at this point in time. He said he believed it was satisfactory for now. While during the interim the rooms were used almost every day, he did not believe the system was overloaded and the demand could be accommodated quite well. In the future, he predicted, they would be considering some mobile units, as the price of mobile units was continually coming down. With the mobile units, video teleconferencing could be taken to any room, and this would expand the use considerably. Ms. Tiffany agreed there would be an increasing use of the teleconferencing facilities, but wondered if the committee should consider the increased use and associated expenses before the Session ended. Although Mr. Malkiewich said the agencies kept the unit very busy during the interim, he did not pursue the idea of obtaining additional funding for expansion of the teleconferencing facility. Noting a request for $8,700 during each year of the biennium, Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Malkiewich to further explain. He said this was basically for travel between the Las Vegas office and Carson City. He said the budget for the Las Vegas office was for in-state travel. Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Malkiewich to provide additional information on this budget request. Referring to some mention of the legislators having a computer system at their desks, Mr. Price asked for more detail. In response, Mr. Malkiewich said they were in the middle of a demonstration with the Pythia Corporation which demonstrated the kind of technology currently available; however, nothing had been requested in the LCB budget or the appropriation currently in the Senate Finance Committee. Right now, he remarked, he anticipated bringing this back to the 1997 Session, and at that time they would have a better idea of what was available. On page 2 of the budget handout, Ms. Evans noted a training request for $64,000. She wondered if this represented a stable figure or whether it was an increase in training from the past. Mr. Malkiewich said he believed there was a slight increase, but this was not large. Ms. Evans then questioned the adequacy of the training. With a highly specialized staff, there was the question whether adequate training could be provided for the new staff. Ms. Evans admitted the Legislators had been rather tight-fisted in the past, but this needed some consideration. Mr. Malkiewich said he would provide detail on the training budgets within the Divisions and show how the requests had been increased. He added he had also created a training committee within the Legislative Counsel Bureau composed of professionals from each Division. Ms. Evans also wished to know if there were plans being developed to use E-mail for communication between legislative staff, as well as access for persons off-site. Mr. Malkiewich said the LCB had updated the local area network with a more sophisticated system which allowed E-mail between all the Legislative Counsel Bureau employees in this building, the Sedway Office Building and the Las Vegas office. This allowed the sending of documents back and forth to the employees in Las Vegas. Outside this, there was no other capability except the Nelis System. Ms. Evans believed it would be very helpful to be able to access the LCB computer system from outside the Legislative buildings, and Mr. Malkiewich agreed to look into the subject. Mr. Close asked if there had been other companies besides Pythia who had demonstrated an interest in providing computer capability to the LCB. In answer, Mr. Malkiewich said Pythia claimed they were the only ones having wireless technology, however, a number of vendors had expressed an interest in providing a client-server based technology and providing a network of personal computers already on-site. Mr. Close assured his support of this endeavor. Returning to page 2 of the handout, he asked Mr. Malkiewich to provide the committee a comparison to previous years on the items shown on page 2. Returning to the subject of teleconferencing capability, Chairman Arberry asked if there was anything in the budget for new technology. He urged Mr. Malkiewich to pursue technology which would alleviate some of the delay in voice transmission. Since the video teleconferencing had been put in, Mr. Malkiewich said, there had been a number of advances, however, he believed if they did anything right now, they might miss some real upcoming improvements. To do anything right now would mean a great expense which might, in a few years, be outdated. He assured Chairman Arberry the LCB staff was working to improve the system in place. Ms. Tiffany wondered if the present problems would be improved by a faster line, or would the technology presently in place allow the staff to use a faster line. Mr. Malkiewich indicated it was some of both. The technology could be improved somewhat, but presently, staff was just trying to determine if the present technology would accommodate needed upgrades such as a faster line. AUDIT DIVISION With no further questions on this portion of the budget, Mr. Malkiewich turned to the Audit Division budget. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, drew attention to page 16 of the handout provided which showed an overview which Mr. Crews discussed. He noted the budget reflected an increase of 6.7 percent over the last biennium appropriation. Most of this was due to merit increases and related personnel costs. There were no requests for inflation nor for new staff. Under M- 200, there were two requests: 1) Personnel expenses, $4,500 for overtime; 2) $7,400 for operating costs having to do with additional computer facility time. Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Crews if the Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) process would impact in any way on the LCB audit system. In response, Mr. Crews explained he was concerned if the Division became too involved in design phases, this would increase the risk of the Audit Division remaining independent. In the past the Division had been shy of implementing recommendations by the Executive Branch. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether LCB recommendations on the internal control system of DMV and Health and Human Services, would be beneficial to the BPR process in agencies experiencing internal control problems. Mr. Crews thought there was a possibility of this. Referring to a bill setting up an audit of the University System, Ms. Tiffany asked whether the costs were built into Mr. Crews' budget if this bill was enacted. Mr. Crews said, "no," there was $70,000 built into the bill which would transfer into his agency, and with proper prioritization, he would have the staff available to do it. Ms. Tiffany urged him to further explore the BPR question. Mr. Close asked Mr. Crews to provide the committee the history of his caseload changes for the last biennium, especially on the M-200 overtime requests. Mr. Crews agreed to provide this. Drawing attention to Occupational Studies, M-300, Mr. Crews said there was a request for upgrades of the three principal Deputy Legislative Auditors and the Audit Secretary. He said he believed it was critical to retain the top level professionals presently on staff. Mr. Crews believed the Chief Deputy, who had been with the Audit Division for 16 years would probably receive twice the compensation in private industry. The same applied to other staff, as well as the Audit Secretary. Under Enhancement items, he noted a request for $26,000 for the first year and $24,000 the second year. This took into account some $1,800 for replacement printers used in the field. There was also a request to replace some of their "286" computers which would not even run some of the software available. The budget also reflected funds to upgrade software, Mr. Crews told Ms. Tiffany. He mentioned they had used WordPerfect since 1984, and upgrades had been maintained as they went along. Now some of their computers would not run the latest version of WordPerfect, and this was reflected in the budget. Additionally, the budget provided for upgrades of Paradox and Lotus software, the three primary software systems used in the Audit Division. He told the committee many of the computers used in the field were portable laptop computers, not tied into the network. However, the computers used in the Sedway Office Building were tied into the network of the main building. Ms. Tiffany suggested before the committee closed the budget, Mr. Crews should investigate exactly what he wanted to do with the computers before the Session ended. Mr. Crews noted the Audit Division staff now numbered 26, and it was anticipated this would remain the same for the next biennium. FISCAL ANALYSIS DIVISION Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, then presented the budget for the Fiscal Analysis Division. Indicating the budget began on page 21 of Exhibit F, with a Mission Statement and Performance Indicators, Mr. Stevens said they planned to spend more time on the Performance Indicators during the interim. While the indicators could tell what they did, they could not reflect whether the Fiscal Analysis Division did a good or a poor job. One change noted by Mr. Stevens on lines 3 and 4 under "Session Measures," would move the planned $161 million and $55 million into the "actual" column. Moving to page 22 and beginning with the base budget, Mr. Stevens pointed out the existing positions increased from 15 (approved by the 1993 Legislature) to 17. The interim committee studying the functions of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the interim committee on methods of establishing a Legislative Budget Office, recommended the Fiscal Division receive two additional positions in the interim period. These were approved by the Legislative Commission and were included in the base budget request. This increased the number of positions to 17, 13 professional and 4 support. Under the M-100 inflation item, Mr. Stevens called attention to the $1,300 in the first year and $2,500 the second year. This reflected inflation applied to those items included in the Executive Branch Budget instructions to Executive Branch agencies. Questioning the additional two positions, Mr. Stevens told Mr. Close these were Program Analysts positions which had been approved by the Legislative Commission and brought on staff in August 1994. Those positions were now shown in their base budget. Under M-200 there were small changes for postage equipment repair and computer facility costs. In the M-300 request, Mr. Stevens said there were fringe benefit adjustments, and five positions were recommended for reclassification. Under Enhancement 710, Mr. Stevens noted replacement equipment for a copy machine. While they could make an adjustment to this amount it would not be large because the replacement machine was less expensive than anticipated. They were also requesting one new personal computer and $2,500 for miscellaneous equipment replacement. Mr. Stevens told Chairman Arberry his Division had no laptop computers presently, although this had been discussed. There were no funds in the budget to do this, and as the budget stood, there would not be funds available to purchase laptop computers. The Chairman asked Mr. Stevens to bring back to the committee the cost of buying laptop computers and how many would be needed. Under E-871, Mr. Stevens explained ordinarily one person every two or three years was sent to the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) which would be hosted in Las Vegas in 1998. If two staff people were sent to the NCSL annual meeting, more funds would be needed. This was seen as the $3,400 in the first year and $3,600 the second year. As for in-state travel, Mr. Stevens said this was important to his Division in that fiscal staff had been unable to visit the agencies as much as they would have liked during the last interim. It was important to visit these agencies to better determine what went into those budgets. Thus, the request for additional in-state travel funds for that purpose. Mr. Marvel agreed it was important for the fiscal staff to make certain the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were staying on the scheduled time line. Ms. Evans pointed out SCR-46 from the interim committee report on the budget process would soon be out. This bill suggested a review of the base budgets because the interim committee believed it was important to have strong oversight on the base budgets for all the agencies on a continuing basis. If the bill was approved, it would add to the work load of the Fiscal Analysis Division. Continuing, Mr. Stevens explained E-871 was a combination of software upgrade, and a $1,673 request for training. Although there was not ordinarily a large request for training, they were going to try to send a staff member to a training session every other year. The overall budget increase for the Fiscal Analysis Division was 17.6 percent next biennium, mainly due to the two additional positions. Without those two additional positions, the increase would be 4.1 percent. LEGAL DIVISION Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, then came forward to review the budget for the Legal Division. She discussed the measurement indicators, which, she said, only indicated what the Legal Division planned to do. Because there was a request for a substantial increase, Ms. Erdoes explained the Legal Division had a prevailing and far-reaching problem which resulted in the loss of a number of attorneys each year. This meant the Division was training more than were actually working. Currently, including 2 temporary attorneys, there was a total of 18 attorneys, which broke down to 6 reviewers (one reviewer was new to replace Mr. Malkiewich when he was named Director of the LCB), 1 senior drafter and 11 drafters. Of the 11 drafters for this Session, 3 had started just before the last Session and 8 were new for this Session. Ms. Erdoes emphasized it took time and experience for a drafter to be truly effective, and the staff with limited experience was very tough for the Legal Division. Not only were new people unable to draft bills quickly, the bills drafted took more review. Therefore, Ms. Erdoes stated, she wished to make moves towards keeping the attorneys throughout the interim. Exit interviews had revealed the greatest problem was with the number of overtime hours required, and salary. Thus, approximately two-thirds of their budget request related to this and making permanent the two attorneys and three paralegals approved by the interim committee. This resulted in a request for $634,970 over the biennium. Secondly, the Division had asked to add a legal secretary to help with the additional two attorneys and three paralegals. She said they had found without adequate secretarial help, the attorneys and paralegals had to take time to produce letters and other documents more appropriately done by a secretary. Also, there was an increase for travel and out-of-state funds to attend conferences on federal laws and regulations, and to see what other states were doing. With the increase in federal laws and acts affecting the LCB, it was becoming necessary for staff to attend the conferences, which were ordinarily led by people who had developed the legislation. This increased the individual's learning curve dramatically, Ms. Erdoes stated. Ms. Tiffany questioned what activities the legal staff participated in during the interim. In response, Ms. Erdoes said, during the interim the main focus was the review of administrative regulations, opinions for Legislators, and staffing the interim study committees. The regulation work, by statute, stopped in September in advance of Session when bill drafting started, and it picked up in July when the Session was over. She assured Ms. Tiffany there truly was a full-time work load involved, and during off-session months, the training given to new attorneys in reviewing the Administrative Regulations and drafting regulations was invaluable. Ms. Tiffany noted usually when staff was added, it was work load driven. She believed it was only logical to have a skeleton crew when out of Session and full staff when in Session. Mr. Marvel noted the Legal Division began to get bill draft requests as soon as the session ended. He did, however, ask how the LCB attorney salaries compared with the Attorney General salaries. Ms. Erdoes answered the LCB attorney base salary was lower. Currently, beginning attorneys received $53,360, which was the top of the grade, and the top level for the Deputy Attorneys General was $57,000. Thus, she was asking to come up to level with the Deputy Attorney General. The other salaries were fairly comparative, she said. Regarding the seven upgrades for the Deputy Legislative Counsel positions, Ms. Erdoes indicated in addition to the money which would address the parity of salaries, there was also a request for additional printing funds. The Division planned to sell more publications, which, of course, would increase the printing costs. Additionally, there were funds requested for computer software upgrades. Ms. Erdoes explained the Division had recently installed personal computers on all the desks, and without software upgrades, the maintenance agreements were invalid. Small equipment purchases were for replacing old equipment as it became inoperable. Noting the request for parity with other attorney positions throughout the state system, Mr. Hettrick stated, "... You earn it. You shouldn't base it on other positions, you earn it, and I think you should present it that way. ...". Also in E- 710, he noted the bulk of the money went for operating expense. What he wished to know was whether this was for ongoing replacement or whether it was actually for equipment. Ms. Erdoes said the reason some requests were in operating and some in equipment was that the State Controller required them to place items which cost $2,000 or less into the operating category and anything over $2,000 into equipment. Discussing E-720, she said they were asking for $20,000 for CD ROM equipment to bring their publications capability into state-of-the-art. This was accomplished by staff inputting publications into CD ROM during slow periods. With this capability the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Administrative Codes, and old Attorney General Opinions could be offered for sale. Additionally, bill draft requests were so voluminous it was impossible to file these in cabinets. Currently these were microfilmed, but this was also a difficult system for retrieval. By putting this information into CD ROM, retrieval would be much more efficient. RESEARCH DIVISION Bob Erickson, Research Director, and Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, came forward to review the Research Division budget. Mr. Erickson said they had seen continued significant growth in the types of requests for assistance, whether it was for legislative committees or interim studies. The indicators in the Research Division budget were primarily workload indicators, but there was a continual growth in all areas. In addition to the regular "bread and butter" projects of providing information to legislators, the Division had tried to enhance services to the standing committees during the Session. Drawing attention to page 32, the adjustments to the base, Mr. Erickson noted two transfers which, he said, were unique in his Division. These were transfers from the committee on High Level Radio Active Waste to $12,000, which was an ongoing amount to cover the office supplies, and related items, for that function. The function itself was a transfer of approximately $125,000 each fiscal year, coming from the Agency for Nuclear Projects. This allowed the committee on High Level Nuclear Waste to conduct meetings, travel, etc., and to provide one senior research analyst and a half-time secretary to serve as staff for the committee. Additionally, he said, last Session a bill was passed to provide for one staff position to conduct research, and to review and evaluate data related to industrial insurance, which was a very valuable position in their office. Continuing, Mr. Erickson said the Division was requesting the continuation of two positions in their budget which were earlier approved through Legislative Commission actions. One was a position created last interim for a researcher to support one of the standing committees on Judiciary and to do basic research work in the Division's office. This person was currently being funded through Session funds. As for the other position, Mr. Erickson explained during the last interim the person working on Health Care was funded through the Health Care Committee budget. At that time there was a surplus in the budget for the Health Care committee that allowed them to do that, however, that surplus no longer existed, and it was necessary to allocate other funds. The one new position being requested was to take care of continued growth and its impact on the Research Library. In 1979, he said, two positions were authorized. Two positions still existed in 1995. With the ever increasing work load experienced in this area, one assistant librarian position was being requested. As for the upgrades shown on page 34, Mr. Erickson said the budget reflected five proposed upgrades, however, the upgrade for the Office Manager would not be required. Before the Session began, two key people were transferred to the Administrative Division to work in the Las Vegas office. Thus, through reorganization of secretarial assignments, as well as the researchers, the adjustments had been made and it was no longer necessary to fill the Office Manager position. Continuing, Mr. Erickson said he would, however, like to modify and supplement this current budget request with two additional upgrades for the position of Chief Principal Research Analyst. The two people directly under Mr. Welden and Mr. Erickson had been given new supervisory responsibilities, and Mr. Erickson said he was requesting these positions be increased from a grade 43 to a grade 44. He said he would provide additional information to justify this request. As to whether this would cause an increase in the budget request, Mr. Erickson indicated it would not. First, because there had been internal adjustments made through the Commission action to change the salary levels of two other positions, and secondly, the Division would not need the budgeted Xerox upgrading. The main item in the new equipment request was for an upgrade in computer workstations for the researchers, the librarians and the secretaries, Mr. Erickson stated. He pointed out there were minor enhancements to the travel and training categories which would send two additional staff members to the NCSL meeting. Over the years, he said, the Research Division had always played a key role in the national meetings, and this would also allow them to send three Senior Research Analysts to a new program created by NCSL called "Professional Development Seminar for Senior Legislative Research Staff." Two people were sent last fall and he hoped to get all the staff trained in this manner. CHIEF CLERK AND SECRETARY OF THE SENATE - Page 161 The Chief Clerk's budget was reviewed by Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and Jan Thomas, Secretary of the Senate. Ms. Landing pointed out neither her budget nor Ms. Thomas' budget were truly a part of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Each of them, Ms. Landing and Ms. Thomas, worked directly for their respective houses. The Assembly Speaker chose the Chief Clerk, and the Majority Leader in the Senate chose the Secretary of the Senate, and Ms. Thomas and she were elected by the body on the opening day of Session. Ms. Landing indicated she and Ms. Thomas served as administrative officers for the complete operation of the two houses. This included interviewing, recommending for hiring, supervising and placement of staff, i.e., secretaries, bill clerks and sergeants of arms. During the interim, Ms. Landing indicated the staff was reduced to she and Ms. Thomas and one shared secretary. She submitted an outline of her function entitled, "Nevada Interim Legislature," (Exhibit H) and followed this in her remarks to the committee. The largest increase noted in the Chief Clerk's budget, Ms. Landing noted, was for an additional administrative assistant, which would allow one for each house of the Legislature. Over the 13 years the office had been full-time, the work load had greatly increased, and with the advent of computers, many functions previously sent to the printers were now done by the administrative assistant. Additionally, Ms. Landing said, they were asking for $6,000 to upgrade their personal computers for compatibility with WordPerfect 6.1, which would go to the new position if that was approved. Chairman Arberry questioned the subject of a computerized reader board to connect between the Assembly offices and the front desk. Ms. Landing said they had not investigated this, however, Utah had automated boards on the floor, which meant rather than relying on chalk boards, electronic boards would list all the daily files. Ms. Landing said she and Ms. Thomas had researched Utah's electronic system and she believed it was possible to connect the Assembly offices and the front floor, if funding became available. It was decided this would become a Session expense. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if converting to WordPerfect was a simple software upgrade. Ms. Landing indicated new equipment had been needed in order to handle the speed of the software. She explained the Session equipment was actually purchased through the Purchasing Division who then leased it to the Session for the six or seven month period. At the end of Session, this equipment was sold to state agencies at a reduced rate. Thus, there was the anticipation LCB could purchase some of this equipment at the end of Session. Before the meeting was adjourned, Chairman Arberry asked for committee introduction of BDR 16-1775, which revised the provisions governing the payment of medical expenses of offenders incarcerated in state prisons. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-1775. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ________________________________ Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means March 23, 1995 Page