MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session April 21, 1995 The joint subcommittee meeting on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Sandra Tiffany, at 7:45 a.m., on Friday, April 21, 1995, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Bernice Mathews ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mr. Bob Price GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Ms. Marcia de Braga STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Ron Steele, Program Analyst Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Simmons, State Director, Animal and Plants Health Inspection Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture Deborah A. Erickson, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, Committee to Control Predatory Animals/State Board of Sheep Commissioners, Department of Business and Industry Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry Tammy Rae Wright, Management Assistant, Nevada Beef Council, Department of Business and Industry Liz Williams, Program Assistant, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board, Department of Business and Industry Carolyn Stockton, Executive Director, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Department of Business and Industry Jack Christopher, Accountant Technician, Unclaimed Property Division, Department of Business and Industry Joan Buchanan, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry Grazing Board - Page 889 Gary Simmons, State Director, Animal and Plants Inspection Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, testified the Grazing Board account is used by the Predatory Animal and Rodent Control Committee (PARC) to administer revenues allocated by the Nevada State Grazing Boards for predatory control. Two Grazing Boards are presently providing funding for aerial hunting of predatory animals within their respective districts. Ms. Tiffany requested the Grazing Board to provide the committee with a mission statement. Mr. Simmons explained the Grazing Board's mission statement is identical to the PARC's mission statement. Ms. Tiffany asked for information on current predatory control problems. Mr. Simmons replied most predatory control problems are caused by coyotes. The funds in the budget are used for aerial hunting of coyotes that have been identified as confirmed predators. He said the coyote problem is a continuing and chronic problem for the sheep and cattle industry. Mrs. Evans questioned why Licenses/Fees are projected to decrease from Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Work Program amounts. Mr. Simmons explained the funds in the account will be exhausted during 1995 and the state's predatory program budget accounts will be phased out. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the Grazing Board is subject to the open meeting law and if it posted a meeting agenda. Mr. Simmons replied in the affirmative to both questions. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the agency's policy is regarding the killing of mountain lions. Mr. Simmons responded once the agency receives a complaint about the loss of livestock and the loss is confirmed, the mountain lion is tracked down by dogs and removed. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the program's funding sources. Mr. Simmons said funding is provided by federal sources, PARC, Woolgrowers Predatory Animals account, the Grazing Board, and the Department of Wildlife. The $20,000 in funding from the Department of Wildlife is a General Fund appropriation. Two positions are devoted full-time to mountain lion deprivation and the funds provided by the Department of Wildlife only cover one-fourth of the costs associated with mountain lion deprivation. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if any of the predatory animal programs are funded by the General Fund. Deborah Erickson, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, responded the PARC budget is funded by a General Fund appropriation of $430,000. Ms. Giunchigliani referred the committee's attention to page 883 of the Executive Budget and noted the value of animal losses to predatory animals was $308,000. Mr. Simmons said the losses listed in the performance indicators are confirmed losses which represent a small percentage of actual losses. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the losses are calculated. Mr. Simmons explained the value of the animal is determined by current market value. The agency mails a questionnaire to all ranchers requesting information on total losses and the percentage of loss attributed to predatory animals. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether every state has a predatory animal control program. Mr. Simmons responded the program is operational in every state, but most of the program's duties are concentrated in the Western states. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the PARC receives a large appropriation from the General Fund in light of the amount of work it performs. She asked what would happen if the program was not in existence. Mr. Simmons replied citizens would take matters into their own hands and be less concerned about non-target animals. Additionally, there would be no accountability regarding species management. He related the PARC was established originally by the state's sheep producers to manage predators. The Woolgrowers Predatory Animal budget is funded from a per-head tax on sheep and the funds are used to support the Predator Control Program. Ms. Giunchigliani noted Mr. Simmons' agency deals with predatory animal control problems for sheep and beef producers. She stated one of the questions she will be asking the boards and commissions which come before the committee is "if it is necessary to be a state board." The Assemblywoman declared: I don't have problems if they want, as an industry to have a board, but what is the necessity for us to have to maintain them. There is an objection from some who don't even want to pay the state allocation. So don't pay the allocation, but you go away and have your own council or board. That is fine because it is an industry that is necessary that needs to be monitored, but perhaps it does not need to belong in state government under the umbrella any longer. That does not affect the job that you would be doing because you still have an overall mission which is predator control....The rationale for the structure needs to be revisited this session..... Senator Jacobsen stated, on a recent farm tour, the members of the group were told the farmer lost 8 percent of his sheep herd to coyotes. In October of 1994, the Borda sheep ranch lost 60 lambs in one day due to a mountain lion. The Department of Fish and Game would not take any action because the department did not see the lion kill the sheep. The senator related Mr. Borda killed the mountain lion several days later when it returned to his ranch. He said because of Mr. Borda's actions an animal rights group threatened to sue him for taking such action. If the state wants to help protect the agriculture and farming industry, then funding for predatory control must be provided, remarked the senator. Mr. Allard commented predatory animals are not in danger of being eliminated and he would like to see the Department of Wildlife increase the number of tags it issues. He complimented Mr. Simmons on his agency's efforts and stated he would like to see the program continued. Mr. Simmons noted the program attempts to balance the interests of the ranchers and the environmentalists. He related his pride in the program's record regarding the limited amount of non-target animals captured in the state. Nevada has the lowest non-target "take" in the country, remarked Mr. Simmons. He said the cost of benefit for the program ranges from "1 to 8 or 1 to 32." Senator O'Donnell joined the committee and Ms. Tiffany turned the gavel over to the senator. Woolgrower Predatory Animal - Page 891 Sheep Commission - Page 945 Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, Committee to Control Predatory Animals/State Board of Sheep Commissioners, came forward and distributed a memorandum (Exhibit C) addressing exemption from cost allocation for the committee and the commission. Ms. Licht explained the sheep board was established in 1907 to control the number of transient sheep herds traveling through the state and to control communicable ovine disease through animal health inspections. The sheep commission is funded by a self-imposed 30-cent tax for each head of sheep. The sheep inspection fund receives 10 cents of the allocation and any funds remaining from the 10-cent allocation is utilized for office expense, personnel expense, and promotional material. Twenty cents of the 30-cent tax is allocated to the Woolgrowers Predatory Control Program. The program is operated by Animal Damage Control within the Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee. Approximately $20,000 per year is allocated to PARC for urban rodent control. Ms. Licht noted the commission was never required to pay state cost allocation until 1994 and 1995. She said the first payment for state cost allocation totaled $11,578 and the commission's reserve only totaled $10,449. The Budget Division has agreed to allocate the 1995 assessment over a 5-year span. The sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee do not have the funds to continue paying the state allocation assessment. She stated because of this dilemma, Senator Rhoads has requested a bill draft request which would forgive the remainder of the past state cost allocation debt and exempt the sheep commission and the Woolgrowers Predatory Committee from state cost allocation and attorney general allocation costs until the two agencies can recover financially. Ms. Licht indicated the sheep commission, during its last board meeting, discussed cost saving ideas such as elimination of board salaries and funding cuts for promotional activities. She noted the state has lost six or seven major sheep producers in the last few years, so tax allocations have decreased. The number of sheep in the state has recently increased from 75,000 to 107,000 due to a lamb feed lot in Lovelock. Senator O'Donnell asked if the commission has considered increasing the sheep assessment tax. Ms. Licht explained this option was discussed at the board hearing, but because of the demise of the Wool Act, sheep producers lost $10 per ewe. In addition, a national program is trying to implement an assessment of $2.40 per ewe. Because of these changes and the losses a sheep producer incurs from predatory animals and natural causes, the sheep industry's income has been reduced to approximately $20 per ewe. The state sheep industry anticipates it may be able to increase its assessment in the future. Ms. Licht said the sheep inspection tax can be assessed as high as 18-cents per head. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the funding received from the 20-cent assessment is a necessity for Mr. Simmons' budget. Mr. Simmons replied the 20-cent assessment provides funding for one half-time person which allows the agency to handle more urban problems. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee need to be under state control. Ms. Licht explained a portion of the sheep inspection tax comes from sheep producers from bordering states who use Nevada land for seasonal grazing. Because the sheep commission needs state taxing authority, it must remain within the state government. Ms. Licht said if a method could be established whereby the commission could still have authority to tax sheep producers, then the sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee could become independent of the state. She indicated a voluntary taxing program is not a workable solution and the program must have state taxing authority to assure its success. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee come under the open meeting law. Ms. Licht replied in the affirmative. Senator O'Donnell interjected the sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee need the authority of the state to carry out sheep inspections. He pointed out a local board would have no authority to inspect out-of-state sheep herds grazing on Nevada lands. Ms. Licht commented the commission needs state taxing authority to ensure that all sheep producers pay their fair share. Senator O'Donnell related the sheep commission cannot be given state taxing authority without state oversight. Mrs. Brower questioned how long the commission would be exempted from state cost allocation. Ms. Licht said funding should be adequate within 2 to 4 years to continue with the allocation assessment. Ms. Erickson explained the cost allocation was assessed because of a Legislative Counsel Bureau audit. She does not expect the commission will be audited again for some time. Once the 1994-1995 assessment is paid, the cost allocation should return to normal levels. Senator O'Donnell asked if the Budget Division supports forgiving the remaining amount due on the cost allocation assessment. Ms. Erickson responded she has discussed the issue with Mr. Comeaux and he indicated other programs have been granted cost allocation exemptions. She said Mr. Comeaux is not opposed to the exemption proposed by the sheep commission and the woolgrowers' committee. Ms. Tiffany requested the fiscal staff to research whether the commission could have state taxing authority if it was not a state agency. Furthermore, she inquired about the commission's tax collection methods. Ms. Licht explained each county requires ranchers to fill out a form disclosing the number of sheep they own. A Nevada sheep producer is charged an assessment fee on their property tax bill. A sheep herder from outside of the state is required to report to the county assessors office within 10 days after bringing a herd into the state. Also, in the fall, the sheep commission reviews county tax rolls to verify herd counts. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether the commission could collect $20,000 more a year if a person was assigned to ensure the accuracy of the herd counts and collection efforts. Mr. Licht responded, in the past, some sheep producers have been reluctant to pay their portion of the tax because the law as it is now written only allows a property lien for nonpayment. Presently, the commission has a bill before the Senate Committee on Taxation which will allow the commission to assess penalties, court costs, interest, and fees against producers for nonpayment of the tax. Ms. Tiffany asked if the requested changes in the bill will increase the commission's fee collections. Ms. Licht said she is hopeful the proposed changes will add additional income to the commission's budget. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, stated she has had lengthy discussions with Ms. Licht regarding the commission's budget. She supports the recommendations made by Ms. Giunchigliani and Ms. Tiffany concerning the privatization of the commission, as long as a solution is developed on the issue of taxing authority. She suggested the commission's taxing authority could possibly be shifted to the PARC. Mr. Allard asked if the sheep commission's main objective is to provide predatory animal control for the woolgrowers. Ms. Licht replied two-thirds of the services offered by the commission are offered through the PARC and one-third supports promotional activities. Mr. Simmons interjected the sheep commission was originally established for disease control of sheep movement in and out of the state. He stated a voluntary organization is a worthwhile endeavor, but voluntary contributions do not provide a consistent method of funding. If sheep producers were not required by law to pay a per-head tax, then a number of the producers would not voluntarily pay a fee. Nevada Beef Council - Page 913 Tammy Rae Wright, Management Assistant, Nevada Beef Council, Department of Business and Industry came forward to testify. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Nevada Beef Council operates under the open meeting law. Ms. Wright responded in the affirmative. Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board - Page 927 Liz Williams, Program Assistant, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board, Department of Business and Industry, came forward to testify. Ms. Giunchigliani requested the board to provide the committee with performance indicators and questioned if the program operates in all seventeen counties. Ms. Williams responded 14 counties are participating in the 1995 livestock show. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the board operates under the open meeting law. Ms. Williams replied affirmatively. Senator Jacobsen asked when the livestock show will be held and inquired about the types of activities sponsored at the show. Ms. Williams said the show will be held May 11-14 and currently has 400 participants enrolled in the market and breeding classes. Show participants generally spend from 9 months to 5 years on a breeding project. The program teaches sportsmanship, leadership, citizenship, responsibility, and provides current information relating to the agricultural industry. Ms. Williams noted the livestock show is operated mostly with volunteer help. Presently, there are 120 volunteers and two paid staff members helping with the 1995 show. Senator Jacobsen voiced his support of the program and related the program provides a valuable learning experience for the participating youths. Ms. Williams noted the Nevada Junior Livestock Show and the High School Rodeo Association provide scholarship opportunities for participating youths. She said 70 percent of her college education was funded through livestock judging and rodeo scholarships. Most of the youths participating in the program do take advantage of the scholarship programs and continue with their higher education. Senator Jacobsen asked if the Lawlor Events Center charges the livestock show for use of the facility. Ms. Williams replied the charges total over $5,000 for the 1995 show. High School Rodeo Association - Page 931 Marcia de Braga, Assemblywoman from District 35 and Executive Secretary, High School Rodeo Association, Department of Business and Industry, came forward to testify. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the High School Rodeo Association is subject to the open meeting law. Ms. de Braga responded the association is not required by law to have open meetings, but the association does follow the open meeting law guidelines. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many contestants the budget supports and what is the average amount of support per contestant. Ms. de Braga explained the support per contestant varies because each contestant must qualify for the event and some contestants qualify for more than one event. She said the funding does not cover all costs incurred by the contestants, but it does help defray some expenses. The program is a valuable tool in keeping youngsters occupied and in school. Mrs. Brower inquired about the events held before the National High School Rodeo. Ms. de Braga replied 24 qualifying rodeos are held prior to the national finals. Senator Jacobsen questioned what counties have had past national rodeo winners. Ms. de Braga responded national champions have been from Alamo, Las Vegas, Reno, Fallon, and Elko. She related the winners have not always been from areas with a large rodeo team. Nevada Rural Housing Authority - Page 941 Carolyn Stockton, Executive Director, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Department of Business and Industry, testified the budget is being revised due to changes in cost allocations. Senator O'Donnell inquired about the agency's funding sources. Ms. Stockton answered the agency is federally funded through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Senator O'Donnell questioned if the cost allocations are fair and equitable. Ms. Stockton said the 1996 attorney general cost allocation totals $72,000 and $69,000 for 1997. She indicated this is the first time the agency has been assessed for an attorney general cost allocation. Senator O'Donnell asked how much the agency utilizes the attorney general's office. Ms. Stockton replied the agency has used the attorney general's office more during the last 2 years. In addition, a deputy attorney general is present at all of the agency's board meetings. She has contacted other housing authorities regarding their legal costs and according to HUD's rules, if a housing authority is not a state agency, then the agency must obtain a private law firm. She has made some inquiries about private legal costs and discovered the agency would be charged $100 per hour by a private firm. It was estimated the cost for having a private attorney attend all board meetings would be approximately $3,000. Senator O'Donnell interjected, "So we are looking at a $3,000 cost versus a $72,000 cost." Ms. Stockton responded in the affirmative. She related the agency has used the attorney general's office for personnel questions and for Nevada Revised Statutes opinions. Furthermore, the agency has used the office for consultation regarding Assembly Bill (A.B.) 35, but she contended the costs should not total $72,000. ASSEMBLY BILL 35: Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority. Senator O'Donnell asked the Budget Division if the attorney general requested the cost allocation. Deborah A. Erickson, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, stated the State Cost Allocation category on page 944 of the Executive Budget was based on the 1995 plan submitted by the state's cost allocation contractor, Griffin and Associates. She indicated because of the reorganization which has taken place with the Department of Business and Industry, a number of agencies are now under the department's direction. The breakdown provided by Griffin and Associates is sometimes specific and sometimes general, but in the case of Nevada Rural Housing the breakdown was general. Ms. Erickson explained Griffin and Associates allocated a lump sum amount to the Department of Business and Industry and the Budget Office distributed the amount among the agencies according to their revenues. She related Ms. Stockton originally assured her program funds would not be impacted by the cost allocation assessment. The 1996 plan requires a larger assessment and program funds may be affected by the allocation. Ms. Stockton noted only $582,000 out of $4.7 million for rental assistance is used for administrative fees. She explained administrative fees are earned by the authority based upon "lease up." The cost allocation assessment will have to be funded from administrative fees because housing assistance fees can only be used for that designated purpose. Ms. Stockton indicated $135,000 in cost allocations will have to be funded from $582,000 in administrative fees. Ms. Erickson stated she applied the Department of Business and Industry's cost allocation assessment equally to each agency administered by the department. If a program had a federal fund restriction, then the allocation was exempted. She has been studying a plan which would only assess the housing authority's administrative fees and exempt the $4.7 million in housing assistance funding. If this action is taken or if the housing authority is allowed to leave state government, the other budget accounts overseen by the department will also be impacted. Ms. McKinney-James pointed out funds also may be available for the allocation from personnel vacancies which are included in the budget. Senator O'Donnell stated he has noticed that any budget item which is federally funded the state is "stripping off those monies and reallocating them to other resources." He said the state has to rethink its position regarding the reallocation of federal funds to other areas because federal funds may not be available in the future. Ms. McKinney-James related the department has not had the time to review the cost allocation process and she is not convinced the department has the most equitable system for distributing the cost allocation assessment among its agencies. Senator O'Donnell questioned the other duties of the deputy attorney general for the rural housing authority. Ms. Stockton replied the deputy is assigned to 20 other commissions and boards. Ms. Erickson pointed out one of the differences between the 1995 allocation plan and the 1996 plan is the 1995 plan allocates only position costs, while the 1996 plan includes costs associated with the position. In 1996, the allocation for the attorney general will be calculated by the actual number of hours expended on the agency. If it is determined the agency has overpaid its attorney general allocation, the agency will be credited for the overcharge. Senator O'Donnell requested the Budget Division to provide the committee with a list of boards and commissions overseen by the deputy attorney general assigned to rural housing. Ms. Erickson said she did not have the information readily available, but will provide the committee with the requested list. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the agency's projections for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 are higher than 1994 actual and FY 1996 and FY 1997 projections. Ms. Stockton explained the agency transferred two major programs from outside banking accounts into the state accounting system in FY 1995, to conform with requirements of the Cash Management Information Act. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned what the total impact will be on the Department of Business and Industry if A.B. 35 is passed. Ms. Erickson said the cost allocation transfer of $25,000 to the Department of Business and Industry will be spread among other agencies within the department. She stated the intent of the cost allocation plan is not to take funds from one area and spend it in another, but it is to spread non- general government costs to non-General Fund agencies. Senator Jacobsen inquired if the agency would be helping families in the Lovelock area who relocate due to the prison opening. Ms. Stockton responded the agency only administers the Section VIII Certificate and Voucher Program in Lovelock. The prison personnel can apply for assistance, but currently there is a 2 year waiting list for the program. In further questioning, Senator Jacobsen asked if the agency investigated the possible use of the military housing located in Hawthorne, Nevada. Ms. Stockton answered the agency examined the Hawthorne military housing, but the costs associated with asbestos removal and refurbishment were too high. Unclaimed Property - Page 703 Ms. McKinney-James noted she has asked Jack Christopher, Accountant Technician, Unclaimed Property, Department of Business and Industry, to respond to questions posed by Ron Steele, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, in a memo. Mr. Christopher stated Mrs. Evans and Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the costs and revenues associated with the establishment of a Reno office. He said a two-person office in northern Nevada would cost $50,000 for FY 1996 and generate $150,000 in revenues for the first year. The second year figures indicate costs would total $60,000 with revenues of $200,000. Senator O'Donnell questioned what the reimbursement rate is for the agency. Mr. Christopher replied 16 to 20 percent of all unclaimed property is returned to its rightful owner. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the revenue projections are accurate. Mr. Christopher answered the revenue estimates are conservative and noted there are a large number of businesses which have never been audited. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she supports the establishment of a northern Nevada office if the revenues support the associated costs. She asked if the agency is satisfied the revenues will be available to cover the cost of the office. Mr. Christopher replied the agency is comfortable with the projected costs and revenues for the northern office. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the agency could report to the Interim Finance Committee in 6 months regarding the progress of the northern office. Ms. McKinney-James stated she would like to see the agency improve its efficiency with current caseload before opening another office. She suggested the program could be initiated in the second year of the biennium, if data processing issues and structural issues have been addressed. Ms. Tiffany indicated her concern regarding the lack of data and information on the performance of the Las Vegas office. She does not support a northern Nevada office until the problems in the Las Vegas office have been solved. Senator O'Donnell questioned if Ms. McKinney-James is confident with the figures provided by Mr. Christopher. Ms. McKinney-James responded she has significant confidence in Mr. Christopher's calculations and acknowledged the revenue potential of a northern Nevada office; however, she noted the current problems with the Las Vegas office should be addressed before another office is opened. She suggested it would be more appropriate to wait another 2 years to open a new office. Mr. Christopher noted decision unit M200 recommends hiring the requested Auditor position for October 1, 1995 instead of July 1, 1996. In addition, the unit recommends the purchase of an automated Management Information System for $39,200 in FY 1996, and $16,000 in FY 1997 for maintenance. He said the agency's software was purchased off the shelf in 1985 and state programmers developed the program. Original program development costs were $55,000 with $32,000 spent on program modifications. The present system is keystroke intensive and represents old technology. The new system will eliminate 95 percent of the agency's data entry tasks which will eliminate a requested Management Assistant position. Mr. Christopher stressed the maintenance portion of the request is also an integral part of the software package. The maintenance agreement provides for unlimited modifications and support. The software package is successfully operating in Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Connecticut. The agency has contacted three of the states using the program and did not receive one negative comment regarding the system. The agency spent $6,000 this year on their present system and $9,000 in 1993. Ms. McKinney-James interjected she "feels strongly" the automated Management Information System will greatly enhance the agency's efficiency and operations. Ms. Tiffany supports the concept of current automation and inquired if the $39,000 funding request is to pay a one-shot licensing fee. Mr. Christopher replied the $39,000 includes the licensing fee and software installation. Ms. Tiffany questioned how many users are allowed under the licensing fee. Mr. Christopher said the fee agreement allows for 20 users and currently the agency only has seven computers. Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency can pay a reduced licensing fee, since there are only seven users. Mr. Christopher responded he is uncertain if the fee could be reduced for fewer users, but he will contact the company for the information. In addition, Ms. Tiffany questioned what services are included in the maintenance agreement and why the agency is being charged for installation of the system. Mr. Christopher said the airfare and travel expenses related to the installation amounted to $450. Ms. Tiffany stressed the agency should not be required to pay for installation of the program. Mr. Christopher responded he will try and negotiate the travel expenses with the company. Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the $39,000 for the program and the $16,000 maintenance contract represent the list price. Mr. Christopher replied the amount requested is the price quoted by the company. Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency negotiated with the company for a discount. Mr. Christopher said, no, but he will look into it. Ms. Tiffany requested the agency to do the following: renegotiate the licensing fee; obtain a discount from the list price; and obtain a discount on the maintenance contract. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the new system will allow the agency to network with other states. Mr. Christopher said it is possible, but the agency presently is not pursuing this option. The agency has reciprocal unclaimed property agreements with 26 other states to exchange unclaimed property. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER 1 AND 2 AS LISTED ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT D AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE BUDGET CAN BE REOPENED FOR ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO CONTRACT RENEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER 1 AND 2 AS LISTED ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT D AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE BUDGET CAN BE REOPENED FOR ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO CONTRACT RENEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Real Estate Administration - Page 771 Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, came forward and distributed a revised budget (Exhibit E) for the division. Ms. McKinney-James stated the revision is in response to requests by the joint subcommittee for the division to determine what additional items were needed in order for the division to carry out its mandated duties. Ms. Buchanan said the revised budget requests three additional items. The first request is for 12 legal size file cabinets with a cost of $2,955. She indicated all current files are full and files are currently being stored in boxes. Senator Jacobsen interjected the Stewart facility may have some file cabinets in storage the division could utilize. He will verify the file cabinets are still available and report back to the division. Mrs. Evans questioned if the division contacted prison industries for a quote on file cabinets. Ms. Buchanan responded she was not aware prison industries built file cabinets, but she will contact the Department of Prisons. Senator O'Donnell suggested the division should contact the Legislative Counsel Bureau because file cabinets used during session are sometimes sold to state agencies. The second additional item requested by the division, stated Ms. Buchanan, is a Program Assistant II position to handle appraisal licensing, field experience verification, education and compliance mandates. She noted there is a federal mandate requiring verification of field experience for all appraisers working in the state. In the past, appraisal education has been administered by the Real Estate Education Fund. She maintained it is more efficient and economical to employ one person to administer these duties rather than allocate the responsibility to a number of employees. Additionally, funding has been requested to enable the division to become a member of the Appraisal Regulator Officials and attend a conference once a year, remarked Ms. Buchanan. Ms. Buchanan noted the third additional item requested is a Compliance Training Officer. The Compliance Training Officer will help develop educational courses for brokerages in trust account processing, environmental issues, and any other issues which need to be addressed. Senator O'Donnell asked if Ms. McKinney-James is supportive of the division's requests. Ms. McKinney-James replied in the affirmative. Senator O'Donnell stated the budget will not be closed until he has had time to brief Senator Raggio on the proposed requests. Financial Institutions - Page 761 Financial Institutions Investigations - Page 765 Real Estate Education and Research - Page 777 Real Estate Investigative Fund - Page 781 Real Estate Recovery Account Page 783 Manufactured Housing - Page 787 Mobile Home Parks - Page 793 Manufactured Housing Education/Recovery - Page 803 Office of Protection and Advocacy - Page 933 Mentally Ill Individuals Program - Page 937 MRS. EVANS MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSURE OF THE ABOVE- REFERENCED BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PAGES 38,39,53,54,55,56,57,59,60, AND 61 OF EXHIBIT D. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (MR. ALLARD WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSURE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PAGES 38,39,53,54,55,56,57,59,60, AND 61 OF EXHIBIT D. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Financial Institutions Audits - Page 767 Lot Rent Trust Subsidy - Page 799 MRS. EVANS MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSURE OF THE ABOVE- REFERENCED BUDGETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS LISTED ON PAGES 40 AND 58 OF EXHIBIT D. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (MR. ALLARD WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSURE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED BUDGETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS LISTED ON PAGES 40 AND 58 OF EXHIBIT D. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * There being no further business before the committee, Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman DATE: Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Finance Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Joint Subcommittee on General Government April 21, 1995