MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
May 12, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:38 a.m., on Monday, May 12, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. David Goldwater
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mike Chapman, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 457 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning collection of debts by state agencies and State Controller. (BDR 31-102)
Assembly Bill 481: Makes various changes concerning state financial administration. (BDR 31-101)
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, testified in favor of A.B. 457 and A.B. 481, Exhibit C, “Nevada State Controller’s Office, Proposed Changes to Debt Collection Program, A.B. 457 and A.B. 481” and Exhibit D, “Nevada Department of Taxation, Proposed Amendment to A.B. 457 First Reprint” were presented to the Committee.
Ms. Augustine introduced two distinguished guests from China, Lou Huong, Director of the Regulation Draft and Research Division of the Treasury Department, and Jane Chen, Senior Staff Accounting Regulatory Department member. Ms. Augustine stated that Mr. Huong and Ms. Chen were visiting the State Controller’s office, as they were interested in implementing a Security Exchange Council in the People’s Republic of China.
Chairman Arberry welcomed Mr. Huong and Ms. Chen to the Nevada Legislature and the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. Augustine read the following statement into the record:
One of my top priorities has been and continues to be collecting the state’s receivables, which now exceed $118 million. We have developed a plan to collect debt owed state agencies and supported S.B. 500 during the 1999 Legislative Session which set in motion a concentrated effort to meet this objective. The amount of monies owed the state of Nevada at that time was quite literally anyone’s guess. Procedures were developed to implement consistent statewide policies as timely debt collection is imperative to meet future funding requirements and securing the state’s financial well-being.
In April of 2001, the Board of Examiners approved contracts between the State Controller and two private debt collection companies, OSI Collection Services, Inc. and RecoverMetrics in association with Nevada based Crisis Recovery, to assist in recovery efforts of monies owed the State. OSI is the largest provider of accounts receivable management in the United States, servicing 26 states. Both Crisis Recovery and RecoverMetrics have extensive experience in the identification of fraud and collection of institutional debt, using forensic loss recovery techniques to recover corporate debts over $25,000. Costs to the state are minimized because the fees to the debt collection agencies are based on a percentage of collections and are passed along to the debtor, except when the debt is under $200.
Studies have shown that it is more cost-effective for states to use outside agencies for debt collection and this has also been noted in a Government Finance Officer’s Association publication we have included in your packets.
In fact, there is currently a national task force exploring the feasibility of the IRS using private collection companies to recover debt.
The real “nuts and bolts” of our debt collection efforts lie in Assembly Bill 314 of the last legislative session. The State Controller is now authorized to act as the centralized point of collection for all state agencies. Centralizing the revenue collection function and designating responsibility for collecting delinquent accounts in our office achieve the following goals:
· Uniform and consistent collection efforts
· Consolidation of accounts that combine debts of one debtor for several agencies
· Centralization of information on one debtor who may use various names
· Identification of other responsible parties
· Reduction of payments to debtors of the State of Nevada through offsets
· Increased collection when debts include penalties and/or cancellation of permits, licenses or services
To date, 12 Interlocal contracts have been signed with the State Controller’s Office; a list of these agencies, boards and commissions is also included in your packet. A.B. 314 also mandated the State Controller to prepare and maintain a list of debtors available for public inspection and request the State Controller to remove debts designated as “bad debts” from the books of the state. Additionally, it allows contracts with private debt collection agencies to include costs of collection and fees for collecting the debt.
My office has taken the following steps to recover monies:
· In December of 2001, we mailed out over 6,000 letters to citizens whose checks were returned to the DMV for insufficient funds informing them they were being turned over for collection. Their driver’s licenses, permits, and vehicle registrations were ‘flagged’ in the DMV system and suspended if restitution was not made by December 31, 2001. The remaining accounts were turned over to OSI for collection. To date, $1,414,612.79 has been recovered.
· A warrant offset program was also initiated at the beginning of last year in conjunction with the Department of Taxation and the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) to flag the accounts of businesses or individuals that owe back taxes to the state. This program is now available to all state agencies. Warrant offset and vendor holds have resulted in almost $295,000 cost savings.
· We are also involved in payroll overpayment recovery and have collected approximately $34,600 from former state employees who were overpaid upon their termination from state service.
Recovery efforts have been lax in the past because the state had ample surpluses to cover state expenses. The mandated, rather than permissive, centralization of debt collection for the state in the State Controller’s Office will enhance the state’s ability to recover outstanding debt.
A.B. 457 mandates all state agencies, with the exception of the Department of Taxation (who has chosen to recover their own debt using one of our collection agencies), turn over their old debt to the State Controller’s Office for collection. In the original language in A.B. 457 was the repeal of the $200 restriction for reimbursement of costs and fees to the state. The bill was amended in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee to retain the $200 cap on fees. Currently, the state cannot pass on charges incurred to collect the delinquent debt to debtors owing $200 or less. Internal auditors have stated that “it seems more equitable to charge the public uniformly for expenses incurred in debt collection regardless of the amount and it benefits the state to recoup all monies expended in this effort.”
The bill also increases the maximum ‘pass on’ charge from $25,000 to $50,000 and eliminates the sunset on our pilot program of suspending licenses and registrations at the DMV and Department of Wildlife.
Finally, A.B. 457 gives the State Controller the authorization to write off uncollectible debts under $500 and debts where the cost to collect exceeds the receivables amount.
A.B. 481 creates a statewide program of withholding licenses and would allow the State Controller’s Office to develop consistent statewide standards for fees, fines, statute of limitations and the ability to charge a returned check fee. The Controller’s Office through its pilot program with the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Division of Wildlife can “flag” and suspend driver’s licenses, permits, and vehicle registrations until the debt owed is paid in full. A.B. 481 would continue to build on the success of our pilot program by making the program permanent and expanding the suspension of licenses to include professional licensure. Additionally, A.B. 481 would create a uniform statewide fee of $25 for non-sufficient funds checks.
My Chief Accountant of our Debt Collection Section, Christi Thompson, will now walk you through the bills.
Christi Thompson, Chief Accountant, State of Nevada Controller’s Office, testified in favor of A.B. 457 and A.B. 481. Exhibit E, “State of Nevada Controller’s Office Receivables as of 12-31-02” was submitted to the Committee.
Ms. Thompson read the following statement into the record:
The handout you have just received lists $8.0 million of debt referred through our office to the two debt collection vendors. In addition, our office has received another $1.5 million of Department of Corrections’ accounts we will be turning over to one of the debt collection vendors this week. We are also expecting a settlement shortly on the large EPA account from the debt collection vendor, RecoverMetrics, as they had a joint meeting with EPA and the debtor last week.
Ms. Thompson explained the proposed changes to the debt collection process in A.B. 457.
Section 2 would authorize the Controller’s Office to adopt regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353C. This proposal was needed to achieve the goal of centralized debt collection. Currently, the Department of Administration and the Attorney General could jointly adopt regulations.
Section 3 would change the procedure for periodic reports of debts owed to agencies to have the Controller’s Office prescribe the time, form, and manner of the reports. This change would allow the agency receiving the forms, the Controller’s Office, to change the form. The current statute states the Department of Administration and Attorney General prescribe the form. Section 3 would also be amended so that if a debt were proven to be owed to the state, the confidentiality statute would not apply unless superceded by a federal law in order to have uniform and consistent treatment of agencies.
Ms. Thompson continued with her presentation by stating that Section 5 would increase the maximum charge to be passed on to debtors to $50,000. The current maximum for large settlements was $25,000; therefore, $25,000 could be saved.
Section 5 also addressed defaults or lapses in payment plans. If a debtor defaulted on a payment plan and any payment lapsed by a year, or a debtor had only made a partial payment as a settlement and a year lapsed, the Controller’s Office would be allowed to calculate and add on fees again, even if the maximum fees had already been reached. This proposal created an incentive for a debtor to adhere to their payment plan and allowed the state of Nevada to start the collection process again if a year lapsed without payment.
Section 6 would make assigning debt collection to the Controller’s Office mandatory instead of optional, excluding the Department of Taxation. The proposed change was needed to achieve the goal of centralized debt collection and obtain economies of scale and made it unnecessary to complete an interlocal agreement for every agency.
Ms. Thompson said Section 9 would eliminate the sunset on the pilot program with the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Wildlife of withholding licenses. Withholding licenses would give the Controller’s Office additional leverage to use when collecting debt.
In Section 1 of A.B. 457 the Controller’s Office was requesting authority to not refund overpayments under $35 unless requested by the payer. Some debtor’s rounded off the amount paid and checks for less than $1 were refunded. The estimated cost to issue one check was between $4 and $5.
Section 6 stated that when an agency turned over a debt to the Controller’s Office, the agency would stop accruing additional fees except for interest charges at a rate to be determined by the Controller’s Office. This addition would ensure uniform and consistent treatment among agencies and would save time in reconciling accounts turned over to debt collection vendors to agencies’ accounts.
Section 8 of A.B. 457 would give the Controller’s Office authority to write off uncollectible debts under $500 and debts where the cost to collect exceeded the debt. Ms. Thompson stated that this process would not keep the account from being collected at a later date if the debt was determined to be collectible.
Ms. Thompson addressed two sections of A.B. 481.
Section 2 would create a program of withholding professional licenses in addition to licenses issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Wildlife. This proposed addition would provide additional leverage when collecting debt.
Ms. Thompson stated that the proposed addition in Section 3 would allow the Controller’s Office to develop consistent statewide standards for fees, fines, statute of limitations, and the ability to charge a returned check fee. The statewide standards would supercede an individual agency’s statutes, excluding the Department of Taxation and Gaming Control. The addition was needed in order to have uniform and consistent treatment among agencies.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how the Controller’s Office used the services of the Attorney General’s Office in collection efforts.
Ms. Augustine stated that at the present time the Attorney General’s Office was not used at all unless a debt had been contested in the Controller’s Office and an agreement could not be reached. To date, only one account had been turned over to the Attorney General for legal action.
Mr. Marvel stated that he thought at one time the process had been established so that the Attorney General did the prosecution for the Controller’s Office.
Ms. Augustine said, yes, that had been true, however, the previous Controller had been submitting debts for very small amounts, which the Attorney General’s office had not been handling.
Mr. Marvel inquired as to how many of those collections were in bankruptcy.
Ms. Augustine responded that what the Committee had been provided was only the estimated collections at approximately 25 percent. Most of the bankruptcies were in the Department of Taxation and were excluded from the bill.
Ms. Thompson commented that the Controller’s Office had very few accounts that were in bankruptcy; however, the Department of Taxation had a large number of accounts that were in bankruptcy.
Mr. Marvel stated that he had heard in the past that the Automated Collection Enforcement System (ACES) program in the Department of Taxation did not have the capability of writing-off bad debts and asked if that was correct.
Ms. Augustine stated that she was not sure whether that was correct or not, but A.B. 457 and A.B. 481 completely excluded the Department of Taxation. The estimated amount that the Controller’s Office believed they could collect with the mandate at 25 percent would be approximately $12 million and also excluded the Department of Taxation.
Mr. Marvel asked if the majority of delinquencies at the Department of Motor Vehicles were bad checks.
Ms. Augustine replied that the majority was insufficient funds checks.
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation, commented regarding a proposed amendment to A.B. 457. The concern of the Department of Taxation with respect to A.B. 457 and A.B. 481 was that the Department was excluded as an agency with respect to NRS 353C. Mr. DiCianno stated the reason the Department of Taxation believed the amendment was needed was because it made little sense to attempt to recoup small debts by spending more than the original debt.
Mr. DiCianno presented a proposed amendment to A.B. 457, Section 8, paragraph 3 (Exhibit D), as follows: If the State Controller or the Department of Taxation determines that it is impossible or impractical to collect a debt of $500 or less, he may designate the debt as a bad debt.
Mr. DiCianno said that with respect to another particular section of A.B. 457, he felt he had to make it clear for the record concerning debt owed to the Department of Taxation for sales tax and business tax, that there were strict confidentiality requirements about releasing that information. Mr. DiCianno cautioned the Committee that should not occur.
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, testified in support of A.B. 457 and A.B. 481. Mr. Colling stated that both of those bills would allow the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to continue its debt collection efforts. The DMV would continue with the present policy of turning their debt over to the Controller’s Office, after the DMV efforts had been exhausted, to be submitted to a debt collection agency. Mr. Colling said the DMV continued to have a very successful program of bad debt collection. This was the third year in a row that the DMV had collected more money in principal, fees, and fines in bad debts than had been written to the DMV.
Chairman Arberry asked if A.B. 457 and A.B. 481 would help, hinder, or keep the status quo for the DMV.
Mr. Colling stated the bills would eliminate the sunset on the pilot program of withholding licenses from the DMV and Department of Wildlife, which would help the state as a whole. It would also allow other agencies to make use of the DMV’s contact with individuals who had incurred debt.
Exhibit E, “State of Nevada Controller’s Office Receivables as of 12-31-02,” and Exhibit F, “State of Nevada Outside Bank Reconciliations as of February 28, 2003,” were presented to the Committee.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 457 and A.B. 481 closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 535.
Assembly Bill 535: Makes appropriation for reimbursement of costs incurred by private nonprofit sponsors of summer food service programs. (BDR S‑861)
Anne Keast, Director, Child Nutrition and School Health, Nevada Department of Education, read the following testimony into the record:
My name is Anne Keast, Director, Child Nutrition and School Health, Nevada Department of Education. I am here today to address Assembly Bill No. 535, which is proposing to make appropriation for reimbursement of costs incurred by private nonprofit sponsors of Summer Food Service Programs (SFSP).
Let me say that I think this is a miracle. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Legislature has addressed the need to fund food programs for hungry children. Funding, in addition to the United States Department of Agriculture Child Nutrition Program appropriations, is certainly needed to assist those program sponsors who are working so diligently to feed children on a “shoe‑string” budget.
I would like to provide you with two definitions:
· Food insecurity is defined by the USDA as “lack of assured access at all times to enough food for healthy, active lives.”
· Hunger is defined as “having insufficient food or insufficient resources to acquire enough food to meet daily nutrition requirements.”
The USDA’s 2000 Food Security Research data combined with the Census 2000 data shows that there are 102,856 households in Nevada whose annual income is under $15,000 per year. At the time of the research, there were 33,237 families with children who live below the poverty line, which includes 14.5 percent of Nevada’s children. 8.4 percent of Nevada’s population are food insecure and almost 4 percent are food insecure with hunger. We know the number has increased since September 11, 2001.
To be more specific, for FY2002-03 in Clark County School District schools there are 76,166 children eligible for free meals and 14,579 children eligible for reduced price meals for a total of 90,745 children. Of the 227 schools in Clark County on the National School Lunch/Breakfast Programs, 98 schools or 43 percent have more than half the students eligible. Thirty-six schools have more than 80 percent needy and 8 schools have over 95 percent needy.
In Washoe County School District schools there are 13,872 children eligible for free meals and 4,653 eligible for reduced price meals for a total of 18,525 children. Of the 96 schools in Washoe County on the National School Lunch/Breakfast Program, 29 schools or 30 percent have more than half the students eligible.
The balance of the state has 16,558 children eligible for free and reduced price meals. Of these 121 schools on the National School Lunch/Breakfast Program, 25 schools or 21 percent have more than half the students eligible.
For the state as a whole, of the 447 schools on the National School Lunch/Breakfast Program, 152 schools or 34 percent have more than half the students eligible for free and reduced price meals.
Each of these 125,828 children is also eligible for meals under the Summer Food Service Program across Nevada. Last year, only a dismal 6 percent of the eligible children had access to meals through the Summer Food Service Program. This summer we expect to have 30 SFSP sponsors meeting the needs of both the children on summer break and the off-track year-round children. Nevada is one of the few states nationwide who operate Summer Food Service Programs year-round.
The National School Lunch/Breakfast Program also provides meal reimbursement to 15 Residential Child Care Institution sponsors.
During FY2002:
· Through the Summer Food Service Program, 481,641 breakfast, lunch, supper, and snacks were served to children.
· Through the National School Lunch/Breakfast Program, Nevada served 45,660,775 meals to eligible children.
· The Child and Adult Care Food Program provided meals to 3,333,983 children. These meals are provided in child care centers, head start programs, day care homes, outside school hour programs, homeless shelters, and adult day care facilities.
During FY2002, the total number of meals served to Nevada children according to the federal meal count reports was 49,476,379. In addition, through the Special Milk Program, 1,160,319 half-pints of milk were served to children.
Nevada received $44,955,933 for FY2002 from the USDA to provide breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks to children participating in the National School Lunch/Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Special Milk Program. These funds were not adequate to meet the needs of all program sponsors. (Attachment A)
The cost of feeding children in Nevada’s public schools alone for FY2002 was $71,600,522. The total federal revenue to the school districts was $38,288,717. Of the 17 school districts, only four broke even. Storey County was flat because they have meals vended by Washoe County. They eliminated their food service program due to budget shortfalls. (Attachment B)
The state legislated contribution for 2002 was $170,503. These funds only cover administrative salaries.
My plea is that we not “put all our eggs” in one basket. All of the Child Nutrition Programs (CNP) need help. This $700,000 could be spread out into future years and assist school districts, Summer Food Service Program sponsors, and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) sponsors to meet their budget shortfalls. The need for state assistance is great across all programs. We need to develop a sustainable infrastructure to meet the financial needs of those sponsors in all Child Nutrition Programs. Strong criteria supportive of USDA guidelines and regulations must be included as part of the disbursement procedures.
All Child Nutrition Programs are highly regulated because of nationwide fraudulent practices. We are working hard in Nevada to monitor this. We must assure that all programs are administered by responsible and accountable sponsors. Any reimbursement, both federal and state, must be tied to auditable claims, accurate meal counts, and documented nutritional quality. The Nevada Department of Education is charged with compliance of the USDA’s Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations as it relates to the integrity of programs and program sponsors.
In closing, we must focus on the whole child, regardless of age. As we all know, a hungry child is one who cannot learn. We talk about “No Child Left Behind.” Those children who are hungry are going to be left behind. Maslow’s hierarchy has proven that if the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are not met, then do not expect to see our children advance up the ladder to self- actualization.
Thank you for your time, your interest and support, and your commitment to the needy children of Nevada.
Exhibit G, “Testimony of Anne C. Keast with Attachment A and Attachment B,” was presented to the Committee.
Assemblywoman Leslie stated that she had worked with the Summer Food Service Program in Reno many years ago when it had been operated through the Community Services Agency and she was aware of what a good program it was. As Ms. Leslie recalled, at that time, the federal government reimbursed administrative expenses, and she asked if that had changed. Ms. Keast replied that had not changed.
Ms. Leslie asked if there was a gap between the federal reimbursement and the cost for the non-profits of running the program. Ms. Keast stated that she believed there was a gap. The nonprofits were only allowed up to 8 percent reimbursement for administrative costs, so it depended upon the program and the financial viability of the agency running the program.
Ms. Leslie restated for clarification that the federal government allowed up to 8 percent of the cost of the program to be used for administration, therefore, A.B. 535 was intended to fill the gap between the 8 percent and whatever it cost the program for administration. She asked what it cost an agency for administration. Ms. Keast responded that it depended on the agency and she did not have a definite figure.
Ms. Leslie asked if the Department had a ceiling on the figure for administrative costs. Ms. Keast responded that the Department would allow up to 8 percent.
Ms. Leslie asked how the figure of $700,000, contained in A.B. 535, was ascertained. Ms. Keast stated that she believed Assemblyman Wendell Williams had sponsored the bill and she was not certain how the figure was determined.
Ms. Leslie stated that she thought she saw in Ms. Keast’s written testimony that there were 30 sponsors in the program. Ms. Keast stated that was correct. Ms. Leslie commented that was a lot more than there used to be. Ms. Keast agreed, but stated it still was not enough, especially in Clark County. Ms. Leslie asked if most of the sponsors were in Clark County. Ms. Keast replied that was correct and continued by stating the problem was primarily in Las Vegas. There had been a large influx of population and a high number of needy people.
Ms. Leslie asked if the state had ever added state money to the federal reimbursement. Ms. Keast replied, not to her knowledge.
Mr. Marvel asked who actually distributed the food. Ms. Keast responded that the sponsors were responsible for preparing and distributing the food.
Mr. Marvel asked if the money came to the Department of Education.
Ms. Keast replied that the Department of Education provided the funding.
Mr. Marvel asked who actually got the food out to the children. Ms. Keast stated that whoever sponsored the program, which could be the school district or private nonprofit organizations, distributed the food.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Department of Education had standards for the sponsors. Ms. Keast responded that there were standards.
Mr. Marvel asked if the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided surplus commodities. Ms. Keast stated that sponsors had access to surplus commodity foods and the state Purchasing Division distributed those foods. Nevada was one of the few states where the Child and Nutrition Program at the Department of Education did not distribute commodity foods.
Mr. Marvel restated that sponsors must be qualified by the Department of Education. Ms. Keast replied that was correct. There was an application process, an approval process, and a budget submittal process for sponsors. Sponsors were required to receive mandatory training prior to providing food service and a claims reimbursement process provided funding for the training.
Mr. Marvel asked how many private sponsors were participating in the program. Ms. Keast stated currently there were five private sponsors, primarily in Las Vegas.
Mr. Marvel wondered, as had Ms. Leslie, how the $700,000 figure had been determined. Ms. Keast responded that she did not know and suggested that Assemblyman Williams be asked.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked out of the 30 sponsors, if 5 were “for profits.” Ms. Keast replied that the private for-profit sponsors were in the Child and Adult Care Food programs, not in the Summer Food Service Program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any for-profit sponsors participating in A.B. 535. Ms. Keast replied that to her knowledge there were no for-profit sponsors in the Summer Food Service Program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there had been any former groups that had been approved sponsors that had been removed from the program. Ms. Keast replied that there were. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any sponsors presently under investigation. Ms. Keast replied that there were.
Ms. Giunchigliani submitted that the way A.B. 535 had been written, sponsors that were under investigation for misusing funds could still qualify. Ms. Keast agreed that was correct. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that gave her some discomfort.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the dollar amount for one meal. Ms. Keast stated those were federally regulated dollar amounts and she did not have those statistics with her but would provide that information. Ms. Keast estimated approximately $1.00 to $1.35 per meal. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the 8 percent administrative cost came out of the per meal price, or if it was in addition. Ms. Keast stated it was in addition.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the reimbursement of claims would be for. Ms. Keast stated reimbursement for the feeding programs was through a claims reimbursement process. Sponsors were required to document the number of meals eaten and the nutritional quality of those meals had to be verified. Those claims were submitted on a monthly basis for reimbursement. The Summer Food Service Program had the advantage of providing an advance and some of the sponsors could apply for advance funds. That advance was then deducted from the claim at the time of payment.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested a list of the sponsors that had been approved, those previously approved, and those under investigation and for what types of abuses. Ms. Keast agreed to provide that list.
Reverend Chester Richardson testified in favor of A.B. 535. Rev. Richardson stated that the issue of feeding hungry children in Nevada was “near and dear to his heart and something I have been involved with for a very long time.” Rev. Richardson stated he was a product of the free lunch program from years ago. He stated he could not express to the Committee how much it had meant at the time to have food.
Rev. Richardson stated that his home had been broken into seven times and every time just food had been stolen. There was such a need to feed children in many communities in the state. Rev. Richardson stated that less than 5 percent of the children eligible for food services in Nevada were receiving them.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 535 closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 544.
Assembly Bill 544: Establishes for next biennium amount to be paid by this state for group insurance for certain public employees, public officers and retired public employees. (BDR S-1342)
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, explained A.B. 544 by stating that the bill would authorize the state’s share of premium costs on behalf of state employees in each year of the upcoming biennium. Those amounts were based upon the amounts recommended by the Governor in The Executive Budget, $495.68 per month in the first year of the biennium and $558.07 in the second year of the biennium. Those figures appeared on lines 6 and 7 of A.B. 544.
Section 2 of A.B. 544 set the base amount for the state subsidy for retirees. Based upon years of service a retiree would receive a subsidy of the base amount. Mr. Stevens stated it topped out at 20 years and the maximum for a retiree with 20 years of service was 137.5 percent of the base amount. As a retiree had more years of service, the state paid a higher percentage of the base amount.
Mr. Stevens stated that he believed the Committee would be discussing a number of Public Employees’ Benefits Program bills that had been in Committee today. Mr. Stevens said that he did not know the total amount built into the budget based upon those additional amounts, but it was included in The Executive Budget at the rates stated in A.B. 544.
Mr. Stevens said there was an issue in Section 2 of A.B. 544 concerning the retired employee group insurance amount. That amount was not built correctly into The Executive Budget and there had been some discussion in the General Government subcommittee regarding that point. The total amount that needed to be added if the base rates listed on lines 13 and 14 in A.B. 544 were financed, would be approximately $5.3 million in total funding over the biennium. Mr. Stevens noted that the General Government subcommittee had reviewed the matter a number of times. The Assembly had held on to this particular account and the Senate subcommittee had voted not to fund the $5.3 million, but have the state employee pay more of the amount that would be required to pay the group insurance premium. The full Senate Finance Committee had added the $5.3 million into the budget to fund the base rates.
Mr. Stevens stated that the Public Employees’ Benefits Program account had been closed in subcommittee, but the Retired Employee Group Insurance budget had not. Mr. Stevens commented that if he had read the Committee correctly, the members were leaning toward either adding the $5.3 million or adding the $5.3 million and having that be taken in vacancy savings in each of the agencies’ budgets. Either plan would require the application of the base rate in the next biennium.
Mrs. Chowning commented that Mr. Stevens’ assessment was correct on the Assembly side in the General Government Subcommittee. Although there was no vote taken, the feeling had been that the error in The Executive Budget “should not be put on the backs of the retirees.”
P. Forrest Thorne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefits Program, testified in support of A.B. 544. Mr. Thorne stated that the amounts included in the bill were the amounts that The Executive Budget had been based upon and were included in the Public Employees’ Benefits Program budget over the next biennium.
Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance, testified in support of A.B. 544. Mr. Richardson stated for the record that the health plan was having some difficult times and even with those increases of approximately 6 percent and 12 percent for the biennium, the health plan had changed dramatically for the worse. The deductibles had doubled, there were “add-on deductibles,” and other benefits had been cut. Mr. Richardson commented that the health plan was in a desperate situation and hoped the Committee would look with favor on A.B. 544 which might stabilize the situation in the coming biennium.
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in support of A.B. 544. Mr. MacKenzie stated that the health insurance for public employees and retirees had gone through quite a bit in the past few months and had been moving toward catastrophic insurance with high deductibles. It did not appear that the trend toward rising health insurance costs was going to end anytime soon. Mr. MacKenzie said he believed that A.B. 544 was critical to the state meeting their obligations as to their part of the cost of the health insurance.
Marty Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 544. Mr. Bibb stated that restoration of the subsidy amounts provided for in the bill were crucial to active and retired state employees. Going back to 1999, there had been numerous cuts and policy plan changes, making it difficult for those in the plan. Mr. Bibb said that the concern expressed by the Assembly Ways and Means delegation to the General Government Subcommittee was especially appreciated.
Danny Coyle, President, State of Nevada Employees Association Retiree Chapter, testified in support of A.B. 544. Mr. Coyle stated that while his organization did not believe A.B. 544 was enough support for the retirees, he was happy to see even that much and hoped the Committee would take it under consideration.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 544 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 201.
Senate Bill 201 (1st Reprint): Revises limitations on amount of fees that State Emergency Response Commission may impose for certain services of Commission or activities relating to extremely hazardous materials. (BDR 40-1047)
Richard Mirgon, Director of Communications, Douglas County, and Co-chairman of the State Emergency Response Commission, testified in support of S.B. 201. Mr. Mirgon stated that S.B. 201 was the sister bill to A.B. 486 and the only difference between the two bills was that S.B. 201 had a cap of $15,000.
Mr. Mirgon stated as a summary, the intent of S.B. 201 was to increase the cap on the fees to people who stored hazardous materials.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that S.B. 201 had been introduced because the Assembly had another bill that only went up to $7,500 and she inquired as to what Mr. Mirgon believed was the best bill for the issue of hazardous material.
Mr. Mirgon responded that S.B. 201, with a cap of $15,000, was the best option. That bill resulted from a Senate subcommittee hearing, which increased the amount so that the State Emergency Response Commission would not have to return to the Legislature in two to four years to request an increase in the amount. The commitment with the industry was that the State Emergency Response Commission would not ask the industry to exceed $7,200.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that S.B. 201 was anticipating future needs so that fees would not have to be raised repeatedly. Mr. Mirgon responded that was correct.
Mr. Marvel asked if S.B. 201 would deter the storage of hazardous materials.
Mr. Mirgon replied that was part of the intent, because if you stored more materials, you paid a higher fee. One of the concerns with the lower amount had been that once you reached that amount, you could store all you wanted.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing on S.B. 201 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 407.
Senate Bill 407 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from reclassification of position. (BDR S-1225)
Ron Sparks, Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), testified in support of S.B. 407. Mr. Sparks stated S.B. 407 would provide an appropriation for a shortfall in funds resulting from a reclassification of a position. The WICHE was a very small agency with only three employees and when a situation of this type occurred it was necessary for them to appear before the Legislature. The situation occurred because funds were collected in one account and spent in another. The WICHE was going to have a very large amount of reversion money coming into the Loan and Stipend Fund, so it was being taken from one account and given to another.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that LCB staff had done an analysis regarding the actual salary adjustment revision projection and it appeared that what the WICHE really needed was $112 and asked Mr. Sparks to speak to that.
Mr. Sparks stated that amount would have to be added back into the amount the agency was going to be short.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $3,400 could be reduced by $900. Mr. Sparks replied that it could be reduced by $900, but the $112 would have to be added back in because it was not considered in the original process. In order to make it balance, $3,400 could be reduced by $900, but $112 would have to be added. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if $2,500 would be the total required. Mr. Sparks replied the figure would be $2,500 plus $112 for a total of $2,612.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing on S.B. 407 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 410.
Senate Bill 410 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from certain increased costs. (BDR S-1267)
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, testified in support of S.B. 410. Mr. Colling stated that the request for supplemental appropriation in S.B. 410 had been submitted in January 2003 and, since that time, the Department had continually reviewed the status of the program. Alternative programs and savings had been initiated where practical. Mr. Colling stated he was before the Committee to request a supplemental appropriation of $370,000.
Mr. Colling said the original request was to cover projected postage expenditures due to increased volume and postage rates. Upon further review, the Department had discovered four areas of concern:
· Maintenance agreements
· Microfilm costs
· Professional services
· Postage and mailing increases
The maintenance agreement costs were those costs associated with microfilm cameras with the optical character recognition capability. The service company was having a great deal of difficulty continuing to provide service according to Mr. Colling. Costs were projected to be $22,411 over budget for this particular item. Mr. Colling pointed out that in the upcoming biennium the Department had requested funding to replace the equipment.
Mr. Colling stated that micrographic costs had increased due to an increase in volume. An additional shift had been added to attempt to address the volume issue. The Department anticipated a need for an additional $24,296 for micrographic costs.
The professional services payments were for increased costs paid to the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators for access to national driver’s license information. Those costs had increased $68,562 over the base fiscal year. The Department was billed according to the number of record inquiries and the number of records on file.
Postage expenses were the largest item in the request. Mr. Colling stated that the Department was projecting that postage expense would be $251,770 over the authority level. Increased postage rates and an increase in the volume of mailing were an integral part of why the Department was before the Legislature with the request. The Department had initiated mailings for personalized and special license plates in order to prevent the customer from having to make an additional trip to field offices to pick up the plates. The Department had increased the mailing of requested forms, driver handbooks, and decals; promoted the use of alternative services, such as the Internet, through television and radio commercials; and, distributed informational inserts with the renewal notices and advertised on Department envelopes. Mr. Colling stated the use of those alternative services had affected the Central Services Budget by increasing postal expenses, but minimized the impact of fuel services by encouraging the customer to not visit a field office.
Mr. Marvel asked if this appropriation would come from the Highway Fund. Mr. Colling responded that it would be from the Highway Fund. Mr. Marvel inquired if the Department was staying close to the 22 percent. Mr. Colling replied that Department calculations showed that they were still under the 22 percent for this fiscal year.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the total amount of $370,000 was from the Highway Fund. Mr. Colling replied that the total was from the Highway Fund.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked on behalf of those Committee members on the subcommittee, if those increases were built-in for the next biennium, or if it would have to be dealt with again. Mr. Colling replied that those increased costs were built into the Department’s budget. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the supplemental was still needed and Mr. Colling informed her the supplemental was for FY2003.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what percentage the postage and mailing costs had increased in order to avoid the situation happening again over the next biennium. Mr. Colling replied that he did not have those figures but would supply them.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 410 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 493.
Senate Bill 493 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Office of the Military for unanticipated shortfall in money for utility costs in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (BDR S-1335)
Colonel Cindy Kirkland, Chief of Staff, Nevada Air National Guard, testified in support of S.B. 493. Col. Kirkland noted that she did not mean any disrespect by appearing before the Committee in a casual uniform, but she was dressed in support of troops who had been deployed to Iraq and until those troops returned home safely, all Air Guard uniformed personnel would be dressing in that uniform. Col. Kirkland introduced Miles Celio, Administrative Officer II, Office of the Military, state of Nevada.
Mr. Celio stated that S.B. 493 was a supplemental appropriation for the Office of the Military to fund an unanticipated shortfall for utility costs for FY2003. Those costs were a result of increased utility rates and increased utility usage. The increased usage was a result of the mobilization of the Army and Air Guard members who were deployed in support of the war in Iraq. The Air National Guard base was affected by an increase, which averaged $7,000 per month. A number of Army National Guard Armories that were used for the mobilization process were affected as well.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 493 closed and recessed the meeting.
Chairman Arberry reconvened the meeting at 8:52 a.m.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
ETHICS COMMISSION, BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1343
BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-66
Mr. Stevens commented on Budget Account 1343 and stated there were three closing issues.
According to Mr. Stevens the first issue of restoring base funding in decision unit E-275 would increase funding for the operation of the Ethics Commission by approximately $25,000 in each year of the biennium. Additional funding was recommended for out-of-state travel, in-state travel, operating, court reporting services, and equipment for a security and panic alarm system.
The second item related to funding that was not recommended by the Governor but was requested by the Ethics Commission. Mr. Stevens said that $15,000 had been requested for paralegal services in each year of the biennium. The Commission would contract on an hourly basis with the LCB Legal Division for additional work they felt they might need in the upcoming biennium. Mr. Stevens stated that while there was no funding recommended in The Executive Budget for investigations, the Commission had requested $10,000 in each year of the biennium for investigation services that might be needed. The Commission had also requested funding for some replacement computer equipment in the amount of $1,880 in FY2004 and in the amount of $3,235 in FY2005. If those items were approved there would be adjustments to the amounts based upon the latest pricing from State Purchasing.
The final item was a potential cost allocation of Commission expenses. Mr. Stevens explained that testimony during the Ethics Commission’s budget hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means indicated that this budget was supported 100 percent from the General Fund while a majority of the Commission’s workload was generated from local governments. The Committee had requested information from the Commission that outlined which entities generated the Commission’s workload over the past few years. The Commission had responded and indicated that over calendar years 2001 and 2002, state government generated 35 percent of the Commission’s workload while county and city governments generated 65 percent of the workload. The Commission indicated that if the agency’s budget was cost allocated between state and local governments, the assessment could be based on the population of each city and county, excluding unincorporated cities and towns and cities with populations under 10,000. This would result in local governments being responsible for approximately 65 percent of the Commission’s budget during the upcoming biennium. Mr. Stevens stated that one of the things the Committee needed to decide was whether the Ethics Commission should be funded 100 percent by General Funds or some of their costs should be cost allocated to local governments.
Mr. Stevens stated that another item for consideration in Budget Account 1343 was the request for a host fund in the amount of $500 for each year of the biennium to provide beverages to the Commission members during lengthy hearings.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the Committee should probably look at some form of cost allocation for this budget account and asked if Mr. Stevens could briefly explain the system.
Mr. Stevens stated the Ethics Commission had outlined for calendar years 2001 and 2002 the total requests for opinions that had been received. By source, the entities that requested opinions equated to 65 percent of the workload being non-state government related. The proposal by the Ethics Commission would exclude cities and towns under 10,000 population and non-state entities would be charged a percentage of the 65 percent total according to their population.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested that the Budget Division comment on the request for the host account.
Andrew Clinger, Deputy Budget Administrator, Administration Department, Budget Division, stated that his department supported the request for the host fund based upon the number of hearings held by the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Marvel inquired as to what the members of the Ethics Commission were paid per meeting. Mr. Clinger replied that he did not know.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED THAT $15,000 BE ALLOCATED OVER THE BIENNIUM FOR PARALEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES AND ALLOW THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE IF MORE FUNDS WERE NEEDED. ANY UNUSED PORTION OF THE ALLOCATED FUNDS WOULD REVERT TO THE GENERAL FUND. MOTION INCLUDED APPROVAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COST ALLOCATION PROGRAM AND THE SHIFTING OF FUNDS FOR THE PROPOSED HOST ACCOUNT IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Marvel asked if there was a program in place to assess local governments.
Mr. Stevens responded that under the method being proposed by the Commission, cities and towns with less than 10,000 population would be excluded, the remaining entities’ populations would be totaled and the cost allocation would be determined based upon their percentage of the population in the state. Local governments had been responsible for 65 percent of the Commission’s activity over the past two calendar years. Sixty-five percent would be the base and that would be multiplied by the local government’s specific percentage to arrive at the amount for which a local entity would be responsible.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Ethics Commission had contacted any local entities regarding cost allocation. Mr. Stevens stated he did not know.
Ms. McClain stated she was a little confused and did not understand why, if Clark County requested an opinion 15 percent of the time, they would be charged 70 percent of the cost.
Mr. Stevens responded that cost allocation could be based upon population or based upon past history as to the amount of opinions generated. It had been pointed out that the City of Las Vegas had previously had its own ethics group that was no longer functioning; therefore, the Ethics Commission was anticipating 125 percent increase in opinion requests in the future. Mr. Stevens stated the Committee could choose to implement the cost allocation either way, or not implement it at all.
Ms. McClain asked if each claim, rather than population numbers, could determine the cost allocation to non-state entities.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it could be done any way the Committee wanted: just provide an idea. Clark County was driving the majority of the costs and it would probably get worse.
Chairman Arberry suggested that since it was unknown exactly what the impact would be from the City of Las Vegas eliminating its Ethics Board, perhaps the request should be approved as it was presently proposed, then the cost allocation could be reviewed during the next legislative session for possible revision.
Mrs. Chowning stated that if the Committee approved the cost allocation system, they would have to decide between population or the previous usage amount as the method of assessment. Mrs. Chowning said she was inclined to prefer the “direct bill” type of assessment as opposed to population assessment because it seemed more fair.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Giunchigliani whether her motion included the type of cost allocation.
Ms. Giunchigliani responded that her motion included the establishment of a cost allocation program, but did not specify what type of cost allocation. She further noted that the estimates would be somewhat skewed because the City of Las Vegas previously had their own ethics commission and now they would be using the services of the state Ethics Commission.
Chairman Arberry stated that was why he had made the comment that the City of Las Vegas was an unknown factor at the present time.
Ms. McClain stated perhaps the Ethics Commission could establish a set fee so that whatever entity used their services would pay the cost for that service.
Mr. Stevens asked if an entity would be charged when it filed or when the matter was concluded. The entity would have to be able to generate the cash to pay their bills. Mr. Stevens commented that if a set fee was established some thought would have to go into how and when the assessment would be made so that the entity would not be underfunded during the upcoming biennium.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Committee wanted to fund the Ethics Commission with General Fund and then have them establish a cost allocation plan for the next legislative session.
Chairman Arberry stated that he would prefer not to use General Funds at the present time.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the Committee would have to choose a cost allocation plan or use General Funds.
Chairman Arberry noted there was a motion on the floor.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE A SUNSET ON THE POPULATION COST ALLOCATION AND REQUIRE THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO RETURN TO THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION WITH A COST ALLOCATION PLAN BASED UPON THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES IN THE BIENNIUM.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL REAFFIRMED HIS SECOND.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COMMISSION ON TOURISM, BUDGET ACCOUNT 225-1522
BUDGET PAGE TOUR&ECON-19
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented Budget Account 1522 and stated one of the closing issues in the budget was that The Executive Budget included $500,000 in each year of the biennium in the Joint Research Office category for matching funds previously approved for the V&T railroad construction project. S.B. 583, which had been approved by the 2001 Legislature, required that the $1.0 million granted by the Commission on Tourism (COT), but not yet disbursed, remain in the account until disbursed by the Commission for the railroad construction project. LCB staff had made an adjustment to Budget Account 1522 to fully budget $1.0 million in FY2004. If the funds were not expensed at the end of FY2004 they would be balanced forward to FY2005. To better account for this item, the description had been changed to Obligated Reserve for V&T Railroad Project from Joint Research Office. Mr. Guindon noted that the adjustment reduced the reserve by $500,000 in FY2004.
Mr. Guindon stated that the Governor recommended a new Development Specialist II position in decision unit E-175. The salary, associated office equipment, and computer costs were recommended to be funded by a reduction in Contract Services expenses in the Promotion and Advertising category. The Commission stated that the new position would allow the COT to conduct a statewide visitor profile study, which was believed to be a benefit to Nevada’s rural communities. The new position would also allow the Commission to obtain in-house oversight and control over several research projects currently contracted out to an advertising and marketing agency.
Mr. Guindon said the Commission on Tourism was funded by revenues from the 3/8 of 1 percent state room tax. The COT, in preparation for the Governor’s recommended budget, prepared The Executive Budget estimates for the room tax. The current work program amount in FY2002-03 for room tax collections was approximately $11.7 million.
The Commission on Tourism had provided revised estimates for FY2003 of approximately $12 million, which would imply approximately 6.4 percent growth. Mr. Guindon stated that based upon the COT’s revised forecast for FY2003, it was approximately $268,000 higher than the current work program amount, which would imply that the balance forward from FY2003 to FY2004 would increase in the Governor’s recommended budget from $588,868 to $856,662. Staff applied the growth rates recommended by the Governor in The Executive Budget of 3.5 percent in FY2004 to the revised estimate of 4 percent for FY2003. The revised estimates for FY2004-05 would become approximately $12.4 million in FY2004 and approximately $12.9 million in FY2005. Those revised room tax collections estimates were approximately $104,000 higher in FY2004 and approximately $108,000 higher in FY2005 than the amounts included in the Governor’s recommended budget.
The net effect of adjusting for the revised room tax collections for FY2002-03, FY2003-04 and FY2004-05, and calculation of the balance forward amount for each year, would increase the reserve amount by $371,481 in FY2003-04 to $1,078,319 and by $479,286 in FY2004-05 to $1,692,498.
Mr. Guindon said that the Commission provided information to staff that the preferred reserve level would be approximately $1.3 million based on the desire to maintain a reserve of approximately one month’s level of expenditures. The estimate was based on the average over the first three months of actual expenditures for FY2003. Mr. Guindon noted that if this budget was approved, based upon staff’s recommendations, total expenditures would be approximately $12.3 million in FY2004 and approximately $12.4 million in FY2005. This would imply a reserve of $1,030,000 would potentially be sufficient to cover one month’s level of expenditures. The net result would be that adjusting the budget for the updated room collection estimates provided by the COT for FY2003 would produce a reserve in FY2004 approximately $48,000 more than the potential level needed to cover one month’s expenditures. The reserve in FY2005 would be approximately $662,498 more than the level needed to cover one month’s expenditures.
Mr. Guindon explained that in Budget Account 1522 the Governor recommended a transfer of room tax revenues of approximately $123,000 in FY2004 and approximately $717,000 in FY2005 from the Commission on Tourism to the Department of Cultural Affairs to provide funding for operations of the state’s three railroad museums. The Governor also recommended the transfer of approximately $717,000 in FY2005 to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to provide funding for the operation of the state’s parks. Mr. Guindon noted that those transfers reduced the amount of General Fund dollars required to fund the operation of the state’s railroad museums and parks.
Mr. Guindon stated he wanted to make the Committee aware of an item that did not affect the budget with regard to closing it. The federal government had approved approximately $50 million in grant money to be provided to states to promote tourism. The federal grant money, which would require a state match, was intended to allow states to promote primarily in foreign markets but would allow promotion in domestic markets as well. The Commission had indicated to LCB staff that an application for the federal funds had been submitted. Currently, the details regarding the program had not been totally specified, but the Director of the COT had indicated that the intent of the program was to allocate the funds by the end of this calendar year. Mr. Guindon said the Committee should note that in order to receive the federal grant money and obligate the state to a matching requirement, the Commission would be required to obtain approval from the Interim Finance Committee.
Mr. Guindon stated there were three technical adjustments made to Budget Account 1522. The first adjustment was a reduction in the amount needed to purchase overruns of the Nevada Travel Planner that the Commission provided at various conferences and other events. The reduction was approximately $78,000 in each year, which resulted in an increase in the reserve.
The adjustment to decision unit E-710, a reduction of $831 in FY2003-04 and $858 in FY2004-05, for the revised computer prices resulted in an increase in the reserve.
Staff added $339 in decision unit E-720 to include funds for Windows Office software inadvertently omitted in the Governor’s recommendation for a laptop computer.
Mr. Marvel asked if the money used for railroad museums was presently in the budget in the General Fund.
Mr. Stevens responded that the COT had General Funds in their budget and it also received room tax funds.
Mr. Marvel stated he understood Mr. Guindon to say that according to the Governor’s recommendation there would be no General Funds allotted to the railroads.
Mr. Guindon stated that it was his understanding, although he did not have the railroad’s budget account, that there were still General Funds in that account but those transfers would supplant the amount of General Fund needed to fully fund that budget.
Mr. Marvel stated that his original question had been, before the transfer, were the railroads entirely dependent upon General Fund money.
Mr. Stevens stated that in the current fiscal year there was $1.3 million in tourism funds in the railroad museum budget and General Funds of $177,000. In FY2004 the Governor had recommended $123,000 from room tax funds and $1.2 million General Fund appropriation. Two years ago the Commission on Tourism had a very large reserve and the Governor had revised his recommendation to utilize that reserve to offset the General Fund in a number of state agencies such as parks and state museums. It was only “one time” money because it was reserve, therefore, the COT could not continue to fund those agencies at that level and still fund their own operation. Currently, there was not enough room tax to continue that level of funding into the next biennium.
Mr. Marvel asked what would happen to the Commission on Tourism reserve.
Mr. Stevens stated that the reserve, based upon the revised projections of room tax, would contain approximately $1 million in the first year of the biennium and approximately $1 million in the second year of the biennium. Typically, a reserve of at least $1 million had been maintained, but Mr. Stevens believed the COT would prefer to have a reserve larger than $1 million.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if using room tax dollars instead could save General Fund dollars. Mr. Stevens replied that using room tax dollars could save General Fund dollars, but he suggested implementing that plan in the second year of the biennium.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that the reserve did not need to be as high as the COT was requesting. If the reserve were adjusted it would leave some funds available for flexibility issues for other program areas.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED THAT THE RESERVE IN THE V&T RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BE ADJUSTED BY $500,000 IN FY2003-04. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NEW POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II REQUESTED IN DECISION UNIT E-175 . . .
Ms. Giunchigliani requested someone from the COT address the need for a new Development Specialist II position requested in decision unit E-175.
Bruce Bommarito, Executive Director, Commission on Tourism, stated that the Development Specialist II position would be paid out of marketing funds and reallocation of funds. The placement of the new position would allow the COT to eliminate two other research projects and replace them with one research project and the new position.
. . . RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF OTHER CLOSING COST ITEMS, ESTABLISH THE RESERVE IN BUDGET ACCOUNT 1522 AT $1.3 MILLION, ALL TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED TO BE APPROVED AS ADJUSTED BY STAFF, OBLIGATE THE STATE FOR MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE FEDERAL GRANT MONEY AFTER RECEIVING APPROVAL FROM THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF RESERVE FUNDS FOR RAILROAD CAR RESTORATION AND PERFORMING ARTS IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning referred to decision unit E-175, which stated that the COT would conduct a statewide visitor profile study. Since there was no dollar amount attached to the request for the study, Mrs. Chowning asked if the requested position of Development Specialist II would be all that was needed to conduct the visitor profile study.
Mr. Bommarito explained that the Development Specialist II position would allow the COT to conduct the statewide visitor profile study with the Development Specialist II position.
Mrs. Chowning said, as she understood Mr. Bommarito’s explanation, the new position would conduct the study and there would be no separate cost for the study.
Mr. Bommarito responded that there was a cost for the study but it was reallocated from marketing into decision unit E-175. With the new position and reallocation of some funds from marketing, which was accomplished in the budget, the study would be conducted.
Mr. Guindon stated that the amounts provided in decision unit E-175 were just for the new position, which was being funded by reduction of contracts. Because of reducing those contracts there would be enough savings generated to conduct the visitor profile study as well as the position costs for the new position.
Mr. Bommarito stated that the survey was not totally in-house because it involved standing on street corners and interviewing people, but the COT would be able to do the survey because of the new position. The new position would be able to disseminate the information and work with a limited outside contractor.
Mrs. Chowning stated her concern was that the dollars were properly tracked.
Mr. Guindon stated that he had requested that if the new Development Specialist II position was approved, the COT would provide specific information about the position, the funds expended, and the visitor profile study during the next budget cycle.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
NEVADA MAGAZINE, BUDGET ACCOUNT 530-1530
BUDGET PAGE TOUR&ECON-25
Mr. Guindon stated that Budget Account 1530 was the next budget for the Committee’s consideration and there were no major issues in the budget. Staff recommended closing the budget as recommended by the Governor, with technical adjustments.
There were two closing items Mr. Guindon noted for the Committee. Decision unit M-200 included somewhat optimistic projections for growth in advertising and subscription revenues. However, it appeared that the agency historically had projected revenues to set goals and to provide flexibility in order to not have to request Interim Finance Committee approval to adjust its budget during a biennium. The agency projected significant increases in activity during the 2001 session that were not realized in FY2001-02 and it did not appear would be realized in FY2002-03. As an Enterprise Fund agency, expenditures were governed by the actual level of demand for the agency’s products and the revenues that could be generated from the sale of those products.
Mr. Guindon stated that the Governor recommended the transfer of room tax revenues in the amount of $125,000 in each year of the biennium from the Commission on Tourism to the Nevada Magazine to produce in-house publications and materials needed by the Commission. This transfer was a continuation of a recommendation made by the Governor in the 2001 session that was approved by the Legislature.
Decision unit E-710 requested additional funding in the amount of $1,164 in FY2003-04 due to revised computer hardware prices.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 1530 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COMMISSIONER FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS, BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-2560
BUDGET PAGE VETERAN-1
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that the next two budgets before the Committee would be the Commissioner for Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Home. Those budgets had been referred to the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety. The Joint Subcommittee had taken closing actions on the Office of Veterans’ Services; however, due to time limitations they had been unable to complete the final review and final endorsement of the budget for the Veterans Home.
Mr. Guernsey stated that decision unit E-275 recommended a new Administrative Assistant position to be funded from cemetery internment fees. The position would be located with the Executive Director’s office in Reno and would provide clerical support and accounting backup for the three-person office. Additional workload had fallen on the agency due to the growth and number of veterans in the state, along with the increase in complexity of handling a number of the veterans’ trust accounts for those veterans unable to handle their own financial affairs. The agency also supervised the operations of the two veterans’ homes in Nevada and the cemeteries in Fernley and Boulder City. Mr. Guernsey stated that staff was recommending that the cemetery internment fees be increased by $10,000 each year of the biennium. The only other adjustment to Budget Account 2560 was a technical adjustment to bring computer prices up to date.
Mr. Marvel asked who paid internment fees.
Mr. Guernsey responded that the federal government reimbursed the state for internment fees and there had been an increase from $150 to $300 per qualified veteran. For other individuals, such as spouses of veterans and Gold Star parents who were eligible, there was a fee of $350.
Mr. Marvel asked if the agency could manage an increase of $10,000 in internment fees. Mr. Guernsey stated that the agency felt the increase was achievable.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDONOV SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
VETERANS HOME ACCOUNT, BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-2561
BUDGET PAGE VETERAN-6
Mr. Guernsey reviewed Budget Account 2561 for the Committee. He stated that the budget originally submitted to the Legislature was based upon the budget that had been submitted to the 2001 Legislature. The agency had experienced a significant turnover in management positions with vacancies in the director of nurses, the director of the agency, and the administrative services officer positions. Mr. Guernsey commented that the Budget Division had little alternative but to submit the 2001 budget. The Fiscal staff had worked closely with the Budget Division and the new director, who had extensive experience in the state of Idaho. The three groups, working together, reviewed the budget that was originally submitted, reviewed the staffing that was submitted initially to the 2001 Legislature, and had suggested a number of revisions. Based upon the revised budget there would be significant General Fund savings compared to the budget submitted by the Governor to the 2003 Legislature. The General Fund appropriation would be reduced by $494,006 in FY2004 and $877,810 in FY2005. The Veterans Home operated with 3 wings of 60 beds each. The revised budget estimated that the maximum capacity at which the home would be able to operate would be 88 percent, or an occupancy rate of 158 residents. Mr. Guernsey stated that during the first year of the biennium an average daily census of 120 beds was anticipated. Veterans would be phased-in at approximately 10 per month once certification was received from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA had recently completed an inspection of the Veterans Home, however, the Agency had not received formal notification that they could receive per-diem reimbursement of approximately $57 per day. Currently, the Veterans Home was operating with only one wing open.
Mr. Guernsey pointed out that one of the changes in the budget included the conversion of a number of positions from staff to contract. The same ratios were applied that were used in staffing the mental health facilities and the Department of Corrections to provide sufficient coverage for weekends, sick leave, annual leave, and holidays. The revised budget recommended the deletion of 47 positions and the addition of 8 nurses, 6 registered nurses, and 2 licensed practical nurses. The net reduction was 39 positions.
A number of positions originally anticipated to be state employees would be converted to contracts. Those positions included laundry service, housekeeping, and grounds. Activity therapy was being converted to perform some of the duties in-house and some on a contract basis. The original budget submitted to the Subcommittee contained a relief factor of 1.4 and the revised budget used a relief factor of 1.6.
Mrs. Chowning asked what date the certification was anticipated to be completed by the VA. She also asked about S.B. 324, which would change the status regarding the license plate fees generated, placing them in a gift fund rather than being specifically for the general support of the Veterans Home.
Mr. Guernsey responded to the license plate fee question and commented that Mrs. Chowning’s observation regarding S.B. 324 was very good. The revenues collected from the special license plates totaled approximately $97,569 per year. The revenue from the special license plate fees was deposited directly into the Veterans Home account. S.B. 324, as amended, would continue that practice. The original intent of the bill was to remove those fees from support of the budget and allow the fees to be placed in a gift fund. The Senate Finance Committee recently received a conflict notice, based upon the amendment to S.B. 324, stating that both houses had passed A.B. 192. Assembly Bill 192 included the same provisions, was passed, and had been sent to the Governor. The effect of that bill was that the General Fund was obligated for an additional $97,569 per year that had not been anticipated. The Senate Finance Committee had considered the conflict amendment but had not taken action pending closing of Budget Account 2561. The Senate Finance Committee had not decided whether to place the additional General Fund dollars into the budget and allow the funds to flow into the gift fund, which would mean A.B. 192 would stand, or to amend S.B. 324.
Mrs. Chowning commented that was a decision that the Senate Finance Committee would have to make but the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was being presented with a $1.4 million General Fund savings. She further stated that $97,569 was a proverbial drop in the bucket and would encourage the Senate Finance Committee to consider the wishes of the veterans that the funds be used more broadly.
Mr. Guernsey said that based upon the Legislature’s actions to date with the passage of A.B. 192, which had gone unnoticed by staff and the VA, an additional $97,569 per year would be required and was not factored into the closing sheet.
Gary Bermeosolo, Administrator, Nevada Veterans Nursing Home, stated that he was encouraged that there would soon be news regarding the certification by the VA. Mr. Bermeosolo said that the VA had sent the packet forward, which meant the request for recognition had gone to the general counsel. Unfortunately, when items went to the general counsel they were sometimes misplaced. Mr. Bermeosolo stated that he had talked to Congressman Jim Gibbons and Mr. Gibbons’ Washington, D.C. office was applying what pressure they could to the VA and it was hoped that certification would be obtained by June 1, 2003.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Assembly Bill 130: Makes various changes relating to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR 50-569)
Mr. Stevens commented that A.B. 130 had passed out of Committee and then had been returned for further review related to the Department of Agriculture. The issue had been whether Pest Control Operator fees would be deposited into the Plant Industry account, which was a General Fund account, or the Agriculture Regulation and Enforcement budget, which was not. It had been determined that it should be deposited to the Plant Industry account and that would involve deleting Sections 2, 3, 5, and 6 from A.B. 130. Sections 1 and 4 would remain in the bill. The Committee had previously approved the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 130.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that Don Henderson, Acting Director, State Department of Agriculture, had requested two amendments to A.B. 130, one concerning allowing doctors of osteopathy to write prescriptions and the other regarding fee collections.
Chairman Arberry requested that Mr. Henderson testify before the Committee.
Mr. Henderson explained that during the 2001 session the Legislature had implemented the Nevada Medical Marijuana Program without fee authority. The Department of Agriculture had taken direction from the Legislature and started the program in October 2001. Mr. Henderson stated it had been a successful program with approximately 300 participants. After one and a half years in the program, the Department had discovered a number of issues that needed revising. The program also generated an expense to the Department.
In A.B. 503 some technical amendments had been proposed to the bill, such as adding osteopathic doctors to the list of those allowed to write prescriptions. A.B. 503 had passed through Committee, appeared to be doing well, and then died on the Floor. Mr. Henderson requested that if there was an interest, there were three key provisions in A.B. 503 that the Committee might add to A.B. 130. Section 2 from A.B. 503 would clarify that osteopathic doctors could participate in the program with their patients. Section 6 from A.B. 503 concerned the application of osteopathic doctors to participate in the program and the method of determining that the applicant was in good standing with the Board of Osteopathic Doctors. Section 12 of A.B. 503 would establish the fee authority for the Department of Agriculture to recover administrative costs for this program.
Mr. Henderson commented that the Department could probably handle the technical issues involved with the Medical Marijuana Program; however, the Department would be unable to continue to service the program if fee authority was not granted.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning noted that in his explanation Mr. Stevens had left out Section 7 of A.B. 130 which dealt with the effective date of July 1, 2003.
Mr. Stevens acknowledged that Sections 1, 4, and 7 would remain in A.B. 130 along with the other amendments that had been discussed.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 465: Makes appropriations for planning and design of facility for vocational training in Southern Nevada and for planning and design of performing arts center in City of Las Vegas. (BDR S-1219)
Mr. Stevens stated that A.B. 465 would provide an appropriation for the planning and design of a facility for vocational training in southern Nevada and also for the planning and design of a performing arts center in the City of Las Vegas.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS WITH AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 THAT THE APPROPRIATION BE FUNDED BY TOURISM AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL FUND.
Assemblyman Griffin asked if it was just for the $250,000. Chairman Arberry replied that was correct.
Chairman Arberry held A.B. 465.
Assembly Bill 469: Makes supplemental appropriation to Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfall in money for medical care and higher-level placements for Medicaid-eligible children. (BDR S-1326)
Mr. Stevens explained that A.B 469 would provide a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1.1 million to the Division of Child and Family Services for an unanticipated shortfall. A.B. 469 had been held in Committee until the Interim Finance Committee meeting when there was a work program moving monies within the budget to allow the supplemental appropriation to be brought down to this level. Mr. Stevens recommended approval of A.B. 469.
Mr. Stevens noted that this supplemental appropriation had not been included in The Executive Budget.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 469.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 486: Increases limitation on certain fees that State Emergency Response Commission may require certain persons to pay for calendar year. (BDR 40-1256)
Senate Bill 201 (1st Reprint): Revises limitations on amount of fees that State Emergency Response Commission may impose for certain services of Commission or activities relating to extremely hazardous materials. (BDR 40-1047)
Mr. Stevens stated that S.B. 201 had been heard this morning and it would allow the State Emergency Response Commission the authority to raise fees for storing hazardous materials to no more than $15,000. A.B. 486 would do the same, but would only allow the increase of fees up to $7,500. Mr. Stevens said that the Committee would have to decide which bill to process, unless the Committee decided not to process either one.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the Committee move S.B. 201 because it allowed the State Emergency Response Commission some flexibility.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 201.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 543: Repeals credit against general tax on insurance premiums for certain assessments paid by insurers providing industrial insurance. (BDR 57-962)
Mr. Stevens stated that the Committee had already passed A.B. 543 and the amendment had been received. The amendment would change the effective date of A.B. 543 from July 1, 2003, to January 1, 2004. Mr. Stevens said he had provided the amendment to the Department of Taxation, as they were the agency that would be required to implement that particular piece of legislation. The legislation would eliminate the insurance premium tax credit for Worker’s Comp insurers that paid the assessment to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Changing the effective date had an impact on other dates in A.B. 543. The complicating factor for the Department of Taxation was that the DIR assessments were on a fiscal year basis and once a January 1st effective date was implemented, it became a calendar year; that change would make it much more difficult for the Department of Taxation. The Department of Taxation had requested that the Committee consider not changing the date to January 1, 2004. Mr. Stevens said the date in the original bill had been July 1, 2003, and that was the date the Department of Taxation had requested.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO RECONSIDER PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 543.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Hettrick commented that he believed the Committee should deal with this item immediately because the Department of Taxation was going to have plenty to deal with and he felt the date of July 1, 2003, should remain in effect.
Mr. Stevens reiterated that currently the effective date, based on the Committee’s action, was January 1, 2004. If the Committee wanted the date to be July 1, 2003, the action taken previously would have to be reconsidered.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 543.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 198: Clarifies provision governing advances to budget accounts supported by administrative assessments. (BDR 31-604)
Mr. Stevens explained that there had been some confusion regarding S.B. 198 when it had been previously heard. S.B. 198 only affected budgets that had an administrative assessment as a revenue source. The bill clarified that a budget that was funded with an administrative assessment could only receive 1/12 of its budgeted amount as a loan, and if the loan could not be paid back, it became a contingent appropriation. Mr. Stevens stated that the way this had been administered in the current biennium was that the agencies were not limited to 1/12 and could borrow as much as they wanted. Senate Finance had introduced S.B. 198 to clarify that only 1/12 of an agency’s administrative assessments revenues budgeted in the fiscal year could be loaned or considered as a contingent appropriation in any particular fiscal year.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 198.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 165: Revises provisions relating to Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR 23-399)
Assembly Bill 222: Revises provisions relating to Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR 23-634)
Assembly Bill 286: Revises provisions governing health insurance for retired officers and employees of local governments. (BDR 23-1124)
Mr. Stevens stated that there were a number of bills that considered the same subject matter. A.B. 165, A.B. 222, and A.B. 286, in varying degrees, tried to accomplish the same thing. The Committee could select one of those bills as a vehicle if they chose to go forward.
Mr. Stevens said there were two issues for consideration: 1) commingling the experience of state and non-state employees within the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) and, 2) the non-state employers subsidizing or not subsidizing their retirees who are part of the program.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that A.B. 165 and A.B. 222 were almost exactly the same. A.B. 286, however, began to establish a policy that Ms. Giunchigliani believed was necessary, but the cost needed to be offset to some extent in order to begin commingling again. If the interim study progressed, along with some policy recommendations for next session, the Committee might be able to resolve some issues. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information regarding the fiscal impact of A.B. 286.
Mr. Stevens stated that if the Committee chose to commingle the experience of state and non-state employees, the best way that LCB staff could arrive at that goal would be to increase the monthly amount provided for state employees for their group insurance premiums. What would happen was that the state employee premium would go up and the non-state employee premium would go down. To set that premium at the actuarially determined rate would require additional state funds in order to finance the additional premium on behalf of state employees. Mr. Stevens said if the Committee chose to move forward, staff recommended raising the premium and building it into the budget in the second year of the biennium. The cost would be approximately $4.5 million in total funds. Raising the premium in the first year of the biennium presented a more difficult proposition. Currently, open enrollment was being held and the PEBP would probably prefer not to conduct a second open enrollment. A second open enrollment could be avoided if a payroll assessment of .38 percent of salaries was applied in the first year of the biennium.
The .38 percent assessment would generate the amount of money the PEBP had estimated would be needed to commingle state and non-state employees’ premiums. In the second year of the biennium the premium on behalf of the state would be raised for active employees from $558.07 to $572.77. That amount would be built into the budget and funds from the appropriate funding source would be increased in order to pay for those expenses. The estimated General Fund cost would be approximately $2.8 million in each year of the biennium.
Assemblyman Griffin said that local government contribution had been discussed many times, but there still did not seem to be a solution. Local governments that were creating the retirees should be participating.
Mr. Stevens responded that currently local government contributions were on an optional basis. One of the proposed bills would require a local public employer with employees covered by the PEBP to pay the same subsidy that the state paid for that employee, based upon years of service. All that would do, according to Mr. Stevens, was determine how much the employee versus the employer would have to pay to the system. It would determine whether the rates were higher or lower.
Mr. Griffin stated that local government participation was still an option and it seemed to him that it should not be an option.
Mr. Hettrick noted that although it did not change the rate, he asked if it would not provide some General Fund relief.
Mr. Stevens stated that currently the non-state retiree was responsible for the full premium. Hypothetically, if the premium were $500, the bill would determine how much the employee or the employer would pay of the $500 premium. It would not change the $500 rate. Presently, if the non-state retiree was responsible for the entire $500 premium, and the retiree had enough years of service to require the employer to pay half, the employer would pay $250 and the retiree would pay $250, but the $500 premium would remain the same.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that she suspected this was just a stopgap measure because when the state recruited many of those non-state retirees into the state system, no costs had been recouped. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that in some of the subcommittees a “wish list” had been started, and she suggested that depending on the revenue raised during the session that possibly paying down some of the financial impact of the non-state retirees’ premiums could be added to the wish list. At a minimum, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a policy change requiring local government employers to begin subsidizing their retirees.
Mr. Griffin commented that it sounded as if the option would be to appropriate funds to create a subsidy for the next two years rather than commingling experience. He stated he would really like to make sure the problem was solved before creating a subsidy for the upcoming biennium.
Mr. Stevens stated that based upon the bills before the Committee, if approved, the non-state retirees and actives would be commingled with the experience of state retirees and state actives. If one of the bills were approved in its present form there would only be one pool for the determination of the rate. Presently, there were different pools for non-state retirees and actives and for state retirees and actives.
According to Mr. Stevens, all of the bills were interested in lowering the premiums of non-state retirees. That would mean commingling the claims experience of everyone in the system, which would tend to increase the premium for state employees and retirees and decrease the premium for non‑state retirees.
Mr. Griffin stated, “For whatever it’s worth, I have a big problem with that, a big concern about that.”
Mr. Hettrick said that he was in the same place as Mr. Griffin. The problem he had with what was being proposed was the rate for non-state retirees was going to be reduced and the rate for state employees and retirees was going to be raised and ultimately the state paid more. Mr. Hettrick believed there had to be a better cure and somehow local governments with retirees in the state system had to participate in lowering the cost.
Mrs. Chowning stated she had not heard the actual amount the non-state retirees would be paying under the commingling plan. Some retirees were paying $1,700 per month for the insurance plan and she wondered to what amount that had been reduced.
Mr. Stevens said he had not brought all those figures. There were a variety of rates depending upon whether you had a spouse or family. The employee-only rate for state employees in the second year would go from $558.07 to $572.77.
P. Forrest Thorne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP), explained that in the second year the state subsidy would increase to $572.77. The rates would be based upon the actual experience. The state subsidy included a portion which subsidized a portion of the dependents’ costs as well as the employees’ costs. In the reduction for the non-state retirees, going from the current rate to a commingled rate, for a single, early retiree, it would drop from $694.12 per month to $436.04 per month. For an early non‑state retiree covering a full family the current rate would drop from $1,919.39 to $1,166.44 per month. For a non-state Medicare retiree it would drop from $251.87 to $199.94. For a non-state Medicare retiree with family the rate would drop from $686.85 per month to $536.71 per month.
By comparison, the state’s actual rate costs would increase from $420.69 to $436.04 for a single early retiree. For a family it would increase from $1,116.75 to $1,166.44. For a Medicare retiree only it would decrease from $202.07 to $199.94. For a Medicare retiree with family it would decrease from $539.80 to $536.81. Mr. Thorne stated that it was approximately a 3 percent increase for the state participants in the plan and approximately a 16 percent reduction for the non-state participants. With the commingling requirement the cost of the plan had increased for the state participants and the non-state actives and retirees had received a reduction. However, in the process, by raising the overall rates by a voluntary process, the number of local entities that would still consider the PEBP to be a viable option would be reduced.
Mr. Thorne explained that currently non-state rates were based upon that group’s experience, which was rolled into the state’s experience, which was then “bumped up” by the bad experience that was received into the plan. Those rates were prohibitive for participants of local entities insurance plans with bad actuarial experience. If the non-state rate were substantially lowered while raising the state rate the groups that were going to take the option to come in would be the ones that had bad actuarial experience. That would have an adverse impact on the plan over the long term. The plan already had problems with the demographics of the group, particularly with the age demographics. Mr. Thorne stated that the plan would be seeing an increase in cost trends. If the non-state bad actuarial experience were factored in, that trend would continue to accelerate rather than reverse.
Mr. Thorne stated the most viable option, and the one included in the A.C.R. 10 study, would review the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) type of approach to the employee benefits. Anyone employed by a government entity in Nevada would be enrolled in the benefit plan in the same way as the retirement plan. By bringing in all the groups, good, bad, and indifferent, it made a lot of sense from an actuarial standpoint and from the plan’s ability to attract vendors, providers, and insurance carriers.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the non-state actives and retirees had been recruited into the plan, but aside from that, she believed it was important to reduce the actual cost as well as begin collecting from non-state government entities for their participants. She inquired if it was possible to go back and perform a cost allocation for those local governments that never paid anything into the health plan to assist in keeping the rates down as well as deal with the subsidy issue.
Mr. Thorne replied that a cost allocation would be difficult for the reason that a fair number of non-state retirees who had participated in the program for a while came from local entities where no retiree health coverage was available. The only option those non-state retirees had was to join the PEBP program. Mr. Thorne said that while he understood the rationale for wanting the local governments to provide help to their employees and retirees, he believed it would be difficult to do on a retroactive basis.
Ms. Giunchigliani opined that an influx of dollars into the fund was necessary to offset the need for having had the rate increase as well as requiring local entities to contribute a portion of the subsidy based upon A.B. 286.
Mr. Thorne indicated that the subsidy portion in the bills, particularly A.B. 286, addressed the premium, not the fact that the premium was, for example, $500 instead of $450.
Mr. Stevens commented that the rates were based upon claims experience. The claims costs and the assumption for the medical trend going forward was what the rates were based upon. The present rates were based upon the current claims experience both in the state and non-state areas and if those two areas were joined together, it would still be based upon the claims experience. Once the rate was established it could be apportioned as to what the employer or employee would pay of that rate, but it was the claims experience that established the rate.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood that, but if the PEBP could not cost allocate she was going to return to suggesting that this matter be placed on a “wish list” and if an extra $5 million appeared it be put into the fund to help offset the need for the rate increase.
Mr. Griffin asked if it was a legal issue or just impractical to retroactively cost allocate. He further stated that if the PEBP was going to continue to accept non-state retirees there needed to be some partnership between the state and local governments that would repair the PEBP because the state was being asked to subsidize all of the participants. It was vital that the local governments participate even with the current retirees in the program because this program could not be subsidized for the next two years without some assistance.
Ms. Giunchigliani said that was part of what the interim study should accomplish, how to properly fund the PEBP. There were many local governments with no health care plan and if they did not bother to have one locally, they should be paying for placing their retirees under the state’s plan.
Mr. Griffin stated that the Legislature could help accommodate that administratively through volume, but he did not believe the state should be exclusively responsible for funding.
Mrs. Chowning agreed that at some point a message had to be sent that the local governments would be required to pay something. She requested a list of the health insurance rates and asked how long the non-state retirees would have to pay the very high rates and how soon those participants would get some relief.
Mr. Stevens replied that the question of how soon those non-state retirees received some relief depended upon how the legislation was processed. If the legislation was processed and implemented quickly, Mr. Stevens believed there would be another open enrollment, at least for non-state retirees and actives, in the July-August period of 2003. Open enrollment for state employees and retirees was currently going on and there would be no impact on that segment of the health plan.
Ms. McClain asked if A.B. 286 gave the non-state retirees an opportunity to return to their local government health plans.
Mr. Thorne responded that many of the provisions of A.B. 286 had the effect of “leveling the playing field” as far as the requirements for local entities’ plans and the state plan for non-state participants. One of the provisions of A.B. 286 was to require a one-time open enrollment that would allow all non-state retirees an option to leave the PEBP and return to their local entity’s plan. Each of the local entities with a health plan would be required to provide open enrollment to allow their retirees to return. It also required all the local entity plans to commingle active and retiree experience, which would put their rating on the same basis as the state plan.
Ms. McClain stated that she did not know if it would save the non-state retirees money to return to their original employer’s plan or not, but if it did they would be wise to do so, and that would also save money for the state.
Chairman Arberry said the whole issue was to get this subject out on the table so the Committee could discuss it. At some point a decision would have to be made.
Mr. Stevens stated Chairman Arberry’s point was correct and there were implications for the Fiscal Division as far as closing the budget. Any number of issues, which would be brought before the Committee soon, would have to be resolved not only in the Committee on Ways and Means but in Senate Finance. There would be certain items that crossed budgetary lines and would involve almost every budget.
Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance, urged the Committee to consider separating those two issues being discussed. The commingling of the non-state retirees already in the PEBP was one issue that was addressed by A.B. 222 and A.B. 165 and contained a fiscal note of $4.5 million. Mr. Richardson said he believed that A.B. 286 was an excellent statement of public policy. It required non-state entities, in the future, to support its retirees to the same extent that the state did. A.B. 286 also contained provisions that allowed participants in the state health plan who wished to return to their local government health plan, to do so. Mr. Richardson stated he had spoken to Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto at some length about the bill and she was very hopeful that the Committee would look with favor upon A.B. 286. The bill also involved commingling and had a fiscal note of $4.5 million as well. Assemblywoman Koivisto had authorized Mr. Richardson to tell the Committee that she would be happy to have the commingling portion amended out of A.B. 286 in order to pass the bill and have the public policy portion firmly in place. That public policy portion would require non-state entities, that had their retirees participate in the state health plan, subsidize to the same extent as the state. Assemblywoman Koivisto also wanted to keep the provision of A.B. 286 that would allow people to return to their local health plans, if possible.
Mr. Richardson commented that it would be very difficult to solve those two issues together. One was a forward-looking public policy statement and the other was attempting to deal with the rates currently being charged to non-state employees and retirees. Mr. Richardson commented that the Committee could keep A.B. 222 as a vehicle with its fiscal note, remove commingling from A.B. 286, pass A.B. 286, then consider whether to pass A.B. 222 or A.B. 165 separately with a fiscal note. He believed those issues might be easier to resolve separately from each other.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Richardson what sections the Committee might consider deleting.
Mr. Richardson stated he believed the section that dealt with commingling would have to be reworded but he was not sure of the exact language.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Richardson to outline what would occur if the two issues were separated.
Mr. Richardson replied that if the non-state retirees were removed from A.B. 286 and it was passed, two very important public policy items would be in place. There was a requirement in A.B. 286 that non-state public employers would pay subsidies for their employees according to state policy. There were also provisions that allowed non-state retirees in the state health plan to leave the state health plan and return to their local government health plan if it was cost effective for them to do so.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what would happen if the commingling language was removed from A.B. 286.
Mr. Richardson said that A.B. 222 and A.B. 165 addressed only the commingling issue and if the Legislature could find the $4.5 million one of those bills could be deleted and the commingling issue could be handled separately from A.B. 286.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she did not see what that would accomplish.
Mr. Richardson reiterated that A.B. 286 without the commingling issue was one problem and then dealing with the problem from the past as a separate issue would be much simpler.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that removing the commingling language from A.B. 286 did not correct the problem of what the non-state entities had not paid in the past. Even if the state began collecting from the non-state entities immediately it would only be for subsidization, it would not make up for past costs. Because of the claims experience the rates were driven up, which then caused the monthly rates to be higher, and nothing in any of the bills corrected that problem.
Mr. Richardson responded that the reason the Committee had been inundated with e-mails, letters, and telephone calls about the high cost for some non-state retirees was because some non-state public employers did not subsidize at all. Carson City School District was one of those entities, for example, that did not subsidize for their retirees. Mr. Richardson told the Committee of a woman who had taught in the Carson City School District for 30 years and had received numerous awards, but when she retired she was told that her only option was to enroll in the state health plan and that the Carson City School District did not subsidize. According to Mr. Richardson, if A.B. 286 was passed, that could not happen after July 1, 2003, because any government entity would be required to subsidize their retirees who enrolled in the state health plan.
Mr. Beers stated that he did not see that this issue was related at all to the state’s subsidy of health insurance for retirees. He believed this was an issue related to the pooling of the risk. On one hand there were non-state retirees who were not pooled with any young people. On the other hand the state retirees were pooled with all of the young participants who were still working for the state. Those young participants were paying in more than they were receiving in medical benefits and in that respect there was a subsidization of the greater expenses of the retirees. The problem with the disparity in rates was that the non-state retirees did not have any young participants in their pool to share costs. Mr. Beers stated he did not see that as an issue related to the subsidy amount that the state separately generated to cover the medical premiums of state retirees.
Mr. Thorne noted that there were two issues concerning commingling. One was the commingling of actives and retirees, which was currently required for state participants. State actives and state retirees were commingled into one rate pool. For the non-state participants in the PEBP program and at local levels there was no similar requirement. Mr. Thorne stated that he was aware of no subsidization of any retirees by the actives. In the commingling that was addressed in A.B. 286 it required two types of commingling: 1) the commingling of the non-state actives with the non-state retirees, and 2) commingling the experience of the non-state actives and retirees with the state actives and retirees, resulting in one pool as opposed to two. At the present time there were three pools, the state pool including actives and retirees, non-state actives, and non-state retirees. Mr. Thorne remarked that an interim provision could be to commingle the non-state actives and retirees, but that would not help very much because the ratio of retirees to actives in the non-state pool was 50 percent, but was dropping below that. By July 1, 2003, there would be more retirees than actives in the non-state pool. By comparison, the state pool had a ratio of approximately four actives to one retiree. Because of the great increase in rates the local entities had removed their actives and sought other coverage that was less expensive for those actives and the retirees had remained with the state. That blending would increase the active rates even more and more non-state entities would remove their active employees from the PEBP. The provisions of A.B. 286 would require the local entities to commingle their active and retiree experience. Even if the non-state group were commingled in the state pool, everyone would be on the same level.
Mr. Thorne commented that there was no requirement to offer retiree health coverage, a subject which was also on the list for the interim study. Health care in general was an issue, but long-term retiree health care was going to be a major issue based upon a personnel study that showed 40 percent of the state workforce would be eligible to retire within the next five to ten years. Mr. Thorne expressed the opinion that just over the horizon the state would have a very big issue to deal with.
Mr. Griffin restated for clarification that when the open enrollment occurred some of the non-state retirees had the option to return to their local health care systems.
Mr. Thorne replied that option would be available if A.B. 286 was passed into law.
Mr. Griffin reiterated that it was his understanding that if A.B. 286 was passed and some of the non-state retirees elected to leave the state health plan, the remaining non-state retirees would be facing higher rates because their pool would be smaller. He asked if there was some requirement that the PEBP disclose that the rates might be increased through commingling participants in various actuarial pools.
Mr. Thorne responded if A.B. 286 was implemented on the July 1, 2003, effective date and the only thing that was done, as far as the PEBP pool was concerned, was to require the commingling of the non-state actives with the non-state retirees to create one pool with one set of rates for that group, and at the same time that provision went into effect for local entities, the potential would be there to have varying renewals. Some local entity plans were on a calendar year and some were on a fiscal year. Some of those plans might not go into effect for the first time until July 1, 2004. The time of that local enrollment requirement could be critical. There could be some movement out of the PEBP from the retirees, which could help bring into balance the active and retiree ratio for the non-state participants in the state plan. The impact of that movement would not be seen until rates were compiled for July 1, 2004.
Mr. Marvel asked how many school districts did not provide health insurance.
Mr. Thorne replied that the PEBP did not have any information regarding local entity health insurance. One of the items to be investigated by the interim study was to expand upon the comparison study that the PEBP had already compiled.
Mr. Marvel asked if some cities and counties provided health insurance and some did not.
Mr. Thorne stated that was correct, and in a number of cases through the collective bargaining process, units had bargained away retiree coverage or a subsidy for retiree coverage in return for current wages or benefits.
Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Richardson about the University System.
Mr. Richardson responded that the University System employees, classified and professional, were state employees and, therefore, were covered by the state subsidy.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 165, A.B. 222, and A.B. 286 and opened the hearing on A.B. 537.
Assembly Bill 537 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding state personnel. (BDR 23-1155)
Mr. Stevens explained that the Committee had previously requested information regarding A.B. 537. That information had become available and the Committee members had received it although there was not enough time to review it during the hearing.
Chairman Arberry recessed the hearing at 11:08 a.m. and reconvened at 11:29 a.m.
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation, read the following report into the record:
THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW FOR THE OFFICE OF THE MILITARY. THE CLOSING ACTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE RESULTED IN STATE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS OF $55,666 IN FY 2003-04 AND $57,512 IN FY 2004-05.
OFFICE OF THE MILITARY (BA 3650): IN CLOSING THIS BUDGET, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED AN INCREASE IN BUDGETED AMOUNTS FOR UTILITIES OF $35,742 IN FY 2003-04 AND $34,454 IN FY 2004-05. THE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THESE INCREASES IS $12,098 IN STATE GENERAL FUND AND $23,644 IN FEDERAL FUNDS FOR FY 2003-04, AND $10,810 IN STATE GENERAL FUND AND $23,644 IN FEDERAL FUNDS FOR FY 2004‑05. THE APPROVED INCREASE WAS A RESULT OF PROJECTED SHORTFALLS IN UTILITIES FOR FY 2002-03, WHICH RESULTED IN A REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,000 FOR FY 2002‑03. THE INCREASES APPROVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE BRING THE BUDGETED TOTALS FOR UTILITIES IN EACH FISCAL YEAR OF THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM TO PROJECTED FY 2002-03 EXPENDITURES OF $1.2 MILLION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED A DECREASE OF $63,706 IN FY 2003-04 AND $64,264 IN FY 2004-05 TO REFLECT THE STATE’S OBLIGATION FOR PROPERTY AND CONTENTS INSURANCE. PREVIOUSLY, THE STATE PAID 100 PERCENT OF THE COSTS FOR PROPERTY AND CONTENTS INSURANCE FOR BUILDINGS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED EITHER WITH 100 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDS OR 75 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDS AND 25 PERCENT STATE FUNDS, WITH THE CONTENTS BEING 100 PERCENT FEDERAL PROPERTY.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF FEDERAL FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,030 IN EACH FISCAL YEAR OF THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM FOR THE STATEWIDE COST ALLOCATION PROGRAM (SWCAP). THIS ADJUSTMENT WAS APPROVED DUE TO RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT CONFIRMS THAT CONGRESS, IN LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE 1980 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, PROHIBITS THE NATIONAL GUARD FROM USING ITS FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS TO REIMBURSE INDIRECT COSTS TO STATES UNDER THE GRANTS OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.
OTHER TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE INCLUDE THE REDUCTION OF $3,319 IN EACH FISCAL YEAR OF THE 2003‑05 BIENNIUM FOR IN-STATE TRAVEL AND REVISED COSTS FOR TWO COMPUTERS WITH SOFTWARE.
NATIONAL GUARD BENEFITS (BA 3653)
THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE BUDGET FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD BENEFITS PROGRAM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR. THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET RECOMMENDS STATE GENERAL FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,572 IN EACH FISCAL YEAR OF THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CLOSING REPORT REGARDING BUDGET ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE MILITARY.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Beers asked if LCB staff had determined the total percentage of increase that was represented by those budgets.
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that the total percent increase for the Office of the Military for the upcoming biennium had not yet been figured.
Mr. Stevens stated that the General Fund increase for the Office of the Military in The Executive Budget was 3.79 percent in the first year of the biennium and 2.14 percent in the second year of the biennium. There were utility increases of $12,098 that had been added in the first year and $10,810 in the second, which would increase the percentage slightly. Mr. Stevens stated that overall the percentage of General Fund had been decreased based upon the Governor’s recommendation.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater, Assemblyman Andonov, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
BUDGETS CLOSED.
********
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation, read the following report into the record:
VOLUME III – CONSERVATION THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUDGETS OF THE TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING: THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE (ADMINISTRATION), STATE LANDS, WATER RESOURCES, HEIL WILD HORSE, NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE, STATE PARKS, AND ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE DIVISIONS OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE.
DCNR DIRECTOR’S OFFICE (101-4150) CNR-1: INSTEAD OF APPROVING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR TWO POSITIONS SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE $200 MILLION QUESTION 1 BOND PROGRAM, THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE AGENCY’S AMENDED REQUEST FOR ONE MANAGEMENT ANALYST II. THE SUBCOMMITTEE AGREES WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN POSITION TO ASSIST WITH INCREASING FISCAL COMPLEXITIES AND WORKLOAD, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO SUPPORT THE RECEPTION AREA AND TO PROVIDE RELIEF DURING THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT’S LEAVE PERIODS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE DIVISION OF FORESTRY FISCAL UNIT TO THE FORESTRY ACCOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO TRANSFER THE SUPERVISION OF THE NDF FISCAL UNIT TO THE STATE FORESTER.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS A LETTER OF INTENT BE ISSUED SPECIFYING THAT NEW POSITIONS APPROVED IN THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE, STATE LANDS AND STATE PARKS SUPPORTING THE QUESTION 1 BOND PROGRAM ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE BONDS AND ASSOCIATED INTEREST EARNINGS.
DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (101-4151) CNR-10: THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE 28 CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AT $5,000 EACH AS PROVIDED FOR BY PREVIOUS LEGISLATURES AT AN ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND COST OF $6,799 PER YEAR BEYOND THE AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
HEIL WILD HORSE (607-4156) CNR-14: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CLOSING THE HEIL WILD HORSE ACCOUNT WITH MINOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE NOTES THAT RESERVES ARE PROJECTED TO BE $508,042 AT THE END OF THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM, WHICH IS $22,602 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL BEQUEST FROM MR. LEO HEIL OF $485,440. ASSEMBLY BILL 474, CURRENTLY IN ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS, WOULD AMEND NRS 540.450 TO ALLOW THE WILD HORSE COMMISSION TO UTILIZE THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL BEQUEATHED FROM MR. HEIL TO CONTINUE THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION BEYOND THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM. IF A.B. 474 IS NOT PASSED BY THE 2003 LEGISLATURE, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO CEASE OPERATING WHEN THE TRUST FUND BALANCE REACHES THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL BEQUEST IN ORDER TO NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF NRS 540.450. HOWEVER, IF REVISED PROJECTIONS HOLD TRUE, THE $485,440 FLOOR WOULD NOT BE REACHED DURING THE FY 2003-05 BIENNIUM.
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS (101-4173) CNR-18: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THREE POSITIONS TO ADMINISTER STATE LANDS’ $65.5 MILLION ALLOCATION FROM THE QUESTION 1 BOND PROGRAM TO SUPPORT GRANTS TO STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. A MANAGEMENT ANALYST III WILL SERVE AS THE GRANT PROGRAM COORDINATOR AND SUPERVISE THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS. A MANAGEMENT ANALYST II POSITION IS RECOMMENDED INSTEAD OF THE SENIOR LAND USE PLANNER THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WHOSE JOB DESCRIPTION IS MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE DUTIES OF THE POSITION. AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS AND PROVIDE FISCAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAM. THE COMMITTEE SHOULD NOTE AN ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO REFLECT THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN POSITION (GRADE 30) TO AN AGENCY/PROGRAM INFORMATION SPECIALIST (GRADE 36) AS APPROVED BY THE IFC ON NOVEMBER 21, 2002 BUT NOT REFLECTED IN THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET OR THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S CLOSING ACTION. THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION INCREASES GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS BY $9,499 IN FY 2003-04 AND $9,787 IN FY 2004‑05.
STATE PARKS (101-4162) CNR-38: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THREE NEW POSITIONS (PROJECT ARCHITECT, PARK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN) TO SUPPORT 11 ACQUISITION PROJECTS AND 58 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE PARKS’ $27 MILLION ALLOCATION FROM THE QUESTION 1 BOND PROGRAM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT POSITION TO ASSIST WITH FISCAL DUTIES AND FEE COLLECTIONS IN THE CENTRAL NEVADA/FALLON REGION AND THE LAHONTAN STATE RECREATION AREA, AND A NEW MAINTENANCE WORKER POSITION TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE WARD CHARCOAL OVENS AND CAVE LAKE STATE PARKS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT AMENDS ASSEMBLY BILL 13 FROM THE 1995 SESSION (TAHOE BOND ACT) THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF BOND FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED FOR EROSION CONTROL GRANTS AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROTECT LAKE TAHOE. THE USE OF THE BOND FUNDS WOULD REPLACE GENERAL FUNDS USED TO PARTIALLY SUPPORT AN EXISTING PARK RANGER POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE LAKE TAHOE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (EIP) THAT SUPPORTS A VARIETY OF EIP PROJECTS, INCLUDING EROSION CONTROL GRANTS AND NATURAL WATERCOURSE RESTORATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AMEND THE 2001 APPROPRIATIONS ACT (SENATE BILL 448) EXTENDING THE REVERSION DATE TO JUNE 30, 2005 FOR CERTAIN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE 2001 LEGISLATURE. IN ADDITION, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS INTRODUCING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AMEND THE 2001 AUTHORIZATIONS ACT (SENATE BILL 586) EXTENDING THE CARRY FORWARD DATE INTO THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM FOR THE USE OF LODGING TAX RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED FROM THE COMMISSION ON TOURISM IN THE 2001-03 BIENNIUM FOR CERTAIN PARK PROJECTS. THE PARK PROJECTS ARE NOTED ON PAGES 32-33 OF THE COMMITTEE’S CLOSING PACKET.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION (101-3173) CNR-47: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER A BUREAU CHIEF POSITION FROM THE BUREAU OF FEDERAL FACILITIES TO THE NEWLY CREATED BUREAU OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. THE NEW BUREAU OVERSEES ALL CURRENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES, AND THE ONE‑STOP AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH TRACKING SYSTEM PROGRAMS RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE IFC. THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO APPROVE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST POSITION TO THE BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY TO SUPPORT INCREASING WORKLOADS IN AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS.
DEP AIR QUALITY (101-3185) CNR-57: THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED SIX NEW POSITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR TO ADDRESS INCREASING AIR MONITORING PROGRAMS ARISING FROM NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THE PAHRUMP VALLEY NON‑ATTAINMENT STATUS WITH FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDED CLOSING THIS ACCOUNT WITH AN ADDITIONAL $200,000 TRANSFER FROM THE DMV POLLUTION CONTROL ACCOUNT IN ANTICIPATION OF REDUCED REVENUES DUE TO THE PROJECTED DECEMBER 2005 CLOSURE OF THE MOJAVE GENERATING FACILITY IN LAUGHLIN. THE NEW POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS, AND THE INCREASED TRANSFER TO SUPPORT RESERVES, ARE FUNDED WITH INCREASED TRANSFERS FROM THE DMV POLLUTION CONTROL ACCOUNT IN ANTICIPATION OF INCREASING THE VEHICLE EMISSION CERTIFICATION FEE FROM $5 TO $7 AS PROVIDED FOR IN SENATE BILL 419. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S CLOSING ACTION, S.B. 419 FAILED TO PASS THE SENATE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ACCOUNT BE HELD UNTIL THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERS THE CLOSING ACTION TO BE RECOMMENDED IN THE DMV POLLUTION CONTROL ACCOUNT.
DEP WATER PROGRAMS (101-3186 & 101-3193) CNR-63 & CNR-74: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE BUDGET ACCOUNT FOR THE BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PLANNING DUE TO THE INCREASING COMPLEXITY OF THE EXISTING ACCOUNT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL STAFF ENGINEER IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL PHASE II STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST POSITION TO SUPPORT INCREASED ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE NON-POINT SOURCE PROGRAM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER THE ENVIRONMENTAL LABS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, INCLUDING TWO HEALTH FACILITY SURVEYOR POSITIONS, FROM THE DIVISION OF HEALTH TO THE BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PLANNING.
DEP WASTE MANAGEMENT, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, FEDERAL FACILITIES (101-3187 & 101‑3198) CNR-79 & CNR-90: SIMILAR TO THE WATER PROGRAMS, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AGREES WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE BUDGET ACCOUNT FOR THE FEDERAL FACILITIES BUREAU DUE TO THE INCREASING COMPLEXITY OF THE EXISTING ACCOUNT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW BUREAU CHIEF POSITION TO REPLACE THE ONE TRANSFERRED TO DEP ADMINISTRATION FOR THE NEW INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY BUREAU. THE NEW BUREAU CHIEF IS NEEDED TO SUPERVISE THE FEDERAL FACILITIES BUREAU DUE TO THE JANUARY 2004 RETIREMENT OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE THAT CURRENTLY SUPERVISES THE PROGRAM. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVING A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST POSITION THAT WILL SUPERVISE INCREASED PREVENTATIVE INSPECTIONS OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, NOTABLY IN CLARK AND WASHOE COUNTIES.
FORESTRY (101-4195) CNR-109: SIMILAR TO STATE PARKS, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED THAT AMENDS ASSEMBLY BILL 13 FROM THE 1995 SESSION (TAHOE BOND ACT) THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF BOND FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED FOR EROSION CONTROL GRANTS AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROTECT LAKE TAHOE. THE USE OF THE BOND FUNDS WOULD REPLACE GENERAL FUNDS USED TO PARTIALLY SUPPORT AN EXISTING FORESTER POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE LAKE TAHOE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (EIP) THAT SUPPORTS A VARIETY OF EIP PROJECTS, INCLUDING EROSION CONTROL GRANTS AND NATURAL WATERCOURSE RESTORATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER POSITION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETARY SUPPORT IN THE NDF FISCAL UNIT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR TWO SIX-MONTH SEASONAL ACCOUNTING POSITIONS THAT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYEE TIMESHEET AND PAYROLL REPORTING DURING THE FIRE SEASON. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE REPLACEMENT OF TRANSFERS FROM THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE WITH ADDITIONAL FIRE REIMBURSEMENTS FROM THE FIRE SUPPRESSION ACCOUNT RESULTING FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DECEMBER 2002 DECISION TO HAVE EACH DIVISION RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE AIR OPERATIONS.
FORESTRY HONOR CAMPS (101-4198) CNR-123: THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE FOUR CREW SUPERVISOR POSITIONS (TWO AT WELLS, AND ONE EACH AT JEAN AND HUMBOLDT) AS CONTINUATION OF THE FY 2002-03 BUDGET REDUCTIONS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE EXPRESSED CONCERN THE REDUCTION IN CREW RESOURCES WOULD IMPACT THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES DURING FIRE SEASON. THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE FOUR CREW SUPERVISORS INCREASES GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS BY $257,550 IN FY 2003-04 AND $259,455 IN FY 2004-05.
FORESTRY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS (101-4227) CNR-129: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH A REDUCTION OF $56,230 EACH YEAR IN COST ALLOCATION ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UPON THE EIGHT COUNTIES. IN LIEU OF RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS TO OFFSET THE REDUCTION IN COUNTY RECEIPTS, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AGREES WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE A FORESTRY STAFF SPECIALIST THAT HAS BEEN VACANT.
WILDLIFE (101-4452) CNR-139: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CLOSING THE WILDLIFE ACCOUNT THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL REVENUES OF $823,126 IN FY 2003-04 AND $1.8 MILLION IN FY 2004-05. THE RECEIPT OF THESE REVENUES IS DEPENDENT UPON PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 420 THAT PROVIDES FOR AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD FEE INCREASE. THE FEE INCREASES AND RESULTING ADDITIONAL REVENUES SUPPORT A NUMBER OF MAINTENANCE AND ONE-TIME PROJECTS IDENTIFIED BY NDOW. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE COMMITTEE ISSUE A LETTER OF INTENT DIRECTING NDOW TO RETURN TO IFC FOR PROGRAM EXPENDITURE MODIFICATIONS SHOULD FEE INCREASES PROVIDED FOR IN S.B. 420 BE EITHER SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED OR NOT APPROVED.
THE GOVERNOR RECOMMENDED INCREASES IN GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS OF $200,000 EACH YEAR RESULTING FROM THE ELIMINATION OF THE ANNUAL $200,000 TRANSFER OF LODGING TAX RECEIPTS DUE TO REDUCTIONS FROM THAT REVENUE SOURCE AND CORRESPONDING RESERVES IN THE COMMISSION ON TOURISM BUDGET. THE ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEAN SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS CONCURRED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, THE SENATE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS DID NOT, CHOOSING TO REPLACE THE INCREASED GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS WITH REDUCTIONS IN WILDLIFE RESERVES.
WILDLIFE BOATING PROGRAM (101-4456) CNR-149: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION INCREASING REVENUES BY $764,359 IN FY 2003-04 AND $834,690 IN FY 2004-05 THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE PASSAGE OF S.B. 420 THAT INCREASES BOAT TITLING AND REGISTRATION FEES. IF APPROVED, S.B. 420 WOULD PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSFERS OF BOAT TITLING AND REGISTRATION FEES TO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY $737,711 IN THE FY 2003-05 BIENNIUM.
WILDLIFE TROUT MANAGEMENT (101-4454) CNR-155: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE BUDGET OFFICE AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDES FOR THE SALE OF $1.5 MILLION IN REVENUE BONDS IN THE FY 2002-03 WORK PROGRAM YEAR, AND REVISIONS TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM THAT PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF UP TO $14 MILLION IN REVENUE BONDS, $700,000 IN FEDERAL SPORTFISHING FUNDS AND REDUCTIONS IN RESERVES TO CONTINUE THE HATCHERY REFURBISHMENT PROGRAM THAT COMMENCED DURING THE 2001-03 BIENNIUM. REPAYMENT OF THE REVENUE BONDS IS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF TROUT STAMPS THAT WERE INCREASED FROM $5 TO $10 BY THE 2001 LEGISLATURE.
WILDLIFE OBLIGATED RESERVE (101-4458) CNR-158: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUES GENERATED FROM TWO NEW FEES, AND AN INCREASE IN DUCK STAMPS FROM $5 TO $10, AS PROPOSED IN S.B. 420. S.B. 420 PROPOSES A NEW $10 UPLAND GAMEBIRD STAMP TO BE ASSESSED TO UPLAND GAME HUNTERS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PROTECTION AND PROPAGATION OF UPLAND GAME BIRDS. S.B. 420 ALSO PROPOSES A NEW $3 HABITAT CONSERVATION FEE THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO ALL HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING OR COMBINATION LICENSES. THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FEE IS INTENDED TO FUND WILDLIFE RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS STATEWIDE. IF THE NEW FEES ARE APPROVED, WILDLIFE WILL APPROACH IFC WITH SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR USE OF THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS ELIMINATION OF $300,000 PER YEAR FOR MINING PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC PROJECTS TO WHICH THE FUNDS WOULD BE USED. NDOW MAY APPROACH IFC AT A LATER DATE AS PROJECTS ARE IDENTIFIED.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY (101-4204) CNR-162: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR PHASE II OF THE TRPA THRESHOLD EFFORTS BEGUN DURING THE 2001-2003 BIENNIUM. THE FUNDING WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PHASE I DATA; EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE TAHOE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; ESTABLISHMENT OF BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TIMELINES FOR STANDARD ATTAINMENT; AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON GOALS AND A WORK PROGRAM FOR UPDATING THE REGIONAL PLAN.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY THE BUDGET OFFICE THAT WOULD FUND PHASE II EFFORTS WITH TAHOE BOND ACT INTEREST REVENUES RATHER THAN EIP BOND INTEREST REVENUES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED REQUEST TO BRING FORWARD NEVADA’S SHARE OF UNSPENT THRESHOLD RESEARCH REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FROM FY 2002-03 TO FY 2003-04. FURTHER, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED REQUEST TO ALLOW FY 2003-04 PHASE II REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY TO BE AVAILABLE IN BOTH YEARS OF THE BIENNIUM.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO CLOSE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH MINOR OR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS:
Ø NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE, 101-4101, CNR-27
Ø DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, 101-4171, CNR-32
Ø DEP MINING REGULATION/RECLAMATION, 101-3188,
Ø CNR-96
Ø DEP WATER PLANNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT,
Ø 101-4155, CNR-101
Ø NDF FIRE SUPPRESSION, 101-4196, CNR-120
THE ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES RESULTS IN GENERAL FUND INCREASES OF $240,356 IN FY 2004 AND $246,638 IN FY 2005. A SUMMARY IS ATTACHED TO THE CLOSING PACKET. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR DILIGENCE IN FORMULATING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS (PERKINS, GIUNCHIGLIANI, LESLIE, MARVEL AND GRIFFIN).
Mr. Marvel asked if staff would have to wait for S.B. 420 and revisit this matter.
Mr. Stevens stated that S.B. 420 was built in to the budget closings for Wildlife. They were not General Fund revenues, therefore, if S.B. 420 did not pass Wildlife would have to take action to reduce their expenditures.
Mr. Marvel asked where S.B. 420 currently was in the system.
Mike Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded that S.B. 420 was currently in Senate Finance and he believed there had been some amendments to the bill addressing certain provisions. Most notably, there had been a Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation adjustment that had been, or was going to be, amended out. Mr. Chapman stated that it appeared that the fees were stable until Senate Finance took action on S.B. 420.
Mr. Marvel noted that there had been a disagreement regarding Wildlife reserves, which could be something the Committee might want to revisit when the budget was closed with the Senate.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CLOSING REPORT REGARDING BUDGET ACCOUNTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Gibbons and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGETS CLOSED.
********
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m.
Anne Bowen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: