Where I Stand — Carole Vilardo: A more efficient state

Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000 | 9:14 a.m.

Editor's note: In August Where I Stand is written by guest columnists. Today's guest, Carole Vilardo, is president of a nonprofit, nonpartisan group, the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

Since the beginning of time, taxation and the resulting expenditures by government have been a bone of contention between those who benefit from the largess of government and those who pay the tax.

It is the recognition of this concern about balancing the needs of the citizens against the amount of revenue available that has led many of Nevada's governors and legislators to periodically support studies to propose the reorganization of the restructuring of state government. Each study has brought with it some changes, although usually not to the degree recommended.

Gov. Kenny Guinn, newly elected and having just completed his first budget cycle, realized that going into this new century would require a long-range plan to ensure that expenditures and revenues were not on a collision course. To that end, the governor, in his State of the State address delivered Jan. 18, 1999, said: "... over the next two years, I will conduct a fundamental review of all our state agencies. This review will ask hard questions: What are the essential services that state government must provide? How can we provide those services more efficiently and cost effectively? And how will we ensure a source of funding for those services?" He continued: "... we will determine our minimal level of essential services, and build our budget from there."

At the end of the legislative session, the governor appointed the Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government composed of citizens, legislators and administration staff. The committee received the charge to review and make recommendations for the more efficient delivery of services and effective use of revenue. At the same time, the governor issued a directive to all state agencies to review the manner in which they deliver services, prioritize their needs and look for savings within their agencies to self-fund any future enhancements.

Concurrently, with these reviews in place, a Fiscal Forum was convened to look at the revenues expected to be available over the next 10 years. Using historical revenue data and assuming the same level of state expenditures, the conclusion of this analysis was that in 10 years there would be a $1.9 billion dollar revenue shortfall, if there were no changes in state spending. A dollar amount that most assuredly would require substantial tax increases if, and it's a big IF, state government were to continue with business as usual.

Since business as usual comes with a constantly increasing price tag, the importance of the committee's work to reshape the way the state does business takes on paramount importance. It is hoped that the recommendations of the committee will be successful and provide us the assurances that the services provided by the state and the delivery of those services will be done in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Only when the committee has made its recommendations, and the outcome of the recommendations is determined, should the discussion of the adequacy of tax revenue occur.

The information regarding a potential revenue shortfall presented at the Fiscal Forum points to the need for this fundamental review of Nevada's government. To date, state agencies have delivered their budgets to the governor's office for review. Concurrently, the Fundamental Review Committee is in the process of reviewing more than 360 recommendations and is expected to make its final recommendations sometime in September.

At this point in time the governor anticipates at least $30 million being saved. Some of the final recommendations will simply require a change of internal process. Others will require a change of law, and therein lies the potential rub. Will these legislative proposals be seen as taking us into the new century in an efficient and cost-effective manner, or will they be seen as doom and gloom by those impacted by the change? There is no question that any changes in law will be subject to a great deal of debate during the next legislative session. That will be a good thing. What will not be good is if the changes get caught in political gamesmanship.