Frustration targeted at Treasurer Zach Conine’s office during the recent special legislative session over the lack of a report outlining Nevada’s capacity to take on further debts through bonds has been resolved after an executive branch board threatened to compel the report’s release.

Conine, whose office re-released its January report last week, told The Nevada Independent when his office had recalled it in May — likely the first time in state history — it was to adjust for “dramatically” changing market conditions and some legislative proposals that could have affected the state’s rainy day fund and property tax structure. 

It can take six months to provide an accurate analysis, he said, adding he had made it clear to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and other officials that even with a new report, the state's bonding capacity likely would remain the same or decrease.

“All the spending plans in the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan budget) and getting to that number happened prior to the rescission of this report,” Conine said Wednesday. “There was no vacuum created by the rescission of the report.”

Typically, the treasurer’s office issues the report at the start of each legislative session in January of odd-numbered years, giving lawmakers guidance surrounding Nevada’s bonding capacity and financial proposals. The governor and Legislature then make budget decisions and vote on spending. Issuances then go to the Nevada Board of Finance for approval and the treasurer determines the release of bonds. 

Because no updated report was issued by the time of the November special legislative session, state lawmakers and members of the Governor’s Finance Office publicly griped about the situation in bill hearings. Sen. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas) said legislators were “flying blind” without it in a Nov. 13 hearing about a proposal to issue bonds for a new building on UNR’s campus, which was later paid for via direct state funding.

“We have the responsibility to deal with the finance and state debt,” Neal said. “Does the Legislature not have any power to either compel, subpoena or do anything in order to get that?”

Tiffany Greenameyer, the director of the Governor’s Finance Office, said at the time she was told the treasurer’s office would not issue it until after the special session and she was “slightly” offended by that answer.

The angst led to an unusual move by the Board of Examiners, which reviews payment claims and appropriations for the Legislature, in demanding the report via an agenda item for its scheduled meeting Tuesday. The item did not come up for discussion after Conine submitted the report.

Conine described the agenda item as a “deep misunderstanding” as to how the process actually works and a mistaken belief by the governor's office that they needed that report in order to proceed with approvals of the bonding. He said he only found out about the agenda item after another constitutional officer called him about it. 

To the best of his knowledge, Conine said there’s never been an affordability report issued specifically for a special session or outside of a regular legislative session. He noted that fiscal staff and others were aware that the report’s projections would be nearly identical or lower to the one issued in January and that the Legislature had already authorized more than had been initially allocated.

“No one reached out to our office to ask for it, which is a little frustrating, but there's a lot going on,” he said. “We try not to assume malice when ignorance is probably the more likely cause.”

When the report is developed, Conine said it is with the understanding that its findings are a bit of a moving target and the Legislature gets to make choices around it. He said the discussion between Neal and Greenameyer during the special session came as a surprise.

The affordability for the next two years of the budget cycle, Conine noted, is $1.2 billion — the same as the original projection — and by his team’s calculations, the Legislature authorized about $1.5 billion in bond funding, or roughly $253 million more than the original report had allocated.

Historically, the analysis is considered a snapshot in time, Conine added, noting that it’s not been updated in the past even after legislators approved amounts that were more or less than the report’s affordability range. 

Generally, Conine said the bonds approved by the Legislature do not completely match the affordability report, though the $253 million is relatively high.

The state Board of Finance has a decision to make when it comes to the upcoming approval process and the treasurer’s office has a choice about when it will issue bonds, Conine said. On the Legislature’s approved list for bonding are the governor’s housing bill, money for schools, as well as legislative office buildings.

“To the extent that we issue bonds in excess of affordability, what that really means is that there's less affordability in the future. We’re functionally taking from future years in order to pay for stuff now,” Conine said.