Nevada lawmakers hear paired bills to raise IFC thresholds, clarify work‑program rules

Assemblymember Danielle Monroe Moreno introduced two bills Thursday to revise how and when the Interim Finance Committee must review agency spending changes and outside grants.

AB 347 would raise the gift-and-grant threshold for non‑governmental sources from $200,000 to $500,000 before new expenditures tied to those gifts require IFC approval, Assemblymember Danielle Monroe Moreno said. “I knew that this legislative session as we were coming into it, we wouldn't have a lot of money to do a lot of really wonderful things that we've done in the past, but [this bill] would give us an opportunity to clean up some of the processes and streamline some things,” Moreno said.

The companion measure, AB 507, would set a minimum threshold and a two‑part test for work‑program revisions to require IFC approval. Under the bill, a proposed revision must both (1) change one or more expenditure categories by at least $75,000 and (2) cumulatively increase or decrease the approved expenditure level for any single category by at least 20 percent or $350,000, whichever is less.

Why it matters: The bills seek to reduce the number of small or fragmented requests that come before the IFC by clarifying thresholds and preventing agencies from dividing a single proposed change into multiple requests to avoid review.

Details and debate: Moreno, who said she chairs the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said AB 347 would require IFC approval when gifts from non‑governmental sources produce new expenditure authority exceeding $500,000 for an executive budget account. She told the committee she brought the bill to “clean up” processes and streamline Interim Finance Committee work.

Bridal Leiser, Chief Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division, answered technical questions about AB 507. He said the bill uses the term “category” to align IFC review with how expenditure authority is tracked in budgets — at the category level (personnel, travel, operating, information services) — rather than the older term “allotment.” Leiser told the committee the category‑based language was chosen to reflect how money committees approve budgets.

The bills drew no callers in support, opposition or neutral positions during the hearing and committee members asked no substantive follow‑up beyond technical clarifications. The chair closed the public hearings without taking action or a vote.

What’s next: The bills were presented and the hearings closed; the committee did not record votes during this session. Sponsors said they will stand for any follow‑up questions as the measures move through the legislative process.

Ending: Committee members thanked the presenters for concise hearings and moved on to the next agenda items.