MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 5, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator William R. O'Donnell

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst

Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst

Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Frank W. Daykin, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association

Frank W. Lewis, Concerned Citizen

Lucille K. Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

M. Douglas Miller, President, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association; Chairman, Legislative Chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Kevin Christensen, Acting Director, Office of Protection and Advocacy, Department of Commerce

Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education

Mary Peterson, Acting Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education

Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Department of Administration

 

Senator Raggio announced Senate Bill 235 had been heard by the Senate Committee on Transportation and rereferred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

 

SENATE BILL 235:  Provides definition for accessory roads and clarifies rights of users of such roads.

 

Senator O'Donnell advised there had been a fiscal note placed on S.B. 235 by the Office of the Attorney General.  Senator Raggio invited testimony regarding the measure and the fiscal impact.

 

Frank W. Daykin, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association, surmised S.B. 235 had been rereferred to the finance committee because the attorney general complained the measure would impose a duty upon her office to bring an action under certain circumstances

 

with resulting fiscal impact.  He paraphrased written commentary (Exhibit C) which he distributed to the committee members. 

 

Mr. Daykin said S.B. 235 would define a category of accessory roads, generally referred to as R.S. (Revised Statute) 2477 roads [section 8 of chapter 262, 14 Statutes 253 (former 43 U.S.C. section 932)] that were laid out under the United States statutes of 1866.  He said the bill would resolve a problem because use of R.S. 2477 roads has not been demonstrated satisfactorily.  He asserted the federal government takes the position that roads under that category have not been established unless they have been used by the general public.  He disagreed with that view.

 

Mr. Daykin cited a legal case, United States v. 9,947.71 acres of Land, 220 F. supp. 328 (D. Nev. 1963), in which the federal courts held that public use did not have to be established nor did the road have to be claimed by a public body as a public road if private owners showed that a road had been constructed for access to their private property.  He stated S.B. 325 would recognize that situation and provide that such roads are open to the public where they cross public land.  He averred the bill was consistent with the 1866 statutes.  He added maintenance by a public entity would not be required, but the owner is authorized to maintain the road.  He said passage of the measure would ensure such roads could not be closed by a public authority of the State of Nevada. 

 

Senator Raggio asked if the bill referred only to vehicular roads or if it included trails.  Mr. Daykin replied the roads are not specifically defined as vehicular. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired if the measure impacted only roads on public lands but not private lands.  Mr. Daykin replied:

 

      Such a roadway might exist across what is today private land if it had been established while the land was public...prior to whenever the land was patented.  Suppose that it had been established in 1900 and the land was patented in 1920, the patentee actually takes subject to that right....

 

Mr. Daykin said he was not aware of any litigation over a situation such as he described.   Because such a situation could exist, he said, "...this bill only says they are public where open to the public, where they cross public land...." 

 

Senator Raggio asked what necessitated the bill.  Mr. Daykin responded the federal government, including the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), would like to require documentation to establish access.  He charged the federal government would prefer to give only temporary licenses for usage and would like to charge fees.  He asserted, "That goes against the grain of the federal case which says the owner owns them, and it goes against the grain of [United States] Congress' 1976 repeal when it said that all rights existing on that date were preserved."

 

Mr. Daykin iterated the purpose of the bill is to put the state on record as recognizing public use by those entities which had been excluded from recognition in similar legislation passed in 1979. He claimed: 

 

      The other purpose of the bill...is that, since the state  can only forbid state agencies to close them without hearings and compensation, it directs the attorney

 

      general, if a federal agency undertakes to close them or to impose fees or restrictions on their use, to bring an action for declaratory judgment on behalf of the state and its citizens because we all have a right to pass over them on public lands and thereby...it would vindicate the right of a private user but it would also assure the stockman who uses the road to check his cattle, the fire warden who goes out if there is a range fire, the sheriff who goes if he's looking for somebody in the back country...to have a road there. 

 

Mr. Daykin charged:

 

      The attorney general balks at this.... There are two thoughts.  First it is only contingent that any such action would have to be brought.  Second, the way the bill is written, if the state brings the action we have the resources of the state instead of the resources of one or two or three people of limited means.

 

Mr. Daykin explained if the state were to bring the action it could go directly to the United States Supreme Court without having to go through all the lower federal courts.  He reiterated the possibility that such action may not be necessary.

 

Mr. Daykin suggested the word "shall" could be changed to "may" in order to give the attorney general control over her own budget.  He said that would give her the authority to decide when to bring legal action. 

 

Frank W. Lewis, Concerned Citizen, handed out a narrative of his experiences (Exhibit D) along with copies of letters from the Governor of the State of Alaska  (Exhibit E), the acting director of the Arizona Department of Transportation (Exhibit F), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Exhibit G) and copies of case law (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.) regarding access to private property across federal lands.

 

Mr. Lewis alleged the BLM has withdrawn 80,000 acres of land without any hearing or consideration of 100 patented, deeded parcels of land.  He said he had studied the proceedings against one-third of the area that was taken by the BLM.  He charged the BLM simply withdrew all public land and all access.  He said he has owned and used 20 acres within the area since 1962.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the land was near that used by the United States Navy at Fallon.  Mr. Lewis replied his property is adjacent to the Navy land.  He said the Navy was denied permission from the United States Congress to expand into the land surrounding Mr. Lewis' parcel.  He alleged the Navy has been using the land without the consent of Congress. 

 

After the area was posted against trespass, Mr. Lewis reported he called the BLM to ask what action would be taken if he continued to cross to his own property.  He related the BLM said he would be subject to arrest, fine and imprisonment. 

 

Mr. Lewis stated he had paid $7,000 for his 20-acre parcel.  He averred it is nearly impossible for a private person to bring a suit to protect a piece of property that is only worth a few thousand dollars, even though the attorney general has declared any person has that right. 

 

 

Mr. Lewis told the committee the bill is designed to protect the 13 percent of the State of Nevada that is owned by private persons.  He charged the federal government will take possession of property worth three-quarters of $1 million bit by bit. 

 

Mr. Lewis asserted Congressman Bruce F. Vento from Minnesota was determined to stop Nevadans from driving over their roads to their own property.  He said, "He has introduced a bill in Congress that sunsets the privilege of following the 1866 act...which was preserved...in 1976."  Mr. Lewis drew attention to a letter from Congressman Vento to Manual Lujan, Jr., the former Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Exhibit G) describing the proposed legislation.  He pointed out the date being requested to stop the federal government from acknowledging new roads is January 1, 1994, less than a year away. 

 

Mr Lewis declared many states have been fighting the issue for several years. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how it could be established that a roadway is an auxiliary road.  Mr. Lewis portrayed the 1866 act:

 

      If you go out and develop a mining claim or a farm or a ranch or other piece of property, and you build a road, the federal government thereby at that moment in time grants you a right-of-way over federal land that's not owned by anyone else.

 

Mr. Daykin interjected the method of proof would be done by affidavit to the effect that the site had been developed and adjacent property traversed over a number of years. 

 

Senator O'Donnell recalled that Senate Bill 236, which had recently passed the senate, depicts how roads will be mapped and recorded.

 

SENATE BILL 236:  Makes certain changes relating to minor county roads.

 

Mr. Daykin indicated a map with supporting evidence would be required.

 

Mr. Lewis noted the federal government has a procedure to formalize proof.  He said the federal government only recognizes proof if the local county recognizes the proof.  He pointed out that is contrary to the federal case cited by Mr. Daykin. 

 

Mr. Lewis stated Alaska has had its entire congressional delegation working diligently to preserve their R.S. 2477 roads. He said the federal government is considering special legislation to exempt Alaska from the bill being proposed by Congressman Vento.  He said Oregon and Arizona have also been attempting to obtain similar exemptions and Utah has proven and registered nearly 70 percent of its roads with the federal government. 

 

Mr. Lewis declared S.B. 235 is important for access not only to private, deeded property but also for the general public such as hunters and fishermen. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how S.B. 235 would prevent Congress from changing the law whereby auxiliary roads were recognized if they were used by the public prior to 1976. 

 

 

Mr. Daykin responded the bill itself could not prevent Congress from enacting such legislation.  However, he explained, S.B. 235 would empower the attorney general to contest such an act as unconstitutional.  He construed the unconstitutionality as "having given away [R.S. 2477 roads], according to the federal courts in 1866, would now be undertaking to take back the accepted gift."

 

Mr. Daykin pointed out that an individual with property worth $7,000 would have a difficult time going to court and arguing the unconstitutionality of the proposed congressional act without devoting his entire time and resources to the suit. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what testimony had been given by the attorney general regarding the potential cost to her office and how many potential suits might be involved should S.B. 235 become law.  Mr. Daykin replied there should be only one lawsuit and that would only be if the federal government persists in pursuing the matter.  He admitted he had not seen figures on costs.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the attorney general had presented some sort of fiscal note or letter indicating she does not have sufficient funds to assume the responsibility which would come about as a result of passage of S.B. 235.  Mr. Daykin responded a letter to him from the attorney general did not contain any figures. 

 

Mr. Daykin read a portion of the letter from Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General (Exhibit I), in which she said:

 

      Moreover, even if it were appropriate for the attorney general to be involved in every case in which a federal agency seeks to regulate access along a public road, the attorney general must have the discretion to evaluate cases on their merits and to allocate resources...

 

Mr. Daykin pointed out no dollar amount was included in the letter.  He called attention to Ms. Del Papa's reference to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 176 in the letter which she also opposes on the grounds it would direct the attorney general to bring a lawsuit when public agencies seek to deny access to public roads.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 176:      Revises provisions regarding roads made public by prescriptive use.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Daykin felt the purpose of S.B. 235 would be thwarted if discretion were left to the attorney general whether to take action.  Mr. Daykin replied he did not believe it would be entirely thwarted.  He said, "It would be at least half a loaf...."  

 

Senator Raggio said as a former prosecutor he has held the belief that a district attorney or an attorney general should not be mandated to bring civil or criminal actions, and discretion is an important part of their office.  He declared the legislature should not decide that the attorney general should be mandated to bring an action every time the problem should arise.  He said, "There has to be some discretion...exercised."

 

Mr. Daykin responded that was the reason he suggested leaving the discretion to the attorney general by substitution of the word "may."  He said the reason for the mandate was that at times attorneys general have been reluctant to bring suit.  He added, "The individual citizen has inadequate resources where the state as a whole, as a protector of its citizens, should have the resources and indeed has a clearer track if it acts."  He acknowledged those

 

advantages can be gained if discretion is left to the attorney general.

 

Senator Jacobsen commented many of the roads in question were created years ago for mining or livestock trade and also for emergency activity such as fire fighting.  He asked if the federal government had the right to close a road when not only fire fighters but also the public are called upon to help fight fires.  He pointed out many times new roads are created during the process of fighting fires.  He said, "Aren't they in a sense saying that this is reserved until such time as there's an emergency, and then it's wide open." 

 

Mr. Daykin agreed with Senator Jacobsen.  He observed from a constitutional standpoint the federal government would have to condemn any property to which access was denied and pay the owner.  He stated there are two points, one being fairness, as expressed by Senator Jacobsen, and one being constitutionality when the government takes property rights away from citizens. 

 

Mr. Lewis commented the sign in the photograph on the first page of Exhibit D cites the Nevada Revised Statutes regarding the Department of Transportation as though the department acquiesced in closure of the area. 

 

Mr. Lewis said the attorney general's letter (Exhibit I) had stated she already has the authority to bring a suit to protect the citizens of the state.  Mr. Lewis asserted as a citizen he was entitled to protection along with about 40 other people who were being prevented access to their property in the same area.  He remarked all of them had patented their property and were paying taxes on it. 

 

Mr. Lewis paraphrased a conversation he had with Garth F. Dull, director of the Department of Transportation, and with the attorney for the department who told him, "The State of Nevada, as far as the transportation department is concerned, which...has the attorney general's deputy there, is not interested in any roads in the state except those where they have entered into written agreements with the federal government."  Mr. Lewis came to the conclusion the attorney general's office is not prepared to help him or those owning property accessible only across federal lands.

 

Mr. Lewis concurred the bill should be amended by using the word "may" instead of "shall" for the reasons cited by Senator Raggio.  He said, "I want to get the benefits of the balance of the bill to help us in our struggle to try to keep these lands open and available to the public and the owners."

 

Mr. Lewis expressed the fear not much help will be forthcoming.  He offered the opinion the Department of Transportation should be struggling to keep the roads open just as is being done in Alaska and Utah. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if Mr. Lewis' land was fenced or staked according to a survey and if he had a deed to prove ownership.  Mr. Lewis answered he had a valid deed and he pays taxes on the property but he does not have it fenced although he has the corners staked.  He said the property is in the old town of Fairview where maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people have been driving over the roads for 75 years.  He defined the problem as "only an example," saying he could give the committee another dozen examples.

 

Mr. Lewis said he had consulted another attorney in addition to Mr. Daykin because he had considered suing the federal government.  He

 

stated his purpose is not just to establish access to that particular piece of property.  He said he owns several other parcels in similar situations.

 

Mr. Lewis said he had been told by the forest service in White Pine County where he owns property that he could not clean the road without a permit.  He said the permit required an annual fee and the road would have to be brought up to USFS standards which would have meant reconstruction costing at least $75,000 or perhaps as much as $100,000.  Finally, he added, the permit would have required him to give up all rights to the road after the expenditure of huge sums to comply with USFS regulations.

 

Mr. Lewis concluded, "They're coming...and they're going to take every road in the state unless the state does something."  Senator Jacobsen reported he had probably made some of the roads in the Pinenut area. 

 

Senator Coffin cautioned the bill may have a much larger purpose than that addressed by Mr. Lewis.  He opined it could affect thousands of people including every miner and prospector attempting to work the land.  He inquired if there was any precedent for putting "shall" instead of "may" in the statutes regarding duties of the attorney general.  Senator Raggio responded the only example he could recall was where discretion was removed from a district attorney's duty regarding driving under the influence of a controlled substance. 

 

Mr. Daykin agreed with Senator Coffin's recollection that there was no discretion regarding nuclear waste.  Mr. Daykin said the constitution specifies that "constitutional officers shall perform such duties as the legislature may impose upon them."  He continued to say, "Since 1864 it has been contemplated that the legislature would instruct and require--"  He agreed with Senator Raggio that an attorney should be able to exercise legal judgment.  He opined, "The reason why `shall' creeps into some of this legislation is when, ...in the eyes of the requestors of bills, the legal officer hasn't been doing so."

 

Senator Coffin asserted the attorney general is very adept at making sure anything for which she is responsible that might cost money is put on the record.  He acknowledged the sums requested by her office are frequently larger than needed.  He insisted the attorney general "takes the high end of a range of values, just in case...." 

 

Senator Callister shared the same concerns expressed by Senator Raggio that he would be reluctant to mandate involvement by the attorney general.  He asked what would be accomplished by S.B. 235 if there is little appetite for mandatory language and permissive language is used.  He submitted the attorney general already has the authority to represent those injured by the actions of the federal government.  He suggested the purpose of the bill under those circumstances was simply to send a message.

 

Mr. Daykin responded there was more to the measure than that voiced by Senator Callister.  He averred the rest of the bill defines incidents regarding the roads which confirm the federal provision that they are open to the public. 

 

Senator Callister repeated his query as to what would be accomplished by changing the bill to give the attorney general permissive power to act.  Mr. Daykin conceded nothing would be accomplished by that portion of the bill . 

 

Looking at the next portion of the bill regarding charging fees for use of accessory roads under section 3, Senator Callister recalled testimony in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.  He said he had heard complaints that nonhunters should be charged a fee for use of off-roads because the number of such users has increased over the years.  He called attention to a newspaper article about pending legislation that would impose a fee for off-road use in order to get matching federal funds for the state trails program.  He averred people in three-fourths of the state live in areas where they do not have adequate recreational opportunities.  He asserted many people would be happy to pay a fee to be guaranteed continued access to trails. 

 

Senator Callister declared, "I'm troubled that your proposal here would seem to prohibit that.  It would take away from us one of our best tools...to raise money to offset the increased use that occurs from an increasingly urbanized society."   He stated he was troubled by the prohibition against charging a fee.

 

Mr. Daykin responded, "As it relates to this particular bill, it would only say that the public agency shall not charge the owner of the road a fee."  Senator Callister read, "No public agency may charge a fee for the `use' or maintenance--"  He said he would feel more comfortable with a correction as stated by Mr. Daykin. He admitted there might be circumstances under which it would be appropriate to say an owner should not be charged an "unreasonable" fee for the maintenance of a road.   He objected to language that would indicate no public agency could charge a fee. 

 

Mr. Daykin responded,  "This bill is not aimed to prevent that insofar as the county...has taken over a road.  Yes, it might charge...a fee for the use of it without interfering in any way with the purpose of this."

 

Senator Callister inquired if Mr. Daykin would be troubled by the addition of clarifying language. Mr. Daykin replied:

 

      No, I would not...but I wonder if we are in the same- where we say no public agency may charge a fee for the use or maintenance of an accessory road.  Of course, accessory road is one as defined in subsection 1 as to which general public use or enjoyment is not established.  So if we have one where it is established...then of course this prohibition does not come into it at all.

 

Senator Callister pronounced the necessity to first establish some kind of inventory.  He asked if it had been done.  Mr. Daykin replied it had not been done in Nevada.  He voiced the opinion many of the owners of accessory roads would be happy to have them become public roads with public maintenance but with fees for usage. 

 

Senator Callister indicated there might be a problem with the definition of "accessory road" and that an inventory should be created of those that are or are not "accessory roads."  He suggested those matters should be settled prior to adoption of legislation such as S.B. 235. 

 

Mr. Daykin responded S.B. 236 does address the matter of establishing accessory roads.  He said there is nothing in law to prevent a county from opening a road over that route at a later time. 

 

Senator Glomb inquired what agency had charged Mr. Lewis for the maintenance of his accessory road.  He replied it was the USFS

 

which attempted to charge him.  He reiterated he was attempting to get the state to recognize the problem.  He said:

 

      When they ask you to pay the fees...they don't just ask you for the money.  ...It costs 20 or 30 times as much for the federal government to collect the fees they are charging than what they're getting because their objective is not to get the fee.  Their objective is to eliminate the rights of the citizens to access to their private properties, in their case within the forest service to make your property worthless so that they can consolidate their blocks of land. 

 

Senator Raggio averred it would seem some restriction such as that in the bill might be necessary or else the road could effectively be closed through imposition of a fee.  Mr. Lewis asserted the forest service already claims the power to collect any fee, to change the fees at any time and to terminate a permit.  He said the longest fee they grant is for 10 years.

 

Senator Glomb asked which law would prevail if the federal government imposed a fee and Nevada were to enact a law declaring that no public agency could charge a fee.  Mr. Daykin responded the Nevada law would not prevail over the federal law by its own force.  However, he said, the attorney general of the State of Nevada could go into court for declaratory judgment that all people in the state who accepted the congressional grant between 1866 and 1976 have a right which cannot be infringed.  He said if the court followed previous case law it would repudiate the forest service's right to restrict access.

 

Senator Glomb asked how S.B. 235 and others that are similar interface with another federal measure which would give matching federal funds to states to improve and maintain access roads.  Mr. Daykin indicated there would be no direct relation because those matching funds would be for roads that the public was going to use.  He said, "If any of these are taken up as public roads then...the matching money could be used upon them."  He stated the immediate concern is over roads which are not being used by the public at the moment but where the private owners of the roads are faced with deprivation. 

 

Senator Glomb suggested there are several bills that may need to be heard as a group because they interface with each other.  Senator Raggio reminded her the Senate Committee on Finance was hearing S.B. 235 due to the fiscal impact. 

 

Lucille K. Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, endorsed S.B. 235 on the basis that it will define an accessory road.  She related it had been brought to her attention some years ago that many areas located inside public lands, including small towns, were being closed off by the federal government.   Because it was difficult to believe, she toured the State of Nevada.

 

Through the use of maps and overflights, Ms. Lusk said she discovered that areas in Nevada already declared roadless areas did contain many roads.  She stated many areas were crisscrossed with roads.  She alleged the federal government had simply changed the language by calling those roads "ways."  She asserted the federal government justified the closure of those roads by changing the wording and designating them roadless areas.  She insisted the state should clarify the definition.  

 

Ms. Lusk warned if the wording of the bill is changed to "may" without any clear statement of legislative intent in support of the public interest of the State of Nevada the attorney general might not follow up in a satisfactory manner.   She recommended, if the wording was changed to "may," inclusion of a solid statement reflecting the intent of the legislature that the matter be given high priority.

 

M. Douglas Miller, President, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association, Chairman, Legislative Chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars, presented Exhibit J, a list of 27 people throughout the state in support of S.B. 235.  He said he represented a company with 28 patented claims in Nye, Churchill and Lander counties for which it had paid $280,000 many years ago.

 

Mr. Miller said the property, which has been worked, is surrounded by public land.  He worried the roads giving access to that property could be closed at any time.  He stated his company maintains the roads, known as R.S. 2477 roads, at its expense. 

 

Mr. Miller distributed copies of a statement (Exhibit K) he had made to Bruce Babbit, the United States Secretary of the Interior, in April.  He requested the committee consider his remarks.

 

Mr. Miller declared the sovereignty of the state as set forth in the Bill of Rights should be recognized and maintained by the legislature to protect the citizens of the state.  He endorsed S.B. 235. 

 

In the absence of further testimony on the bill, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 235. 

 

Office of Protection and Advocacy - Page 1095

 

Senator Raggio remembered during the hearing on the budget for the Office of Protection and Advocacy there had been some question regarding the funding. 

 

Kevin Christensen, Acting Director, Office of Protection and Advocacy, Department of Commerce, reminded the committee he had alluded to the fact there were additional federal grant funds available for protection and advocacy for support of the developmental disabilities program and for the individuals with mental illness program. He said those additional federal funds were developed because most grants issued to the state since 1979 were not all spent.

 

Mr. Christensen gave the committee copies of a memorandum to Larry D. Struve, director of the Department of Commerce (Exhibit L. Original is on file in the Research Library.) and of a memorandum to Robert A. Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Exhibit M. Original is on file in the Research Library.). 

 

Mr. Christensen said the memorandum to Mr. Guernsey was in response to a question regarding $191,000.  He admitted after the figures had been audited and reviewed by the Budget Division the more accurate total of $181,751 was found available above and beyond the existing grants for activities and programs in budget account 3812 for developmental disabilities.

 

Mr. Christensen stated an expanded enhanced work program was developed with suggestions as to how the money could be expended for the benefit of Nevadans with developmental disabilities.  He described the expenditures proposed for the account.  He referred to his memorandum to Mr. Struve (Exhibit L) which included an explanation of expenditures for budget account 3812 on page 1095.

 

Mr. Christensen noted there was a request for a small addition of $151 in each year of the biennium for In-State Travel.  Under the

 

Operating budget he pointed out a request was being made for $25,000 in each year to fund a guide that would take into account the rights of individuals in the areas listed on the second page of the memorandum.  He said the guide would be used not only by the individuals and their families but also by professional service providers.

 

Mr.  Christensen proposed inclusion of a comprehensive statewide training initiative which would cover the rights of persons with developmental disabilities or mental illness. 

 

Mr. Christensen asked for another $20,000 in each year of the biennium for a self-advocacy initiative in combination with the University Affiliated Program in Developmental Disabilities.  He said the program would be sponsored jointly by his office and the university.  The university would take the lead in providing training relating to decision-making to those with developmental disabilities and their parents, guardians, or those with whom they have significant relationships.  He stated those funds would be matched by federal funds available to the university-affiliated program.

 

Senator Raggio inquired what amount of funds would be authorized by the match.  Mr. Christensen replied it would enable the university-affiliated program to bring in approximately $80,000 per year for a total of $100,000 each year plus some private foundation grants. 

Senator Raggio asked if all Mr. Christensen's proposals were based upon the $181,000 in excess funding identified as a result of the budget review.  Mr. Christensen affirmed his statement.  He said the funds should be available now and throughout the biennium. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what would occur at the end of the biennium.  Mr. Christensen responded some of the programs would have to be self-sustaining by the end of the biennium with funding from other resources.  Senator Raggio interjected that was a troublesome proposition because two years after the self-advocacy program was initiated a request would be made for funding of $100,000.  Mr. Christensen denied that was true because he had made an arrangement with Dr. Stephen Rock, Director, Research and Educational Planning Center, wherein the Office of Advocacy and Protection would initiate the program but the university would find additional revenues from the community and foundations in subsequent years for the university-affiliated program,

 

Mr. Christensen said Dr. Rock was confident of being able to find sources of matching funds.  Mr. Christensen admitted the grant became available quickly and the Office of Protection and Advocacy was probably the easiest source of revenue Dr. Rock could find in order to obtain guarantees from the federal government for those funds. 

 

Senator Raggio declared the agreement regarding subsequent funding should be made clear so the university will be fully aware of future responsibility to obtain funding.  Mr. Christensen replied he would enter into a clear letter of understanding regarding future funding sources.

 

Mr. Christensen proceeded to delineate his requests as set forth in Exhibit L.   He declared the request for $1,500 per year for printing and copying would be directed toward the continuation of the Nevada Times project. 

 

Mr. Christensen requested $10,000 in each year of the biennium for contractual services in order to hire professionally qualified

 

experts  to conduct evaluations of the clinical status, treatment and education needs of clients and determination of their clinical or legal competence.  He asserted experts are needed to counterbalance the service providers because many clients may be faced with professionals who may have violated their rights.  Often, he said, the cases must be argued in court or in due process hearings. 

 

Mr. Christensen explained a request for $3,000 was being made to furnish equipment in addition to the enhancement amount already in the budget.  He said both would total $8,000 during the first year of the biennium.   The funds would provide a FAX (facsimile machine) and data processing equipment among other items. 

 

Mr. Christensen reported a request for an additional $10,000 in legal services in each year of the biennium to match $4,175 in the first phase of the budget and $5,000 in the enhancement portion of the budget for a total of $19,175.  He said those are sums used for direct legal services on behalf of the agency's clients.

 

Mr. Christensen requested $25,449 be placed in Reserve in the first year of the biennium and $20,000 in the second to be used for personnel costs, in-state travel and legal services to clients not yet anticipated.

 

Mr. Christensen said the committee had asked if the performance indicators would improve if the vacant positions were filled.  He declared, "Clearly, they will."  He continued:

 

      We have one supervisory-compliance-investigator position vacant...and we have one defunded supervisory-compliance-investigator position that should be funded in the next 2 years of the biennium.  If those two positions are filled I expect a 100 percent increase in...the number of clients that we can serve in budget account 3822.

 

Mr. Christensen advised there are no unfilled positions in budget account 3812.   He surmised the performance indicators will remain static in that budget because developmental disabilities cases being faced by a reduced staff are more complex and time-consuming. 

Mr. Christensen told the committee the number of clients served by the agency is not necessarily the same as the number of cases the agency opens.  He explained many times one client will return four or five times during a year, often with major complaints over denial of civil or human rights.  He said each case is viewed individually, so it is possible for 100 clients to generate as many as 700 cases.

 

Mr. Christensen stated recruitment had begun to fill one vacant position.  He reminded committee members they had received a detailed information folder regarding the Office of Protection and Advocacy at an earlier date.

 

Mentally Ill Individuals Program - Page 1099

 

Mr. Christensen turned to the fourth page of his memorandum to Mr. Struve (Exhibit L) displaying the spending program for budget account 3822 on page 1099 for the mentally ill individuals protection and advocacy program.  He said an audit determined there was an additional $270,962 available beyond expected grants.

 

In reply to a question by Senator Raggio, Mr. Christensen said

 

      This grant is simply the protection and advocacy for mentally ill individuals formula grant.  It is limited to providing protection and advocacy for the human and civil rights of our clients who have a diagnosed or alleged mental illness and who may...have been hospitalized or institutionalized within the past 90 days.

 

Mr. Christensen asserted the scope of the grant is narrow and would not permit the agency to advocate for homeless individuals with chronic mental illness or to take on issues other than the direct violation of the rights of the clients.

 

Another proposal for use of the $270,962 proposed by Mr. Christensen was for an increase of in-state travel expenditures at $1,000 each year of the biennium.  He attributed the need to the requirement for staff travel to new facilities such as hospitals, board and care homes, group homes and to the federal mandate for an advisory council.   He said the advisory council meets four times a year, twice in Las Vegas and twice in northern Nevada.

 

Mr. Christensen requested an increase of $25,000 in each year of the biennium for Operating Expenses.  He stated the $25,000 would be added to the training initiative in the budget on page 1095 for the Office of Protection and Advocacy for developmentally disabled persons.  The funds, totalling $50,000 in each year of the biennium, would be used to develop training for issues related to mental health and psychiatric patients' rights.

 

Mr. Christensen solicited $40,000 in funding to start a consumer organization of primary or former consumers of mental health services in the state, but admitted $20,000 in each year of the biennium would probably be adequate.  He expressed a desire to form a program similar to that in other states in which consumers learn to advocate for themselves so they are not always dependent upon the Office of Protection and Advocacy. 

 

Mr. Christensen averred there is no consumer organization in the state other than "The Committee Against Prisons for Profit" in Las Vegas, which he alleged seems to be concerned with private hospital facilities there. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how the money would be spent.  Mr. Christensen replied publicizing the fact funding was available would bring in interested individuals.   He indicated he would probably seek the assistance of the School of Social Work at the University of Nevada, Reno to create the organization.   He reiterated the funding would be directed for use by consumers of psychiatric or mental health services.

 

Mr. Christensen continued his proposal by requesting another $1,500 in each year of the biennium for printing costs for the Nevada Times and for revision and distribution costs for the existing brochure of his office.

 

Another $45,000 was requested by Mr. Christensen for each year of the biennium to be used for contract services as described above to review patient records, conduct evaluations and testify in court.  He said $10,000 of the funding would be used to employ professionally qualified individuals.   The other $35,000 was proposed to contract for statewide monitoring of group care or board-and-care facilities. 

 

Mr. Christensen indicated there had been an increase in unregulated board-and-care or group care facilities since the budget reduction.  He attested that increase was creating a problem for his office because the quality of care in many homes is substandard.  He

 

alleged many of those staffing such facilities are not trained to deal with people with chronic or serious mental health problems.  He acknowledged discovery of many serious health and emotional risks among clients living in those facilities.  He said the existing staff members in his office do not have time to monitor those homes to bring them into compliance with federal and state regulations. 

 

Senator Glomb asked if the source of the nearly $271,000 was all from federal grants with no obligation for matching funds from the state.  Mr. Christensen answered she was correct.  She asked if his agency could be considered a "pass-through" agency which would funnel the funds to other community services.   He admitted in many instances the money would be contracted-out through his agency.

 

Senator Glomb inquired if the funds were obtained from a yearly grant.  Mr. Christensen replied,  "These funds need to be obligated this year...and expended within 2 years or they revert to the federal treasury." 

 

Senator Glomb asked how the University School of Social Workers was connected to the protection and advocacy programs.  Mr. Christensen responded the school would be brought in on a consultant basis. 

 

Senator Glomb asked if other university schools might be brought into the picture.  She explained she might need to declare a conflict of interest because she works with other departments that might be involved.  When Mr. Christensen told her other departments were being contacted, Senator Glomb announced she would be abstaining on the vote due to a possible conflict. 

 

Mr. Christensen said his last requests were for $3,000 in equipment and $21,760 reserve funds to cover unanticipated needs for the first year of the biennium.  Senator Raggio asked if the reserve would be added to the reserve funding requested in the budget for the Office of Protection and Advocacy.  Mr. Christensen confirmed his appraisal.

 

Mr. Christensen noted he had come to an understanding with the Budget Division to increase Legal Services in budget account 3822 for the Mentally Ill Individuals Program but it did not appear in the budget.  The understanding was for provision of $20,000 in each year of the biennium.  He explained it had been part of an understanding prior to the memorandum, and the source of such funds would be from an existing federal grant. 

 

Senator Raggio asked if there was that much need for legal services.  Mr. Christensen replied, "Absolutely," and indicated the need was increasing. 

 

At the conclusion of Mr. Christensen's testimony, Senator Raggio announced he would take his information under advisement.  The chairman called for a short recess.

 

When the meeting resumed, Senator Raggio asked the committee members to turn to education budgets in the first volume of the Executive Budget.  He restated the committee's basic decision, concurred in by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, to separate the function of education as an independent department, contrary to the Governor's proposal, with the understanding that it would have to be based upon a revenue-neutral budget.  He said,  "I'm sure, as this proposed department understands...there are many things we would like to do in many of these budgets but in which we have practical limitations."

 

Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, reported on the staff's recommended General Fund appropriation increases to the Department of Education by a total of $90,237 in fiscal year (FY) 1994 and $94,634 in FY 1995.  She acknowledged those were funds in excess of the funding recommended by the Governor.  She admitted the amounts were not revenue-neutral to the Governor's budget but there were certain positions that needed to be restored to a stand-alone agency.

 

Ms. Botts gave an overview of 23 budget accounts in the department, not including the distributive school account, class-size reduction fund and the school improvement account.  She said the Governor's budget recommended a net reduction of 17.5 positions with a reorganization savings of nearly one-half million dollars.  She said the recommendation of the staff for a stand-alone department would restore approximately $90,000 of General Fund money. 

 

Ms. Botts acknowledged the savings proposed by the Governor would have amounted to about $1 million over the biennium, while the staff proposed to add only about $180,000 over the biennium. 

 

Ms. Botts said the staff recommendation was to delete 13.5 positions and retain just 4 of those recommended for deletion by the Governor.

 

Ms. Botts recalled four budget accounts had been recommended for removal by the Governor.  She said AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and Drug Abuse Education had been scheduled for transfer to the Health Division; the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program was scheduled for transfer to the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Division of Employment Training; and Education Support Services was scheduled for transfer to the Administrative Services division of the new Department of Education, Health and Human Services.  She said the staff advised pulling all those accounts back into the State Department of Education, which meant indirect costs would be assessed against those budgets.

 

Ms. Botts voiced the recommendation to restore the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, the 1.25 positions in Drug Abuse Education programs (formerly scheduled to go to the Health Division) and the half-time Elementary Education Consultant.  She explained the consultant would split time between state-funded account 2673 and federally funded budget account 2712 and serve as elementary consultant and coordinate class-size reduction.  She said there is no elementary consultant at present and none has been recommended.  She added the responsibility for class-size reduction was being handled by several other people. 

 

Ms. Botts continued to say the budget would also restore the Federal Programs Director in Chapter 1, one full-time and two half-time Nutrition Consultants, the Auditor III in the Education Support Services budget, and one Special Education Consultant.

 

Ms. Botts said the Auditor III position was being recommended to improve the audit capabilities of the department in the class-size reduction program and to verify accounts such as dropout statistics.

 

Ms. Botts said the Governor had recommended transfers

of some existing positions which were not being recommended by the staff. Those included the Director of Elementary and Secondary Education who would remain in the Education State Programs budget.  She said the department had indicated there might be an audit

 

problem and the Budget Division suggested split funding, but the staff recommended that the position stay in the state program and that the federal programs director be retained.  

 

Ms. Botts reported another recommendation by the Governor would be that one-half of a Director of Teacher Licensing position be transferred from the state-funded account to the Teacher Licensing and Education budget, which she identified as the Professional Standards Commission's budget.  She said that position was already split half and half between the Education State Programs account and the Professional Standards Commission.  She said the job had not changed and the staff was recommending the position be retained with its present split duties. 

 

Ms. Botts stated the staff recommended that a 25 percent Program Assistant III be retained in the primarily federally funded Nutrition program rather than transferred to the state-funded Education State Programs account. 

 

Ms. Botts listed those programs which the staff was recommending be eliminated.  Those were the new half-time Management Assistant I in the Nutrition program; a vacant Management Assistant II position in Occupational Education; the new Chief of Instruction, proposed by the Governor; the increase from 50 percent to 75 percent of a Management Assistant I position in the Nutrition program; and a Management Assistant I in Special Education.

 

Ms. Botts recalled the proposed Chief of Instruction position would receive about the same salary as the Deputy for Instruction which the Budget Division suggested could replace the latter.  She said the subcommittee was recommending retention of the deputy rather than installation of a chief.  

 

Ms. Botts said other positions were being recommended for elimination by the Governor but the ones she enumerated were those suggested by staff.  She said the only new position the subcommittee wished to add was a Program Assistant I for Teacher Licensing which was also recommended by the Governor.  That person would be located in Las Vegas.

 

Ms. Botts declared the staff was proposing a net increase of four positions for a total of 87 in the department, up from 83.  She compared it to the Governor's recommended reduction of 17.5 positions.  She said 100.5 positions had been approved by the 1991 legislature, which means the decrease has been approximately 13 percent. 

 

Ms. Botts said the Budget Division had recommended a number of positions be eliminated as set forth in a letter of intent sent out after the 1991 session by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  She presented the committee with copies of the letter (Exhibit N) which directed the State Department of Education to consider positions as they became vacant and to question whether those duties could be performed by others or eliminated.  She recalled there had been testimony during the present session to the effect that many positions would be eliminated in keeping with the letter of intent regardless of the outcome of the proposed reorganization.

 

Senator Raggio remembered the letter had been based upon an analysis that the duties could be performed by other existing positions.  He stated the idea was that any savings of federal funding could go to local school districts.  He suggested that should be accomplished without the necessity for a letter of intent. 

 

Ms. Botts concluded by saying the subcommittee approved the recommendations for reductions as proposed by the Budget Division with the exception of those she had just outlined.  She pointed out that there was a long-term employee who would be affected by the recommendation to delete a Management Assistant II in budget account 2673, Education State Programs on page 637.  She said the department was attempting to institute another option to substitute two half-time positions in trade for that position in order to retain the long-time employee.  She declared the net result would be some General Fund savings.

 

Ms. Botts stated that after all the State Department of Education budget accounts are closed the indirect costs and rent amounts will have to be recalculated and the budget accounts adjusted accordingly. 

 

Ms. Botts said letters of intent had been proposed.  The first, she said, would propose that the State Department of Education staff no longer travel on funds subgranted to the Research and Educational Planning Center (REPC) of the University of Nevada, Reno.  When Senator Raggio asked her what the reason was for that change, she replied:

 

      The Occupational Education branch grants money to the...REPC...located in the College of Education to perform some state leadership activities for the Occupational Education program.  But the staff members of the Occupational Education branch are traveling in-state and out-of-state out of that account, and they also have in-state and out-of-state travel in their state budget account.  Because their travel through the university is not subject to the same scrutiny and controls that all other state employees are subject to, the recommendation [from] staff [is] that they no longer be allowed to travel out of that. 

 

Ms. Botts explained she had amplified the funds for their in-state and out-of-state travel within their state budget account to make up for the removal of travel funds from those passed along through the REPC budget. She said they would continue to receive travel funds but they will be under the review of the Budget Division.

 

Ms. Botts acknowledged she had received copies of all the expenditures for the past 3 or 4 years which showed no abuses, but they were not subject to review.   She noted there were many stale claims coming through that budget. She suggested it would be "cleaner and safer" to provide travel funds through a budget subject to review.  She reported the department was not opposed to the change.

 

Ms. Botts said the second suggested letter of intent was an accelerated repayment schedule for funds loaned to the teacher-testing program.  She said the 1989 loan was for $26,101 to permit validation of seven additional subject matter tests for teachers.  She stated they had been repaying the loan, although repayment had slowed down due to sluggish receipt of fees.  She pointed out previous repayment schedules had also been set by letters of intent.

 

The third letter of intent described by Ms. Botts would direct the State Department of Education and the Department of Human Resources to continue to report to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on a quarterly basis regarding their out-of-district and out-of-state placements of severely handicapped pupils. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired if the department had indicated either  approval or disapproval of the position changes and restorations.  Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, interjected his department had worked closely with the Senate Committee on Finance staff and was in concurrence with the recommendations.  

 

Senator Glomb asked for clarification regarding the elimination of federally funded positions.  Ms. Botts responded the funds are generally passed through to the local school districts.  She said one difference came to light in Chapter 1 in which there are funds that can only be used for administration.  She said rather than lose the funds a request will be made to put that money into contract services to provide training and document preparation. 

 

Education Support Services - Page 624

 

Ms. Botts portrayed the Education Support Services budget as the central support budget.  She stated all other budgets are assessed to support it.  She said a recommendation was being made to restore a vacant Auditor III position in order to strengthen the audit capabilities of the department.  She added a recommendation was being made to restore some savings in the Operating Expenses category that had been removed due to the Governor's proposed reorganization of state government.

 

Senator Raggio reminded the committee a concern had been previously expressed that the United States Department of Education would very likely object to the indirect cost allotments. 

 

Ms. Botts responded, "The question there was, because the Governor was recommending that this budget go to the Division of Administrative Services in the new Education, Health and Human Services budget, so now that it--"   Senator Raggio interjected, "So that would resolve the reorganization."

 

Ms. Botts declared the amounts assessed to all the other budgets must equal whatever comes into the Education Support Services budget.  She pointed out they were not equal in the Governor's recommendation so an adjustment was being suggested to equalize the funds.  She noted when all the budgets are closed the department will have to reassign rents and indirect costs based on the addition or deletion of various positions.  She described the adjustment as very time-consuming. 

 

Senator Rawson asked in which budget the position of math-science coordinator would appear.  Ms. Botts replied there is such a person in the Education State Programs budget. 

 

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Botts to indicate any formal action taken by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means which might be in opposition to staff recommendations.  

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Student Incentive Grants - Page 629

 

Ms. Botts identified the budget as one funded partially by a federal grant with matching funds from the university's special projects account, the University Endowment, which she described as the university's share of estate taxes.  She stated the program provides grants to students.

 

Ms. Botts declared a problem arose when the department received notice federal revenues to be collected in the next 2 years would be reduced lower than what had been budgeted.  She explained federal funds could be used only for grants and not for administrative costs or any indirect costs.  She stated she had thus been forced to make adjustments which would increase transfers from the University Endowment in the first year by $2,800 and reduce them in the second year by $3,800.  She explained the object was to match the University Endowments with the anticipated level of funding from the federal government with expenditures which would meet the federal guidelines. 

 

Ms. Botts brought to mind an earlier discussion on February 18 on the Byrd Scholarship program which might have to be abandoned due to cessation of federal funds to administer the program.  She

said a compromise had been reached in which the half-time program assistant working for the Student Incentive Grants program would manage the Byrd Scholarship program as well as the Nevada Scholars program.  She said $5,600 for postage, printing and supplies had been included in another account to carry out those two programs and prevent their abandonment after the federal grants denied funds for administrative costs.

 

Senator Raggio interjected no testimony would be heard on the budgets, but he invited limited statements on any information material to the discussion.

   

Senator Glomb asked if the grants were earmarked for students studying education.  Ms. Botts responded she did not believe they were limited to the field of education.  She acknowledged there are some scholarships from the class-size reduction fund, supported by estate taxes, limited to prospective teachers.  She clarified the grants are funded partly from federal funds and partly from the university's share of estate tax. 

 

Senator Glomb inquired, "So under agency transfers, that's the estate tax money.?"  Ms. Botts answered, "From the university's endowments."

 

Senator Rawson asked how many recipients there were overall.  Mary Peterson, Acting Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education, responded 703 students received assistance from the program in 1992.  She said the maximum annual grant per student is $2,500.  Of the 703 who received assistance, 589 came from families with incomes less than $20,000 per year.  Also, she said, 283 attended 2-year institutions, 191 attended 4-year institutions, 5 attended 4-year private, nonprofit institutions, and 224 attended proprietary institutions. 

 

Senator Rawson asked if there were specific requirements such as gender or racial quotas.  Ms. Peterson replied she knew of no quotas of that nature but the students must be able to demonstrate substantial financial need.

 

Senator Rawson inquired if there were figures indicating how many had been Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) recipients.  Ms. Peterson replied she did not know but would be glad to find out.  Senator Rawson explained, while considering the ADC budget the committee

 

was attempting to find ways to train ADC recipients.  He desired the information in order to make a better analysis of ADC programs.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Callister suggested the adjustments be balanced when closing university budget 2977 against equipment acquisitions.  Senator Raggio asked the staff to be cognizant of the suggestion.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Education State Programs - Page 637

 

Ms. Botts declared, "This is the department's main...state-funded budget.  You'll see that the increase in General Fund appropriation here, $123,000 and $128,000, is more than what we talked about...but there's a reduction later that we'll get to.  These are the changes separate from what the Governor recommended."

 

Senator Raggio asked if the figures were in accordance with various options presented by the department and discussed with staff.  Ms. Botts replied:

 

      We have deviated from their option 4.  They have suggested retaining the Deputy for Instruction and eliminating the Chief of Instruction, which we've gone along with.  They also recommended that the Director of Elementary and Secondary Education not be transferred to Chapter 1, which we've gone along with.... They did not...move the Director of Teacher Licensing back into this account.  I have suggested that that be done in keeping with what his actual duties are.  Since he is state-funded in the other budget account, too, it really is not an add...

 

Ms. Botts explained moving the position would not change the cost to the General Fund.  She suggested the 25 percent Program Assistant II be returned to the nutrition program, which the department had not included in option 4 either, and which would save $11,000 in General Funds. 

 

Ms. Botts proposed adding an Elementary Education Consultant, the funding for which would be split between the state-funded account and Chapter 2.  She explained the split funding would provide for the person to work on the state-mandated class-size reduction program which cannot be funded by federal money.  She noted that recommendation was not contained in the department option.  

 

Ms. Botts said the department had restored a Management Assistant II, the long-time employee to whom she referred in earlier testimony.  She said the budget was built upon the premise that position would be eliminated on October 1.  She estimated the cost for the first year would be approximately $23,755 and $34,518 for the second year.  She said the options under consideration would save $15,000 over the biennium and the other would save about $11,000 over the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked which budget contained the dues.  Ms. Botts said the dues were in the human resources budget.  She explained the Governor had recommended $57,000 in the department director's

 

office for dues, which would be under human resources in the proposed reorganization.  She said those dues were for membership in national education organizations.  She opined the dues should either be transferred to the Education State Programs budget or deleted from the budget entirely.

 

Senator Raggio stated those dues are paid by General Funds.  He inquired if the proposal would fund dues for the Education Commission of the States (ECS).  Ms. Botts confirmed his query and said the cost was about $35,000.  She added the fund also would provide for payment of dues to the Council for Chief State School Officers, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the Nevada School Boards Association.  She said the total for dues for all groups was approximately $70,000 over the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked if $70,000 would be saved over the biennium by elimination of dues for ECS which had only recently been reinstated.  Ms. Botts replied he was correct and that would be enough to accommodate the position for the Management Assistant II long-time employee.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked if the Teacher Licensing and Education (Professional Standards Commission) position was the person who actually renews licenses.  Ms. Botts replied the person would supervise that office.  She said there are several people who review transcripts and issue certificates.  She said:

 

      He is also in charge of the Las Vegas office and does transportation for schools, asbestos removal, radon, lead, a number of other duties.  He is on record in the personnel department as being 50 percent on teacher licensing and education and 50 percent on other state-type activities.  

 

Ms. Botts said the Governor had recommended placing the person entirely into the teacher-licensing budget, but the department testified the duties had not changed and he still spent half his time on duties not connected with teacher licensing.  Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff had recommended leaving the position as is.  She explained both half-time positions were funded from the General Fund and it would not increase nor decrease General Fund money.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked if there were any additional staff people that reviewed and certified teachers.  Ms. Botts replied the only new position to be added over and above restoration of positions removed during budget cuts would be a Program Assistant I for teacher licensing in the Las Vegas office.  She recalled that office had suffered setbacks in 1991-92 due to a retirement and other problems.  Although licensing had fallen behind, she said the office caught up with all but 17 files by September 1992. 

 

Ms. Botts noted information distributed about the proposed reorganization had indicated licensing was 6 to 8 months behind, but she said that was not true.  She acknowledged the accusation had been true a year earlier.

 

Senator Glomb recalled testimony that membership in the Education Commission of  the States, which would cost $35,000 in dues, was important.  Senator Raggio stated the discussion had been going on for about 20 years during which time the state did not belong to the Education Commission of the States (ECS) but during which time the state received information from the organization.  He said, after a dispute won by a small margin, the state began paying dues

 

in 1989.  He pointed out priorities during the present session would force determination of whether the dues should be paid or those funds should be used for other purposes.  He said a hard decision would have to be made unless there was a better suggestion on how to pay for the position under discussion.

 

Ms. Botts stated the department had identified two pairs of half-time secretarial positions which could be eliminated in order to retain the Management Assistant II position.  She said those two positions are existing positions.  Senator Raggio remarked, "So we're going to fire two people to keep one."  Ms. Botts said, "They're half-time, so it's no change in FTE (full time employee)."

 

Senator Raggio asked if the budget included a science consultant.  Ms. Botts replied it included a math consultant that had been restored by the Governor.  She said the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had added a library consultant to the budget.  Senator Raggio asked if there was anyone performing the function of library consultant at the present time. 

 

Dr. Paslov said, "We lost the school library consultant after 5 years as of January 15 this year."  He explained she had moved to a higher-paying job in Denver.  He said an attempt to fill the position became caught up in the budget-reduction cycle.  He called it a high-priority position with support of the state library association and the state librarian.

 

Ms. Botts projected the cost for the library consultant at approximately $61,000 per year.  Senator Raggio pointed out the Management Assistant position totalled $58,000 for the biennium and $122,000 for the school library consultant. 

 

Senator Coffin requested a briefing on the duties of the library consultant.  Dr. Paslov explained she worked with school librarians and aides at the schools, provided them with training and helped them to build school library collections.  He said she was primarily responsible for coordinating the automated cataloguing system in most of the school libraries and hooking them into the state library system, CLAN (Central Libraries Automated Network). 

Senator Raggio inquired how the ways and means committee had proposed funding for the library consultant.  Ms. Botts answered they had suggested an increase in General Funds, but not until January 1, so the first year addition would amount to just $29,000 while the second year would be full time.  Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Department of Administration, enumerated costs for the second year for salary at $56,619, in-state travel $2,500 and operating expenses at $2,178. 

 

Senator Raggio calculated the total at around $91,000 since the first-year costs would amount to about half of the second-year costs.  He determined that sum added to a cost of $58,000 for a Management Assistant II would amount to $149,000 in General

Funds over the biennium to retain the two positions.   Senator Raggio asked how much would be saved from the deletion of the two half-time positions mentioned.  Ms. Botts replied the savings would be approximately $35,000 each year.  She pointed out there was still the $57,000 in General Fund dues money in another budget.

 

Senator Raggio invited the committee members to voice their opinions.  Senator Rawson stated he would like to hold the budget long enough for him to consult the Education Commission of the States (ECS) regarding the dues. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked Dr. Paslov to clarify the problem.  Dr. Paslov said it would cost about $74,000 to $76,000 per year to fund dues in the four organizations.  He said the proposed $57,000 would be insufficient to fully fund dues in ECS.  

 

When asked if the department had been provided full information from the Education Commission of the States during the time dues were not paid, Dr. Paslov replied,  "We do get information from ECS....  We get it from the other organizations, too.  But we are not players unless we are members, and I think it's very important for us to be players." 

 

Senator Raggio posed the question, which would be more important, the new positions or the dues.  Dr. Paslov replied, "I'm people-oriented, and I have to go with people."  Senator Raggio suggested that was the type of decision that would have to be made continually during the session.  Senator Rawson reiterated his request to hold any action on the budget, to which Senator Raggio acceded.

 

Senator Raggio announced the meeting would be in temporary adjournment until after the floor session, at which time the meeting would reconvene.

 

Senator Raggio called the meeting back to order at 11:48 a.m.  He reminded the committee of his intention to hold the Education State Programs budget.  Ms. Botts distributed some figures on the options discussed earlier in the morning (Exhibit O). 

 

 

Education Gift Fund - Page 652

 

Ms. Botts said the budget contained gifts and donations for specific educational programs. 

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA), Chapter 1 - Page 654

 

Ms. Botts pointed out Chapter 1 was the account into which the Governor had recommended moving the Director of Elementary and Secondary Education and from which he proposed to delete the Director of Federal Programs.  She said the recommendation had also been made to eliminate two vacant half-time Education Consultant positions. 

 

Ms. Botts outlined the changes from the Governor's recommendation.  She said one change would leave the Director of Elementary and Secondary Education in the Education State Programs budget number 2673 on page 637.  Another recommendation she cited would restore the Director of Federal Programs into the ECIA budget and approve the Governor's recommendation to eliminate two half-time Education Consultant positions. 

 

Ms. Botts explained she had mentioned earlier that the federal dollars in the budget cannot be passed directly through to the school districts.  She said it had been suggested the balance of the funds be placed into contract services for use in teacher training and informational packets.

 

Ms. Botts said there had been transfers into the budget during the current biennium from the budget for Drug Abuse Education, AIDs (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) Education, Teacher Training ESL (English as a Second Language) and Discretionary Grants.  She asserted those transfers had been made to help offset the cost of the Federal Programs Director and his secretary which were being recommended for continuation.  She noted that has been the current procedure and the recommendation would simply extend the practice into the future.

 

      SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Teacher Training - English as a Second Language - Page 658

 

Ms. Botts stated rather than hold funds in reserve, it was being recommended the amounts should be added to contracts and professional services to provide training for those who teach students who do not speak English.  She recommended the transfer of funds from the account to help pay for the Federal Programs Director and his secretary referred to in the previous budget.  She added some adjustments to the balance forward were being recommended.

 

      SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Discretionary Grants - Page 661

 

Ms. Botts described the account as a "catchall" which includes a number of federally funded programs.  She said most of the changes being recommended came about as a result of her attempt to match program expenditures to the revenue sources.  She pointed out the account contains funding for the Byrd Scholarship program which was being adjusted because those funds may only be used for scholarships and no longer may be used for administration. 

 

Ms. Botts explained the money for the scholarships would remain in the account.  Staff time to administer the Byrd Scholarship program is contained in budget account 2606, the student incentive grants. Operating supplies for the scholarship program are found in budget account 2699, Other State Programs.

 

Ms. Botts said the Budget Division had requested a change in the handling of the budget.  She explained the budget contains two half-time consultants with clerical support that are funded by the National Diffusion Network grant and by the Bilingual Education grant.  She said:

 

      All of the other program expenditures come out of set expenditure categories.  For example there'll be a category for bilingual, one for statistics, one for

 

      Diffusion Network, one for Byrd Scholarships.  The Budget Division has asked that rather than track those expenditures in separate expenditure categories that all the programs be combined into general expenditure categories to enable the Budget Division to more closely control certain expenditures such as out-of-state travel and that the agency will be asked to track each program's separate expenditures using a management spending plan.

 

Ms. Botts said she agreed to the concept reluctantly.  She explained the budget account had been very difficult for department personnel to manage over the years because they frequently spent revenue from grants for expenditures on other programs.  She said the department staff members had assured her they have the ability to track expenditures, and she acceded to a trial period of 2 years.

 

Ms. Botts explained:

 

      The number of adjustments that were needed just to line up the budgeted expenditures to the revenue sources were great, but we're going to try it because the Budget Division feels that they cannot monitor out-of-state travel effectively if there's travel from all these categories.  They want it all in [category] 02 where they can watch it.

 

Senator Rawson stated he would like an indication of the best way to track the expenditures for travel.  Ms. Botts voiced her understanding of the Budget Division's concerns that it is difficult to control as long as out-of-state travel is allowed from several categories.  She reiterated the Budget Division had indicated they had the capability to track travel now and she concurred they should be able to track the somewhat limited number of programs.

 

Senator Rawson asked if the tracking could be done adequately.  Ms. Botts reassured him she would be tracking the budgets herself. 

Mr. Hataway concurred with the comments made by Ms. Botts.  He said the Budget Division had felt it would be better to retain the budgets.  He said:

 

      We felt that it was better to keep to them because there's other budget accounts within education.  Nutrition has all kinds of grants coming in; that [are] put in [categories] 01, 02, 03, 04.  The management spending plans that the department submitted to us we felt were adequate to provide the adequate tracing for Jeanne's [Ms. Botts'] concerns. 

 

Mr. Hataway conceded it will be an experiment over the next 2 years.  He admitted the ability to balance the budget in the past was difficult due to the fact it was being done by hand rather than through a computer. 

 

Senator Rawson asked if it would cause much difficulty for the Budget Division if the budget were left as is rather than making a change.  Mr. Hataway replied, "We've worked with the system to date.  We're merely recommending a change to the way most of the other accounts are set up."  He said he had no great concern one way or the other.

 

Ms. Botts interjected she would be tracking the budget in any case due to a history of problems in it.  She related the department had

 

frequently asked why it was necessary to have so many budget accounts and had suggested consolidating some of them.  She repeated her usual reply that consolidation probably would not work.  She recalled at one time the Discretionary Grants budget included some state and private grants, and, she asserted, "they were spending school district and private money on federal programs because they weren't tracking the revenue to the expenditures." 

 

Ms. Botts said the state and other programs were removed from the budget in 1989 leaving only federal grants in the budget.  She attributed the increase in the number of accounts to that move. 

 

Ms. Botts suggested that more accounts might be combined in the future if the department is successful in tracking the accounts.  She mentioned the special education accounts that appear in several budgets as some which might be combined.  She compared them to budget accounts for environmental protection which receive many federal grants and said those now have excellent tracking. 

 

Senator Jacobsen expressed surprise that homeless assistance would be included in the budget.  He surmised it should be handled in welfare budgets.  Ms. Botts communicated her understanding the assistance was to locate and provide educational services to children of homeless people.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

After ascertaining that it would be agreeable with representatives from the Department of Education, Senator Raggio asked the committee to return at 8:00 a.m. the next morning to conclude the education budgets.  He adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. subject to resumption on the following day.

 

Senator Raggio reconvened the meeting at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 1993.  He announced the committee would complete review and possible action on State Department of Education budgets begun on the previous day.

 

Other Education Programs - Page 665

 

Ms. Botts called the budget another "catchall" budget for small, nonfederal, special projects funded by school districts, private money and occasionally state money.  She noted the addition of $5,647 each year to fund operating costs for the Byrd Scholarship program, to be used for supplies, printing and postage. 

 

Ms. Botts stated the account would be the one under which the National Geographic Society GAIN (Geographic Alliance in Nevada) program would be funded.  She pointed out the program is not being recommended for inclusion in the budget account because it requires a matching grant of $50,000.

 

Senator Glomb urged the committee to consider funding the $50,000.  Acknowledging budget constraints, she extolled the program as  providing excellent training opportunities for school personnel.  She said it enables them to teach not only geography but also related issues.  She declared there is much community support for the program statewide. 

 

Senator Coffin agreed with Senator Glomb as to the merits of the program but declared he would be unable to support adding the $50,000 because the budget is unbalanced.  He suggested the program be put on a "wish list" if funds become available.  Senator Raggio concurred in the excellence of the program and with the difficulty of finding another $50,000.

 

      SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

 

      SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS RAWSON AND O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) Chapter 2 -

Page 668

 

Ms. Botts pointed out the only change was the restoration of 25 percent of an Education Consultant for the elementary schools at a cost of $14,000 each year.  She said the funding for the position came out of Aid to Schools.  Senator Raggio asked if it would be split with the Education State Programs budget, which she confirmed.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Title II - Education for Economic Security Act - Page 672

 

Ms. Botts said all of the adjustments proposed for the Education for Economic Security Act (EESA) budget were made to meet federally required minimum pass-throughs to local districts and limits on administrative costs. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired why it was necessary to make a correction to the budget as it was presented.  Ms. Botts responded there is a limit as to how much can be spent for administrative costs under most federal grants.  She said sometimes there is a minimum pass-through to local school districts and those had not been met by the budget prior to adjustment.  Mr. Hataway concurred.

 

Senator Glomb asked for clarification.  Ms. Botts replied the budget as presented was overspent so an adjustment had been made to increase Aid to Schools.  She ventured there was an 80 percent pass-through to local schools required to conform with the Title II provisions.  She stated she checks all federal grants to ensure they meet the requirements and then changes the budgets accordingly. 

 

Senator Glomb asked what the purpose of the EESA grant was.  Ms. Botts responded it was designed to improve math, science and technology training for teachers. 

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

      * * * * *

 

Education for Handicapped Act - Page 675

 

Ms. Botts described the budget as one funded for Special Education through federal resources.  She said, "In the Governor's budget the Out-of-State Placements account, [budget account] 2670, had a large reserve....  We've moved some of that money, $420,000...back into this account so it could be distributed to schools."

 

Senator Raggio asked if it was the reserve over which there was some contention because it had not been utilized.  Ms. Botts answered that it was.  She said, "In the Governor's budget there were significant reserves being held in handicapped money, and it was our feeling that we should pass that through to the school districts."  

 

Senator Raggio indicated the program would be augmented by enhancements of $422,332 in the first year and $426,719 in the second year.  Ms. Botts called attention to expenditures under which approximately $1 million would be transferred each year from reserves in the budget into Aid to Schools.

 

Ms. Botts made a recommendation that a Special Education Consultant position 5 be restored.  She said the Governor's budget had called for abolishing the position, but the Department of Education had already hired a person in March to fill the position.  She said she had placed it into the budget at the salary of the previous incumbent, but she received information just that morning from the department that they had hired the person at the top of the pay scale.   

 

Senator Raggio asked if the person had started to work yet.  Ms. Botts explained she had not, although she had accepted the job in March.  Ms. Botts said the person was a public school teacher in Clark County who was obliged to complete the school year and so she would start on July 1.

 

Ms. Botts confirmed Senator Raggio's inquiry that a recommendation was being made to abolish a Management Assistant I as partial compensation for the consultant.  Ms. Botts said the $55,000 she showed for salary needed to be increased because the person had been hired for $61,276. 

 

Senator Raggio asked Dr. Paslov why the individual had been hired in view of the position being eliminated by the Governor's budget.  Dr. Paslov replied:

 

      We had several positions...during the development of the budget the budget office had abolished, or at least indicated that they were abolishing the positions.  We never agreed, the state board never agreed with that, although we have been holding them vacant for vacancy savings.  ...Sometime in January or February we asked again to have again those positions filled...two of them...and we went through the normal process and received approval from the budget office to fill them. 

 

Senator Raggio declared he needed an explanation of why the position was approved even though it was not included in the budget.  Mr. Hataway said,  "The approval was given well in advance of finalizing the budget recommendations as was given."

 

Senator Raggio pointed out the person was hired in March and the budget came out in January.  Mr. Hataway responded, "Sometimes these consultants take months to recruit."  Senator Raggio reiterated the budget had been prepared in January.  Mr. Hataway said,  "I understand that.  That's their problem.  But our approval was given for replacement in October and then the subsequent decision was made to put it in reorg. [reorganization] savings."

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Hataway to state his recommendation.  Mr. Hataway replied, "My recommendation was based upon staffing levels of...that particular budget account and I would lean toward just keeping the reorg. savings numbers as they are."  When asked what he meant in respect to the position under discussion, Mr. Hataway replied, "He would have to look at other options to balance his salary authority with the number of personnel that he has to work with." 

 

Senator Raggio inquired, "When you say the person has been hired, what does that mean to us? Does that mean hired subject to budget approval?"  Dr. Paslov responded:

 

      We had assumed that the money was there for the position.  ...A position control number had been activated.  We sent through the normal paperwork for the position.  We interviewed, we hired this woman...for our southern office.... We had to hire her at the top of our level which is some $16,000 to $20,000 less than she's making in the Clark County School District. So that's why we brought her in at the higher level.  We've also traded off...other positions...to allow us to move forward with this...."

 

Senator Raggio asked for the correct amount.  Ms. Botts answered it would be $61,276 in the first year and $61,471 in the second year.  She said to balance that Aid to Schools would be changed from $1,323,943 to $1,313,149 in the first year and $1,811,601 in the second year. 

 

Senator Glomb asked if those were General Fund or federal dollars.  Ms. Botts replied they were federal dollars.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked for an explanation of the accounting procedure regarding expenses.  He noted the increase in Aid to Schools expenses and a decrease in reserve transfer expenses and asked why it was being done that way instead of showing the decreases on the revenue side. 

 

Ms. Botts explained the Aid to Schools funds were being passed through to school districts.  Mr. Hataway said the reserve was reflected in the revenues already, so there would not be another adjustment of revenues, because there was no new revenue. 

 

      SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Education of Handicapped Persons - Page 679

 

Ms. Botts said the budget covered Chapter 395 (of Nevada Revised Statutes) placements of severely handicapped children outside of their home school district into other districts in Nevada or out-of-state.  She said the adjustments recommended by the Governor moved $420,000 from the account into the previous account, Education for Handicapped Persons Act, where it would be transferred to school districts rather than hold it in reserve.

 

Ms. Botts said adjustments to the budget were necessary to meet match requirements.  She explained the dollars to be expended from the account need to be matched one-to-one with state dollars and there was a shortage of state dollars due to the amount of federal dollars included in the budget.  She declared the only way to handle the problem was to add more state money or provide authority to transfer the appropriations from one year to the next within the biennium.  She stated in the event all the money was spent in the first year they could start drawing from the second year's appropriation.  She admitted that might necessitate a supplemental appropriation from the 1995 legislature.

 

Ms. Botts stated spending in the current biennium had been lower than predicted, which was to be expected since it was difficult to estimate how many handicapped children would be placed in the program, or how severe their handicaps would be.

 

Ms. Botts declared the budget also contemplates continued sharing of responsibility for the placements between the departments of education and human resources.  She pointed out a suggestion that a letter of intent be included to require continued quarterly reports to IFC on placements and the amounts expended.

 

Senator Raggio noted the staff recommendations were consistent with the actions for the previous budget.  He characterized the recommendation as continuation of the authorization to utilize the funds between budget years and to require the same reporting to IFC as that which had been done in the past. 

 

Senator Rawson wondered, since efforts were somewhat effective in cutting back on the account under discussion, if there was any money which could be used for dues.  Senator Raggio asked if that would be permissible.  Ms. Botts responded although the budget includes state funds most of the money in the account is earmarked to match federal dollars for handicapped children.  She doubted it would be appropriate to use it for dues.

 

Senator Glomb asked why there had been such a large drop in General Fund match dollars.  Ms. Botts replied the State Department of Education and the Department of Human Resources had reported the drop in costs in the current biennium were due to the absence of expensive children in the program.  She said there had been two or three children with traumatic brain injuries in the past for which costs amounted to over $200,000 per year per pupil.  There have been none of those cases during the present biennium. 

 

Ms. Botts added there seemed to be better cooperation since both agencies had been working together.  She admitted she had heard complaints from the State Department of Education regarding problems getting children placed in state facilities.  She said the State Department of Education attributed that to a conviction on the part of the Department of Human Resources that education funds were available to place the children out-of-state.  Ms. Botts suggested the two departments were working more closely now which meant more children were being placed within the state with resultant lower costs. 

 

Senator Glomb asked if there was adequate funding for projected caseload growth.  Dr. Paslov responded the population to be covered under the account was small but volatile and it was difficult to

 

estimate.  He said the budget as outlined would probably be adequate, but he warned that one head-trauma case might cost $250 per day for a year or two.  He said when such an event occurs his recourse would be to go to IFC for additional funds.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Senator Coffin inquired if all the agencies had the authority or policy to seek private insurance funds when available, particularly in cases of injury.  Dr. Paslov nodded.  Ms. Botts declared her understanding that they had been doing so, especially the Department of Human Resources. 

 

Senator Coffin said he did not see any figures indicating that those funds had been received.  Ms. Botts responded those would not pass through the account.  Mr. Hataway said a review of the last quarterly report showed there were three or four children placed out of state for which the education department was only paying the educational portion of their housing.  He said Medicare was paying the vast majority of those charges but it was not reflected in the budget.

 

Dr. Paslov declared the education department vigorously pursues third-party insurers and they do participate.  He said the money does not go into the account but instead goes directly to the provider.

 

Early Childhood Education - Page 682

 

Ms. Botts said funding for handicapped 3- to 5-year-olds for whom school districts were required to provide services was supported by the Early Childhood Education budget.  She said the budget did not meet the minimum required pass-through to local school districts as presented by the Governor.  She pointed out $433,000 in one year and $582,000 in the other for Aid to Schools was being held in reserve.

 

Ms. Botts proposed small adjustments in order to meet the minimum pass-through and to distribute the reserve to local school districts.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

      SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Education for Handicapped - Teacher Training - Page 686

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Nutrition Programs - Page 689

 

Ms. Botts commented the staff was recommending several personnel changes compared to the Governor's recommendations.  She said the Governor had recommended a 25 percent Program Assistant III be transferred to the state-funded Education State Programs account, that a new Management Assistant I be hired half-time, and that an existing half-time Management Assistant I be increased to 75 percent.  She said none of those changes in clerical personnel were recommended by staff.

 

Ms. Botts recommended that two full-time equivalent Nutrition Consultants (two half-time and one full-time) be restored to the budget in addition to those already employed.  She said restoration of those three individuals were the result of negotiations with the department regarding the positions.  She said the department indicated the summer food program would have to be eliminated if the Nutrition Consultants were not restored. 

 

Ms. Botts said the suggested plan would leave five nutrition professionals, 1.75 clericals, one half-time auditor and one account clerk.  She said under the Governor's recommendation there was more clerical support and less professional support.

 

Ms. Botts said the department was adamant that the preparation and provision of foods directly impacts children, and they urged the replacement of the professionals through a trade by removing the clerical positions.

 

Ms. Botts explained the budget would require school districts to provide a greater share of required state-local match than has been required in the past.  She said the amount to be added from General Fund support was $134,826 in the first year and $141,172 in the second year as recommended by the Governor, which she supported. 

 

Ms. Botts said language had been included in the school funding bill in the past that authorized school districts to use state aid toward the match for the Nutrition Program.  She suggested that be continued.  She restated testimony before the subcommittee in which the department requested the authorization be made a requirement rather than just an authorization.  She said a concern had been expressed that if districts pulled back on the school lunch programs there might not be enough money to come up with matching funds at the local level which would put the federal funds in jeopardy.

 

Senator Rawson articulated a concern regarding consolidating Aging Services with the Nutrition Program.  Ms. Botts responded the Governor had recommended making education part of human resources under the reorganization which would have brought the programs together.  She stated her understanding that part of the rationale in eliminating some professionals was that the Nutrition Education Program could be structured along the lines of the Nutrition Program in Aging Services.  She said the Aging Services Nutrition Program was managed by project analysts rather than registered dieticians.

 

Ms. Botts continued to say when the decision had been made not to consolidate the two departments the State Department of Education expressed a strong need for nutrition professionals rather than project analysts.  She said she had received information that there were only two registered dieticians working in school districts in Nevada, both in rural districts, while the number of children with special dietary needs is on the rise. 

 

Senator Rawson agreed it is a good idea to have nutritionists, but he wondered if it would make sense to consolidate activities.  He listed meals for mental health and aging services clients as well as school districts and said he saw no reason to build kitchen facilities in all those places.  Ms. Botts pointed out the Nutrition Education Program does provide meals to children and adults in day-care situations. 

 

Senator Rawson recommended closing the budget with the requirement for the $600,000 match but with reservation of the ability to reopen it if savings can be achieved.  Senator Raggio opined, "I think we inherently have the ability to go back and reopen any of these budgets."

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE NOTATION THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS BE REQUIRED RATHER THAN AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE THE MATCH UP TO $600,000 ANNUALLY.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Occupational Education - Page 694

 

Ms. Botts stated, "One of the positions that was deleted to try to keep the total number of positions added back over the Governor's recommendations...was a vacant...Management Assistant I...."  She averred the budget also has a significant number of people working in it because of the availability of federal funds over the years.  She said the Governor recommended 8.25 professional and 5 clerical positions, but she recommended 7.25 professional and 4 clerical positions.  She said one of the professional positions recommended by the Governor had not been funded so that position would not appear as a deletion.

 

Senator Raggio asked if that was the Education Consultant position, which Ms. Botts confirmed.

 

Ms. Botts said the Occupational Education budget was the one she had referred to earlier regarding travel out of the Research and Educational Planning Center (REPC) of the university.  Thus, she said, travel expenses would be added to the budget in the amounts of $12,000 for Out-of-State Travel and $16,000 for In-State Travel each year.  She said the revenues would not have to be adjusted to provide for travel if the positions were deleted as per her recommendation.  She reminded the committee the travel expenses would then come under the scrutiny of the Budget Division rather than passing the money through the university.  She advised sending a letter of intent describing the issue.

 

Ms. Botts pointed out some small operating increases were being recommended to cover registration fees and supplies.  She acknowledged extensive travel previously covered through REPC would now be watched by the Budget Division.

 

Senator Coffin asked for clarification.  Ms. Botts explained the travel funds she was recommending would be in addition to those recommended in the Governor's budget.  She indicated travel expenditures through REPC had been around $30,000 per year.

 

Senator Coffin asked for a rundown on the purpose of those trips.  Ms. Botts responded the funds are used for national and regional conventions or training conferences related to Occupational Education.  She added there are a number of trips where the staff members accompany students from occupational education groups such as FFA (Future Farmers of America), FHA (Future Homemakers of America) or business and occupational groups. 

 

Ms. Botts said travel will now come under the requirements of SAM (State Administrative Manual), which indicates that no more than three people should be sent to the same convention.  She said those

restrictions may cause some changes compared to how travel funds have been used in the past.

 

Senator Glomb expressed curiosity as to census data which indicates many students will need the program.  She asked if there was adequate funding, if more federal dollars would be used, and also she asked about the state-private partnership section of the budget.

 

Ms. Botts replied the department had requested more state funding than had been recommended by either the Governor or staff.  She said there are some requirements for state match funds, but the bulk of the funds are federal.  She explained:

 

      In an attempt to tie their request for increased funds to one of the Governor's critical issues, they identified some programs...I believe particularly those related to their Nevada business plan, to the Governor's critical issue of private sector.

 

Ms. Botts said that was not funded by the Budget Division, and there have been some bills introduced to provide money for occupational education programs.  She cited A.B. 288 as an example.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 288:      Provides for distribution of money used for programs of occupational education and requires establishment of certain pilot programs for occupational education.

 

Senator Glomb asked if any private sector dollars were available to match against state funds.  Ms. Peterson said there was a provision for matching funds from the private sector in A.B. 288.  She pointed out the bill has not been passed yet.  She indicated there are no provisions in the budget for other private sector matching funds.

 

Senator Callister asked if A.B. 288 would authorize private sector matching funds.  Ms. Peterson responded the bill would provide state dollars for certain types of vocational programs if the local school districts were able to demonstrate a match from the private sector.  Senator Callister asked if that meant private funds would be accepted only if the state set aside some funds for matching, meaning it would only come to pass if the legislature provided funding.   Ms. Peterson confirmed his assessment of the situation.

 

Senator Callister called attention to page 694 and said, "Although I see an increase in federal funds and a decrease in state funds, when I go down to the bottom line, total expenditures, and look at '92 actual, it's $7.5 million.  And then I look at Governor rec. [recommendations] for '95 and it's $5.5 million."

 

Ms. Botts suggested he also take a look at Maintenance.  Senator Raggio asked if the $1.6 million Introduction to Technology expenditure was a one-time expense.  Ms. Botts responded it was a one-time appropriation to buy computer equipment.

 

Senator Callister maintained the state would be spending $2 million less by the end of the biennium than in the present fiscal year.  Voicing his understanding of the one-time expenditure, he asked what the price would be on capital expenditures.  Ms. Botts repeated the total bill would come to $1.6 million, nearly all of which was designated for hardware, and which will have been appropriated by the end of June, 1993.

 

Senator Callister said:

 

      I guess I'm just as troubled as Senator Glomb is, because we hear a commitment voiced by many people...starting with the Lieutenant Governor, including the Governor, including...everybody in this body at one time or another, saying that occupational education and diversification go hand in hand as the key to the future of our economy...but we don't see the bucks.  In fact, we see just the reverse.  We see a reduction of $2 million over the biennium when I would suggest that states and economies that are a little more forward-thinking are putting the dollars precisely in this budget.  I'm going to vote no on this budget.

 

Senator Coffin inquired which budget was the one from which Clark County chose to delete $1 million.  Ms. Botts replied Clark County gave up $1 million from the adult diploma program in response to the Governor's request to cut their budget.  She said those funds came out of the Distributive School Account.

 

Senator Rawson expressed his frustration over the inability to find more resources for educational budgets. 

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR CALLISTER VOTED NO.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Adult Basic Education - Page 699

 

Ms. Botts stated new information had recently come to light on the budget.  She recalled it had not met the minimum pass-through to school districts.  Upon receipt of notification of the grant for the coming years, she increased the budget to give adequate authority to meet the anticipated funding level.  She said she had made changes to meet required limits on administrative costs and minimum pass-throughs.  She added there was an increase in Aid to Schools of $354,000 in the first year and $214,000 in the second year, and an increase in homeless literacy grants. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired, "So you're able to utilize the new information as to additional federal adult basic grant money and a reduction in operating expenses of about $20,000 each year, and that result is to increase the aid to schools and a small amount to the literacy grant?"  Ms. Botts answered, "Right, and to meet the required match and pass-through."

 

Ms. Botts indicated she believed a problem arose when administrative cost limits were greatly exceeded.

 

Senator Rawson wondered if enough money would be brought into the account to justify funding some dues.  Ms. Botts replied school districts were going to be required to provide a greater share of the match than had been done in the past.  She acknowledged most of the grants under the Adult Education budget go to the community colleges, so those would be the schools required to demonstrate a higher match than in the past.  She remarked the funds were earmarked for adult education and it might not be appropriate to use any of those funds for dues.

 

Senator Rawson admitted he was unaware the budget flowed through to the community colleges.  He declared he would not be voting on the budget. 

 

      SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

 

      SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAWSON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Proficiency Testing - Page 703

 

      SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Education Personnel Testing - Page 707

 

Ms. Botts said a loan of $26,101 had been made from the General Fund by the 1989 legislature to cover costs of validating subject matter examinations for teachers applying for initial licenses.  She proposed a letter of intent be written to provide for accelerated repayment of the loan.  She indicated the agency had agreed to the repayment schedule.

 

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE LETTER OF INTENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Teacher Education and Licensing - Page 709

 

Senator Raggio reminded the committee the budget covers the Professional Standards Commission.

 

Ms. Botts noted a reduction in General Fund appropriation which she attributed to the fact the Governor had recommended that the Director of Teacher Licensing and Education be placed 100 percent in the account.  She said the staff recommended that half that position remain in Education State Programs because half of his duties entail transportation and facility issues rather than only licensing and education.  She ascribed the savings in General Funds to that recommendation.

 

Ms. Botts said there was also a small adjustment for insurance savings for a half-time employee whose insurance had been cut.  She pointed out decreases in In-State Travel, operating and indirect costs which had been included due to the proposed reorganization.  She said those were reversed when the person was removed from the account and returned to the Education State Programs budget.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Ms. Botts interjected the one truly new position, a program analyst to work on teacher licensing in Las Vegas, would be included in the teacher licensing budget.

 

Drug Abuse Education - Page 856

 

Ms. Botts indicated the federally funded program for drug education had been recommended for transfer to the Division of Health Services under the proposed reorganization.  She explained when it became apparent that might not happen it was recommended to return the budget to the State Department of Education and to restore 1.25 positions.

 

Ms. Botts explained there is a full-time drug education consultant and a one-fourth time secretary and their related operating costs. She said those costs would be covered by reducing Aid to Schools.  She said another adjustment would provide for a transfer to Chapter 1 to offset a portion of the cost of the Director of Federal Programs and his secretary. 

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Glomb asked if there had been any efforts to consolidate drug education money.  She noted it appeared in many budgets.  Mr. Hataway said federal regulations are written so that 8 percent of the funds will go to the state education agency.  He said since the State Department of Education would be maintained as a separate branch the element under the Drug Abuse Education budget had to remain separate.  He stated the rest of the drug education funds would be primarily under the Department of Human Resources.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

School Health Education - AIDS - Page 861

 

Ms. Botts pointed out the major change in the budget was the creation of a transfer to Chapter 1 to help offset the costs of the Director of Federal Programs and his secretary.  She explained the reason this account and the previous account had not included that transfer was due to the recommendation by the Budget Division to move them to health services.  She said when they were returned to education the need arose for indirect costs assessed against the budget and the transfer to support the federal program.

 

Senator Raggio asked if those were necessary in order to retain the budget in the State Department of Education.  Ms. Botts replied that was correct.

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Job Training Partnership Act - Page 1070

 

Ms. Botts stated the job training budget had been scheduled by the Governor for transfer to the State Job Training Office.  She said that was not permissible under the federal guidelines but rather the funds had to go to an agency.  She iterated indirect costs would have to be assessed against the account to support the central support budget of the department.  She added a correction was necessary for two half-time workers who were not covered under other budgets. 

 

Senator Rawson said the budget had been considered in conjunction with Aid to Dependent Children (ADC).  He declared he wished to close the budget but said he would like to know how much of the money from the job training budget might be used to prevent some of the ADC problems. 

 

      SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

      SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Senator Raggio reminded the committee the budget on Education State Programs would be retained and reconsidered on the following day. 

Ms. Botts reiterated the State Department of Education did provide an option for Education State Programs which she had distributed (Exhibit O).  She called attention to the suggestion that the $57,000 recommended by the Governor for dues to educational organizations for the director of Human Resources be transferred into the account.  She continued with the recommendation that part of that money be used to restore the full-time Management Assistant II which had been recommended for deletion. 

 

Ms. Botts suggested the rest of the money be used as partial payment of dues to the four education organizations listed during the previous discussion of the Education State Programs.  She said the proposed closing sheet depicted the $57,000 coming in as revenue and then being split between salary and dues under expenses. 

 

Ms. Botts said the second page of Exhibit O showed what the cost of all dues would be and what the prorated share would be based upon the balance of the money available.  

 

Ms. Botts stated the salary and fringe benefits added for the Management Assistant II in the first year would be $23,000 because the Budget Division had provided funding for the person to continue through the end of September.  She acknowledged the entire amount in 1995 would have to be added which would reduce the amount left for dues. 

 

Ms. Botts said the department had recommended prorating the amounts available for dues across all four organizations.

 

Senator Rawson admitted that some of the 30 education budgets had such high matching requirements no funds could be drawn from them.  However, he suggested, some of the funds could be obtained from other budgets. 

 

Ms. Botts averred the majority of the sums received by the department for federal funding could not be used for that purpose.  She said most state funds are provided "right down to the dollar" for requirements for a match.  She acknowledged there are many cases that are below the requirements in which case districts are being asked to provide a larger share than they have provided in the past.  She suggested, "the only accounts that might have...excess would be...care of the handicapped out-of-state placements...."

 

Senator Rawson asked if there were any priorities to the various organizations.  Ms. Botts said she did not recall requesting a priority order.  She acknowledged nothing was being paid during the current year for dues.  She said they gave up the dues as part of budget reductions.  She said the previous year approximately $7,900 had been paid to each of the larger organizations.

 

Senator Rawson asked if anyone had contacted Education Commission of the States (ECS) to ascertain if a lesser amount could be paid.  Ms. Botts opined Nevada had always paid less than requested charges due to budget constraints. 

 

Ms. Peterson interjected she had contacted ECS to explain the dilemma.  She was told ECS would work with Nevada as much as possible if only partial dues were paid.  She warned with no payment no services could be obtained from ECS.  She suggested the demonstration of some commitment that would enable the state to receive some services. 

 

Senator Glomb declared she would like to see any extra General Fund money go to the GAIN program should funds become available.  She opined training teachers to better educate children would be a better use of the money because it has a direct effect on children rather than using the funds for dues.  She admitted membership in the educational organizations is important, but not as important, she felt, as some other programs.  She said she could not vote for paying dues when other programs such as GAIN were not being funded.

 

Senator Rawson suggested the problem should be resolved.  Senator Raggio indicated the matter could be held for a day. 

 

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Peterson to explain why the state was being allowed to participate in the educational organizations and receive information this year when no funds had been paid at all.  Ms. Peterson admitted the state is allowed to participate in some programs.  She said the understanding was that the state would pay some dues and fees when money becomes available. 

 

Senator Raggio contended the budget was not funded by the Governor and it was unlikely that extra money would be found to fund it.  He pointed out the $57,000 each year was in the Department of Human Resources and the suggestion was to move it into the Education State Programs budget.  He called upon the committee to consider the matter another day.

 

Senator Callister suggested the committee could fund the budget with less money and then wait for the private sector to donate money.  He said such a practice had worked well in the past. 

 

Senator Rawson mentioned there is a possibility a provision for gifts, grants and donations could be included after which the budget could be closed.  Senator Raggio pointed out not only dues were included but also the Education State Programs budget was asking for restoration of another position. 

 

There being no further business before committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting.

 

                                                RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                        

                                                Judy Jacobs,

                                                Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                   

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                              

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Finance

May 5, 1993

Page 1