MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 7:55 a.m., on Friday, June 4, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Birgit Baker, Program Analyst
Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst
Dee Crawford, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons
Dave Thomas, State Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association.
Sue Coffey, Former Investigator
Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Larry Stout, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training
Paul McGrath, Carson City Sheriff
Darcy Coss, Deputy Attorney General
Roger Young, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Lonnie Jackson, Court Appointed Special Advocate
Elaine Marriott, Concerned Citizen
Samantha Payne, Ph.D., Psychologist
Alicia Smalley, National Association of Social Workers
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby
Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Forestry Division - Page l584
The following exhibits were distributed to the committee: Exhibit C, Department of Prisons Population Comparisons; Exhibit D, Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Budget Closing Action, (Exhibit D - Original on File in the Research Library); and Exhibit E, Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Estimated Costs, (Exhibit E - Original on File in the Research Library).
Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed Exhibit F, Clark County Cooperators in Nevada Division of Forestry Conservation Camp Projects, (Exhibit F - Original on File in the Research Library) and Exhibit G, memorandum from Roy Trenoweth dated April l3, l993 , (Exhibit G - Original on File in the Research Library) to the committee.
Senator Rawson expressed his opinion to keep the prison honor camps open.
Senator Callister suggested to hold the budget until the General Fund amount is determined.
Mr. Trenoweth testified while referencing Exhibit G, page l7, noting the recent contract signed with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and the Nevada Division of Forestry. He drew the committee's attention to the cost of inmate labor in the amount of $7 per day, per inmate.
Senator Coffin asked how many hours the inmates work each day.
Mr. Trenoweth responded they work l0-hour days. Regardless of the cost charged to the community of $7 per day for fire suppression, the inmates are paid $l.25 per hour, he stated. He advised the committee the Prison Board sets the inmate earning rate.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO ADOPT THE SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT D AND TO RESERVE THE OPTION TO REOPEN THE BUDGET IF NECESSARY.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Angelone if there were any adjustments to the budget.
Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons, stated if legislation on the compassionate release does not pass "there...[will be] roughly an $850,000 increase."
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A REVENUE ITEM, IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED, FOR INMATE LABOR EQUIVALENT TO THE SALARIES THE INMATES ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVING.
Senator Rawson stated he did not support the amended motion at this time but opined the issue should be explored. He suggested to "continue to work with staff over the next few days and then add the figure if it looks like it's a practical figure."
Senator Raggio concurred. He drew the committee's attention to the last page of the summary, (Exhibit D), and declared:
In each year under the Division of Forestry, there is an item of $205,000 which indicates reimbursement which is income received.
Senator Raggio opposed the amendment to the motion but solicited further discussion.
Senator Callister supported the amended motion but opposed the motion in general. He opined:
I think it is unfair and...somewhat dishonest to vote to increase this budget by $l6 million without addressing where that will come from. At least this amendment takes a step in that direction in attempting to assess not some innocuous $200,000 towards the $l6 million cost, but something closer to the true value....
Senator Raggio invited Senator Coffin to work with staff and the Department of Prisons to attempt to develop a "hard number that meets all of the concerns of the committee members."
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE AMENDED MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS RAWSON, RAGGIO, JACOBSEN AND O'DONNELL VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS GLOMB, CALLISTER AND COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill 278.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 278:Allows certain additional retired public employees to participate in group insurance plan.
Senator Coffin distributed Exhibit H, a memorandum from Senator Mike McGinness dated June 4, l993. The memorandum was in disagreement to the proposed Amendment No. 723 to S.B. 278. Senator Coffin distributed Exhibit I, Amendment No. 723, to the committee and provided an overview of the material.
Senator Coffin commented:
...It looks to me like the language would also permit just about anybody to switch from any retirement health insurance program into this one.
Senator Coffin asked for clarification of that understanding.
Dave Thomas, State Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, clarified:
Yes, I think this does well meet with the past policies of the committee in terms of right now we track separately non-state versus state participants, be they active or retired.
Mr. Thomas pointed out in the first year there would be no loss claim experience for the non-state retirees upon which the actuary will base the rates. "For the first year we would see them still remaining in that pool. But after that, based on their loss experience, it would be appropriate to separately look at them," he declared.
Senator Coffin interjected, "The language you used 'remain in the pool' goes against what we say here. We do want to segregate to have their own pool."
Senator Raggio voiced his understanding of the amendment:
In the first year, the language is the rates charged with respect to the retired persons now first coming into the program, according to the language here, must be the full actuarial cost determined by the actuary upon expected claims experience with reference to these individuals. But if I'm understanding what you're saying, that may or may not, in many of these cases be available. There may be no experience history on these individuals other than you will know their age....I think I heard Senator Coffin saying you may have no actual claim experience on which any actuary can base this rate. Is that what you're telling us?
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, responded in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio asked if a one-year claim experience, as suggested in the amendment, was an appropriate tracking from which to design the rate.
Senator McGinness responded:
...My sense is that the actuary would not only look at that one-year claims experience but would look historically over the claims experience of the other non-state retirees currently in the plan as an indicator to assist him in developing some rates....
Senator Raggio asked for clarification whether the amendment only applied to employees entering the system who were not state employees.
Senator McGinness responded in the affirmative. He declared to establish a separate pool for the non-state retirees would only delay their inclusion into the group. He opined that by including them in the non-state employee pool would actually bring the rates down, "so I don't agree with the amendment."
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified the association opposes the bill "as first proposed in the amendment." Continuing, he stated:
But if it's the decision of the committee to process it, we would certainly like to see Senator Coffin's amendment put on here. What Mr. Thomas said about current non-state retirees who are in our plan having a lower loss ratio, the active employees in local governments in our plan have a much higher loss ratio and pay a higher rate now. Under legislation that you adopted 2 years ago, that gives the Committee on Benefits the opportunity to rate them separately. They didn't oppose that 2 years ago when you passed it. Now they are proposing the bill that was introduced yesterday to take that power away from the Committee on Benefits to rate them separately because they don't like the fact the rates were increased.
What we're getting here is all of these people coming in and wanting the state and state employees and state retirees to subsidize their health insurance. If that's the case, you've already subsidized small local governments in Nevada that are in our plan to the tune of $2 million. State and state employees, through their dependent rates, have already paid out $2 million and will never get it back. I think you have to make a decision whether you want to continue to do that. If you do, maybe you need to infuse more General Fund money into the state's health insurance plan to pay for it. At the very least, if these people want to come in when we haven't had their active employees, and drive the income from their active employees, we ought to be able to rate them separately. So I would have to speak in favor of the amendment.
Senator Raggio addressed the insinuation the non-state employee group may have a lower claim rating and asked, "How...does that impact the plan...?"
Senator McGinness responded:
I think this group is more than happy to have their claims experience tracked and if it's indicated they have higher rates, perhaps a separate pool is necessary. I think it would be positive to bolster to have a larger pool to spread the risk. Rather than lose the bill, I would support the amendment....
Senator Raggio asserted that no action would be taken on this measure until a full committee was present and that action would be taken later in the meeting. Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 278 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 429.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 429:Requires certain peace officers to complete training in procedures to be followed in detection and investigation of and response to cases of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of children.
Senator Glomb provided written testimony, Exhibit J, and testified in support of the measure. Letters of support for the bill, Exhibit K, (Exhibit K - Original on File in the Research Library) were also distributed to the committee. She proclaimed the measure would provide for uniform and comprehensive training needed for law enforcement in the gathering of evidence in the investigation of child sexual abuse.
Sue Coffey, Former Investigator, testified from written testimony in support of the measure, as outlined in Exhibit L, (Exhibit L - Original on File in the Research Library). She distributed Exhibit M, letter in support of sexual abuse training dated June 3, l993, from Lucy Carlton, Chief of Police, Los Altos, California.
Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified briefly in support of the measure.
Larry Stout, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training, testified in support of S.B. 429.
Senator Raggio asked if the fiscal note in the amount of $27,972 was for the initial setup of the training program.
Mr. Stout responded in the affirmative and added the funding would also allow for continued education and specialized training for investigators.
Senator Raggio clarified the cost to continue the training program would be $3,650 in the first year and $3,800 on a continuing basis, thereafter.
Mr. Stout responded in the affirmative. He noted that in the current statutes, Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) is required to provide child sexual abuse training, investigation and parole procedures. That training is conducted in a 6-hour classroom setting, he maintained.
Paul McGrath, Carson City Sheriff, testified in support of the concept of the measure. He cited problems stemming from a mandate in the bill that certain types of training, as well as a recertification process, be conducted for officers in small counties and cities. The larger counties can fiscally afford the training, he maintained. His concern was the fiscal impact on the smaller counties. Mr. McGrath cited opposition to S.B. 429 in its current form.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification on the cost to the counties.
Mr. McGrath summarized that every Category I officer who will be assigned in this area will also be required to be recertified. He explained recertification of an officer would involve 2 days annually for each recertification, plus one 40-hour investigative course.
Senator Raggio asked if every Category I officer would need to be recertified or just those officers assigned to the area of sexual abuse.
Mr. McGrath replied, "According to the bill you would....That's in section 2."
Senator Coffin requested a copy of the syllabus and any other training material handouts used in the child sexual abuse class.
In reply to Mr. McGrath's response relevant to the cost to the local governments if the measure is passed, Ms. Coffey pointed out the bill clearly states "the officers who regularly handle these cases." She stated if a "cow county" has two cases of child sexual abuse in one year, that does not constitute "regular."
Senator Raggio stated clarification of S.B. 429 would be necessary to clarify the statement "regularly assigned." He called upon Darcy Coss for assistance.
Darcy Coss, Deputy Attorney General, suggested to define "regularly" in the regulations, rather than the bill.
Senator Raggio preferred the language in the bill be clarified with respect to recertification rather than address the regulations. He requested Ms. Coss to assist in clarifying the language in the bill to accommodate the concerns of the committee. It was requested that Mr. McGrath coordinate those efforts with Ms. Coss.
Roger Young, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assigned to the Las Vegas area, testified in support of S.B. 429. He clarified his testimony was not to be construed as a national spokesman representing the FBI headquarters. Moreover, he was appearing before the committee as an expert witness on sexual exploitation of children. He offered the information he is a national instructor on the issue and is P.O.S.T.-certified. He has served as instructor for this subject matter throughout Nevada since l98l, at no cost to the state. It has been his experience that if officers have adequate training on how to interview appropriately that the cases are more successfully investigated and prosecuted. He proclaimed passage of the measure is vital to the State of Nevada.
Lonnie Jackson, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), testified in support of S.B. 429. He stated he currently serves as a volunteer advocate and sexual child abuse investigator for Washoe County district judges through the CASA program. He explained he previously served in the capacity of Deputy Chief of the Reno Police Department. Mr. Jackson explained the first respondent police officer is very important to the investigation process and urged passage of the measure in order to provide the necessary training for those individuals.
Senator Raggio asked how many officers at the Reno Police Academy would fit the category of "regularly" assigned in this area of investigation.
Mr. Jackson recalled that approximately five or six officers would currently fit that category.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Coss if only those individuals who are certified would be able to offer testimony in the area of sexual abuse. He expressed concern it may limit the ability to call forth other individuals who may have important evidence merely because they are not certified.
Ms. Coss responded, "I don't see this bill as being that encompassing because it limits itself to Category I peace officers, for their special training needs."
Senator Raggio insisted, "I didn't see anything in here, but I certainly want to have a record here that doesn't preclude other people offering evidence and being challenged because they are peace officers, but not having been certified or recertified."
Ms. Coss offered her interpretation of the bill would "still allow Categories II and III peace officers to conduct those types of investigations because it hasn't been extended to their level without the required certification process."
Senator Raggio explained his concern that a defense attorney may challenge a witness, possibly a police officer who conducted the investigation, on the grounds the officer was not certified and therefore not allowed to testify. He requested a language clarification to indicate this is not a perquisite to offering testimony as to the results of an investigation."
Elaine Marriott, Concerned Citizen, testified briefly in support of S.B. 429.
Samantha Payne, Ph.D., Psychologist, distributed Exhibit N, written testimony, in support of the measure. Dr. Payne averred that adequate training can minimize, and sometimes eliminate, interviewing a child victim. She advocated a well trained interviewer can often elicit a confession from the alleged perpetrator, thus sparing the child victim the adversarial process. She mentioned an incident where the child victim was devastated by the law enforcement interview and came away feeling he/she was not believed, or if believed, was made to feel responsible for the actions of the perpetrator. She gave the example of one of her patients, a young girl, who had been molested by her father. The patient repeatedly states, "If I had to do it over again, I would rather put up with what my dad was doing to me...than to go through another interrogation by the police department." In conclusion, she supported the 8-hour P.O.S.T. training, but opined 8 hours was not enough. She urged approval of S.B. 429.
Alicia Smalley, National Association of Social Workers, testified briefly from written text, Exhibit O, in support of passage of S.B. 429.
Distributing Exhibit P, informational pamphlet, Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in support of S.B. 429.
Birgit Baker, Program Analyst, testified when closing the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety budget last week, based upon the closing of the judicial budgets the committee increased the amount of court administrative assessment going to the P.O.S.T. budget. She explained the authority was provided for P.O.S.T. to receive administrative assessments of $l6,0l2 in FY l994 and $37,360 in FY l995 in order to provide the necessary training.
Senator Raggio stated he would hold the bill until the new proposed language has been received on the definition of "regularly."
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 429 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 278.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 278:Allows certain additional retired public employees to participate in group insurance plan.
SENATE COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 278 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 723.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed committee members to each prepare a list of bills assigned to the Senate Committee on Finance that they would like heard or acted upon. He asked the committee to note the fiscal impact on each bill, and explained by next week there would be a firm indication of the amount of the budget shortfall. At that time, the committee may decide on what other measures to process, he stated.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST COMMITTEE APPROVAL TO PREPARE A DRAFT FOR A RESOLUTION CONCERNING YUCCA MOUNTAIN.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb pointed out a legislative oversight committee currently exists on nuclear waste and suggested that entity be contacted.
Senator Jacobsen stated, "But it hasn't been responsive, I don't think, to us....I think we need some kind of analysis of our own. I just want permission to go and ask for a rough draft and bring it back here to you."
Senator Glomb pointed out the avenue to obtain the information desired by Senator Jacobsen could be achieved through the committee already established.
Senator Raggio suggested Senator Jacobsen request assistance from a legislative bill drafter addressing his concerns and provide the information to the Senate Committee on Finance for review.
SENATOR JACOBSEN WITHDREW THE MOTION.
* * * * *
Mr. Miles distributed Closing List #25, Exhibit Q, (Exhibit Q - Original on File in the Research Library) to the committee.
Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at l0:00 a.m.
Economic Development - Page 588
Senator Raggio reminded the committee this budget was held due to questions regarding the rural county grants.
Ms. Baker testified the rural Nevada program in question was a federal grant in the amount of $l50,000 received in FY l992 and carried forward into FY l993. The money committees approved, at an Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting, a work program to bring in an additional $l00,000 in FY l993 that will carry into FY l994. The agency has indicated, based on that grant being received, that the amount for rural programs to continue the Rural Nevada Development Corporation be reduced from $40,000 to $30,000, she asserted. That action would require an additional $30,000 in each year of the biennium, she said.
Continuing, Ms. Baker explained:
...To continue that particular contract for the Rural Nevada Development Corporation, a bill was introduced...which would have provided a General Fund appropriation of $40,000 in each year of the biennium. As a result of the federal grant, an additional $l00,000 coming in through IFC in FY l993, the agency has indicated that $30,000 in each year would be sufficient to continue the Rural Nevada Corporation contract, but that would be General Funds. It's not a match, per se, but the Rural Nevada Development Corporation does have access, once they have gone through several housing rehabilitations, to some additional loan funds and interest. So, in l994 and l995, they will be creating a pool so that in the future there will not have to be a state contribution to continue that particular program....
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Q. THE MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND ADDITION FOR THE RURAL NEVADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Blind Business Enterprise Program - Page l044
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND RAWSON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
State Job Training Office - Page l059
Referencing Exhibit Q, page 35, Ms. Baker explained the adjustment in this budget would be to restore the reorganization savings. She pointed out that while an administrative services staff pool was identified by the budget office, this budget does not contain a recommendation to transfer funds to the Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Administrative budget to provide administrative support and fiscal services for the agency. She explained the administrative services officer position is responsible for fiscal matters as well as grants administration and compliance audits. The closing action recommends restoration of this position to this budget.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO RESTORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER POSITION AND APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Q, PAGE 35.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Office of Protection and Advocacy - Page l095
Senator Raggio stated a reply was received regarding questions by the committee, as outlined on page 39, Exhibit Q, Closing List #25.
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, testified:
There's two budget accounts that Kevin Christensen [Acting Director, Office of Protection and Advocacy] deals with, the Developmental Disabilities Protection budget and the Mentally Ill Advocacy budget. They have additional federal funds available, which they haven't drawn down over a number of years, that has built up to a significant level in the Developmental Disabilities Protection budget. It's $l8l,75l, in the Mentally Ill Advocacy, you're looking at $270,962.
When we prepared these closing sheets, which was quite a while ago, recommending Governor recommends, that was prior to receiving this additional information from Kevin [Christensen] and also prior to his testimony. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means has closed these budgets allocating these additional federal funds as requested by Kevin [Christensen].
Senator Raggio asked if that action would enhance the capability of the office.
Mr. Guernsey responded in the affirmative and added:
As the memo indicates, beginning on page 39 and continuing for a number of pages, it would dramatically enhance the program and provide additional legal services, which has been a real point of contention with him for a number of years.
Senator Rawson asked if any General Fund monies could be "freed up because of the acceptance of these federal funds."
Mr. Guernsey responded:
I don't really think so, but these are real specific. It's funds pursuant to federal grants, which they did not draw down their full allotment. I don't think you can free up any General Funds by acceptance of these funds.
Senator Glomb stated for the record:
I have some real questions about the Office of Protection and Advocacy being within a state department, and not a separate entity, simply because this entity is to advocate for mentally ill individuals and it's sort of like the fox guarding the henhouse. I'm not prepared to push for any major changes at this time, but I think, for the record, it's something that we need to kind of monitor and look into and perhaps take some action on down the road.
Senator Raggio pointed out:
There is a memo dated March 23 in your packet, page 45, where the attorney general's office has opined they don't perceive any likely conflict if it's placed under the Department of Business and Industry.
Senator Glomb responded she did not necessarily agree with that opinion.
Senator Raggio stated, "It is conceivable conflict might arise under the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation." Continuing, he stated:
I think it's important we address that. You've raised the issue. Our action is placing it under the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. I guess the question now, before the committee, is whether in passing upon this budget, and in view of the attorney general's opinion, that it might be more appropriate placed under the Department of Business and Industry.
Senator Glomb opined the agency should stand alone "because it is a consumer's agency for the mentally ill and their families."
Senator Raggio asked what would be the cost to the agency if it remained autonomous.
Mr. Guernsey replied:
I think the administrative oversight provided by Larry Struve in the Department of Commerce, where the agency currently resides, is nonexistent. I mean there is no cost where you place it. Kevin [Christensen] pretty much operates on his own and there is no assessment directly against them.
Senator Raggio asked if there was a recommendation made by the Peat Marwick study.
Senator Glomb responded:
I don't know if the committee would be interested in pursuing it further. I think there are some nonprofit groups, or group, that are interested in looking into the possibility of doing this. I don't know how far they have explored it. I would be glad to look into it further if the chair would want further information.
Senator Raggio asked if the budget could be closed with the enhancement item and leave open the question of where to place the agency.
Senator Glomb agreed.
Senator Rawson interjected, "Why don't we close it putting it in a position today with, again, the possibility of changing...."
Senator Raggio queried, "Putting it into where?"
Senator Rawson responded, "As presented in our staff recommendation."
Mr. Guernsey clarified:
We didn't deal with that specifically. The Governor's recommending the agency move from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. The attorney general has indicated that there might be a possible conflict moving it to that new department. The alternative has been to keep it within the Department of Business and Industry at least. It has operated somewhat successfully in that one.
Senator Rawson suggested, "Make the decision now to leave it there, in the Department of Business and Industry, and then if compelling information is developed while we're in session, we'll change that, otherwise we've handled it.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND TO LEAVE THE OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Guernsey advised:
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means also added a letter of intent for the agency to actively monitor availability of federal funds and approach IFC [Interim Finance Committee] if federal funds become available over the coming biennium to improve services.
Senator Rawson suggested, "I can add that to the motion."
Senator Raggio asked if that was acceptable to the individual who seconded the motion.
Senator O'Donnell responded in the affirmative.
Redefining his motion, Senator Rawson made the following motion:
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND LEAVE THE OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY; TO REQUEST A LETTER OF INTENT STIPULATING THE AGENCY MONITOR THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS; AND TO REPORT TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE SHOULD FEDERAL FUNDING BECOME AVAILABLE.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio declared:
Let me indicate my law firm represents several hospital companies which would come under the purview of this agency. I don't see that as any conflict because I think we're enhancing the budget here, and their authority, so I will vote on the budget....The motion will include the letter of intent and the enhancement of the federal funding.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Mentally Ill Individuals Program - Page l099
Mr. Guernsey testified:
This is a counterpart to the other budget which you've just closed, also under the supervision of Kevin Christensen, and is dealt with in the memos. The availability of additional federal funds of $270,962, Ways and Means [Assembly Committee on] did close the budget allocating those additional federal funds.
Senator Raggio asked, "Again, the same question. Is there any ability to free General Funds?"
Mr. Guernsey replied, "I don't believe so."
Senator Raggio referenced page 42, of Exhibit Q, and asked if the document indicated additional federal funds could be used in this budget.
Mr. Guernsey responded in the affirmative.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio clarified both motions include the recommendation that the programs remain within the Department of Business and Industry.
Mr. Guernsey cautioned, "If you close that Governor recommends, that would be without the additional federal funds."
Senator Raggio replied, "That's why I asked....The motion should be to adjust the budget by adding the available federal funding and in the categories indicated in this memo [Exhibit Q, page 42]."
Restating her motion, Senator Glomb made the following motion:
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET BY ADDING THE AVAILABLE FEDERAL FUNDING IN THE CATEGORIES INDICATED IN EXHIBIT Q, PAGE 42, AND TO LEAVE THE MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS PROGRAM UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY,
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
State Lands - Page l56l
Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, referenced Exhibit Q, page 5l, and explained:
...In the State Lands budget, that is not affected by your decision on NTRPA [Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Association]. We held the State Lands budget because A.B. 430, which increases fees and institutes new fees for State Lands, is in this committee and a decision has not been made on that.
Ms. Botts explained the budget has $l26,000 built into the revenue from these new fees. The fees were instituted by the division in an attempt to reduce their reliance on the General Fund, she explained.
ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 430: Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar and authorization to use state land.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 430.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE STATE LANDS BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Q, PAGE 51.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at l0:35 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Dee Crawford,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 4, 1993
Page 1