The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning (Excused)

Mr. Richard Perkins (Excused)

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry announced the first item for committee consideration would be A.B. 46.

To give the committee some background information about the bill, Chairman Arberry stated he toured The Shade Tree, a shelter for women and children, and was impressed by the shelter’s attempts to maintain the program. He stated he felt the state could assist in the endeavor to maintain a shelter for homeless women and children, which was the genesis of the bill. He invited Terri Janison, a volunteer with the shelter, to come forward and speak on behalf of A.B. 46.

Ms. Janison explained The Shade Tree shelter was the only 24-hour emergency shelter located in Las Vegas for women and children in crisis. There were other shelters in Las Vegas, but none offered the same access and degree of safety for women and children. Ms. Janison disclosed the shelter had been in operation for 7 years, had served thousands of women and children, and what she found most appealing about the shelter was the fact it did not appear to be a typical homeless shelter. She testified that 66 percent of those using the shelter possessed a General Education Diploma (GED) or higher education, over 25 percent were working poor, and 6 percent were what was termed "hopelessly homeless," which included the mentally ill, who had little chance of improving their circumstances.

According to Ms. Janison, the situation in Las Vegas regarding homeless women and children was incredible, with many women becoming homeless virtually "overnight." The shelter attempted to assist women in an effort to restructure their lives by offering a safe place to live until the situation stabilized. Ms. Janison stated at any given time, over 50 percent of the shelter’s clientele were children, which she felt was a frightening percentage. Another area where the shelter had noted an increase was in the senior citizen category. She explained many senior citizens used the shelter up to the 90-day period allowed. Another category of clients who utilized the shelter were persons with terminal illnesses. Ms. Janison stated there were a wide range of women and children served by the shelter.

Ms. Janison went on to explain that the physical condition of the facility was dismal, and it was literally falling apart. The shelter consisted of 5,000 square feet of space, and 2,400 square feet was living space, consisting of 54 beds and 30 sleeping mats. On any given night, she advised, the shelter turned people away due to lack of space. Further, Ms. Janison explained, the shelter had solicited funding from major foundations, and upon review of the physical facility, foundation personnel commented there were better living conditions in third world countries than what was available at the shelter. Ms. Janison then passed around black and white photos of the facility for the committee’s perusal. She stated she hoped if the committee could visualize the condition of the facility currently in use to house homeless women and children, it would have an idea of the scope of the problem.

Further, revealed Ms. Janison, the building that housed the shelter was scheduled for demolition by the middle of the year 2000, which placed the program in rather a "crisis" situation in terms of location. If the building was demolished prior to the shelter relocating, the homeless women and children would have no access to protective housing. Via The Shade Tree Capital Campaign, (Exhibit C), Ms. Janison explained the shelter was attempting to raise $4.5 million for a new building, and was currently at $3.2 million, $500,000 of which was in the form of donations of materials, time, et cetera. There was an architect and construction firm assisting the shelter free of charge, and she indicated there was tremendous support throughout Clark County, both financially and through donated services.

Ms. Janison emphasized what the shelter was asking for with passage of A.B. 46 was an appropriation of $150,000 to assist the capital campaign building fund. That would be a one-time "donation" from the state and, although it was not a great deal of money considering the task being undertaken, Ms. Janison stated it would be of enormous benefit to the shelter as a demonstration of state support.

Vice Chair Evans indicated A.B. 46 had been brought to her attention by persons from various domestic violence crisis shelters, who were very excited about the proposal. Those domestic violence crisis shelters were sometimes called upon to house homeless women and children and, clearly, their stated purpose was to shelter victims of domestic violence. Vice Chair Evans opined there was an enormous need for shelters for women and children, and she applauded Ms. Janison’s volunteer efforts. She then inquired how long it had taken the shelter to raise the $3.2 million via the fundraising campaign. Ms. Janison stated the shelter initiated the campaign approximately 3 years ago, including the planning stage.

Vice Chair Evans then asked how the shelter currently secured operating funds, what amount was necessary to maintain the current facility, and what would be the projected operational costs for the anticipated facility. Ms. Janison replied the shelter currently operated via community support, however, it was aggressively seeking funding sources through foundations and grants. Vice Chair Evans asked if the United Way supplied any funding to the shelter. According to Ms. Janison, The Shade Tree was not an United Way agency, however, persons donating to the United Way could designate which agency would receive their donation, and the shelter actually realized between $15,000 and $30,000 annually from that program. Vice Chair Evans commented it appeared the funding was through private benefactors; Ms. Janison agreed, and added there were some city and county grant funds allocated to the shelter for special programs.

Mr. Goldwater advised there was a hierarchy of charities in Clark County in terms of operating revenue, and The Shade Tree shelter had moved to a higher position, due in part to recognition of its work. He stated the investment of capital from the state would assist in the endeavor of relocating the facility.

Ms. Janison explained the staff at the shelter were absolutely incredible and what they had accomplished in the past 5 years was amazing. The community had noticed the shelter program and added its support to the effort. She reiterated that the existing need for programs for homeless women and children was phenomenal, and The Shade Tree was the only 24-hour emergency shelter exclusively for women and children in Clark County. Because of that 24-hour accessibility, the shelter worked closely with other agencies, such as domestic shelters and also the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Ms. Janison emphasized agencies needed to work closely together in order to offer the greatest assistance possible to homeless women and children.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the shelter could offer the degree of protection necessary, due to the fact its name was located on a sign on the front of the building. Ms. Janison explained The Shade Tree did not offer the degree of protection required of domestic violence shelters, but rather offered a secure and protective place off the streets where women and children could stay. The new shelter site would include a security system which would provide a greater sense of protection to those using the shelter. She stressed that persons could not enter The Shade Tree shelter without approval, which offered some degree of security.

With no further testimony to come before the committee regarding A.B. 46, the hearing was closed. The next agenda item was A.B. 233.

Chairman Arberry informed the committee A.B. 233 would be removed from the agenda and testimony would not be heard. The committee would move to agenda item A.B. 381.

Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, advised the committee that 2 years ago legislation was passed which enabled interested counties to establish a Veterans Field Service Office. When that bill was before committee, there was a great deal of testimony regarding the money that would be saved if those offices were not only scattered throughout the rural areas, but were also located in the urban areas. There was no funding request attached to the bill, as it was considered only enabling legislation for counties. An error was made upon passage of the bill because it was unclear what the state versus the county role was in entitlement programs. Mrs. de Braga stated the assumption was made that if the bill passed and a county did, indeed, establish such an office, the savings would be mainly to the county; however, she advised, the opposite was true and the greater savings would be realized by the state.

Continuing, Mrs. de Braga pointed out that Churchill County did, after a tremendous number of meetings with officials and veterans groups, establish an office as a pilot program. The county did not have the funds to hire a full-time officer, and the office was currently staffed by volunteers. What had been offered by the county was office space in a county building, along with access to necessary office equipment such as copiers, and most other office equipment needs. The county also paid for telephone service, and the Fallon Naval Air Station had donated a computer to the office. The problem was the fact that there was not a full-time, salaried officer on staff. She explained the reason that position was so important, although she certainly would not demean the efforts of volunteers, was to track the records necessary to substantiate the savings that could be generated to both the state and county.

A.B. 381 would add the requirement that the full-time officer position be held by a veteran. In its current version, the bill also requested a one-time allocation of $50,000 for the program, and Mrs. de Braga indicated that should be amended to read $50,000 per fiscal year. The reason for the yearly allocation would be for payment of the full-time position’s salary of $35,000, with the remaining $15,000 used for advertising, initiating contacts with veterans by getting the message out to the public, and making sure that follow-up was done by the Commission for Veterans Affairs. According to Mrs. de Braga, such a program had been in place in California for a number of years, and there was a field service office in every county except two, which had cooperative offices. California had saved millions of dollars via entitlement programs. Again, she stated, the main beneficiary of the benefits from establishment of such offices would be the State of Nevada. The savings would be generated by linking eligible veterans with entitlement programs, thereby removing them from welfare roles or other state programs, which would provide additional revenue to the state. In most cases, veterans had no idea of what benefits they were entitled to and/or they did not want to wade through the "red tape" in order to pursue those benefits.

Mrs. de Braga advised the committee there were persons present from the Commission for Veterans Affairs, who would present expert testimony regarding the program. She urged committee support of A.B. 381.

Chairman Arberry asked why the allocation had not been placed in the original budget request submitted by the Commission for Veterans Affairs. Electing to respond was Charles Abbott, Executive Director, Commission for Veterans Affairs, who advised that while the commission had the authority to supplement county veteran service officer positions, it did not have the authority to fund such an office. Also, the commission felt the position should mainly be controlled by the county rather than by the commission. Mr. Abbott stated the concept was that the counties would pay the bulk of the costs, and the commission would provide some additional funding for the full-time officer position. When the commission prepared its budget, there were ongoing negotiations with Churchill County, along with other counties, but none were prepared to contribute the necessary funds because their budgets had already been approved for the fiscal year.

Mr. Abbott went on to explain the County Veterans Coordinator position would be dedicated to assisting veterans in filing benefit claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The filing of claims was a very difficult, complicated, and time-consuming process. Completion of the pertinent information necessary to file a claim often required some type of assistance. Mr. Abbott stated many veterans service organizations already provided National Service Officers to assist veterans in filing claims and, in Nevada, those highly trained personnel were located in the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Reno.

According to Mr. Abbott, the County Veterans Service Coordinator position would serve more as an intermediary between the rural veteran and the National Services Officer. That position would benefit the county by securing federal dollars for services which counties might otherwise be required to pay. The commission assumed a position of support for the program and the bill, and was ready to assist in any possible way, be it technical or through the budget process. Mr. Abbott stated he had been working very closely with Mrs. de Braga and Churchill County to establish the program. The office opened in October of 1998 on a 3-day-a-week basis for 3 hours a day, with volunteer staff. The commission had intended to use volunteers in that office to establish the workload and track the benefits, however, found it could not be done with volunteers even though quite a bit of training had been provided. Mr. Abbott advised there were two other counties that had initiated similar programs on a volunteer basis, Carson City and Mineral County, but he felt Churchill County was, by far, the leader in the program.

Monte Wilson, Veterans Service Representative, Commission for Veterans Affairs, stated over the course of the last 4 months, over $100,000 of pension benefits were paid directly to veterans residing in the Churchill County, thus eliminating the need for welfare or food stamp programs. The medical services area alone was quite extensive, with vans used to transmit veterans to and from those services on a daily basis. There were many widows of veterans who had not received any information. Mr. Wilson explained he had filed at least 12 claims during March, as a direct result of the volunteer staff in Churchill County. Mr. Wilson felt if a full-time position was placed in the Churchill County Office, the daily tracking sheets would multiply rapidly, and he would hazard a guess it would result in a $250,000 a year savings to the state.

Mrs. de Braga went on to explain Nevada was number one in the percentage of its population who were veterans. The state Medical program in California actually contributed to its veterans program, which was funded by state, county and the Medical program.

Chairman Arberry inquired if there was any further testimony on behalf of A.B. 381 and hearing none, closed the hearing. The next item for committee consideration was A.B. 401.

Mujahid Ramadan, Executive Director, Nevada Partners, introduced himself to the committee and asked his associates to do likewise. Paul Larsen, Board Member, Nevada Partners, and Pat Shalmy, President and General Manager of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Board Member, Nevada Partners also introduced themselves to the committee.

Mr. Ramadan addressed the committee regarding A.B. 401, and indicated it was a request for a $500,000 allotment to Nevada Partners, which was founded in 1992 due to social unrest in southern Nevada after the "Rodney King" court decision in southern California. Its primary focus at that time was the youth/adolescent population and due to the measurable success of that program, it had been expanded over the years to include the adult population, the youth population, and women and mothers in transition, in an effort to remove women from welfare programs.

According to Mr. Ramadan, Nevada Partners worked not only with the unemployed, but also the underemployed, in an effort to find jobs and provide businesses with a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. Nevada Partners’ clients were provided with the tools needed to obtain employment and improve the quality of their lives, and subsequently improve the life of the community as a whole. He advised in 1999 the program would exceed 4,000 persons placed in jobs and able to sustain that position in the workforce; 70 percent of those clients were successful, upon completion of Nevada Partners, in maintaining permanent, full-time employment. Those clients had become self-sufficient, were employed in tax paying jobs, invested back into the economy, and had become role models for their children in terms of employment.

Mr. Ramadan stated Nevada Partners provided life skills, pre-employment and post-employment preparation, information regarding job promotion, values, communication skills, and a host of other skills needed to ensure that clients not only were able to gain employment, but also were able to sustain that position in the workforce. He explained the program networked with the Culinary Training Union for further job possibilities, along with other businesses throughout southern Nevada.

Further, explained Mr. Ramadan, Nevada Partners’ pilot program was entitled "Women in Transition," which was piloted prior to welfare transition legislation. It was a program where women learned how to successfully remove themselves from welfare programs. Nevada Partners also worked jointly with the Nevada State Welfare Division at no cost to the state. The 4-week program had been in operation for 3 years.

Mr. Ramadan testified the "Career Quest" program offered by Nevada Partners was a 2-week program for men, women, high school dropouts, and the ex-felon population, which was accessed through the Division of Parole and Probation, in an attempt to reduce recidivism rates. The program also assisted clients in securing sheriff’s cards, health cards, and bus tokens where there was a need. An extra program Nevada Partners invested in, which consumed approximately one-third of its budget, was the "Boxing Gym" program. That program was not for assistance in securing employment, but rather was a program to help prevent youth from becoming involved in drugs, gang activities, negative activities, teenage pregnancy, et cetera.

Mr. Ramadan explained Nevada Partners had made a major investment in an area that had previously been blighted, and to date there had been over $10 million invested in the program, largely by the private sector and foundations. Because of the vicissitudes of private foundation funding, and with the program’s need to continue and expand its current programs, he was before the committee in order to solicit the state’s support of Nevada Partners.

Next to address the committee was Mr. Larsen, who indicated the key point of the program for Nevada Partners was to ensure that persons were moved from public assistance programs into independent employment opportunities. For example, the "Women in Transition" program focused on women receiving welfare benefits, and transitioned them into the workforce. The "Career Quest" program did the same for persons who were chronically unemployed, providing the skills necessary to enter the workforce. Mr. Larsen felt appropriation requested in A.B. 401 would be well spent, and would prevent future dollars being spent on welfare programs. Nevada Partners moved persons from unemployment situations where they were receiving assistance, into the workforce.

Mr. Shalmy informed the committee that, along with his position as a board member for The Shade Tree, he also sat on the Governor’s Workforce Investment Board. That Board and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce were intertwined with Nevada Partners in its purpose and what it was attempting to accomplish. The business members in the chamber indicated they had to search long and hard for qualified people when seeking well-trained employees. He went on to explain the Workforce Investment Board was challenged with meeting the Congressional Workforce Investment Act in preparing the state plan, and felt the real objective was to assist those persons who were unemployed, and underemployed.

Mr. Shalmy emphasized he was privileged to be a part of Nevada Partners, which he felt was doing an excellent job. He invited members to visit the facility in Las Vegas and view the program at work. It was a tremendous training facility, according to Mr. Shalmy, with an outstanding youth program. Nevada Partners assisted the business community and also played a role in the Workforce Investment Board’s plan, which anticipated "one-stop" centers where businesses could review employment eligibility applications from a variety of persons. Mr. Shalmy stated Nevada Partners might well be the program where a business could find a particular type of training offered, and thereby find the employees it needed. Those persons would then become contributing members of society, rather than welfare recipients.

Mr. Shalmy felt the appropriation in A.B. 401 would be money well invested, and he indicated he appreciated the committee’s support. He understood the fiscal challenges facing the legislature, however, felt it would be money well spent.

Mr. Beers stated he had toured the Nevada Partners facility approximately 1 year ago, and was impressed with the technology of the training programs; he asked Mr. Ramadan to describe the programs.

Mr. Ramadan commented that Nevada Partners had realized that with the change in technology and introduction of the information highway, one of the things the program needed to launch was a computer lab. He went on to explain the computer program consisted of a 16-seat, completely functional lab that had been in existence for 4 years; the program provided the client population with an extra caveat when entering the workforce. He likened computer literacy to wearing a tie in the business community, and stated if a person was not computer literate, there was very little likelihood he would succeed in the business world.

Mr. Ramadan indicated Nevada Partners referred clients to a wide range of jobs, and whether it was in banking or small business, gaming or tourism, or any other area of employment, computer training was a necessity. He advised it was a program priority available to all Nevada Partners clientele population, and after graduation from the "Women in Transition" or "Career Quest" programs, clients would enter computer training. Nevada Partners also felt a client needed to possess a good attitude, along with computer literacy, in order to be capable of entering the workforce and understanding the corporate environment. The computer lab was also available to the business community to allow persons to upgrade their position in the workforce by becoming computer literate in the most current program applications.

Mr. Ramadan went on to explain Nevada Partners conducted job fairs once a month, where 12 to 15 companies participated and chose employees from the graduating clientele. Those businesses indicated that attendance at the job fairs reduced the number of interviews necessary to fill a vacancy. The business community knew that a graduate from Nevada Partners would understand time management and the corporate environment, would possess communication skills, and also know how to dress and be a contributor to the workforce. Those were the kind of employees businesses were looking for, those who were ready for work and further training if the need arose.

Nevada Partners also had a boxing gym, explained Mr. Ramadan, which had produced two boxers currently involved in Olympic trials, and one already qualified. The gym was costly, but he felt it was worthwhile in order to provide activities for students after school. The gym provided an avenue for some 65 students to be involved in a legitimate boxing program managed by Mr. Richard Steele, a celebrated world class boxing referee. According to Mr. Ramadan, the top female boxer on the West Coast trained at the Nevada Partners gym, and there was an excellent cadre of professional persons training there who proved to be outstanding role models for the youth of the community.

While the program encompassed a 20,000 square foot facility with 14,000 square feet dedicated to employment, the 7,000 square feet dedicated to the gym would ensure that students learned values from the boxing program. The idea behind the gym was not to produce championship boxers, but rather to produce championship human beings. From 1993, when the gym first opened, to date, only one student had been referred to the Nevada Youth Training Center, and that student had since returned to Nevada Partners and renewed his participation in the boxing program. Mr. Ramadan explained the program contained 65 very active students, with approximately 300 students participating overall. He felt those would be the students who would not become involved in drugs, teenage pregnancy, alcohol abuse, gang activities, nor incarcerated in Nevada’s institutions.

Chairman Arberry thanked Mr. Ramadan, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Shalmy for appearing at the hearing, and inquired if there was any further testimony on A.B. 401. There being none, the hearing was closed.

With no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing 4:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: