The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:30 AM, on Wednesday, March 31, 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. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Pete Morros, Director for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources introduced Freeman Johnson, Assistant Director for the department. He then declared his support for A.B. 151 and distributed a handout (Exhibit C) which illustrated the revenue and expenditures for the department’s litigation fund.

First, Mr. Morros called attention to the first page of Exhibit C, which provided a summary of legislatively approved appropriations for the fund. Since 1987, he stated the department attempted to spend money frugally on water rights litigation. Consequently, Mr. Morros thought the department had been successful in this attempt and reported the fund needed an infusion of monies every other legislative session. A summary of the fund’s expenditures on a year to year basis was also provided on that page.

Second, Mr. Morros pointed out a summary of the areas in which the fund’s expenditures had been made was provided on page 2 of Exhibit C. The figures emphasized the fact that the majority of the fund’s monies had been diverted to water rights litigation associated primarily with the Carson River and the Truckee River. At that time, Mr. Morros reported the fund was supporting litigation expenses for the Walker River.

Mr. Morros then stated the department had issued a request for an additional $200,000 for the fund. As of December 31, 1998, the fund had $137,000 in cash on hand. He also related the prevalence of active litigation involved on the three river systems was summarized in a report provided to Mr. Ghiggeri. There were currently over 51 active lawsuits.

Finally, Mr. Morros commented those lawsuits had not been initiated by the department. Thus the litigation fund was used in a defensive manner.

Chairman Arberry reminded Mr. Morros Amendment 44 to The Executive Budget requested the $200,000 fund request to be built into the budget. Chairman Arberry wondered which vehicle Mr. Morros preferred to use in order to receive those funds, A.B. 151 or Amendment 44.

Mr. Morros replied the department would prefer to use A.B. 151 as a means with which to receive those funds. Initially, he remarked the Governor had been concerned the one-shot appropriation might be construed as not being included in The Executive Budget and so he had directed the construction of
Amendment 44. Since that time, however, Mr. Morros felt the issue had been accounted for and in discussions with the Budget office, the option of maintaining a separate account on litigation was preferred. Therefore, he supported the one-shot appropriation requested by A.B. 151.

Mr. Morros then indicated a companion bill had existed, sponsored by Speaker Dini that had been subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Marvel quizzed if in a "worst case scenario", the department could request those funds from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC).

Mr. Morros supposed that was possible, however the delay involved with the IFC process could work to the detriment of the department. Furthermore he felt litigation was difficult to predict. For example, 2,000 petitions that had been filed by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe to request a determination on abandonments and forfeitures be made on the water rights related to the Newlands Project.

He reported the courts had remanded the litigation back to the Federal Watermaster and he could not project what further motions concerning those water rights would attract. Also, Mr. Morros indicated the department had spent over $4 million acquiring water rights for the project in support of the Carson pasture area wetlands. Thus far the department had incurred costs from data collection and the need for outside counsel and consultants.

Mr. Marvel then asked if the department required the retention of outside legal counsel. Mr. Morros replied the department had utilized outside legal services for quite some time. In fact, outside legal counsel had been used in the department’s defense during the Truckee River lawsuit, which had been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Marvel questioned the number of active lawsuits with which the department was involved. Mr. Morros replied the department was currently involved with 51 lawsuits and he stated a list summarizing those lawsuits had been given to Mr. Ghiggeri.

As no other questions or testimony concerning the bill were presented, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 151.

Colonel Mike Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), testified in support of A.B. 653. He explained the bill would allow NHP to be reimbursed for costs associated with the training of cadets and employees. If an employee participated in state training and subsequently left state employment less than two years following the training, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety would be compensated by the former employee for training costs.

He disclosed recruitment, training, and placement cost the department $84,000. Colonel Hood thought the bill would allow the department to recoup a portion of the state’s investment in training peace officers before they left state service. The bill would also increase the department’s flexibility regarding staffing as at the present time, Colonel Hood revealed the department was having trouble retaining employees.

Mr. Marvel asked how many peace officers left the department’s employ per year. Colonel Hood responded the turnover rate for the department was 8 percent. He was uncertain of the number of employees who left service prior to the 2-year time frame, but stated he would provide the committee with those figures.

Mr. Marvel then asked how much of the state’s investment was lost per departing employee. Colonel Hood answered that if one employee left state service, the department was losing an $84,000 investment.

Mr. Marvel then quizzed if the bill might obstruct the department’s ability to recruit employees. In reply, Colonel Hood conceded the bill had drawbacks, especially in regard to recruitment. He added the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) required a similar stipulation for a cadet attending the FBI academy.

Colonel Hood maintained the bill would serve as an incentive to retain employees, rather than as a deterrent for recruitment.

Chairman Arberry asked what levels of department employees A.B. 653 would impact. Colonel Hood replied the bill would affect employees who attended state training academies. Chairman Arberry queried if correctional officers would be included. Colonel Hood answered correctional officers would only be included in the scope of the bill if they were trained through the state’s training academy.

Chairman Arberry questioned if the bill was amended to include correctional officers, would Colonel Hood continue his support for the measure. Colonel Hood replied he would support the bill should it be amended as the Chair had proposed. He felt the bill benefited the state, not only NHP.

Mrs. de Braga next wondered if the bill excluded individuals who left state employment within the 2-year time frame due to reasons outside their control. Colonel Hood answered the agency head would be responsible for enforce the bill as it was written. He thought the bill could be amended to include a provision that would exclude those types of situations or special considerations could be made, however the bill did not contain language pertaining to the issue.

Mrs. de Braga stressed her concern that the bill needed to be amended to include protection for individuals who did not choose to leave state service. Colonel Hood concurred.

Next, Bob Gagnier, President of State of Nevada Employee’s Association (SNEA), testified against the bill. He believed the bill did apply to correctional officers, but if NHP amended the bill to cover only highway patrol officers, he would have no objection. He felt highway patrol troopers received substantial pay raises and made an income greater than that of a correctional officer. Furthermore, he thought if the bill were universally applied, applicants would be deterred from seeking employment in either DMV & PS or the Department of Prisons. In fact, operating with a 20 percent turnover rate, the Department of Prisons had enough difficulty in hiring correctional officers. Thus, Mr. Gagnier thought the bill would only exacerbate the department’s staffing problems.

Mr. Gagnier then called attention to page 1.1a, which he thought included correctional officer training facilities in the language.

Mr. Marvel then asked how correctional officer training differed from the training of a highway patrol officer. Mr. Gagnier replied the different positions were alternate categories. A correctional officer was a category III employee whereas NHP officers and other peace officers were considered category I employees as they required more intensive training.

Mr. Marvel wondered what costs were associated with correctional officer training. Mr. Gagnier did not know the actual costs and he did not believe an accurate figure relating to the training costs for a correctional officer existed.

Chairman Arberry then closed the hearing on A.B. 653 and addressed the next bill.

John Laxalt, Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Insurance, introduced Marilyn Espinosa, Administrative Services Officer, who was responsible for developing the division’s budgets and for monitoring their implementation. He then deferred to Ms. Espinosa the presentation of the division’s supplemental request contained in A.B. 656.

Ms. Espinosa related the division had submitted a request for supplemental funding in the amount of $171,000 resulting from a revenue shortfall. She explained the shortfall occurred as a result of the division’s inability to transfer the budgeted amount from the Insurance Examination Fund. She stated the division needed to reduce the transfer to ensure the solvency of the division’s Budget Account 3817.

Vice Chair Evans then asked two questions. First, she wondered why the $171,000 amount cited by Ms. Espinosa in her testimony differed from the amount indicated in the bill, or $121,000. Second, she requested an explanation of the use of those funds.

Ms. Espinosa explained the original request of $121,000 included funding for the salary need adjustment amounting to $77,000. She then related the Budget Office had advised the division that they were not eligible to receive that money since the division’s personnel salary expenses came in lower than had been budgeted. Subsequent to the original amount, the division was able to perform under budget in all category levels, to reduce costs, and to implement salary savings totaling $172,000. However, she stated those savings were not readily apparent because the division had performed under budget and because the division had a salary need adjustment of $119,000 to compensate over and above the $42,000 vacancy savings amount.

Mr. Marvel asked if the division had any funds in reserve. In reply, Ms. Espinosa explained if the division made the full budgeted transfer, only $11,000 would remain in the division’s reserves. She did not feel that amount was sufficient to sustain the operations of the division.

Chairman Evans remarked staff would meet with Ms. Espinosa to clarify the dollar amounts needed so that an amendment to the bill could be drafted. Ms. Espinosa commented she had met with Jim Rodriguez, program analyst for the Fiscal Division, and stated he had obtained that information, however, she would be glad to meet with him again if necessary.

As no other testimony was presented Chairman Evans declared the hearing closed on A.B. 656.

Colonel Hood, Chief of NHP, presented Deputy Chief John Bawden, Fiscal Office for NHP. Colonel Hood testified A.B. 657 contained the division’s request for a supplemental appropriation of approximately $12,160 to liquidate stale claims that were issued in FY 1997.

Mr. Bawden explained the original Bill Draft Request (BDR) had requested $10,491 to address the stale claims issue. However, the division was requesting that the amount, which was requested in the subsequent bill, A.B. 657 be increased to $12,160.

Mr. Bawden then disclosed the costs, which stimulated the request to amend the bill amounted to $236.95 from the Associated Pathologist Laboratory in addition to a $1,180 expense for analyses that were performed. Those expenses were incurred after the division had submitted their original supplemental request.

In general, he stated the division had started with a declining balance of $44,036.59. The major causes of the deterioration and overrun of that amount were a $13,896 bill from Nevada Bell, related to NHP’s switch to the Northstar system and a $3,650 charge from Carson Tahoe Hospital. He said the division had operated under the false assumption the division had a contract with Carson Tahoe Hospital that stipulated charges would be made on a test by test basis. Instead the hospital had accumulated the agency’s bills and submitted the entire invoice following the division’s fiscal closings. In addition, the division paid two large compensations to employees, one in the amount of $5,422 and another in the amount of $3,285, based upon compensation for re-classifications.

Chairman Arberry asked who had authorized the re-classification of those employees. Colonel Hood responded the upgrade had been submitted and approved through the Department of Personnel upgrade process. He explained if the upgrade request was approved by Personnel, pay was backdated to the date of the submission of the upgrade request.

The Chair asked if upgrade requests were channeled through the employee’s superiors. In reply, Colonel Hood explained any employee could claim their duties and responsibilities on the job had changed in such a manner that warranted a classification upgrade. After the Department of Personnel audited the position to determine the accuracy of the employee’s claim, the upgrade could be authorized and the employee would be compensated with back-pay to the date the upgrade request was submitted.

Chairman Arberry asked if many upgrade requests were approved. Colonel Hood stated most requests were denied at some point in the process.

Chairman Arberry then commented his concern was that the process was not regulated, allowing any employee to submit such a request and the request would be granted without sufficient justification.

To clarify the issue, Colonel Hood explained the employee must provide documentation to support the request. Additionally, for a request to be approved it was subjected to a copious amount of audits, inspection, and investigations. To receive an upgrade in classification, the employee would have to demonstrate that their job responsibilities had changed to such an extent that they were no longer performing the same functions for which they were hired.

The Chair then requested Mr. Hood to provide a list of the individuals who had requested the classification upgrade and a list of those who had received the upgrade to staff.

Colonel Hood noted NHP was only a small contributor to the pool of classification upgrade requests that were funneled through the Department of Personnel.

Mr. Bawden then mentioned risk management health claims, which had been paid for two employees, should be added to the agency’s list of stale claims. In addition to those items, the agency had incurred a $4,000 charge for two orders of flares. He mentioned the flare order had been made during the 1997 floods to manage traffic. Unfortunately, at that time the invoice had been lost and it took several months to verify the flares had been received.

Next, Mr. Bawden revealed a new stale dated claims procedure had been developed. The Administrative Services Division had constructed a procedure where NHP notified its primary vendors in May that invoices needed to be received by a certain date, less the account go into stale dated status.

Chairman Arberry then declared the hearing on A.B. 657 closed.

Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), stated A.B. 658 provided for a supplemental appropriation to the division to replace funds used for deficit expenses in FY 1998. He noted the dollar amount, which was reflected in the bill, needed to be corrected and increased to $387,307. That amount covered fringe benefit costs for stale dated salaries. Mr. Concha clarified the amount was an increase of $1,326 from the previous amount.

Mr. Concha explained that in FY 1998 the division incurred a revenue shortfall of supervision fees. Historically, the division annually incurred shortfalls in revenues collected for supervision fees, however, the division had always been able to recover any supervision fee shortage with salary savings realized each year. In fact, in FY 1998, salary savings had been accessed to cover the revenue shortfall but also to absorb the 3 percent Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and the 2 percent salary increase for sworn staff. Additionally salary savings had been able to cover over-expenditures of overtime, termination pay-outs, and psycho-sexual evaluation salaries. Mr. Concha related because of the salary savings, the division did not access the salary need that was available to them. As a result, the funding appropriated for the division’s radio conversion project was used to offset the deficit. That was the primary reason why the division had submitted the supplemental appropriation request.

Mr. Concha maintained funding for the radio conversion plan was critical. The division needed to purchase new radios that were compatible with the department’s new radio system. If the division was not funded to purchase new radios, he stated the officers in the field would be unable to communicate with the other law enforcement agencies thereby creating a serious risk to officer safety.

Furthermore, Mr. Concha added the division had initiated a vigorous campaign, which began in October 1998, to educate staff about the importance of collecting supervision fees to ensure the problem did not reoccur. Additionally, the division had prepared a contingency plan in order to prevent the occurrence of a deficit. He noted the supervision fee rate had increased over the previous 5 months. Thus, he commented the division felt comfortable in assuming the deficit would not reoccur in FY 1999.

Chairman Arberry wondered if cell phones were provided to P&P staff. Mr. Concha replied negatively. The Chair asked why that was the case. Mr. Concha explained cell phones were provided to the House Arrest officer and the Intensive Supervision officer, both of which dealt with high-risk offenders. Those officers were on stand-by and in the field.

Chairman Arberry observed some peace officers carried both department radios and cellular phones. He wanted to ensure the P&P officers were not put at risk by the lack of those tools.

Mr. Concha replied in general P&P officers did not require the use of cellular phones, however some officers located in Carson City, Reno, and Las Vegas carried cellular phones to manage high-risk offenders.

Mr. Comeaux next addressed the committee and noted the bill falsely indicated the request was not recommended by The Executive Budget.

Mr. Marvel then asked for clarification on the supplemental request for A.B. 658. Mr. Comeaux responded The Executive Budget had recommended funding P&P $385,981 for the request. P&P had requested an increase to $387,307.

As no other business pertaining to A.B. 658 was brought to the attention of the committee, Chairman Arberry closed discussion on the bill.

Pete Ernaut, Executive Director for the Office of the Governor, testified A.B. 660 contained a request to alter the status of the employees in the Governor’s office from an unclassified to a non-classified status. He asserted the status change was a fair and efficient management tool that would allow the Executive branch flexibility to administer its own staff.

Mr. Ernaut explained the Executive branch of government was the only branch whose employees did not have non-classified status. Although the non-classified status may not apply to every employee within the Executive branch he thought the Office of the Governor, which employed 23 people, would appropriately designate its staff as non-classified.

For example, Mr. Ernaut explained the Governor’s Office was budgeted for 23 staff positions, excluding the Governor himself. Of those 23 staff positions, about 12 positions were clerical. He then disclosed the Governor’s office had been re-organized to allow the Deputy Chief-of-Staff to oversee administrative duties and constituent services, while the Senior Policy Advisor had oversight concerning legislative affairs and public policy. As a result, the office of the Governor exhibited a need for more professional management level staff and less clerical staff.

Mr. Ernaut clarified the difference between a non-classified employee and a classified employee. He said the Governor’s office had no ability to pay overtime to an employee, regardless of whether the position was clerical in nature or not. However Legislative Counsel Bureau employees were paid for working overtime, the Governor’s staff was required to work overtime uncompensated.

Currently, Mr. Ernaut disclosed the office had filled 18 out of the 23 budgeted staff positions. He declared the office did not intend to fill the remaining positions. Therefore, staff savings would amount to $170,000. Even with salary adjustments to make some positions such as General Counsel more commensurate with like positions in the Office of the Attorney General, almost $100,000 would still be saved.

Because the Legislature set the position titles, salary caps for each position, and determined the number of positions each agency could hire, Mr. Ernaut repeated his request for the committee to approve A.B. 660, which would grant the office the flexibility to manage its own staff.

Mr. Ernaut then explained the status change would be tantamount to a block grant. $1.395 million would be allocated to the office in FY 2000 and the office would not be able to exceed that amount. However the office would be given the flexibility to choose where those funds should be allocated. The office would also determine the number of individuals it should hire and the appropriate salary levels. He stated those changes would also be a matter of public record.

Speaker Dini referred to page 2, line 1 through 7, which indicated the office would determine the salaries and benefits and then adopt the rules and policies deemed appropriate for hiring and employment rights. He thought the section needed explanation.

Mr. Ernaut clarified the core of the bill was presented in lines 1 through 7. The language basically called for the Governor to have the ability to administer his own staff and to hire people at salary and benefit levels according to his determination. Again, he repeated the changes made by the Governor would be publicly disclosed. Furthermore, the employees would still receive benefits like the state’s retirement plan and the state’s health plan. Those employees would be afforded benefits similar to those received from other non-classified employees in state service.

Speaker Dini asked if the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer were considering a similar request. He thought the Legislature would soon relinquish all oversight over the Executive branch.

Mr. Ernaut could only respond for the Office of the Governor and he re-directed his request for the alteration of status for employees in the Governor’s office.

The Chair remarked the committee wished to relay a message to other Executive agencies that should A.B. 660 be passed, its scope would be limited to the Governor’s office only.

Mr. Ernaut then stated the Governor believed the bill was an important measure for his office and although the office had an excellent relationship with the other Executive agencies, the request had been submitted for the Office of the Governor only.

Mr. Goldwater also queried if the Governor’s Mansion staff was non-classified. Mr. Ernaut replied affirmatively.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, representing Assembly District No. 6 in Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 582. During the previous legislative session, Mr. Williams reminded the committee, the Legislature had passed the Welfare Reform Act. Nevada had also been one of the first states in the country to enact the family violence option, which assisted individuals who left the welfare system to train in the workforce, and who might become potential victims of domestic violence.

Mr. Williams noted time limits existed for individuals to receive and complete training or workforce education. On occasion, those time limits were deferred due to victimization by domestic violence.

Mr. Williams then testified he had been given the opportunity to work with individuals who were in the process of leaving welfare and entering the workforce. Ironically, he noted, at the end of their 7-week lifeskills training course, the individuals moved into a 9-month training course on childcare. In this particular case, just before graduation from the lifeskills course, Mr. Williams had observed an increase in repetitive domestic violence cases.

Mr. Williams stated he had visited his district’s welfare office to investigate the problem and discovered caseworker training on domestic violence issues was inadequate. Caseworkers could not identify domestic violence situations, refer individuals who needed help, or help victims of domestic violence appropriately.

In some cases, Mr. Williams thought domestic violence cases increased at the point he had observed because individuals feared their loved one’s becoming more independent. In one particular case, he described a woman who had had her head shaved by her spouse days before the lifeskills training graduation.

Furthermore, because the transition from welfare to workforce training was constrained within certain time limits, acts of domestic violence could inhibit that transition by causing the individual to miss important training activities. Therefore, Mr. Williams stated A.B. 582 would provide the needed training in domestic violence to caseworkers so possible violent situations could be avoided or identified. Such training would not only assist the victims of domestic violence but the perpetrators as well.

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director of the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV), also testified in support of A.B. 582. Before she began, she thanked Mr. Williams for his interest in the issue and his creativity in attempting to develop solutions to problems caused by domestic violence.

During the 1997 session, as part of welfare reform, Ms. Meuschke observed the legislature had enacted the family violence option. The option required welfare workers to identify victims of domestic violence, assess their needs, and provide referrals and services that would help overcome the barrier to self-sufficiency. She noted the role was a very different one for welfare workers.

As part of those changes, Ms. Meuschke stated NNADV worked with the Welfare Division to increase awareness, identify strategies and support training for workers. During the first year all intake workers had access to 2-4 hour training sessions, which were conducted by local domestic violence programs. In addition, the Social Work Department at the University of Nevada, Reno brought in experts from Colorado to provide more intensive training on domestic violence case management issues for social workers within the Welfare Division. Ms. Meuschke stated some additional training had been provided through the Las Vegas Training Center.

Ms. Meuschke held A.B. 582 provided an opportunity to expand those efforts and to develop consistent and ongoing domestic violence training for welfare workers on a statewide basis. Funds would be used to develop, conduct and assess training throughout the state. Ms. Meuschke said the training would focus on how to,

• Recognize signs and symptoms of domestic violence;
• Work with victims and perpetrators of domestic violence;
• Uphold established confidentiality procedures; and
• Provide relevant information to clients on programs and services, programmatic waivers and exemptions and legal requirements and options.

Ms. Meuschke explained that developing staff capacity to perform those roles required informative training on both an initial and an ongoing basis. The training that had already been provided needed to be supported with ongoing and regular training updates. In conversations with local domestic violence programs, she said they had acknowledged a lessening of referrals as time passed. Regular and ongoing training not only helped new hires, but assisted ongoing workers in refreshing their skills and their understanding of very complex issues. Given the enormous change in the Welfare work environment, Ms. Meuschke averred training might also help workers explore problems they were encountering and might also provide important feedback to all parties concerned.

Next, Ms. Meuschke noted the NNADV was the only statewide organization whose purpose was to help Nevada’s communities respond creatively and effectively to the needs of victims of domestic violence in Nevada. Founded in 1980, the NNADV provided a variety of training, technical assistance and educational materials to local domestic violence programs, other agencies and the public. In fact, the benefit of using the NNADV to provide training was that it could develop and conduct consistent statewide training while concurrently working with local programs to ensure development of local linkages. Ms. Meuschke argued that because Welfare often provided a "way out" for survivors of domestic violence, NNADV was committed to ensuring that Welfare workers had the knowledge and understanding to provide that assistance.

Mr. Marvel wondered if the expense would be ongoing or a one-shot expense. Mr. Williams replied the funding contained in A.B. 582 would hopefully be an ongoing appropriation. Once welfare caseworkers became more knowledgeable concerning family violence, the amount of training required would diminish.

However, he had encountered welfare officials within his district who identified six individuals who requested domestic violence assistance in a 1-month time period. The police officer that handled domestic abuse cases in that area had revealed he received 70 telephone calls a day in regard to domestic violence. He then reminded committee members that some domestic violence complaints issued were misleading in that they equated domestic violence to issues as insignificant as playing loud music.

Mr. Williams felt that because the state had adopted the family violence option,
A.B. 582 should also be passed to continue the positive effects of the option.

Ms. Cegavske wondered what rate women returned to abusive spouses. Also, she asked if assistance was provided for abusive spouses and children.

Ms. Meuschke replied NNADV was a state coalition. NNADV did not provide domestic abuse services directly to the victim, but trained state employees to develop and support the kinds of services that state programs provided to counter domestic violence.

Still, Ms. Meuschke informed the committee, most communities provided support services for perpetrators as well as for victims. Services for children were being developed more extensively as NNADV worked with Child Protective Services and other agencies to more adequately address the needs of children who resided in violent homes.

Second, Ms. Meuschke informed Ms. Cegavske that women returned to abusive spouses on a regular basis. In fact, some women left abusive situations seven to nine times before they left a violent spouse for good or they were murdered. She said that leaving an abusive spouse was not the panacea. NNADV’s training helped employees teach individuals how to obtain skills for self-sufficiency.

Paula Berkley, also representing NNADV, stated the organization had attempted to develop a performance indicator when conceiving the budget request. She indicated the need for more extensive training was justified by the fact that referrals due to abusive domestic situations declined after training.

Also rural areas tended to be more consistent than the urban communities. She thought this was due to the fact that training programs in rural communities were more closely knit and offered support to one another when needed. Urban areas, however, experienced discrepancies in results after training because there was less follow-up and support. Therefore, referral rates declined exponentially.

Ms. Meuschke explained NNADV had developed a system where employees would be trained twice a year. Then the network would be able to closely study the recidivism rates to determine cost-effectiveness.

As no additional testimony for or against A.B. 582 was presented at that time, the Chair declared the hearing on the bill closed. Next, Chairman Arberry moved to address Budget Closing List No. 7.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, started with the budget account for Apiary Inspection. He reminded the committee Mr. Hataway, Deputy Director for the Budget Office had presented budget revisions and it had been determined those revisions were actually in the Plant Industry budget and those revisions did not impact the budget account in any way.

Mr. Stevens then remarked adjustments to the account had been made based upon the federal grant, which would no longer be received in The Executive Budget. The adjustment amounted to $3,876 in the first year of the biennium.

Speaker Dini then asked if the agency had funds sufficient to manage bee problems in southern Nevada. Mr. Stevens responded General Fund dollars were not used in this account, however in the Plant Industry budget account two agriculturist positions were recommended by The Executive Budget. He then indicated one of those positions was directly related to the bee problem in southern Nevada. He did not know if the funds in the account were sufficient to manage that problem.

Mrs. Chowning noted the bee problem was significant but that it should be addressed in a different budget account. She thought a BDR was being developed to assess fees to large corporations. She then stated the federal grant had been lost because the bees had already established themselves in southern Nevada. The federal grant was solely a survey and identification grant.

Mr. Stevens stated the only adjustment staff recommended in the budget account for the Indian Commission was related to the board membership. He mentioned some board members were ineligible to receive salary because they held positions which did not reduce their salary when serving on the board. Thus, staff recommended removing $640 in the first year of the biennium for that purpose. Because new board members might be appointed in the second year of the biennium, that amount was retained in the budget recommendations for FY 2001.

Mr. Stevens related staff recommended closing the budget as recommended by the Governor.

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst stated staff was awaiting population projections from the department to finalize the remainder of the budgets. Those population projections did not impact the facilities included in Budget Closing List No. 7 as they had been recommended to operate at full occupancy over the biennium.

Other than fine tuning of costs derived from maintenance contracts and a washing machine replacement, Mr. Ghiggeri said staff recommended deleting only the request for a new van. Both the 1995 Legislature and the 1997 Legislature had provided funds for the purchase of new vans for the center. At that time, the center had a 1996 Ford van with 21,000 miles and a 1998 Chevrolet van with 4,010 miles.

Additionally, Mr. Ghiggeri noted The Executive Budget provided $26,000 per year annually for the purchase of bus tickets for inmates at the facility to travel to and from their jobs.

Mr. Ghiggeri said adjustments for maintenance contracts were recommended by staff. There was a deletion of a one-time cost that had been identified in the base budget that was associated with the repainting of a truck and fire alarm repair.

Next, Mr. Ghiggeri stated staff recommended an adjustment to be made to align the costs of cooking equipment and the purchase price of washers and dryers.

Further deletions were made to the request for the repair and reseal of the culinary floor that was included in the 1997 Capital Improvement Project (CIP).

Mr. Ghiggeri related adjustments to one-time costs in the base budget had been made. He felt the most significant item in the adjustments was the price adjustment to replace culinary tables. Recommended funding would purchase tables that seat eight inmates instead of four thereby saving $20,000.

Mr. Ghiggeri related staff had made adjustments to maintenance contracts and funding. Additionally a recommendation to remove the cost of replacing water heaters from the Maintenance, Buildings, and Grounds category to category 28 so that tracking could be performed was also recommended by staff.

In the Carlin Conservation Camp account, Mr. Ghiggeri reported adjustments to maintenance contracts had been made. In addition the transfer of funding for the repainting of the camp’s exterior from the Maintenance, Buildings, and Grounds category to the Special Projects category was made to isolate the item in the base budget.

Mr. Ghiggeri reported staff recommended adding funds for a water application permit that was not included in the budget. Staff also recommended the alignment of maintenance contract funding and the adjustment for the cost related to pumping septic and grease traps to the same level, which had also been recommended for the Humboldt Conservation Camp. He then mentioned staff had had an extremely difficult time retrieving information from the prison concerning the costs of pumping those traps. Staff had requested the prison to study the issue and to provide the committee with sufficient information In the future.

Mr. Ghiggeri indicated technical adjustments were recommended for travel costs that had been made based upon responses to inquiries. Staff also recommended transfers of costs for police/fire physicals from operating into the police/fire physicals category, in addition to the elimination of computer equipment and software costs that had previously been funded in Project Genesis, and the elimination of a vehicle purchase that had been identified by the agency in a memo as not absolutely necessary.

He then noted the Governor had recommended the deletion of one of the two funded positions in the budget account. Currently, there was one investigator who was assigned to Las Vegas and the other position was recommended for deletion. Staff estimated it would cost approximately $50,000 to add the position back into the budget account, which would reduce the ending reserve from $411,000 to $309,000.

Mrs. Chowning commented the budget account originally had requested funding for three positions. The single position was consequently charged with the oversight of the licensing and regulating of all of the salvage business books, automobile records, the body shops and the garages for the entire state. She did not believe it was reasonable to expect one individual to handle that workload.

She then referred to a comment by the agency which stated, "Motor Vehicle Advisory Repair Board declined to seek funding to support vehicle repair enforcement activities, opting instead to pursue self-regulating legislation which provides economic incentives to obtain registration compliance and binding arbitration to address repair disputes." She did not think that statement was correct. The board had indicated that they did not want to increase the $25 fee per garage because they wanted to pursue self-regulating legislation instead. Although she felt that decision was responsible, she did not think the $25 fee could be collected if there wasn’t a person to oversee all of the garages throughout the state. She felt the fee would help the agency if given an adequate chance to work. Thus, she asked for the committee to support the addition of one position.

Mr. Ghiggeri related the budget account was self-supporting where funds remaining at the end of the year were reverted back to the Highway Fund. He then disclosed the only recommendation made by staff was to update the revenues and demographics population decision unit to reflect the population projections.

Mr. Stevens then added that depending upon how the committee decided the reorganization of the motor vehicle branch of the department, the budget might be impacted in such a way that would require further adjustments.

Mr. Ghiggeri remarked there was an elimination of one-time expenditures from the base budget of approximately $11,000 per year. Next, he stated spending was added to the court-reporting costs in the amount of $2,400 per year. A recommendation was made to eliminate sending personnel out of state for training. Personnel could receive training at the National Judicial College in Reno. He indicated the information had been provided to the agency on March 19, 1999 and no comment had been received.

Next, Mr. Ghiggeri cited adjustments to the prices of computer software and hardware in addition to the elimination of motor pool rent due to the transfer of the Hearings position from Carson City to Reno. The elimination of the motor pool rent would also eliminate the recommended purchase of one vehicle in the one-shot appropriation that was considered by the committee for the motor pool division.

Next, Mr. Ghiggeri reminded committee members a budget modification had eliminated the General Fund appropriation that supported the continuing care that would be provided to inmates discharged from post-relief care and treatment. This had been recommended in Budget Revision No. 29 because the grant did not require the 25 percent, which had been originally envisioned. Subsequently, he mentioned the Budget Division had indicated their desire to see the state provide $43,000 in state matching funds and for the recipients to provide the balance for the match. However, staff recommended the recipients provide the full $85,000 in match funds required in order to avoid General Fund appropriations.

Mr. Ghiggeri indicated technical adjustments were included in the recommendations made by staff. Also, he felt there might be a future need to adjust the budget further as the agency had indicated their preference for leaving the Program Assistant IV at half-time status and that an additional Management Analyst position be added to the budget account to assist in managing the grants. Staff believed those adjustments would cost the General Fund $3,700 in FY 2000 and $6,200 in FY 2001.

Then Mr. Ghiggeri referred to information which indicated the number of grants that the agency monitored. Staff recommendations did not include the agency’s request for personnel. He felt that was a decision the committee would have to make. He repeated The Executive Budget had recommended the Program Assistant IV be converted from half-time to full-time, whereas the agency had indicated the position should remain a half-time position with the addition of a Management Analyst position instead.

Chairman Arberry declined further action on the budget until a later date.

Mr. Ghiggeri stated the Narcotics Control Grant budget account contained technical adjustments plus adjustments for software upgrades. He felt the reason why the monetary amounts were so large in the budget account was because the agency did not use the amounts that were recommended in The Executive Budget. They had used their own figures to determine the level that should be budgeted for their requests. Thus, staff had rolled back the requests to the current amounts.

Mr. Perkins then expressed his concern for the manner in which the grants were passed through the agencies. He wished to relay to the Executive branch that oftentimes the grants supposed to be passed to local governments were retained by the state for different projects. He felt the Executive branch needed to evaluate requests from local governments more thoroughly.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Perkins if he wished for a letter of intent to be drafted. Mr. Perkins replied affirmatively.

Mr. Ghiggeri stated staff had made no recommendations for the budget account.

As no other business demanded the committee’s attention, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Marie Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE:

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Marie Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: