The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:40 a.m., on Thursday, April 22, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Bob Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

The Chair recognized Mr. Eric Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB), who then introduced Chief Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal. Mr. Raecke explained A.B. 605 accomplished three things. In NRS Chapter 341, the bill added to the duties of the Manager of SPWB to include being the ex-officio chief building official for state buildings. To NRS 341.145, the bill clarified SPWB had authority for buildings constructed on state lands or those funded by the legislature. He said the third part of the change affected NRS 477.030 wherein the relationship of SPWB and the Office of the State Fire Marshal was clarified with regard to planned reviews.

The Chair indicated the committee members’ major concern was whether or not the language in Section 9(a) on page 5 of the bill was necessary. Mr. Raecke said there had been an inconsistency during the last 6-years as to whether or not the State Fire Marshal had complete authority over planned reviews. Those duties had been unofficially delegated to the State Fire Marshal’s office and the bill would, through an inter-local agreement, establish a relationship for planned reviews. The Chair stated it was his understanding if there was no inter-local agreement, the Office of the State fire Marshal would have no budget. Mr. Raecke said that was incorrect and that the inter-local agreement would outline provisions for the Office of the State Fire Marshal to perform planned reviews. He said the main crux of the agreement would identify the specific responsibilities, to include time lines, guidelines, fees, etc., of both the Office of the State Fire Marshal and SPWB.

The Chair recognized Chief Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal. Chief Carr said his only concern was that the language in Section 3(9)(a) be amended to read as follows: Assist in checking plans and specifications for construction of capitol projects for which the State Public Works Board has final authority for approval pursuant to NRS 341.145 by an inter-local agreement acceptable to both parties." The change would not only allow for acceptance between both parties, but would protect the State Fire Marshal both financially and, at the same time, provide necessary services to SPWB. Exhibit C is a copy of the proposed amendment as provided to committee members. The Chair asked if both the State Fire Marshal and SPWB agreed with the amendment and both answered in the affirmative.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked if there was another bill regarding the wishes of the local fire marshals or if A.B. 605 represented the negotiated legislation. Chief Carr explained there had been a parallel Senate Bill that was stopped in the Senate. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 605 represented the culmination of the meeting attended by the fire marshals from Las Vegas. Chief Carr clarified that meeting pertained to A.B. 607 that was being held in committee based upon the fact the issues addressed in that bill had been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both parties through an inter-local agreement. Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 605 would provide no fiduciary responsibility to the Office of the State Fire Marshal and Chief Carr said that was correct.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked which entity would have jurisdiction if the inter-local agreement established by A.B. 605 was not acceptable based on the proposed amendment. Chief Carr told committee members he was confident any issues could be worked out between the Office of the State Fire Marshal and SPWB.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Office of the State Fire Marshal would continue to collect fees for plans checks on capitol projects and Chief Carr said that was correct and added there would be no fiscal impact.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 605 closed.

The Chair recognized William "Bill" Moell, Administrator, Division of Purchasing, Department of Administration. Mr. Moell provided the following verbatim testimony:

Mr. Moell said A.B. 591 was consistent with the budget agreement approved at the closing of the division’s budget in subcommittee.

The Chair recognized Vice Chair Evans who requested clarification of the reason for the change. Mr. Moell explained the division had switched to the Integrated Financial System (IFS) in January 1999. IFS took transactions directly from state agency budgets without processing them through the purchasing fund. Without being processed through the purchasing fund there was no method to accommodate an administrative charge. He explained it would have cost the division several hundred thousand dollars to modify the IFS System to accommodate an administrative charge. Vice Chair Evans wondered why that issue was not considered when the IFS was initially being developed.

Mr. Moell told committee members the IFS modifications to the IFS were not recommended because the division had vowed to keep changes to its software as inexpensive as possible by keeping its software package as close to the copyrighted software as possible.

The Chair recognized Mr. Beers who commented the situation was testimony to the backwards manner in which the state operated, especially when it operated differently from a nationally marketed governmental accounting program.

The Chair recognized Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Division of Fiscal Analysis, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Stevens clarified the division would not be assessing on an FTE basis and Mr. Moell said that was correct.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 591 closed.

The Chair recognized Allan Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Mr. Biaggi provided the following verbatim testimony:

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if A.B. 112 was part of a package that had been processed on the floor. He also asked why all the legislation that had resulted from the Clark Commission recommendations had not been presented in one omnibus bill. Mr. Biaggi said he could not address the reason the recommendations were not presented in a single package. He told committee members there were actually nine or ten bills relating to the Clark Commission, some of which were ahead of others in the legislative process.

The Chair asked for testimony regarding the fiscal note associated with
A.B. 112 and recognized Mary Keating, Chief Administrative Officer, Division of Industrial Relations (DIR), Department of Business and Industry. Ms. Keating said her division also included the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement office. The division had submitted a fiscal note on January 22, 1999, based upon the original version of the bill. However, changes had been made to the bill that resulted in changes to the fiscal note. As a result, she said, the division was pulling its fiscal note. She said the current version of the bill included activities that could be accomplished within the scope of the division’s current budget.

Ms. Keating pointed out there was a provision in A.B. 112 that allowed the agency to criminally prosecute criminal willful citations that may result in the future. She said that while there had only been one such case in 5½-years, if the bill went forward as written, committee members needed to realize there would be a fiscal impact that the division would try to absorb into current costs.

The Chair recognized Mrs. Chowning who commented on the tragic events in Littleton, Colorado, and said the news indicated black powder was used in the making of the pipe bombs at the high school. She pointed out A.B. 112 did not address black powder manufactured in quantities that did not exceed 50 pounds and also wanted to know if the bill covered the training necessary for employees working with explosives. Mrs. Chowning did not want anything to "slip through the cracks" in view of the fact the juvenile perpetrators at the high school in Littleton had been able to obtain enough black power to make the explosives. She did not want to see the tragedy at Littleton happen anywhere else. Mr. Biaggi said the intent of the Clark Commission was to evaluate manufacturing facilities of explosives, such as Sierra Chemical. He explained Sierra Chemical was in the business of large-scale reprocessing of explosives. The intent of the Clark Commission was not to address the casual user or the mining industry and, consequently, he did not think A.B. 112 addressed the sale or use of black powder through the marketplace.

The Chair recognized Bob Fulkerson, Director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada who told committee members the alliance was very involved during the Clark Commission hearings. Mr. Fulkerson said he was a bit uncomfortable with the removal of the fiscal note. From having analyzed and reviewed the inspection record of state OSHA at the Sierra Chemical Plant,
Mr. Fulkerson could say the state was lacking in its inspection responsibilities and was currently operating on a shoestring budget. He felt the approximate $300,000 the division had initially requested in order to shore-up its training program was a small amount. He pointed out that had there been a training program and more inspectors in the field prior to the explosion at the Sierra Chemical Plant, perhaps the catastrophe could have been avoided. The training program and increased inspectors was one of the recommendations of the PEPCON Commission as the result of an explosion that had occurred 10-years prior. Mr. Fulkerson felt it was very important not to cut corners when it came to a training program and the addition of more inspectors.

Mr. Fulkerson said as long as the legislature was talking about providing lots of money to wealthy families to send their children to college, why not make Nevada workplaces safe for those individual’s punching a time clock.

The Chair recognized Vice Chair Evans who said Mr. Fulkerson’s comments raised the question to the affected agencies, "what will change in view of this legislation knowing there was not proper inspection – who is going to do that, why wasn’t it done before, and what can we expect." She said while there were words on paper, what assurance could be given the affected agencies would have the resources to address the workload associated with inspections. Ms. Keating told committee members OSHA had included in its original budget request additional funds and inspectors specifically for that purpose based upon recommendations from the Clark Commission. She said A.B. 112 went beyond that and added even more positions. Vice Chair Evans asked what provisions had been included in the division’s budget regarding inspections. Ms. Keating said those provisions included additional safety inspectors located both north and south, as well as a change to its operations manual as to the frequency of the inspections.

The Chair recognized Danny Evans, Chief Administrative Officer, Division of Industrial Relations, Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section, Department of Business and Industry. In response to Vice Chair Evans’ question, a total of 18 new positions had been added. Six of those positions would inspect boilers and elevators and the remaining 12 positions were equally split between industrial hygienists who performed process safety management and inspectors who would look at mechanical-type problems. He felt there would be sufficient staff to deal with those concerns. Vice Chair Evans then asked if there was adequate training and whether or not the inspection schedule had been revised to provide for more routine and timely inspections. Vice Chair Evans explained Governor Miller had placed inspections of facilities that dealt with explosive materials on a 6-month interval and that had been done. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) had provided two training sessions to division staff and representatives from other groups to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vice Chair Evans asked if division representatives were able to work with management and employees of the various facilities in terms of safety procedures. Mr. Evans advised DIR’s Safety Consultation and Training Section addressed those issues.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the division had the ability to raise fees paid by chemical companies. Ms. Keating explained the funding for the division came from an assessment of the Worker’s Comp and Safety Fund and the division had no ability to assess fees.

Addressing Mr. Fulkerson who had testified earlier, Mr. Marvel asked if he was suggesting the Legislature use proceeds from the tobacco settlement to fund the division. Mr. Fulkerson said his point was that the legislature should maintain a high priority for workplace safety. Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Fulkerson if he wanted to go on record as having said the tobacco settlement should be used to fund division activities. Mr. Fulkerson requested clarification of the question and the Chair said Mr. Marvel wanted to know if he (Mr. Fulkerson) wanted to go on record as saying the tobacco settlement should be utilized for inspection/safety services. Mr. Fulkerson said no, he had not meant to make that point. His point was as long as the legislature was talking about providing funding to wealthy families to send their children to college, they should also discuss providing necessary funding to make sure that Nevada’s workplaces were protected.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 112 closed.

The Chair recognized Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, who said it was a pleasure to appear before committee members on behalf of
A.B. 285 that represented the state’s portion of funding on the Lake Tahoe commitment. She said identical bill draft requests had been submitted both by the Legislative Tahoe Oversight Committee and by the Division of State Lands. The bill had come jointly from the executive and legislative branches of government.

Ms. Wilcox referred committee members to Exhibit D titled "Lake Tahoe Initiative – Environmental Improvement Program. She explained A.B. 285 was the result of the 1997 Tahoe Presidential Forum at which time the President, Vice President, and a number of Cabinet officers visited Lake Tahoe and, together with the governors of both Nevada and California, made long-reaching commitments to focus on the implementation of an environmental improvement program (EIP) over a 10-year period. The program was targeted at protecting the lake and to retarding the degradation of the lake as the result of man’s impact in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The estimated cost of the implementation of EIP for the 10-year period that began in 1997 and ran through 2007 was $906.8 million. Nevada’s share was requested at $82 million and Nevada’s Governor Bob Miller had accepted that commitment. Ms. Wilcox told committee members a portion of that money had already been made available through a $20 million bond issue for the Tahoe Basin and
$5.6 million from state highway funds and other appropriations. The remaining balance of $56.4 million would have to be made available between now and the year 2007.

A.B. 285 was a simple straight-forward commitment to make the remaining
$56.4 million available through a very direct mechanism. Ms. Wilcox explained the bill authorized the Division of State Lands to request funds not just on behalf of itself, but on behalf of the entire program, from either direct appropriations or general obligation bonds. She said funds would be requested each biennium at which time a report would be provided to the legislature regarding the accomplishments during the previous biennium and accomplishments expected in the new biennium. The maximum request would not exceed $56.4 million through FY 2007.

Ms. Wilcox said State Lands was requesting the Board of Finance issue
$3.2 million in bonds in the first year of the biennium for EIP projects within Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park. She said that amount had already been calculated into The Executive Budget as an add-on to the capital improvement projects (CIP). At the time Exhibit D was prepared, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had committed $10,050,000 of its CIP funds as a match for approximately $4.5 million in Tahoe bond funds approved by the voters. State Parks was requesting $3.2 million in new bonding authority, and the Division of State Lands would continue to issue grants for EIP projects under the Tahoe Bond Act. An estimated $6.7 million in grants would be provided to local governments for erosion control and stream restoration projects.

Ms. Wilcox referred committee members to Exhibit E, a list of projects that had previously received approval under Question 12 and was illustrative of the types of projects for which funding had been and would be requested over the
10-year period of the project. She pointed out the majority of the projects involved erosion control retrofits along old roads or public facilities, as well as those involving stream restoration.

Pages D-2 through D-4 of Exhibit D were various tables that provided the breakdown of how the $906.8 million would be expended and provided a representation of Nevada’s annual expenditures over the next eight years. Page D-4 of Exhibit D anticipated Nevada’s largest expenditure would occur in FY 2002. Page D-5 of Exhibit D represented a wire diagram of the Tahoe EIP Implementation Team. She pointed out representatives from many agencies were involved with coordination provided by the Division of State Lands. The majority of the representatives worked for the state and the new positions requested already existed within the corresponding state agency. No General Fund dollars were requested for those agency costs during the upcoming biennium. In response to many rumors, Ms. Wilcox clarified there were no Department of Motor Vehicle & Public Safety funds in A.B. 285.

Ms. Wilcox then provided an explanation of the bill to committee members. She said there were a number of "WHEREAS’s" that pointed out the historical background of the bill.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked for information outlining the ultimate goal of the project. Ms. Wilcox explained the ultimate goal was to take whatever steps were necessary to retard the degradation of Lake Tahoe and return its clarity to that of its pre-man condition. The EIP projects were developed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) working jointly with other agencies that managed the resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin. She said the testimony that had been given at the Presidential Forum in 1997 maintained the next ten years were critical. If the targeted clarity was not reached at some point within the 10-year period, a point of no return would have been reached. Mr. Marvel asked if the water quality level had been identified. Ms. Wilcox said it was hoped that when the Secchi disc was dropped into Lake Tahoe each year that it started to creep towards the surface rather than always creeping down towards the bottom. Mr. Marvel asked if that indication was in writing and
Ms. Wilcox said it was and she would provide that information to committee members.

Ms. Wilcox continued with her explanation of the bill:

• Section 1, Subsection 1, authorized the Division of State Lands to be the coordinating agency in coordinating the effort on behalf of the state. Subsection 2 began the "guts" of the bill and authorized the issuance of bonds by the State Board of Finance as they would be requested by the Division of State Lands. Subsection 3 provided the administrator of the Division of State Lands bring forward to the budget process and the legislature, each biennium, a statement regarding other funds that may become available in years when the state might be cash rich. In those years, the bonds would be in addition to available state or other funds.

• Section 2 set up the fund to be used and provided that interest would return to the fund and be carried forward to the next year.

• Section 3 allowed the Division of State Lands to issue those funds as grants to the agencies that would actually be doing the work.

• Section 4 defined the bonds as conservation bonds under the Constitution of the State of Nevada and not subject to the debt limit.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked what portion of the state’s capacity would be left by the issuance of General Obligation bonds. Ms. Wilcox replied A.B. 285 was the only General Obligation bond she was involved with and that the budget office had assured her the bonds had been calculated into the budget as an add-on to the CIP list. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the bonding would come out of the 15-cent limit and Ms. Wilcox said it would. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked how much of the 15-cent limit was left. The Chair recognized Speaker Dini who advised natural resource bonds were not subject to the limitation.

The Chair recognized Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration. Mr. Hataway verified that natural resource bonds were exempt under the 2-percent provision. The division had projected out the principal and investment requirements as well as the CIP bonds for capital construction over the 10-year duration of the project. .

Ms. Wilcox told committee members a number of people were in attendance at the meeting who wanted to testify. Those individuals included Susan Martinovich, Department of Transportation and Wayne Perock from State Parks. She said most of the funds would be spent directly on the ground by those two agencies. Also in attendance were two members of the TRPA Board, Kay Bennett who represented Carson City and Wayne Perock who represented the State Department of Conservation, TRPA Director Jim Baetge, and a member of the Tahoe Coalition, the citizens group that had worked on the issues surrounding Lake Tahoe. Ms. Wilcox said the reason there were not more people present at the meeting was that two major awards were being given, one in San Francisco and one in Washington, D.C. for the Lake Tahoe effort.

The Chair recognized Susan Martinovich, System Director, Department of Transportation (NDOT) who told committee members NDOT was in support of
A.B. 285 and was committed to the projects. NDOT was proud of the partnerships it had entered into with local agencies in the Tahoe Basin. She said NDOT’s chief hydraulic engineer was accepting a national award in Washington, D.C. for the water quality work NDOT had accomplished in the Tahoe Basin.

The Chair recognized Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks.
Mr. Perock referred committee members to Exhibit F, a two-page document that listed the projects that would occur on property owned by State Parks during the 10-year period. He pointed out the Memorial Point Overlook project had already been completed in March 1999. He urged committee members to visit the project to see the quality of the work. Mr. Perock said the division was excited about the projects involving forest health and rehabilitation in the 14,000-acre Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park and pointed out half of that acreage was within the Tahoe Basin. The projects list also included erosion control projects, a watershed project, habitat restoration, etc. Mr. Perock said it was important Nevada take a stand to begin management of its resources that it had not done in the past.

The Chair recognized Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Mr. Baetge advised committee members there was an overall plan for everyone, not just the State of Nevada. TRPA had achieved a level of success from the other players, to include past Governor Wilson and current Governor Davis of California who had both acknowledged their state’s fiscal responsibility to the project and that responsibility had been included in its (California’s) budget. TRPA was also working with the Federal Government on its annual share and, hopefully, on a long-term commitment for the federal share. At the same time, he said, there was a local revenue generation proposal ongoing in the Tahoe Basin that would generate a local match. He told committee members the partnerships represented the best news the Tahoe Basin had seen in years.

The Chair recognized Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance. Mr. Teshara explained the alliance participated in the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition that Ms. Wilcox had referred to in earlier testimony. He told committee members the reason he appeared before them was to advise the private sector was, indeed, involved in the project. The coalition represented all of the major business, tourism, environmental and property rights organizations at Lake Tahoe, and had been very involved in the development of the environmental improvement program (EIP). The alliance had been instrumental in helping to generate the local support that would be matched by the State of Nevada, State of California, the Federal Government, and other shares for the program. The alliance urged committee members to support A.B. 285.

The Chair recognized Kay Bennett, a member of the Carson City Board of Supervisors and, since 1989, a member of the TRPA. Ms. Bennett said she also had the pleasure of chairing the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District, the entity that would work with State Lands in the expenditure of the $10 million of
voter-approved bonds. She spoke in strong support of A.B. 285 and expressed her appreciation for the legislature’s past and current commitment to Lake Tahoe.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 285 closed.

The Chair recognized Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, District #24, who appeared before committee members in support of A.B. 302. Ms. Freeman told committee members she had sponsored a number of bills over the years regarding childcare. She said Assemblyman Wendell Williams and Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie had also drafted childcare legislation and
A.B. 302 represented the combination of those drafts. Ms. Freeman said her portion of the bill dealt with the quality of childcare.

The Chair recognized Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District #6, Las Vegas.
Mr. Williams said he was pleased to work with his two colleagues on A.B. 302. During the 1997 Legislative Session, the Assembly Bill that had passed from Assembly Ways and Means had done an excellent job of addressing the need for childcare training and services, not only in Clark County, but throughout the state. He reported there was a 5 percent vacancy rate for childcare overall in Nevada and a 0 percent vacancy rate in Clark County. There was, however, a greater need for quality childcare and childcare training in view of the sweeping welfare reform passed during the 1997 Legislative Session. Mr. Williams reminded committee members that childcare was the beginning of a child’s education and there should be no separation between childcare and private/public education. Less than one year ago the Department of Labor, for the first time, listed childcare as a profession throughout the nation. He felt that Nevada was a leader in the childcare arena and the 1997 appropriation went a long way in providing the services and training throughout Clark County to bring the profession of childcare to a point of respectability. The City of Las Vegas had been one of the leaders in Nevada that had initiated training and assisted some of the smaller childcare centers to elevate their training level of both staff and parents. Mr. Williams felt A.B. 302 unified the childcare effort statewide. He told committee members there were individuals in the audience who would be able to tell them of accomplishments in the childcare area and how the 1997 appropriation had been used to assist childcare centers, communities, and families to move in a positive direction.

The Chair recognized Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District 27, who commented on her portion of the bill. Ms. Leslie explained Section 3 of the bill established a childcare quality fund. As both committee members and those in the audience were aware, the legislature had worked on childcare issues for many years. She had approached the gaming industry on many occasions to provide either on-site childcare or subsidies for their employees. The industry’s response had been they could not provide a benefit for those employees who had children and not provide a like benefit for those employees who did not have children. She felt the childcare quality fund would be a mechanism to attract private sector funds because businesses would be more likely to contribute to a fund that would help childcare workers as opposed to employees.

Ms. Leslie told committee members the idea for the childcare quality fund was the result of a recent study by the Nevada Institute for Children that revealed Nevada’s childcare workers earned an average $6.40 per hour. The only people earning wages below that of a childcare worker were individuals that washed cars. She felt that was a very sad statement of how children were valued in Nevada. One of the problems in childcare was that people were constantly leaving that field for better-paying jobs. It was very important for children to have consistent caregivers so they could develop a bond and feel secure in their childcare setting. She said it was also important to note the survey found that 41 percent of the childcare workers in Nevada either had no high school diploma or only a high school diploma. Ms. Leslie said the intent of the fund would be to provide assistance to the very low-paid childcare workers by sending them back to school to obtain their child development associate credential, a
6- to 9-month program consisting of 180 hours of training at a cost of $150 to $300. The training would provide a much higher quality childcare setting for Nevada’s children.

Ms. Leslie introduced Emma Fulkerson, who was the product of a very high-quality childcare center in Reno, Noah’s Ark. She told committee members about a long-term study (the Peri Pre-School Study) that tracked children who had been in high-quality childcare for a 20-year span of their lives. The very scientific study found that children who went through quality childcare were much less likely to become involved in juvenile delinquency or become high school dropouts and were much more likely to earn a higher standard of living throughout their lives. She said there was, indeed, scientific proof that quality childcare made a difference.

Ms. Leslie said she had recently talked to many members of the press who wanted to know what she thought the answer was to the tragedy that had occurred in Colorado. She had appeared before committee members many times with her childcare legislation and it struck her that the bills she was bringing forward were part of the answer. While there was no simple answer to incidents like the tragedy in Colorado, she felt A.B. 302 was part of the answer as was the peer mediation program and affordable housing. She was aware committee members would have a difficult time prioritizing legislation, but hoped they would think about A.B. 302 and Nevada’s families.

The Chair recognized Ms. Freeman who told committee members she had chaired a childcare study in 1989-1990 and at that time was aware of the childcare problem of the casino workers in Reno. During the course of the study and since that time, she had been very interested in that issue and it had become very clear to her that, on a national level, childcare was not being addressed. She found that healthcare facilities were regulated, inspected, and accredited and had to ask herself if the childcare we provided in Nevada was less important. Her portion of the bill addressed quality assessments and answered to the general public regarding childcare quality. Her earlier study had revealed dog groomers were paid better than childcare workers.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked if the fiscal note had been modified based on any amendments and Mr. Williams said he was not aware of any. Committee members would be viewing a short video and Mr. Williams wanted them to know the individuals in the video had been on welfare just two years prior to the training they had received. They had never worked in their entire lives. He said those individuals were now professionals in the childcare business.

The Chair asked how the fiscal note was established. Ms. Leslie responded Section 15 of the bill identified the fiscal note for the childcare quality fund. She explained the sum of $50,000 had been selected as a reasonable fund amount. Ms. Leslie said she had made the statement in the Health and Human Services Committee that she would pledge $1,000 of her personal money to the childcare quality fund and since that time several individuals, who wished to remain anonymous, had also pledged to the fund. At the end of session, Ms. Leslie informed committee members she intended to personally raise at least $50,000 for the fund. She was concerned if the state did not make an appropriation to get the fund started, there would be no incentive to approach the private sector for donations.

Mr. Williams added the majority of the training in Clark County was initiated at the Variety Day Home in Las Vegas. He said Sister Diane would be testifying on behalf of Variety Day Home and would provide committee members more precise reasons for the dollar amounts provided in the bill.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who stated the $350,000 in Section 16 of the bill was for Ms. Freeman’s and Mr. Williams’ portion and Mr. Williams said that appropriation dealt with training in Clark County.

The Chair recognized Lisa Morris, Management Analyst, Office of Federal, State & Local Initiatives, City of Las Vegas. Ms. Morris provided the following verbatim testimony:

• Expanding the child care training and childcare services offered at the Variety Day Home (VDH).

• Providing mini-grants, through a RFP process, to qualified daycare centers in lower socio-economic areas to improve and/or expand their facilities and services.

• Godsend Learning Center – expanded the current facility to increase childcare capacity from 45 children to 60 children.

• Smart Start – purchased new playground equipment per the request of the City of Las Vegas (CLV) Childcare Licensing Division.

• Friendship Childcare Facility – purchased a computer, copy machine, educational supplies, toys and playground equipment.

• Reach Out – a unique childcare facility providing services to those children who are affected by or infected with the AIDS virus purchased computer equipment and created both a brochure explaining the Reach Out program (Exhibit G), and stationary.

Ms. Morris told committee members the City of Las Vegas believed A.B. 302 was a holistic means to address the serious concerns regarding childcare. Of the 28 participants who had completed tiers one and two of the training program, 17 were currently employed and making on average between $8.50 and $9 per hour with complete benefits.

Ms. Morris referred committee members to Exhibit H, copies of letters of appreciation from the four childcare providers that had received the sub-grants mentioned in earlier testimony. With additional funding, the program would continue to work towards enhancing the quality of childcare services provided through CDA certification and the upgrading of existing facilities and services.
Ms. Morris then played for committee members a video addressing the personal stories of eight women who had recently graduated from a 6-month training course in childcare. The course consisted of 120 hours of formal instruction and 1,500 of practicum instruction.

Ms. Morris completed her testimony by urging committee members to support
A.B. 302.

The Chair recognized Sister Diane Maguire, Executive Director, Variety Day Home (VDH). Sister Maguire told committee members the goal of VDH was for its childcare workers to obtain and retain gainful employment following a program that had been accredited in North Las Vegas. She said VDH had been in the community since 1954 and was supported privately through grants. The leadership and administrators of VDH were from the west Las Vegas community and had been trained at VDH. Those individuals now trained others within the community and had representatives on the Board of West Education as well. She explained the individuals shown in the video were not just receiving training in the childcare arena, but were learning life skills. VDH staffers had been properly trained not only to care for children, but to provide parenting skills and anger management classes to their parents.

VDH childcare workers were very knowledgeable and Sister Maguire felt knowledge was the only means by which a person could work with children and their parents and be effective. She said all teachers at VDH were required to be CDA certified. A committee was working throughout the state to create a career ladder for those teachers. Childcare workers who had left the welfare program were making wages between $6.50 per hour and $11 per hour. Those salaries, however, did not afford those workers sufficient income to attend college. The bill would provide funding for those workers to attend college and become proficient in their own disciplines. Sister Maguire told committee members GED classes were taught on-site in the evenings at VDH by a man she had instructed in kindergarten. She was very proud of his success and his ability to give back to the community. It was important to educate individuals in the field of early childcare. Those educated individuals would, in turn, do well in parenting their children.

The Chair recognized Mrs. Chowning who told committee members she had the opportunity to visit VDH just prior to session and it was a pleasure to see the happy children and employees. She asked the square footage of VDH.
Sister Maguire responded VDH consisted of six sections, in addition to the original building, that totaled approximately 10,000 square feet. Another section, that would include an adult education room and three labs, was planned in the near future. Mrs. Chowning said while the facility was not fancy by any means, the accomplishments made at VDH were remarkable. Mrs. Chowning asked if the childcare workers at VDH would interface and continue their education at the Child Development Lab at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). Sister Maguire said VDH would, in some cases, have its employees attend classes at CCSN and instructors from CCSN would also be providing classes at VDH. She said VDH did its best to integrate education into its childcare program.

The Chair recognized Jan Gilbert, who represented the League of Women Voters of Nevada. The league was supportive of A.B. 302 and encouraged its passage. She told committee members there was a tremendous job being done to ensure proper accreditation of Nevada’s school teachers and felt it was time to look at the pre-school arena and realize it was a very essential service and should be carefully monitored. Regarding the childcare situation in southern Nevada and her work with welfare advocacy, Ms. Gilbert said the year 2000 would bring the enforcement of the 2-year welfare time limit and the need for childcare would be enormous. As people left the welfare rolls it was important for them to have affordable quality childcare. It was the essential element to the welfare-to-work program.

The Chair recognized Sharon Rogers, Early Childhood Education Consultant, Department of Education, who provided the following verbatim testimony:

She commented that while $50,000 was a minimal amount, it was a hopeful beginning and there were many private interests willing to contribute should the opportunity be provided. The program had the ability to grow and continue to chip away at existing problems and strengthen childcare in Nevada.

She urged committee members to support A.B. 302.

The Chair recognized Ms. Evans who told Ms. Rogers her testimony had been particularly useful in that it highlighted the development of the child. She said too often and for too long, childcare had been considered "babysitting" in the most rudimentary stages. No attention had been paid to the need for individuals to receive training to understand the health, safety, and well-being development of a child. She pointed out those issues were not intuitive in nature and had to be learned. Daily environment either fostered and strengthened the development of a child, or not. Childcare should be looked at as part of an educational continuum rather that just "babysitting." Ms. Evans pointed out the early stages of infant development revolved around how they were treated, talked to, and related to.

Ms. Rogers commented the field spoke in terms of "daycare" and "childcare." The field was now being referred to as "early care and education" because the two could not be separated. Ms. Evans told committee members one of the issues in the education budgets had been the even start program. Although the program had not received the funding it needed, it was a part of the educational continuum.

The Chair recognized Joanne Everts, who represented the Success by Six Steering Committee, was chair of the Childcare Licensing Board, President of the Nevada Association for the Education of Young Children, and also represented the Classroom on Wheels Program. Ms. Everts told committee members she represented over 200 parents, teachers, and child advocates who supported a variety of initiatives and legislation to make sure children were successful by the age of six. A.B. 302 had a direct impact on that goal. She said everyone was aware of the difference a trained teacher made in the life of a young child. While there were extensive kinds of teacher preparations and licensure for teachers who taught children ages 5 to 18, the critical years of development were infancy through 5-years-old. It was imperative that a system be developed to train and support those teachers. Ms. Everts was also involved in the development of the career ladder and the childcare training fund would assist in that effort. Committee members were referred to Exhibit I, a brochure regarding the Nevada Worthy Wage Campaign that would also benefit from the fund. She said the Nevada Association for the Education of Young Children would actively seek funds from the business community to support the childcare training fund.

Ms. Everts was hopeful committee members would support A.B. 302 in an effort to improve the quality of childcare across Nevada. Ms. Everts then introduced her daughter, Katie Albers, a student at Billinghurst Middle School, who provided the following verbatim testimony:

The Chair recognized May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services. Ms. Shelton explained the department was the licensing and regulatory agency in Washoe County and was in support of A.B. 302. The department would participate in the implementation and training part of the program. She said the department urged the appropriation of the requested funds and, if the economic forecast turned out to be better, consideration should be given to increasing the appropriation amount beyond the $50,000. Ms. Shelton saw A.B. 302 as an investment in Nevada’s children. As committee members deliberated on juvenile services and funding of prisons, she felt they would see A.B. 302 as a good investment to keep children healthy and safe and out of the "system." The legislature’s previous investments in Baby-Your-Baby, childcare subsidies, family resource centers, family preservation and parenting classes were showing results. Ms. Shelton told committee members the number of child abuse reports had decreased n Washoe County and she felt that decline could be attributed to the investment Nevada was making in its families and children. Ms. Shelton added any appropriation from the state would be used as match for any available federal funding .

The Chair recognized Ms. Evans who advised she would match Ms. Leslie’s donation of $1,000.

The Chair recognized Ron Dreher, who normally spoke before committee members as President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada and as a representative of the Police Protective Association. Today, however, he was speaking to committee members as a parent. His wife was the principal of an elementary school in Washoe County. They had raised their four children through the preschool at the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) and some of his eight grandchildren had also been enrolled in preschools. Mr. Dreher told committee members he was also a homicide detective for the City of Reno Police Department and had unfortunately dealt with a number of cases in Washoe County where parents had abused their children to the point of death. His point was to ask committee members to support A.B. 302. The need for appropriate childcare providers was astronomical. His degree from UNR was in the area of social services and he had, for many years, heard testimony from legislators and social service providers that advocated the need for childcare trainers. It was very important that Nevadan’s had the ability to send their children to preschool. Using his grandchildren as an example, Mr. Dreher said two of those grandchildren were in kindergarten. One had attended preschool from age one through age five and the other grandchild had not attended preschool. The difference between the two was enormous. He felt it was tragic for those parents who could not afford to place their children in preschool. He alluded to the tragedy at Littleton and other areas of the country, to include Reno. It was his opinion the problem would not go away unless funding was provided. While he was aware of the deficit in the state, the needs of Nevada’s children should have priority.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 302 closed.

The Chair recognized Raymond McAllister, Southern District Vice President, Professional Firefighters of Nevada. Mr. McAllister said A.B. 483 was sponsored by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson and had already been heard in the Judiciary Committee and re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means as the result of the addition of a fiscal note. The Chair deferred to Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, who said the fiscal note provided a range of cost between $33,000 and $3.4 million. Mr. McAllister said he was not sure where those costs were derived. He referred committee members to Exhibit J, a one-page statement regarding cost factors for A.B. 483.

Mr. McAllister explained under current law, if a public safety worker was exposed to another individual’s blood or bodily fluids, that individual could be asked to submit to a blood draw and have that draw tested for the HIV virus or Hepatitis B surface antigen. The problem that had been encountered was with those individuals who did not want to voluntarily submit to a blood draw. He told committee members there was scientific evidence to show that if an individual that had been exposed to the HIV virus and received a prophylaxis treatment within the first 24-hours, that treatment was 80 percent successful in preventing the person from becoming HIV positive. The side effects of the 6-week treatment were, however, very detrimental and caused violent illness.

Mr. McAllister said without the means by which to test a person, there was no way of knowing whether or not that individual was infected with the HIV positive virus or Hepatitis B surface antigen. A mandatory blood draw under certain circumstances would allow an individual to make an educated decision regarding treatment.

He said amendments had been proposed to the bill to indicate that the only time an individual would need to be subjected to a mandatory blood draw was in the case of "significant exposure." In that case, the court would petition the individual to submit to a mandatory blood draw. Some examples of "significant exposure" included a contaminated needle stick, blood or bodily fluid contact with rescuer’s mucous membrane of eyes, nose, or mouth, blood or bodily fluid in contact with non-intact skin, cuts with sharp instruments covered with blood or bodily fluids, or contact sustained while cleaning contaminated equipment. The exposure would also have to be quantified by a designated health official from whatever local entity was involved.

Referring committee members to Exhibit J, Mr. McAllister said he had contacted three different laboratories regarding test costs, two in Carson City and one in Las Vegas. He said the following prices were quoted as if an individual had walked in off the street to be tested:

1. APL in Las Vegas HIV = $36.30 Hepatitis B = $55.20

2. APL in Carson City HIV = $31.00 Hepatitis B = $56.00

3. Lab Corp. in Carson City HIV = $42.25 Hepatitis B = $71.00

Mr. McAllister told committee members he had spoken with a representative from APL who stated its prices would be significantly reduced if the entities worked out contract arrangements with different laboratories. He said he was not sure where the range of costs had come from because only state employees would be considered to be covered by the program and the majority of those state employees would be Nevada Highway Patrolmen.

The bottom of Exhibit J included an example involving the Las Vegas Fire Department that had responded to approximately 48,956 emergency medical calls during 1998. Of those calls, there were only 25 exposure reports filed and only 4 of those were classified as "significant exposures." Of the four "significant exposures" none of the patients refused to submit to a voluntary blood draw. If those four individuals had refused to submit to the blood draw, and under the provisions of A.B. 483, each could have been tested at APL in Las Vegas at a total cost of $360 (walk-in rates).

The Chair recognized Mrs. de Braga who had received letters from several constituents who were correctional officers who had been contaminated. She stated the insurance companies did not pay for necessary tests and/or treatment and asked if there was a way to mandate insurance companies to pay for a portion of that treatment. Mr. McAllister replied there was another bill, S.B. 32 (1999) that had been submitted by the correctional officers to address that issue. The law currently provided that an individual had to be working on an emergency medical call, as opposed to an altercation at a correctional facility, before worker’s comp or state insurance would become involved. He said if S.B. 32 were to pass, Mrs. de Braga’s concerns would be addressed.

The Chair recognized Vice Chair Evans who asked about testing for Hepatitis C. Mr. McAllister explained the reason A.B. 483 was in place was if an employee needed to take the prophylaxis treatment, the source individual could be tested. There was only a prophylaxis treatment for the HIV virus and Hepatitis B surface antigen. There was no such treatment for Hepatitis C which, if contracted, had no cure.

The Chair asked if, based on the fiscal note and the first reprint, there had been changes in the amendment that would have removed the fiscal note.
Mr. McAllister said he did now know and, as a matter of fact, the bill had an amendment placed on it before it was read on the Assembly floor. The Chair recognized Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration. Mr. Hataway explained, as he read the bill, the majority of the fiscal impact would be placed on the county health departments. The responsibility was shifted from the employer to the health authorities. He said there would be minimal impact on the state. Mr. McAllister advised the amendment removed the health authority and the amended bill used the language, "the employer of a person who files a petition" whether that be the state, city, or county.

The Chair recognized Mr. Parks who asked if it were not true the majority of persons working in the emergency medical field were already vaccinated against Hepatitis B, to exclude police officers. Mr. McAllister told committee members OSHA required employers to offer the Hepatitis B vaccine, but it was not mandatory on the employee’s part. He said the majority of the members of the Las Vegas Fire Department and the Clark County Fire Department were already vaccinated. The vaccination was voluntary and there were those firefighters who had chosen not to submit to the vaccination because there was some evidence to state the vaccination itself was not completely safe. Mr. McAllister was not certain the number of Reno area police officers that had been vaccinated for Hepatitis B. A conversation with Andy Anderson, Las Vegas Metro Police Protective Association, revealed the majority of their officers were not vaccinated.

The Chair recognized Ron Dreher, who represented the Police Officers Research Association of Nevada. That association consisted of 21 law enforcement agencies throughout the state. Mr. Dreher said Assemblyman Bernie Anderson and numerous other members of the Assembly had sponsored A.B. 483 that would provide a method to obtain a seizure order to obtain a sample of blood to be tested for HIV or Hepatitis B from those persons who refused to provide a sample when they exposed or possibly exposed law enforcement personnel, firefighters, or others in similar professions during the course of their employment in medical emergencies. He said A.B. 483 would allow for the testing of those samples and would provide the results of those tests back to the affected public safety person. He pointed out the prophylaxis treatment offered was voluntary on the part of the public safety person. A Reno police officer who had received the prophylaxis treatment testified to its horrific side effects. In regard to statistics, Mr. Dreher referred committee members to Exhibit K, a memo from Donna Edwards, City of Reno, who reported there had been 68 incidents of exposures for police and fire that were related to Hepatitis, Meningitis, TB, HIV, and scabies during the last 11-month period. Those statistics did not include exposure claims for inhalation. Only one of those exposures lead to the prophylaxis treatment. Based upon the figures provided by the City of Reno, the cost of coverage would be miniscule.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked if there was a provision in the bill to deal with the confidentiality issue. Mr. McAllister said a seizure order was considered protected data that could also be sealed by the court.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on A.B. 483 closed.

The Chair recognized Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, who told committee members the following budgets were staff’s responsibility to bring back to committee members for perusal and closure.

The Chair recognized Brian Burke, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Burke said staff was requesting several adjustments to this budget account and requested the authority to modify Budget Account 3187 in accordance with any changes that may be made to other EPA budget accounts.

He explained the Governor had recommended increases in contractual and professional services authority in Decision Unit M-200. Those increases included $500,000 per year for environmental consulting services, $100,000 for characterization of contamination problems, and $50,000 to the Small Business Development Center.

Decision Unit E-710 recommended purchase of one van to replace an existing van with excessive mileage (110,000 miles).

Mr. Burke said there was a change to the adjusted base because the indirect cost allocation in Budget Account 3187 did not match the anticipated cost allocation in Budget Account 3713, the EPA administrative account. Staff recommended adjustments of $13,755 in FY 2000 and $11,400 in FY 2001 to correct the imbalance. He said there would be further allocation adjustments based on recent subcommittee closings.

Decision Unit M-200 included adjustments for operating costs that did not have supporting documentation. Staff recommended the amounts that had not been documented be placed into a reserve category. When the funding was needed, and the agency had provided the required documentation, it could approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and request the funding be transferred to its operating account.

Staff also recommended the out-of-state travel line item in Decision Unit M-200 be reduced by $9,000 per year to eliminate duplicate funding in the base. Mr. Burke said the division had concurred with the recommended adjustment.

Regarding Decision Unit E-710, staff recommended incorporating individual software packages requested in the agency’s budget into a software suite.
Mr. Burke said the Governor’s budget had recommended 80 software replacement packages during the biennium when, in fact, there were only 67 computers. As a result, staff recommended software replacement packets be reduced to 67. The third adjustment in Decision Unit E-710 was a cost revision reflecting equal distribution of the recommended hardware in each year of the biennium. Those changes would reduce Decision Unit E-710 by $57,696 for the biennium.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended with a special note that the Mason Valley Fish Hatchery construction bond would be retired in FY 2001 and result in the availability of an additional $350,000 per year.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended.

********

Mr. Burke told committee members staff recommended two adjustments to this budget account. First, in the adjusted base, staff recommended adjusting base balance forward revenues and reserves to incorporate FY 1998 actual amounts. The base federal revenues were then reduced to match base expenditures. Base auction revenue was restored to FY 1998 actual amounts. The second adjustment involved NRS 501.3575 that stated, "the division may annually expend from the Wildlife Heritage trust account an amount of money not greater than the interest earned on the money in the account during the previous year." Mr. Burke advised The Executive Budget exceeded the limit established by statute. To comply with the statute, staff recommended reducing wildlife transfers in category 10 by $31,719 in the first year of the biennium and $49,719 in the second year of the biennium. Staff also recommended increasing the total interest revenues to $100,000 to correspond with FY 1999 anticipated distributions. Mr. Burke advised the agency had received roughly $51,000 through the first two quarters. Corresponding adjustments would be necessary to the Wildlife main Budget Account 4452.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending adjustments to the adjusted base to reduce operating supplies, postage, and data processing to the FY 1998 actual amounts. It was also recommended miscellaneous revenues in the base be increased to the FY 1998 actual amounts. Those changes resulted in General Fund savings of $2,712 in each year of the biennium.

Regarding replacement equipment in Decision Unit E-710, staff recommended reducing computer software and hardware prices to levels identified by the State Purchasing Division thereby resulting in a General Fund savings amounting to $1,114.

Regarding major reclassifications in Decision Unit E-805, Mr. Burke explained
The Executive Budget recommended reclassifying the entire staff of the agency. He said staff had reviewed the position questionnaires (NPD-19 forms) and felt they generally had merit. However, staff did not feel comfortable recommending the amounts be left in the personnel category until the State Department of Personnel had completed its review of those positions. Staff was recommending the establishment of a "reserve for reclassification" category and once state personnel had completed its review, the amount could be work programmed into the personnel category.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending several adjustments to this budget account. Regarding the base, staff recommended adjusting the balance forward revenues and reserve expenditure authority, based upon revised FY 1999 estimates, to correct an imbalance in the Governor’s recommended budget. The second adjustment was regarding demographics/caseload in Decision Unit M-200. Staff recommended reducing travel to eliminate the portion that duplicated base expenditures. Mr. Burke advised Decision Unit M-200 in the Governor’s budget also recommended additional postage and printing. Staff recommended reducing those amounts to correspond to the average cost associated with three meetings in FY 1998.

Regarding new equipment, Decision Unit E-720, staff recommended reducing software costs pursuant to the revised Purchasing Division price estimates.

Mr. Burke said the committee should note that the 0.5 FTE transfer in Decision Unit E-904 would move a fee-funded position to a General Fund account.

The Chair recognized Speaker Dini who told committee members A.B. 237 (1999) tied into the Board of Water Financing. He thought there was language in that bill that would allow the retention of staff on a full-time basis. A.B. 237 would provide $10 million worth of bonds for irrigation districts to compete with communities for conservation of water.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended.

Mr. Burke told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended.

The Chair recognized Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Stevens told committee members several revisions had been received from the budget division. The first was Budget Revision # 83 that requested additional property and contents insurance based on the value of the recent addition to the mansion in the amount of $3,162 in each year of the biennium. He pointed out the addition had been funded by private sources. The second was Budget Revision # 87 that would provide a salary increase to the administrative assistant at the Governor’s mansion. The revision requested an increase in salary from $28,264 to $33,408 at an additional cost of $7,704 in each year of the biennium.

The Chair recognized Ms. Evans who asked the last time that position had received an increase. Mr. Stevens said he could not recall, but advised the budget account contained a total amount of salary dollars the Governor was allowed to utilize for mansion employees.

The Chair recognized Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration. Mr. Hataway said the cook and housekeeper at the mansion had received salary adjustments during the last biennium. To his recollection, it had been at least four years since the administrative assistant at the Governor’s mansion had received a salary adjustment.

The Chair advised closure of this budget account would be held.

********

Mr. Stevens told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended. He advised the Governor’s budget contained a recommendation to utilize $400,000 in highway funds. The contractual services that would be allowed under the Governor’s budget totaled $1,095,500. Two FTE positions that had been left vacant in the base budget would be restored. Finally, funding in the agency would be restored with General Fund dollars to the levels that existed prior to the reductions in Department of Energy (DOE) funding.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked if the original recommendation of the Governor had not been to use General Fund money. Mr. Stevens said the budget for this biennium included General Fund dollars to fund the agency due to the lack of DOE funds.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who was under the impression if federal dollars were received the General Fund would be paid back and Mr. Stevens said that was correct.

The Chair recognized Mr. Hataway who explained the agency currently had slightly over $300,000 of federal funds built into its budget, in addition to the highway funds and the General Fund dollars. He said the Governor’s office reported to the budget office it still anticipated receiving additional, and hopefully up to the maximum amount of the budget back from the federal government. Every additional dollar received from the federal government would be offset to the General Fund and the Highway Fund.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the agency’s budget would still support the legislative committee and Mr. Hataway said he was not sure the budget reflected support for that committee. Mr. Marvel recalled the budget supported one position in the Research Division at the Legislative Counsel Bureau and asked if that position would go away. Mr. Stevens said he would research the matter and report back to committee members.

In view of that issue, the Chair advised this budget would be held.

********

Mr. Stevens told committee members staff was recommending closure of this budget as the Governor had recommended. Staff told committee members about a letter that had been received from the State Treasurer requesting non-classified employee status for several of its employees. That request was not included in the Governor’s recommendations.

The Chair recognized Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 151 was a $200,000 one-shot appropriation for river litigation costs. The appropriation was not originally included in The Executive Budget. He said there was a budget revision and the Governor had expressed his recommendation to approve the appropriation either by bill or in the budget.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 288 was included in The Executive Budget and revised the administrative charge assessed by the Department of Taxation to collect a variety of revenues on behalf of the state and local governments. He said the last time the bill was reviewed a request had been made to provide information on the fiscal impact to local governments based on current legislation that would reduce the administrative charge from 1 percent to .50 percent effective July 1, 1999. A.B. 288 would change that percentage to .75 percent. Mr. Stevens explained there would be an impact on General Fund revenue recommended to fund The Executive Budget if the bill did not pass.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who said the counties had testified the bill would have a fiscal impact on local governments because some of their budgets had been based on this bill. Mr. Stevens advised the General Fund hit was in the neighborhood of $3.5 million per year.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 370 was a bill brought forward by the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA). He said in setting the state group insurance rates for the upcoming biennium, Assemblywoman Parnell had set the amounts close but not exact to those included in The Executive Budget.

Mr. Stevens said it was staff’s recommendation that the amounts be set to exactly the levels that were included in The Executive Budget. In Section 1, the group insurance side, the first year would be $327.20 per month and in the second year $368.75 per month. In Section 2, for purposes of retired employee group insurance, the amounts would be $183.59 in the first year and $208.92 in the second year. Mr. Stevens was asked if the bill was necessary and he said it was the only way the premiums for state employees would increase.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 416 was "round two" of the supplemental for the group insurance program. The first supplemental appropriation had been reduced and the authority for the committee on benefits was removed. He reminded committee members that on April 12, 1999, Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, had appeared before them and requested that the amounts be changed slightly between General Fund, Highway Fund, and the assessment piece. If committee members were to agree with Mr. Comeaux’s figures, the amount in Section 1 would be amended to $6,970,765 (General Fund), the amount in Section 2 would be amended to $1,797,547 (Highway Fund), and the amount in Section 3 would be amended to $7,230,494 (assessed agency fees).

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 657 was a supplemental appropriation to the Highway Patrol. The amount had been requested to be amended from $10,491 to $12,160.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 660 was the request from the Governor’s Office to remove the unclassified status from the positions in the Governor’s Office and place them in a "non-classified" status. The Governor would not be allowed to spend any more dollars, but would be allowed to set the salaries of his staff.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 64 had already been heard by committee members. At that time the budget division had been requested to review the revenue and expenditures side of the bill. Exhibit L was a copy of the budget division’s response to that request in the form of an amended fiscal note.

Referring to Exhibit L, Mr. Stevens explained there were two budget accounts impacted on the Financial Institutions Division (FID) side. An initial application fee of $500 would be charged in non-reverting Budget Account 3805. In the expenditures category on the civil side of the Attorney General’s costs there would be one deputy attorney general (non-General Fund revenue).

A $250 license fee would be created in General Fund Budget Account 3835. It was estimated that fee would generate $385,500 and, with growth, was projected at $435,500 in the first year of the biennium and $485,500 in the second year of the biennium. The expenditure side would include one Administrative Aid position and one Program Assistant position and related costs totaling $66,269 the first year of the biennium and $58,399 in the second year of the biennium.

Finally, Mr. Stevens advised there would be a cost on the Attorney General’s side which committee members should decide. Exhibit L provided for one deputy attorney general on the civil side, and one legal secretary, and one investigator on the criminal side. The Attorney General was also asking for one deputy attorney general on the criminal side, but that request was not included in the amended fiscal note. Mr. Stevens said there would definitely be activity generated on the civil side that would impact the workload in the Attorney General’s Office. On the criminal side, however, the impact was unknown. The question was whether or not committee members wanted to provide the positions requested on the criminal side now not knowing what the workload would be. Mr. Stevens said the other alternative would be to assume there would not be very many criminal cases and, if it turned out there were actually numerous criminal cases, the issue could be addressed during the next budget cycle. It was staff’s opinion the civil deputy attorney general position was needed.

Mr. Stevens told committee members if they approved the bill, the FID budgets could be re-opened and the General Funded positions could be placed in those budgets. Staff’s preference, however, was to amend the bill and add the General Fund appropriation required to fund the positions in Budget
Account 3805.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who agreed the criminal deputy attorney general was not necessary and asked for more discussion regarding the staffing for the civil portion. Mr. Hataway said the FID administrator felt that due to the workload that would be generated by the bill, an additional deputy attorney general position was necessary. He said that deputy attorney general position would be a cost allocation payment out of the fund that was non-General Fund. If it was agreed, the Attorney General’s budget would reflect agency cost allocation reimbursement revenue and expenses. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the legal secretary position was necessary and Mr. Hataway responded the legal secretary position was on the criminal side. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a way to make sure the committee was made aware if that caseload actually appeared. Mr. Hataway told committee members the Attorney General’s Office kept time records for its cost allocation process.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the fees were too high based on budget needs.
Mr. Goldwater responded the fees were an estimation and FID would adopt a fee schedule by regulation. He felt the committee would do well to send a letter of intent to fund at the level of need. Mr. Stevens explained FID would collect fees included in statute and the fees assessed to depositary institutions were adjusted based upon the General Fund appropriations required to finance their operation. In the end, he said, there would be a net zero. Mr. Hataway said the way Budget Account 3835 worked was that FID guaranteed the General Fund to be repaid.

The Chair recognized Ms. Evans who said she did not see evidence to support the need for a criminal attorney general. If the workload came in as projected, however, she said the legal secretary position may be necessary. She also questioned the need for the criminal investigator position.

The Chair recognized Mrs. Chowning who asked when the amended version of the bill had been received. The Chair advised the bill had been amended in the Commerce Committee. She asked if the concerns in Section 1 had been deleted and Mr. Goldwater responded they had been changed to be more workable. Mrs. Chowning stated the Commissioner of Financial Institutions would be the one to oversee, collect the money, and make sure everyone was licensed and asked who would hear consumer complaints. Mr. Goldwater replied consumer complaints would be heard by FID and there had been numerous changes to the process. The new process would mandate the review and resolution of complaints. Civil matters regarding a particular institution, to include issues regarding loan agents, would be investigated by the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Goldwater also expressed his feeling there was no need for a criminal deputy attorney general.

The Chair recognized Mrs. Chowning who asked if the amended bill required the licensing of loan agents and Mr. Goldwater said that it did.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Debbie Zuspan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: