The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Bernice Mathews (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 184 and Senate Bill 185.

Jack Lehman, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 10, Las Vegas, Nevada, indicated that at present the Clark County Drug Court provides services for 1,700 drug offenders a year and the other four Clark County Drug Courts provide services for an additional 300 individuals; hence, 2,000 drug offenders are treated a year. Judge Lehman reported the other drug courts in Clark County are:

• The Laughlin Drug Court, which began February 1998.

• The Mesquite and Moapa Valley Drug Courts, which began October 1998.

• The Juvenile Drug Court, which began February 1995 and was the first juvenile drug court in the United States; and

• The Dependency Drug Court, which involves drug-using parents of juvenile offenders.

Judge Lehman pointed out that 1,179 people graduated from the 1-year program over the 6½ years the Clark County Drug Court Program has been in operation. He said only 160 graduates were rearrested for any charge during that same period. The judge indicated the Clark County Drug Court defines a recidivist as any person who is rearrested for any offense, be it petty larceny, burglary, domestic violence, or whatever. Judge Lehman noted that 14 percent of the people who graduated from the program have been recidivists.

Judge Lehman stated the Justice Department of the United States estimates the average drug addict commits 100 crimes a year to obtain money to support his or her drug habit. He indicated the cost of the Clark County Drug Court Program is $1,500 a year for a 1-year program that includes the taking of urine specimens. The judge said drug offenders are tested regularly and approximately 80 urine specimens are taken a year. Judge Lehman called attention to the unfavorable comparison of the cost of $1,500 a year for the Drug Court Program versus $16,000 a year spent on people incarcerated in the Nevada State Prison, or $13,000 a year to maintain prisoners in the Clark County Detention Center.

Continuing, Judge Lehman said that approximately a year ago the Justice Department hired an organization called the Crime and Justice Research Institute to perform a study of the Clark County Drug Court Program. He stated the Justice Department wanted an analysis of the program pursuant to a federal grant that was provided a couple of years ago. The judge indicated that interesting information was gleaned from the extensive research conducted by the Crime and Justice Research Institute. Judge Lehman said the Crime and Justice Research Institute set up a control group of 100 people who did not participate in the Drug Court Program, in order to analyze and compare them with the participants.

Further, Judge Lehman indicated the Crime and Justice Research Institute concluded that for every dollar spent in the drug court operation there was "$3 hard money" (which is money saved on incarceration and health services) for every dollar invested in drug courts. The judge stated the Clark County Drug Court was provided $250,000 during the 1995 Legislative Session, and an additional $250,000 in 1997. He said the money allowed the Clark County Drug Court to add 333 people to the treatment program, which presently treats 1,200 people. Judge Lehman noted the funds also allowed the Clark County Drug Court to obtain the federal grant which ultimately added an additional 510 people to the program.

Answering a query, Judge Lehman stated the federal grant was just under $800,000. He noted the federal grant required a state match, which made the funds provided by the Legislature critical. The judge declared it would have been difficult to obtain the federal grant without state funding. He indicated the federal grant allowed the Clark County Drug Court Program to obtain a full-time employment counselor and to implement the Dependency Drug Court. For a period of time it also funded a daycare center.

Judge Lehman indicated all drug courts, including those in Washoe and Clark Counties, are serving fewer than 10 percent of the drug offenders arrested each year. He said the program is a major benefit considering the fact that only 14 percent of the people are rearrested.

The judge pointed out he had discussed with Senator Raggio and Governor Guinn the concept of choosing 100 people who are incarcerated in the Nevada State Prison, providing them early parole, and placing them in the Drug Court Program. The individuals would be part of a control group to determine whether this type of action could be of benefit, Judge Lehman remarked.

Responding to a question, Judge Lehman indicated the 100 people selected for the control group must be nonviolent drug offenders. He said the offenses committed by those entering the Drug Court Program are usually nonviolent crimes, including burglary, larceny, cheating at gaming, and forgery. The judge noted a substantial number of offenders are sent by judges who use the Drug Court Program as a last resort to avoid sending them to Nevada State Prison. Judge Lehman indicated that should the control group concept be accepted, the Drug Court Program would expect to receive a percentage of the money saved by not retaining the person in the Nevada State Prison.

Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, distributed a document entitled "Eighth Judicial District Court Drug Court Presentation" (Exhibit C). Mr. Loop indicated he works with civil and criminal judges in the Eighth Judicial District Court. He pointed out $1,703,748 was acquired through an $800,000 grant from the federal government over a period of several years. Mr. Loop said a follow-up grant of over $200,000 was provided. Additionally, the money came from local government block grants, requiring a match of approximately 10 percent.

Asked the requirements for obtaining federal money for this purpose, Mr. Loop explained that the federal government had money available for drug treatment and targeted some established drug courts to provide money for treatment, establish an information system to acquire data, and fund research for an independent third party to verify the results claimed by the drug courts. Mr. Loop noted that presently, federal funding has shifted more to start-up programs, management information systems technology, and research.

Senator Raggio requested precise information in regard to federal money available for continuation of Drug Court Programs and whether they require a state match. Mr. Loop indicated he would comply with the request.

Questioned how offenders on the Drug Court Programs are monitored, Mr. Loop indicated the client is required to report weekly for counseling and provide a urine analysis on a regular basis. After completing the program the offenders are investigated locally, as well as through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), to ensure they have not had any other offenses, Mr. Loop stated.

Senator Jacobsen mentioned the rural areas have a difficult enough time taking care of ordinary problems without being involved in something of this nature. In response, Senator Raggio pointed out the authorized rural Drug Court Program never became established.

Judge Lehman indicated the Clark County Drug Court Program began in October 1992 and was the fifth drug court in the United States. He noted there are approximately 400 drug courts in the United States at present. The movement has spread because it is effective, Judge Lehman asserted.

Requested to further explain the Drug Court Program operation, Judge Lehman said offenders are sent by judges or taken directly from the Clark County Detention Center after arrest. He explained that the Clark County Detention Center, the public defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office make the determination whether or not drugs are the basic problem. Judge Lehman indicated the offender may be a juvenile or adult, must volunteer to enter the program, and may quit the program at any time. He said the Clark County Drug Court Program consists of four phases:

• Phase 1 is the detoxification stage wherein the offender must report 6 times a week for the first 2 weeks for counseling and acupuncture. The offender must provide 3 urine analyses a week. If the person has 5 consecutive "clean" urine analyses at the end of 2 weeks, he or she may move into phase 2.

• Phase 2 requires counseling and urine analyses 3 times a week for 8 weeks.

• Phase 3 requires counseling and urine analyses twice a week.

• Phase 4 places emphasis upon obtaining employment with the help of a full-time employment counselor. The clients are required to obtain a General Educational Development (GED) or high school diploma should they be lacking. If the client desires additional skills, arrangements will be made to attend the Community College of Southern Nevada or whatever is necessary to attain the needed expertise. The clients are required to report and provide a urine analysis once a week during the last 6 months of the program.

Queried whether the clients pay a fee for the Drug Court Program, Judge Lehman answered that everyone coming into the program pays not less than $10 nor more than $30 a week to participate in the program. He stated that as of January 1, 1999, $630,000 had been collected from participants of the program and Clark County allowed the money to be put directly back into the program.

Asked the sanctions should a person not comply with the phases of the Drug Court Program, Judge Lehman indicated they receive a "scolding" from him and are required to report more often. The first offense sends the person to jail for 4 days, which he said usually turns 90 percent of them around "180 degrees." The judge indicated the second offense brings a week of incarceration, and the third brings 2 weeks in jail.

Questioned whether the drug court is a full-time operation for judges, Judge Lehman indicated he carries a full criminal calendar in addition to drug court duties. Senator Raggio requested a report on the amounts and sources of funding for Drug Court Programs in Clark and Washoe Counties, and Judge Lehman deferred to Mr. Loop to respond.

Mr. Loop indicated the funding for the Drug Court Programs for both adults and juveniles emanates from block and federal grants of approximately $1.7 million. He said the county funds $450,000 annually and the remainder is paid by the clients. Senator Raggio requested a breakdown of the Drug Court Program budget, present funding, and proposed funding. Mr. Loop stated the report would be submitted to the LCB staff.

Charles M. McGee, Chief Judge, Second Judicial District, Department 2, Reno, Nevada, indicated he is chairman of the Juvenile and Family Drug Court committees for both the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Judge McGee said Judge Breen, Judge Lehman, and he began the first family drug court in the United States.

Judge McGee, calling attention to a "couple of" bills required by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, explained the "core language" must be conformed or consequently $17.9 million a year provided by the federal government for permanency planning for children in foster care will be lost. He explained it is a truncated process to shorten the time it takes to place children who have been taken from their parents and are unable to be reunited with them into kinship or adoption permanent placement. Judge McGee indicated that without the existence of programs such as the Drug Court Program, the process is a disservice to natural parents. He pointed out that when social workers carry caseloads of 120 clients it is impossible for people to be rehabilitated and/or employed with the help of reconnaissance probation or counseling. The judge emphasized the parents need the Drug Court Program to help them become clean, sober, and capable of raising their children. The original purpose and focus of the Drug Court Program is family reunification, Judge McGee asserted.

Further, Judge McGee applauded the efforts of Governor Guinn and Senator Raggio for their willingness to experiment with the power of the Drug Court Program by removing 100 adult nonviolent, drug-related offenders from prison to participate in the pilot program. He guaranteed a 75 percent success rate, which he said is the exact opposite of what would happen in the normal system. The judge indicated the pilot program will save the state money. However, Judge McGee voiced the opinion that the pilot program is "bass ackwards." He said the people chosen to participate in the pilot program have committed numerous offenses and violated probation three or four times. The judge suggested the program be operated from the "front end of the system" to divert people when they are 14-15 years of age rather than 21-22. That was the reason juvenile drug courts were set up in both jurisdictions, Judge McGee remarked.

Asked the number of people in the Drug Court Program in Washoe County, Judge McGee indicated there are 20 programs in Washoe County. Judge Lehman said there are 117 graduates in the juvenile Drug Court Program in Clark County. Judge McGee indicated Judge Bob Gaston, the new juvenile court judge in Clark County, is linking 13 Boys and Girls Clubs in Clark County with the juvenile Drug Court Program. He said the children are picked up after school and delivered to the Boys and Girls Clubs, and their homework is supervised to ensure they are not on the streets "doing drugs." It is a powerful program in Clark County, Judge McGee emphasized.

Peter I. Breen, District Judge, Second Judicial Court, Department 7, Reno, Nevada, indicated he is judge of the adult drug court for his district. He distributed a three-page document entitled "Washoe County Adult Drug Court" (Exhibit D). Judge Breen explained the Washoe County Adult Drug Court is modeled on and almost identical to the Clark County Drug Court. He indicated the program, which began with approximately 900 clients, presently has 250 active clients and 366 graduates with a 10 percent rearrest rate. The judge stated Washoe County Drug Court funding is $200,000 a year from the county, $50,000 from the Legislature, and approximately $70,000 this fiscal year from the clients. The indirect cost of "self-pays" is about $100,000 per year. The Washoe County Drug Court is enjoying about the same success as the Clark County Drug Court, Judge Breen remarked.

Continuing, Judge Breen indicated the Washoe County Drug Court requires a minimum of one year of close monitoring by the district court judge. The judge reflected upon the fact that there are a great many people in prison¾ people who began with possession of drugs, started selling drugs, and escalated to murder. He declared it is easy for a criminal trial court judge to become discouraged; however, the Drug Court Programs are the most successful thing the judiciary has accomplished in almost 50 years. Judge Breen indicated the statistics demonstrate phenomenal success¾ instead of 80 percent recidivism, it is 20 percent¾ and 75 percent of the clients graduate. It is "the best thing going" in the war against crime, which is marked by failure, Judge Breen expounded.

In conclusion, Judge Breen asked the committee to view the requested funding as an investment. He said the studies performed by Clark County have shown that three times the money spent will be directly returned to help the budgets of prisons, jails, law enforcement, schools, and hospitals, in addition to the indirect benefits demonstrated by the statistics in Exhibit D. Judge Breen mentioned the problems teachers experience working with children whose mothers took drugs while they were pregnant. He said part of the success of the program is that it is ongoing and includes other people within the court system who help each other. The judge indicated the "drug culture" in the community is aware of the existence of the program and are "keyed" to it. He declared trial court judges are fighting the drug war in the trenches and whatever "ammunition" the Legislature can send will be returned threefold.

Senator Raggio mentioned the statistics indicate that 73 percent of clients participate and graduate after 12 months or longer, and 85 percent of them find jobs. In response, Judge Breen said the Drug Court Program provides indirect benefits as well. After dealing with offenders one on one for a period of time, the judge described them as under 30 years of age, having no skills, never having worked, "pathetically immature," and only becoming employed because they are "hounded" by an authority figure. Judge Breen indicated the key to the success of the drug courts is accountability. He reflected that most people, when shown the right way, will take the right direction.

Senator Coffin expressed support for the pilot program, indicating it could mean the difference between accelerated construction of a prison that is unaffordable at the present time, or freeing up enough beds to work with the existing prison structure for another year or two.

Judge Lehman said the judges were anxious to take up the challenge of the pilot program. He proudly mentioned that Clark County had 21 drug-free babies born to women who participated in the program in 1998.

Senator Jacobsen asked Judge Breen whether he perceived a pattern over the years regarding smoking, drinking, and drug use among teenagers. Judge Breen indicated the pattern begins with marijuana and progresses to more serious drugs, such as methamphetamine. The judge asserted most murders are committed when the perpetrator is under the influence of methamphetamine.

Judge Breen proposed an amendment to S.B. 185 which would remove the language "pursuant to NRS 453.580" in section 1, line 4. He explained that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 453.580 refers to the regular diversion program, and the drug courts in both Clark and Washoe Counties are not related to postjudgment convictions. In addition, Judge Lehman proposed an amendment to S.B. 184 to remove the language "established pursuant to NRS 453-580" in section 1, line 4, and the language "pursuant to NRS 453-580" in section 1, subsection 2, line 9.

Mr. Loop indicated the most frequent complaint heard from criminal judges is the lack of sentencing alternatives. He stressed the Drug Court Program alternative is a "bright light" in the criminal justice arena. Whatever funding that can be provided for S.B. 184 and S.B. 185 will be a relief for the judges who make hard decisions on behalf of the people who appear before them, Mr. Loop remarked.

Senator Raggio indicated the committee appreciated the information regarding the capability and results of the Drug Court Program; however, he said, the question is where to fit the programs not already in a budget and establish priorities. The senator indicated the Drug Court Program is recognized as a high priority.

Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney (DA), Washoe County, stated emphatically the system that has been used for years regarding drug offenders and incarceration does not work, and offenders are continually rotated in and out of the system. Mr.  Gammick indicated the DA’s office has been supportive of the Drug Court Program since its inception in 1995. He pointed out the DA’s office and the judges in the second judicial district agreed to have drug offenders plead guilty to a felony before entering the Drug Court Program. In that event, the DA’s office is not required to produce evidence and witnesses from a year prior should the offender fail the program. Mr. Gammick said there have not been many failures with this procedure.

Further, Mr. Gammick indicated there is no established scheme for obtaining, administering, and phasing grants into the Washoe County criminal justice system. He stated the current budget requests two individuals to pursue and administer grants for the criminal justice system. Mr. Gammick said he anticipates procuring some federal grants for Washoe County to ease the financial burden.

Asked about the availability of federal grants, Mr. Gammick said it was his understanding the federal grant cycle was fading and new grants had not yet appeared. He indicated he could not speak to the availability of specific grants, which was the reason he was requesting employees with the expertise to handle grants.

Judge McGee indicated he traveled to Washington, D.C. in 1998 to meet with Assemblyman John Ensign, and the meeting resulted in the addition of $17 million to the federal budget for the drug courts. The judge said there was a chance Nevada might receive some of that money. Senator Raggio asked to be notified should federal funding become available.

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, added a "me too" from the sheriff’s office.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 184 and S.B. 185 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 277.

Dale Erquiaga, Acting Director, Division of Museums and History, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, indicated that S.B. 277 is a supplemental appropriation of $1,550 to the Department of Museums, Library and Arts, for additional operating expenses related to the office of the director. He reported the expenses were incurred before his appointment and were not a direct result of his arrival.

Mr. Erquiaga distributed a packet of information (Exhibit E) and noted that details of an amendment to S.B. 277 were contained on pages 1 and 2. He indicated that since the original request for supplemental appropriations in September 1998, the department has identified two additional areas: a shortfall in revenues at the door, and additional costs for utilities at three museum facilities. Mr. Erquiaga deferred to Mr. Sisco for an explanation of the details of the measure.

Scott K. Sisco, Administrative Services Officer III, Division of Museums and History, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, explained the First Interstate Bank building in Carson City and a small house on Curry Street were procured and through donations and various other sources the director’s office was remodeled. He indicated the $1,550 request represents the utilities shortfall for "this budget year" for the small Curry Street house.

Mr. Sisco reported page 1 of Exhibit E shows additional requests for three facilities. The first request is $10,000 for the Las Vegas Museum and Historical Society, which is a shortfall in revenue as a result of reduced admission fees.

Asked whether the reduced fees helped attendance, Peter L. Bandurraga, Ph.D., Director, Nevada Historical Society, Acting Administrator, Division of Museums and History, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, explained that Mr. Sisco’s reference was to a reduced total amount of admission fees, not a reduced price. Dr. Bandurraga said projections are down, which is the reason supplemental revenue is requested.

Continuing, Mr. Sisco indicated the second request is an amendment to the Nevada State Railroad Museum appropriation request. He said page 1 of Exhibit E shows a reduction in revenue received through admission fees, and a utilities shortfall. Mr. Sisco declared some funds were taken from the restoration fund in order to accommodate the revenue shortfalls for the state as a whole. Responding to a query, Mr. Sisco said the action will not seriously impact the restoration program; however, it will delay two major projects.

Mr. Sisco pointed out the third request is for the Nevada State Museum, which had a $20,000 shortfall in utilities. He said $5,000 is removed from the museum’s research category and the remaining $15,145 is requested in General Fund appropriation for that agency.

Senator Raggio queried whether the Budget Division endorsed the enhancement to the budget, and John P. Comeaux, Director, Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls, Department of Administration, answered yes.

Senator Jacobsen commented the sound system in the new Nevada State Library and Archives Building is "sick" and asked the cost to replace or repair it. Mr. Erquiaga indicated the senator’s concern had been communicated to him at his first staff meeting. The cost of repairing or replacing the system would be transmitted to Senator Jacobsen and the committee, Mr. Erquiaga remarked.

Senator Raggio instructed the staff that an amendment will be required if S.B. 277 is processed.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 277 and opened on Senate Bill 281.

Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed a document entitled "Composition of Supplemental Request" (Exhibit F). He said a request is made on page 1 of Exhibit F to cover shortfalls in the salary and operations categories for FY 1999 in three areas:

• An extended leave for an Accountant Technician II.

• Three upgrades in the accounting area within the Director’s Office were approved by the Personnel Office. An Accountant III was upgraded to an Administrative Services Officer (ASO) III, an Accounting Specialist to a Personnel Technician, and an Accounting Specialist to an Accountant Technician I.

• There was a shortfall for the rent for storage space and office space for the Assistant Director who came on board as a result of legislative approval in the 1997 Legislative Session.

Senator Raggio clarified that the original bill dealt with the rent differential, which was $5,021, and the extended leave and upgrades totaled $35,000. Mr. Morros concurred.

Asked whether the supplemental $35,000 was approved and requested by the budget office, Mr. Comeaux indicated it was originally proposed that the appropriation made by the 1997 Legislature be amended to allow for the expenditure of $35,000. He said there was some objection to that method; therefore, the bill ended up drafted as a supplemental. Mr. Comeaux said that in effect, it is in the budget and should there be an adjustment it would simply increase the expected reversions by $35,000 and increase the amount of supplemental appropriations. Senator Raggio commented the end result is the same. Mr. Comeaux answered, "That is correct." Senator Raggio speculated whether S.B. 281 should be processed.

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), indicated S.B. 281 "came over" as an adjustment regarding the way the money could be expended, but was drafted as a supplemental appropriation. He noted the net result was the same. Mr. Comeaux agreed and indicated it was all right to process the bill.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 281 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 282.

Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, State Department of Education, submitted his testimony (Exhibit G) which was a brief explanation of S.B. 282.

Senator Raggio asked how section 2 of S.B. 282 would be affected if the appropriation for the employee to carry out, administer, monitor, and evaluate the remediation program is reduced. Mr. Thunder explained that when the Governor asked for reversion, the entire amount was reverted. He indicated work programs are in process to reduce the amount of reversion by $33,900 to be supplemented with a reversion from another account. The program was targeted for no funding because of the request for reversions, Mr. Thunder remarked.

Senator Raggio requested assurance the task will be accomplished. In response, Mr. Thunder said the process of evaluating the schools is being carried forward with current staff and there is no damage to the program.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 282 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 228.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, indicated the purpose of S.B. 228 is twofold: to create efficiency in the eligibility determination for the Medicaid process and the Nevada Check-Up Program, and to streamline administration of the government.

Senator Washington reported he had served on the Nevada Check-Up Program during the past interim while he was on the Legislative Committee on Health Care (NRS 439b.200) with Senator Rawson. He indicated that applicants for the Nevada Check-Up Program are also required to submit an application for Medicaid services. The senator explained that through the application process it is determined that although some applicants may not be eligible for Medicaid, they may be eligible for the Nevada Check-Up Program. He said a problem develops when Welfare Division workers who handle the eligibility process do not have enough training to determine for which program the applicant is eligible.

Senator Washington indicated S.B. 228 would streamline the system to provide welfare workers training to process applications and inform applicants that should they not meet the requirements for Medicaid, they might meet the requirements for the Nevada Check-Up Program. He said that currently, applicants are processed by the administrative staffs of the Welfare Division and the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP). The senator explained that S.B. 228 would combine the administrative staffs of the divisions, who would then determine whether applications processed by welfare workers should be submitted for Medicaid or for the Nevada Check-Up Program, and the money would be disseminated accordingly. Senate Bill 228 is a simple bill that would save the state money and streamline the application process, Senator Washington remarked.

April Townley, Deputy Administrator, DHCFP, Department of Human Resources, clarified that S.B. 228 proposes merging the eligibility systems, but not the two programs. In response, Senator Washington indicated the purpose of the bill is to merge the two administrative systems to streamline and make the system more efficient, as well as to disseminate the funds.

Asked whether S.B. 228 included a fiscal note, Ms. Townley answered she was unaware whether or not a formal fiscal note had been prepared. She explained that merging the staff in the Community Home-Based Initiatives Program (CHIP) with the Welfare Division would incur additional cost. The Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) would require revisions, cross training, and additional staff for the Welfare Division because the two systems interact, Ms. Townley remarked.

Senator Raggio indicated an answer was anticipated from the agencies to ascertain whether or not merging the two programs would be feasible and could be done with no additional cost. Ms. Townley responded it was her understanding there would be additional cost to modify the NOMAD system and the same amount of staff would be required; hence, there would be no cost savings. Ms. Townley declared the agency had other objections as well.

Continuing, Ms. Townley explained the Nevada Check-Up Program was designed to be separate from the Welfare Division to enable working people to apply in a more simplified fashion than in the Medicaid process. She said the Medicaid application process encompasses not just Medicaid, but the USDA Food Stamps Program and other programs. Ms. Townley indicated the Medicaid process requires individuals to submit applications, personally interview with Welfare Division staff, and go through a number of procedures that do not exist with the Check-Up Program. On the other hand, the Check-Up Program allows people to mail their applications, there are no resource tests, and verification of income may be done with a past income tax statement or check payment stubs. Ms. Townley asserted the concepts of the two programs are different.

Ms. Townley declared the Nevada Check-Up Program is designed to be a non-welfare, insurance-type program for children not covered through private insurance. She stated the process is streamlined and simple, does not require a visit to the agency, and is accomplished through paperwork. Conversely, Ms. Townley said Medicaid is attached to other types of programs, such as the food stamps program. She indicated the two programs interact, which has simplified the process. Ms. Townley said if people apply for the Check-Up Program and it appears they qualify for Medicaid, the application is sent to the Welfare Division. Should the person be ascertained by Welfare to be qualified, he or she is sent a full application. Ms. Townley indicated that while people are going through the process they may be provisionally enrolled in the Check-Up Program to obtain health coverage. Ms. Townley said that when Medicaid makes a determination, the person may either become Medicaid-eligible or, if not, remain in the Check-Up Program.

Ms. Townley explained further that when a Medicaid applicant is denied, the person is notified he or she may be eligible for the Check-Up Program and is sent a simple two-page form to be filled out and mailed. There is no face-to-face interview.

Senator Raggio reflected that, according to Ms. Townley, the process is unnecessary, unworkable, and is already being done.

Senator Washington indicated it was his understanding that extensive marketing programs have been attempted to increase the number of participants of the Nevada Check-Up Program. He said that as of February 1, 1999, 3,393 people have applied for and been accepted into the program. The senator stated NOMADS would not have to be modified because the Check-Up program is not part of Medicaid.

Senator Raggio suggested Fiscal Analysis Division staff meet with Senator Washington and Ms. Townley to determine whether there would be a way to facilitate the issue to accommodate the goals of S.B. 228.

Questioned whether S.B. 228 would affect the funding of the Check-Up program, Ms. Townley indicated the administrative cost of the program is capped at 10 percent and the cost is $130,000 at present. She indicated the funding could be affected in the initial start-up time.

Senator Raggio requested Steve Abba, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, to contact Senator Washington and Ms. Townley as soon as possible to expedite the processing of S.B. 228.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 228 and opened the hearing on BDR 34-1247 was opened.

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, indicated that BDR 34-1247 revises several sections of the NRS pertaining to school accountability and education reform. She said the BDR replaces the 11-member elected State Board of Education with a 9-member board, and 5 members are appointed by the governor: 3 from southern Nevada, 1 from northern Nevada, and 1 from the rural counties.

Asked whether the changes emanated from the Legislative Committee on Education, Ms. Botts answered that several of the issues were discussed in that body.

Continuing, Ms. Botts said the remaining 4 members of the State Board of Education would be appointed thusly: 2 by the Senate majority leader and 2 by the Assembly speaker. She indicated that another provision changes the term of appointment for the Superintendent of Public Instruction from the current 3-year term to a 1-year term, and allows for removal from office for cause by the State Board of Education.

Ms. Botts explained that another provision provides full authority to school districts to utilize class-size reduction funds at their option to finance research-based remedial education programs that have been found effective in improving pupil achievement.

Ms. Botts indicated section 39 of BDR 34-1247 prohibits school districts from hiring teachers for positions for which they are not licensed to teach; however, exceptions are provided for positions for which no qualified candidate is available. She said there are provisions in section 40 of BDR 34-1247 that districts shall not give additional salary credit to teachers unless their additional course work earned is related to the subject areas in which they are teaching. Ms. Botts explained that other bills have addressed the national certification for teachers and there is a similar provision in BDR 34-1247 for an additional 5 percent salary credit for teachers who obtain that national certification.

Continuing, Ms. Botts said BDR 34-1247 shifts responsibility from the State Board of Education to the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools for the statewide standards-based testing program, and the council is made permanent. She stated the council may select the examinations, set passing scores, enter into contracts with test vendors, monitor people performance, review test results, and determine whether further adjustments or modifications in the standards are needed.

Ms. Botts further stated that in this BDR a testing advisory committee, composed of test directors from school districts, is created to advise the standards council. She indicated the council was involved in writing the standards of content and performance. The members are aware of the standards and would be able to determine the best manner of testing for those standards, Ms. Botts remarked.

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB, stated the next major portion of BDR 34-1247 specifies that content and performance standards be developed in core academic subjects for each grade. He said that at present they are developed for specific benchmark grades.

Mr. Sturm indicated section 22 of BDR 34-1247 sets forth that districts are required to provide instruction in core academic standards¾ English, math, science, and social studies¾ and shall provide instruction in the remaining enrichment standards: the arts, health, physical education, and computer education.

Referring to section 3 of BDR 34-1247, Mr. Sturm said it establishes a temporary business and education coalition of Nevada to create a strategic plan for improving public schools in Nevada.

Mr. Sturm said section 36 of BDR 34-1247 revises the manner in which the Commission on Professional Standards is appointed and is similar to a bill processed by the Senate Committee on Human Resources. There is a split appointment at present between the Governor and the Legislature, Mr. Sturm remarked.

Ms. Botts declared BDR 34-1247 contains several appropriations which total approximately $11.7 million. She said $4 million would go to the State Department of Education for remedial educational programs, and in the current year $3 million was allocated by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to 23 schools designated as having inadequate performance. Ms. Botts said the $4 million would be available to a broader group of schools, not just those with very low performance but those that were on the edge. She indicated the appropriation would go to the State Department of Education; however, the IFC would still approve the allocations.

Further, Ms. Botts stated there is $450,000 for the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools to develop and begin implementing standards-based tests starting with Grade 3 and moving to Grade 5 in the coming biennium. She indicated approximately $6.8 million will go to the Douglas, Clark, Elko, and Washoe school districts to develop regional professional development centers for teachers, similar to what is provided in S.B. 70.

Ms. Botts indicated $100,000 is allocated to the LCB to conduct an evaluation of the regional development centers, which is stated in S.B. 60.

Ms. Botts said $300,000 is allocated to the IFC to purchase a financial analysis accounting program for school districts to enable them to track expenditures to school sites, even to class level. She indicated there is a total of $65,000 for support of the operating expenses of the various committees. Ms. Botts stated $50,000 is allocated for the biennial operating cost of the academic standards council and its new technical advisory committee on testing, and $15,000 for the Business Education Coalition of Nevada.

Senator Raggio indicated all the issues were discussed in the Legislative Committee on Education, some were covered in other bills, and some were not included in recommendations but were presented for discussion. He said the bill would require a long hearing and many decisions must be made with respect to appropriations, many of which are contained in other measures under consideration. The senator requested an introduction of BDR 34-1247.

Washington Office – Budget Page ELECTED-8 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1011

Victoria Soberinsky, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office, read her testimony (Exhibit H), which was an overview of the operations of the State of Nevada’s Washington Office.

Queried the location and function changes of the Washington Office since Leo  Penne would no longer be the contracting party in Washington, D.C., Ms. Soberinsky answered that Mr. Penne’s contract expires at the end of the fiscal year; therefore, his replacement by a new individual will become effective July 1, 1999, but the office location will remain the same.

Mr. Comeaux indicated the total amount of the budget will change slightly. He said The Executive Budget recommends a budget totaling $256,000 the first year of the biennium and $264,000 the second. Mr. Comeaux declared the adjustment will total approximately $252,500 the first year and $259,300 the second. He pointed out the funding mix will also change slightly and is proposed to be provided 50 percent from the Nevada Department of Transportation, 42 percent from the Commission on Tourism, and 8 percent from the Commission on Economic Development. Mr. Comeaux stated current funding comes from those three entities, but in different proportions.

Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), indicated NDOT demonstrated its support of the Washington Office by suggesting its contribution be increased by approximately $20,000 a year the first year. Mr. Stephens reported the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means requested quantitative performance indicators for the Washington Office, which he opined will be difficult to provide. He explained the Washington Office operates as a member of the team in Washington, D.C. to obtain additional funding and other things for the NDOT. Mr. Stephens noted the Washington Office hosts meetings for the various lobbyists representing Nevada entities to ensure everyone is "on the same frequency."

Further, Mr. Stephens asserted it is unnecessary for each city in Nevada to get its own appropriation out of the Highway Fund because that activity is coordinated in the Washington Office. He stated the Washington Office provides the catalyst for all nonpartisan entities to meet together in a "Nevada effort." Mr. Stephens mentioned that the Washington Office also coordinates with the National Governors’ Association (NGA), which had a great deal of influence on the reauthorization of "Federal Highway Act D21" this year. He stated Nevada was the recipient of $70 million in additional funds. There is a lot of money at stake for NDOT and the Washington Office is considered an essential part of the team, Mr. Stephens asserted.

Asked the reason Mr. Penne is departing the Washington Office, Ms. Soberinsky answered the Governor announced at the nuclear summit with the congressional delegation that it was time to make a change in the Washington Office and restructure it to focus more on national issues. She indicated Mr. Penne had done a good job and served the state well; however, with the new direction it is appropriate to look for a new person.

Questioned whether the decision to change was made in conjunction with the various entities that participate in the Washington Office throughout the state, such as local and county governments, Ms. Soberinsky answered no. She said the decision was made from the Governor’s Office.

Senator Coffin speculated this is a perilous time in Washington, D.C. to be making a change and queried whether there might be risk and time lost in bringing another person up to speed. He declared the issue should not be taken lightly or a change made just because of an administration change, and asked the substantive reasons for the change. Ms. Soberinsky replied that times in Washington, D.C. are always tenuous and suggested Mr. Stephens could speak to the fact that every year he may be dealing with someone new to the congressional delegation staff. She indicated change of that nature is constant.

In regard to changing the contractor, Ms. Soberinsky indicated the issues to be addressed, such as Yucca Mountain, low-level nuclear waste, the federal impact study, and Indian gaming, will require a person with institutional knowledge of Nevada. She declared the administration plans to work with NDOT and other state entities to ensure the new person will meet the department’s qualifications. Ms. Soberinsky said the administration will move toward a person who has legislative background on Capitol Hill. She stated the administration is confident the task can be accomplished by the time the contract is finalized.

Asked what was meant by "legislative background," Ms. Soberinsky said it is important to hire a person who has worked for a member of Congress and has lobbying skills. She stated Mr. Penne’s performance was not deficient within the confines of his office, which was directed by the Legislature, was not a political office, and only handled tourism, economic development, and transportation. With the Washington Office restructured to confront national issues and work with the congressional delegation, Ms. Soberinsky indicated Mr. Penne’s expertise did not necessarily fit that profile.

Senator Jacobsen indicated that in all the years he used the Washington Office he found Mr. Penne to be "first class." He declared the Washington Office set up agendas and accompanied representatives to meeting sites. The senator recalled a time when he discovered the Washington Office was not communicating with Nevada’s congressional delegates and, through his efforts, a meeting was set up which included legislators, delegates, and staff. Thereafter, the situation improved. Senator Jacobsen indicated the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were the catalysts that held it all together and reported to the Legislature. He voiced the hope the Washington Office would be structured to see both sides, particularly on the nuclear waste issue. There is a real need for the Washington Office, Senator Jacobsen asserted.

Mr. Stephens indicated the Washington Office has operated with two staff members for at least 6 months. He said much of Mr. Penne’s work has been with the NGA with regard to the fact that Governor Miller was the head of the NGA and was very effective. Mr. Stephens stated the NGA was an important avenue for Nevada and gave the state influence far beyond its population size. He opined it would not immediately be the same, with a new governor. Mr. Stephens claimed the NDOT supports the new direction to concentrate more on Capitol Hill. He said transportation requires effectiveness outside NDOT and a person in Washington, D.C. to monitor what is going on, raise the alarm, and coalesce the groups needed to help Nevada.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on the Washington Office budget and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 71.

Senator Raggio indicated the concept of "preparation of a legislative proposal for budget for state government" is not a new idea and has been studied over a number of legislative sessions. He said there is presently a provision in the law which, in essence, precludes the Legislature or the staff from conveying the information that goes into development of the executive budget, which is the reason this measure was discussed. Senator Raggio noted that a number of states have the authority and the capability to prepare a proposed legislative budget independent of the executive budget although they do not have full-time legislative sessions. He declared the State of Colorado essentially "starts from scratch" in the fall to begin the process of developing its own legislative budget. The senator pointed out that S.B. 71 does not in any way replace the authority of the governor and the mandate that the governor prepare and present the executive budget; however, it allows the legislature to develop its budget so it is not, in essence, committed to all the things in the executive budget, including the base, the maintenance, and "things of that nature." He deferred to Mr. Miles to explain the process envisioned by S.B. 71 and provide a full understanding of its intent.

Mr. Miles indicated Senate Bill 224 of the Sixty-eighth Session was approved in the Senate but was not approved by the Assembly.

Mr. Miles stated that Senate Bill 224 of the Sixty-eighth Session created a new legislative budget office within the LCB, which was one of the issues of contention in the Assembly. However, S.B. 71 does not create a new legislative budget office, it simply assigns the duties of preparation of the legislative proposal to the existing Fiscal Analysis Division, Mr. Miles said.

Mr. Miles explained S.B. 71:

• Section 2 of S.B. 71 requires the Fiscal Analysis Division to prepare the legislative proposal to be presented not later than the second day of the legislative session. The recent constitutional change requires the governor’s budget to be submitted 2 weeks before the legislative session. The idea behind submission of the legislative proposal 2 weeks in advance of the beginning of the legislative session is to allow the governor’s proposal to be presented to the legislature to provide the "money committees" (Senate Committee on Finance and Assembly Committee on Ways and Means) full understanding of the governor’s proposal before it is introduced for comparison. It would also provide time to create some type of electronic reporting comparison between the two alternatives.

• Section 2, subsection 2, of S.B. 71, requires the legislative proposal prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division to have the same components as the governor’s proposed budget.

• Section 3 of S.B. 71 installs the IFC as a legislative group to oversee the preparation of the legislative proposal. Section 2 requires a complete budget proposal; therefore, it is important to have a legislative body involved in the development of the proposal, mainly to act as a sounding board and help make some of the decisions. Senate Bill 224 of the Sixty-eighth Session initially set up a separate budget subcommittee to do the work; however, it was amended on the Senate floor to insert the IFC to obtain broader representation on that budget committee.

• Section 5 of S.B. 71 adds a legislative budget that lists the duties of the existing Fiscal Analysis Division.

• Section 6 of S.B. 71 deletes language that instructs the budget director to transmit portions of the governor’s budget to the Fiscal Analysis Division as they are completed and deletes the confidentiality language; however, it reappears in a later section of the bill. In essence, it reorganizes the statutory scheme.

• Section 7 of S.B. 71 amends NRS 353.211 to require the budget director to provide the adjusted base budget in electronic form, as well as printed form, by December 15 preceding each session. Currently the budget director is required to do this by December 31, two years ago the deadline was December 1, last session it was amended to December 31, and now S.B. 71 will change it back to December 15, to allow both the Budget Division and the Fiscal Analysis Division to "finish off" the parts of the budget that occur after the adjusted base budget is fixed.

• Section 7, subsection 2 (a) of S.B. 71, requires that any readily available related information requested by the Fiscal Analysis Division be transmitted by the budget director at that time. A number of fixed-rate costs in the budget are determined or calculated by multiplying a rate times a salary, a number of positions, or a square footage. The budget director would be required to supply his or her assumptions at the same time; therefore, when going forward with the budget both the Budget Division and the Fiscal Analysis Division would be using the same assumptions. The rates are rarely changed by the legislature, if at all; however, this legislative session will show a change in the personnel assessment rate that has already been proposed by the Budget Division. It is an abnormal occurrence because those rates do not usually change. Items such as retirement rates, state employees’ workers’ compensation rates, personnel assessment rent rates, cost allocations for the attorney general, and DoIT assessments would be supplied at that time.

• Section 7, subsection 3 of S.B. 71, requires the budget director to consult with the Fiscal Analysis Division to establish identical coding schemes in their computer systems to enable an electronic comparison between the two budgets in the future. A comparison would not be possible without the same coding schemes. This section also requires the budget director to submit each part of the budget as soon as it is prepared. This language exists but was moved to this section of the bill.

• Section 7, subsection 4 of S.B. 71, requires the governor’s proposed budget to be available in a form suitable to be compared electronically.

• Section 7, subsection 5 of S.B. 71, recreates confidentiality provisions on the governor’s proposed budget which would keep the Fiscal Analysis Division from releasing the information until the governor’s budget is released.

• Section 7, subsection 6 of S.B. 71, deletes the provision requiring the Fiscal Analysis Division to produce a presession report for the legislature.

• Section 8, subsection 8 of S.B. 71, deletes the legislature’s current budget subcommittee. The Legislative Commission can appoint a budget subcommittee of future members of the two money committees to meet before the session to get a headstart on budget issues. This would be redundant since the governor’s budget is required 2 weeks before the legislative session begins and the same information is included.

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, said:

Senator Neal asked Mr. Miles the difference between what is done at present and what is proposed in S.B. 71. In response, Mr. Miles indicated that under S.B. 71 there would be two budgets at the beginning of the legislative session. He said one would be developed with the help of the IFC by the Fiscal Analysis Division, and one would be developed by the governor with the Budget Division. Mr. Miles clarified the provision requires the two entities to consult and to use the same organizational schemes, decision-numbering schemes, and accounting codes, to bring them together electronically to readily ascertain their differences.

Recalling his earlier remarks, Senator Raggio explained the State of Colorado has a joint budget committee of the legislature that convenes immediately after the election process. He said the Colorado Legislature receives the same kinds of requests from agencies as are available to the governor. The senator indicated the members of the Colorado Legislature also peruse issues which they feel should be in the budget, such as new programs, enhancements, deletion of programs, and "issues of first impression." Senator Raggio noted the Colorado Legislature does not necessarily work from the executive budget the day the legislative session begins, or whenever the legislature starts reviewing budgets. He indicated the executive and legislative branches of Colorado’s government go through the budget process during the interim, a process which culminates in two documents that are in place when the session convenes¾ the executive budget and the proposed legislative budget. That is the essential procedure, Senator Raggio remarked.

Senator Neal reflected that the Nevada Legislature has what is termed the "agency request," as well as "governor recommend," and S.B. 71 would provide another category entitled "what the Legislature appropriated." He stated it exists within the budget at the present time and asked, "What is the difference?"

In response, Senator Raggio indicated those who have served for any length of time know the base and maintenance of the budget are dictated by necessity and are "pretty well committed" when The Executive Budget is received by the Legislature. He said S.B. 71 would provide the Legislature the opportunity to look at the base and do a little more zero-based budgeting in its preparation of a proposed budget. As a practical matter, it is difficult to change anything once something is in The Executive Budget, Senator Raggio remarked.

Denise Miller, Senior Policy Advisor, Governor’s Office, stated her opposition to S.B. 71. She said that although she was on the legislative staff for 6 years, she now works for the governor and can provide perspective from both sides. Ms. Miller acknowledged the volume of information requested by the LCB of the Executive Branch is voluminous. She said legislative oversight is needed and, in her opinion, it is adequately provided by the current system. Ms. Miller declared two competing budgets would place state employees in an untenable position. She indicated state employees are answerable to the governor, but S.B. 71 would also require them to provide budget information to the Legislature as well. Ms. Miller noted a great deal of time is already spent on preparing the budget and it would require even more time to prepare two budgets at a time when state employees are not readily available.

Further, Ms. Miller indicated S.B. 71 is viewed by the Governor’s Office as inconsistent with the policies of separation of powers and checks and balances. She said it would be a duplication of effort and unfair to the governor, who gives the mandate to prepare a budget. Ms. Miller said that essentially there would be two separate budgets and therefore the governor would not be given the attention deserving of the office. She pointed out that the governor is charged with executing the laws passed by the Legislature, a duty which is fulfilled by preparing the budget.

Ms. Miller indicated Governor Guinn proposed in his State of the State Address a new system of zero-based budgeting and a fundamental review of state agencies. She said that should S.B. 71 pass, the proposal would be severely affected because a great deal of assistance would be required by the Legislative Branch. Ms. Miller indicated the importance of getting zero-based budgeting off the ground to ascertain its workability and suggested the issue be revisited later to discuss problems.

Mr. Comeaux acknowledged Senator Raggio’s comments regarding the practical difficulty faced by the Legislature in reviewing The Executive Budget and making substantive changes to it. However, he said, it would be practically impossible for the Legislature to conduct the kind of comprehensive review of that document under S.B. 71. Mr. Comeaux expressed doubt the Legislature could review two budgets in the same amount of time that it currently takes to review one. He suggested it would be the legislative budget that receives the thorough review rather than the governor’s budget.

In addition, Mr. Comeaux noted S.B. 71 presents a separation-of-powers issue. He reemphasized a point made by Ms. Miller that S.B. 71 may produce a significant increase in the administrative burden placed on various state agencies. Mr. Comeaux asserted that if all entities operate on the same lines programmatically there would not be much of an effect; however, if the administration is going in one direction, and the LCB Fiscal Analysis Division staff, under the direction of the IFC, is going in another, an increased burden could be placed on various agencies of the state.

Senator Neal asked whether Mr. Comeaux agreed the budget is a function that requires some type of appropriation, and Mr. Comeaux answered, "Absolutely." Senator Neal asked whether he also agreed the sole power of appropriating money lies with the Legislature, and Mr. Comeaux responded, "Absolutely." Senator Neal queried whether the Legislature has the privilege of calling in any person or agency from the Executive Branch in order to understand those appropriations. Mr. Comeaux said, "Yes, it is done now." Senator Neal indicated that in the face of those facts, he did not understand Mr. Comeaux’s statement regarding separation of powers.

In response, Mr. Comeaux explained that the governor, as the elected chief executive officer of the state, has the responsibility to provide his budget recommendations to the Legislature for the legislators’ consideration. He stated further that the governor has a right to have his budget recommendations given a thorough review and serious consideration by the Legislature. Mr. Comeaux opined it would not be possible under S.B. 71 because two budgets cannot be thoroughly reviewed in the same amount of time it takes to review one.

Senator Neal asked whether Mr. Comeaux agreed that the governor has the right to have his budget put into law. Mr. Comeaux responded the governor does not have the right to have the budget put into law, rather he has the right to have the budget presented and given serious consideration by the Legislature, which has the right to change the budget in any way it sees fit. Questioned what would be wrong with the Legislature requesting that the agencies submit their budgets to the Legislature directly before the session commences, Mr. Comeaux indicated that is the way it is done at present. He explained the Fiscal Analysis Division of the LCB receives the agencies’ budget requests the same day the Budget Division receives them. Mr. Comeaux said the difference under S.B. 71 is that the Legislature would actually prepare its own proposed budget. Senator Neal emphasized that was being done now. Mr. Comeaux pointed out the Legislature reaches the budget it approves by working its way through The Executive Budget and thoroughly reviewing it. He expressed concern that under S.B. 71, The Executive Budget would be received and there would be 2 weeks to present it before the Legislature starts. In that event, The Executive Budget would be set aside and the legislative budget would be given top priority, Mr. Comeaux remarked.

Senator Neal expressed the opinion that the proposal was misinterpreted. He said S.B. 71 provides for the information to be requested before The Executive Budget can be formulated and submitted. Mr. Comeaux answered S.B. 71 provides for preparation of a separate legislative budget document. Senator Neal said the Legislature has authority to request information from the agencies. He indicated he did not understand the objection, other than that it would take time to review the budgets. Mr. Comeaux emphasized his objection is a practical concern in that The Executive Budget would not receive the consideration it does currently and most of the Legislature’s time would be spent considering its own budget.

In reference to Ms. Miller’s comments regarding "invasion of the Executive Branch" and separation of powers, Senator Raggio indicated that in December 1993, the LCB issued an opinion to Assemblywoman Evans on the separation-of-powers issue. He said the main issue was whether or not the Legislature’s preparing a state budget would usurp the power of the Executive Branch. The senator said that unlike some states, in Nevada the power of the state is expressed differently. Senator Raggio quoted from the LCB opinion:

Further, Senator Raggio indicated it does not mean the governor should not submit a budget. He said the conclusion was that the Nevada Constitution leaves the policy decision solely to the Legislative Branch and the manner in which the state budget is prepared is a statutory matter within the sole discretion of the Nevada Legislature. Senator Raggio noted the LCB addressed the issue in regard to separation of powers. He asserted there is nothing within the Nevada Constitution providing sole authority to the governor to deliver a budget. Senator Raggio indicated the argument is pursuant to the practical matters raised by Mr. Comeaux.

Ms. Miller mentioned another principle of law was checks and balances, and for the Legislature to prepare a budget and pass that budget would be erosion of that principle.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 71 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 277.

Senator Raggio indicated S.B. 277 would require an amendment in the amount of $33,914 which has been endorsed by the Budget Division, and entertained a motion to that effect.

Senator Coffin expressed concern regarding the fiscal note and asked for guidance from Senator Rawson, who served on the interim Legislative Committee on Education. Senator  Rawson indicated S.B. 46 was consistent with actions taken in the past to develop a better system of education and more recognition of teachers’ accomplishments. He stated the issue was appropriately handled in this committee.

Further, Senator Raggio stated S.B. 46 was endorsed by the bipartisan Legislative Committee on Education and pointed out there was no testimony in opposition to the bill at the meeting on February 22, 1999. He suggested prudence at this point to provide the incentive for teachers to apply for the national certification.

Pursuant to passing S.B. 47, Senators Jacobsen, O’Donnell, and Raggio divulged they had close relatives who were teachers.

Senator Raggio indicated S.B. 47 was heard on February 22, 1999, and he entertained a motion on it.

Mr. Miles pointed out the amendment requested on S.B. 277 by the Department of Museums, Libraries and Arts was to add $33,914 to the existing appropriation, which would make the new total $35,464. He indicated the supplemental for the Director’s Office of $1,550 was still needed. Senator Raggio asked whether the senators who made the motion and the second would accept the amount. The amount was accepted by Senator Rawson and Senator O'Donnell and the committee action stood with the amount indicated.

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Barbara Moss,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: