MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

Seventy-First Session

April 16, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:14 a.m. on Monday, April 16, 2001.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     David Parks

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Connie Davis, Lead Secretary

Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary

 

Assembly Bill 346:  Provides for establishment of pilot program in southern             Nevada for provision of program of intensive and integrated community             services to adults who are seriously mentally ill and homeless. (BDR S-             990)

 

Introducing A.B. 346 Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany said, because there would not be a large General Fund remaining at the end of session, she had been researching “blended” revenue services.  She said the reason she used the term “blended” was because of the various sources that would be used to fund the program.  She explained the city of Las Vegas and its mayor had been helpful in bringing the Housing Division together to provide 100 Section 8 housing vouchers.  Ms. Tiffany said Clark County was in the process of working with her to provide funds.  The Division of Mental Health and Development Services would be providing medications.  Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), etc., were also being explored for assistance. 

 

Ms. Tiffany noted the homeless problem had come to her attention through newspaper articles in Clark County.  She explained that Sheriff Jerry Keller, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, had created a program called Homeless Evaluation Liaison Program (HELP), which had received the Webber Seavey Award in December 2000, in San Diego, California.  Ms. Tiffany said the homeless issue was very important to Mayor Oscar Goodman, City of Las Vegas. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said Nevada had looked at legislation completed in California, which had been designed to provide outreach support to individuals who were homeless, or at the risk of homelessness, and were seriously mentally ill.  In 1999 California had sponsored a bill, A.B. 34, which funded three counties out of California’s General Fund to help the mentally ill that were homeless.  She said California sponsored A.B. 2034 in the year 2000, which made appropriations for mental health issues and extended funding to 27 counties.  In the current year California had a bill, A.B. 334, which would extend funding statewide.  California disbursed the funds by passing the money to a county, the county would then do a Request for Proposal (RFP), and the RFP was a consortium of community services and nonprofit organizations.  The University of Las Vegas (UNLV) did a study in 2000 that reported there were 7,000 to 10,000 homeless people in Clark County of which one-third were severely mentally ill.

 

Ms. Tiffany explained A.B. 346 would provide for an assertive outreach program that would locate and identify the homeless individuals who were seriously mentally ill.  There would be teams of health care professionals who would go out into the field and engage the individuals where the individuals lived, which might be under a bridge, in a park, a cardboard box, or an alleyway.  When an individual was identified, a risk assessment would be done.  The most severe risk for the homeless mentally ill at the current time was suicide.  The assessment would include a physical examination and a psychiatric examination.  After the assessment was concluded food and clothing would be provided.  Once enrolled in the program, further assessments would be completed.  The team would use the medical evaluation, the psychiatric evaluation, the housing, and social areas to determine what an individual might need.  

 

Ms. Tiffany said one of the reasons this issue was important to the state was the program would result in a reduction in time for those homeless individuals to be housed in the Las Vegas Mental Health Center.  The program was like preventative medicine.  She explained there would also be a reduction in prison time in the mental units of the prisons.  Ms. Tiffany noted the homeless population took up jail time, the sheriff’s time, patrolmen’s time, hospital emergency room usage, and all those time elements would be tracked once the individuals were engaged and enrolled in the program.  Once the money was appropriated, the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services would issue the RFP from the state to a private sector company in Clark County that would do the case management, the outreach, and the community integrated services.  Indicators would then be collected and reported to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if funds for the program had been requested as a one-shot appropriation.  Ms. Tiffany answered yes, and said funds would also be provided through blended revenue sources. 

 

In support of A.B. 346, testifying from Las Vegas via teleconference, Oscar Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, said when he was first elected he felt, for Las Vegas to be as healthy as it had been in the past, the downtown area of Las Vegas would need to be revitalized.  He said Las Vegas was the “heart and soul” of southern Nevada and as Las Vegas went, so did the rest of southern Nevada, and then so did the state.  He said the city had engaged in a series of projects that included building garages, buildings, and had talked about building arenas.  Mayor Goodman said the “bricks and mortar” projects appeared to be difficult to accomplish when he first became mayor, but as time went on he felt the city was fortunate because the project had been successful and Las Vegas was “humming and buzzing” with construction.  He said, as far as the city council was concerned, the “bricks and mortar” part had been an easy way to make life and the quality of life better for those who lived within the City of Las Vegas. 

 

Mayor Goodman explained the difficult part had been to take care of social problems.  Mayor Goodman said some believed that the problems were insolvable, but that was not his belief.  He felt that A.B. 346 was the essence of achieving the goal of taking care of those who were less fortunate.  Mayor Goodman said southern Nevada, and in particular, Las Vegas, had problems with the homeless who were mentally ill, chronic alcoholics, etc.  He noted those individuals had been basically ignored with the exception of a few facilities in the “homeless quarter.”  He said in the “homeless quarter” treatment was provided for critical acute problems but there was not a long-term program to solve the issues of the mentally ill.  He said there were approximately 7,000 homeless currently in Las Vegas, and of those 7,000 about 30 percent had severe mental problems.  The program would allow the individuals to be taken out of their current surroundings, provide medical treatment, social services, and psychological assistance, with the hope of making the individual a constructive citizen.  Mayor Goodman said another benefit for the city would be that the individual would be taken off the streets and remove a human blight, which impeded the redevelopment process in the City of Las Vegas.  Mayor Goodman felt A.B. 346 would take care of the immediate problems of overcrowded hospitals and the misuse of law enforcement officers and jails. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if it was correct that the City of Las Vegas had set aside 100 Section 8 housing vouchers.  Mayor Goodman said the amount was correct. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if the 100 vouchers were specifically set aside for the clientele enrolled in the program and Mayor Goodman said yes.  Ms. Leslie commented that setting aside the 100 housing vouchers was a great commitment and Mayor Goodman agreed and explained that it would take a long time before all 100 vouchers could be utilized.  The procedure for providing the vouchers would involve going into the community, being very selective in choosing who would be assisted, starting out small, and increasing the amount of vouchers distributed as time went on.  He said the city would be in discussion with the Housing Authority in regard to placement of the individuals so that placement would not interfere with the quality of life of residents who were already within public housing.  Ms. Leslie said her understanding was the housing component was essential to the program, and the clients would be integrated into the housing projects and the contractor would provide the supportive services to make sure the client was safe and the client’s neighbors would be safe.  Mayor Goodman said he had been assured that there would be no difficulty in making sure the individuals who already lived within the premises would be safe.  There would be careful monitoring of the mentally ill person who would be on medications, receive treatment, and along with the relationship they would have with their counselors, no problems were anticipated. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Section 8 vouchers would be spread throughout the City of Las Vegas or would they be consolidated within one area of the city.  Mayor Goodman responded the details had not been worked out, but it would be whatever was in the best interest of the clients and would provide for the safety of the residents already in established housing.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she represented the downtown area and that there was a need for the housing, but she wanted to make sure the housing was spread throughout the city because she wanted to make sure all the areas were contributing toward the housing vouchers.  She said there were seniors waiting for Section 8 housing and she did not want to pit one population against another population.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the housing vouchers were one area where the “blending” revenues would be acquired.  Mr. Goodman said yes and explained the homeless mentally ill problem was not a unique problem to Las Vegas.  He said, in the past, other entities had felt if they made a contribution it ended their responsibility toward the homeless issue.  He said that was not the way it was seen in Las Vegas, rather it was understood the issue was a regional problem.  He informed the committee that he was chairman of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, and for the coalition the issue of the homeless mentally ill had been made a major concern, and recognized the entire valley had to share in the responsibility and as part of the program, whatever vouchers were utilized, and whatever locations were available should be a countywide responsibility and each individual entity within the county should share its respective burdens.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she was pleased to hear Mayor Goodman’s response because previously there had been busloads of homeless individuals dropped off in downtown Las Vegas.  She said it was a regional issue because people would come to Las Vegas thinking they could get a quick job and that was not the case, and people had fallen susceptible to a homeless situation as a result of that assumption. 

 

Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, spoke from Las Vegas via teleconference in favor of A.B. 346.  He said he would focus his remarks on southern Nevada, but every community in Nevada had similar issues on different levels.  He explained law enforcement was not the mental health resource of any community; rather it was the safety network for the community.  Law enforcement agencies provided the first response to 911 calls and to families and neighborhoods in crisis.  Law enforcement officers were skilled at mediation and intervention, but were not social engineers and needed the resources to pass that mission off to the rest of the community-based network to support the mentally ill, homeless or not.  Sheriff Keller said he felt the estimate of 30 percent of 7,000 homeless mentally ill persons was a low estimate in comparison to the interaction he had seen driving through the streets of Las Vegas and the information he received from police officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD).  He said even with an estimate of 30 percent the amount of mentally ill homeless individuals on the streets would be approximately 2,500 people needing help, and that help was not available.  Sheriff Keller said it was a statewide issue and A.B. 346 would provide a pilot program that was designed to see if the program was appropriate to go along with the resources already available in the state.  He pointed out the LVMPD had a national award winning homeless program for police departments in America and had been recognized in November 2000 at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, with the Webber Seavey Award, considered the most prestigious and highest award for quality in policing.  He said the department was very proud of the award and the credit for the award went to the men and women who served in the unit and also to the homeless advocates who made the system work.  He noted that A.B. 346 would add to the system and along with resources already in place in southern Nevada, with the passage of A.B. 346 he knew the department would be able to build an even broader base to maintain the pace of growth and export the results of the project to the rest of the state.   

Sheriff Keller reiterated that the department had limited resources to take care of the mentally ill homeless.  The department was not the mental health resource to the community and they were not prepared to make diagnoses, just to categorize, respond, and try to direct people to the correct resource.  The program that would be provided by A.B. 346 was not an enforcement program, rather an intervention and prevention program to keep tragic events from occurring.  He gave an example of a 27-year-old mentally ill man who died earlier in the year after he had assaulted four police officers with a large butcher knife.  The police officers had tried to talk to him, used pepper spray, and even shot him with beanbags, but none of those methods worked and, unfortunately, as a last resort, he had been shot to death by a police officer in order to protect the police officers and others in the community. 

 

Sheriff Keller said one of the goals of his office for the current year was to build a community base for the mentally ill in southern Nevada.  He explained there had already been one meeting in regard to the issue and another meeting had been scheduled.  He said Kathryn E. Landreth, outgoing United States Attorney for the District of Nevada, had chaired a panel of experts on this issue.  He explained that A.B. 346 would support the efforts of the mental health and law enforcement community coalition, and had the mayor’s support, as well as the county commissioners' support to move forward, and once proved successful in southern Nevada, would be put into effect in every community in Nevada. 

 

 Ms. Giunchigliani asked what would be done within the jail system to make sure better assessments of individuals were completed instead of having individuals just put in jail and kept there.  Sheriff Keller responded that it was his belief that the individuals were not just arrested and kept in jail.  He said arrests were only made if an individual had committed a crime and of those arrests some individuals were the homeless mentally ill.  He said his preference was that there would be a resource base to help the individual before criminal acts were committed.  He explained that prevention and intervention was the key to success.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked when a mentally ill person was in jail, what would be the mechanism for the person getting medication.  Sheriff Keller replied there was an extensive medical system within the Clark County Detention Center and the center was nationally credited as one of 14 centers in America that provided medication to all persons who needed it, whether mentally or physically ill, or had a disease that required medication.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how it was verified if someone had a prescription.  Sheriff Keller said he was not familiar with the mechanics of how that would be handled.  He explained medication was handled by the medical contract crew and the jail staff.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she knew someone quite well who was mentally ill and had not been allowed to have his prescription because the courts had not believed him, and she said if it was not possible to keep the mentally ill out of jails, it was necessary that there be a mechanism while the person was in jail to make sure they received the medication needed. 

 

Sheriff Keller said the program being addressed through A.B. 346 would handle the issue by providing a contact person with the mentally ill person prior to getting to a police presence or being placed in jail. 

 

Ms. Leslie said she appreciated Sheriff Keller’s comment that the homeless mentally ill issue was a problem across the state and that she had been very interested in California’s program as an example for northern Nevada.  She said Las Vegas obviously had a much bigger problem than northern Nevada, so it was an appropriate place to start.  Ms. Leslie asked if the pilot program proved that there was a savings of funds, in less jail time and less jail beds, for the repeat mentally ill offenders who were picked up for minor misdemeanor offenses, would Sheriff Keller be willing to go to the commissioners and ask that some of the saved funds be shifted to fund the program in the future.  Sheriff Keller said he was not sure that there would be a savings in jail beds.  He explained the mentally ill were not arrested because they were mentally ill, rather they arrested persons who committed crimes, whether mentally ill or not, and therefore they would still take up jail time and space.  Ms. Leslie said her understanding of the program was that they would be saving jail time because some of the individuals were repeat offenders and by having the intensive program the individuals would be placed on the right track with housing, medications, and possible employment, and then the individual would not be recycled back into the jail system.  Sheriff Keller said that would be ideal if it could be established beyond any doubt that there would be monetary savings.  He said there had been a 13 percent per year population inmate growth in southern Nevada and the jail scheduled to be opened in 2002 would be full the day after it opened.  He said only 15 percent of the jail population were misdemeanor offenders and the rest were felons awaiting trial.  He said they did not house people who were long-term inmates except for misdemeanants and gross misdemeanants, directed by the courts to be housed at the jail.  The jail time for a mentally ill person who was charged with a crime was very narrow and there would not be volumes of money that would be saved and returned to the community.  Sheriff Keller said the program was long overdue and would have great effects on how the state dealt with the mentally ill and the mentally ill homeless, but would not generate another revenue source for treatment of the mentally ill. 

 

Mrs. Chowning said North Las Vegas had shared in the burden of trying to take care of everyone who needed help and agreed that it was a regional problem.  She asked if the beds for the mentally ill homeless located at the Salvation Army facility were constantly filled.  Sheriff Keller said it was not uncommon to hear on the police radio that a police officer from Metro had responded and been involved with a mentally ill person and that there would be a two- to three-hour wait before there would be a care facility open to the person.  There had to be a medical screening before the person could go to the Salvation Army or the State Mental Health facilities.  The bill would help with that issue as well.  He said all the issues that were dealt with in southern Nevada were reactive, and there had been very little intervention for the mentally ill, and especially the mentally ill homeless.  Sheriff Keller said the mentally ill homeless had a very small voice and southern Nevada was trying to raise their voice.  There were 24 beds at the Salvation Army facility and the State Mental Health facility had a few more than that and all the beds were constantly full.  He said he was confident, through his experience in law enforcement and in dealing with the issues of the mentally ill homeless, that the program would add resources at the front-end of the system and keep the individuals from being seen at the police department.  In answer to Ms. Leslie’s question, Sheriff Keller said if the department had a status quo operation, then there might be a savings in jail time and space. 

 

Sheriff Keller continued and said the program would add resources at the front end and provide someone who would get the mentally ill person into a structured system where they would be on medication, possibly employed, and once those things were in place, the individual would be more apt to take medication and be involved in his or her own success.  He reminded the committee that the program was only funded at $1 million a year, and “not a fix all/cure all/one size fits all, rather an every size fits somebody different.”  All the opportunities would need to be in the community and then spread through the state, so that each individual would have his or her own particular problem addressed. 

 

Bob Quinlivan, LCSW, Regional Director of Operations, Telecare Corporation, San Diego, California, said he had direct oversight over a project that served 250 homeless mentally ill adults on the streets of downtown San Diego.  A.B. 2034, a California bill, funded the project.  Mr. Quinlivan said he was speaking in support of A.B. 346 and explained the issue of the homeless, particularly those with a serious mental illness, was a social condition that manifested itself on the streets and river washes of southern Nevada on a daily basis.  The pervasive nature of the issue had almost made its existence invisible to the average citizen.  UNLV had conducted a study that counted homeless people.  Mr. Quinlivan informed the committee that in his ten years of researching the homeless and mentally ill, it was the first time he had ever heard of a region where an actual count had been conducted.  He said the count was a valid count.  He explained current efforts to serve the homeless mentally ill were often hampered by inadequate resources, poorly organized systems of care, and unwillingness to meet potential clients where they lived, due to fear and mistrust of authority figures by the homeless mentally ill.  He said the question the state faced today was what could be done to address the problem. 

 

Mr. Quinlivan advised the committee California addressed the problem in 1999 and passed landmark legislation A.B. 34, which provided for $10 million to fund pilot projects designed to integrate community outreach support services for individuals who were homeless and had a serious mental illness.  He said three California counties had initiated pilot projects similar to the one suggested in A.B. 346 and within the first year of the pilot projects among the program participants there had been a 68 percent reduction in days hospitalized, a 79 percent reduction in days in jail, and a 73 percent reduction in days spent homeless. 

 

Mr. Quinlivan informed the committee the initial $10 million investment had saved an estimated $20 million in avoided jail and hospitalization costs.  Encouraged by the results, in the year 2000, the California legislature passed A.B. 2034, which appropriated $55 million and expanded the program to an additional 23 counties.  After the first 15 months, jail days had been reduced from 60,000 to 11,000 and hospital days had been reduced from 11,000 to 3,000 for program participants.  As of the current date, over 2,000 homeless mentally ill individuals were receiving integrated services in the state of California, and when the project was fully implemented over 5,700 persons would be served.  Mr. Quinlivan indicated the pilot projects had demonstrated, beyond anyone’s initial projections, that a coordinated and integrated approach could begin to solve the problem of homelessness of the serious mentally ill, and community-based mental health treatment was a proven success. 

 

Mr. Quinlivan said the success would be accomplished by having programs that contained four major elements, all of which were contained within A.B. 346.

 

• The ability for trained mental health professionals to go into areas where homeless people were located, whether in river washes, downtown alleys, or under freeway bridges, and enroll the homeless mentally ill in the program.  This activity was known as outreach or engagement and involved approaching the homeless mentally ill, describing the benefits of the program, developing a trusting relationship with the individual, and asking the person to sign a letter of enrollment.  Often the letter would not be signed the first time an individual was approached, but it was not unusual for trained staff to go back again and again and offer incentives such as grocery vouchers for people to enroll in the program.

 

• An integrated services program, which would include a team of mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, nurse, social workers, and counselors, who would provide all the needed services to the targeted population.  The integrated services program as described in Section 2 of A.B. 346 would include an initial evaluation by a psychiatrist, medications would be prescribed and ordered, and a team would begin the process of moving people off the streets and into housing resources.  The program staff would be the single fixed point of responsibility for the client to the program and services would be provided seven days a week, on a 24-hour basis.  The team would also work with the clients on an intensive basis to begin the recovery process, which could include employment, education, or participation in a recovery program for addictions to drugs or alcohol. 

 

 

• Collaboration among governmental, social service, mental health providers, law enforcement, and housing authorities within the region.  The collective wisdom and resources of those entities working in a collaborative manner would begin to make the types of societal changes needed to solve the problem of the homeless mentally ill.  The Housing Authority for the City of Las Vegas and Clark County had pledged to make housing units available for the project if the legislation was enacted.  Mr. Quinlivan said California had begun enrolling members in the project the last week of December 2000, and as of the current date, less than 4 months later, 140 individuals had been enrolled and of that number 90 had already been placed in transitional or permanent housing.  That was a result of the local housing authority making available 100 housing units for the clients of the project.  The collaboration would ensure that homeless individuals had a residence to live in and all the mental health support needed to live independently and gain their dignity and self-respect. 

 

• A method of tracking the success of the program to ensure the public dollars expended were meeting the core goals of the program.  Mr. Quinlivan was pleased to see the proposed legislation contained a research component in Section 3 of the bill. 

 

In summary, Mr. Quinlivan urged the committee to pass A.B. 346.  He said the multiple problems engendered by homelessness and mental illness involved crime, law enforcement, jails, hospitals, business development, and reduced the quality of life of all citizens of the state of Nevada.  Researchers have shown that the population targeted by this type of program absorbed a disproportionate share of resources due to their need for emergency services and the number of law enforcement contacts.  Providing integrated services to the homeless mentally ill was more cost efficient and humane and an example of an educated and compassionate society. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked how the program was different from the Program for Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) program.  Mr. Quinlivan responded that the program incorporated many elements of the PACT program, in particular, areas of assertive outreach where people go into the community to engage individuals, and that was one of the most important elements of the project.  The program was trying to engage some of the most system-resistant people who caused the greatest amount of problems for the mental health system, business owners, and the police department.  The similarities to the PACT program was a single team, including a psychiatrist, a nurse who could prescribe medications, and counselors who were able to see people seven days a week, 24 hours a day.  The team accountability was one of the most successful elements of the program.  The program was different from the PACT program in that the PACT programs generally did not target homeless people; rather long-term care institutions or persons who were in acute care hospitals.

 

Ms. Leslie said Nevada’s PACT program was kind of in the middle of the two.  She asked if, in California, there had been a shift from the jail or prison budgets, as a result of the project.  Mr. Quinlivan said California had not seen a shift at the current time, but had only been into the program 18 months, and the system had not responded quickly enough to shift the resources from the jail to the mental health system.  Ms. Leslie asked if the funding came from California’s General Fund and Mr. Quinlivan responded yes, and the funds were sent to each county through a competitive process, which was why not all counties had the program.  Ms. Leslie asked if the local match was the housing component through the federal Section 8 program.  Mr. Quinlivan answered no, although it was true for San Diego, most counties had other types of local matches.  He said it appeared that the programs that had the most success were the ones that had housing components that were provided by the local housing authorities.  Ms. Leslie asked if California had any match funds and Mr. Quinlivan said yes, in all the counties, and gave as an example San Diego County where there were 100 Section 8 certificates provided by the city of San Diego, in collaboration fashion.  Ms. Leslie asked if there was cash involved and Mr. Quinlivan said there was always 25 percent in soft services that all counties were required to provide as part of receiving any type of state grant. 

 

Vic Davis, President, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Nevada (NAMI Nevada) spoke in support of A.B. 346 from Las Vegas, via teleconferencing.  He read the following testimony into the record. 

 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, my name is Vic Davis.  I am the president of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Nevada (NAMI Nevada) and am here to support AB346.  We are an advocacy organization with affiliates in Carson City, Elko, Las Vegas, and Reno who are dedicated to seeing that the mentally ill in Nevada receive proper treatment by interfacing with mental health agencies and educating family members and the public.  This morning I would like to discuss the problem of the homeless mentally ill, a possible solution, and what should be done about it. 

 

About a year ago NAMI of Southern Nevada attempted to conduct a homeless mentally ill outreach at MASH Village here in Las Vegas.  Our intention was to interview individuals and encourage them to obtain medical services if needed and participate in a support group at MASH Village.  Although our intentions were noble, out outcomes were disappointing.  Of the nearly 200 individuals we interviewed during an eight-month period less than ten opted to participate in our support group or receive treatment. 

 

The biggest obstacle was our inability to have the individuals obtain services from the state system.  The state offers hospitalization, case management, medication, housing, and employment services, but in order to be eligible to receive total services, one must either volunteer for hospitalization or be a danger to themselves or others and be committed with a Legal 2000.  Once hospitalized a person then becomes eligible for the other services upon discharge.  In the case of the homeless mentally ill, we were asking them to take a bus token and travel to the West Charleston crisis unit for intake.  Most weren’t willing to travel that distance and if they did, they had to walk in and ask for services.  The crisis unit is basically a “take a number and wait” system like the DMV and there is no outreach to encourage the walk-in.  As a result very few of the walk-ins waited.  Our conclusion to this outreach effort was that getting the homeless mentally ill to use the state facilities was not a viable approach. 

 

So how do these people receive treatment then?  Usually through the jail system, if at all.  If they are lucky enough to be diagnosed properly at the time of their incarceration, they will receive short-term treatment in the Las Vegas Jail, medium term help in Clark County Detention, or Long Term Treatment in a state or federal prison.  Many of the homeless mentally ill, by nature of their illness and lack of treatment, have a tendency to be in the wrong place doing the wrong things.  It usually ends with them committing a misdemeanor such as causing a disturbance in a casino or other public building, riding a bus without a ticket, or shoplifting, or even just sitting at a bus stop for a long time.  Lack of continued treatment tends to provide a revolving door into and through the jail and court systems.  Many times when they are released to the streets in the middle of the night, they are back in jail before the day is over.  Continued non-treatment may lead to a psychotic episode, where some individuals are prone to become violent or suicidal.  In a few cases, the violent ones come out on the losing end with the police and make national and international headlines.  The suicidal ones many times succeed and contribute to the statistics that make Nevada the suicide capital of the nation. 

 

Let’s next take a look at a possible solution.  I was fortunate to be part of a legislative task force on mental health.  We were an independent group concerned about the scope and depth of services being provided by the state, so we prepared a document called “Mental Health in Nevada – Vision for the Future” which was distributed to all state legislators.  In this document we defined what we considered to be a comprehensive community-based system that would provide total care for persons with severe and persistent mental illness.  We were not hampered by politics or budget constraints and therefore were able to define a plan for continuity of care from outreach to employment and identified the gaps in the existing system.  For reasons previously stated, this program did not include the homeless mentally ill. 

 

As I looked at the provisions of AB346, I was struck by the similarity of the scope of the program that we had defined for the state and how in this program all the gaps were filled.  This is truly a total systems approach that is designed to overcome the problems I have previously described.  This is particularly true in the outreach to the streets, the jails, and the hospitals in order to provide easy access to integrated care without the “take a number and wait” approach.  I am equally impressed by the outcomes obtained in California where the pilot program has been expanded from three to 27 counties.  The pilot project resulted in a 60 percent decline in days hospitalized, an 80 percent decline in incarcerations, and a 65 percent decline in days of homelessness.  There are other outcomes from the expanded program that I hope have already been provided to you.  I also visited the “Village ISA” in Long Beach, California.  I was very impressed to observe first hand that this was not just a concept that they were exploring, but it was an established program that was working and providing positive outcomes on a daily basis.  I’m encouraged that the AB346 program will not have to go through a research and development phase.  It can be off and running using established procedures, which greatly reduces the risk of failure. 

 

Finally, why should the state consider supporting an initiative like this?  First, the homeless mentally ill population is a problem that is not going away.  In fact, if anything, as the overall population continues to grow in the state, more buses will arrive depositing the homeless mentally ill on the streets of our cities.  They are going to need help or the statistics on jail and prison usage, and suicides will continue to rise.  Secondly, the proposed program not only works, but it is cost effective.  If the pilot program were able to take the 100 of the most repeated offenders off the streets of Las Vegas, the positive impact on the police and the business community would more than justify the implementation of the program.  Thirdly, we have an opportunity to correct a statewide problem that has no current solution.  Through the joint contributions of city, county and state agencies, this program provides an excellent opportunity to make a difference.  We shouldn’t in good conscience let this problem continue unchecked when we have at our disposal a means to correct it. 

 

            I thank you for your time.

 

Gary Lenkeit, Ph.D., President, Nevada State Psychological Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 346 from Las Vegas via teleconferencing.  He said the Nevada State Psychological Association (NSPA) represented approximately 250 psychologists in Nevada.  He said the committee had heard many reasons to support A.B. 346, including the social benefits, and he would like to address the psychological care of the mentally ill homeless.  He explained as part of his practice each week he conducted civil commitment evaluations.  A number of the individuals evaluated were the mentally ill homeless who did not have the benefit of case management to assist them with such things as assuring medication compliance.  Therefore, many of the individuals wound up in a revolving door process of intermittent admission to the state mental hospital.  Once an individual was stabilized, the resources for follow up were limited and the chances of another psychotic episode resulting in readmission increased. 

 

Dr. Lenkeit said since, by definition, they did not have homes, it would be impossible to assign a case manager to assist them.  The program described in A.B. 346 would help to cut down on the recidivism.  Dr. Lenkeit said he believed that the resources provided by A.B. 346 would go a long way toward providing the treatment that the mentally ill homeless needed.  He urged the committee to support the bill.

 

Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, spoke in support of A.B. 346.  He explained that A.B. 346 would provide for a pilot program of intensive outreach case management designed to provide integrated community outreach support to mentally ill homeless, or those who were at risk of becoming homeless.  The goal of the program was to reduce homelessness and incarcerations.  Dr. Brandenburg explained the hope was that the pilot program would demonstrate a partnership between the state, county, and city, and would assist in providing integrated support and treatment, reduce homelessness, and enhance the overall quality of life of the mentally ill homeless.  He said, unfortunately, the concept for the program arose after the division had already finalized its budget request and therefore could not be considered for funding and as a result, was not included in the Governor’s budget. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg said the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS) had provided services to the homeless population in Clark County, which included one psychiatric social worker who was funded through the Community Mental Health Center grant that provided outreach services to the three major homeless sites in Las Vegas, Mobilized Assistance Shelter for the Homeless (MASH), the Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities.  Federal funds were received through Project for Assistance through Transitional Homelessness (PATH).  Dr. Brandenburg explained that Nevada received $300,000 a year as pass-through monies to go to non-profit entities in communities.  The $300,000 was distributed between three major regions; Clark County currently received $192,000 and the contractor was the Salvation Army.  The Salvation Army provided 580 services to the homeless population in Las Vegas.  Other funds were available through Shelter Plus (SLA).  SLA funds were United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that were available to Nevada, and since 1993 Nevada had received $4.5 million in HUD dollars. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg said the funds were important because they provided wraparound services.  He said the homeless mentally ill might need assistance with rent, or a rent deposit, and the state would then provide the wraparound services in terms of case management or medication. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg noted that as Ms. Tiffany had indicated, it was extremely imperative that housing resources be made available to the pilot project.  Housing was one of the most, if not the most, important service needed to make the project work.  Dr. Brandenburg said allocations for resources to provide housing had not been written into A.B. 346 and he had been happy to hear that the mayor had committed 100 Section 8 housing vouchers to the program. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg indicated currently the MHDS budget, through Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS), had enough medication funds to assist the start-up part of the project.  He said it was unclear how many individuals would be receiving medication for the long-term, but he knew the division could assist with the start-up money. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she knew the housing vouchers were important and asked if there was also a need for a group home, or a halfway house so that there would be some intermediary steps before the individuals would be living on their own.  Dr. Brandenburg said there were currently group homes in southern Nevada where there was a continuation of care.  He explained the individuals would go from special need beds, to group homes, to supportive living arrangements so that there would be a continuation of services available. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any of the SLA’s currently put beds in the smaller group homes that would normally care for senior citizens.  Dr. Brandenburg said he did not know.  Ms. Giunchigliani said it was something to look for because she had received a call and was advised that screening was not always done, and sometimes the referrals were not appropriate placements both for the mentally ill person and for the seniors living in the household.  She said she did not think they were placed by the state but was not sure how the mentally ill person got in that situation.  Dr. Brandenburg said he would find out for Ms. Giunchigliani but he did not think that kind of placement was done by the state. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she had visited Long Beach, California, to see the program there, and 20 percent of their program funding was for services.  What would happen was the police would pick up some chronic offender and would call the community service in Long Beach who would have motel vouchers so that the individual could be housed in a motel for a few days until the caseworker could do an assessment and find out if the person was on medication, so it was not just a group home or assisted living, but there was also a temporary housing component through the motel.  One of the individuals she had seen had lived under a bridge for nine years.  His first intervention was a hotel room, and the man lived in the alley for two months until he felt comfortable enough to go into the motel.  After the motel he went to a group home.  Ms. Tiffany explained there would be a lot of different types of housing, because not all the individuals would fit into a group home immediately. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked Dr. Brandenburg if the people who would be targeted for services through the project were the same people that should have already been targeted and possibly already on the department’s caseload for medications, as some were severely mentally ill.  Dr. Brandenburg said 30 percent of the homeless population was severely mentally ill and 70 percent of the 30 percent had co-occurring disorder, having both the mental illness and the substance abuse components.  The pilot project, through its integrated approach, tried to provide funding and services in a unified manner for those individuals.  All too often, what had occurred in the past was the mental health system would provide treatment for the mentally ill, the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) system would provide treatment for substance abusers, but the question was, who would provide treatment for the co-occurring disorder.  The pilot project would try to bring the systems together and provide a unified format. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg reiterated that the difference in the pilot program was the intensified outreach, and currently there was not an intensive outreach program.  He said the division had one social worker who would go to the various homeless shelters in Las Vegas but did not go out to the bridges, parks, or other various segments of the community where the homeless were residing. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if Dr. Brandenburg was comfortable with the idea that the funds would be appropriated through the MHDS budget for an RFP in contract with someone, similar to what had been done with the suicide prevention hotline.  Dr. Brandenburg said he was very comfortable with that idea because it was for a population that should be served and the division had a key role in developing the RFP.  He explained the tracking and indicators would enable the division to look at the pilot program to see if it would be beneficial for continuation and for utilization in other parts of Nevada. 

 

Bobbie Gang, The Nevada Women’s Lobby, spoke in support of A.B. 346.  She said the Nevada Women’s Lobby had adopted a policy not to come before the committee to speak in favor of every good cause but felt some issues were very important and could not be overlooked, and A.B. 346 was one of those issues.  She said the organization felt that the state bore the sole responsibility for the care of the seriously mentally ill who could not afford private care.  She opined the most effective way to treat people who were mentally ill was in the least restrictive setting, as mandated by federal law.  She pointed out the ongoing legacy of the 1992 budget cuts had resulted in an unacceptably deficient community-based proactive care system, which exacerbated homelessness, intensified personal crises of the mentally ill, and shifted costs to unprepared cities and county governments.  She said it continued to be true that the largest mental health institutions in the state were the Clark County and Washoe County jails. 

 

Ms. Gang said the organization felt a very important part of the program was the residential services that had been mentioned during previous testimony.  She felt it would alleviate the problems the homeless mentally ill had and would not force them to be in a homeless situation. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 346.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 134:  Makes various changes concerning assessment imposed by             commissioner of insurance upon insurers to pay for program to             investigate certain violations and fraudulent acts. (BDR 57-331)

 

Introducing A.B. 134, Assemblyman Joseph Dini, Assembly District 38, said the bill was the funding mechanism for the fraud unit that had previously been processed through A.B. 135, which made various changes to provisions governing investigation and prosecution of insurance fraud.

 

Speaking in support of A.B. 134, Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Fraud Control Unit for Industrial Insurance, Office of the Attorney General, directed the committee to a handout (Exhibit C) that outlined the terms of the bill.  He said the Attorney General’s fraud unit had been funded by a $500 flat rate assessment on insurers.  He explained it had been thought that the number of insurers in the state would increase and the assessment would go up as that happened, but the number of insurers had remained fairly steady, even though the amount of insurance that had been written had gone steadily up.  As a result, the revenue stream for the fraud unit had declined and as things currently stood, unless something was done, employees would have to be laid off from the fraud unit.  Mr. Higgins said A.B. 134 would set up a staggered assessment system and if premiums less than $100,000 were sold in Nevada, there would be a $500 assessment and if the premiums were between $100,000 to $1 million it would be a $750 assessment and the assessments would graduate upward to a $2,000 assessment for each insurance company.  He explained adopting A.B. 134 would create enough funding to keep the unit at its current status and prevent laying off any employees.  He added the Budget Division supported the bill.  He said the division had worked closely with the insurance commissioner who would be receiving a portion of the funding to fund the internal fraud control mechanisms.  In conclusion, Mr. Higgins said A.B. 134, along with A.B. 135, would bring the insurance unit up to full staff power and duties. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 134. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 315:  Requires offender convicted of first offense of driving under             influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to attend program             of treatment when concentration of alcohol in blood or breath of offender             is 0.18 or more. (BDR 43-587)

 

Introducing A.B. 315, Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41, said the bill would increase the penalty for persons found guilty driving under the influence (DUI) of intoxicating liquor when their blood alcohol concentration was .18 or higher.  He said the bill had been heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee where it was amended and passed out of committee.  Mr. Parks explained he had requested a number of different elements to the bill, but it had been reduced to putting in a requirement that if someone was arrested for a DUI and had a blood alcohol in excess of .18 they would be required to attend a treatment program for abuse of alcohol.  Mr. Parks said there had been recent cases where a number of individuals had a lengthy history of being arrested for DUI but had fallen through the system.  He explained the hope was when someone was found with a concentration of alcohol in excess of .18 they would be dealt with a little more aggressively so they would not cause accidents that severely maim or take people’s lives.

 

Mr. Parks said a fiscal note was placed on the bill by Carson City and he did not have an explanation as to how Carson City arrived at the figure.  He noted that it would be good to see fiscal notes that gave a full picture of what the fiscal impact was, and whether or not there was a savings that would offset any additional costs. 

 

Mrs. Chowning said it was interesting to her that Carson City, alone, said the bill would cost them $1 million plus and that it was not going to cost any other area anything.  She asked who was projected to be assigned to provide the treatment programs.  Mr. Parks answered the individual who received the DUI would be required to pay for the program he or she was required to attend. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 315.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 343:  Provides for integration of state and local child welfare             services. (BDR 11-325) and

Assembly Bill 512:  Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources             for costs associated with transfer of certain child welfare services to             Clark County and Washoe County. (BDR S-1403)

 

Chairman Arberry informed the committee testimony on A.B. 343 and A.B. 512 would be heard together. 

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, explained that the two bills had to do with the integration of Nevada’s Child Welfare Systems.  She referred the committee to the A.C.R. 53 Interim Committee report on Integration of State and Local Child Welfare Systems (Exhibit D).  Ms. Buckley said A.B. 343 and A.B. 512 were the result of an interim committee that she had chaired, which had to do with the bifurcated child welfare system.  She said on page 14 of Exhibit D were findings that indicated that children under the age of three were moved to new homes an average of 3.5 times in six months, and older children were moved more often.  Ms. Buckley explained there were children who were languishing in the foster care system.  She said one of the reasons for the high level of moves was because of the bifurcated system.  Under the current system, Washoe and Clark Counties had the initial responsibility for a child when taken from their home.  The child would then be placed in temporary placement, in Washoe County it was usually an emergency foster care home and in Clark County it was usually with Child Haven.  The child might stay there and be assigned a case worker, a therapist, a home, and at some point, usually at six months, when it was realized that the child could not be successfully reunited with his or her parents, the child would be transferred to the custody of the state.  That would mean a new home, a new caseworker, a new therapist, and whatever trust had been developed with the original parents and their caseworker would be gone.  A new caseworker might have a different philosophy or idea of what was right for the child.  Ms. Buckley said it was a terrible system. 

 

Ms. Buckley advised the committee the system’s structural flaws were very important to change at the current time because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.  The federal government passed a law that said no longer would a child be able to remain in the foster care system indefinitely and that permanent placement would have to take place within a year.  The law was implemented in Nevada during the Seventieth Legislative Session and time could no longer be wasted for a day, a week, or six months by having two systems handling the state’s children.  The system should be changed regardless of the new law, but if Nevada did not act within the time allotted by the federal act, it would lose 50 percent of child welfare money. 

 

Ms. Buckley informed the committee that within the A.C.R. 53 Committee they had looked at the main flaws in the system; the bifurcation and the moves and the way the large number of moves had affected children.  If a child was constantly moved within the system bonding would not take place and the child might be “ruined." 

 

Ms. Buckley pointed out pages 14 and 15 in the handout (Exhibit D) reflected another flaw of the system, which was caseload sizes.  She said for the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) the caseload was one worker for every 34 children.  Washoe County had caseloads of one worker for every 28 children and Clark County was one worker to 34 children.  Ms. Buckley said the larger the caseload the less time there was to spend time with each child to make sure they were in the right place, to make sure they were able to see their siblings, etc. 

 

Ms. Buckley said foster care reimbursement was also a flaw of the system.  The DCFS paid a daily rate of $12 for a child from 1 to 12 and $14.40 for a child 13 and older, and said it cost more to board a dog. 

 

Ms. Buckley said another item studied by the interim committee was children with severe emotional disturbances.  She referred to page 16 of the handout (Exhibit D) and said 37 percent of children in the system had severe emotional disturbances.  She said the committee had previously heard testimony that there was a large block of children with diagnosed severe emotional disturbances, approximately 30 to 31 percent, who received no treatment at all, because funds were not appropriated. 

 

Ms. Buckley said the recommendations of the interim committee were shown on page 17 of the report (Exhibit D).  The recommendation was to end the bifurcated child welfare system in Washoe County and Clark County.  She said testimony from everyone involved had indicated that it would be great to have one state system or one county system doing it all, but that would not work with the unique factors in Nevada.  She explained other counties in Nevada did not have a bifurcated welfare system, just Washoe and Clark Counties.  The integration would include foster care, emergency care, adoptions, licensure, and eligibility of foster care and group homes.  She said the interim committee had many meetings and had a fiscal subcommittee and a personnel subcommittee task force, which involved many meetings behind the scenes.  There had been a great deal of debate about each of the items mentioned and it was finally decided that if the counties had responsibilities for the children and could not get foster care homes licensed it would set up an immediate roadblock so the responsibility was placed with one entity.  She said the state would maintain regulatory oversight to ensure that everything that needed to be sent to the federal government was done, so that the state continued to get the 50 percent reimbursement. 

 

Ms. Buckley said since services would be improved for children in Washoe and Clark Counties, the committee wanted to make sure rural communities had the same improvements, so that had become a part of the bills as well. 

 

Ms. Buckley said A.B. 343 would end bifurcation and what had been attempted in the budget, along with the one-shot appropriations, was to increase foster care reimbursements, increase treatment funds so that all children with severe emotional disturbances would get treatment, and all state functions be moved to Washoe and Clark Counties.  The main precepts for the move would be that no state worker would lose their job, the counties would not be able to pick and screen the workers that would come over, rather all would be transferred.  She said state workers were asking, upon the transfer, if their salaries would be increased, so if a 20-year county worker made $100,000 the state worker would make the same amount.  Ms. Buckley said that was not included in the model presented.  She said in the model the committee would receive certain workers would receive immediate raises because the salary scale of the county was higher than the state scale.  It was estimated that within five years the state workers that transferred to the county would make at least $7,000 more than if they stayed with the state.  Ms. Buckley said the goal was to put in as many protections as possible for the state workers who would be transferred, such as how to handle vacation and sick leave so that the state workers having to transfer did not lose those leave hours. 

 

Thomas Riley, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of Las Vegas, said it was important to note the recommendations of the ten-person A.C.R. 53 Committee, whose purpose was to conduct an interim study of integration of state and local child welfare systems in Nevada, were unanimous.  He said after 50 years of institutionalizing the system it was difficult to undo overnight.  He said ending the bifurcated system would put Nevada in conformity with the rest of the United States.  The three core components in a child welfare system were Child Protective Services, Foster Care, and Adoptions, but Nevada’s system did not evolve this way.  Professor Riley said it was imperative that families that came into the system because of abuse and neglect dealt with only one system.  

 

Professor Riley said rural Nevada did not have a bifurcated system, so no changes were needed except for a few enhancements to bring rural Nevada up to par with Washoe and Clark Counties.  He said the program would bring the foster care and adoption systems in Washoe and Clark Counties to the other counties and centralize intake in the family preservation services from the state to the counties.  The higher levels of care in the mental health component would remain with the state because of the intricacy involved with Medicaid.  It had been proposed to move family foster care from the state to the counties and keep the higher levels of care with the state.  In order to have buy-in from the counties and state, and to address the issue, there was a component that created a mental health consortium involving individuals not only from the state and county, but the school district and mental health community, to decide locally how best to use the funds allocated by the state.  The A.C.R. 53 Committee had no authority to exceed the budget, but the consortium brought the counties and state together to determine how much money was available to serve the multiple needs for children in-care and to enable children out-of-care, who were not getting services, to become in-care children.  This would give the flexibility to Washoe and Clark Counties to decide how to spend the dollars. 

 

Professor Riley said another component of A.B. 343 was to create committees on children, youth, and families, which was critical because of the difficulty of the transition.  The counties were allowed to make the transition at different paces.  For example, Washoe County had been developing a pilot program over the last year and a half so would be able to move more quickly than Clark County.  The A.C.R. 53 Committee would allow for oversight, direction, and feedback on how the integration was going.  Professor Riley said the integration would take three years so the committee's existence was critical because it would be able to identify any problems that might emerge. 

 

In conclusion, Professor Riley said rural Nevada had unique issues and just because rural Nevada was not bifurcated, did not mean all was going well.  A.B. 343 would include any enhancements in the mental health arena to be extended to rural Nevada, so there would be more conformity throughout the state. 

 

Ms. Leslie said she had been very interested in what would be done with mental health services for children and had read some of Professor Riley's drafts written over the last year.  She referred to Exhibit D, and said Appendix J on page 227 listed the strategic plan.  She asked if there would be a local committee at the county level that would devise how the wraparound services would be implemented.  She asked if the Medicaid state plan would need to be changed so that social workers and marriage and family therapists (MFT) could be used to provide some of the services.  Professor Riley said, currently, the southern, northern, and rural areas of Nevada, under the Division of Child and Family Services, had a group of individuals that made decisions on how best to utilize funds.  Under A.B. 343, the counties were brought into the decision making because the counties were concerned that when they received the children and then the children were transferred to a higher level of care, the state wouldn't take them.  He said the concern was the counties would be "stuck" with the children in their system and the state would have the choice to take them or not.  The state felt the same way, thinking what would prevent the counties from "just dumping" the kids on the state.  Therefore the consortium was essential because it allowed all the groups involved to decide how best to use the funds.  Professor Riley said another concern was what would happen to the families in the communities who did not get the services needed and would end up in the system. 

 

In answer to Ms. Leslie's question regarding possible changes to the state Medicaid plan, Professor Riley said he could not represent the A.C.R. 53 Committee but his opinion was anything that could be done to make it easier to access services for families was important.  The access of state funds would trigger if a child had severely emotionally disturbed criteria, other than that funds should be accessed through a community.  If there were limited providers in a community to access the care, then the child would have to go back to the state and get on the waiting list to receive services.  Therefore, the ability to use Medicaid dollars at the local level was sensible.  He said he was not sure if the Medicaid state plan had been changed. 

 

Ms. Buckley said the issue of the Medicaid state plan had not been gone into during the A.C.R. 53 hearings.  She said the hearings concerned whether there were funds to treat every emotionally disturbed child in the state's care.  Ms. Buckley added whatever improvements the current legislature made would benefit the children.

 

Ms. Leslie said she felt the recommendation was a good one, and the fact that 30 percent of the children in the system were severely emotionally disturbed and were not getting treatment reflected how bad the problem was.  She said that she did not want to make the problem worse by appropriating the funds and then have the children placed on a waiting list because the Medicaid state plan had not been changed.

 

Professor Riley said one of the responsibilities of the consortium was to report back to the committee on an ongoing basis to start documenting the unmet need and the barriers to getting the population's mental health needs served.  He said that had never occurred before and the documentation of the issues within the community, plus the flexibility it gave the local communities to serve their clients, and being able to report back, would give a clearer picture of the problems and enable getting the needs met. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked for a review of the costs for the project.  Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred the committee to a handout (Exhibit E), which reviewed the costs of A.B. 343 and A.B. 512.  He said the second and third pages of Exhibit E were a summary of estimated costs of the integration effort.  He said the summary paralleled Ms. Buckley's report (Exhibit D) in that it addressed the two major recommendations, number one and number two.  Mr. Peri said Exhibit E provided an estimate by each of the entities, both Clark and Washoe Counties, to receive the integration services to transition services straight across from the state to the counties.  The report (Exhibit E) also covered and estimated the cost for the staffing ratio and higher foster care daily rate enhancements.  The report also included estimates for the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), who would assume a regulatory role following the model approved by the A.C.R. 53 subcommittee.  Also included in the report was the increase of services for the severely emotionally disturbed, as well as the match up services for rural Nevada.  Mr. Peri said the total estimated additional costs, to be phased in gradually over the two years of the upcoming biennium, were approximately $6.5 million the first year of the biennium and $12.2 million the second year of the biennium.  Mr. Peri said under the guidance of Ms. Buckley and the A.C.R. 53 subcommittee the entities had reviewed the costs for potential one-shot costs that could be removed, which came to approximately $4.3 million the first year and $1.6 million the second year, which resulted in a net total estimate of additional costs at $2.2 million in FY2002 and $10.6 million in FY2003.  The $2.2 million and the $10.6 million were included in The Executive Budget, under the Child Welfare Budget, as seen in Exhibit E on page 4, under decision unit E-250. 

 

Mr. Peri referred to page 3 of the summary (Exhibit E) and said the page reflected, in addition to the initial one-shot appropriations that had been removed from the initial estimates for the integration effort, the counties had taken the opportunity, along with DCFS, at the end of the process of the interim committee meeting and listed any additional costs that might be encountered in implementing the recommendations.  Included in the estimates were the estimated costs for both Clark and Washoe Counties to hire a transitional program manager and the personnel issues of sick and annual leave buyouts.  Those estimates added $405,493 for FY2002 and $1,656,876 for FY2003, which brought the total potential one-shot appropriations to $4,744,107 for FY2002 and $3,253,543 for FY2003.  The Executive Budget made the same recommendation for the one-shot appropriation and the amount would be funded from the General Fund. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification on how the consortium worked versus Section 37, the Legislative Committee.  She said she did not want to create one committee to be over another committee.  Ms. Buckley said the Legislative Committee was designed to be an oversight mechanism for the whole project to make sure things were going smoothly, for example, were the entities on schedule to meet certain obligations.  She said one item talked about in Clark County was to use Child Haven more effectively.  Ms. Buckley reminded the committee that no federal reimbursement was received for Child Haven.  However, instead of putting children in Child Haven immediately, some could be put into foster care immediately and save the beds for siblings so they were not separated.  She commended Adrienne Cox and Kirby Burgess, Clark County Family and Youth Services, for their work in reviewing how the new system would work.  She said the Legislative Committee would be overseeing such things as caseload standards, foster care reimbursement, concerns of workers, etc.  Ms. Buckley explained the consortium would only deal with how the higher end cases would be handled.  She said what had been seen was, because the foster care rates were so low, the children automatically were bumped up to the next level, and because they were moved around too much, the children never bonded, so they began to develop emotional problems, and then they would get "bumped up" higher.  Ms. Buckley believed that if the money had been spent at the front end of the case some of the higher levels of care might have been eliminated. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said her understanding of the issue was that the consortium was more program-based, and would review the information and determine if the program was working or if there were glitches that might need to be changed, or if the program needed additional funding, or less funding.  She thought instead of setting the consortium as a traditional interim committee, they might want to investigate having a few members from northern and southern Nevada to meet with the consortium, and then report back to the IFC so that if there were problems during the interim, things would be handled at the time. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the concern was to make sure there was a time when the system would be ended as a bifurcated system.  She said the first step had been taken, but the issue of the high-end children had not been resolved and if the issue could not be resolved, then the bifurcated system would have to continue and that was not the desirable conclusion. 

 

Ms. Buckley replied that Ms. Giunchigliani's concerns were part of the reason the Legislative Committee would be placed in an overseer position.  She said the bills were the first step, and eventually more federal funds should be available in Clark County through the new system.  She explained a committee should be in place that was familiar with all the issues, possibly the members would be the same members who were part of the A.C.R. 53 Committee, and they could look at recommendations as to what would be addressed in the next legislative session, which might possibly include fixing the mental health portion, and no shift changes would be made without everyone agreeing how it would work.  Ms. Buckley said instead of having the IFC reviewing the issues for a short amount of time, a temporary Legislative Committee would determine the next steps, make recommendations in the form of committee introductions, and thus be able to finish the project and have the best system possible.  Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that it was not desirable for the IFC to have to make quick policy decisions.  She said depending on how the debate went in regard to funding, there might have to be releases at certain times based on recommendations. 

 

In support of A.B. 343 and A.B. 512, Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, introduced herself and Mike Capello, Director, Department of Social Services, Washoe County, and Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources.  Mr. Shaw said the DCFS felt the only way the project could be completed was for the administrators of the Child Protection and Child Welfare agencies to come to the committee and say the bifurcated system had to end.  He said the system had evolved over 50 years and it hurt children, in terms of changing homes and social workers.  The Adoption and Safe Families Act had put a "burner" on the system.  He explained that it was impossible to reach permanency in 12 months for a child in a bifurcated system. 

 

Mr. Shaw said the division did not want to trade one inadequate system for another.  The DCFS was an inadequately funded system, and Clark and Washoe Counties would do what he was currently doing for $20 million.  He believed it was an adequate and fair number. 

 

Ms. Singlaub said Washoe County fully supported the improvement of the child welfare system in Nevada.  She said the initial results of the pilot project performed in Washoe County, where Washoe County had assumed the responsibility for a portion of the population of children, had shown unequivocally that children would benefit, families would benefit, and the state would benefit by ending the bifurcated system.  She thanked Ms. Buckley and the A.C.R. 53 Committee for their leadership and partnership with the state.  She said the county had worked hard to balance the needs of many groups, including state employees. 

 

Ms. Singlaub said she had recently participated in the Junior League's project in northern Nevada, called Child Watch.  She said she had toured foster homes and emergency shelters, looking at them with a child's perspective, including what happened to a child in Nevada's welfare system, the disruption in their lives, being taken late at night by a police officer to an emergency shelter, being placed with strangers and asking for their mother.  The bills would help to reduce the disruption in a child's life and to improve what could be improved. 

 

Ms. Singlaub referenced Exhibit D and explained the Washoe County Commissioners were deeply committed to improving the system of child welfare and in 1997 approved an additional half-cent property tax to improve the Washoe County Welfare System.  She said as a result of that tax, Washoe County currently had the lowest caseloads and the highest foster home payment in the state.  She added over the past five years Washoe County had systematically reduced expenditures throughout the county per capita and employees per capita in order to be more efficient and cost-effective, resulting in Washoe County receiving the designation as the number one local government in America for waste reduction the last two years in a row.  Ms. Singlaub advised during the same time the investment in child protection had increased.  She said the investment had been intentionally increased because it was known that children would fall through the cracks if something urgent was not done.  Ms. Singlaub said the investment had paid off and the substantiated cases of abuse and neglect to children had decreased more than 15 percent over the past five years even though the population had steadily increased.  She explained for years public policymakers had looked at the bifurcated system in Nevada and uniformly said how did it happen and how can it be fixed.  She said A.B. 343 and A.B. 512 would give the opportunity to do something about ending the bifurcated system. 

 

Mike Capello, Director, Department of Social Services, Washoe County, said he wanted to echo appreciation to the A.C.R. 53 Committee for being patient while going through the process of working out how to integrate the two systems.  He explained the goal was to bring together case management and also do no harm.  He said Washoe County had already been working on the project for the last six months and had a detailed planning process.  He said there were ten groups of both county and state staff working together to identify areas of how the system could be integrated without causing any ripples as the two organizations were brought together. 

 

Ms. Leslie said Washoe County's investment in its children had paid off and commended the county for its efforts.  She said at an earlier budget meeting in regard to the pilot project, a position had been left out in terms of transition for the pilot project.  Ms. Leslie asked if that had been taken care of.  Mr. Shaw said he was not sure, and would check to find out.  Ms. Leslie said she wanted to make sure that Washoe County had all the resources that were needed and asked Mr. Shaw to make note of that issue. 

 

Jim Spinello, Clark County, said he wanted to express his thanks to the A.C.R. 53 Committee for the program it had proposed as well as the manner it had been processed in.  He said it served as a model for complex programs and how to make something better that had not worked for a long time.  He said Myrna Williams, Clark County Commissioner, had been very involved in the process and the county commission was very supportive of the changes proposed. 

 

Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director, Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, said the Board of County Commissioners, management of Clark County, and her department supported the recommendations of the A.C.R. 53 Committee and A.B. 343 and A.B. 512.  She said Clark County was a little behind Washoe County in their ability to integrate the child welfare program and was working to develop the infrastructure in order to provide the services that the state currently provided to Clark County and to receive the requisite federal funding to help support child welfare services.  She said the last few months Clark County had been working with the DCFS in the southern region and had created a detailed transition plan to help achieve the integrated child welfare services.  She said it was the hope of Clark County that upon completion of the infrastructure requirements, for example, an integrated and automated information system required by the federal government, that they could begin in FY2003 taking on their first foster care and adoption client.  Ms. Cox said the committee had the commitment of her department and of Clark County to realize those aims.  She commended the A.C.R. 53 Committee and Ms. Buckley for their efforts in making the project a reality. 

 

Mr. Dini referred to Exhibit E and asked how the figure for decreased federal match for the rural areas had been determined.   Ms. Giunchigliani advised Mr. Peri that the information Mr. Dini was referring to was on the second page of Exhibit E and the estimated "Match Up Services in Rural Nevada" appeared to show a reduction.  Mr. Peri responded the DCFS "Match-up" was roughly $400,000 or a little over that for each fiscal year and the estimated federal fund reduction was listed as well.  He said he was not sure there was a decrease.   Ms. Giunchigliani said it appeared there was a decrease of a service, and asked if there was a savings.  Mr. Peri said all the bracketed figures on Exhibit E were representative of a portion of the estimated cost.  Referring to the exhibit he said in FY2002 the $404,631 was the estimated cost, and of that amount the division felt it could recoup approximately $135,551 of the cost in federal money, which would yield the net need of $269,080.  He said there was not a decrease, rather anytime "estimated additional funds," or "estimated federal funds" were listed in a report it would represent the portion of the need that was felt could be recovered by the earning of additional federal dollars resulting in a net figure. 

 

Dorothy Pomin, representing the statewide foster parent association, Foster Care and Adoption Association of Nevada, and the northern region foster parent association, Sierra Association of Foster Families, said she was speaking in support of A.B. 343 and A.B. 512.  She said the project was highly needed for the sake of children and families in Nevada.  She commended the A.C.R. 53 Committee for their hard, detailed work.  She added foster parents did not have a large voice in the process so there were a few things she wanted to bring to the attention of the committee.  She referred to her handout (Exhibit F), which was titled "The Financial Cost of Nevada's Diminishing Foster Homes," and said she would like to speak in regard to the attrition rate in foster homes.  She acknowledged that some of the attrition problem would be addressed through the foster care reimbursement rate increase and through the counties as they absorbed the foundation of the foster care system, but currently there was a large problem in attrition in foster homes and that was costly to the children and the state of Nevada.  She said the most important part of the foster care system was the foundation of regular family foster homes.  It was the most cost-effective and economical as well as the most normal and least restrictive environment for children.  Ms. Pomin explained reasons foster homes closed included the reimbursement rate, the need for a respite program, the ability to take a break and recharge.  She said homes closed because of burn-out and as homes closed children moved, and that caused the children to be traumatized. Many of the children then required higher-level treatment services, and that was extremely expensive to Nevada.  Ms. Pomin referred to her handout (Exhibit F) and said it highlighted the discrepancy from treatment care to family foster care.  She explained that even if Washoe County and Clark County built a solid foundation of family foster caregivers they would not see the cost avoidance or cost savings that would naturally occur at the treatment level, because that cost was currently held by the state.  Her request was for the committee to earmark money from the current budget because she felt there would be a cost avoidance and cost savings out of treatment care for respite for family foster homes.  She referred to Exhibit F and said she had collected data over the past months from meetings and committees she had attended and the exhibit was a result of the information she had accumulated.  She pointed out by putting in a respite program the savings to Nevada and the support of family foster homes, therefore the benefit to foster children and their families, would be phenomenal.  She reminded the committee there were two things the legislature could do, increase the foster care rate and earmark money for a respite program.  Other things that would retain foster homes were not legislative issues and could be dealt with within the agencies. 

 

Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women's Lobby, said the organization felt the change that would take effect through A.B. 343 and A.B. 512 would be one of the most significant system changes that could be made on behalf of the welfare children in the state, and urged passage of both bills. 

 

Larry Struve, speaking for the Religious Alliance In Nevada (RAIN), a coalition of five judicatories in the state including the two Catholic dioceses of Las Vegas and Reno, the Episcopal diocese of Nevada, the Lutheran Advocacy ministry in Nevada, the Nevada Sierra District of the United Methodist Church, and the Nevada Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, said the judicatories were represented on a board which met at the beginning of the session and voted to make A.B. 343 and the ending of the bifurcated system one of the top legislative priorities of the RAIN alliance.  Mr. Struve explained the perspective of RAIN was from people in parishes, many of whom were foster parents, and/or volunteered in the community and local agencies, to work with children who were currently being harmed by the bifurcated system.  He said he was speaking to the Ways and Means Committee because as the numbers were added up, they would have some difficult decisions to make in the next month.  The total cost to achieve the program would be approximately $32 to $33 million.  He said it appeared there would have to be budget cuts, and on behalf of the RAIN alliance Mr. Struve wanted to make it clear that as a matter of priority, if there were cuts in the budget, this was not an area that should be cut.  He reminded the committee that they had heard from many different areas of society and a lot of work had gone into the program, and it was his organization's belief that a lot was at stake, and he would like the committee to consider going forward with the investment that had already been made.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the committee would take Mr. Struve's comments under consideration. 

 

Mark Nichols, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), speaking via teleconference from Las Vegas, spoke in support of A.B. 343.  He said the reform of the child welfare system was the number one priority of the NASW during the current legislative session.  He said that Nevada could have the best system in place, but if adequate funds were not in place the state would not be serving the best interest of its children. 

 

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), referred to his handout (Exhibit G) which reflected a proposed amendment to A.B. 343.  He pointed out a typographical error in the amendment, and said it should read "An employee may elect to have the division pay such an. . . ."  He explained that he represented the many employees of the Division of Child and Family Services who would be transferred to Washoe and Clark Counties upon the total implementation of A.B. 343.   He said his organization had been involved in the A.C.R. 53 process from the beginning, and it had been made clear that the interest of the state employees would be protected.  Most of the protections were contained in Section 134, starting on page 61 of A.B. 343.   He said the SNEA felt that the transition in Washoe County would be much easier than in Clark County because Washoe County had a head start.  The division where the transfer would take place in Washoe County had a substantial number of social workers but in Clark County the organization that would implement the statute did not contain social workers.  Mr. Gagnier stated one of the earlier proposals that had come from Clark County in regard to implementation was to transfer all of the social workers, approximately 150, to Clark County and they would no longer be social workers.  That was why there were lines in the bill that assured that the employees would be transferred as social workers. 

 

Mr. Gagnier said there was a great deal of skepticism on the part of state workers who would be transferred as to how they would be treated.  The common term that had been used was the employees would be the "stepchildren" of the county and have different salaries and benefits than the county employees had.  He said the amendment was to level the playing field so that the state workers were not the "stepchildren." 

 

Amendments recommended by Mr. Gagnier were as follows:

 

• "An employee may elect to have the division pay such an amount to the county in which case the county will credit him with the amount of annual leave based upon the dollar amount received from the division."  Currently under page 62 of A.B. 343, under subsection four, the employees who go from the DCFS to the counties would have all of their annual leave paid in full by the DCFS so they would go to work with no annual leave, which meant there would be no break for the employee until sufficient annual leave had been earned through the county.  The amendment, at the employees' request, would require the DCFS to pay the county the lump sum, saving the DCFS money, because they would not have to pay retirement or Medicare on those funds.  The counties had opposed this method in the past on the basis that their salaries were higher at the county level and the transferred employees would not have earned the amount they would be paid through the county.  Therefore, the SNEA had tried to phrase the amendment in such a way that there would be a pro rata transfer of time, for example, if a state employee was paid a salary of $134 a day, and if he or she had 15 days of accumulated annual leave then the employee would be paid $2,010.  If they went to the county and made $146 per day, it would only amount to 13.76 days.  The SNEA was not saying to trade a day for a day, rather, transfer the money and acquire whatever time that money would buy, thus enabling the employees to have annual leave and receive appropriate breaks. 

 

• "Longevity must be based on the employee's years of service with the state agency and the county agency combined."  The way the bill was currently written, state employees would go to the counties and start below what they should if they were a county employee.  This would mean the possibility of a 20-year supervisory social worker employed with the state and transferred to the county would make less money than a five-year social worker employed with the county.  Mr. Gagnier said this was not fair that the state's people who were currently running the program, and would continue to run the program after the transfer, would be paid at a lower rate of pay then people who had been with the county a very short time.  Mr. Gagnier advised the committee that the Judiciary Committee did not accept this amendment because, according to the proponents of the bill, the money was not in the budget.  

 

Mr. Gagnier said, with those two amendments, A.B. 343 would be a much more equitable bill for the hundreds of employees who would be transferred from the DCFS to the counties. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Gagnier to clarify whether combining the years of service would rectify the problem or was it how the contract was established on how the years of experience were calculated.  Mr. Gagnier referred Ms. Giunchigliani to page 63, line 44, in A.B. 343, where it stated ". . . 10.  Not withstanding any provision of law, county ordinance or collective bargaining agreement . . . " and page 62, lines 20-22 it was indicated that once the DCFS employees go to work their annual leave accrual would be based on both.  The problem was recognized in the sections referenced, but not in the section on pay, because of the large fiscal impact, and had nothing to do with the contract. 

 

Being no further discussion the hearing on A.B. 343 and A.B. 512 was closed.

 

********

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Bill 475:  Establishes account for payment of certain benefits to             certain state employees. (BDR 23-1202)

 

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, introduced A.B. 475 and then introduced Robert Gagnier to speak in support of the bill.   

 

Mr. Gagnier said A.B. 475 would require an appropriation from the state.  The bill would create an employee benefit account and grew out of the frustration of many employees who had to pay parking or licensing fees in order to perform their duties.  The bill came about during the Fundamental Review of State Government but was not included in the recommendations because it had a fiscal impact.  Mr. Gagnier explained that an amendment to the bill was made in the committee of origin, that the benefit would be for employees who worked more than 20 hours per week. 

 

Mr. Gagnier said in the past, bills had been presented to the committee to prohibit charging employees for parking at the job site and to reimburse employees for their necessary licenses that they were required to have in order to hold their positions, such as a commercial driver's license, social worker, etc. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked who would pay into the fund.  Mr. Gagnier answered "the state" and said the employees wanted reimbursement.  Mr. Gagnier said the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and Reno (UNR), were the only two places known where state employees who wanted to park anywhere near their place of employment must pay for parking.  The problem had previously been only a UNR problem, but the UNLV had recently discussed raising parking fees 100 percent and charging additional parking increases every year at the rate of 10 percent, with no end in sight for the increases.  Employees at the UNLV would be required to pay $120 a year and then would have a 10 percent increase every year in the future.  The parking fees were to reimburse the state to pay for parking garages, and the same was true at the UNR.  Mr. Gagnier asked why should those employees have to pay a parking fee when no other state employees had to pay a fee. 

 

Mr. Gagnier said, in addition, there were many employees who were required to have licenses and had not been required to have a license at the time they were hired, such as commercial driver's licenses, highway maintenance workers, social workers, and psychologists. 

 

Mr. Gagnier said under A.B. 475 the benefit account would be used to pay for job site parking, licenses, or optional insurance.  There would not be an option to take the money in cash because if the option to take the cash was available, it would immediately become taxable.  He said there were optional insurance programs within state government that were available. 

 

Mr. Gagnier advised the committee that his agency did not disagree with the provision in the fiscal note for adding an accounting specialist within the Department of Personnel to handle the funds and to make sure the money went to the various places necessary.  He said the only part of the fiscal note that the agency might disagree with was the inclusion of the academic staff of the University System. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the reason the agency had not intended to have the academic staff included was because the academic staff was not classified.  Mr. Gagnier said yes, and reiterated that the fiscal note included the unclassified employees of the university.   Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the agency would want to include unclassified workers in the first step of the fiscal note.  Mr. Gagnier said the simplest response he could give would be to remove the word "unclassified," and Ms. Giunchigliani agreed. 

 

Mr. Neighbors informed the committee any money left in the fund at the end of the year would roll over into the General Fund and if an employee terminated after receiving the fee reimbursement, payback would be determined on a pro rated basis.  He reminded the committee that previously the fiscal impact had been borne by the employees. 

 

Mr. Gagnier said he noticed the budget director had said the agency estimate was probably at the high level.  He said he had never seen that before. 

 

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association and Teamster's Unions 14 and 533, said he was in favor of A.B. 475. 

 

Being no further discussion, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 475.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 556:  Revises certain provisions governing authority of state   board of examiners and requirements for certain agreements for interlocal             cooperation between public agencies. (BDR 31-565)

 

Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said A.B. 556 was a comprehensive review of the administrative responsibilities of the Board of Examiners and a series of recommendations related to their administrative responsibilities for stale claims, stale-dated checks, refunds, etc.  He emphasized there were three major elements to the proposal. 

 

• The bill allowed the Board of Examiners to delegate responsibility for various activities to staff. 

 

• The board would be in an appellate position where if someone disagreed with the decision of staff, the decision could be appealed to the board. 

 

• The bill would require a quarterly report to the board on what activities had occurred. 

 

Mr. Hataway reviewed A.B. 556 as follows:

 

• Section 1 related to stale claims and provided the Board of Examiners the ability to assign the responsibilities to the clerk under certain circumstances. 

 

• Section 2 related to the refund fees, for example, licenses and taxes, and also provided the Board of Examiners the ability to assign the responsibility under certain circumstances to the clerk with appellate rights. 

 

• Section 3 related to stale-dated warrants.  Warrants could be reissued under certain conditions.  The responsibility could be assigned to the clerk under certain conditions.  Mr. Hataway said there was currently a Senate bill that the Controller submitted and would delete Section 3 and would give the Controller the statutory authority to address stale-dated warrants.  Mr. Hataway said the Budget Division still felt the Board of Examiners should have that role.  He said he did not know where the bill stood at the current time. 

 

• Section 4 was the general administrative provisions related to the Board of Examiners and Section 4 (d) was added to speak to the quarterly reports that were mentioned in Mr. Hataway's introduction of the bill.  This formulized the process that the Board of Examiners would provide. 

 

• Section 5 dealt with the emergency fund.  It was suggested that the $50,000 limit that currently existed be eliminated.  Mr. Hataway said it was the division's opinion that if an incident adequately qualified for an emergency allocation then the limit would be the dollar amount that was in the fund at the time of the incident.  This was one of the funds that could access the Interim Finance Contingency Fund should all resources within the fund be exhausted. 

 

• Section 6 related to the reserve for statutory contingency.  The board may delegate any responsibilities, under certain circumstances, to the clerk to process issues, with appellate responsibility placed with the board. 

 

• Sections 8 and 10 related to the interlocal agreements and the cooperative agreements that the state could enter into with other government agencies.  Mr. Hataway said the change recommended involved interlocal issues that had a value of $2,000, or less, would not have to be placed in the formal written document that most interlocal agreements and cooperative agreements were required to go through.  Mr. Hataway said he did not have a number of the contracts that fell within the $2,000 or less bracket. 

 

• Section 9 was a section that had been added by the bill drafter to tie to Section 8.  The modification said if the agreement was in writing it must be filed with the county recorder, etc. 

 

• Section 11 dealt with the contracting provisions of the state.  Currently the amount where a formal written contract was not required was $750.  The proposal was to raise the amount to $2,000, which the division felt was a reasonable amount for that threshold.  Also, currently, contracts that could be delegated to the clerk for processing had a current limit of $5,000 and the clerk could process any contract at or below $5,000 if it met all the criteria.  The proposal was to raise that limit to $10,000. 

 

• Section 12 was a bill drafting change, which eliminated the phrase "Secretary of the State Board" as the correct phrase should be "Clerk of the State Board."

 

• Section 7 had been in the original draft and was related to the fund to stabilize the operation of the state's Rainy Day Fund.  Currently the Rainy Day Fund could be accessed with the approval of the Governor and the Nevada State Legislature.  The division had proposed that the IFC be able to make that decision when the legislature was not in session.  Section 7 had been amended out of the bill by the Government Affairs Committee because it was felt that the full legislature should be a part of the decision making process in regard to the Rainy Day Fund.  Mr. Hataway said the division had intended to use the IFC for energy costs in case energy costs went totally out of line by the end of the year from what was recommended or was built into the budget.  He said that was still the division's intention, but if Section 7 was not part of A.B. 556, it would require a special session of the legislature.  Mr. Hataway reminded the committee it would be less expensive to have an IFC meeting than a special session. 

 

Chairman Arberry said the committee agreed that Section 7 should be taken out because it was a great deal of responsibility for the IFC to deal with the Rainy Day Fund. 

 

Mr. Hataway said if the energy crisis went the way it was predicted it would be a rainy day for the state.

 

Being no further questions, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 556. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 602:  Makes various changes to provisions governing powers and             duties of attorney general. (BDR 18-488)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED THAT A.B. 602 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A NEED TO PLACE POSITIONS IN NON-CLASSIFIED STATUS AND ALSO, DUE TO THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING MOVEMENT OF FUNDS FROM ONE BUDGET ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED IN OTHER AGENCIES. 

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Assembly, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the Senate Finance Committee had indefinitely postponed S.B. 146, which was the request from the Lieutenant Governor to place her staff in the nonclassified status.

 

Mr. Dini asked if the bill involved only the top people in the Attorney General's office.  Chairman Arberry said he did not believe so.  Mr. Stevens said his belief was that the bill would involve all of the attorneys.  He said he was not sure if it would impact the secretaries, but would impact a lot of individuals. 

 

Don Hataway said the testimony from the Attorney General had indicated that the classified service was not impacted by the bill, just the unclassified employees. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said the title of the bill said "Removing the employees from the office of the Attorney General from the classified and unclassified service," so it appeared that it affected more than the just the classified employees. 

 

AFTER A VOICE VOTE, THE MOTION FAILED AND THE BILL WAS DECLARED LOST IN COMMITTEE. 

 

********

 

The meeting recessed at 11:52 a.m. and reconvened at 1:49 p.m.

 

 

Assembly Bill 4:  Allows money in fund for new construction of facilities for             prison industries to be used to expand existing industries. (BDR 16-680)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOTIONED THAT A.B. 4 PASS AS A DO PASS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

(Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 601:  Restricts ability of state agencies to enter into certain             agreements to purchase real property. (BDR 31-1106)

 

Mr. Stevens said there were a couple of bills that related to the lease-purchase option of buildings that had recently been ruled on by the Supreme Court.  He explained there was a competing measure that had been initiated by the State Treasurer, A.B. 567.   Mr. Marvel asked what the difference was between the two bills, and Mr. Stevens said there were many differences in the bills but A.B. 601 would allow the legislature to approve lease-purchase agreements in general and when a project came forward there would be legislation that would authorize that specific project and anything related to the project, whether certificates of participation, exclude bidding, etc.  He said A.B. 567 would give a general authorization for a lease purchase agreement versus pending authority for each specific project.  Mr. Stevens said A.B. 601 was not exempt and would fail if not passed out of committee today, but A.B. 567 was exempt because of a provision that authorized additional bonds for the privatized women's prison facility in Las Vegas.  He said if A.B. 601 was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee today, it could be addressed by the Senate and then it could be figured in the future which bill should pass and what provisions should be included in the bills.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought A.B. 601 was the cleaner bill.  It gave the authority needed, but she felt that line 6 should say ". . . legislature or the Interim Finance Committee. . . ," that way any situation would be covered, regardless of when contracts would come into play and recommended the bill be amended to reflect that change. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

(Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 315:  Requires offender convicted of first offense of driving             under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to attend             program of treatment when concentration of alcohol in blood or breath of             offender is 0.18 or more. (BDR 43-587)

 

Mr. Stevens said the bill was not exempt.  He explained it had a local fiscal note.  He said the bill was heard earlier in the committee meeting, and involved provisions for someone who was caught driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.18. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

(Assemblyman Dini asked the record to reflect he had abstained from voting.   Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 556:  Revises certain provisions governing authority of state   board of examiners and requirements for certain agreements for interlocal             cooperation between public agencies. (BDR 31-565)

 

Mr. Stevens said A.B. 556 was not exempt and had been discussed earlier in the meeting by Don Hataway.  He explained it would provide additional authority to the Clerk of the Board of Examiners.  He said other provisions were provided in regard to interlocal agreements.  He said the Government Affairs Committee had eliminated Section 7, which had allowed the IFC to access the Rainy Day Fund. 

 

Mr. Dini asked for clarification of Section 5.  Mr. Stevens advised him Section 5 was the emergency fund that had about $400,000 and was limited to a $50,000 per occurrence.  Section 5 took the maximum amount out of the law so that any amount could be provided by the State Board of Examiners if it met the statutory criteria for an emergency. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said if the bill was processed it would need to be amended because the term "secretary" would need to be changed to "clerk."  He agreed with Mr. Arberry's statement that they did not want to access the Rainy Day Fund, and he had no problem with Section 5. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not know why the option for the IFC to look at the Rainy Day Fund would be eliminated.  She said there might be a "rainy day" sometime and asked if the IFC could access the funds at the current time.  Chairman Arberry answered no.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked who had recommended that they be able to access the fund.  Chairman Arberry said he believed the Governor had wanted to be able to access the funds through the IFC, but Government Affairs had said no because they wanted the entire legislature to make the decision, not just the IFC. 

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

(Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 134:  Makes various changes concerning assessment imposed by             commissioner of insurance upon insurers to pay for program to             investigate certain violations and fraudulent acts. (BDR 57-331)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

(Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 138:  Clarifies formula for determining amount payable by State of Nevada toward cost of insurance for certain retired employees.             (BDR 23-1065)

 

Mr. Stevens said depending on how many years state employees worked for the state, their group insurance was subsidized when they retired.   Currently, the way this was calculated, it counted all public service, including local school district experience and state government experience.  A.B. 138 would ensure that only state service was calculated in the subsidy that was provided to the retired employee.  Mr. Stevens said a lot of discussion had occurred to determine if current practice on this issue should be changed or whether it should be left alone.  He explained the way the bill was written, it would only impact those individuals that would be hired by the state after July 1, 2001; it was not retroactive.  Mr. Stevens said it would take some time before the bill would have any impact. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said if the bill was indefinitely postponed, it would not change or hurt anyone, but it should be known that people cannot depend on the coverage to include public service hours indefinitely.  She said by indefinitely postponing the bill, it would continue to cover the individuals who were currently under the old system.

 

Mr. Hettrick said what had happened was individuals who had service elsewhere, would work for the state and then combine the two services for retirement.  He said the issue was that the state did not collect enough money from the previous point of service to pay the actual cost of retirement. 

 

Mr. Marvel said nothing was collected from other entities and Mr. Hettrick agreed.  He said the state had to make up the difference and the retirement account that had been left when the employee went to state service just sat there, and did not go to the state.  He said the state was just spending the money and if the bill was passed the way it was, it would not impact current employees, only those hired after July 1, 2001.  He reminded the committee that the state did not receive any money from the other entities and that the state was just "giving the money away."  He said his opinion was that something should be done.  He thought even though A.B. 138 would have minimal impact for the next two years, it was at least a start.

 

Mr. Dini said he had spent a great deal of time thinking about the bill, and his opinion was that the bill was not needed at the current time.  He thought the issue could wait two years.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL, ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE OPPOSED. 

 

(Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblyman Perkins were absent for the vote.)

 

********

 

Being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Kathryn Fosnaugh

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

DATE: