MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
May 23, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:15 a.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 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
Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 615: Requires submission to voters of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to protect, preserve and obtain benefits of property and natural resources of state. (BDR S-1463)
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said A.B. 615 was similar to a bill passed by the 1989 Legislative Session which went before the voters for approval in 1990 for $47.2 million -- $15.9 million went to the Division of State Parks, $13 million went to the Division of Wildlife, and the balance was split between Washoe and Clark Counties. A.B. 615 represented a $200 million bond issue with a much broader scope. Mr. Turnipseed provided detail on the funding allocations (Exhibit C):
Ame Hellman, State Director, Nevada Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, said A.B. 615 was a landmark environmental initiative designed to benefit, protect, and preserve Nevada’s state, regional, and local natural resources and was the most significant plan ever put forth to leverage both public and private dollars to protect Nevada’s history and heritage. In November of 1990, Nevada voters approved Question 5 with a 66 percent margin statewide and a 70 percent margin in Clark County. However, over the past decade the majority of Question 5 funds had been expended leaving state agencies with inadequate local funding to match available federal funding sources for conservation. Nevada’s continued population growth and concerns regarding quality of life issues provided a strong basis for proposing a new parks and wildlife bond. A.B. 615 was the result of broad-based cooperation among many groups. The funding would help state agencies, counties, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations build recreational trails and acquire land for new urban parks and green belts. Rural counties would develop habitat conservations and open‑space plans. Ms. Hellman referred to an amendment (Exhibit D) that would:
Ms. Hellman noted that most bond recipients were required to provide a 50 percent match of the total project cost – some rural counties were only required to provide a 25 percent match.
Mr. Marvel said Battle Mountain had a problem with flood control and asked if any of the money could be used for expansion of the dike that the Corps of Engineers had mandated. Mr. Turnipseed said he did not think the bond funds could be used for the dike expansion, but said there was a separate federal program that was funded through the Division of Water Resources that provided for flood planning monies and construction. Mr. Turnipseed thought Water Resources’ staff was currently working with Battle Mountain on the dike issue.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, Conservation and Natural Resources, referred the committee to two amendments – the first amendment was a complete rewrite of the bill (Exhibit E) compiled by the coalition; the second document was an additional amendment, dated May 23, 2001 (Exhibit D). Ms. Giunchigliani asked if either amendment addressed the required funding match. Ms. Wilcox replied that the bill provided that the match would be addressed when regulations were developed. The grants specifically for counties for specific projects, including the preserve, the wash, the Truckee River and Carson River projects, required a 50 percent match. Ms. Wilcox explained that the amount of $25,000,000 included on line 3-21 (Exhibit E) was reduced to $20,000,000 in the additional amendment. The $20,000,000 would be available for acquisition of land and water for open space purposes and that provision required a 25 percent match in the rural counties with a population of less than 100,000 and a 50 percent match in the larger counties. In response to a question posed by Ms. Giunchigliani, Ms. Wilcox said the bill had been discussed for a couple of years because the funds that were made available under Question 5 had diminished. Clearly there was a problem with funding and the final solution was to present a recommendation to the voters. The required funding to redeem the bonds would exceed the maximum $3.64 ad valorem tax levy.
Mr. Marvel and Mr. Goldwater both expressed concern that the maximum $3.64 ad valorem tax levy would be exceeded. Ms. Wilcox referred to Section 5 in the draft amendment (Exhibit E) and stated NRS 361.453 would be amended to read as follows:
Any levy imposed by the legislature for the repayment of bonded indebtedness issued pursuant to the provisions of this act must not be included in calculating the limitation set forth in subsection 1 on the total ad valorem tax levied for all public purposes.
John Swenseid, Bond Counsel, said the voters would decide whether to approve a bond issue with a tax that was above the cap.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 615 closed.
Assembly Bill 275: Makes appropriation to Eureka County for construction of sidewalk along State Highway No. 780 to provide safe access for pupils walking to Eureka Elementary School. (BDR S-934)
Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, said A.B. 275 provided an appropriation to Eureka County for construction of a sidewalk along State Highway No. 780. Mr. Marvel introduced Pete Goicoechea, Eureka County Commissioner, and Michael Rebaleati, Eureka County Recorder/Auditor, who would provide testimony on the need for A.B. 275.
Mr. Goicoechea said State Highway No. 780 was a main access route through the town of Eureka and was all state right-of-way and referred to Exhibit F. The funding would provide for construction of 1,230 feet of sidewalk and the cost estimate, including storm drainage, was approximately $400,000. The county had applied for a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $40,000 for planning and design that had been recommended to the Governor for approval. Mr. Goicoechea felt the county could “live with” completion of the sidewalk on one side of the highway. There was a health and safety issue because a large number of Eureka’s grade school children used State Route 780 to walk to the elementary school. The school district was presently busing all K-6 students to the elementary school – in many cases the students were transported only 100 yards.
Mr. Marvel referred the committee to the pictures included in Exhibit F that showed students and traffic along State Highway 780 and reflected the safety issue.
Mr. Rebaleati said in the last ten years Eureka County had forwarded a tremendous amount of net proceeds money to the state and those resources had funded projects in other counties within the state. Eureka was now requesting a very small portion of state funds to provide the needed sidewalk.
Senate Bill 138: Exempts Colorado River Commission from State Budget Act. (BDR 31-344)
Gail Bates, Deputy Director, Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC), said S.B. 138 was a result of the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government, Final Report to the Governor for 2000, and would exempt the Colorado River Commission from the State Budget Act. Budget information would continue to be submitted to the Governor’s Office, however, approval would not be required. Legislative approval of the budget would still be required. The CRC’s operating expenses were funded entirely by customers. The CRC budget was subjected to a rigorous approval process prior to submission to the commission.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any money would be saved with passage of S.B. 138, and Doug Beatty, Administrative Services Officer, Colorado River Commission, responded that no money would be saved with the passage of the bill. The benefit was that the Governor’s Office would no longer have to review the CRC budget prior to submission to the legislature.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of S.B. 531, which was currently on general file and Ms. Bates said the bill would allow the CRC to create its own personnel series. Wages would be established for employees outside the context of the State Personnel System. Provisions were included in the bill for protection of existing employees who did not want to become part of the new personnel series. Mr. Beatty explained there were currently three classes of employees in the state system – classified, unclassified, and non-classified. The problem for the CRC was the unique nature of a number of the positions. The State Personnel System had had to create a number of series that were exclusive only to the CRC. Mr. Beatty said every employee could opt into the new series and would continue to be state employees. Ms. Giunchigliani was concerned that a precedent was being set and wondered what would prevent other state agencies from arguing for non-classified service for employees. Ms. Bates said the commission provided oversight and would have responsibility for adopting regulations.
Senate Bill 306: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (BDR 18-1231)
Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), briefly discussed the intent of S.B. 306. Passage of the bill would remove the division of emergency management from the DMV&PS and place it under the Office of the Governor. There would be no financial impact. Mr. Siracusa explained that there was a nationwide move, both at the federal and state level, to move emergency management under the chief executive of the particular branch of government.
Chairman Arberry asked the purpose of the move. Mr. Siracusa said the Division of Emergency Management was one of the few agencies that interacted with all state agencies and worked on a day-to-day basis with the Office of the Governor on many federal programs, such as domestic terrorism and school safety. During times of emergency or disaster, it was critical that the agency have a direct line to the Governor versus having to go through a department within the bureaucracy.
Mr. Beers asked what potential disasters faced the state and what response plans had been developed. Mr. Siracusa said there was a new State Comprehensive Emergency Plan, which was an “all hazard” plan that addressed all types of hazards including chemical spills, floods, issues of school violence, and domestic terrorism. The division had contact with the Office of the Governor on a day-to-day basis related to the division’s programs and initiatives. Mr. Siracusa confirmed there was a national trend to move emergency management under the governors’ offices. Currently 19 states had state emergency management offices reporting directly to governors and the National Governors’ Association endorsed the concept. County and local governments were also finding it was much more effective to have the emergency management agencies under the jurisdiction of the chief executive of those jurisdictions. Ultimately money would be saved by the move.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the agency currently had day-to-day contact with the Office of the Governor and did not think there was a need to move the office. Mr. Siracusa said, under the current agency administration, the division had the opportunity to contact the Governor’s Office as needed. However, when administrations changed, the agency might not be afforded the same opportunity. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not see a benefit to S.B. 306.
Mr. Marvel expressed his support for S.B. 306.
Senate Bill 505: Makes various changes relating to transfer of responsibility for dairy inspection program to state dairy commission of department of business and industry. (BDR 51-401)
Stacy M. Jennings, Executive Director, State Dairy Commission, referred to a packet distributed to committee members (Exhibit G) and explained that S.B. 505 proposed to transfer regulatory authority for the Dairy Inspection Program from the State Health Division, Department of Human Resources, to the State Dairy Commission, Department of Business and Industry. The Dairy Commission had submitted a bill draft and, because the concept was fully supported by the dairy industry, the Governor’s Office allowed the bill to go forward. The Dairy Inspection Program:
· Ensured compliance with safe practices and quality standards in all phases of milk production and processing.
· Provided oversight for pasteurization, milk testing, milk hauling, and inspection of equipment and facilities at dairy farms and dairy processing plants.
· Certified milk plants for inclusion on the federal Interstate Milk Shippers List.
Ms. Jennings referred to page 3 of Exhibit G, which provided detail on the number of regulated entities and provided a history of raw milk production from 1993 through 2000. Currently the Dairy Commission was involved in regulating the dairy products from the point of production to the distribution to the consumer. S.B. 505 would provide for a continuum of regulation. The commission would have authority to enforce existing statutes that charged the commission with ensuring an adequate and continuous supply of pure, fresh, wholesome milk and cream. The State Health Division would continue to focus on other food, health and safety, and drug issues. Exhibit G also contained some basic information about the dairy industry. A fiscal note was also provided to the committee (Exhibit H). The costs were anticipated to be approximately $250,000 the first year of the biennium and the agency would be working with legislative staff to revise those numbers. The projected costs were approximately $220,000 per year after FY2002. Any fines collected would be deposited into the General Fund. Because of an overlay of regulations, the commission was requesting three positions – two dairy inspectors and one rating and survey officer who would have oversight of the work conducted by the inspectors.
Ms. Jennings continued with her presentation and said a two-thirds majority was required to approve S.B. 505. Special provisions were included in the bill to ensure public safety was a priority. The division could consult with the State Health Officer if there were questions regarding public health and safety. All of the current program regulations would be transferred to the Dairy Commission to ensure continuity and would require any regulation revisions be approved by the Board of Health prior to adoption. Ms. Jennings said the commission could provide regulatory compliance seminars and staff to work with the farmers and processing plants to ensure an understanding of federal and state rules and regulations. Ms. Jennings stressed there was a very real danger to the public health if bacterial infections were included in dairy products and the commission was committed to maintaining the high standards set by the Health Division.
Mrs. Chowning said the dairy inspectors were currently employed by the Health Division and asked how the public would be assured that the inspectors would be properly trained and would meet all required health standards under the new structure. Mrs. Chowning indicated she had received many calls supporting the move of the Dairy Inspection Program to the Dairy Commission, because the current inspectors did not have the time to conduct all the inspections needed. Ms. Jennings said the three new positions were from a job series currently existing in the Health Division. The actual job title of the dairy inspectors was Environmental Health Specialist. The commission proposed establishing the same positions with the same set of qualifications. Each position would be required to be certified as a registered sanitarian from either the national or Nevada sanitarium board. The rating and survey officer would have to be a federally certified Milk Rating Sanitation Officer and Milk Sampling and Surveillance Officer. Mrs. Chowning said the Dairy Commission budget had been closed and asked staff to advise the committee how the budget would be addressed.
Ms. Jennings said it was her understanding the commission would have to go before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for budget approval.
Mark Stevens confirmed that the Dairy Commission budgets had been closed and said if fees were going to generate the funding source for the expenditures, then the commission could go before the IFC at the first meeting after the legislative session concluded and the program could be established at that time.
Mr. Hettrick indicated his support of S.B. 505 and said the dairy industry had a proprietary interest in producing quality products. Each tank load of milk was tested and products that did not meet quality standards were dumped. Transfer of the Dairy Inspection Program to the Dairy Commission made nothing but sense.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, stated at the last annual meeting of the bureau the farmer/rancher members adopted a policy position in support of the transfer of the Dairy Inspection Program to the Dairy Commission. The bureau represented the majority of the dairy farmers in Nevada and had a very strong interest in making certain the inspection program operated at the highest level possible. Mr. Busselman encouraged the committee to pass S.B. 505.
Dave Coon, Representative of Anderson Dairy, said the employees of Anderson Dairy strongly supported S.B. 505 and asked for the committee’s consideration of the bill. The transfer of the Dairy Inspection Program would provide additional communication, training, and the ability to send inspectors out of state for training.
Kathy Naumann, Teamsters Local 14, testified that members strongly supported S.B. 505.
Alex Haartz, Administrative Services Officer III, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, conveyed the division’s support in working with the Dairy Commission on S.B. 505 and assured the committee that the division would continue to provide a resource and backup in the transfer of responsibilities.
Senate Bill 366: Enacts provisions governing establishment by district court of program for treatment of mentally ill offenders. (BDR 1-1006)
Senator Randolph Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District 4, stated that he and Assemblywoman Shelia Leslie were extremely proud to support S.B. 366. In the past, courts were unique, almost an ethereal concept, in which only disagreements between parties on a contract level and criminal activity occurred. The court system had evolved substantially and many of society’s disagreements were ending up in court, and with bipartisan support of the legislature and the judiciary, a drug court and a business court were initiated in southern Nevada. The various courts were required because of the complexity of issues. S.B. 366 addressed the issue of a mental health court. Many of the individuals in the community were participating in activities that may on one hand be considered to be misdemeanors or felonies when, in fact, the alleged activities were being perpetrated by individuals who needed mental health services. S.B. 366 would help redefine and better understand those people with mental health needs. The clogging of the penal and court systems with individuals needing assistance was very significant. The bill would direct that a state program be created and housed in Washoe County. Washoe County was chosen because in working with the judiciary in Carson City, the rural communities, and Clark County, it was decided Clark County was too large and the program would be too costly, and the rural communities were too small to have an adequate representation on how best to operate the program. Thanks to the commitment of social services agencies, legal and court staff, as well as law enforcement, the proposed program would be housed in Washoe County. The mental health issue was very serious and the judiciary needed the tools to provide citizens with the best opportunity to find resolutions to disputes. Penal systems were becoming mental health institutes because of the incarceration of individuals with mental health problems.
Sheila Leslie, Assemblywoman, Washoe County District 27, referred to the Second Judicial District Court, Mental Health Court Planning Committee, Final Report, March 16, 2001 (Exhibit I), and said a task force organized in mid‑December of 2000 generated the report. Ms. Leslie was a member of the task force because of her former capacity as a grants manager in Washoe County and also because of her great interest in trying to find a better way to assist people with mental health and substance abuse problems. The result of the task force was the development of S.B. 366. Ms. Leslie noted it was very unusual to have municipal and justice court judges agree to give up part of their jurisdiction, which is what S.B. 366 would entail. They were willing to give up clients to the district court level because of frustration. Mental health homeless individuals were arrested for minor offenses, misdemeanor offenses, and sometimes felony offenses, and entered the municipal courts. Often the only alternative was to send the individuals to jail. It was a well-known fact in Washoe County that the largest mental health program was located in the jail.
Ms. Leslie said the mental health court would be a pilot project and should be successful within the next two years in Washoe County. Judges in Carson City and the rural areas were very interested in adopting the model. Clark County had also expressed interest. Funding was the problem. Page 20 of Exhibit I listed the annual funding and expenditure analysis. Individuals would be referred to the mental health court. Washoe County had agreed to provide funding for court monitors to track the cases and make certain individuals were staying on medication and had access to public services. Because of the budget situation, the initial funding request was reduced from $1 million to $300,000 over the biennium – the minimum amount that would allow Washoe County to provide $120,000 per year for the court monitors and allow the committee to approach private foundations to request additional treatment dollars. Funding in the amount of $500,000 per year was still needed for housing and medications.
Judge Peter I. Breen, Department 7, Second Judicial District Court, Reno, Nevada, said between 250 and 300 people were in the adult drug court and 54 of those individuals had serious mental illnesses ranging from bipolar to depression to schizophrenia. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there would be a completely new court structure and Judge Breen said there would be a separately constituted mental health court that would have a separate session and would, hopefully over a period of time, identify those individuals most in need of one court or the other. Ms. Giunchigliani asked about combining the mental health court and the drug court and Judge Breen said one reason he was selected was to be able to combine the two courts if necessary. At the extreme the problems were separate and should be separated. Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to make certain there was a handle on the possible fiscal impacts and then asked about treatment. Ms. Leslie said most of the individuals were indigent and would qualify for state services. The main new area was the use of court monitors who would provide follow-up with the individuals to make certain they actually received services through the public system and completed treatment and, if not, the individuals would be returned to court.
Judge Breen referred to therapeutic justice in the judicial circles and explained therapeutic justice included the idea of the drug court, the reentry drug court, the reentry court, and finally, and most importantly, the mental health court. Judge Breen referred the committee to the summary of S.B. 366 (Exhibit J) and the Mental Health Court Planning Committee Final Report Executive Summary (Exhibit K). Judge Breen said the mental health court would enable the judiciary to take people charged with crimes who were competent but mentally ill and, as a result of being mentally ill, continued to cycle through the criminal system. The mental health court concept was based on the idea of the drug court. Washoe County was just the right size for a pilot project and that was why the bill was designed to enable the justice and municipal courts to transfer misdemeanor civil and criminal cases to the district court which had the broadest jurisdiction and would handle all aspects of mental illness. Individuals would be transferred into the court where a case manager would develop a specific plan for them and they would be continually monitored. S.B. 366 was based on a study of the four most successful mental health courts in the country and had the support of all the people that dealt with the mentally ill offenders, from the jailers to the police to all the municipal and justice court judges and other workers in the mentally ill community. The mental health court was an idea whose time had come. Judge Breen referred to a magazine article he had recently read that stated 7 to 16 percent of the people in jail were mentally ill. The article also said in most states Medicaid coverage was cut off when individuals were incarcerated. Individuals with mental health problems were harmed by being placed in jail and spent twice as much time in jail in Washoe County as a person who was not mentally ill. Judge Breen asked for the committee’s support of the bill.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commended Judge Breen on his vision and willingness to work in the more controversial areas. She also commended Senator Townsend and Ms. Leslie for bringing S.B. 366 forward. Ms. Giunchigliani noted she had just received an e-mail from the Religious Alliance in Nevada (RAIN) in support of the bill that would be included in the record (Exhibit L).
David Spitzer, Attorney at Law, stated he had worked with Judge Breen and represented defendants in the adult drug court program and was also a member of the Mental Health Court Planning Committee. The model designed by the committee was basically one of cooperation – all the entities that had been approached had expressed a desire, not only to endorse the model, but to commit resources. There were approximately 50 people in a dedicated unit for individuals identified with mental illness in the Washoe County jail and another 75 had identified mental illnesses in a stable situation that were in the general population of the Washoe county jail. The mental health court should reduce the jail overcrowding in Washoe County. A benefit acquisition and payee program would be established that would allow individuals to access federal dollars and then the expenditure of those funds would be monitored to assure the funds went to beneficial uses such as treatment, housing, and life support rather than drinking, drugs, and gambling. The cost analysis was based on 150 clients to be served, and with reduced funding the court would serve as many as possible. The effective date of S.B. 366 was October 1, 2001, and was a reachable target.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it appeared a fiscal note was not included and understood Ms. Leslie would get with LCB staff to explain how the $300,000 would be allocated.
Mr. Goldwater complimented both sponsors of the bill – Senator Townsend and Ms. Leslie, and stated his only concern was the safety issue. Judge Breen assured Mr. Goldwater the mental health court would make it less likely for a violent offense to occur. The court would not change anything with regard to the prosecution’s ability to screen a mentally ill defendant.
Judge Janet J. Berry, Department 1, Second Judicial District Court, Reno, Nevada, said the vast majority of the mentally ill perpetrators and defenders actually were the people hurt the most in the system. Young men who were mentally impaired had been sexually assaulted. The mentally ill offenders were generally the subject of predatory criminal conduct on the streets by violent offenders who would not be in the mental health court. Judge Berry complimented the Nevada Legislature for being ahead of the curve because of the support of the family drug court legislation. With the passage of S.B. 366 Nevada could perhaps maintain its position as a national leader in therapeutic jurisprudence. Judge Berry then referred to page 19 of Exhibit I, which contained the full committee roster and said each committee member had great passion about the humane treatment of the mentally ill offenders.
Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, DHR, said the mental health court concept was developed after the division had finalized its budget so the court could not be considered for funding. The concept represented an effort to increase effective cooperation between two systems that had historically not worked closely – the mental health system and the criminal justice system. Ms. Leslie and Senator Townsend had indicated many advantages to the mental health court. There would be a direct and increased level of monitoring and supervision for certain mentally ill individuals who voluntarily agreed to participate in the program. Resources would be focused on populations that traditionally were resistant to mental health treatment. Community safety would be improved as well as the quality of life for many individuals. Clients would be taken out of the jail system and placed into the mental health court system and eventually into the mental health system. The division had developed a conservative fiscal note of $100,000 per year for medication, and $100,000 for residential services – without the housing assistance there would be no way for Judge Breen or the court monitors to facilitate treatment. It was also important that there be a partnership between the state and county and the funding of the court monitors. Judge Breen needed to have staff in court that would be the eyes and ears and would interface with the mental health system, both public and private, to ensure the treatment and ongoing supervision of the clients occurred.
Ms. Tiffany said there appeared to be a component missing in the process. After individuals were referred to a community-based program, what was the community-based program that would have responsibility for the case management and the day-to-day follow-up. Mr. Brandenburg explained the court monitors would have responsibility for providing direct service for the clients with the assistance of either the public mental health system or the private mental health system. If an individual was arraigned and in the public system and was being seen on a day-to-day basis by a court monitor, that individual most likely would be referred to the Nevada Mental Health Institute. At that time case management would be conducted in conjunction with the court monitor. Mr. Brandenburg said with the assistance of the court system the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services would be able to actually bring in more housing resources having the court’s support than having the division trying to “knock down some doors” with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The division would probably have to provide more resources than anticipated.
Pam Matteoni, staff member, Senator John Ensign’s office, appeared before the committee as a mother of a son diagnosed June 18, 1997, with schizophrenia. Mrs. Matteoni totally supported the mental health court. Her son was in the Bay Area when diagnosed and had decided he did not want to drive his car anymore and left the car on Interstate 80 in Oakland. She got the phone call and he was put into a large psychiatric unit in Berkeley, California. For the past four years, Mrs. Matteoni said the needed assistance for her son was not available. If her son had ended up in a mental health court, there would have been someone available to provide assistance. Mrs. Matteoni’s son had recently been located in the middle of a parking lot at the Vacation Motel in Reno in a drug-induced state. Her son was transported to Washoe Medical Center and the staff there agreed there was a problem but would not keep him because he had no insurance. Mrs. Matteoni currently had her son in a program called New Life Support Group and after only three weeks he was doing much better. Mrs. Matteoni had worked through the system, but since her son was an adult she had no jurisdiction. A caseworker might have been better. The mental health population needed to be addressed and Mrs. Matteoni encouraged the committee to support S.B. 366.
Reverend Dr. Jane Foraker-Thompson, Religious Alliance in Nevada (RAIN), testified in her criminologist days she was hired by a large mental health center to develop solutions to problems between the criminal justice system and the mental health system and one of the first things addressed was the development of a mental health court. Reverend Foraker-Thompson thought a mental health court would solve many problems and the larger the community the more volume needed to be addressed. Testing would ferret out individuals who were violent. Reverend Foraker‑Thompson emphasized that the RAIN was in full support of S.B. 366 and referred the committee to a copy of her testimony (Exhibit L) for additional information.
Robert Bennett, member of the Mental Health Court Planning Committee, said S.B. 366 was needed. Transitional housing, medication, and other services were also needed. Mr. Bennett explained in the past he had been homeless and was in court on a regular basis. Living with a mental illness was a “stroll through hell.”
Bev Kling-Hesse, Disability Rights Advocate, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living, said 80 percent of her caseload had severe mental disabilities, and of those people, 50 percent had criminal histories. The criminal histories would not invoke public safety concerns. There was still a stigma and disbelief attached to mental illness. Ms. Kling-Hesse stated she had multiple sclerosis and breast cancer and care was provided. However, because she was bipolar she was told just to get over it. Ten years ago Ms. Kling-Hesse had three graduate degrees after her name and two professional licenses and still had those degrees. However, one day she thought she “could fly” and the licenses were revoked. Ms. Kling-Hesse stressed strong support of S.B. 366.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 366.
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the budget for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) needed to be closed and there were a group of budgets that had been closed on the DMV side and a number that were not closed in the joint committee which involved the split of the DMV and Public Safety. Mr. Stevens said those accounts had to be closed in full committee.
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41, Las Vegas, read from the closing report of May 23, 2001, as follows:
THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUDGETS PROPOSED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES INCLUDING: THE DIVISIONS OF COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT, FIELD SERVICES, CENTRAL SERVICES, MANAGEMENT SERVICES, THE VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE PROGRAM, MOTOR VEHICLE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM, AND AUTOMATION.
DMV, COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT (B/A 201-4740) DMV-7: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND TWO NON-SWORN POSITIONS TO CONDUCT AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS OF DRIVER, D.U.I., TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND CDL SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
DMV, FIELD SERVICES (B/A 201-4735) DMV-13: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE 48 POSITIONS ADDED BY THE IFC IN FEBRUARY 2000 AND 64 PART-TIME POSITIONS ADDED BY THE IFC IN DECEMBER 2000. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT FUNDING FOR 16 PART-TIME POSITIONS BE PLACED IN RESERVE SINCE THE DEPARTMENT IS CONSISTENTLY UNDER ITS GOAL OF A ONE-HOUR WAIT AT THE RENO (GALLETTI) OFFICE AND DOES NOT HAVE IMMEDIATE PLANS TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE DEPARTMENT MAY APPROACH THE IFC TO USE THESE POSITIONS AT ANOTHER FIELD OFFICE IF NEEDED.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO SUPPORTS THE ADDITION OF TWO PROGRAM OFFICER POSITIONS TO ASSIST WITH DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AT THE HENDERSON AND CARSON CITY OFFICES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE TRANSFERS FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL ACCOUNT SUPPORTING SALARY EXPENSES FOR POSITIONS IN THE FIELD SERVICES BUDGET. ELIMINATION OF VERIFICATION OF THE EMISSION CERTIFICATE BY FIELD SERVICES STAFF AT THE WINDOW NO LONGER SUPPORTS THE TRANSFER OF FUNDING.
DMV, CENTRAL SERVICES (B/A 201-4741) DMV-21: THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE ADDITION OF NINE POSITIONS IN THE MICROFILMING SECTION TO ADDRESS INCREASED VOLUMES OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRING MICROFILMING. THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO ADD $315,933 IN FY 2002 TO OUTSOURCE THE BACKLOG OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRING MICROFILMING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE ADDITION OF 10 POSITIONS IN THE DATA INTEGRITY SECTION TO ADDRESS INCREASES IN THE VOLUME OF DOCUMENTS SUCH AS CONVICTIONS, TRAFFIC SAFETY SCHOOL COMPLETIONS AND ACCIDENTS REQUIRING DATA ENTRY. THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S AMENDMENT TO SUNSET FIVE POSITIONS AFTER ONE YEAR.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF SEVEN POSITIONS ADDED BY THE IFC IN FEBRUARY 2000 FOR THE TITLE AND RENEW-BY-MAIL SECTIONS.
DMV, MANAGEMENT SERVICES (B/A 201-4742) DMV-29: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR TO ADJUST EXPENSES BASED ON NEW DIGITIZED PHOTO LICENSE TECHNOLOGY. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS REVISIONS TO STATUTE TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO RECOUP THE COST OF THE PHOTO LICENSE BY ESTABLISHING THE FEE BY REGULATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION OF TWO TRAINING POSITIONS ADDED BY THE IFC IN FEBRUARY 2000.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO CONCURS WITH THE ADDITION OF FIVE POSITIONS TO ASSIST WITH PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IN THE VEHICLE PROGRAMS SECTION, THE DRIVER PROGRAM SECTION AND THE BUSINESS PROGRAM SECTION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO FUND CUSTOMER FEEDBACK SURVEYS THROUGH A THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO CENTRALIZE PERSONAL COMPUTER AND PRINTER PURCHASES FOR THE ENTIRE MOTOR VEHICLE BRANCH.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT ACT ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER ELEVEN POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED EXPENSES TO THE DMV ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BUDGET ACCOUNT. TRANSFER OF THESE POSITIONS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE DEPARTMENT AND CONSOLIDATE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACCOUNT. FULL COMMITTEE ACTION IS REQUIRED.
DMV, VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE (B/A 202-4731) DMV-50: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS A REDUCTION IN THE RESERVE FROM $1.0 MILLION TO $500,000 AND RECOMMENDS A REVISION TO NRS TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION IN THE BUDGET.
DMV, MOTOR VEHICLE POLLUTION CONTROL (B/A 101-4722) DMV-55: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR TO ELIMINATE EXCESS RESERVE GRANT AUTHORITY IN FY 2002 AND INCREASE TRANSFERS TO THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EACH YEAR. THESE ACTIONS INCREASE THE RESERVE FROM $500,000 TO $1.3 MILLION IN FY 2002 AND FROM $519,157 TO $1.3 MILLION IN FY 2003.
DMV, AUTOMATION (B/A 201-4715) DMV-68: THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THREE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POSITIONS FROM THE PROJECT GENESIS ACCOUNT AND 11 NEW POSITIONS FOR PROGRAMMING SUPPORT. BASED ON THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY FOR DMV PROGRAMMERS (1,000 HOURS) VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMMERS (1,450 HOURS), THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A LETTER OF INTENT TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT REPORT SEMI-ANNUALLY TO THE IFC REGARDING PROGRESS TOWARD SOLVING DATA CORRUPTION PROBLEMS AND RESOLVING TOP PRIORITY TICKETS (GENESIS). THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS THESE POSITIONS BE CONSIDERED BY THE 2003 LEGISLATURE FOR CONTINUATION BEYOND THE NEXT BIENNIUM.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION OF A WEBMASTER APPROVED BY THE IFC IN DECEMBER 2000.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was a motion to approve the closing report.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE CLOSING REPORT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND TRANSPORTATION.
SPEAKER PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. Cegavske and Mrs. Chowning were not present to vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens referred to the budgets involved in the split of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and explained those budgets had not been resolved in subcommittee, but had been closed in the Senate. Mr. Stevens said the Chair might want to have Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provide an explanation and then have the subcommittee take appropriate action.
Mr. Krmpotic referred to the budgets remaining to be closed:
DMV, DIRECTOR’S OFFICE – BUDGET PAGE DMV-1
A new Director was recommended beginning July 1, 2001, to oversee the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Six positions out of 13 were recommended for transfer from the existing director’s office to staff the functions of the new director’s office for the DMV. The department had recommended, with support from the Executive Branch, the transfer of an additional Management Analyst II over what was currently recommended in The Executive Budget and also some revisions to the transfer of expenses to comprehensively include more items, such as the Attorney General’s cost allocation. The budgets also recommended an administrative cost allocation in The Executive Budget reflected for a consolidated department. The Governor recommended a modified approach to allocate costs differently for the DMV versus the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Staff recommended revisions be made to the cost allocation to adapt the two departments.
DMV, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES – BUDGET PAGE DMV-4
Recommendations included a new Administrative Officer IV to oversee the administrative functions of the DMV and the transfer of 42 out of a total of 63.51 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions from the existing Administrative Services Account. The budget account contained the revisions proposed by the Governor to modify the transfer of expenses and also the administrative cost allocation.
DMV, MOTOR CARRIER – BUDGET PAGE DMV-38
The potential delay of the Gas Tax Program was the main issue in the budget. Responsibility for the program was to be transferred from the Department of Taxation to the DMV&PS effective January 1, 2002. The budget account contained a transfer module from the Department of Taxation of three FTE and an additional five new positions to administer the Gas Tax Program. Staff had modified the allocation of expenses for the program to more appropriately reflect funding sources. The budget also contained the contract expenses to transact motor carrier registrations and fuel tax reporting through the Internet and to also implement a motor fuel tracking system.
DIRECTOR’S OFFICE, PUBLIC SAFETY – BUDGET PAGE PS-1
The Director’s Office would establish policy for the Department of Public Safety and would direct and control the operations of the divisions and offices within the department. Six of 13 positions would be transferred to the DMV. Also included was the proposed modified cost allocation for the DPS.
PUBLIC SAFETY, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES – BUDGET PAGE PS-7
This budget mirrored the transfer made into the DMV budget and also contained the modified cost allocation. Mr. Krmpotic referred to decision unit E-888 and said the agency had requested a modification of funding for the security upgrade in Carson City, Nevada.
PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERNAL AFFAIRS – BUDGET PAGE PS-23
The budget would be included in the modified cost allocation recommended by the Governor.
PUBLIC SAFETY, TECHNOLOGY DIVISION – BUDGET PAGE PS-28
Additional funding was recommended to upgrade existing communication circuits, to fund hardware and software, and to provide maintenance for the Oracle license upgrade.
PUBLIC SAFETY, TRAINING DIVISION – BUDGET PAGE PS-29
Mr. Krmpotic advised the committee that there was continuing education proposed to be implemented department-wide. Staff recommended the allocation of training expenses.
Mr. Stevens said there was one additional issue that needed to be brought before the committee that involved the privilege tax commissions included in the Field Services and Motor Carrier accounts which were projected as being flat from FY2000. Normally actual growth and projected growth in those particular areas was reviewed, and in The Executive Budget growth was budgeted flat. Staff had reviewed the issue and based upon projections received from the agencies, recommended increasing the privilege tax commissions in the Field Services account by approximately $900,000 in FY2002 and $1.2 million in FY2003. As the committee made closing recommendations on the split of the departments, staff recommended authorization be approved for staff to make the changes in the privilege tax commissions within the Field Services account.
Mr. Stevens stated the major issue was whether to split or not split the DMV&PS. Closing actions were based upon splitting the department and staff had not developed closing actions if the department was retained as a combined agency. The committee needed to decide if the DMV&PS would be split and, if so, the staff recommendations needed to be approved. In addition, staff recommended the adjustment in privilege tax commissions’ revenue in the Field Services account.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGETS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO SPLIT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the legislature had been dealing with the split of DMV&PS for six years and was offended that on May 8, 2001, a plan was delivered to the committee to split the agency. Ms. Giunchigliani hoped a message would not be sent to other agencies that information could be provided at such a late date and noted for the record. Chairman Arberry agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani and said agencies must be required to provide full information in a timely manner. Mr. Hataway stated for the record that the Budget Division would, in the future, provide information in a timely manner. Mrs. Chowning asked if there would be any savings with the split and Chairman Arberry said that had always been a concern and the agency had not been able to provide adequate information.
Mr. Stevens said staff was instructed to see if budget closings could be developed that would bring the agency within the 22 percent cap without “hamstringing” the agency or reducing expenditures unnecessarily. Mr. Stevens pointed out to the committee that, based upon the motion, the budgets were within the 22 percent cap limit.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Assembly Bill 554: Provides for establishment of Nevada college savings program as authorized by federal law. (BDR 31-357)
Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to amend A.B. 554 with the Request for Proposal included.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 454: Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to appoint committee to study organizational structure of certain community colleges. (BDR S-69)
Chairman Arberry wanted to amend A.B. 454 and stated no funding was included in the bill. In response to a request by Chairman Arberry, the University System had provided an amendment to A.B. 454 to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the bill. The University System would cover the cost of the study.
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
MRS. CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 319: Makes various changes to provisions governing education. (BDR 34-784)
Ms. Giunchigliani said amendments removed Sections 1 and 2 from A.B. 319. Mr. Hettrick’s amendment related to threats of any employee on a campus, school bus, or within school jurisdiction was added to the bill. Language was added to allow the State Board of Education to continue to identify at least the ten best alternative programs available, adopt those programs and then ask the districts over the next two years what programs worked best. Ms. Giunchigliani responded to Mrs. Cegavske’s question and confirmed that school police were included in the amendment.
MS. LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
MRS. CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting at 10:35 a.m. at the call of the Chair.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda J. Smith
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: