MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
June 3, 2001
Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. adjourned the Committee on Ways and Means meeting of June 2, 2001.
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:20 a.m. on Sunday, June 3, 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
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary
Senate Bill 84: Requires Department of Personnel to increase level of compensation of uniformed highway patrol positions and makes appropriations to State Board of Examiners. (BDR S-750)
Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, said the purpose of S.B. 84 was to bring about pay parity to the Nevada Highway Patrol with other law enforcement agencies from jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 or more in the state. An analysis that had been done by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety indicated providing pay parity for uniformed troopers would be less costly to the state than the cost of replacing and training new personnel as a result of experienced troopers being recruited away by other agencies, including Metro Police Force, Washoe County Sheriff's Department, North Las Vegas, etc.
Senator Amodei stated when he introduced the bill, as more information had been received, it had become evident that it was costing the state more to train replacements than it would have been to increase the pay for employees already in place. As a result of the hearing process in the Senate, a one grade increase was added to the Highway Patrol series. This brought the uniformed personnel of the Highway Patrol into equal treatment with what had been done for many other occupational series within the Governor's budget. He said the additional grade had not been included in The Executive Budget originally, and a majority of the additional cost would come from the Highway Fund.
Senator Amodei said, as testimony had indicated during hearings in the Senate, the problem had been a shortage of personnel, as the department had a significant number of vacancies. He said the most acute problem was in the southern command where troopers who were assigned to the shift went from car accident to car accident and were unable to provide much traffic enforcement, which meant fewer citations were issued, resulting in less revenues collected. He said although the bill was less than what he had hoped to accomplish, he still felt it would be a large step in the right direction, sending the right message to employees in the Highway Patrol and he encouraged the committee to pass the bill.
Ms. Leslie said she definitely supported the bill, but would be remiss if she didn't bring up the fact that social workers' salaries were 27 percent behind and the social workers' turnover rate was twice as high as the Nevada Highway Patrol. She asked Senator Amodei what his advice would be in regard to that issue. Senator Amodei answered one of the reasons he had felt S.B. 84 was important was because, although there were positions in state service that had higher turnover rates, with very few exceptions, the state did not pay most of those other positions while they were being trained. He said the Highway Patrol employees were on the state payroll for almost a year, receiving full salary and benefits to train. He said other state workers, such as nurses and engineers, went to school on their own. He said when the training was provided by the state, it was an investment up front that set the position apart. Senator Amodei said he was not saying the Highway Patrol officers were more worthy than anyone else, but it was a fact that the state paid a year in benefits to the officers to send them to Peace Officers' Standards Training, the Nevada Highway Patrol Academy, to Hazardous Materials training, to commercial school, etc., and then to use that as a cycling ground for the other county and city law enforcement agencies, was not cost-effective for the state.
Ms. Leslie said she wanted to send a message to the Budget Office that the state needed to take a look at those professions that were way behind in salaries. She added those involved were mostly women, and thought it was still expected in the state that women, especially social workers and nurses, should have to go ahead and take a lower salary and the state was losing a great deal of money due to that type of reasoning. Senator Amodei said he would be happy to help Ms. Leslie with that issue.
Mr. Marvel asked if the salary and grade increase would keep the appropriation under the 22 percent cap. Senator Amodei said he was not sure.
Colonel Michael E. Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, said S.B. 84 was currently different than what had been initially presented, but the division was pleased to get the bill and he thought passage of S.B. 84, along with the rest of the state employee raises, would help the Highway Patrol "stop the bleeding a little bit."
Mrs. Chowning, in reference to Mr. Marvel's question, said staff had advised her that the Highway Patrol was outside the 22 percent cap, because funding would come from the state Highway Fund. She explained everyone had worked very hard to save money in the Highway Fund and she thought the amount requested in the bill had been saved, and more. She said, in the long run, the funds that would be saved in the future by keeping the officers at a state level instead of having them go to outside agencies, in particular North Las Vegas, would be money well spent.
Speaking in favor of S.B. 84, Gary H. Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, said the troopers were very grateful to the legislative body for embracing them in their thoughts throughout the current legislative session. He said he hoped the passage of the bill would "stop the bleeding" in the Highway Patrol. He pointed out the bill was not just about money. He explained other agencies paid 100 percent of the retirement for their employees, so it was not just about the money but also about the benefit package. He said the troopers were waiting with their "hearts in their throats" for the outcome of the bill.
Speaking in favor of S.B. 84, Ronald P. Dreher, representing the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, said the Highway Patrol officers worked hard, and deserved the passage of the bill. He said, having negotiated for the Reno City Police Officers for a number of years, the bill was a step in the right direction for keeping the parity with other agencies. He explained Washoe County's deputies had resolved their contract as had many other agencies, including Douglas County, Sparks, Reno supervisors, and the bill would keep the Highway Patrol officers at the same rate of pay as other agencies within the state.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 84 closed.
Senate Bill 433: Makes appropriations to Department of Cultural Affairs for purchase of equipment and to carry out statewide monument program. (BDR S-1364)
Senator Bill R. O'Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District 5, said S.B. 433 requested a half-time position for a monuments coordinator who would work with the forestry honor camp crews to make sure the signs and monuments around the state were maintained.
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, referred to a handout (Exhibit C), which outlined S.B. 433 and said the bill would provide funding for equipment for the Division of Museums and History, including three state agencies, the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society, located in Reno, the Nevada State Museum, located in Carson City, and the Nevada Museum Historical Society, located in Las Vegas. He explained S.B. 433 had also been amended to add a part-time position for a state monuments coordinator. He said that position would be placed within the Historic Preservation office.
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, said he was available to answer questions, but had no further comments.
Mrs. Chowning said she would like to ask about another area within the department's budget. She said the monuments position was important, but wanted to take the opportunity to ask about a position that had been in the Governor's budget, but had not been approved. The position would be in charge of records, and storage of the archives. She explained storage of the state's archives was an extremely important issue, and reminded the committee that $5.1 million had been lost in a lawsuit against the state because records had not been available, and yet records continued to be stacked along with spiders, etc., and the department was not given the resources needed to tackle the storage issue. Senator O'Donnell said a position for that purpose was important, but if adding that position jeopardized S.B. 433 he would have to say "no." Mrs. Chowning said she was asking because a representative from the department was available, and added she was not trying to jeopardize the bill.
Mr. Sisco said the Department of Cultural Affairs, which included the Nevada State Library and Archives, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Division of Museums and History, and the Nevada Arts Council had needs, but they waited behind education, prisons, transportation, etc. He said storage of records was a concern, and the Southern Nevada Records Center had been on the Capital Improvement Program list for consideration for a couple of bienniums, and the department would continue to work toward obtaining a new facility. He added, there had been an attempt, including efforts from the Governor's Office, to do some remodeling, but the price tag "came in a little too high," and they would have to look at the records center again during the next biennium. Other needs included operating the Ely Museum with just two people, the Lost City Museum in Overton was running a seven-day-a-week facility with 6.63 staff members, and records was an issue where the state had some vulnerability. Mr. Sisco said funding for those needs would continue to be addressed.
Mrs. Chowning said archives was one of those things that did not grab everyone's attention, but when the state had lawsuits that were lost because records were lost, and some records were thrown away that should have been saved, it cost the state a great deal of money. She said she hoped emphasis would continue to be placed on that issue.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 433.
Senate Bill 579: Revises provisions governing compensation of certain legislative employees. (BDR 17-1007)
Jacqueline Sneddon, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, introduced Claire Jesse Clift, Secretary of the Senate, and said they were present to explain S.B. 579.
Ms. Sneddon said currently attachés were paid at a daily salary for 120 days of the legislative session. Prior to the convening of the session and after sine die they were paid hourly, based upon their daily rate. The current pay structure did not provide for compensation of returning attachés for the knowledge and skills they would bring back to the next session. The returning staff were relied upon to be mentors to new staff and were a foundation for smooth transition from session to session. Veteran staff employed in state agencies during the interim were losing income when they returned to session work, and at some point would need to make the decision not to return. Ms. Sneddon explained S.B. 579 proposed that during the 120-session period, staff would continue to be paid at a set daily salary. New employees would start at the base rate as established in the bill for each job category. Returning staff would be eligible for a 5 percent merit increase at each subsequent regular session served in the same job category, provided that the returning staff had completed their previous assignment satisfactorily. She stated each job category contained nine incremental increases. Ms. Sneddon added, the base rate and levels would be increased accordingly with any cost-of-living raise approved for state employees.
Ms. Sneddon said currently, attachés were paid straight time for any overtime hours worked prior to the start of session. She explained that a limited amount of overtime was needed in preparation for the session to conduct interviews, to prepare training packages and operating manuals, establish databases, and to prepare the office for legislators. She expounded, S.B. 579 would allow attachés to be eligible for overtime pay prior to the session convening, but no overtime would be approved after sine die, except for unusual circumstances.
Ms. Sneddon concluded, saying the startup would allow returning attachés, in the 2003 legislature, to be started at their appropriate pay level based on the number of sessions served in their particular job category.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 579.
Senate Bill 442: Makes appropriations to Department of Prisons for various replacement equipment at certain facilities and ongoing expenses of Pioche Conservation Camp to lease certain equipment. (BDR S-1378)
Darrel J. Rexwinkel, CPA, Chief of Fiscal Services, Department of Prisons, said S.B. 442 was a request for replacement equipment. He said the bill represented the majority of replacement equipment that had been requested for the upcoming biennium. He explained originally the Governor had recommended a one-shot appropriation of $1,076,835, but the appropriation had been reduced to $1,034,239, which included the addition of $121,902 for a replacement boiler for the Nevada State Prison. He said the replacement boiler was requested in the bill because it would take 12 weeks for the boiler to shipped, and the 12 weeks would put the purchase into the next biennium.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 442.
Senate Bill 445: Makes appropriations to Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission for analysis of job tasks and study of physical fitness validation for peace officers and to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for various information technology upgrades. (BDR S- 1383)
Dick Clark, Director, Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission (POST), explained the POST was the regulatory agency that oversaw professional standards and training for law enforcement officers in Nevada. He said the commission had a responsibility to set appropriate and legally defensible standards for all individuals coming into law enforcement. Mr. Clark explained S.B. 445 addressed physical fitness standards. He added if there were no physical fitness standards, or if the standards were too low, it could cause a danger to the officers and to the public that they serve. An officer who was unfit would be prone to use excessive force early on in a situation. Mr. Clark said if standards were set too high, it might prevent capable men and women from entering law enforcement and opened the state up to issues of liability for setting arbitrary standards for physical fitness. He said the commissions' desire was to do a job task analysis and a physical fitness validation study that would set appropriate, and defensible, standards for men and women coming into law enforcement in Nevada. Mr. Clark said the cost for the study would be $100,000, but one lawsuit could cost the state many times more than the appropriation being requested.
Speaking in favor of S.B. 445, Michael Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission, said he would address the legal issues related to why a validation study and job task analysis was necessary. He said he had represented the POST Commission for over five years, and an area of great concern had been the legal defensibility of the physical fitness standards. He said the commission was tasked, by statute, with setting minimum standards for peace officers in the state, and one of the standards that had to be set was physical standards for those who were applying for jobs in law enforcement. Mr. Jensen explained that as a consequence of people taking a physical fitness test, inevitably, some would fail. He said some of those people might have disabilities as defined by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and there was also a potential for disparate impact on protective classes such as women. He explained, in those cases, the law required the commission to set the standards based on scientifically valid standards in regard to the tests and the cut-off points for the tests, so that only those people who were unable to perform the job would be disqualified. Under both Title VII and the ADA the legal requirement was to set the standards so that only those people who could meet the minimum qualifications for the job could pass them, and those who could not would be disqualified. The validation was necessary to show that the physical standards were job related and based on business necessity.
Mr. Jensen said from a legal standpoint there were three benefits that would come from the study.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the study could not be done by regulation instead of requesting a new law. Mr. Clark answered the reason the commission was asking for the study was to have standards that were appropriate, and not arbitrary, and were legally defensible. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why was the figure of $100,000 determined to be the cost for the study. Mr. Clark responded the money would be spent to have experts come in and do the scientific study on the specific positions, within each of the three categories. He explained there were differences in each of the categories as to the physical fitness standards. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were different physical fitness standards for the Metro Police for each separate rank within the department. Mr. Clark answered no, they would all be a Category I, which would be a set standard, but Category II individuals, who would hold positions such as a bailiff, or a juvenile probation officer, might have a different standard. He added Category III individuals, who were in corrections and confinement situations, felt their standards should not be the same as Category I individuals because their jobs were different. He said the way to determine what the standards should be would be through a study. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what type of people would do the study. Mr. Clark answered there were individuals who were experts with exercise physiologists on staff that did studies nationally. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the $100,000 was tied to, and Mr. Clark responded the funds would be used first for a job task analysis to study the specific tasks of each position. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who would do the study, and Mr. Clark answered the issue would have to go out to bid. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much the job task analysis would cost. Mr. Clark said, looking at the entire package of the job task analysis and the physical fitness validation study, surveys had indicated the cost would be approximately $100,000. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what information had the amount of $100,000 been based on. Mr. Clark said from what different vendors had indicated the $100,000 was the estimated cost of what a completed study would cost. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the original appropriation request had been for $200,000 and Mr. Clark answered the commission had believed it would cost approximately $200,000 but the original bill request had another part that had been included. That part was for specific training that the commission wanted to do in the area of ethics training in law enforcement. The bill had since been amended, deleting the ethics training and leaving the analysis and study, which was the reason for the reduction of funds. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would like to see some kind of budget, not just an assumption of what the study would cost.
Chairman Arberry suggested that the commission bring a budget to the Interim Finance Committee. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed.
Mr. Dreher said the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada supported S.B. 445. He said the Nevada Correction Association also supported the bill. He explained the professional peace officers of the state wished to maintain a high standard and did not want the standards reduced, and felt that standards needed to be developed and maintained if the high standards in law enforcement were to continue in the future.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 445.
Senate Bill 446: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement computer equipment and software for Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1385)
Michael Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources, said S.B. 446 was included in the Governor's budget. He said reductions in the requested appropriation had been made for computer price changes. He explained the bill contained funding for new and replacement equipment, hardware, and software for the division's administrative office.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 446.
Senate Bill 449: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for replacement equipment for Division of Forestry. (BDR S-1395)
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, explained that S.B. 449 was the principal equipment request for the Division of Forestry. He said the funding in the original bill in the amount of $432,966, reflected the equipment costs per bid surveys. He said through negotiations with the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff and the state Budget Office, the figure had been lowered to the present appropriation request of $401,693. Mr. Robinson added, the requested equipment would include vehicles, replacement vehicles, safety and communication equipment for the honor camps, and general firefighting equipment. He said most of the vehicles being replaced had in excess of 100,000 miles, and up to the current date the division had not had a replacement policy other than when a vehicle stopped working it was replaced.
Mr. Robinson said some of the vehicles on the replacement list were termed "command vehicles" and by definition sounded a bit pretentious. He said it did not mean that the vehicles would not be used for actual firefighting, or in the field. He added the "command vehicles" would be placed where they were needed.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the appropriation had been included in the Governor's budget and Chairman Arberry answered yes.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 449.
Senate Bill 459: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to update Nevada Report Card software and to develop certain tests and examinations. (BDR S-1425)
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, said the first reprint of S.B. 459 included two items. The first was the eighth grade criteria and reference test, which was also included under the Proficiency Testing budget. He said that piece of the $1,319,375 appropriation requested in the bill came to $1,106,265 and the remaining parts of the bill, also included in The Executive Budget were for the Nevada Report Card. The total appropriation for the Nevada Report Card would come to $213,110.
Mr. Rheault explained the Nevada Report Card software was what was used by the school districts to put together the legislatively mandated report cards that were due out every April. He said the software had been developed in 1997 and in every legislative session since there had been additional accountability reporting requirements placed on school districts, including some issues that were pending during the current session. He said to maintain consistency and enable the districts to use the software to print out the reports, the department had asked for an upgrade. He added, the funding would also provide for the development of the software into a Web-based system so that in the future, all the changes could be done at one spot and could be accessed through the Web.
Mrs. de Braga asked for clarification as to whether all, or part, of the appropriation request was already in the Governor's budget. Mr. Rheault said all the funds had been included in the budget and when the department's budget had been closed the funds for the eighth grade criteria and reference test had already been included. The only item that had not been addressed was the Nevada Report Card issue. Mrs. de Braga asked if the amount of $213,110 was for the Nevada Report Card and Mr. Rheault answered yes.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it had been her understanding that there had been a request for alternative proficiency exam funding for the English as a Second Language learners, and asked if that provision had been deleted by the Senate. Mr. Rheault answered yes. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why that issue had been deleted. Mr. Rheault answered he was not sure. Ms. Giunchigliani said the fact that that issue had been deleted bothered her because Title I required an alternative proficiency exam and the state was in jeopardy of being sued without the provision. She asked if there had been any discussion brought before the Senate in regard to that issue. He responded, saying the funding had been in the department's original request and The Executive Budget, in the amount of $250,000, so that the department could develop and review alternative assessments for limited English proficient students during the biennium. He explained part of the reasoning for the request was the department had been working with the Office of Civil Rights on an agreement, and in 2003 the department would have to submit information on how well limited English proficient students were performing on their proficiency exams in the state. Ms. Giunchigliani asked to have the numbers reviewed and returned back to the committee to make sure the amount of $250,000 was accurate. Mr. Rheault answered the $250,000 was still an accurate figure. She said it was prudent that the state move forward in regard to the issue of alternative proficiency testing.
Mrs. Chowning asked what was the difference between the original bill and the amended bill now being discussed. She added, the children being addressed were children that the state was required to educate, and she said it made sense to spend a little bit of money here assessing them, rather than having to spend money in lawsuits later, which would cost the state a great deal more. She explained it had been at least four years since she had been involved with the Academics Standards Council and everyone had supported the alternative proficiency testing from day one. She did not know why it was cut out, but hoped it could be amended back into the bill.
Mrs. Chowning asked how much would have to be amended back into the bill to cover the funding for the alternative proficiency testing, and Ms. Giunchigliani answered $250,000 for the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) testing and if the committee would consider it, she was going to ask for an additional $250,000 for a special education assessment as well. Mr. Rheault explained the only difference between the original and amended bill was the deduction of the funding for the alternative assessment for LEP testing.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 459.
Senate Bill 463: Makes appropriations to Department of Prisons for maintenance projects at certain facilities and ongoing expenses for various budget accounts. (BDR S-1432)
Darrel J. Rexwinkel, CPA, Chief of Fiscal Services, Department of Prisons, said S.B. 463 was a one-shot appropriation that was in The Executive Budget. The appropriation was for primarily all the maintenance and buildings and grounds projects for the upcoming fiscal year. He explained the Governor had recommended an appropriation of $388,553, but the amount had been reduced to $334,376 plus $10,129 in each year of the biennium. Some of the reduction was due to items that had already been included in the Capital Improvement Program.
Being no further testimony, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.B. 463.
Senate Bill 581: Makes supplemental appropriation to Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education for projected shortfall in personnel services category. (BDR S-1564)
Ron W. Sparks, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), said S.B. 581 was a supplemental appropriation of $6,000 to offset personnel needs for FY2001 due to a reclassification of an employee. He said WICHE had been able to cover the cost of the reclassification the first year of the past biennium, due to leaving a position open for some time, but they could not cover the cost for the current year of the biennium.
Being no further testimony, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.B. 581.
Senate Bill 582: Revises provisions governing certain appropriations for public lands and China Spring Youth Camp. (BDR S-1566)
Steve Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, said S.B. 582 was developed in response to a letter the Douglas County City Manager had written to the legislature in order to make sure the camp did not get into a negative cash flow. Mr. Thaler explained the usual procedure was for the camp to incur expenditures and then six to eight weeks later would come before the IFC requesting reimbursement for those expenditures. Approximately a month after the IFC meeting the funds would be received by Douglas County to reimburse all the expenses. He said as the camp approached the major portion of the project, knowing that the bids would be awarded the next week, expenditures of approximately $2.4 million over the next six to eight months would put the camp into an immediate negative cash flow. He said the camp's overall budget was about $1.2 million and a contractor could possibly bill in excess of what was already in the budget. The bill would allow for the money to be transferred to Douglas County, and then Douglas County would administrate the funds and therefore, the camp would be able to pay its bills more quickly than the way they were currently paid.
Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Thaler was just testifying to Section 2 of the bill and he answered yes. She expounded that Section 2 said that $2.8 million was being requested to construct a 24-bed female dormitory and a 40-bed male dormitory. She said Mr. Thaler's testimony did not correspond with that request. Mrs. Chowning added that she thought the funds had been appropriated the previous session and did not understand why Mr. Thaler was coming back and asking for the same appropriation again. Mr. Thaler answered that the money had already been appropriated. He explained the camp had been expending the $2.8 million for the past two years and he was not asking for any additional funds. He added what S.B. 582 did was to take the funds from the state that had already been set aside for the project and delivered the funds to Douglas County so that payments to contractors could be made more expeditiously. He said currently, when part of the $2.8 million was spent, he would have to come before the IFC to request the funds be disbursed. He explained that when a contractor billed the camp, there was usually a 30‑day deadline to make payment, and in the meantime, he had to wait for the IFC to set up a meeting, go to the meeting to show the bills, and then wait for the state to "cut that check" back to Douglas County. He said he was not asking for any new funds, just for the funds already approved to be transferred to Douglas County.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the projects were already being built and Mr. Thaler answered yes.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the foundation had been laid for the female dormitory. Mr. Thaler answered yes. Ms. Giunchigliani said she had read a task force recommendation that for female offenders it was the program, not the facility that made a difference. She asked why funds were continuing to be wasted for something that the study said was not effective. She asked who made the decision that there was a need for more beds. She added that female and male offenders were different, so program needs were different. She reiterated why was a foundation being built for a female dormitory that would be useless and would not get the state to where it wanted to be to help the female offenders. Mr. Thaler answered what was being built was a 24-bed female facility. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why. Mr. Thaler responded the agency believed the need was there. Ms. Giunchigliani asked him if he had reviewed the task force recommendation. Mr. Thaler answered yes, and was, in fact, part of the task force. Ms. Giunchigliani asked where were the program dollars for female offenders, and reiterated that there was not a recommendation for a facility, but instead services and programs. Mr. Thaler said there was also a program built into the budget, and Ms. Giunchigliani said the programs had been inadequate which had been part of the problem. Mr. Thaler said there would be a new program along with the 24-bed facility. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was the program. Mr. Thaler said the program was a 24-bed gender specific program for female offenders. He explained the program would be set up for mid-level offenders, and would draw females that would be committed by the courts, across the state. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much had been spent on the foundation of the facility to date, and Mr. Thaler answered approximately $254,000. Ms. Giunchigliani said it might be necessary to determine how to stop the facility and review what might be done for program services for female offenders.
Mr. Beers said, as he understood the issue, the project had already been approved by the 1999 legislature and asked how the camp billed and received reimbursement at the current time. Mr. Thaler answered since the 1999 legislature had approved the project for construction, he would go out and contract etc., and when billed, the bills would be paid. He would then take the bills and proof of payment to the IFC and then the IFC would cut a check to Douglas County and then the county would reimburse themselves for their expenditures. Mr. Beers said when the IFC was three months apart there would be quite a stretch in time, but when the IFC was only one month apart there was almost a normal billing cycle. Mr. Thaler agreed. Mr. Beers said what was being proposed was to give Douglas County the full appropriation, and then Douglas County would be able to collect the interest on the funds. He thought that was what was being "played" for was the interest. He added, on the other hand, a three-month delay for reimbursement was quite a long time. He asked if there was no existing mechanism for a regular progress payment.
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said no, the funds were "tied to" the IFC for this particular project. Mr. Hataway said the camp could come to the June IFC meeting to bring a construction draw schedule, which could be approved and then the camp could draw the funds. He said the project had been on the agenda for every IFC meeting during the last two years, for after-the-fact withdrawal of funds. Mr. Beers said he would be happy to have a better approach. He said he saw it as two complete ends of the spectrum, where the state would have all the funds and be able to draw the interest, or the camp would have all the money and they would receive the interest. He said there had to be a rational, commonsense approach in the middle. Mr. Thaler said normally there would not be a problem, the exception being that as the camp was going into the construction project itself, a larger portion of the funds would be needed, which would result in a negative cash flow. Mr. Beers suggested that if the committee was going to process the bill they might consider the possibility of an amendment that would work as Mr. Hataway had suggested, which was that Mr. Thaler would come before the June IFC with a construction schedule that could be approved in advance. The committee and the camp would know what the payment flow would be. Mr. Thaler said that would be satisfactory, since he would know the upcoming Thursday, when the bid was awarded, what was needed.
Mr. Hataway reminded the committee this was a legislative issue because it was tied to the IFC contingency fund. He said some type of transition language would have to be developed in regard to the after-the-fact draw process even if the IFC approved what Mr. Beers had suggested.
Mr. Beers summarized saying the camp was involved in a construction project that required reimbursement after the fact, dependent on the IFC schedule, which was probably an unreasonable situation. He said instead it was being suggested that the remaining allocated funds be given to Douglas County and then the funds could be spent when the camp deemed fit, which was also probably unreasonable. Mr. Beers said his opinion was that the middle ground would be that Mr. Thaler would come up with a schedule of payments that was based on the contractor schedule, which would provide a time schedule for disbursement of the funds. He asked Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, if that would cause an unpleasant accounting implication for the state. Mr. Stevens answered he did not think so, and thought the suggestion would smooth out the cash flow for everyone concerned.
Ms. Leslie asked if there was a waiting list anywhere in the state for a girls' residential program. Mr. Thaler said he did not know, and reminded Ms. Leslie that Nevada was lacking in gender-specific programs, specifically for females. He said that was what had prompted the camp to implement the new program. He said the only other program he was aware of, at the institutional level, was at the Caliente Youth Center. He said there were many programs in the communities that were for girls, or boys, but they did not have any mid-level offender programs for girls. Ms. Leslie said she believed the Caliente Youth Center only had four girls currently on the waiting list. She asked Mr. Thaler if he was aware that the Division of Human Resources had received federal funding to do a gender equity study to see which programs were needed. Mr. Thaler answered he knew they had some gender-specific funds for training that specifically revolved around training for female programming. Ms. Leslie said she thought it was for more than training and Mr. Thaler said he hoped it was.
Ms. Leslie asked why, if the funds had been appropriated the previous legislative session, the building was not completed. Mr. Thaler answered it had taken two years to put the project together. He added it had to be developed architecturally. He explained the program part had been completed, but the construction development had taken two years. He expounded that once the funds had been authorized, the bidding process had to be implemented, which included receiving bids for an architect, an engineer, etc. He said it took approximately 12 months to get the building design before they could go out to bid, and the bidding process could also take a while.
Ms. Leslie asked when was the expected completion date, and would it open at capacity. Mr. Thaler answered the camp would be open for business July 1, 2002, and it was believed that the camp would open at capacity.
Ms. Leslie asked who would pay for the programming. Mr. Thaler answered the operating costs had been built into the budget that had been approved. He said the camp had reduced the bed count from 24 to 16 but he felt the need for the 24 beds was still there. He said a summary had been sent out in 1996 that asked probation officers and judges if they felt there was a need for a gender-specific program at level two and the overwhelming response had been yes, and at that time the indicated need was for 24 beds. He said the same survey was sent out again the current year that asked if the need was still there and the response was that there was a possibility that over a one-year period, 40 girls could be sent to the camp. He said even though the facility was aware of that information they had reduced the amount of beds to 16, and determined to let the need influence the bed count back up to 24. He said the camp was already receiving calls from probation officers who indicated if there was a program in place they would send the girls. He said the problem was the girls were having to wait, or were being sent inappropriately to Caliente because it was the only facility for girls at the current time.
Ms. Giunchigliani summarized, saying a plan had been designed that was supposed to be for 24 beds, but the camp had reduced the amount to 16 beds, with the design remaining at 24 beds, regardless of the fact that in 2001, a task force studying the issue of gender-specific programming was not recommending beds. She commented that it appeared Mr. Thaler equated beds with programs and she did not believe they were one and the same. She said there was not a waiting list, and asked if there was a modification that could be made with the funds, as she did not want to go in and build something where there was an ongoing operational obligation.
Mr. Thaler said the program had been set up to offer the program across the state. Ms. Giunchigliani said then the girls were shifted around the state instead of doing what was needed, which was to offer counseling and other types of prevention program, where they were located. Mr. Thaler answered that was correct.
In further explanation of S.B. 582, Mr. Hataway said of the $250,000 that the Legislative Committee for Public Lands received during the previous legislative session, $10,000 had been allocated to the Division of State Lands to develop a plan on issues related to the transfer and acquisition of federal public lands. The report was completed, but needed to be printed. There was roughly $2,000 remaining of the $10,000 and the division would like to have the $2,000 extended to the end of the year so that the report could be printed.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 582.
Mr. Stevens explained the Ways and Means Committee would be introducing three of the major budget bills for the session.
Mr. Stevens said the Appropriation Act and the Class Size Reduction bill were ready for introduction during the next floor session. He said the Pay Bill would be ready for introduction during the afternoon floor session.
Assembly Bill 672: Makes appropriations for support of civil government of state. (BDR S-1578)
In explanation of the Appropriations Act, A.B. 672, Mr. Stevens gave the following summaries:
Chairman Arberry asked what happened if the departments did not split. Mr. Stevens answered the budgets had been approved based on the money committees actions, so the departments could operate on those budget accounts, or if they reorganized and budget amounts needed to be shifted, they could do so by January 1, 2002, if approved by the Governor and the IFC.
Mr. Stevens continued with his bill explanation:
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Section 32 was the only section that allowed the maneuvering of funds within fiscal years. Mr. Stevens answered yes. He added there were some accounts, the Welfare Division, the Medicaid program, and the Department of Prisons, that were allowed to transfer between budget accounts. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if certain things were listed in the Appropriations Act because they did not occur within a budget category, for example, the Peer Mediation Program. Mr. Stevens said that was a category within a budget so the whole budget could not transfer between years but the category could.
Mr. Goldwater asked if Mr. Stevens had any concerns regarding the bill. Mr. Stevens answered no, there were not too many changes. He said Section 40, which related to the Department of Prisons, allowed additional flexibility to transfer amounts between their budgets. He added the section regarding the State Controller changed a little, and the section on the legislative auditor had not been in the previous Appropriations Act. Other than those issues, Mr. Stevens felt the bill was "pretty standard."
Mrs. Chowning said Section 44 required the University System to comply with any request by the Governor to set aside money from the appropriations made by the Appropriations Act, in any specified amount. She felt that was rather flexible language and asked for an example of how this would be used. Mr. Stevens said during the last round of budget reductions, approximately ten years ago, an intensive review had been completed in regard to the provisions that would allow the Governor to request agencies to reduce their budgets by a specific amount. There had been a number of changes in the language in the 1993 session that would give more strength to the Governor's ability to go in and request the reduction. He said the item Mrs. Chowning referenced was one of the items that had been added in 1993. Mrs. Chowning said the committee could be comfortable with the cap because the reduction could only be from the appropriations that had been made but the funds could be reduced or moved around at the Governor's request. Mr. Stevens said if the provisions outlined in Section 58 took place then the Governor would be allowed to request that agencies reduce their budgets, and he would then go before the legislature, or the IFC, for concurrence. At that point the Governor could request the agencies to reduce their budgets up to 15 percent. Mrs. Chowning asked if the University System was under the same obligation to come before the IFC. Mr. Stevens said, in the past, the Governor had asked the University System to reduce their budgets when there was a reduction in revenues from the anticipated levels, and he anticipated the same thing could happen in the future.
Mrs. Chowning asked, in regard to Section 54, what the "impracticality" meant for the Veteran's Home. Mr. Stevens answered it would allow the Veteran's Home to receive a cash advance if there was a delay in federal reimbursements so that there was not a cash flow problem for the Home. He said if the Veteran's Home knew they would be reimbursed by the federal government for certain expenses, and the reimbursement had not been received, then they would be able to get an advance from the General Fund and pay it back when the federal funds were received. Mrs. Chowning asked if that would go through the IFC and Mr. Stevens answered, in this particular case it would not. The director of the Department of Administration had the ability to request the advance be made and would notify the Fiscal Analysis Division if, in fact, the request was made. Mrs. Chowning asked if there was a cap on the amount that could be advanced. Mr. Stevens said this was a net zero issue, because it could be an advance up to $500,000, and when the $500,000 was received from the federal government, it would be repaid. He explained it was a cash flow mechanism versus any real authority in additional dollars. Mrs. Chowning said there had been very flexible numbers regarding the Veteran's Home and she wanted to have clarification.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1574.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman de Braga was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 671: Makes appropriations to state distributive school account for class-size reduction. (BDR S-1574)
Mr. Stevens said the next BDR for introduction was the Class-Size Reduction bill. He said the bill was a component of the Distributive School Account.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1574.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman de Braga was not present for the vote.)
********
Chairman Arberry called for a recess at the call of the Chairman at 10:43 a.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 1:58 p.m.
Assembly Bill 405: Expresses sense of Nevada Legislature regarding reading proficiency of Nevada’s school children. (BDR 34-652)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblywoman Tiffany were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 300: Creates revolving fund for construction and repair of school buildings and facilities and authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-1003)
Ms. Giunchigliani explained A.B. 300 started out as a $5 million appropriation for the rural counties to establish a loan program. She said she had offered to amend the bill to $500,000 but said she would take the financial dollars out. She added there was money that would be transferred to the program that had been left over from the previous session in the amount of $200,000.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS, WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATION, TO ALLOW THE LOAN PROGRAM TO GET STARTED AND A LETTER OF INTENT TO MAKE SURE THE $5.8 MILLION IN FUNDING THAT WOULD BE COMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ENTITLED "URGENT RENOVATION PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT" WOULD BE PLACED IN THE FUND TO BEGIN THE GENERATION OF THE LOAN PROGRAM.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if there would still be the creation of the revolving fund, and if the only part that was being removed was the $500,000.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained the amendment would take out the $500,000 that had been recommended in the previous amendment. She added, language in the bill already allowed for $200,000 from the previous session that had been left over to roll into the account and the program would still qualify for the Urgent Renovation Program funding of $5.8 million, which would be indicated through a Letter of Intent.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblyman Beers were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 424: Directs Department of Transportation, Clark County and City of Las Vegas to conduct certain assessments concerning need for abatement of traffic noise. (BDR S-875)
Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill's purpose was for the local government to work out a program with the Department of Transportation (NDOT) so that when NDOT made plans for sound walls they would get input from the local government. Section 2 of the bill would be amended to remove the appropriation, and the bill would simply be passed with a policy decision to get NDOT and local governments to sit down and do the planning.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblyman Beers were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 427: Makes appropriations for educational technology, textbooks and signing bonuses for teachers. (BDR S-1349)
Ms. Giunchigliani explained amendments to S.B. 427 included, in Section 1 and 2, using language from A.B. 450 in regard to how the grants would come about for the appropriation for textbooks. She said page 2 of the bill retained language which was for the Education Technology Commission to continue to distribute the other items listed. Page 2, line 12, was amended by taking out the word "satellite," because there was already a satellite program in place, and added "for school and public libraries," and finally, new teachers, as they signed their contracts, would agree to work for two years to receive the bonus up front.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblyman Beers were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 433: Makes appropriations to Department of Cultural Affairs for purchase of equipment and to carry out statewide monument program. (BDR S-1364)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblyman Beers were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 442: Makes appropriations to Department of Prisons for various replacement equipment at certain facilities and ongoing expenses of Pioche Conservation Camp to lease certain equipment. (BDR S-1378)
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblywoman Chowning, Assemblyman de Braga, Assemblyman Goldwater, and Assemblyman Beers were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 446: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement computer equipment and software for Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1385)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Hettrick, Assemblyman Beers, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 449: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for replacement equipment for Division of Forestry. (BDR S-1395)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 459: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to update Nevada Report Card software and to develop certain tests and examinations. (BDR S-1425)
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested an amend and do pass motion. She said the amendment would be to restore the original $250,000 appropriation that had originally been in the bill for the LEP alternative assessment that the Governor had recommended, and to also add an additional $250,000 appropriation for the special education alternative proficiency examination.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 462: Makes appropriation to Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum of Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources. (BDR S- 1431)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Hettrick, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 463: Makes appropriations to Department of Prisons for maintenance projects at certain facilities and ongoing expenses for various budget accounts. (BDR S-1432)
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Hettrick, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 498: Revises authorized uses of appropriation made in previous session to Lincoln County School District and changes date of reversion of appropriation. (BDR S-1439)
Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill would give the continuing authority to knock down the existing school building to complete the new project. Mrs. Chowning asked for clarification regarding the furnishings. Ms. Giunchigliani answered the funds had already been appropriated for that purpose, but because the new school was connected to the elementary school, in order to complete the project, the district had to have authority to do the high school. She explained the new building was not called a high school because it was connected to the elementary school. Randy Robison, representing Lincoln County School District, said Ms. Giunchigliani's comments were correct.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Hettrick, Assemblyman Beers, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 579: Revises provisions governing compensation of certain legislative employees. (BDR 17-1007)
Chairman Arberry said S.B. 579 increased the salaries for session employees for the 2003 Legislative Session.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Assemblyman Hettrick, Assemblyman Beers, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 581: Makes supplemental appropriation to Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education for projected shortfall in personnel services category. (BDR S-1564)
Chairman Arberry explained S.B. 581 was the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education supplemental appropriation.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Hettrick, Assemblyman Beers, and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Chairman Arberry called a recess at 2:09 p.m.
Being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting on June 4, 2001, at 10:07 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kathryn Fosnaugh
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: