MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
March 5, 2001
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:05 a.m. on Monday, March 5, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 90.
Assembly Bill 90: Eliminates limitation on amount of unused sick leave employee in public service is entitled to carry forward from year to year. (BDR 23-532)
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, testified that as a result of the Governor’s fundamental review process, she and Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, Nevada State Employees Association (SNEA), had reviewed all statutes related to personnel management. The review goal was to simplify and streamline statutes and A.B. 90 was the first bill to be heard related to that review.
Ms. Greene explained state employees currently accrued sick leave at a rate of one and one-quarter days for each month of service. After employees accumulated 90 days of sick leave, only one-half of unused sick leave accrued for the year was carried forward to the next year. The balance went into a special sick leave account that was only accessible when employees had exhausted all of their regular sick leave.
Ms. Greene stated hours that had accumulated in employees’ special sick leave accounts were not considered when payment was made for unused sick leave upon retirement, death, or separation. Ms. Greene testified that A.B. 90 would eliminate special sick leave accounts and allow consideration for all unused sick leave when separation payments were made.
Ms. Greene explained when employees experienced catastrophic illnesses, they might exhaust most or all of their sick leave. If those employees subsequently retired or died as a result of a disability, the employees or their survivors were not able to access the special sick leave account for sick leave payouts.
Elimination of the special sick leave account would recognize the person who had been conscientious in sick leave use by permitting consideration of all sick leave earned, when sick leave was paid at retirement. Ms. Greene informed the committee that only a small number of employees would be impacted by the proposal, thus, there would not be a significant fiscal impact. She related, based on a three-year history, the cost to the state would be approximately $12,400 per year.
Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, SNEA, expressed his support of A.B. 90 and added the association felt it was a good step in the right direction. The current language regarding sick leave had been in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) for over 30 years.
Assemblywoman Tiffany stated a constituent who was a state employee had asked if the state had a benefit similar to that of teachers, which allowed an employee with an undergraduate degree who then pursued a master’s degree, an automatic pay raise.
Ms. Greene replied no such program existed. The classified pay system was based upon actual job duties assigned to a position. However, if an employee pursued a higher degree and their duties subsequently changed, the position might be reclassified resulting in a pay increase.
Ms. Tiffany asked if any employees had ever requested such a benefit. She expressed her support for such an issue, explaining her constituent was a tax auditor and such an increase would be an encouragement for employee retention.
Ms. Greene responded there had been a situation in the Gaming Control Board where auditors who achieved a certified public accountant degree had been paid a bonus. She clarified that situation had occurred in the unclassified pay service.
Ms. Tiffany asked what would be necessary to propose such a change in the classified service. Ms. Greene stated she would research the issue further.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 90 and opened the hearing on A.B. 122.
Assembly Bill 122: Requires payment for all accrued unused sick leave of state employee under certain circumstances. (BDR 23-691)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, testified that the bill simply provided employees with the full benefits to which they were entitled. Allowing employees to collect all unused sick leave at retirement prevented loss of benefits they had rightfully earned. She added the law had always allowed employees to collect unused sick leave. A.B. 122 removed the qualifiers that allowed only a certain percentage of sick leave to be collected based on the number of years of service. The difference between A.B. 90 and A.B. 122 was that in A.B. 90, the qualifiers that allowed payment of sick leave were based on the number of years of service in varying amounts. She stated the funds represented by sick leave were part of “salary” and actually belonged to the employee. Current law withheld a percentage of those earnings based on the per-year formula.
Mrs. de Braga noted similar bills had been heard in the past; however, there were certain aspects that needed reconsideration. A fiscal note was included on the bill that was truly impossible to calculate for a number of reasons. The number of retirees that would be affected could not be absolutely calculated, but some sound estimates could be made.
Mrs. de Braga listed two issues that had to be considered when reviewing A.B. 122 and its fiscal impact. (1) Employees at the top of the pay scale would be replaced, through retirement, with those at the bottom of the pay scale. (2) Numerous accounts had already surfaced in the current legislative session about the inability to hire and retain employees in certain classifications. She stated it was a costly practice and used the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) as an example. The NHP trained new officers only to lose them to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department or other agencies that paid higher salaries and/or offered better benefits. She suggested the committee needed to look at the long-range savings of the “big picture.” Consideration should be given to turnover rates.
Mrs. de Braga stated if the legislature could not significantly increase salaries for employees, at least A.B. 122 would increase their benefits and make retention of state employees a little more appealing. Long-range benefits should be weighed against the costs.
Mr. Gary Wolfe, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified that if comparison was made to other county and city municipalities, state employees had virtually no incentives.
Mr. Wolfe requested his prepared testimony to be read into the record (Exhibit C).
Sick leave, no doubt, is one of an employee’s most important benefits. In many cases, it’s the difference between a family surviving or going broke if the main breadwinner is stricken with a lengthy illness, or is injured off the job, requiring a long absence from work. Sick leave has also provided employees the opportunity to care for immediate family members should they be stricken with an illness or injury, and time off for maternity leave.
NRS 284.355 currently addresses a reward for those employees who leave state service with unused sick leave. This is provided they meet the criteria that is outlined in the current law. There lies the problem.
Although state employees are grateful for this wonderful benefit, the current language addressing payouts for unused sick leave penalizes the conscientious and hard working employee who has managed to save their sick leave. The current language also creates an unfair advantage to the higher paid employee over the lower paid employee.
Consider the $8,000 payout. Under the current law an employee earning $20 an hour will have to give up twice the amount of sick leave hours compared to an employee earning $40 an hour.
Another problem with the current law is that you must give back 240 hours before the employee is eligible to participate in the buyout formula. This simply makes no sense. It creates a penalty for those who saved their sick leave and again gives an advantage to the higher paid employee.
We believe A.B. 122 provides a better solution that is both beneficial and fair to all state employees and at the same time, is beneficial to the state by establishing a benefit that would encourage employees to use sick leave wisely. A.B. 122 will also build moral by removing caps and the 240-hour penalty. Add the alternatives offered in A.B. 122 and we believe A.B. 122 will be a valuable tool to the state in its efforts to retain valuable employees leaving state service for better pay and benefits offered by local government and private industry. We submit to you that all of the above can be accomplished at a minimal cost as outlined in the examples provided.
Mr. Wolfe noted the remainder of Exhibit C outlined true stories of what had happened in the state. He stated he had been before the committee on numerous occasions for other versions of the same bill and in the past, the bills had always died due to fiscal notes ascribed to by the Department of Personnel.
Mr. Wolfe likened the benefits of the bill to an investment. He explained when salary costs were prorated over a long-term period, a new trooper actually saved the state $50,484 in the long term.
Mr. Wolfe stated A.B. 122 would allow employees to use salary from the unused sick leave option to purchase retirement, medical insurance, or to take a payout. He noted the association had talked to employees all over the state and many would rather have the ability to purchase their health care insurance or retirement. Mr. Wolfe referred the committee to Exhibit C, page 4, and explained that situation was a reflection of a real incident that had occurred. Mr. Bill Barr, NHP Trooper, who was in hospice for months at the end of his career had passed away. To have compensated him with a payout would have cost the state $26,488, but because of his remaining on the state payroll until his sick leave ran out, the state had paid $35,000. He pled that Mr. Barr had not abused sick leave privileges, but had opted to die at home. He noted another trooper had died a year earlier and his family had come to the association and stated they could have used the unpaid sick leave benefits for their tight budget.
Mr. Wolfe noted current law allowed a maximum of $8,000 in payout of sick leave benefits with a minimum of $2,500 with ten years of service. He urged committee members to read example 3, Exhibit C, page 5, for themselves. He asked what happened to an employee of nine years who had saved his sick leave, but would receive no sick leave benefits if he left state service. Lower paid employees paid far more for their sick leave than higher paid employees.
Mr. Wolfe commented in the last legislative session testimony had indicated that some administrators would get windfall payouts. He stressed the person who really got hurt was the average worker. The administrator purchased his $8,000 payout with a lot less hours than the average worker did.
Mr. Wolfe concluded the association felt A.B. 122 was good for all state employees. He added it would affect the NHP dramatically. Every time a trooper was at home, coverage on the roads had to be maintained by bringing someone else in on overtime.
Assemblywoman Cegavske stated several years ago a teacher in an elementary school was dying of cancer and had used up all of his sick leave. The other teachers had wanted to pool their sick leave to assist the family in maintaining insurance coverage. She asked if A.B. 122 was similar to the issues in that situation. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded, as a teacher, that state government could pool sick leave to assist another person, but teachers could not unless the right had been bargained for within a school district. She noted Clark County was currently looking at the issue. She commented Elko County made the allowance.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the committee still needed to deal with the issue of incentives because the state was not rewarding employees who accrued their sick leave. She suggested A.B. 122 might be a vehicle to revisit the issue from the Seventieth Legislative Session. Mrs. Cegavske asked if the example provided by Mr. Wolfe was similar to that of the previous session.
Mr. Wolfe stated the legislature had been very good to state employees and commented a bill had been passed by the Sixty-Ninth Legislature to cover situations such as Ken Gager, who had a bomb blow up at his home, or Jeff Leathley, who was burned over 60 percent of his body while on duty. He noted current law provided for payment for officers if they were on duty. In off-duty situations, other employees could donate their sick leave to offer assistance. He added NHP staff had been very generous in giving their own sick leave benefits.
Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, NHP, asked when committee members were reviewing the fiscal note for the bill, to be aware that when a person took their sick leave it cost all state agencies when wanting to replace that person. The NHP could not let a beat go unpatrolled or calls go unanswered. A.B. 122 would help administrators deal with overtime and staffing issues. If an employee had an incentive, they would come to work when they did not feel well, but were not necessarily too ill to come to work.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 122.
Assembly Bill 212: Makes appropriation to Churchill County for expenses related to operation of veterans’ field service office in Churchill County. (BDR S-375)
Assemblywoman de Braga stated A.B. 212 sought an appropriation of $115,000 for expenses related to the operation of a veterans’ field office in Churchill County. She added the Sixty-Ninth Legislature enacted legislation that enabled a county to establish a veterans’ field service office. Churchill County had started such an office staffed by volunteers. The Seventieth Legislature had approved an $80,000 appropriation to fund the field service office for two years. The project got a late start, taking about a year to get everything ready. The $80,000 was used to get the office established. Churchill County provided office space, some office equipment, and the remainder of the appropriation was used for salary and promotion of the office.
Because the office had only been in operation one year, concrete performance figures were not available denoting the fact that the office more than paid for itself in terms of bringing veterans benefits they were entitled to and removing them from various state entitlements, which created a tremendous savings to the state.
Mrs. de Braga stated when the original bill was first enacted, it made assumptions that the county would receive a bigger benefit than the state would. She added because of the way welfare was administered, the state actually received a much bigger benefit through the services of the office. She expressed her strong belief that it was imperative the office be funded for the next two years or the program would be lost.
Mrs. de Braga stated in two years, the office hoped to provide concrete figures on savings to the state and prove the office more than paid for itself. Also, in the future, it was hoped the program could be replicated regionally, at least in the rural counties. The urban counties had also expressed an interest in having more field service offices.
Mrs. de Braga explained the field offices were successful because they sought out veterans and let them know what entitlements they were eligible for. They assisted the veteran through the “red tape” that many did not wish to deal with. The office reached out to families. She requested the employee of the Fallon pilot office be made a state employee under the Commission for Veterans’ Affairs and that the Director, Mr. Fulkerson, would have oversight of the office.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why Churchill County had been chosen for the pilot. She asked if Churchill County had a larger percentage of veterans than in other counties. Mrs. de Braga replied there were no good population figures except, it was known that Churchill County, as did the state, had a high percentage of veteran population. She added Churchill County was primarily chosen because it was the hub of a large number of small communities and could provide a good indication of what could be accomplished regionally.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked, regionally, what counties were anticipated to be served by the office. Mrs. de Braga replied the Churchill County office served Churchill, Lyon, Mineral, Pershing, Lander, and Douglas Counties. It also served some of Storey County. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the office was currently serving those areas and Mrs. de Braga agreed, adding the program was very important to the veterans.
Mrs. de Braga explained the veterans’ organizations themselves had some field service officers doing advocacy work. The problem was that 6 percent of all veterans belonged to such organizations and there was a need for the ability to reach the other 94 percent.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented the homeless population in southern Nevada was comprised of a number of veterans. She asked what outreach would be provided. Mrs. de Braga replied comments had been made that about 30 more field offices could be used in Clark County. She added a portion of the appropriation went to coordination with other field service offices, making some contacts with other states, training officers, and advertising in various veterans’ publications.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was not some federal funding available. Mrs. de Braga replied no federal funding for training was available. She added an attempt had been made to find some federal funding to open the office and none could be located.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the requested funding was just to be used for training. He asked if a budget of expenditures had been prepared. Mrs. de Braga stated a budget would be presented. She added the requested funds would primarily be used for outreach and salary because the county was not able to pay the salary. She reiterated the county would provide office space and some equipment. She noted it was an appropriate mix of responsibilities because the county received some benefit, but the state received the biggest benefit.
Mr. Marvel requested a budget be provided to the committee and Mrs. de Braga agreed to provide one at a later time.
Mr. Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services, testified he had sent a letter to committee members on February 27, 2001, in support of the measure. He emphasized that passage of A.B. 212 would ensure that veterans living in underserved rural areas would have the opportunity to access the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ process making benefits available to more individuals.
Mr. Fulkerson stated Veterans’ Services did not have a good record serving in the rural area because efforts had been concentrated in the urban areas of Reno and Las Vegas. He noted there were many veterans in rural areas that needed such services as well. He explained if a veteran was in their seventies, with war wounds from World War II, it was an arduous process to drive 60 or more miles with a spouse of the same age and spend the day trying to sift through a stack of federal forms. Regional offices facilitated services to veterans.
Mr. Fulkerson testified that Clark County had two service officers and a claims adjuster. In 2000 they earned over $9 million in veterans’ claims. He added there were approximately 180,000 veterans in that county.
Mr. Fulkerson concluded veterans’ services and benefits were earned opportunities through selfless and often hazardous service to the nation during war and peacetime alike. “Doing right by America’s sons and daughters who have worn the military uniform is ingrained in our national values, national pride, and our sense of moral responsibility.”
Assemblyman Dini asked if it would be better to place two additional positions as state employees in the Reno office and have them work in the regional areas. He added perhaps another office would be needed in the Elko area and the concept would help all the rural counties. Mr. Dini commented veterans in Churchill County knew of the program, but those in other counties were not as likely to be aware of the program.
Mr. Fulkerson responded during the 1970s and 1980s a team from the Reno office made rural county road trips and it had been successful. Flyers were sent to the communities and the team met with veterans in all the small towns. However, sometime in the 1980s the program had been suspended to serve the urban areas better. He added having a representative in a rural area like Fallon, Elko, or Minden, would help veterans and more veterans would seek out the benefits they had already earned.
Mrs. de Braga referred to the question from Mr. Dini and concurred that the staff did need to be state employees serving out of the Reno office, but they needed to be placed permanently in offices in the rural communities.
Mr. Ben Duncan, Veterans’ Services Representative, State Office of Veterans’ Services, testified he had been a veterans’ advocate in Nevada for over 11 years and had supported many veteran issues in that time. He urged support for A.B. 212.
Mr. Duncan thanked all the sponsors of the bill. He commented everyone won with the bill. Veterans were provided an avenue to receive benefits they might not otherwise know they were entitled to. Receipt of Veteran Affairs (VA) benefits brought federal money into the state and county. It supplemented, or in some cases, eliminated the need for dependency on state programs.
Mr. Duncan stated the year of service from the Churchill County office had resulted in the filing of over 60 claims, varying from service or non-service connected disabilities, dependency indemnity compensation, non-service connected pensions for widows and families, educational and rehabilitation benefits, and most important – health care. He commented clients ranged from World War II veterans to recently separated veterans of the Fallon Naval Air Station and all veterans in between. The county service officer guided the veteran through the steps necessary to claim his benefits. He complimented Ms. Jeanette Rae, County Services Officer in Fallon, for the difference she had made in the lives of veterans in Churchill County.
Mr. Duncan stated due to the caseload of the Veterans’ Administration Regional Office in Reno, it sometimes took in excess of a year to obtain a decision. He commented no “hard” numbers were available for the first year of operation of the Churchill office, however, because of the professional manner in which claims were submitted from that office, the numbers would be quite impressive. He considered Ms. Rae a kindred spirit on the issue of veterans’ advocacy. He stated her approach to assisting veterans was quite remarkable. Mr. Duncan said while A.B. 212 addressed the continuation of a program, it did not specifically address the individual to fill that position. He added it was Ms. Rae’s performance over the past 13 months that painted a clear picture for the need of the bill.
Ms. Jeanette Rae, Churchill County Veterans’ Services Officer, testified she was a seven-year active duty Air Force veteran and had been active in the Air Force Reserves since her release from active duty for a total of 22 years of service to her country.
Ms. Rae commented the majority of the clients in rural areas did not belong to any formal service organization and thus, were not always properly informed or were under-informed about their VA benefits. She stated she frequently received telephone calls from veterans who had received letters from the VA and needed help in adhering to what the letter requested and what response, if any, was needed. She stated a county veterans’ office was the only entity that provided full service for all veterans’ benefits and completed VA forms for the clients. Ms. Rae stated when a veteran went directly to the Veterans’ Administration for assistance, they were simply handed a form and directed to bring it back when completed.
Ms. Rae stated the VA, in January 2001, in an effort to simplify the forms process, redesigned the Compensation and Pension Form 21-526. The simplification changed the form from what had been a 6-page form to a 23-page form with a respondent burden of 1 to 1.5 hours. The Reno VA even provided the area service officers a full day of training on exactly how to complete the form.
Ms. Rae commented the VA was not in the business of educating veterans on how to receive their benefits. The veterans were required to educate themselves and then make a formal request for benefits. That applied to other government agencies as well. She explained Churchill County did not know, until she had advised them, that the county could be reimbursed for some of the expense to bury an indigent veteran. In such cases the county was required to apply for the reimbursement. She testified she had begun a process of educating local police, sheriff, and mental health departments about services available to veterans in an attempt to take some of the load off county resources.
Ms. Rae stated a claim took approximately 10 months to process if everything was done properly when it was submitted and the claim was relatively simple. Any missing items could cost an extra 60 days per item. She added complicated claims could take several years to complete and noted she had recently gotten approval on a widow’s pension claim that had only taken six weeks.
Ms. Rae stated her office, while in its infancy, had been responsible for the award of over $1,215 per month in VA benefits directly back to the community. She added in 1999 there was a little over $3 million in VA benefits paid to Churchill County alone. All claims for veterans who were residents of Fallon Convalescence Center, or were applying for benefits under state Medicaid, or the Division of Aging Services of Northern Nevada, were currently processed through her office for submission to the VA. That procedure had increased the approval rate of such claims 100 percent.
Ms. Rae stated she recently entered into discussion with the Director’s Office of the VA Medical Center in Reno to provide fee-basis, outpatient, primary care services in Fallon to eligible veterans. She explained that procedure was the preliminary step before the VA could take under consideration building a full outpatient clinic in a community. As a result she had been granted access to the Medical Center’s computer, and access to the data base system was in the final stages. The only step remaining was approval from Washington D.C.
Ms. Rae related her personal experience in dealing with the VA without the aid of a service officer. She stated it was only by virtue of her current position that she made a startling discovery of how she had been neglected by the VA. When she was released from active duty in 1986, she filed a disability claim when the VA representative gave a briefing to a group being discharged together. She noted that was the procedure prior to the current transitional assistance program currently in practice. She explained there had been no review of her service record or explanation of what constituted a disability or what could or could not be claimed. She was eventually granted a zero percent disability for two conditions that she was receiving treatment for at the time. She was not informed that she could or should file for an increase of the rating later in life if those conditions worsened.
Ms. Rae explained because of a surgery performed while she was on active duty, she had recently discovered she should have been rated with a 50 percent disability and that the VA had thus withheld over $800 per month or approximately $126,000 over the past 15 years from her benefits. She stressed that money would have made a big difference to her at the time as a single parent of two teenage boys. She commented she was sure she was not the only veteran who had not gotten their just compensation from the VA.
Ms. Rae commented that while it was every veteran’s right to deal directly with the VA, she would not recommend them doing so. She likened it to someone acting as his or her own counsel or a doctor operating on themselves.
She commented that because Nevada had the fastest growing population in the nation, a percentage of that new growth would be veterans. She noted she received calls every week from veterans considering relocation to Nevada and asking what benefits Nevada provided to its veterans.
Ms. Rae concluded, if the funding for the office was discontinued, the legislature would be sending a message to Nevada veterans that they would not approve any other county service offices within the state.
Mr. Fred Murphy, County Veterans’ Service Officer, Placer County, California, testified his office had been in service since 1946. He related figures for the year ending June 30, 2000, that reflected direct payments from the VA for compensation and pension benefits to Placer County that totaled $1,660,000. He noted the county represented 28,000 veterans. Sacramento County, more similar to southern Nevada, had 128,000 veterans, therefore, a population of 1 million produced $4 million in direct payments to the county. Those figures did not include money saved on Medicaid, reimbursements for people who did not pay child support, or medical care provided by the VA.
Mr. Murphy stated his office brought in the $1,660,000 with a budget of $200,000, which proved the office made money for the county. In conversations with the county Economic Development Director, Mr. Murphy was told to use a multiplier for the $1,660,000 of 1.71, which meant the $200,000 investment resulted in funds of $3 million to the county.
Mr. Chuck Abbott, a concerned veteran and Management Analyst, Office of Veterans’ Services, stated he had watched the initiative since it had been introduced to the legislature in 1997. He expressed his pleasure with the results of the Churchill County Service Office. He noted a large amount of that success was due to Mrs. de Braga and the proficiency of Ms. Rae.
Mr. Abbott referred to an earlier question of why the program was begun in Churchill County first and noted that county was the first one to “step to the bat” and implement the program. He added the program was successful because there was a real need in the rural counties for such a program. He urged passage of A.B. 212.
Mr. Joseph Cobery, Social Service Director, Churchill County, testified the existence of the Veterans’ Services Office in Churchill County provided the Social Services Office the ability to offer another service to veteran residents of the county. He added the county would lose if the service was no longer provided.
Mrs. de Braga concluded by stating members of the audience included a member of the Churchill County Commission, Norman Frey; County Manager, B. J. Selinder; and the former director of the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, Ray Alcorn; and numerous veterans in support of the bill. She asked for all the veterans present in support of the bill to raise their hands.
Mrs. de Braga added $20,000 would revert from the 1999 appropriation. She explained the supporters had struggled over whether to ask for an extension for use of the $20,000 which would leave a very, very limited ability to continue the program if A.B. 212 was not approved. The final decision had been that it was best to allow the $20,000 to revert and ask for a new appropriation of $115,000 because the program was so vital. She stressed her support that Ms. Rae’s position should become a state position.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani commented Assemblywoman de Braga deserved a great deal of thanks for moving the program forward.
There being no further testimony, the Vice Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 212 and opened the hearing on A.B. 234.
Assembly Bill 234: Makes supplemental appropriations to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for shortfalls in the Division of Parole and Probation and Central Services, Management Services and Field Services. (BDR S-1258)
Mr. Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Motor Vehicle Branch, introduced Carol English, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services.
Mr. Tatro urged support for A.B. 234, which contained supplemental appropriations for four divisions of the department. He explained three of the divisions were in the Motor Vehicle Branch, thus, the supplemental appropriations were being requested from the Highway Fund.
Mr. Tatro read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) that stated the original bill was based on additional positions funded at the February 2, 2000, Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting and the amounts represented in the original bill were estimated costs beyond the requested budget. Exhibit D, page 4, contained suggested language for an amendment to A.B. 234 that would lower the requested appropriation to the amounts currently being forecast as the actual shortfall.
Mr. Tatro explained the Management Services budget would not need the supplemental appropriation reflected in Section 1, of A.B. 234. However, the Compliance Enforcement Division would require a supplemental appropriation to close their budgets on June 30, 2001. Two expenditure categories were short due to circumstances beyond the control of the administrator.
Mr. Tatro explained in the salary category, the division had gone through the first part of the year without any vacancies and then two relatively high-level retirements had occurred requiring substantial leave balances to be paid.
The second category that would be short was that of fingerprint costs. Mr. Tatro explained the Criminal History Repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation charged the Commercial Enforcement Division for checking fingerprints as part of background checks. The number of fingerprint checks required was driven by the number of people who applied for a license to be a car salesman.
Mr. Tatro explained Exhibit D, page 2, reflected how the projections of the budget shortfalls were computed relating to Sections 1, 3, and 4 of A.B. 234. He stated salary projections were based on estimates that were updated every two weeks. He noted there were a number of anticipated activities prior to the end of the fiscal year, especially in the Field Services budget with 570 employees, so the department was requesting an amount beyond what the current projections reflected. It was hoped that would keep the department from having to appear before the committee with yet another request.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani noted 57 positions had been approved by IFC and asked how many of those positions had been filled. Mr. Tatro replied all 57 positions were filled; 48 in Field Services, 7 in Central Services, and 2 in Management Services.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked for verification of how many were actually hired. Mr. Tatro replied all positions had been filled. He added there were an additional 64 part-time positions funded by the December 2000 IFC. Of those, 12 had been hired for the Sahara office in Las Vegas, 12 for the Carey office, and the department was in the process of hiring 12 for the West Flamingo office.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if the total part-time positions could be reduced. Mr. Tatro replied all the positions would be needed, but the department was conducting the hiring of those positions in a phased, office-by-office approach.
Mr. Marvel asked when the final numbers on what was needed from A.B. 234 could be determined. Mr. Tatro replied the final numbers would not really be available until the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Marvel stressed the bill could not be passed without the legislature knowing what was actually needed. Mr. Tatro replied the figures were for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001. He added the department was comfortable that the budgets could be closed with the amounts requested in A.B. 234. Any remaining balance would be reverted to the Highway Fund.
Mr. Marvel asked for the total amount being requested from the Highway Fund and Mr. Tatro stated $612,000 was required. Mr. Marvel asked if the request would put the department over the 22 percent cap on the Highway Fund. Mr. Tatro replied he believed it would, but he would check and respond to the committee.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked if the department was requesting that Section 1 should be removed entirely or whether the amount should be changed to $62,000. Mr. Tatro replied the intent was to amend the bill to have the words “Management Services” replaced with “Compliance Enforcement” and replace the amount with $62,000 in Section 1.
Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, advised the committee the bill would need further review. Staff would like to understand exactly how the amounts could be lowered to the amounts being recommended and whether that involved some shuffling of salary adjustment funds or not. He referred to an incident that occurred in 1999 involving a shuffling of salary adjustment funds. A complete understanding of the amounts was needed. Staff would work with the DMV/PS on the issue and come back to the committee with a recommendation.
Ms. Carol English, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division, DMV/PS, provided testimony on Section 2 of the bill involving the Division of Parole and Probation. She stated the amount requested in Section 2 was necessary to cover a retroactive salary increase for an administrator in Las Vegas. The increase was retroactive to 1998 but during that year, the budget had a deficit so no funds were reverted from which a stale claim could be paid.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the amount of $2,493 in Section 2 of the bill was still correct and Ms. English concurred.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 234 and opened the hearing on A.B. 235.
Assembly Bill 235: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for unanticipated shortfall in money budgeted for salaries for personnel in Nevada Athletic Commission’s Amateur Boxing Program. (BDR S-1259)
Doug Walther, Administrator, Industrial Development Bond Program, and Acting Deputy Director, Nevada Athletic Commission, presented Exhibit E, which explained that A.B. 235 was intended to reimburse the amateur boxing program for the amount borrowed to cover a shortage from the last fiscal year related to covering overtime pay.
Mr. Walther stated the shortage occurred because of the unanticipated increase in the number of boxing events that took place on nights and weekends necessitating overtime pay. Because of the increase, the decision was made to use funds from the Amateur Boxing Program and those needed to be paid back. Mr. Walther stated work programs that would transfer money from in-state and out-of-state travel, and some salary savings would balance the remainder of the shortage.
Mr. Walther stated Exhibit E also requested an amendment to A.B. 235 to include an appropriation for a salary increase for the Executive Director of the Athletic Commission that was granted in the 1999 legislature but not included in the budget.
Mr. Marvel opined the Athletic Commission brought more revenue into the state than any single agency and was also a great advertisement for the state. He asked how much a recent fight was anticipated to generate in revenue. Mr. Walther replied he did not have that information but he would research it for the committee.
Mr. Marvel stated several years earlier, some of the commissioners had been using their own funds for travel and he felt that was a shame. Mr. Walther thanked Mr. Marvel for his support.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated it appeared an employee had taken total medical disability, there was a terminal annual leave cost, and a cost overrun in overtime. She asked if the budget of $16,019 in overtime was just for one particular individual. Mr. Walther replied he did not have that information, but he would obtain it for the committee. His impression was the $16,019 was for the entire overtime budget. The Vice Chair stated the committee would need to review the issue further.
Mr. Don Hataway, Budget Division, testified the Athletic Commission had a very minimal amount of overtime budgeted on a routine basis. However, when an athletic event came to the state and employees had to be present under certain conditions, the overtime had to be met. He explained the Budget Division had tried to place the base budget at the amount of anticipated need.
Mr. Stevens stated it was his understanding that the budget was short $1,582 and he was not aware of the fact the executive director had not been paid for the approved salary increase. Mr. Hataway responded the $1,582 was needed to close the FY2000 budget, and was the amount borrowed from the athletic program. The additional amount requested was for FY2001 and it was the agency’s opinion that the Unclassified Pay Bill that had established the salary for the administrator was more than what was in the legislatively approved budget. Mr. Stevens stated an appropriation had been included in the Unclassified Pay Bill to cover positions where a salary increase was approved. Mr. Hataway stated he was aware of the funding of the Unclassified Pay Bill, however, the most recent figures had just been received and the Budget Office wished to verify the numbers before action was taken on the bill. Mr. Hataway stated there would still be an overtime issue in FY2001.
Vice Chair Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 235 and opened the hearing on A.B. 236.
Assembly Bill 236: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for funding of shortfalls resulting from 1998 reclassification of personnel. (BDR S-1306)
Ms. English stated A.B. 236 requested a supplemental Highway Fund appropriation in the amount of $30,884 to fund the final amount of budget shortfall from the old Registration Division. S.B. 517 of the Seventieth Session provided a supplemental Highway Fund appropriation of $321,570 to the old division to cover a budget shortage. S.B. 279 of the Seventieth Session added $10,800 to the supplemental appropriation to help fund retroactive salary increases for the DMV Technician upgrades that had been approved.
The amounts were needed because a new revenue source had been added to the Registration budget by the 1997 legislature to collect delinquent parking ticket fines from customers when they registered a vehicle. The program resulted from testimony of judges that indicated it would help in the collection efforts to recover delinquent county penalties. The counties were supposed to transmit their delinquent records to the Motor Vehicle Branch and the DMV/PS would receive a fee for each successful collection effort. However, the counties had not participated at the level expected and the revenue had not been forthcoming.
Ms. English further explained, the supplemental appropriations were needed to offset an actual deficit of $139,945.35 to close the budget. The balance of $192,424.65 was needed to pay state agencies and vendors for invoices still owed, reimburse other branch budgets that had paid vendors on behalf of the Registration Division, and fund the retroactive salary increases due to reclassification. The supplemental appropriations were short because the amount owed to other state agencies was miscalculated. A credit was misapplied to the Registration Division that had already been applied correctly to another budget. All payments needed were made, but removing the incorrect credit had left the Registration budget with insufficient funds at budget closing.
Ms. English noted payments were made to the Purchasing Division, Nevada State Printing, Buildings and Grounds, Micrographics, and to the Department of Prisons, Information Technology, and the Department of Administration in the amount of $152,329. Vendor payments in the amount of approximately $9,500 were made. Payments were made to reimburse the DMV/PS budgets for Drivers’ License, Criminal History Repository, Administrative Services, Pollution Control, Insurance Verification, and the Highway Fund for assistance to the Registration Division of nearly $31,000. Employees received $30,708 for their retroactive salary increases. The total amount of deficit at budget closing was $139,945.35.
Ms. English requested passage of A.B. 236 with an amendment changing the amount needed to $31,015.09. She noted the amount would essentially be a “paper” transaction only as the amount needed to fund the deficit would revert when budgets were closed June 30, 2001. Most of the activities that were recorded in the FY1998 Registration Division budget were eventually transferred to the new Central Services Division budget. Therefore the supplemental amount of $31,015.09 was to be placed in the Central Services Budget Account 4741 in FY2001 and be reserved for reversion when the year closed.
Mr. Marvel asked Ms. English to restate the amendment. Ms. English responded the amendment would change the amount requested from $30,884 to $31,015.09.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 236 and opened the hearing on A.B. 193.
Assembly Bill 193: Makes appropriation to Office of Diversity Initiatives of University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for support of pilot program to increase number of economically disadvantaged persons who complete 4-year college degrees. (BDR S-912)
Ms. Ann Casados-Mueller, Director, Office of Diversity Initiatives, University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), provided the committee members with Exhibit F, a paper supporting establishment of a minority student retention program at the university.
Ms. Casados-Mueller expressed her concern that a large segment of Nevada’s population was not prepared to enter the technological age, they were undereducated, and a great deal of human potential was being lost. Ms. Casados-Mueller stated students who entered higher education from Latino, African-American, and Native American backgrounds were not graduating in a number proportionate to that of the general student population.
A.B. 193 requested funding to implement a program on the UNLV campus that would enhance the existing student services programs. She envisioned the program starting in the elementary schools modeled similarly to the Arizona Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program, helping students better prepare themselves for entering a university. She explained the Arizona program was funded in approximately 1985 by the Arizona legislature and had received continuation funding since that time. Ms. Casados-Mueller explained the Arizona program staff went into elementary schools and identified young Hispanic women who had the potential to attain higher education and encouraged them to prepare themselves for that potential. Students’ mothers were also included in the program and the success rate in Arizona had been phenomenal. Ms. Casados-Mueller stated many of the young girls had graduated from college and even the mothers who had participated in the program had gone into higher education themselves. An added benefit had been the reduction in the teen pregnancy rate among Latino students.
Ms. Casados-Mueller explained her proposal would be modeled after the Student Athlete Intervention Program currently in use. The student athlete program tracked student athletes, ensured they attained acceptable grades, and tracked the path to graduation by providing strong intervention strategies. She noted that program had been so successful that the graduation rate among athletes had improved and was actually higher than the general population on campus.
Ms. Casados-Mueller testified to the following breakdown of graduation statistics at UNLV. Of the total graduate population:
· 65.5 percent were Caucasian (about on par with the general population in Clark County);
· 6.5 percent were Hispanic (Clark County population was about 18 percent Hispanic;
· 6.5 percent were African-American of a total 11 percent within Clark County; and
· .6 percent were Native Americans from a total within the county of 1.5 percent.
Ms. Casados-Mueller expressed concern that the graduation rates were not in proportion to the general student population. Her involvement in the strategy began with her position as a board member of the Latin Chamber of Commerce over the past 12 years. The chamber held an annual program called The Latin Chamber of Commerce Career Day. On that day about 250 students participated in an on-the-job career shadow day with a professional in a field of their choice. Of the 250 students annually, the chamber awarded approximately 65 scholarships. During the period from 1986 to 1999, $1,000 scholarships were awarded to 250 students attending UNLV. From those 250 scholarships only 28 students graduated. As a result Ms. Casados-Mueller had applied for and received $20,000 “seed money” from the Clark County Commission. Using those funds, a data base of minority students coming from Latino, African-American, and Native American populations would be constructed. A survey would be conducted using the data base to determine what kinds of programs those students would need to continue their college education through to completion.
The intent for the funding from A.B. 193 would be creation of a tracking program, mentoring partnerships with the private and public sectors, some type of executive loan program similar to that of the United Way, professional mentoring and parental involvement. Ms. Casados-Mueller noted parents of many minority students did not have college educations themselves and they did not know the process to apply for college or the financial aid and scholarships that were available. She added many of the parents spoke only Spanish, which further hindered the student’s ability. She intended the new program to include bilingual open houses involving university faculty and parents, and diversity workshops. Ms. Mueller concluded, stating Exhibit F included much of the information in her testimony.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated her support of the concept. She asked if exit interviews were done with students who had received the scholarships from the Latin Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Casados-Mueller replied at the current time, nothing was being done. The Student Services Division was overloaded. However, she supported exit interviews or surveys of student dropouts.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that a $1,000 scholarship might not have been sufficient for some students to continue their education. Dropouts could also result from, among other issues: working relationships, pregnancy, or unemployed family members. She suggested the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education might want to review the fact that exit interviews were not being done for students who dropped out.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if advisors were assigned to students at the community college level. Ms. Casados-Mueller replied she did not work in Student Services and her involvement in the program was voluntary. Ms. Casados-Mueller noted her only contact with students was in diversity training and investigation of discrimination complaints. She added the program addressed in the bill was her avocation. She commented the community colleges did have advisors but she was not aware of whether students were assigned advisors.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted A.B 193 had some potential, but further answers were needed from the University and Community College System. She commented the Asian community was perceived as the only minority class who achieved graduation and that was not an accurate assumption. Ms. Casados-Mueller replied the Asian community had a 5 percent general community population with a 10 percent graduation rate. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the “Asian” connotation needed to be broken out into Chinese, Taiwanese, and others.
Ms. Casados-Mueller commented there would be a survey conducted with Millennium Scholarship dropouts to determine why they did not continue their education. Ms. Giunchigliani stated such a survey should be done with any student leaving the higher education system.
Ms. Casados-Mueller noted the planned tracking program would include dropouts and determine intervention strategies that might have helped. She added a large segment of the college population and much human potential was being lost.
Assemblywoman Chowning stated her agreement with the concept of A.B. 193, however, she requested more concrete details of the plan of how the $200,000 would be used. She also supported the tracking issues.
Mrs. Chowning stated she had been requesting something like the concept of the bill from the university for years and she would like to know from the university what was currently being done to attract and retain minority students in school. She added when technical learning centers had been approved, it had been hoped they would attract minority students as well. She asked how Nevada compared with other states on numbers of minority students attending college. She noted Nevada had the highest Latino population per capita in the nation.
Ms. Casados-Mueller commented 60 percent of Latino students who dropped out of school, did so before the tenth grade. She did not have numbers of how many minority dropouts occurred in colleges and universities around the state. She had tried to get the numbers for minority dropouts related to the Millennium Scholarship Program and had been unable to do that as well. She reiterated Arizona had implemented the Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program, which had proven very successful.
Ms. Casados-Mueller noted when she had been a student at Rancho High School in Las Vegas it had approximately a 2 percent Hispanic population and the current Rancho High School Hispanic population was 52 percent. She added the minority population growth would only increase.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if a budget for the requested $200,000 was available and whether the intent was to receive $100,000 each year of the biennium. Ms. Casados-Mueller replied she hoped to have a director and a coordinator position to start the program and then apply for foundation funding from international corporations to continue the program beyond the two-year period. Ms. Leslie requested for budget information in writing. She requested the written information also contain some type of analysis of what was being offered currently and why the requested new program would be better. Ms. Leslie commented, as a northern Nevada representative, she would like to see some type of system-wide program. She noted the University of Nevada Reno had a great program called Aletos. Ms. Casados-Mueller asked if Ms. Leslie was referring to all the campuses across the state and Ms. Leslie stated she would like to see the program at least address both universities because a better job was being done in the community college system. Ms. Casados-Mueller commented the program created under A.B. 193 would enhance existing programs and focus on the minority population. Ms. Leslie responded she appreciated what was being attempted but would like to see a more detailed, system-wide approach and rationale. Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 193.
Chairman Arberry appointed a subcommittee for A.B. 122 consisting of Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Hettrick and Mrs. de Braga. He noted the committee had bill draft request introductions to consider.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1261.
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1174.
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34-1068.
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Arberry reported to committee members on the status of bills and budgets before the committee. There were 418 budgets and as of March 2, 2001, 407 had been reviewed by the full committee. A total of 285 budgets had been assigned to subcommittees of which 170 had been reviewed through the current date, or 60 percent.
Mr. Stevens announced the hearings to be held on the following day.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented when the Cultural Affairs Historical Committee was created to receive grants and requests from local governments, the legislative intent had been that the legislature would not have to ponder individual requests each session.
Mr. Marvel added the Cultural Affairs Historical Committee had been funded through a ten-year bond issue of $2 million per year, per grant. Mr. Marvel stated he would check into the matter further as he had sponsored the original bill.
Seeing no further business before the committee the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: