MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
April 9, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, April 9, 2001. Vice Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani 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
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Mike Chapman, Program Analyst
Rick Combs, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 197: Requires disclosure to customers of certain information concerning electric services by electric utilities and alternative sellers. (BDR 58-910)
Assemblywoman Shelia Leslie, District 27, Washoe County, referred to A.B. 197 and stated the bill had been heard and approved by the Government Affairs Committee and was referred to Ways and Means for the fiscal note. A.B. 197 required electric utilities to disclose to customers information on services and products. More than 20 other states had adopted some form of disclosure requirement for sellers of electricity. Sierra Pacific currently provided the information for their California customers. The purpose of A.B. 197 was to educate customers on the source of energy, i.e., nuclear or fossil fuel sources versus renewable sources. The disclosure would occur twice each year. Ms. Leslie said the power companies, the Consumer Advocate Office, and the Public Utilities Commission supported A.B. 197.
Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, stated the fiscal note that accompanied A.B. 197 was based on cost estimates. The commission had estimated it would take one-quarter of an economist’s time to conduct the monitoring required by the bill. Mr. Soderberg indicated the funding would be provided in the commission’s general operating budget and an economist already employed by the commission would assume the new responsibilities. Mr. Soderberg stated no new money would be required if A.B. 197 was passed in the current form.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the information would be disseminated, and Ms. Leslie stated the information would be included with the electric bills and would also be available on the utility Web sites.
Assembly Bill 69: Imposes surcharge on payment of child support collected by district attorney to be used for programs for mentoring of children. (BDR 11-110)
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated Assemblyman Arberry, as a courtesy measure, had presented A.B. 69 for a group of Las Vegas constituents. The Assembly Committee had determined the subject matter was not timed appropriately and the legislation should not be passed. In the meantime, Mike Willden of the Welfare Division had asked the Clark County District Attorney’s Office to assist with the development of a revised bill. Mr. Graham indicated the association strongly supported the amendment that was to be presented to the committee by Mike Willden.
Michael Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, stated A.B. 69 was originally heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and was withdrawn by its primary supporters, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters Programs. The Welfare Division was looking for an avenue to implement a child support fee, currently contained within The Executive Budget. Due to miscommunication within the agency, a Bill Draft Request (BDR) had not been reserved for the fee. The agency thought it would be best, with the approval of Assemblyman Arberry, to use A.B. 69 to implement a child support fee. Mr. Willden referred to a handout (Exhibit C), which contained the recommended new language for A.B. 69. Mr. Willden explained existing statutes allowed an employer to retain a $3.00 fee for processing a wage assignment. A.B. 69would increase the fee to $5.00; the employer would still retain the $3.00 processing fee and $2.00 would be forwarded to the state. The $2.00 fees would help fund child support activities and would be divided equally between the state Child Support Program and the local district attorneys. Mr. Willden testified there had been a significant reduction in the state share of collections, which funded the non‑federal share of child support. Primarily, the collections had been reduced due to a 60 percent decrease in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) caseload, and Congress had made a number of changes in the child support distribution formula – more money was forwarded to the families and children. Fees were included in The Executive Budget to offset the shortfall. The handout (Exhibit C) detailed child support fee issues – background, problem, proposal, and process. In response to a question posed by Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Willden stated the Governor was supportive of the amendments to A.B. 69.
Mr. Graham stated the fee amount per person was not significant, and would not be detrimental to the individuals involved. However, in the aggregate, the amount would be significant to state and local entities. Mr. Willden said the major reason the additional funding was needed was the federal mandate to implement a central collection and disbursement unit. The cost to implement the new unit in FY2001 was approximately $1 million and ongoing costs would be approximately $500,000 annually.
Assembly Bill 321: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for support of Nevada Ballet Theatre, Inc., for its cultural and educational outreach program for schools, dance students and theater audiences. (BDR S-1193)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District 42, Clark County, referred to his PowerPoint presentation and stated the 2001-2002 season of the Nevada Ballet Theatre would mark their thirtieth anniversary. Mr. Bill Como, editor of Dance Magazine International, published in New York, called the Nevada Ballet Theatre one of the top ten regional companies in the United States. Since 1983, the theatre had toured 300 cities in the United States and had been called the “Cultural Ambassador” of Nevada. In 2002 the theatre hoped to tour Nevada with a cultural outreach program for schools, dance students, and theatre audiences. Mr. Mortenson felt the outreach program was very important.
Mr. Harris N. Ferris, Executive Director, Nevada Ballet Theatre, provided a handout (Exhibit D) to the committee, which provided information on the Nevada Ballet Theatre. Mr. Ferris said the last few years there had been significant changes in the organization. A new facility had been constructed for the Nevada Ballet Theatre in the Summerlin area of Las Vegas. Resources had increased as a result of the rapid growth in southern Nevada. Mr. Ferris said the ballet wanted to renew its statewide mission and the tours would be a resource to the entire state. Mr. Ferris stated the ballet envisioned a five-week residency and Reno would be the hub. The cities of Reno, Yerington, Virginia City, Fallon, Eureka, Carson City, Winnemucca, Battle Mountain, were involved in discussions related to the tours. Elko was also being considered. Mr. Ferris stated artistic excellence was paramount to the ballet, but outreach and education were a primary focus and the ballet strove to positively impact the lives of children. One program, Future Dance, was an extended dance training program offered at no cost for Clark County children from at-risk communities.
The Nevada Ballet Theatre had recently received a $135,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The ballet would work with the Housing Authority in Las Vegas on a three-year program for disadvantaged children beginning at age six and would track the children toward an academy experience. The children would ultimately be bused to the ballet facility in Summerlin to be provided the opportunity to be mainstreamed into the academy, which currently had 400 students. The tours would underscore the cultural resources in Nevada, including the historic opera houses. The ballet would operate in partnership with the Department of Tourism, the Nevada Opera, Washoe County and Douglas County schools. The ballet would become an asset for the entire state. Ms. Giunchigliani said the rural aspect of the tours was very captivating and very worthwhile.
Assembly Bill 371: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for increase in allowance for personal needs for residents of long-term care facilities who are eligible for Medicaid. (BDR S-1451)
Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources (DHR), stated the bill appropriated $633,120 in state General Funds to the department for increased allowances for personal needs for Medicaid-eligible residents of long-term care facilities. Mr. Duarte stated the department’s fiscal analysis of A.B. 371 indicated there would be a fiscal impact of $1.1 million in state General Funds over the biennium, as opposed to the $633,120. Mr. Marvel asked if the funding had been discussed in the department’s budget hearings with the Governor’s Office, and Mr. Duarte indicated the funding had not been included in the list of agenda items for inclusion in the DHR budget. In response to a question posed by Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Duarte said Charles Perry of the Nevada Health Care Association, had indicated the intent was to increase the personal needs allowance from $35.00 per individual to $75.00. Mr. Duarte agreed to provide Ms. Giunchigliani with the total number of individuals who would be impacted. Because of the budget constraints, Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if the division had looked at alternative amounts for the personal needs allowance. Mr. Duarte said the agency would look at alternative amounts. He wanted the committee to know the counties paid the same amount as the DHR for personal needs allowance, and if the DHR increased rates, the county rates would also be increased. Mr. Marvel asked for a county-by-county breakdown of costs and Mr. Duarte thought the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) would have the information. Ms. Giunchigliani stated staff would try to get the information from NACO.
May Shelton, representing Washoe County, said Washoe County supported the concept of A.B. 371, because personal needs allowances had not been increased for a number of years. Washoe County had three levels of long-term care:
Ms. Shelton testified the increase in personal needs allowances from $35.00 to $75.00 could cost Washoe County $126,000. Ms. Giunchigliani asked when the amount had been raised to $35.00. Ms. Shelton stated she would provide that information to Ms. Giunchigliani. Ms. Leslie asked if it was Washoe County’s position that the rate be raised from $35.00 to $55.00, rather than $75.00, and Ms. Shelton said because sufficient resources were available, Washoe County supported the $75.00 increase. However, Ms. Shelton thought, as Mr. Marvel had mentioned earlier, rural counties might have difficulty meeting their obligations. Ms. Shelton questioned why personal allowances were much higher for clients in group-care homes than those in nursing homes. Mr. Duarte stated his staff had indicated to him that the long‑term-care residence rates had not been increased over a significant period of time, and he would provide the committee with information as to how long DHR had neglected to raise the rates.
Assembly Bill 607: Makes various changes relating to unemployment compensation affecting Indian tribes to comply with federal law. (BDR 53-1313)
Birgit Baker, Administrator, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), Employment Security Division, stated A.B. 607 had been requested by the division and addressed two issues of importance to the agency. Section 7 of A.B. 607 increased compensation for the nine members of the Employment Security Council and Board of Review from $60 per day to $80 per day, consistent with compensation of other state boards and commissions. Funding for the proposal was included in The Executive Budget. The remainder of A.B. 607 was devoted to coverage of Indian tribes under state unemployment insurance law. State legislation was required due to amendments to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), effective December 21, 2000. The FUTA amendments excluded Indian tribes from paying federal unemployment taxes and required states to pass legislation covering Indian tribes under state Unemployment Compensation (UI) law. Indian tribes were currently covered by the state unemployment insurance but were not specifically referenced in state law. Ms. Baker said coverage was based on a provision in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 612.070 that required coverage for any employer who was obligated to pay FUTA taxes. Since Indian tribes were no longer required to pay FUTA taxes, that provision in NRS was no longer applicable; therefore, A.B. 607 would amend NRS to comply with federal law. Ms. Baker said an added benefit of the legislation was that Indian tribes would be offered the option of paying quarterly state unemployment taxes or reimbursing the state’s UI Trust Fund for benefits paid to former tribal employees. The option was currently available only to state and local governments. Ms. Baker stated the regional office of the U.S. Department of Labor had determined A.B. 607 met the federal conformity requirements (see Exhibit E).
The Committee took a short break.
Chairman Arberry reconvened the meeting at 8:25 a.m.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
PRINTING OFFICE EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-36
Mike Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated the account was set aside to accumulate reserves through depreciation expense to purchase replacement equipment for the Printing Office. Module E-710 recommended $23,795 in FY2002 to replace a paper cutter controller, a high-end laser jet printer, and five desktop PCs. In FY2003, $190,008 was recommended for a 25-inch, one-color press to replace one that had been in existence for 28 years and had printed over 102 million sheets, four desktop PCs, and a high-end laser jet printer.
Module E-720 recommended $21,850 in FY2002 to purchase three punch dies for a new Punchmaster machine purchased in August 2000, and compact disc (CD) duplicating equipment to burn CD-ROM disks for agencies requesting reports and publications. Mr. Chapman stated the one technical adjustment to the account decreased decision unit E-710 by $455 in FY2002 and $7,864 in FY2003 to reflect reduced computer hardware prices as revised by the Purchasing Division.
Mr. Marvel asked if passage of S.B. 564 would affect the budget. Mr. Chapman said during the subcommittee hearings on the account, the agency had indicated they welcomed competition and felt competition would make the printing shop “leaner and meaner.”
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. de Braga, Mrs. Cegavske, and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
PURCHASING - EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-54
Mr. Chapman stated the account supported the Purchasing Division by accumulating reserves through depreciation expenses to replace equipment. The Executive Budget recommended 23 replacement desktop computers, a laptop, file servers, 18 desktop printers, two high-speed printers, and various network hardware upgrades. Staff recommended a technical adjustment to revise pricing for the replacement equipment included in decision unit E-710.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. de Braga, Mrs. Cegavske, and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
SURPLUS PROPERTY, BUDGET PAGE ADMIN-56
Mr. Chapman said the account, under the direction of the Purchasing Division, administered acquisition and transfer of federal surplus property received from the United States General Services Administration. The base budget recommended elimination of a program assistant position that had been vacant since February 2000. Module E-275 recommended $1,191 per year to provide training for the management analyst position to obtain certification as a purchasing manager. Module E-900 transferred the Surplus Property Account to the Purchasing Division budget account. A.B. 542 was introduced on March 22, 2001, to revise NRS 333.490(2) that would allow the funds in the account to be maintained in the Purchasing account. One technical adjustment was recommended to reduce the Insurance Expense for the Attorney General’s Tort Claims that was overstated in the budget.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. de Braga, Mrs. Cegavske, and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM, PAGE ADM-60
The Commodity Food Program administered the distribution of food received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food distribution was carried out through three sub-programs. The first distributed food to schools, child care sites, charitable institutions, senior nutrition programs, and summer camps. The second program distributed food to needy households on rural Indian reservations. The third program was the Emergency Food Assistance Program that distributed surplus products to food banks for redistribution to low-income households statewide. The base budget included $4,857 per year for overtime costs. Decision unit E-710 recommended $26,780 in FY2002 to replace a forklift purchased in 1981 that the agency indicated was worn out and replacement parts were obsolete. The decision unit also recommended replacement of three desktop computers, a file server, a high-end laser jet printer, office suite software, and various network hardware components. Decision unit E-720 recommended $129,617 in FY2002 to purchase a new two‑axle tractor, a refrigerated trailer, and a lift gate for an existing dry-goods trailer.
The technical adjustments staff recommended were to eliminate overtime in the base budget. Historically, overtime had not been approved for this budget account. Module M-100 was adjusted to reflect a reduction of $476 per year to eliminate an inflation adjustment to the General Fund loan repayment – a static payment that did not require an inflation adjustment. Decision unit E-710 was reduced to reflect current pricing for the forklift and the replacement computers and file servers. Module E-720 was increased $3,638 to reflect current vendor pricing for the new tractor, refrigerated trailer, and lift gate.
MR. PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. Cegavske and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
MAIL SERVICES, PAGE ADMIN-74
Mail Services provided mail service to most state agencies in Carson City, Reno, and Las Vegas. Services included United Parcel Services (UPS), overnight mail, and interoffice mail delivery. Decision unit M-100 recommended an increase in mail service charge revenue along with the associated postage expenditure to reflect the 1-cent increase in postage fees imposed January 2001. Decision units M-200 and M-202 reflected adjustments to depreciation expense and maintenance contract expense associated with the purchase of replacement equipment in module E-710 and new equipment in module E-720 in the Mail Services Equipment Purchase account. Decision unit E-720 recommended $2,000 per year for the annual software license for the new encoding machine recommended in the Purchase account. Staff recommended an increase of $23,485 per year to reflect additional revenue generated by the division’s assessment fee. Mr. Marvel stated the postal service had recently indicated fees might again be increased. Mr. Chapman was aware there had been discussions, but was not certain of the status of a pending rate increase, and indicated the issue might have to be addressed after the end of session.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. Cegavske and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
MAIL SERVICE EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, PAGE ADMIN-74
Mr. Chapman explained this account was similar to the other equipment accounts that accumulated reserve funds through depreciation expense to replace equipment as needed. Decision unit E-710 recommended $103,248 in FY2002 to acquire mailing machines, a folder inserter, an interdepartmental mail system, a Baum folding machine, postal scales, three desktop computers, and three printers. The decision unit also recommended $125,000 in FY2003 for a six-station inserter. Decision unit E-720 recommended $20,000 in FY2002 for an encoder machine to process flat, manila-type envelopes, which the agency indicated would save approximately 10.6 cents per envelope mailed. Staff recommended technical adjustments that decreased module E-710 by $30,353 in FY2002 that reflected the division’s decision not to acquire the interdepartmental mail and shipping machine. The machine was originally requested because the division handled registered and certified mail, which required signature by state agencies. Subsequent to the submission of the budget, the division had entered into an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service where the registered and certified mail would be handled directly by the agencies.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. Cegavske and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
NEVADA JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW BOARD, PAGE AGRI-84
Rick Combs, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, stated a few technical adjustments had been made in regard to the seasonal salary position that performed about 200 hours of work for the board. The amount included in the base for the seasonal salaries had been adjusted to include the 2 percent increase approved by the 1999 legislature. M-305 was adjusted to provide a 4 percent cost-of-living increase in each year of the biennium. No adjustment had been made in decision unit M-100. In the first year, $1,020 was recommended and almost $2,900 in the second year for the costs to the account for maintaining a Web page. The Department of Information Technology (DoIT) had reduced that amount to $1,032 in each year of the biennium, approximately $86 per month. The General Government Joint Subcommittee was currently working on DoIT budgets and staff hoped to reduce the Web page costs to a more competitive level with private companies. Chairman Arberry asked when staff expected a final recommendation. Mr. Combs stated the General Government Joint Subcommittee would be hearing the budgets the following day. Mr. Combs stated this was an area that staff had authority to make adjustments once the DoIT numbers were finalized.
Mr. Marvel wondered if the Web page costs would be reduced because the account was a bare bones budget, and Mr. Combs responded that General Fund dollars had been added to cover the DoIT costs. Mr. Beers indicated, as a member of the General Government Subcommittee, he had been working with DoIT on the issue and stated their Web site fee currently had service time included and assumed the agencies would need help. Mr. Beers thought DoIT would come to the next General Government meeting with a fee that assumed agencies would not need assistance. However, Mr. Beers wanted the committee to be careful to not send agencies that did not have internal expertise on setting up a Web site down the path of getting the cheaper alternative. Otherwise, the agencies would be back for a budget overrun when DoIT services were needed. Mrs. de Braga asked if the money included for the Web page was in addition to the regular budget, and Mr. Combs stated additional General Fund dollars were included in the budget to cover DoIT costs. Mrs. de Braga asked if the Show Board had requested the DoIT funding and Mr. Combs was not aware that the board specifically made the request. The Department of Agriculture had been working with the Show Board as well as the High School Rodeo Association to include the Web page. Mr. Beers thought an organization such as the Junior Livestock Show Board should be able to find a youth who would volunteer time to create a Web site for the board, but $40 per month was not sufficient to have DoIT create a Web page.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Goldwater was not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HIGH SCHOOL RODEO ASSOCIATION, PAGE AGRI-87
Mr. Combs stated the account was a pass-through account and no adjustments had been made. The budget included $20,000 each year of the biennium for the High School Rodeo Association. This budget, like the Junior Livestock Show Board, also had the issue of funding to maintain a Web site. Mrs. de Braga stated 100 percent of the $20,000 included in the budget goes to the children who traveled and represented the state at the national level, and stated there should be no deduction from the $20,000 for costs to maintain a Web site. Mr. Combs stated there would be no reduction, there was an addition to expenditures and additional General Fund revenue was provided. Because the National High School Rodeo Association already had a Web site, Mrs. de Braga did not understand the purpose of the funding for a site at the state level. Mrs. Chowning thought the issue should be researched. There was a state mandate that each program have a Web site, but, in this case, the site was not necessary. Mrs. Chowning asked what could be done to have the directive for a site not apply to a pass-through program. Mark Stevens stated if the committee wanted to send a message that the program did not need a Web site, the money included for the site could be extracted from the budget. Mrs. de Braga thought organizations should have the option to have, or not have, a Web site.
MRS. DE BRAGA MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REMOVED FOR BUDGET ACCOUNT 4980 (NEVADA JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW BOARD) AND BUDGET ACCOUNT 1341 (NEVADA HIGH SCHOOL RODEO ASSOCIATION).
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
MINERALS-BOND RECLAMATION, PAGE MINERALS-7
Mr. Combs stated there were a number of technical adjustments necessary due to additional information on the work program year (FY2001) projections.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
Chairman Arberry interrupted the budget closings to hear testimony on A.B. 449.
Assembly Bill 449: Reserves portion of certain gaming license fees from off- track pari-mutuel wagering to augment purses for horse racing in certain counties. (BDR 41-657)
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33, said A.B. 449 appropriated money to the county fairs for purses for horse racing in Elko, White Pine, and Humboldt Counties. The measure would generate slightly over $200,000, which would be allocated to the programs in the three counties. Mr. Carpenter stated letters of support from Elko County, the City of Elko, the Elko Chamber of Commerce, and White Pine County had been distributed to the committee (Exhibit F). The bill would provide economic development to the rural counties and would, hopefully, keep horse racing alive throughout the intermountain area.
Michael J. Franzoia, Mayor, City of Elko, stated A.B. 449 was a good bill that would help keep horse racing viable in Nevada.
E.V. “Kelly” Buckner, Elko County Fair Board member and the Elko Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, referred to the packet (Exhibit F) and highlighted the more important points. Horse racing in Nevada, particularly in Elko and White Pine Counties had been in existence for over 50 years. The key to the economic impact of racing on the local communities was that each year races were held and 95 percent of the race horses came from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana and brought approximately three people per horse to the communities. The additional room tax, sales tax, and other dollars spent generated a significant amount of money. With gold prices somewhat depressed, it was important to continue horse racing to provide economic stimulus to both communities. Mr. Buckner referred to the table included in the packet (Exhibit F) that contained statistics for neighboring states with pari‑mutuel wagering. The information included the total amount wagered and the amount returned for purse monies. Nevada ranked third in the total amount of money wagered and currently had no funds returned to live horse racing. Mr. Marvel asked if the county would keep part of the pari-mutuel funds and Mr. Carpenter answered that the pari-mutuel take in Elko currently goes back to the purses. The additional funds would come from the amount the state currently collected, approximately $200,000. Mr. Carpenter explained that state funds would be reduced.
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, stated AB. 449, as currently written, would take part of the pari-mutuel taxes that were paid and redistribute them to the counties with live horse racing. Mr. Scherer wondered whether the responsibility for distributing the funds to the counties would fall to the Gaming Control Board, to the Treasurer, or another agency – clarification was needed. A.B. 449 included gross revenue taxes only, not license fees such as annual license fees. Mr. Scherer assumed the base for determining the taxes would be for the prior fiscal year. Chairman Arberry asked who had had responsibility for allocating funds generated from dog racing, and Mr. Scherer indicated the Gaming Control Board was given authority over racing in 1993. Mr. Scherer wanted to know if the Gaming Control Board would have responsibility to collect and allocate directly to the counties and then remit the remainder to the State Treasurer, or remit the entire amount to the treasurer, who would then allocate the funds to the counties. Mr. Marvel asked if the bill would also apply to the mule racing in Winnemucca, Nevada, and Mr. Scherer affirmed.
Harvey Whittemore, representing Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, supported A.B. 449, the “cow county caucus bill,” with the suggested and proposed changes articulated by Mr. Scherer.
Jim Avance stated he lived in Las Vegas, but spent time in both Ely and Elko attending the horse races. If purses were increased, more individuals would attend the races and the local economies would benefit. Las Vegas casinos no longer sponsored races in Elko and racing had declined. Mr. Avance indicated the bill would help the rural counties and indicated his support for A.B. 449.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 449 and referred to A.B. 75.
Assembly Bill 75: Requires adoption of state cancer plan and mandates administrative action necessary to provide Medicaid coverage to certain patients with breast or cervical cancer. (BDR 40-277)
Assemblywoman Merle Berman, District 2, Las Vegas, stated A.B. 75 had been rereferred to the committee. All funding had been removed from the bill since the funding was included in The Executive Budget. The Health Division already had a cancer plan, and, since no money would be involved, Ms. Berman asked the committee to pass the bill out of Assembly Ways and Means to Senate Finance.
Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator, Health Division, stated the division supported A.B. 75. The division was currently in the process of developing a statewide cancer plan within the current budget constraints. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was also expanding their cancer-prevention programs to include specific initiatives. Ms. Tiffany asked about the funding already included in the Governor’s budget. Ms. Sylva stated the actual amount included in the budget, specifically for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Comprehensive Treatment Program, was included in the state Medicaid budget. In response to a question posed by Chairman Arberry, Ms. Sylva stated the Health Division would continue the cancer control plan with the CDC federal grant funds. Ms. Tiffany asked if additional costs were added in the Medicaid budget to cover the plan. Charles Duarte indicated $6.3 million dollars had been included in the budget for the next biennium for the treatment of women diagnosed through the CDC Women’s Heath Connection program. The $6.3 million included a General Fund requirement of $2.3 million over the biennium. Mr. Duarte expressed concern with some of the language included in A.B. 75. The language referred to an effective date of July 1, 2001, or at such time that the federal government gave the agency authority to move forward with the Medicaid enhancement. LCB staff had asked the agency to consider the possibility of moving to a later effective date as a budget-saving measure, and if the date was changed, the agency could not comply with the effective date contained in the bill. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Duarte to provide additional information on Section 2, line 31, page 2 of A.B. 75. Mr. Duarte said under the new Medicaid option for breast and cervical cancer treatment, women screened through the Women’s Health Connection program and diagnosed with either breast or cervical cancer could be presumptively determined eligible for Medicaid coverage, begin treatment, and then apply for Medicaid eligibility. After the eligibility was determined, an individual could continue to receive treatment for the disease.
Mrs. Chowning understood the agency would continue with the state cancer plan, however, A.B. 75 stated the agency would develop the plan. Mrs. Chowning asked Ms. Sylva to provide an explanation. Ms. Sylva said when the bill was introduced, the CDC had not yet taken a stand on expanding their cancer-prevention programs to include the development of a comprehensive plan. After the legislative session began, the CDC had taken a stand and the agency was currently in the process of collecting information and developing a plan. In essence, the agency would produce a product that looked like something that was envisioned as a result of A.B. 75 – the state had not had a plan in the past. Mrs. Chowning wondered if the language included in the bill needed revising, and Ms. Sylva responded in the negative.
Mr. Duarte indicated in prior testimony he had referred to an earlier draft of A.B. 75 and had responded to the wrong section in the bill. The section he had been asked to comment on was related to money to carry out the provisions of A.B. 75. Mr. Duarte assumed the agency was not to carry out the act unless funds were available, but was not certain his interpretation was correct. Chairman Arberry explained the funds included in the Governor’s budget were recommended and Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance had the authorization to include or not include the funding. Ms. Tiffany asked if A.B. 75 was an appropriation bill that would be exempt from the deadline to be passed from the committee, and Chairman Arberry affirmed.
Maureen Brower, American Cancer Society, said the society was very much in favor of A.B. 75 and thought it was important that certain goals and objectives be developed.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 75 closed and returned to budget closings.
COMMISSION FOR HOSPITAL PATIENTS, PAGE B&I-8
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said the Office for Hospital Patients had responsibility for resolving disputes between patients and hospitals regarding the accuracy or amount of charges billed to patients. The office was funded through an assessment against each hospital, other than state or federal, with 49 or more licensed or approved hospital beds. A.B. 559 submitted on behalf of the Budget Division, recommended transfer of the Office for Hospital Patients from the Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs Division, to the Office of the Ombudsman for Health Care Services, located in the Governor’s Office, Budget Account 1003. In anticipation of the transfer, decision unit E-900 recommended the transfer of resources and expenditures to Budget Account 1003 and decision unit E-800 recommended eliminating the Department of Business and Industry indirect cost allocation. The Office for Hospital Patients would become the Bureau for Hospital Patients. The Executive Budget also recommended the elimination of a .51 full-time equivalent compliance investigator position that had been vacant during the 1999-2001 biennium. Staff recommended that the budget be closed as recommended by the Governor subject to the passage of A.B. 559. In response to a question posed by Mrs. Chowning, Ms. Braun confirmed that the Office for Hospital Patients was currently located in the Consumer Affairs Division. Mrs. Chowning stated she was not in favor of the transfer to the Ombudsman’s Office. The Office for Hospital Patients had been instrumental in answering many constituents’ problems and had resulted in savings of thousands and thousands of dollars in hospital bills for patients. Mrs. Chowning was fearful it would get lost in the Ombudsman’s Office and savings for patients would be lost. Ms. Braun said the total amount recommended to transfer to Budget Account 1003 was $190,326 in FY2002 and $201,726 in FY2003. Mr. Stevens said the Heath Care Ombudsman and the Office of Hospital Patients mainly performed the same type of work, so it was not a question of whether the Office of Hospital Patients would be eliminated. The funding would be transferred to the Health Care Ombudsman account and that function would be handled within that particular agency instead of within the Department of Business and Industry.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE PASSAGE OF A.B. 559 AND THE STATEWIDE ALLOCATION.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO. (Mr. Perkins was not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
REAL ESTATE EDUCATION & RESEARCH, PAGE B&I-24
Ms. Braun said Budget Account 3826 funded the review and approval of continuing education courses for Nevada’s real estate licensees and the licensing of instructors for those courses. In order to ensure compliance with the regulations, the division conducted inspections at continuing education instruction sites. The account also funded various real estate research projects, including research of licensing and education requirements of other states. There were four full-time employees funded in the account. Per NRS 45.842, the account was funded through a transfer from Budget Account 3827, the Real Estate Recovery Account. The amount of the transfer equaled the amount in Budget Account 3827 in excess of $50,000 at the end of any fiscal year.
Decision unit E-275 recommended funding for an increase in building rent, maintenance services, and funding for staff computer training needs. Decision unit E-720 recommended funding for four conference room chairs, one laptop computer, and one Corel Word Perfect software package.
Following staff review, the following budget adjustments were recommended:
Mrs. Chowning disclosed being a Nevada real estate licensee. She asked why an increase in rent was being proposed. Ms. Braun stated the office space would be increased resulting in increased rent. Mr. Parks also disclosed being a Nevada real estate licensee.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
REAL ESTATE RECOVERY ACCOUNT, PAGE B&I –29
Ms. Braun stated Budget Account 3827 was a non-General Fund budget funded through the biennial collection of a $40 fee from each real estate broker, broker salesman, and salesman licensed by the Real Estate Division. When a person obtained a final judgment against a real estate licensee on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, with respect to a real estate transaction, the person could file a petition for an order directing the division to pay not more than $10,000 of a judgment from the account. In FY2000 there were three such claims for a total of $23,000. As noted previously, the amount in this account at the end of a fiscal year in excess of $50,000 was transferred to the Real Estate Education and Research account.
Per NRS 645.842, a balance of not less than $50,000 must be maintained in the account. Decision unit M-100 recommended that the Attorney General Cost Allocation of $2,316 in each year of the biennium be funded from the reserve category, the account that maintained the required $50,000 balance, which would result in reducing the balance below the $50,000 level. Staff recommended an adjustment to fund M-100 cost allocation of $2,316 in each year of the biennium from the base amounts recommended to be transferred to Budget Account 3826. No other adjustments were recommended.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
REAL ESTATE INVESTIGATIVE FUND, PAGE B&I-31
Ms. Braun stated Budget Account 3831 was established to finance investigations of land, time-share, and campground sales advertised or offered for sale within the state. The division had responsibility for inspecting the advertisements and the instruments that created the projects. The goal of the investigations conducted by the division was to ensure that the developers had provided potential purchasers in Nevada with valid information in the disclosure documents. The account was funded through an imposition of fees against developers to pay for the costs of any investigations conducted by the division. During FY2000, the division conducted six investigations for a total cost of $1,156. Although the agency had projected a total of three investigations to be completed in the current fiscal year, to date, no complaints had been received to warrant an investigation. For the next biennium the agency projected a total of five investigations each year. The Governor recommended maintaining authority in the budget at the base amount of $1,156 in each year of the biennium. Staff recommended closing the budget at Governor Recommends.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AT GOVERNOR RECOMMEND.
MRS. CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was not present to vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH, PAGE HEALTH-19
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said the budget account:
The budget was adjusted to align the revenues with actual expenditures. The adjustment reduced the state General Fund appropriation by $15,137 in FY2002 and $2,672 in FY2003. Subject to the approval of the committee, staff recommended that the budget be reduced by $2,000 each year of the biennium to cover legal fees for LCB review of regulations. No regulations were reviewed in the base year.
Mrs. Chowning wondered if any of the machines were deemed unsuitable and asked the division to provide her with the information.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HEALTH RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE, PAGE HEALTH-23
This account was a trust fund set up for the post-closure activities for the low‑level waste site located in Beatty, Nevada. Some staff adjustments were recommended:
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
MR. BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
FAMILY PLANNING PROJECT, PAGE HEALTH-38
The Family Planning Project, Health Division, promoted the health of individuals and families in Nevada’s rural counties by providing various family planning programs. After discussions with the division, the amount of federal grant revenues was increased to approximate the grant awards anticipated during the next biennium. The Medical Service Charge anticipated revenue collections were reduced by $116,000 each year of the biennium. The division felt it had been overly optimistic in projecting revenues.
MRS. DE BRAGA MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HEALTH ALCOHOL TAX PROGRAM, PAGE HEALTH-75
The program collected a portion of the tax on liquor sales. Grant awards were given to areas where shortages existed in personnel to conduct treatment for alcoholism and alcohol abuse. A technical adjustment was made to re-project the revenues with an increase of approximately 3 percent each year of the biennium.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HEALTH ALERT NETWORK, PAGE HEALTH-80
Mr. Atkinson referred to Budget Account 3218, which came into existence in September of 1999 with the approval of the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) of a Health Division request to accept a federal grant. The primary purpose was to create a communications network for use in disease surveillance, investigations, disease outbreaks, etc. Once completed, the Health Division would be able to communicate with other agencies within the state and with the federal government, including the CDC. The only adjustment was to add an additional position that was approved at the December 4, 2000, meeting of the IFC.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Assembly Bill 109: Increases number of district judges in eighth judicial district. (BDR 1-520)
Gene T. Porter, Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, said it was an honor to speak to the committee on behalf of A.B. 109, which would increase the number of district court judges in Clark County from 30 to 35. Prior to January of 2001, there were 27 judges in the Eighth Judicial District Court, 19 in the Civil Criminal Division, and 8 in the Family Division. Three judges were added to the Family Division by the 1999 legislature. Judge Porter explained that the information he would present (Exhibit G) was based upon the 1999-2000 caseload data, the most recent available. During the presentation the impact of additional judges on existing caseload would become readily apparent. The charts included in Exhibit G contained salary, caseload, and productivity analysis. The comparisons were based upon information from Los Angeles and San Diego, California, and Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona – the closest, similarly situated metropolitan areas. Comparing workload and productivity with Nevada’s sister states revealed the Eighth Judicial District Court judges were among the most productive and the most underpaid. Superior court judges in Los Angeles County received a yearly take-home pay of $163,822. There were 238 judges for a population of 9.2 million, or 38,655 citizens per judge. The average judge in Los Angeles County had an average annual caseload of 1,244 cases and disposed of 943 annually. Superior court judges in Phoenix, Arizona, Maricopa County, received a yearly take-home pay of $120,750 with 82 judges for a population of 2.8 million, or 34,146 citizens per judge. The average judge had a caseload of 1,395 cases annually and disposed of 1,252 cases annually. Judge Porter reviewed similar numbers for San Diego County, California (Exhibit G). In Clark County, judges received a yearly take‑home pay of $108,667. In 1999 when the figures became available there were 27 judges for a population of 1.3 million, 48,148 citizens per judge. The average judge in Clark County had a caseload of 2,254 cases annually, and disposed of 2,025 cases annually – almost twice the number of other jurisdictions.
Judge Porter continued with his presentation (Exhibit G) and compared workload and productivity with salaries. The cost for filing per judge was $132 in Los Angeles County, $98 in San Diego County, $87 in Maricopa County, and $48 in Clark County. Utilizing the same numbers for dispositions, the cost per case in Los Angeles County was $174, Maricopa County was $96, San Diego was $102, and $54 in Clark County. The remaining charts included in Exhibit G demonstrated the impact of additional judges in Clark County upon caseload and population, the projection of year 2003 filings per judicial position, district court judgeships, and judicial productivity.
Judge Porter testified the courts were keenly aware of the economic uncertainty surrounding the state, particularly this budgeting cycle, and were also aware of the direct economic impact that additional judges would place upon local government officials who must provide facilities and support personnel required for additional staff. Judge Porter deferred to the wisdom and expertise of the committee to decide the appropriateness of A.B. 109.
Mr. Dini asked if Clark County was prepared to provide the additional facilities and staff. Judge Porter indicated there had been discussions with Clark County and a representative of the county would address the question. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if judges were tracked by court, by the number of trials, and the length of the trials. Judge Porter stated he would provide the information to Ms. Giunchigliani.
James J. Spinello, representing Clark County, stated a district judge, in terms of operating costs to the county in the initial years, varied from $600,000 for a judge handling civil matters, to $1.3 million to $1.5 million for a judge handling criminal matters. The costs would be ongoing and would continue to rise. Clark County was very sympathetic to the district court and was extremely pleased that Judge Porter was now the Chief Judge. Mr. Spinello stated the county’s position was currently in flux -- revenues were decreasing and mandates had increased. Clark County believed additional judges were required, particularly in the Family Court Division. Mr. Perkins asked if the courthouse that was currently under construction was going to have enough space for additional judges. Mr. Spinello said modifications had been made to the building on the tenth floor and an additional three courtrooms would be included in the new courthouse. The addition of five new judges would require additional capital, as well as operating expenses. Mr. Perkins understood the new facility was meant to be a 25-year facility, and was concerned that the space for five new judges was not currently available. Mr. Spinello said the county was continually planning for growth. Public safety was the single largest area of Clark County’s general fund budget and the county recognized, as the population increased, the need for the courts would continue to grow. Mr. Spinello said Clark County had an excellent reputation – the county was the only local government in the country that was both building and paying for a freeway system. Chuck Short, Court Administrator, Clark County District Court, responded to a question posed by Mr. Perkins and stated due to funding constraints, the courthouse had been designed for the first 10 years of the 25‑year master plan. Clark County had purchased a block south of the facility and was currently planning phase two, which would be constructed between 2005 and 2010.
A. William Maupin, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, said the court supported additional judges based upon analysis of Clark County’s statistics. The statistics indicated the Eighth Judicial District, Las Vegas, Nevada, had applied the most pressure on the caseload in the state Supreme Court. For the last several years, the increase in caseloads in the state Supreme Court and in the Eighth Judicial District, were reflective of the population growth in Clark County. Judge Maupin repeated the Supreme Court’s support of A.B. 109.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:51 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda J. Smith
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: