MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
senate finance/assembly ways and means
joint subcommittee on k-12/human resources
Seventy-First Session
April 12, 2001
The Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resourceswas called to order at 8:14 a.m. on Thursday, April 12, 2001. Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman, 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.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Excused
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst
Georgia Rohrs, Program Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
BUDGET CLOSINGS
FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – BUDGET PAGE MHDS-49
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate), Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), Fiscal Division, informed the committee that the recommendation was to close the budget as recommended by the Governor. The Executive Budget recommended that 112 clients be transferred from the Family Preservation Program to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseload, which would not actually cause a reduction in services provided to those clients. Mr. Guernsey stated the transfer would require some adjustments to the TANF program. There would be a reduction in General Fund dollars of $135,349 because of the proposed transfer, and the cost to TANF would be approximately $470,000 because of that program’s higher rate of $350 per month.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. Cegavske, Mr. Goldwater, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM – BUDGET PAGE MHDS-56
Mr. Guernsey indicated the budget provided oversight on the Advanced Information Management System (AIMS), and employed a number of staff. Minor adjustments were recommended, including an adjustment for computer prices within the budget in each year of the biennium. According to Mr. Guernsey that would affect both federal revenue and the General Fund, with a reduction in the General Fund of $642 in the first year of the biennium, and $329 in the second year of the biennium.
MS. LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. Cegavske, Mr. Goldwater, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Senator Rawson opened the hearing for public comment regarding the MOJAVE program, and invited interested persons to come forward.
Brian Lahren, Ph.D., Washoe Association for Retarded Citizens, stated he would provide a brief historical perspective on the MOJAVE program within the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Services Budget, and how that program was initiated. In 1992, budget cuts, particularly in southern Nevada, were so severe that it basically eliminated the community-based mental health system, i.e., day treatment, case management, et cetera. Dr. Lahren stated that it quickly became apparent to the Governor that it had been an unfortunately deep cut, and an allocation of approximately $900,000 was discovered in Medicaid funding which could be moved into the mental health system without actually adding it back into the budget.
According to Dr. Lahren, the method used to accommodate re-creation of a number of the services previously eliminated was to create a special, private service system, which came to be called MOJAVE Mental Health. That was accomplished by transferring the approximately $900,000 in Medicaid funding to the Family Care Clinic attached to the School of Medicine at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), which had already been assigned a Medicaid provider number. The funding created precisely the community-based case management and day treatment services that had existed prior to the budget cut. Those services, however, were constructed via a contract with the UNR, using the Medicaid funding and the UNR’s provider number, and rehired many of the staff that had been cut from the state system as private contractors. Dr. Lahren stated those services immediately stepped in to fill the gap, providing some continuity of care, and assisting those persons at high risk that required inpatient care, or who were suicidal.
According to Dr. Lahren, it was a good program, however, it did circumvent a number of methods normally used to bid-out and contract mental health services. Over the years, MOJAVE had been a successful program, and had provided very good services, but Dr. Lahren felt it had grown without any substantial competition. Dr. Lahren explained the problem now existed wherein MOJAVE was the preferred state provider, and no other agency had real, legitimate access to the system as a whole; there was no competition for services, there was a lack of client choice, and yet it was an extremely convenient system for the state to operate. Dr. Lahren reported that there were a number of private providers who would like to bid for the service and, were they able to do so, it would provide the opportunity for people to select among various providers. It would also allow the state to create some competition in order to guarantee that prices being charged to state Medicaid were, in fact, the least expensive for effective services.
Because of the control the system had with the way MOJAVE was created, it initially received a rather large block of clients, and Dr. Lahren explained the program was immediately profitable. For another agency to compete on paper within the mental health area, and with the possibility of only being referred one or two clients, that potential competitor would find itself in the position of being forced to create a rather large infrastructure, which would be supported only by the few referrals from the state. Dr. Lahren reiterated that it had been very difficult for competitors to compete with the system, along with the additional problem caused by the difficulty in securing Medicaid provider numbers by private providers. At some point, Dr. Lahren felt the issues should be discussed and reviewed. Basically, MOJAVE currently enjoyed a monopoly in targeted case management services, along with a number of other services related to client treatment, which might in fact cause it to be in somewhat of an ethical conflict within targeted case management services.
Dr. Lahren explained that if an agency was managing its own other-service delivery system, it retained greater control over the type of treatment patients actually received. A case management system should be independent of other‑service delivery systems to some extent, in order to maintain independent oversight regarding the type of services delivered to clients. Dr. Lahren noted that MOJAVE now had a large group of patients receiving services, and it would be extremely difficult for other companies to compete. It was the issue of competition and how persons on the outside could break into the service area that brought Dr. Lahren before the subcommittee.
Senator Rawson indicated he was unsure whether all the legislators were aware of the situation with MOJAVE, and explained that MOJAVE had been linked to the School of Medicine at UNR when the program was originally initiated. He then inquired whether there was currently a financial link to the School of Medicine. Dr. Lahren remarked that at the time the state was attempting to determine how to return mental health services to the community, the Department of Human Resources (DHR) discovered that the Family Care Clinic attached to the School of Medicine was providing indigent care to Nevada families, and was in a position to orchestrate the development of other types of medical services, i.e., mental health medical services. Dr. Lahren stated the DHR approached the UNR and voiced interest in using the umbrella and existing mechanism for the transfer of Medicaid funds that were in place within its Family Care Clinic, to expand those services to include mental health patients. Even though the clinic was located at the UNR, the DHR wanted to utilize its umbrella to provide services in Las Vegas, with the UNR hiring the staff to run the program. The money was allocated via a pass-through from the School of Medicine to MOJAVE Mental Health, and Dr. Lahren stated he thought that was still the way the program was structured.
Senator Rawson indicated that MOJAVE had performed an essential service to the state at the time of its origin, by establishing a service the state did not have the means to accomplish. In the beginning, the program was successful and filled the gap. Senator Rawson wondered what the effect would be on other programs if the MOJAVE program was not utilized by the state, and what General Fund money would be required to support the losses in those programs. He felt that if the legislature was going to undertake changes in the mental health services area, it needed to review all aspects of the MOJAVE program and the subsequent effects of any proposed change. Senator Rawson then inquired whether the concern was that MOJAVE was extending into northern Nevada, which created a crisis for other providers.
Dr. Lahren stated the MOJAVE program had been of concern in southern Nevada prior to its expansion into northern Nevada. However, what most concerned a number of potential service providers of the same services that MOJAVE was authorized to provide, was that there was no competition for the provision of those services. Private providers in both southern and northern Nevada would like to be offered a credible opportunity to provide those services. The way the system was structured, explained Dr. Lahren, the opportunity to compete was simply not there, either structurally or functionally.
Senator Rawson indicated the state made decisions similar to the creation of the MOJAVE program in a number of areas, and sometimes such action created a monopoly, depending on the program under discussion. Generally, the legislature solicited whatever services it could from the private sector, however, Senator Rawson did not feel a decision should be made regarding the MOJAVE program simply because there were persons who were unhappy and not able to compete. He felt that such a decision should be based on the program that would provide the best continuum, the best redundancy, and the best “fall‑back,” et cetera. Senator Rawson stated that, frankly, there were only a few members of the subcommittee who understood the issue deeply enough to have formed a strong opinion regarding the program, and any decision would require full committee review.
Dr. Lahren felt that the criteria alluded to by Senator Rawson was what should be considered by the legislature, and should hold sway over the final decision. He noted, however, that one of the concerns of advocates and potential providers in the community was that it would be possible for those other providers to offer the services for as much as 40 percent less than the state was currently paying. There were providers who undertook such programs in other states, who had offered to come into Nevada and demonstrate how to provide services of the same quality for a considerably lower cost to the state, and yet those providers had been unable to break into the service system in Nevada, and also had been unable to hold discussions that would raise the issue to a level of awareness within the legislature.
Senator Rawson indicated that he was unclear where the MOJAVE program discussion was headed, because should the legislature initiate changes, it would require further meetings to explore the issues. Senator Rawson suggested that perhaps the issue should be presented for an interim study, in order to solicit further recommendations; he asked whether immediate changes in the program were expected.
Electing to respond was Paula Berkley, who indicated there were no simple solutions to the problem. She felt that Senator Rawson was correct, in that the need for further hearings did exist in order to bring expertise to bear regarding the problem. Ms. Berkley indicated she represented a client who offered one example of an attempt to enter the system, and who had been discouraged because of the inability to compete. Ms. Berkley stated she represented the Citadel Company, a subsidiary of EduCare, which served approximately 2,500 patients in Texas alone, was an outside, accredited company, and had a patented program. Ms. Berkley emphasized that the Citadel Company offered a quality program, and would like to compete in the state of Nevada. Every time the Citadel Company returned a Request for Proposal (RFP), it won the bid, however, was not referred clients because it was not able to secure a Medicaid number. The solution should reflect the definite need for a forum of some sort to work out the problem.
Senator Rawson explained that there was still some work to be done on the Mental Health and Developmental Services budgets, which included Budget Account 3163, Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, but pledged to bring the issue to the forefront of budget closings for a thorough review. There had been issues raised regarding limited access and targeted case management, and Senator Rawson invited Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (HCF&P), to come forward and address the subcommittee.
Mr. Duarte stated that Dr. Lahren had described the role of targeted case management quite accurately in his previous testimony. According to Mr. Duarte, Medicaid was not opposed to seeking out other contractors for services, especially if those contractors were cost-effective. However, stated Mr. Duarte, there was much concern regarding the confusion surrounding the issue of targeted case management. Targeted case management, as opposed to regular Medicaid service benefits, was actually not a benefit, but rather was a utilization and quality control measure used by the state to ensure that services were cost-effective and of high quality. Mr. Duarte indicated that targeted case management also aided the client in securing the needed services as part of an overall care plan.
According to Mr. Duarte, he would be reluctant to voice support for opening the field to other providers at the current time, because HCF&P was building an organizational structure which would ensure that it could monitor current and new programs more cost-effectively. Until that time, Mr. Duarte stated he could not assure the subcommittee that HCF&P was in any position to monitor additional activities. As Dr. Lahren previously testified, the need did exist for separation, or some type of interface between targeted case management and the service delivery piece, whether that service was delivered by the state via MOJAVE, or by private contractors. Continuing, Mr. Duarte explained that targeted case management developed a care plan that was both appropriate and cost-effective. Difficulties arose when the agency performing the care planning and assessment was the same agency that delivered the services, and Mr. Duarte indicated Medicaid needed to intervene in such instances, and in order to do that, HCF&P needed to ensure it had the proper staff in place. Consequently, Mr. Duarte stated, he was reluctant to agree to open the field to other providers until the staff and tools were in place to provide the oversight. The costs of targeted case management had gone up from $6 million in FY1998 to $13 million in FY2000, which was of concern because of the extremely tight budget over the upcoming biennium. Mr. Duarte reiterated that cost-effective alternatives should be reviewed, however, felt it should be done correctly, which would take time. He felt that, perhaps, the interim should be used to research the issue.
Senator Rawson noted that because of budget cuts the legislature sometimes forced agencies such as the School of Medicine to undertake programs which were not included in their primary mission, in order to fill a certain void. Once the crisis was over, the system often remained in place, and sometimes began to generate income. If removing the program from the School of Medicine’s umbrella would cause a problem for the school, it would not be advantageous to take such action at the current time. Senator Rawson felt the legislature should determine what would be the best policy, and what were the financial implications of a change. If resources were taken away from a program such as the School of Medicine to facilitate the change, that issue should be dealt with by directing different resources back to it. Senator Rawson indicated the legislature did not want to cause a panic and begin stripping and rearranging programs without first understanding the issues and implications. As the legislature became aware of the total picture, it should be committed to determining that its programs develop in a competent and proper manner. The membership of the subcommittee essentially represented the leadership in both houses, and Senator Rawson noted that it was the consensus of opinion that existing programs should not be harmed, while realizing the best results.
Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Duarte what programs he had observed in other states, as well as his personal experience, that would be in contrast with Nevada’s program. Mr. Duarte stated he felt Nevada was doing a fairly good job in terms of managing the individuals with chronic mental illness, but could do more. Other states were looking at different varieties of delivery and financing models. Mr. Duarte commented that the state of Iowa had contracted with a behavioral health managed care plan for all its Medicaid behavioral health services. Through a firm that served approximately 5 million individuals nationwide, Iowa was provided with a comprehensive approach and a package of services at a predictable cost for mental health. The firm was also required to meet certain performance standards, through contract, which included quality of care and utilization standards, and was required to reinvest in community mental health services.
Mr. Duarte pointed out that such trends were becoming more dominant in Medicaid programs, and some states were utilizing what was called an “enhanced primary care case management system.” That type of model, which pulled together a package of services at a predictable price, were the types of programs that state Medicaid agencies were moving toward. Mr. Duarte felt the state should review some of those examples of best purchasing practices for behavioral health services, to ascertain what action would be necessary in development of that type of service in Nevada.
Ms. Tiffany asked whether the program should be administered via a single contract with one provider. Mr. Duarte remarked that some states used a single provider, while others used multiple providers, and he noted that a waiver was necessary if only one provider was used, however, the federal government had been granting that type of waiver. The state needed to maintain control and the best way to accomplish that was to retain oversight of targeted case management, in Mr. Duarte’s opinion. Ms. Tiffany then inquired whether such oversight would eliminate the “mom and pop shops” care providers. Mr. Duarte replied that the contracts he had reviewed from the state of Iowa required that established community health providers were a part of the arrangements. Ms. Tiffany noted that would make it a consortium or collaboration. Mr. Duarte replied in the affirmative, and explained those agencies, or “mom and pop shops,” really did connect with the client, which was extremely important. The larger companies brought the technologies to bear that allowed for better management of the services. Mr. Duarte stressed that it was extremely important to continue the use of established community-based providers. The School of Medicine really did have a good connection with clients suffering from chronic mental illness.
Ms. Tiffany asked what was required to become a Medicaid provider. Mr. Duarte indicated that it would require application and qualification, which was not extremely difficult, and did not include any financial requirements. It was required that the person be licensed as a care provider in the state of Nevada, with access to the proper infrastructure. The caveat to those requirements was in respect to targeted case management, and Mr. Duarte explained that the state did limit providers in that area, primarily because it had to provide some assurance to both the legislature and the federal government that the provider had the capacity to develop quality care plans that were also cost-effective. Currently, HCF&P could not assure itself or the legislature that it was doing a competent job overseeing that area, and although the Medicaid State Plan had recently been changed to allow access to other contractors, Mr. Duarte stated he was reluctant to open the field immediately, without the proper infrastructure in place within HCF&P to manage the programs.
Senator Rawson did not feel the legislature would be able to deal with the overall issue during the current session, however, several mechanisms did exist for an interim review, and one of those was the Standing Committee on Health Care. He noted that the issue of mental health care would easily fit within the purview of that committee. Other avenues were also available, and the legislature could establish a specific interim study committee to deal with the problem.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted that in various budget closings, a line item for the MOJAVE expense was included, however, it did not appear those expenses had been tracked. The issuance of RFPs and open contracts could be handled via the various budgets, and perhaps during final closing hearings, discussion could be undertaken regarding that issue. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that Charlotte Crawford, Director, DHR, and Mr. Duarte submit a recommendation regarding how to secure Medicaid numbers for providers, in order for other agencies and/or persons to properly bid via an RFP process; she felt that should be the final issue for review prior to closing those budgets containing MOJAVE expenses.
According to Ms. Berkley, the Texas-based Citadel Program moved from Nevada approximately two years ago because of its inability to enter into the mental health care market and, prior to leaving the state, had met with Ms. Crawford to discuss the problem. At the meeting, it was pointed out that the state of Texas had grappled with the same problems that Nevada was facing, and had implemented three different methods of providing mental health services. The state then required that all providers be cognizant of all three methods. Citadel invited Nevada representatives to travel to Texas and observe the three different billing options, one of which was direct billing via Medicaid. Ms. Berkley offered to have personnel from Citadel make a presentation before the subcommittee regarding the options, to ascertain whether that expertise could be of service to Nevada.
Stuart Gordon, Executive Director, Family Counseling, applauded the subcommittee for reviewing the issue. Mr. Gordon explained that Family Counseling was a local provider in the northern Nevada area and, though it was in possession of a Medicaid number, it was not allowed to bill for the services of licensed clinical social workers or mental health technicians who would treat Medicaid-eligible clients. According to Mr. Gordon, Family Counseling was the only accredited agency in the state of Nevada, and he would like to level the playing field somewhat. Family Counseling had on staff experts in the field of sexual abuse, and was the only diagnosis program in northern Nevada. Mr. Gordon noted that many clients were Medicaid-eligible, and he had been asked to research the possibility of providing additional programs; he reiterated that Family Counseling could not currently accept Medicaid payments. Mr. Gordon applauded the idea of opening the field so that experts from Family Counseling could treat the children and clients who were funded via Medicaid. According to Mr. Gordon, Family Counseling provided services pro bono because of that restriction.
Ms. Tiffany inquired whether those clients could be served by another agency, one that could bill for Medicaid. Mr. Gordon explained that his agency referred Medicaid-eligible children back to Children’s Behavioral Services (CBS), where they could hopefully be placed in the MOJAVE program. Family Counseling had a waiting list which was triaged via level of acuteness, and because of that, children oftentimes sat on the waiting list for long periods of time. Mr. Gordon reported that Family Counseling would admit some of those children into its program pro bono. He noted that Family Counseling offered the only sexual abuse treatment program in the entire state that had a residential camp for children. That camp occurred every summer and children were admitted free of cost. Ms. Tiffany commented about opening the market and the impact such action would have on budgets. Mr. Gordon stated that children would receive service more quickly if the market was opened, and he realized that would cause budget implications, however, he believed there could be a “gatekeeper” system implemented through CBS. He felt that children with issues that fell within the area of expertise in sexual abuse counseling, or the dual-diagnosis program, would not be required to be seen by a provider that was not prepared to deal with those issues.
Melany Denny, Executive Director, Project ReStart, explained the project was a service provider in northern Nevada that served the homeless population of mentally ill persons. Ms. Denny stated she would address the continuity of care for clients. Project ReStart received federal funding to provide time-limited services while people remained homeless, until they could be assimilated into the state system. Ms. Denny reported that the state system was often overburdened and somewhat cumbersome for persons to negotiate. Project ReStart recently had clients cycling back and forth between the systems and becoming extremely frustrated in that endeavor. Per Ms. Denny, Project ReStart had worked with the state system in an attempt to smooth the way for clients. If Project ReStart could bill Medicaid for services, it could continue its work with clients rather than transferring them to another service provider, which could be extremely traumatic for a person who was seriously mentally ill. She also applauded the committee’s efforts to review the issue, with a view toward allowing other providers to treat Medicaid-eligible clients.
With no further public testimony forthcoming, Senator Rawson advised that the subcommittee would continue with budget closings.
Senator Coffin requested general discussion before returning to budget closures, and commented that LCB staff reviewed budgets with a view toward consistency and in an attempt at reconciliation. Letters had been sent to state agencies from the respective Chairmen of the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees, directing agencies to submit contingency plans for budget cuts, however, it was unknown whether there had been any response to those letters. Senator Coffin stated he was unsure whether he was prepared to cut budgets within the DHR, should recommendations from LCB staff include cuts. He wondered how prepared the committees were to close those budgets, because of the difficulty in reopening them once closed. Senator Coffin inquired whether any of the budgets under consideration for closure by the subcommittee would be easier than others to reopen should that action become necessary.
Senator Rawson noted that the Governor had indicated he would provide his priorities, and most of his recommended cuts would be within the one-shot appropriations, and other supplements. The notice had been given that budget cuts would more than likely occur, and agencies should respond with their priorities. Senator Coffin stated he did not want to vote for budgets that had been cut, and felt the legislature should be prepared to vote for a tax increase of some type to “soften the ground” regarding budget cuts. Senator Coffin indicated that he felt strongly about the budgets within the DHR, and would entertain reopening those budgets that had been closed with budget cuts.
With no further comments to come before the subcommittee, Senator Rawson indicated it would continue with budget closings.
********
BUDGET CLOSINGS
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-42
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, LCB, advised the subcommittee that the budget was funded entirely with federal grant funds, and contained no General Fund allocations. The budget contained two revenue sources, the first being the Child Abuse and Neglect Basic State Grant, the purpose of which was to develop, strengthen, and carry out child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs. Mr. Peri indicated there was one staff member supported by the grant, and it also provided training for state and local officials dealing with child abuse issues. The costs supported by grant funds included travel, operating costs, dues and registration, and support of the mandated Child Protective Services Citizens’ Review Panel.
The second source of funding was the Children’s Justice Act Grant, the funding from which was used to support efforts to improve the system for investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases, child sexual abuse and exploitation cases, and child maltreatment-related fatalities. Mr. Peri stated that grant also covered the cost of maintenance for the Children’s Justice Task Force, which included one staff member, as well as travel, operating costs, contract services, and dues and registrations in support of that task force.
Mr. Peri indicated there were no adjustments recommended by staff, and he would recommend closure as recommended by the Governor in The Executive Budget.
MS. LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-45
Mr. Peri noted the subcommittee heard the first budget presentation on Budget Account 1383, Juvenile Justice Programs, on February 22, 2001. The budget served primarily as a pass-through account for the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funds, which were allocated to judicial districts based on student population. The budget also contained the Community Corrections Block Grant Program, added by the 1997 legislature, and continued by the 1999 legislature as a partial remedy to what was then termed the “detention backup” issue that had surfaced during the 1997 session. Mr. Peri advised that the block grant program provided funding for the nine judicial districts, which allowed implementation of programs that reduced or limited commitments of juvenile delinquents to state facilities. The adjusted base budget recommended total funding of $685,562 for the program in each year of the upcoming biennium, the same amount that was expended in the base for FY2000.
Mr. Peri indicated that the Governor’s recommendation was contained in decision unit E-900, which recommended the transfer of three existing federal grant programs and three existing positions within the Youth Parole Services budget (Budget Account 3263), into the Juvenile Justice Programs budget (Budget Account 1383). The existing grant programs included federal OJJDP administrative funds to support the positions and associated costs. The two remaining federal programs were the Title V Prevention Grant and the Challenge Grant, both of which would similarly flow through the budget to local jurisdictions. According to Mr. Peri, that action sought to isolate flow-through funds to local jurisdictions within one budget account, and would also add money to the Community Corrections Partnership Block Grant, increasing it significantly, up to $724,250 in each year of the 2001-03 biennium.
There was only one issue that the subcommittee might want to consider, and Mr. Peri explained that was the continuation of a Letter of Intent, which instructed the agency to report semiannually to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) regarding the Community Corrections Block Grant Program. Mr. Peri stated that report detailed the distribution and use of those grant funds by judicial districts in designing and implementing programs on the local level that reduced or limited commitments to the state’s juvenile training centers. Mr. Peri indicated there were no other adjustments to the budget, and it was recommended that the budget be closed as recommended by the Governor.
Senator Rawson inquired whether Mr. Peri felt it would be necessary to continue the requirement of semiannual reports to the IFC, in order to maintain a handle on the account. Mr. Peri felt it would be helpful.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH LETTER OF INTENT INSTRUCTING THE AGENCY TO CONTINUE THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE IFC REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT FUNDS.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT – BUDGET PAGE DCFS‑49
Mr. Peri indicated the budget presentation was originally heard by the subcommittee on February 22, 2001, and explained it was a relatively new budget account established in FY1999 to accept a new grant via the OJJDP entitled, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. Mr. Peri indicated the federal regulations were clear, and required that 75 percent be passed-through to Nevada’s judicial districts for programs that reduced juvenile delinquency, and 15 percent of the grant be termed discretionary. That 15 percent had been utilized in the current biennium as a transfer to the Summit View Youth Correctional Facility, Budget Account 3148, located in Las Vegas, to assist in the cost of operations of the facility. The remaining 10 percent was designated as administrative funds, and funded the 2.51 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and related costs within the account.
According to Mr. Peri, there was one technical adjustment recommended for the subcommittee’s review, which was simply that revenues be increased by $144,200 in each year of the 2001-03 biennium to reflect the most recent federal FY2001 grant award, which was $2,309,400. The budget, as recommended by the Governor, contained the federal FY2000 award amount of $2,165,200 per year, and Mr. Peri felt the Budget Division had not been in possession of the most updated information regarding the recent grant award at the time the original budget was finalized. What such action would accomplish, should the subcommittee choose to approve the adjustment, would be to increase the 15 percent Transfer to Secure Juvenile Facility expenditure category (Summit View Youth Correctional Facility) by $21,630 in each year of the biennium. Mr. Peri reported such action would create a corresponding reduction in the General Fund need within that budget account.
Another issue for consideration by the subcommittee was that the budget account had an item before the February 8, 2001, meeting of the IFC, which augmented the budget for the current state FY2001 by bringing in the most recent federal grant award in federal FY2000 of $2,165,200. Mr. Peri noted the budget was technically one year behind in spending, because the federal government did not award funds until the last day of that fiscal year. The award under discussion was released on September 30, 2000, therefore, when the agency approached the IFC, the 15 percent discretionary portion, $324,780, was put into the reserve category. Mr. Peri stated that was used, in part, to support the Summit View Youth Correctional Facility. The subcommittee could consider utilizing a portion of those reserve funds to increase support to the Summit View Youth Correctional Facility over the upcoming biennium. Any increase in the transfer of funds to that facility would result in a General Fund reduction in that account. Mr. Peri stated the concept had been discussed with the agency, and it was indicated there were various ideas for the money, however, the agency had not formulated a firm expenditure plan.
Senator Rawson noted that essentially, the subcommittee had two decisions which could reduce General Fund allocations within the budget.
MS. LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND INCLUDING THE REDUCTION IN GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BUDGET PAGE K12ED-60
Georgia Rohrs, Program Analyst, LCB, stated the Child Nutrition Act via the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided federal funds for programs such as school lunches and breakfasts, extra milk, food services at child care centers, summer food services, equipment, and nutrition education and training. The General Fund would be adjusted from $252,976 in FY2000 to $245,572 in FY2002, and $257,344 in FY2003. Ms. Rohrs indicated the state match was utilized to fund 5.5 FTE positions and for 48 percent of the training costs incurred by staff.
Decision unit E-251 would transfer a direct allocation of the General Fund portion of the indirect costs to the Support Services budget account; the issue would be discussed fully when that budget account was reviewed.
According to Ms. Rohrs, the Nutrition Education Programs budget could be closed contingent upon any modifications that might be made by the subcommittee on the Support Services budget account. Mrs. Cegavske asked staff to obtain an outline of the nutrition programs, as she would like to review that information.
Continuing, Ms. Rohrs explained the following decision units:
Adjustments recommended by staff were in decision units E-710 and E-720, which would reflect the latest costs from the Purchasing Division regarding contract amounts. Ms. Rohrs stated office equipment and furnishings had been moved from category 04 to category 05, equipment and furnishings, in an amount under $2,000.
The issue for subcommittee review was whether it wished to approve the transfer of a .50 management assistant position from the Drug Abuse Education budget to the Nutrition Education Programs budget. Ms. Rohrs noted that the transfer was not included in The Executive Budget and would allow the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) to retain a position that would otherwise be eliminated because of funding constraints. Ms. Rohrs pointed out that 91 percent of the federal funds must be passed through to local school districts. As a result, funding was not available to continue that position. New information was provided to staff on April 11, 2001, which proposed to resolve the funding problem via the transfer of that position and 10 percent of the cost of two other positions. Ms. Rohrs explained that 10 percent of the costs of two positions within the Nutrition Education Programs budget were currently funded via the Drug Abuse Education Budget. Approval of the transfer would resolve the funding issue, however, adjustments would be required.
By way of clarification, Ms. Rohrs noted that the shortfall was estimated to be $7,576 in FY2002, and approximately $14,000 in FY2003. The effect of the transfer of positions would be that approximately $13,000 in personnel costs for positions within the Nutrition Educations Programs budget, that were currently paid from Budget Account 2605, would be returned to Budget Account 2691, Nutrition Education Programs. Ms. Rohrs remarked that those positions were currently funded via General Fund allocations, and staff would be required to split the funding; that would create a savings to Budget Account 2605, Drug Abuse Education, of approximately $30,000 which would be absorbed by Budget Account 2691. Ms. Rohrs stated there was an issue regarding the management assistant position, and explained it was the position requested during the 1999 session and not funded by the legislature because of the decrease in federal funding. During the interim, the NDE had, with the approval of the Budget Division, established the position. Senator Rawson asked whether grant money had ever fully supported the position. Ms. Rohrs explained that Budget Account 2605 was comprised entirely of federal funds, so the position costs were paid.
Douglas Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and Fiscal Services, NDE, explained that Budget Account 2605 had experienced a drop in federal support. When the original agency request had been submitted, the 91 percent figure had been satisfied. It was only after a second cut, which reduced the program from approximately $2.1 million to $1.7 million, that the NDE experienced problems. Mr. Thunder stated that prior to the 1999 session, the position had been a .25 support position, and the NDE requested that it be increased by .25, because in combination with a third budget account, 2611, along with 2605, the position would be a .75 position, which was extremely difficult to fill. Between those two budget accounts, the work did exist to support the position. Mr. Thunder stated moving that position to Budget Account 2691, and bearing in mind that all three budget accounts were part of the same team, where the clerical staff were assigned duties within the various programs depending upon the need, there was sufficient federal funding to cover the difference. That would enable the clerical staff that served the team to be a full-time position.
Ms. Tiffany asked about the training component and computer costs in the budget, and she wondered why the training was necessary since the software was already in use; she also requested clarification regarding the workstations. Mr. Thunder stated that the NDE had a great deal of advanced equipment and software which offered the possibility of a variety of uses, and many employees used that software at a minimal level. The NDE envisioned the training costs to fund additional training sessions in order to realize far greater use of the software. In Budget Account 2691, a quite complicated program had been developed to process claims, and that would require additional training for personnel. Mr. Thunder explained those were the types of costs that would utilize the initial training dollars, and the NDE felt that in order for its employees to be as effective and productive as possible, it would like to offer them the opportunity to accept other training possibilities, as they became available.
Ms. Tiffany asked for further clarification regarding workstations. Mr. Thunder explained that the workstation upgrades consisted primarily of furniture, i.e., tables and desks, et cetera. The additional software costs were because of licensing requirements. Ms. Tiffany stated the budget indicated replacement of equipment. Mr. Thunder stated the program for processing claims was quite expensive and the NDE would like to replace its current computers, as they could not run the program properly. In addition, the NDE had a policy of replacing computers on a five-year rotation schedule.
Senator Rawson inquired what the General Fund implication would be of making the position change. Mr. Thunder stated there was no General Fund implication in making the change concerning the .50 FTE.
MS. LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET INCLUDING THE REQUESTED TRANSFER OF THE .50 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT POSITION FROM THE DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION BUDGET (2605) TO THE NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAMS BUDGET (2691).
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Giunchigliani, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION – BUDGET PAGE-K12ED-67
Ms. Rohrs reported the budget was funded by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, that provided drug abuse education and prevention programs in elementary and secondary schools. The program was 100 percent federally funded, and at least 91 percent of the federal grant funds were to be allocated to the school districts based upon school population. There was no match requirement, and The Executive Budget recommended $1.7 million for each year of the upcoming biennium, which was a decrease of $676,384 per year or 28 percent compared to FY2000. Ms. Rohrs stated that, in addition, the NDE received $21,022 in the current year from tobacco settlement monies for a youth tobacco survey, which was to be conducted in collaboration with the Health Division of the DHR. The NDE might also receive $5,400 in year two of the tobacco monies grant period, however, that was not a certainty.
According to Ms. Rohrs, there were two Letters of Intent issued, one in 1997 and one in 1999, and the NDE was to report on the effectiveness of research-based programs in substance abuse to the 2001 legislature. Rather than a report, in June 2000 the then-superintendent of public instruction provided a letter which indicated a feasibility study would be conducted with the assistance of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), because of the significant resources and time required to conduct such a study. That issue was discussed at the NDE’s overall budget hearing, when it was explained that because of a reduction in federal funding, the NDE had been unable to complete the requested study.
Continuing, Ms. Rohrs stated decision unit M-200 referenced the .25 management assistant position that was discussed and approved for transfer. Decision unit E-52 was discussed in the prior budget hearings and would be addressed again in Budget Account 2719. The decision unit recommended the less than full-time positions be consolidated to create a full‑time FTE; the closing of the budget would not impact the consolidation. Decision unit E-275 addressed training, and was part of the training policy of the NDE as a whole. The NDE wanted to establish a training policy of $250 per employee, per year, for training.
Ms. Rohrs explained that no adjustments were suggested, and staff recommended closure of the budget as recommended in The Executive Budget. The transfer was discussed in Budget Account 2691, and was approved by the subcommittee.
Mr. Goldwater stated the legislature issued a Letter of Intent in 1999 on the budget, however, because of a reduction in resources, the NDE had been unable to complete the study. He did not feel the legislature was asking for anything so daunting, but simply wanted to know that the money was being disbursed efficiently and effectively in a proper manner. Mr. Goldwater questioned the necessity of a full-fledged study and noted that the colloquy between the legislature and the Executive Branch on the issue was somewhat confusing.
Mr. Thunder stated there were two Letters of Intent from the 1997 and 1999 sessions, and an evaluation was conducted which apparently evaluated programs on a national level. The Letter of Intent from the 1999 legislature asked for a similar evaluation for programs in Nevada. Mr. Thunder reported that the NDE had funding for the initial study, however, over the interim the program diminished because of the lack of funding, and the NDE did not have the resources to conduct another study. According to Mr. Thunder, the NDE had provided a list of the funding and the method of distribution to the school districts. There had been discussion regarding how the NDE could provide additional information that might be requested. Mr. Thunder advised that he would provide further information to the subcommittee. Mr. Goldwater stated there were existing resources that could be utilized.
Senator Rawson suggested that sunset language be added to the budget which would cause a spending review. If the federal money was not being used effectively, the situation should be corrected. While that was a somewhat heavy-handed measure, Senator Rawson noted that such action would force a review of spending.
Mrs. Cegavske noted that at least 91 percent of the federal grant funds were to be allocated to programs, and asked how the remaining 9 percent was allocated. Mr. Thunder reported that the remaining 9 percent was utilized by a combination of administrative and state-run programs. The NDE had been slightly short of the 91 percent allocation over the past year; however, during most years, the NDE distributed more than the required minimum of 91 percent. Mrs. Cegavske inquired whether the NDE had reviewed methods used by other states for distribution of the funds. Mr. Thunder stated he thought such a review had been undertaken by the NDE, and he would furnish the appropriate information to the subcommittee. Mrs. Cegavske felt that was a viable issue and perhaps there was an effective method to assess the funding allocation. She did not feel it should be that costly to analyze whether the program worked, because the recipients should be able to supply reports.
Mr. Goldwater commented that he did not feel sunset language would be necessary, but the budget account called for some type of efficiency rating, perhaps via performance indicators. Senator Rawson suggested issuance of another Letter of Intent to conduct a formal program review. Mr. Goldwater concurred, and specified that it would be a review of other states’ effective programs, rather than a study. Senator Rawson stated it should be made known that there would be no funding available for a study, and the program director, or person receiving a salary from the federal funding would be required to justify that position during the next legislative session. Mr. Thunder noted that the budget had been included in a prior audit, and had been subject to federal reviews. While he was unsure what information would be available from those audit sources, he would provide whatever was available to the subcommittee. Senator Rawson felt that the personnel supported by the budget account needed to do a better job of keeping the legislature informed.
Ms. Leslie requested that an analysis be included in the report to the 2003 legislature, which included what was being funded, how the programs were working, and recommendations regarding the direction the budget should take over the next biennium. Ms. Tiffany wondered whether the NDE had been given any direction in the past from the legislature regarding what it wanted to see in performance indicators. Senator Rawson stated he was unsure whether such direction had been given in the past, however, as the Letter of Intent was developed, such stipulations and/or guidelines could be included.
Mr. Thunder noted that the current performance indicators were developed approximately three sessions ago, working with the Budget Division and LCB staff. The NDE was also committed to review all performance indicators over the upcoming biennium with a focus toward more direct and “real” performance indicators, rather than simply offering statistics in the various areas. Mr. Thunder noted that, at the same time, the NDE did not want to create a completely different set of performance indicators that had no continuity with those already established.
Mr. Goldwater stated the past Letters of Intent were more program oriented rather than budget account oriented. The legislature wanted the best program available for the schools, and also wanted to cease funding those programs that were apparently not successful.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND INCLUDING THE LETTER OF INTENT.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Giunchigliani, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS – BUDGET PAGE K12ED-76
Ms. Rohrs explained that the budget account was the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 395 Program, which provided for placement and education of special education children outside the home district or state, if necessary, as a last resort. The local board of trustees certified that an appropriate program was not available within the child’s school district, and at that point an application was made to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to arrange for the education and care of the pupil.
The Executive Budget recommended that the legislature again authorize use of the appropriation over both years of the biennium because of the volatility, both in the number of placements and the costs involved. Ms. Rohrs stated The Executive Budget also recommended transfer and consolidation of the budget with Budget Account 2715, Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA), and if that transfer and consolidation was approved, the NRS 395 expenditures would be maintained in separate categories from the IDEA program, in order to isolate and track the costs.
Ms. Rohrs explained that decision unit M-200 adjusted funding to maintain the level of funding in the current biennium, with an increase in indirect costs paid by the General Fund, because Title VI would not fund administrative costs associated with placements.
Funding was recommended in the amount of $415,387 (state), and $336,530 (federal) for each fiscal year, for a total of $1.5 million for the 2001-03 biennium, as compared to the legislatively-approved budget for the current biennium of $1.47 million. Ms. Rohrs reported there was no funding for additional caseloads, because the number of cases had declined, not only in the current biennium, but also over the past several years. There were no changes or adjustments submitted by staff, and the recommendation would be to close the budget as recommended by the Governor.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin asked why the number of cases was declining. Mr. Thunder stated that some students had completed the program and had not been replaced, and some placements had been returned to in-state programs from out-of-state programs. Mr. Thunder explained that students remained in the program until the age of 21, and there had been a diminishing need for special education programs, however, that could change in the future. The NDE furnished quarterly reports to the IFC regarding the program.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Giunchigliani, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA) – BUDGET PAGE K12ED-79
Ms. Rohrs indicated the budget was funded by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and covered the cost of educating children with disabilities from ages 3 to 21, and early childhood special education for students from ages 3 to 5. The program was federally funded, with a funding formula driven by the count of pupils receiving special education services, multiplied by a per-pupil amount determined by the federal government. Ms. Rohrs stated that number was based on population data and poverty factors. At least 75 percent of the federal funds must be granted to local school districts, based on their counts of disabled pupils.
The subcommittee was advised that a management assistant position, .50 FTE, had never been filled and had been vacant for at least three years. Ms. Rohrs remarked that the NDE, in response to questions from staff, reported that it would combine that position with another less than full-time position, and was in the hiring process.
Decision unit M-200 aligned federal funding with the 2001 grant award, which was an increase of approximately $14 million in each year of the biennium in Title VI-B funding, and a decrease of approximately $157,000 each year in the Early Childhood Special Education Grant funding. Ms. Rohrs noted that as the subcommittee would recall, part of the increase in Title VI funding would be used to address the requirements of the regulation passed by the State Board of Education regarding caseload and class size for special education students.
Decision unit E-251 was the direct allocation of the General Fund portion of indirect costs to the Support Services budget account, and the budget could be closed contingent upon any modifications by the subcommittee when it reviewed the Support Services budget.
Ms. Rohrs stated decision unit E-252 requested the transfer of less than full-time positions into other budget accounts for consolidation. In Budget Account 2715 that consisted of a management assistant position which would be transferred to Budget Account 2719, along with the transfer of other positions into various budget accounts, and into Budget Account 2715. The budget could be closed contingent upon action taken in closing Budget Account 2719.
Continuing, Ms. Rohrs explained that decision unit E-275 consisted of training for the 9.50 FTE employees at $250 per year. Decision units E-276 and E-900 related to the transfer and consolidation of Budget Account 2670, Education of Handicapped Persons. The transfer had been constructed so that category 13 would contain placement costs and non-employee travel costs, and category 19 would contain costs for NDE staff travel. A frequent criticism related to transfer and consolidation of programs was the inability to track travel costs. Ms. Rohrs indicated that would be remedied in Budget Account 2715 because of the way the consolidation had been constructed. Decision unit E-710 provided funding for four desktop computers, two laptops, three laser printers, and six Microsoft/File Maker Pro software packages.
According to Ms. Rohrs, the adjustments recommended by staff would be in decision unit M-201, which established $250,000 in a separate General Ledger within category 13 for the NRS 395 students. That funding was to be available to assist with the costs of unanticipated increases. Ms. Rohrs stated since 1991, a reserve category had been established consisting of $250,000 within Budget Account 2715, should the need arise. Staff wanted to ensure that the money would remain available and not spent for other purposes. Ms. Rohrs noted that the subcommittee should be aware that if that source of funding were accessed, a state match would be required. Decision unit E-710 adjustments would consist of adjusting computer prices to reflect current contract prices from the Purchasing Division.
Mrs. Cegavske asked that the NDE furnish her information regarding the number of students on a statewide basis that participated in special education programs, and how many qualified special education teachers there were in the classrooms.
Mr. Thunder requested a provision that if the NDE needed to access the category 13 funds, that the monies would be available in either year of the biennium, as was previously approved, because of the volatility of the program. Senator Rawson stated the funding would be continued on the same basis.
MRS. CEGAVSKE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Giunchigliani, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION – BUDGET PAGE K12ED-90
Ms. Rohrs indicated Budget Account 2676 consisted of federal funds used to improve occupational education and provide increased access to occupational education programs by the population with special needs. The funding was through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III). A shift had been made in Perkins III from funding services for the special population to funding high skills and high wage occupational programs. Ms. Rohrs stated part of the change in Perkins III consisted of elimination of the set-asides for equity, single parent, and displaced homemakers, and the grants to overcome sex bias had been dropped. Ms. Rohrs explained that new accountability indicators had been established, and future funding for the state would be determined by the state’s performance on the new accountability indicators.
Ms. Rohrs reported that there was a state match required for administrative costs, and also a “maintenance of effort” requirement. That had been discussed in the prior budget hearing, and the NDE had provided a plan for compliance with the “maintenance of effort” requirement. Ms. Rohrs stated the NDE’s plan did not require adjustments to the budget, but rather would require careful internal record keeping by the NDE to demonstrate to auditors that the “maintenance of effort” requirement had been met. The NDE reported that it was out of compliance for years 2000 and 2001, and anticipated a shortage of $26,516 in the “maintenance of effort” requirement for FY2002 and $12,213 in FY2003. Ms. Rohrs advised that the plan was to utilize the salary costs from NDE staff that provided services to the Perkins III program to meet the maintenance of effort requirement.
Decision unit M-200 aligned federal funding to the FY2001 grant award amount. Out-of-state travel was increased by $7,273 per year, which more than doubled the needed funding. Senator Rawson asked whether Mr. Thunder felt that the increase was justified. Mr. Thunder replied in the affirmative, and explained that various trips were required by staff with regard to Perkins III to attend meetings of vocational groups where staff was provided by the NDE. Staff also traveled to meetings regarding the federal grant management itself. Ms. Rohrs noted that the increases in travel would be paid 100 percent by Perkins III funds. Decision unit M-201 recommended funding for a .50 grants and projects analyst, approved by the Budget Division as a temporary employee during the last interim, and the division now recommended that the position be made permanent. Perkins III was requiring more in the way of fiscal work, and budget line items were required to be tied to performance data by the state.
Ms. Rohrs stated decision unit E-251 recommended a direct allocation of the General Fund portion of indirect costs to the Support Services budget account, which would be discussed in greater detail when that budget was reviewed. Ms. Rohrs indicated the Occupational Education budget could be closed contingent upon recommendations that would be reviewed when the Support Services budget was heard. Decision unit E-252 included the transfer and consolidation of less than full-time positions, and the budget could be closed contingent upon modifications that might be made by the subcommittee at the time the NDE Staffing Services, Budget Account 2719, was heard.
Decision unit E-275 included training for the 12.5 FTE employees, and recommended adjustments would be to decision unit E-710 for the cost of computer equipment. The amount to be distributed to schools from the budget account would also be adjusted by the amount of the costs savings. Ms. Rohrs said the items to be purchased in decision unit E-710 were two desktop computers, one laptop computer, Windows 2000 software upgrades, one computer workstation, two chairs each year, and a bookcase in FY2003.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. Cegavske, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
NDE SCHOOLS TO CAREERS – BUDGET PAGE K12ED-107
Ms. Rohrs reported the account functioned to prepare students for skills necessary to be successful in the present skilled and well-paid labor market by providing students with a rigorous academic background, career guidance, and work-based learning opportunities. The School to Careers Grant was originally expected to be a five-year grant, totaling $11.4 million, and was to end on December 31, 2000. During the 1999 session, the legislature approved a budget that was designed to eliminate staff during the current biennium, as part of the phase-out of the federal program. According to Ms. Rohrs, federal funding was unexpectedly continued for one additional year, and the IFC approved an increase in the staffing levels to allow for operation of the program. The NDE was now certain that the FY2001 grant award would constitute the last year of funding and, therefore, the funding would end on December 31, 2001, after which the NDE would have a 90-day period for “cleaning-up” and “closing-out.” Ms. Rohrs explained that the NDE’s Workforce Education Team would be available to complete the closing process and to file any final reports.
The Executive Budget recommended reducing the assistant director and management assistant positions from the current full-time positions to .75 and .50 respectively in FY2002. The grants and programs analyst position was eliminated at the end of the current fiscal year, and the two remaining positions would be eliminated at the end of FY2002.
Ms. Rohrs stated adjustments recommended by staff were based on the reduction in staff and the phase-out of the program, which was set to expire December 31, 2001. Reductions in travel would provide an additional $11,262 for distribution to school districts for programming. It was recommended that all travel be reduced by one-half the amount of the FY2000 expenditures, except for non-employee out-of-state travel, which would be eliminated in its entirety.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING A REDUCTION IN TRAVEL ALLOCATION WHICH WOULD BE REDISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR PROGRAMMING.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Giunchigliani, and Senator Raggio were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
With no further business to come before the subcommittee, the hearing was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: