MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
April 18, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Carla Watson, Program Analyst
Lu Chen, Educational Research Statistician
Debra Petrelli, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification/Planning, Department of Prisons
Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
Patricia A. Hines, Lobbyist, NV Cure, People Organized for Psych Panel Reform (POPPR)
Wm. Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Department of Prisons
Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources
Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources
Kenneth Rohrs, Administrator, Division of Museums and History, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Virginia Cain, Nevada Commission on Aging, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources
Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources
Ed Guthrie, Executive Director, Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) Las Vegas
Sandra Brown, Processing Production Manager, Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC), Las Vegas
Ann Clements, Employee, Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC), Las Vegas
Marsha Westover, Private Citizen
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Charles L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry
SENATE BILL 193: Makes various changes concerning department of prisons. (BDR 16-311)
Jackie Crawford, Director, Carson City, Department of Prisons (DOP), said the department is seeking approval for funding of Senate Bill (S.B.) 193. She commented that this bill would change the name of the Department of Prisons to the Department of Corrections. She said it will reflect a new direction for the department. She explained that the scope of the responsibilities for the department has changed over a number of decades. She pointed out that the department intends to better prepare the offender through a number of programs that will be available.
Ms. Crawford stated that when an offender is eventually released, the department will feel as though it is making a contribution to a safer community by releasing an individual who is literate, has a work ethic, and has coping skills. She pointed out that this bill will also establish a division of offender management that will enhance DOP’s effectiveness and enable DOP to excel in its various program efforts. She stated that if S.B. 193 is approved, there will be greater strides in making a well organized system. Currently, she added, there are a number of programs, but they are somewhat disjointed and disorganized. She commented that the bill will allow the department to bring all of the programming into a delivery of services under one division.
Ms. Crawford said she believes this initiative would not only be effective for the department, but also for the state of Nevada.
Senator Raggio asked that S.B. 193 be enlarged upon, and inquired what the major changes are in the law. Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification/Planning, Carson City, Department of Prisons, replied that although this bill appears to be relatively large, it is only because of the many references to DOP throughout Chapter 209 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Senator Raggio asked whether the proposal would be to call the Department of Prisons, the Department of Corrections. Mr. Whorton replied that this is correct.
Senator Raggio, referring to Section 1 of S.B. 193, inquired which board’s approval would be necessary to create a system for offender management. Mr. Whorton replied that the Board of Prison Commissioners would establish the procedures for the division, but with this measure the establishment of a division of offender management is being sought. He added that DOP is attempting to expand and coordinate the opportunities for inmates by giving programs an organizational status within the department.
Mr. Whorton explained this system would be headed by an assistant director. He pointed out that individual would coordinate education, literacy, mental health, substance abuse, therapeutic communities, and other work programs throughout the entire department of prisons. He said that at this point in time the individual programs do not have specific coordinating functions and DOP needs to establish the system in order to be more efficient and to be able to report on effectiveness in a more reasonable manner.
Senator Raggio commented, “It sounds good, but I’m not clear what it means. It says that in each institution, each facility, there will be a system for offender management which deals with classification and evaluation. Doesn’t the department already do this?” Mr. Whorton answered that it does. However, he said, this proposal would be more coordinated towards the actual program functions. He added that the department does have a system of classification for security purposes.
Senator Raggio asked whether the department has this system for levels of custody. Mr. Whorton said that it does. Senator Raggio inquired what difference the proposal will offer the department. Mr. Whorton explained that it would be geared more towards the program needs of the offender as opposed to the security control of the offender.
Senator Raggio, referring to Section 6 of S.B. 193, said this would amend Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 209.151 to read:
The director would be authorized to appoint an assistant director for offender management, responsible for the administration of programs concerning education, training, rehabilitation, treatment, development of skills of offenders, and programs concerning services for victims and families of offenders.
Senator Raggio asked what the language adds, as compared to what is not being done currently. Mr. Whorton remarked that the department does not have an organizational voice for programs. He testified that there is no individual or administrator in the Department of Prisons who controls and oversees these programs. He said this is a “hodge-podge” and they are scattered throughout the department. He explained that the department’s emphasis in the past has been more security oriented as opposed to program orientated. He added that this bill would give the department an opportunity to bring those programs together, operate them in an efficient manner, control them, and document them.
Senator Raggio inquired whether the position and the program change are accommodated in the department’s proposed budget. Mr. Whorton replied that they are not accommodated in the budget document from the Governor; however, the Fiscal Note that has been provided regarding the measure indicates that the department is going to fund the position as well as a Management Analyst II position. He said this would take place by the conversion of the Mental Health Director position.
Senator Raggio commented, “I’m only looking at a very short Fiscal Note that indicates none of that, it just says that for FY 2002 there is an impact of $4,500, and there is a savings in FY 2003. Is that what I am looking at?” Mr. Whorton indicated that was correct. Senator Raggio asked, “How does this do what you’re saying?”
Mr. Whorton replied:
Given the salary of the Mental Health Director position, which is vacant at this point, and given the authority to change that position, and we have provided staff with an ‘opinion’ from the Attorney General’s (AG) office indicating that that is a reasonable thing to do, we can take the cost of that position and create this new assistant director’s position.
Senator Raggio asked which position is vacant. Mr. Whorton said the Mental Health Director position. Senator Raggio asked how long the position has been vacant. Mr. Whorton replied that it has been vacant for a few months. Senator Raggio inquired as to why the position is no longer necessary. Mr. Whorton stated some of the functions that are controlled by that position would be taken over by the new position. He added that the new position would be the administrative controller of mental health activities. He indicated that actual delivery of mental health services would continue to be conducted by professional mental health practitioners that are currently employed. He noted that this would be an administrative position to coordinate and control those functions.
Mr. Whorton said the salary of the existing position provides more than enough money to fund an assistant director position and a management assistant position. Senator Raggio asked whether there is presently an assistant director for industrial programs. Mr. Whorton replied that there is. Senator Raggio inquired whether the department’s proposal is to add the new position of assistant director for offender management. Mr. Whorton said that is the proposal.
Mr. Whorton commented that the new position would have control over all programs with the exception of the prison industry program. He added that the prison industry program would continue as it currently is.
Senator Raggio said, “Other than the sections dealing with the change of name, are there other substantive changes in this law?” Mr. Whorton replied there are not. He added that the change in name and the creation of this new division with the assistant director are the only changes. Senator Raggio asked whether a table of organization had been prepared outlining the proposed changes.
Ms. Crawford commented that the department has a proposed organizational chart. She testified that it had been submitted, but was not sure to whom. She stated the department will submit another organizational chart showing these changes and the lines of authority that will be involved.
Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, said the association supports SB 193. He said the association looks forward to assisting the director in any way possible in the implementation of this innovative program. Senator Raggio asked what positive changes the association sees as a result of this measure. Mr. Barr replied that the internal workings of the custody levels within each institution set up a tier system based on behavior. He added that for “good behavior” there is one tier and for “bad behavior” there is another tier. He said that within the institution it breaks down based on behavioral traits.
Patricia A. Hines, Lobbyist, NV Cure, People Organized for Psych Panel Reform (POPPR), said that NV Cure is a state affiliate of a national organization, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants that works in criminal justice reform. She stated that they support S.B. 193. She commented that Director Crawford has the quality, integrity, and ingenuity required for this position. She added that there are three things S.B. 193 will do from the perspective of the organizations that she represents.
Ms. Hines commented that, first, the plan for offender management and changing the emphasis from prisons and warehousing to corrections will allow conformity in all of Nevada’s prisons, which has never been done. She pointed out this will also allow all offenders to be managed under the same jurisdiction. She added that when prisoners are transferred, as they are so many times for many different reasons, there will be a conformity with the prisoners and families will know what to expect.
Ms. Hines stated:
The second reason is that I see Director Crawford as someone who wants statistics, wants to know how she is doing, and wants to set up performance indicators so that she will have this information. I have been trying for 2 months, to get one statistic… I think this is one area she wants to work on.
Ms. Hines said that the third, and most important, reason that she supports S.B. 193, is because under the purposes of this bill, there will be services offered to victims and families of the incarcerated. She pointed out that this is the first time in dealing with the Department of Prisons, since 1984, that there has ever been this type of consideration to help families and victims from the Department of Prisons. She added that 95 percent of all incarcerated persons are released, and S.B. 193 would ensure that “today’s prisoners will be tomorrow’s neighbors.”
Senator Raggio, referring to Section 85 of S.B. 193, stated that the act becomes effective in 2009. However, he noted, in Section 84 of S.B. 193 it states that the act expires in 2009. He asked what that indicates. He added, ”They’re the same section. It is some type of transitional language and staff needs to check with the Legal Division on why that wording is in there. It is the same NRS section and the same language, but I do not see what the difference is.”
Senator Raggio called attention to the First Reprint of S.B. 241.
SENATE BILL 241: Revises provisions relating to determination of whether certain offenders constitute menace to health, safety or morals of others. (BDR 16‑435)
Senator Raggio requested that Wm. Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, report on the audit of the sex offender certification panel. Mr. Crews, referring to the Audit Report for the Department of Prisons Sex Offender Certification Panel 2000 (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and the Audit Summary (Exhibit D), said the audit was the result of a special request to the legislative commission a few years ago. He stated that this audit was presented to the audit subcommittee in August 2000.
Mr. Crews pointed out the audit indicated legislation was needed. He said that the audit subcommittee accommodated the Department of Prisons because it was past the cut-off date for a bill draft request (BDR). He remarked that the language in S.B. 241 is actually from the Department of Prisons. He said the audit summary (Exhibit D) outlines the fact that Nevada uses a three-tier-member panel to evaluate and certify whether a sex offender should be considered for parole. He noted that these panels operate without adequate guidance.
Mr. Crews stated that while the DOP performs most functions related to the panels, the responsibility for the panels’ activities is not clear. He added that state law does not identify who is in charge of the panels, and the DOP does not view these panels as its responsibility. The panels, he noted, are conducted without a formally designated chairman. He stated that the lack of defined responsibilities has hindered the development of sound processes for selecting panel members, conducting hearings, and evaluating and certifying sex offenders.
Mr. Crews pointed out that, as a result, certification hearings and evaluation methods are not consistent throughout the state. In addition, he added, the percentage of sex offenders certified varies widely among the prison institutions where panel meetings are held. Referring to page 24 of Exhibit C, he explained that the chart indicates the results of various certification panels throughout the state from 1997 through 1999. He remarked that this indicates there is a wide variation in the outcome of those hearings.
Mr. Crews mentioned that in some institutions the percentage of prisoners certified by these panels is as low as 12 percent and as high as 40 percent. He noted that before individuals are eligible for parole, they must be certified by this panel. This would be before the parole board can even hear the case, he added.
Mr. Crews stated that, consequently, recommendations were made that the legislation clarify who is responsible for the sex offender certification panels, identify who selects psychologists and psychiatrists as panel members, and establish qualification requirements for designated panel members. These currently do not exist in the NRS, he added. He said he believes this legislation would go a long way in clarifying this and would ensure the designees are responsible and accountable for that program.
Senator Raggio asked how S.B. 241 specifically responds to these recommendations. Mr. Crews replied that it designates DOP as the organization responsible for administering this panel, whereas currently there is no specific organization that is responsible administratively for sex offender certification panels. He added that S.B. 241 would specifically hold DOP accountable for these panels. He stated that additionally it would identify how individuals are selected to the panel, who selects them for the panel, and outline their qualifications.
Senator Raggio inquired who would select the panel under S.B. 241. Mr. Crews responded that it would be the director of DOP.
Senator Raggio, referring to page 2 of S.B. 241, said:
Each certification panel must consist of, and the present language is, the Administrator of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources, or his designee. Then it adds the language, "who must be a psychologist… or a psychiatrist." Then it adds to subsection b, the director… or his designee who also must be a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and in subsection c, a person selected by the director… who must be a psychologist employed by DOP, or a psychiatrist.
Senator Raggio asked whether this wording is more specific. Mr. Crews replied that this wording is more specific than previous language which had indicated a designee, but there were no qualifications as to the designee’s background.
Senator Raggio inquired whether all three members of the panel would have to either be a psychologist or psychiatrist. Mr. Crews responded that they would. Senator Raggio mentioned that the three members could actually all be psychologists.
Senator Raggio asked, “What about the recommendation about someone sharing this panel. Is that included in the bill?” Mr. Crews replied that he does not believe it is specific. Senator Raggio said, “It does say in section 1, 2(b), selecting a chairman, that would be determined under regulations apparently.” Mr. Crews said that certain items were amended in this bill that laid out the criteria under that subsection, which is what that panel will be doing. He added that this language was developed by DOP.
Senator Raggio, referring to Section 2 of S.B. 241, pointed out that language has been taken out stating that the panel must certify that the person is not a menace to the health, safety, and morals of others. He said it replaces the language with “…does not represent a high risk to re-offend based upon a currently accepted standard of assessment.” Mr. Crews remarked that this language was amended by DOP.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether inmates, when they come into the system, go through an evaluation process to indicate whether they can read or write, or have any specific skills. He added that he is curious how a sex offender is evaluated. Mr. Crews stated that the criteria for determining whether these individuals are sex offenders is to refer to the initial offense that they were convicted of. Senator Jacobsen questioned whether the court does this evaluation. Mr. Crews replied that the court does the evaluation and tracks sex offenders.
Senator Jacobsen inquired about inmate evaluation for reading and writing capabilities. Mr. Crews said he was unable to answer that question.
Mr. Crews commented that S.B. 241 does clarify some of the issues raised by the Audit Division. He said that it particularly designates who is accountable for this program. Currently, he added, no one is statutorily responsible for administering this program.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether prisons are set up today on a classification basis so that certain inmates would be housed certain areas. Mr. Crews said he believes that is an issue the director of DOP is looking at and is preparing a plan to consolidate areas for sex offenders.
Mr. Whorton said DOP does evaluate inmates. He pointed out that DOP performs a psychological evaluation and, depending upon what it finds, does a further psychiatric evaluation if necessary. He said the department also does educational testing to determine what an inmate’s level of academic functioning is, and this is documented. He added that evaluations regarding mechanical skill and occupational preference are not done by DOP.
Mr. Whorton stated that DOP classifies offenders from a security standpoint at this time and is attempting to develop a sex offender expanded treatment program at the Lovelock Correctional Center. He said that currently DOP has incarcerated approximately 1,500 sex offenders, and roughly 550 are at the Lovelock Correctional Center. He added that DOP is performing classification activities to move more inmates into that facility. He commented that DOP is focusing on inmates who are ultimately going to be released, and it especially deals with inmates who have very long sentences and are close to release.
Senator Jacobsen asked how inmates are chosen to work in prison industries and whether they are evaluated in some manner. Mr. Whorton replied that would be a classification decision. He added that any special skills of an inmate are documented in the classification system and, based on those identified skills, DOP can select inmates for specific positions.
Senator Raggio asked whether all of the psychiatrists and psychologists that are appointed to the certification panel are licensed, as would be required under S.B. 241.
Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Carson City, Department of Prisons, stated that they do have individuals that fit this category. Senator Raggio reiterated whether all of those employed by DOP are licensed to practice medicine or psychology in this state. Mr. Reed stated that to practice medicine, they are licensed. In term of psychology, he pointed out, the word “licensed” is controlled by NRS and it requires a Ph.D. He mentioned that not all of their psychologists are Ph.D.s and, therefore, they are not all licensed.
Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 241 would require a psychologist selected for the certification panel to be licensed to practice in this state. Mr. Reed responded that was correct. Senator Raggio asked whether there are adequate numbers of people that would fit that category. Mr. Reed replied that there would be a sufficient number of people who will qualify.
Mr. Reed pointed out that one of the key words that DOP wanted in the proposed amendments to the Nevada Revised Statute, is the word “licensed.” He stated this was because of one of the criticisms that came from the audit was how DOP would know there were qualified people serving on the certification panel. Senator Raggio commented that the existing law says “a psychologist licensed to practice in this state.” He added that this wording is not being changed because the existing law already says this. Mr. Reed remarked that only the word “licensed” was added. Senator Raggio pointed out that this has not changed, it is already existing language.
Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources, stated the division has been working in partnership with DOP on S.B. 241. He commented that the division was actively involved in the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit and supports S.B. 241 and the amendments as submitted.
Ms. Hines reiterated she was representing People Organized for Psych Panel Reform (POPPR). She pointed out that POPPR was partially instrumental in getting the audit conducted. She noted that at the last Legislative Session POPPR had requested that this certification panel be completely rescinded and its task turned over to the parole board with the authority and funding to be able to order psycho‑sexual evaluations when there is a question about release of a sex offender. She remarked that this was not done.
Ms. Hines said:
In 1997, it was voted in that there should be pre-sentence psycho‑sexual evaluations done and this was to be done for all sex offenders before sentencing. I understand that at that time…it was requested in the 1999 legislative session, that those psycho-sexual evaluations only be done for those whose sentence was going to be suspended or there was going to be probation on a sex offender.
Ms. Hines stated that at the time, there was a myth that psycho-sexual evaluations were done in the prisons so that anyone who was going to be sent to prison would have the evaluation done in the prison. Senator Raggio asked whether that was supposed to take place upon an inmate’s arrival at the prison. Ms. Hines indicated that she was not sure. She added that, to date, a psycho-sexual evaluation has never been done in the prison system, and POPPR feels that S.B. 241, as it is written, still does not bring this type of evaluation about. She pointed out there is no specific recommendation in S.B. 241 that a psycho-sexual evaluation be done.
Referring to Section 1 of S.B. 241, Ms. Hines said, “They must certify a high risk to re-offend, based upon a currently accepted standard of assessment.” She remarked that she did not know what that meant, and stated that she is concerned about this definition as well as the wording being changed from “the health, morals, and safety of society to high risk.” She added that she believes this will need to be clarified.
Ms. Hines remarked that the term “licensure” is not a strong enough word in this context. She commented that the psycho-sexual field is a very new field. She pointed out that there are six psychologists from northern Nevada, certified by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), who provide assertive treatment for sex-offenders, and ATSA is the only organization in the state that certifies people to provide psycho-sexual evaluations.
Ms. Hines said, “One of these psychologists supported another bill, S.B. 412, and the need for it not just to say ‘licensed psychologist’ and ‘licensed psychologist,’ but to say ‘those who have been trained with a specific amount of training, specified for giving these evaluations.’
SENATE BILL 412: Revises various provisions pertaining to certain offenders. (BDR 14-798)
Senator Raggio asked whether she was suggesting that, in addition to these individuals being licensed as psychologists, they need to have special training. He asked who offers this training. Ms. Hines responded that she knows of two organizations. She indicated that one is ATSA, which is in the western United States, and the other is an organization called Safer Society, which is located in the eastern United States. She commented that these organizations track sex offender treatment programs and people who are certified to work and do evaluations in this field. She added that she believes more research needs to be done and more specifics need to be added to S.B. 241.
Senator Raggio said that these are not licensing organizations. Ms. Hines replied they are not licensing organizations, but they are certification organizations. Senator Raggio asked what “certification organizations” means. Ms. Hines stated that providers are required to receive from 140 hours to 250 hours of training to obtain certification to conduct evaluations. They are then able to give all the tests that are required, and to give proper treatment to sex offenders and provide psycho-sexual evaluations, he added.
Senator Raggio commented that this is a highly sensitive area and time after time, sexual offenders who have been released, re-offend. He added that individuals, who make the decision to release a sexual offender, often come under not only scrutiny, but also censure for the resultant act. He stated that it is for these reasons the committee needs clear information. He added that he believes there would be a reluctance to be more lenient, if that is what is being suggested by organizations that want to do psycho-sexual evaluations of these offenders.
Senator Raggio asked whether these two organizations apparently feel that too often standards are too stringent. Ms. Hines replied they do not feel this way. She explained that these organizations have done research and tracked many bills, and many people in the profession are finding out that there is a lack of beneficial programs within the prison systems because this area is so new. She added that she blames nobody for this, but would like to see Nevada utilize professional people. She commented that people are not trained in this area. Up until this point in time, she noted, there has been very little psycho-sexual education in our universities and colleges. She indicated this is why organizations like ATSA are giving this training.
Senator Raggio asked whether DOP is familiar with the organizations that Ms. Hines was referring to. Dr. Brandenburg commented that he is familiar with these organizations. He stated that the language in S.B. 241 presents these issues. He said the purpose is to develop standards for assessing the sexual‑offending inmate. He added that a specific instrument or a specific standard will not necessarily be used. He stated this is an evolving field.
Senator Raggio said, “I believe Ms. Hines is suggesting that somehow there is specialized training for these individuals, I assume psychologists.” He pointed out that as a result of this training they would be better equipped to make these types of judgments or evaluations. Dr. Brandenburg remarked that Ms. Hines was absolutely correct, and this is one thing DOP and the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services have agreed on. He said that in the process of formulating these standards, they are going to be developing the training for the evaluators, so that they will have the competence and expertise to provide these psycho-sexual evaluations.
Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Brandenburg was aware of the information that Ms. Hines presented. Dr. Brandenburg said he was aware of the information and it was taken into consideration as S.B. 241 was developed.
Senator Raggio said he did not believe this should be written into the bill, but that everyone should be aware of it. He asked what the change in Section 2 of S.B. 241 meant to the Department of Human Resources regarding the certification standard by changing it from “not a menace, health, safety, or morals” to “does not represent a high risk to reoffend based upon a currently accepted standard of assessment.” Dr. Brandenburg explained this change addresses the issue that Ms. Hines indicated that the phrase “menace, health, safety, or morals of others” is extremely vague. He added that this put psychologists and psychiatrists at risk, if they do not understand how to evaluate “morals.” He pointed out that there were no standards and they will now develop specific standards in this area requiring community criteria in the evaluation of these types of inmates.
Senator Raggio inquired how the standard of assessment is determined. Dr. Brandenburg replied that is one thing that DOP and the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services will be developing in the very near future. He said they will be looking at what the community standards are and what instruments are available to incorporate into their evaluation process.
Senator Raggio commented that, in view of the audit, if S.B. 241 is processed by the Legislature, either in session or through the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), periodic reports of the activities should be made. Dr. Brandenburg responded that this would be acceptable.
Senator Raggio said:
That would mean that the committee would want to be apprised when the standards of assessment have been determined, but also the committee would like to know the results and effectiveness of these panels, and any improvements that are noted, so that we can keep abreast of this matter.
Dr. Brandenburg testified that his division will work with committee staff and LCB in developing something for the IFC on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Reed mentioned that DOP has already begun literature searches in collecting information on training, so it is aware of this concern.
Senator Raggio said he is aware that the public, generally, is concerned about the risk of reoffending, and this is where the public’s attention is often drawn. He noted that this is where the criticism usually flows. This does indicate a desirable change, he added.
Ms. Hines clarified that she did not believe Dr. Brandenburg meant “community standards,” but rather that he is in agreement with her and meant “professional standards.” She added that she believes there is a concern because there have been no performance indicators. She said for months she has been unable to obtain statistics on how sex offenders are tracked. She indicated that Nevada does not know how many level 1, 2, and 3 sex-offenders there are in the different locations. She pointed out that there are no statistics on how many sex-offenders are under supervision by the Division of Probation and Parole that have reoffended, and how many have been successful on probation or parole for 1 to 3 years.
Ms. Hines stated that with all this stigma and mania on sex offenders, there is nothing to show that what is being done is working. She suggested that the wording in Section 105 of S.B. 193, in reference to the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), refers to who should make such an evaluation. She added that it says “a physician who is certified to make such an evaluation by the board of medical examiners.”
Ms. Hines said this is a suggestion that organizations she represents are promoting for Nevada laws, that an evaluation be made by a person who is certified to make such an evaluation by the board of medical examiners. Senator Raggio commented that this bill refers to a person who can be treated successfully for substance abuse. Ms. Hines replied that there are approximately 35 known tools to evaluate the risk factor of sex offenders. She stated that as far as she knows, none of these tools are being used by DOP.
Senator Raggio asked whether she was suggesting that the state is not dealing fairly at this time with sexual offenders. Ms. Hines said that is what she was saying. She referred to Section 105, line 48 of S.B. 193, and said, “This evaluation should be done by a psychologist who is certified to make such an evaluation by the board of psychological examiners.” Senator Raggio asked whether this is applicable and whether there are people certified in this area by the Board of Medical Examiners or the Board of Psychological Examiners.
Ms. Hines responded that at this point in time there are no endorsements in this area. She added that these boards are unable, at this time, to tell who is certified in this state. The only place you can obtain this information, she noted, is with ATSA.
Mr. Reed commented that before he was the DOP Medical Administrator he was a research analyst. He pointed out that as a former research analyst he is well versed in the statistical nature of the systems at DOP. He said that sex offenders are tracked while in the prison system so the department knows their sentence structure, what types of sex crimes they have committed, and what bed they sleep in every day. He explained that statistically these people are tracked very carefully while in prison.
Senator Jacobsen indicated these issues present many questions. He asked what the number one concern is of DOP when an inmate is entering the prison system. Mr. Reed responded there are many ways to answer this question. He pointed out that the first thing DOP wants to do is to analyze the inmate in terms of reading skills, math skills, spelling skills, and overall education. He said that they are reviewed for their medical condition and mental health condition. He added that there are other concerns including security for the public at large and being sure that an inmate is classified at the proper institution.
Mr. Reed explained that once inmates have been through the intake process, educational and vocational opportunities are offered to them. He added, “It’s not just to keep them inside a fence, it is also that they are given the opportunity, while they are there, through our educational organization, for a better life when they get outside.
Senator Jacobsen inquired whether inmates in a private enterprise prison facility are evaluated in the same manner. Mr. Reed responded that they are evaluated medically, but as far as custody classification he does not know. Senator Jacobsen commented that while visiting a private enterprise prison, he observed inmates have more opportunities because Correction Corporation offers more activities and learning capabilities.
SENATE BILL 296: Makes appropriation to establish program for obtaining electronic fingerprints and digital photographs for use in transferring and releasing prisoners. (BDR S-967)
Mr. Whorton commented that S.B. 296 is not the result of a department initiative. Senator Raggio asked where this proposal originated. Senator O’Donnell responded that he originated S.B. 296. He explained that a business associate introduced a new technology to him that is emerging in the industry to track people by fingerprint and eye‑scan. He said that the prison system has had problems in the area of releasing prisoners. Recently, an inmate that should not have been released was very nearly released, he added, because the individual could not be identified until the very last minute.
Senator O’Donnell remarked:
There are a lot of things that go on like that, in terms of transferring prisoners from here to there. There is also an interest in tracking prisoners from the prisoners' store, where a prisoner will come up and say that he is another prisoner and charge to the prisoner’s account without authorization.
Senator O’Donnell commented that this technology, if it is deployed in a pilot program, would allow the tracking of prisoners from one place to another by fingerprint. He said that all they would have to do is to put their finger on a “scanner” and it would immediately identify the individual. He added that he introduced this measure to see whether it is worthwhile for the state, and whether funds could be saved by the state in terms of losses in the prisoners’ stores, and whether it would prevent the release of the wrong prisoner.
Mr. Whorton stated that biometric scanning is a technology that is becoming more common in correctional applications. He indicated that in looking at S.B. 296, there is an issue regarding digital photographs. He said that the department just recently received equipment and training in digital photographs. He added that the department received a grant from the Byrne Memorial Grant for Track Corporation equipment that relates to the tracking of sex offenders and lost and stolen children. He pointed out that the department is implementing digital photographs throughout all of the institutions.
Senator Raggio asked what the amount of the grant was. Mr. Whorton said he was unsure. Senator Raggio inquired where this program was being implemented. Mr. Whorton replied, “As we speak, at all of the institutions, the department, and the central office.”
Mr. Whorton remarked that recently an incident took place where an inmate attempted to exchange identities with another offender. He said the inmate was identified appropriately and was not released. He added that in the early 1980’s the department had an incident where an inmate escaped by exchanging identities and as a result, the department changed its practices, which have prevented this type of escape for almost 20 years. He pointed out that this technology would be nice to have, if it is affordable.
Senator Raggio asked what the cost of this technology would be. Mr. Whorton responded that the appropriation requests $149,000. Senator Raggio inquired how that amount was determined. Mr. Whorton replied he was unsure. Senator Raggio said the bill seeks to develop a system for both electronic fingerprints and digital photographing. He added that as he understands it, the department has received a grant that allows the department to implement the digital photo program. Mr. Whorton stated that is correct and it is complete.
Senator Raggio requested that Mr. Whorton ascertain, for the committee, what the requirements would be to implement digital fingerprinting for the department’s facilities. Mr. Whorton replied the department would research the issue.
SENATE BILL 364: Establishes developmental services commission. (BDR 38-931)
Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 364 is an appropriation not included in The Executive Budget.
Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, stated that S.B. 364 proposed developing a seven-member commission to provide advice and make recommendations regarding Medicaid rates for individuals with developmental disabilities. She said her purpose was to discuss a measure the Governor proposed for funding that recognizes the issue being addressed in S.B. 364.
Ms. Crawford pointed out the issue is that the delivery of health and human services is provided primarily through private practitioners and community-based entities. She emphasized it is the responsibility of the state and the Department of Human Resources to ensure that the availability of those services is supported by appropriate and effective rates that are paid in purchasing those services.
Ms. Crawford commented that, throughout the years, rates have evolved in a variety of areas that do not have a sound methodology for how they were developed. In many cases, she noted, the department has very little information as to how they were originated, and some of them originated 40 years ago. She indicated this created some serious issues regarding whether or not those rates are effective to support delivery of the necessary services. She added that it handicaps the department in trying to index the rates and for adjusting those rates on an annual basis.
Ms. Crawford stated the Governor recognized the importance of providing an appropriate payment rate for essential services for those individuals who rely on a publicly-assisted programs to receive those services. As a component of his strategic health care plan, the Governor proposed an allocation in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 513 to support a review of rates and to establish a sound methodology for setting rates, she said.
ASSEMBLY BILL 513: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for development of long-term strategic plan concerning health care needs of citizens of Nevada. (BDR S-1407).
Senator Raggio inquired what the status was of A.B. 513. Ms. Crawford replied the bill had yet to be heard. Senator Raggio asked whether it was being suggested that the proposal in A.B. 513 would replace the necessity for this type of commission. Ms. Crawford stated that A.B. 513 recognizes the same problem that S.B. 364 also correctly recognizes. She added that it offers a different approach. She said it is broader, and the proposed rates would not be specific to just individuals with developmental disabilities, nor would they be restricted to Medicaid as the payer. She pointed out that the department is looking to address those rates, which appear to be jeopardizing essential services.
Senator Raggio said that under S.B. 364 the commission would consist of seven members. He noted two would be appointed by the Governor who represent business and have knowledge and experience in analyzing costs concerning the provision of medical services; three members would be appointed by the Commission on Mental Health and Developmental Services of the department who represent private providers of services for person with physical or developmental disabilities, one of whom provides residential services for the developmentally disabled, one of whom provides training and employment and one of whom provides services to the physically disabled; one member would be appointed by the director who is an employee of the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy and who has knowledge and experience concerning Medicaid programs; one member would be appointed by the director who is employed by the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of the department and has knowledge and experience concerning the provisions of services for persons with developmental disabilities, but who is not directly involved in the administration of the division.
Senator Raggio commented:
That commission would have the authority to establish, after public hearings, recommended rates of reimbursement. Those individuals who are eligible for Medicaid, those rates would be reviewed. What is the final authority? They establish the recommended rates and recommend to the Legislature appropriate legislation. What does this bill do insofar as mandating what the Governor recommends? How this commission, if it is authorized to act in the manner that this bill provides, will impact the preparation of the department’s budget and the department budgets submitted to the Governor.
Ms. Crawford responded the commission is charged to review rates, and specifically charged to review Medicaid rates that are available and are a benefit to individuals with developmental disabilities. She pointed out that in Section 4, subsection (f) of S.B. 364, it clearly states that the commissioners’ purpose is to establish recommended rates of reimbursement for each service provided in the state to persons with developmental disabilities who are eligible for Medicaid, and to review those rates biennially.
Ms. Crawford indicated that it may have been the intent to focus on residential services and community training center services. However, she noted, the language speaks to Medicaid rates for individuals with developmental disabilities, which would be almost every Medicaid rate. She pointed out that this number could be “tens of thousands” of rates. She said it was not her understanding that would be the intent, but it is in the language. She noted it also provides that those recommendations to be sent to the IFC. Those time frames, she said, are June 30 of each even numbered year.
Ms. Crawford stated that the department would want to collaborate with any entity to establish the same processes. She noted that this time frame is “rather light” for incorporating those projected rates into the budget.
Senator Raggio asked what process the department currently has in place to determine what appropriate rates are that will be recommended for the budget. Ms. Crawford replied that in the area of Medicaid, the department has a variety of processes. Currently, she noted, hospital rates and long-term care rates have been contracted out for evaluation, review, and recommendation. She commented that the “one-shot” that is being proposed by the Governor would allow funding for the department to contract with experts to facilitate the participation of providers and recipients. She explained that this will more clearly define the service components in establishing a method that is based on analyzing the service, what the costs of those components are, and will enable the department to set recommended rates that have a methodology that can be defined.
Ms. Crawford stated:
The process we are proposing is similar to what is being proposed here, that we believe to be effective. We need to contract out on the development of that. It needs to be inclusive and participatory. It needs to be subject to public hearing, as are all Medicaid rates.
Senator Raggio stated the difficulty is that whatever information the department develops, it would be for the department’s internal use. He pointed out the Legislature does not receive that information. This bill, he added, would allow the Legislature to receive that type of information. Ms. Crawford said that she believes this type of collaborative effort would be one that the department would embrace. She commented that trying to deal with rates is not something the department would consider exclusive or something it would like to “own.”
Ms. Crawford stated that the department is “wrestling” with establishing rates, and it does jeopardize services, not only for individuals with developmental disabilities, but also for seniors. She added that this includes many of the rural home health care services, which are at serious risk of not being able to support themselves any longer.
Senator Raggio stated one problem with S.B. 364 is that there is an appropriation not included in the budget for approximately $200,000 to cover the expenses of this commission, which includes contracting with a facilitator and other experts. He added that they would be necessary to assist the commission in this respect.
Ms. Crawford commented that the Governor has identified in his “one-shot” proposals funds to support the rate setting. She noted it is included in A.B. 513, and it has a $1.8 million request to support the strategic health care plan. Senator Raggio asked, if it is decided to meld S.B. 364 and A.B. 513 to provide for a commission of that type, whether it could be done in that regard. Ms. Crawford replied, “I believe that what is being proposed here is part and is very much in a similar intent. We would certainly want to work with any entity and to have that input be done in a timely way so that we can bring those forward in the budget.”
Senator Raggio stated, “I am unaware of the status of A.B. 513, as far as coming to this house, but we will ask staff to monitor that bill.”
Senator Neal asked whether this proposal is being done in response to a federal act.
Ms. Crawford replied:
S.B. 364 is not our bill. The Governor’s recommendation was done in response to seriously identified needs where we have not updated our rates, or rates appear to not be supporting essential services to individuals with developmental disabilities, but also to children, to seniors. Our scope is broader in range in including the type of individuals, the type of services. It is more narrow in the sense we are looking to prioritize those rates that seem to be jeopardizing services.
Senator Neal asked whether S.B. 364 is needed to accomplish these tasks. Ms. Crawford testified it is not necessary, but the Governor has introduced a “one‑shot” appropriation to support the costs of doing so. Senator Neal inquired whether the appropriation is needed to accomplish this. Ms. Crawford stated that the appropriation that the Governor has requested is needed in order for the department to contract out the development of rate methodologies, so that it can move forward in those areas.
Senator Raggio stated that A.B. 513 needs to be looked at because it has an appropriation included in the budget. He added that it needs to be determined whether S.B. 364 and A.B. 513 can be melded with the proposal. He pointed out that individuals who are in support of the measure may be interested in connecting to the Governor’s proposal to establish a commission that would report to the Legislature. Senator Raggio said he believes the committee can consider the measures together.
SENATE BILL 434: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for participation of Nevada Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas, in planning for Las Vegas Springs Preserve Project. (BDR S-1365)
Senator Raggio commented that the appropriation in S.B. 434 is for $300,000, and referred the committee to supporting documentation provided by the State Budget Division (Exhibit E). Senator Rawson stated that he recently looked at statistics on visitations to state parks, and the same amount of people visit the Spring Mountain State Park in the Red Rock, Las Vegas area, as visit Yosemite National Park every year. Spring Mountain State Park is very busy. He pointed out that the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society is a nice museum, and it is in a beautiful spot; however, its location is not easy for people to find and it is not easy to get to. He added that the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society has less than 45,000 visitors a year.
Senator Rawson remarked that because of low attendance at the museum and the fact that the Las Vegas Springs Preserve is developing, the idea of moving the museum to become part of this larger project has been introduced. He pointed out that the Las Vegas Springs Preserve is a $150 million project and is mostly funded by a foundation. He said that, because of the better location and greater visibility, museum visitorship should improve significantly.
Senator Rawson concluded that the $300,000 appropriation would be for a feasibility study. He added that feasibility studies have been done before, and there has been a decision that the museum needs to be moved to a place that is relatively close. He noted this new location would be within one‑tenth of a mile of the present location. Essentially, he said, this appropriation would make it possible to develop a decent plan and schematic for this move.
Kenneth Rohrs, Administrator, Division of Museums and History, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, referring to Exhibit F, stated that the $300,000 appropriation would basically be used to start the pre-planning stage of design. He pointed out that it is an insufficient amount to provide for the schematic design stage along with all the necessary documents. He said the project raises some fundamental issues.
Senator Raggio asked whether it requires the building of a structure. Mr. Rohrs replied that it does require a structure to be built. He explained that the department is talking about more than doubling the space of the museum from approximately 35,000 square feet to approximately 75,000 square feet. In addition, he stated, the museum would either be connected to or next to the visitors’ center of the Las Vegas Springs Preserve project. He pointed out the division would want to coordinate the collection, provide preservation, and coordinate interpretation and public education in a manner so that it all flows with the visitors center and the wetlands area. He remarked that several of the animals in this wetland are close to becoming extinct, some of which have just recently been discovered in the area.
Mr. Rohrs remarked that this would give the museum a wonderful opportunity to coordinate with the other facility and other functions of the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. This would give the public a unique opportunity, he said, “to see what that area was and how it got to that, and what it has been over a period of time.”
Senator Raggio asked what kind of commitment from the state that would require, and what the ultimate cost would be of relocating the museum and constructing a building. Mr. Rohrs responded that an estimate would be approximately $35 million to make the entire transition. Senator Raggio clarified that his concern is that the potential for funding something like this, within the next 4 or 6 years is not “bright.” He added that this is based on the numbers the committee has been given regarding potential bonding limitations. He said he is concerned whether this project is timely.
Mr. Rohrs stated that the department shares those same concerns, but it believes this project is timely because the funds would not be spent until the project was a “go.” Senator Raggio commented that $300,000 would be spent for “pre-design.” Mr. Rohrs agreed, but indicated that the department has done feasibility studies in the past, and the Las Vegas Springs Preserve project meets all of the “strongest points” that were derived from those studies. He remarked that, for one thing, the museum would be close to schools; secondly, it would be an area that is easily accessible, not only to visitors, but also to the residents of the greater Las Vegas area.
Senator Raggio said his point is that these studies have already been conducted, and asked why another $300,000 is required for planning costs.
Mr. Rohrs replied:
We are not planning on spending money for a feasibility study. What we are looking at is, if this project is a ‘go,’ we then have some real critical work to do in terms of not actually designing the building, but the pre-design stage of what kind of facility it would be, how it would connect with the visitors’ center, and, because we’re looking at more than doubling the space, we are looking at how the internal part of the building would meet the needs of visitors.
Senator Raggio reiterated that his concern is that it is highly unlikely in the next 2 biennia there will be the kind of bonding capability to accommodate a $35 million request. Senator Rawson stated that the city of Las Vegas has indicated a willingness to buy the existing museum building. He added that there is a significant foundation behind the project with a fair amount of money that would not normally be accessible to the museum.
Senator Rawson said,
The point is, you cannot really develop any of the rest of this in conjunction with the Las Vegas Springs Preserve unless you can do the preplanning of the two together. This is something that I would not allow to come forward for a request if ‘all of these ducks were not in a row.’ For a long time we have worried about that museum and the limited visitorship there. Las Vegas has the tourist ability and they expect probably ten times the visitorship if the museum is in a more accessible location. When you put all of these pieces together, I would doubt very seriously there would be a request before this body for $35 million in bonding.
Senator Raggio inquired what the estimated value is of the present building and property that the city of Las Vegas would be purchasing. Mr. Rohrs said he did not know the present value and did not know of any requests for an estimate at this time.
Scott K. Sisco, Administrative Services Officer III, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, pointed out that there are many things going on with this project. He said that he could give a commitment from the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, as well as the Governor’s office, that they will be watching each of these. He remarked that without the funding, the department would be totally “out of the ballgame,’ and the funding gives them an opportunity to participate. He added that at any point, if it is determined that things are not falling into place, the department would not be spending this funding and it would be reverted back to the General Fund.
Senator Raggio requested that the department submit to the committee a breakdown of the use intended for the $300,000 appropriation. Mr. Sisco agreed to comply.
SENATE BILL 462: Makes appropriation to Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum of Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources. (BDR S‑1431)
Virginia Cain, Reno, Nevada Commission on Aging, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, commented that the Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum has been in existence since July 1997. She pointed out that she has served on this forum, which is composed of 21 members appointed by the Governor to represent the 17 counties of Nevada, since the forum’s beginning. She said when the forum was first formed, it received an allowance of $5,000, which could only be used for one trip and 1 day per diem by the 21 members.
Ms. Cain stated that one of the chief functions of this forum has been to go to the different counties throughout the state and determine the needs of seniors in those counties. She stated that the group formed bi-laws because Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) did not specify how reappointments were to be made. She said that as president of the forum, she studied Senate Bill 489 of the Sixty-ninth Session that established the Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum.
SENATE BILL 489 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Requires creation of Nevada silver haired legislative forum to identify and act upon issues of importance to aging persons. (BDR 38-1674)
Ms. Cain remarked that a meeting was held with the first funding for this forum. There was no funding for printing, operation, or staff at that time, she added. She pointed out that at the first meeting, the membership set up duties and tasks, which included preparing, reviewing, and passing bylaws. She said it also prepared and approved a proposed operational budget for March 1998 through July 1999.
Ms. Cain stated that the forum listed the needs and the unmet needs of seniors. She said members also checked existing legislation, implementation, and available resources to avoid duplication of effort. This forum committee, she remarked, also reviewed the legislative program of the National Silver Haired Congress.
Ms. Cain commented that, in order to have a viable, functioning forum, it requires additional funding. She said the forum developed a plan for fund-raising. She noted that private foundations will not donate to state agencies, and because this forum is affiliated with the Division of Aging, it has been unable to get donations. She pointed out that it also did not receive assistance from the casino industry.
Senator Raggio remarked that the appropriation requested in S.B. 462 is for $5,000, and is included in the budget. He asked how this funding would be utilized.
Ms. Cain pointed out that additional funding has been contributed to the Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum from the Committee for the Support of Continuation of Medicare and Social Security. She commented that, currently, the forum has approximately $2,600 in its budget. With the requested $5,000 in S.B. 462, she added, it will be able to function.
Senator Raggio inquired whether this would cover the expenses of meetings and travel for the members. Ms. Cain replied that it would to a certain extent. She pointed out that not as many meetings are needed as in the beginning, because the forum is now structured and organized. She added that the forum has no staff or printing availability, and this is one reason the funding is necessary. She stated that seniors are one of the most valuable resources of this state.
Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, pointed out that, according to Shirley M. LeGoy, Reno, representative to the Silver Haired Legislative Forum, who prepared the forum’s budget, most of this funding would go towards the per diem reimbursements for travel. Ms. Liveratti commented that there are 21 members of the Silver Haired Legislative Forum and four ex-officio members who are members of the Silver Haired Congress.
Ms. Liveratti indicated there would be 25 members that should be reimbursed for travel to the meetings. Senator Raggio asked whether Aging Services Division would be responsible for the disbursement of the funds. Ms. Liveratti responded that it acts as fiscal agent to the Silver Haired Legislative Forum.
Senator Raggio asked whether recommendations are made as a result of these meetings of the Silver Haired Legislative Forum. Ms. Cain said reports are submitted to the Governor. She added that if the Silver Haired Legislative Forum is unable to receive this funding, it will be unable to continue to function.
SENATE BILL 491: Makes appropriation to Opportunity Village Foundation. (BDR S-1354)
Senator Raggio pointed out that S.B. 491 provides an appropriation of $250,000 and asked how this funding would be utilized.
Ed Guthrie, Executive Director, Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens, (ARC), Las Vegas, referred to his written testimony (Exhibit G), and explained the history and functions of Opportunity Village (OV). He pointed out that it has existed for 47 years, advocating for services for people with mental retardation and related disabilities.
Mr. Guthrie said that OV has paid over $1 million per year in wages to individuals which most people consider unemployable. In addition, he noted, OV also provides day rehabilitation programs for people with the most severe disabilities.
Mr. Guthrie testified that OV intends to use this funding for revitalizing its thrift‑stores so that they can continue to provide great jobs for people with severe disabilities and generate surpluses that are used to subsidize other services for people who are unable to earn income on their own. He explained that OV thrift‑stores employ people with disabilities. He pointed out that two-thirds of the people who work in the thrift stores are people with severe disabilities. He commented that OV reinvests funds in subsidizing Community Training Center (CTC) programs each year.
Mr. Guthrie said that fund-raising events such as the Magical Forest, thrift store sales, and contract income generate $6 million of an $8 million budget. These three revenue sources also contributed $800,000 in FY 2001 to subsidize the jobs and day training program of the CTC. He pointed out that for years the thrift store has generated at least $250,000 each year that went to subsidize the CTC.
Senator Coffin inquired whether the material that was stolen from the Magic Forest program was ever recovered. Mr. Guthrie responded that through the generosity of the community the program has been able to replace most of the items.
Sandra Brown, Processing Production Manager, Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens, (ARC), Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 491. She explained that the processing center receives items donated by the community. She noted that the center is where items are sorted, hung, tagged, and priced. There are 33 employees in this center, she added.
Ms. Brown remarked that as a long-time employee of OV, there is no job she would rather do, or group of people she would rather be around, than the clients of OV. She testified that three out of four individuals employed by OV thrift stores are living with a disability. She said they do their jobs every day with smiling faces and grateful hearts. The work that is done at OV, she added, is vital to the health of the community.
Ms. Brown said that for many employees of OV, it is the only stable thing in their lives. She said that OV asks for so little and does so much for the community.
Ann Clements, employee of Opportunity Village Association of Retarded Citizens Thrift Store, Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 491. She said she has worked for the OV thrift store for 33 years.
Marsha Westover, a concerned citizen, testified in support of S.B. 491. She said that she is the sister of Ann Clements who is mentally handicapped and resides with her and her family. She commented that OV has been a part of her family life for many years. She pointed out that her sister, by working at OV, has been able to participate in the community and be a contributor to the family household. She said that without OV, her family and many other families like hers would be lost. She added that it is critical to the community that funding is supported for the continuation of these vital services of OV.
ASSEMBLY BILL 587: Makes appropriation to restore and increase balance in stale claims account. (BDR S-1511)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, referred the committee to page 15 of Exhibit E, and said A.B. 587 would provide a one-time General Fund appropriation in the amount of $2,500,000 to replenish the stale claims account.
Mr. Hataway pointed out that in the 1999 Legislature, $1,491,000 was appropriated to return the fund to a balance of $1.5 million, which is normally what the division has had in the last few years. However, he explained, in FY 2000 the division had to approach the IFC for an $800,000 allocation, and in December 2000 it requested a subsequent appropriation of $371,000. He indicated that the fund has no dollar balance and the claims that the State Board of Examiners approved at their April meeting were subject to the availability of funds. He stated that there are outstanding claims going to the State Board of Examiner’s May meeting totaling approximately $29,000. He said the division needs an “infusion” of funds.
Mr. Hataway said the reason the board proposes to raise this amount to $2.5 million is based on recent experience. He stated that he believes this would relieve some pressure on the IFC Contingency Fund, which has also been under pressure. He pointed out that the division continues to recommend approval at the $2.5 million level for the committee’s consideration.
Senator Raggio inquired whether the balance is low to the point that A.B. 587 needs to be processed as soon as possible. Mr. Hataway replied that the balance that was given to the division from administrative services indicated there was approximately a $21,000 balance. He added, “So they’re able to pay some of the claims that were authorized in April.” He reiterated that pending claims are approximately $29,000.
Senator Raggio remarked that if the committee is agreeable, then they will process the measure.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 587.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
BUDGET CLOSINGS
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Secretary of State – Budget Page ELECTED-81 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-1050
Senator Raggio referred the committee to Closing List Number 7 (Exhibit H) and said that the committee should be aware that some salaries in constitutional officer budgets will be addressed in the unclassified pay bill.
Carla Watson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, pointed out that if Senate Bill (S.B.) 46 passes, it would increase the expedited fee from $100 to $500. Senator Raggio asked what the current status is of S.B. 46. Ms. Watson replied that it is currently in the Assembly.
SENATE BILL 46: Increases maximum fee secretary of state may charge for providing special services. (BDR 18-262)
Ms. Watson referred the committee to a chart on page 6 of Exhibit H and explained that if a certain percentage of current “expedites” chose to pay the increase of $500 for new or amended filings, and $250 for status or Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings for a 2-hour turnaround, this chart displays the increased annual revenue estimates. She pointed out that if 5 percent of the regular “expedites” chose to pay the increased fee, it means that revenues will increase from a conservative amount of $1.5 million. This amount increases, she said, all the way up to $9,112,500, if 30 percent of the regular “expedites” choose to use the new services.
Ms. Watson stated there had been some concern whether or not the Special Services Fund will remain solvent if the proposed nine positions in The Executive Budget, which are funded from the Special Services Fund, are approved. She noted that it appears that the fund will remain solvent.
Senator Raggio asked whether only 5 percent of individuals that request this expedited service would ultimately be responsible for an increase in annual revenues for the department by approximately $1.5 million. Ms. Watson replied that is correct. She commented that the chart in Exhibit H also reflects increases up to 30 percent. Senator Raggio said, “There is no way 30 percent of them are going to be using this 2-hour turn‑around. You’re saying, for purposes of the budget, we need to make an assumption, is that what you are suggesting? They’re saying that this money would be used to pay these additional salaries?”
Senator Raggio commented that he believes the Senate Committee on Government Affairs is not going to authorize the salaries or the flexibility. He added that the committee is going to allow the department to request funding for certain positions that need to be addressed in the unclassified salary bill. He asked if anything else needed to be addressed at the time.
Ms. Watson replied that the request was for nine positions that are recommended in the Governor’s budget and are classified positions.
Senator Raggio asked how much funding is required for these nine positions. Ms. Watson responded that the total funding for the nine positions would be $467,504 in FY 2002, and $549,383 in FY 2003, for a total of $1,016,887.
M-100 Inflation & Per Unit Adjustment – Page ELECTED-82
Ms. Watson remarked that in module M-100, the General Fund is reduced by $3,656 in each year of the biennium, and the Special Services Fund is reduced by $1,676 each year of the biennium. This is due to applying insurance rates established in The Executive Budget, she added.
E-806 Unclassified Pay Changes – Page ELECTED-85
Ms. Watson said that staff eliminated module E-806 at the request of the agency. She noted that this module recommended unclassifying an existing Administrative Services Officer III position. She pointed out that this elimination reduces the General Fund by $3,195 in FY 2002, and by $5,991 in FY 2003.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page ELECTED-83
Ms. Watson stated that decision unit M-200 includes funding of $362,940 from the Special Services Fund over the biennium for contract maintenance on new recording software. She explained that the software was approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on September 12, 2000. She noted the IFC requested that the maintenance contract then be submitted in the agency’s budget. She added that this has been done.
Ms. Watson remarked that the State Board of Examiners approved a contract for $2.4 million between the Secretary of State and Logicon/Sterling Software on April 10, 2001.
Senator Raggio asked why an additional $362,940 is needed as contract maintenance for new recoding software. He pointed out that this ties in with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and said, “Everybody who is coming in for some additional money is talking about UCC Article 9, in every budget and in every bill. Is that what this is for?” Ms. Watson replied that this request is partially for compliance with Article 9 of the UCC.
Senator Raggio asked why would an additional $362,940 would be needed if $2.4 million was approved. Ms. Watson stated that the maintenance contract was not included in the $2.4 million approved by IFC. Senator Raggio asked whether this is the amount needed for maintenance of new recording software for this program. Ms. Watson clarified that this would actually total $181,470 per year. Senator Raggio replied that he is aware of that, and requested that details be provided to the committee regarding the issue.
Mr. Hataway commented that this was the most current estimate that the Secretary of State had received. He pointed out that the department will be negotiating to finalize the cost, but this was their best “guesstimate” at the time. Senator Raggio noted that the committee needs better information in this area and asked that Senator O’Donnell look into this matter. He added that this budget will not be closed until the information is received.
Ms. Watson stated that decision unit M-200 also recommends funding for 18 full‑time equivalent (FTE) classified positions, which would be 15 positions in FY 2001-02, and 3 additional positions for FY 2002-03, to assist the agency in meeting its mission. She pointed out that the agency has grown by 22.54 FTE since the 1997 Legislative Session. The recommendations approved by the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Encourage Corporations and Other Business Entities to Organize and Conduct Business in this State, she added, support the continuing efforts of the Office of the Secretary of State to improve its technology and provide state of the art mechanisms for its clients to conduct their business with the office.
Ms. Watson said another recommendation includes support of funding required for additional staffing to continue these efforts. She stated that the agency indicated 2 additional Program Assistant II positions were being requested for the Elections Division that were not included in The Executive Budget. Staff requested the agency to prioritize the 20 requested positions, she added, which is on page 7 of Exhibit H. She pointed out that the 2 Program Assistant II positions that are unfunded would be General Fund rather than Special Service Fund, if approved.
Ms. Watson pointed out that there are nine General Fund positions at a total cost of $300,220 in FY 2002, and $525,498 in FY 2003. She said the nine positions include 1 Information Systems Specialist III, 1 Chief of Securities Enforcement, 1 Compliance Audit Investigator II, 1 Compliance Audit Investigator III, 1 Criminal Investigator III, 2 Program Assistant III positions, and 2 Program Assistance II positions. Ms. Watson commented that in the Special Services Fund there are nine positions requested at a cost of $467,504 in FY 2002 and $549,383 in FY 2003.
Senator Raggio asked whether the point she was trying to make was that if only 5 percent utilize the expedited service, that would bring in, over the biennium, $1.5 million. Ms. Watson replied that is a conservative estimate. Senator Raggio inquired whether that would be sufficient to fund the positions in the Secretary of State’s budget that are recommended for funding from that source. Ms. Watson responded that the amount would be sufficient to provided funding for the nine positions.
Senator Raggio asked whether the funding would also be sufficient for the two unfunded positions. Ms. Watson said, “Historically, the Special Services Fund has been used to fund positions from the Commercial Recordings Division, because that is the division which produces the “expedite” services. The two unfunded positions would be General Fund because they are in the Elections Division.” Senator Raggio replied that there is no extra General Fund money. He asked whether there are sufficient funds to fund these two positions from the Special Services Fund.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that he believes currently there is statutory prohibition and money is supposed to be used for “expedite” services from the Special Services Fund. Mr. Hataway remarked that when funding is appropriated out of the Expedite Fund, it normally ties to the specific language in the statute and in some cases it gets into a gray area. He said the computer experts that the division uses serve the benefit of both General Fund and Special Services Fund. He pointed out that the Elections Division is normally a General Fund expense.
Senator Raggio reiterated that there is not a lot of General Fund money. He said, “We still ‘sweep’ this fund above $2 million. Did you estimate in preparing the budget how much would be swept from that fund?” Mr. Hataway replied that the agency supplied a 24-month projection based on the impact of the $2.4 million. He stated that the Budget Division received a payment schedule from the division, as well as current cost. He added that the Budget Division determined that if there was a reasonable balance the additional positions could be funded. However, by doing this, the amount of reversion to the General Fund would decrease, he said.
Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Hataway was recommending that these two positions be added to the General Fund. Mr. Hataway replied that the Governor has not taken a position on the matter, and that he is not in favor of adding any additional General Funds. He pointed out that if they are added, further reductions would be needed.
Senator Raggio indicated that there is a request from the Secretary of State for a sizable amount for revision of the election laws. Mr. Hataway stated this request is a “one‑shot” appropriation for $1.4 million. Ms. Watson stated that the $1.4 million is for the entire “one-shot,” and the election re-write portion is $250,000. Mr. Hataway remarked that contract maintenance is also Special Services Fund and not General Fund.
Ms. Watson said that the two unfunded positions, the positions in the Special Services Fund, and the positions in the General Fund are all under M-200.
E-806 Unclassified Pay Changes – Page ELECTED-85
Ms. Watson pointed out that enhancement E-806 was eliminated by staff.
E-225 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page ELECTED-84
E-901 Trans From BA 1365 – Page ELECTED-85
E-910 Trans from BA 1386 – Page ELECTED-86
Ms. Watson stated that decision units E-225, E-901, and E-910 all include recommendations to transfer 3 Information Systems Specialists III positions and 1 Computer Network Technician II position from the Department of Information Technology to the Secretary of State. She pointed out that The Executive Budget indicates that these transfers would result in a General Fund savings.
Senator Raggio asked whether this represents a savings. Ms. Watson replied that it does and that this is a pilot program. She added that these individuals have been working full time for the Secretary of State. She added that these individuals have computer equipment and rental furniture, and are working at the Office of the Secretary of State.
Ms. Watson stated that the agency requests to unclassify 1 Management Assistance IV position, which is a grade 29. She explained that this position provides secretarial and administrative support to the Secretary of State and the chief deputy. She said the agency indicates equivalent positions in the Treasurer’s office and the Attorney General’s (AG) office are unclassified. She remarked that the cost would be $7,622 to unclassify this position and bring it to the salary level that the Secretary of State is requesting. Senator Raggio commented that this request will be under the unclassified requests.
Ms. Watson pointed out that the agency is requesting raising unclassified salaries to be consistent with similar positions in other constitutional offices. She added that the cost to the General Fund for these proposed increases, including benefits, would be $62,928 in FY 2002, and $65,524 in FY 2003. Senator Raggio remarked that these positions would also be referred to the “unclassified” subcommittee.
Ms. Watson said that the last item is a potential alternative funding source for the committee to consider. She pointed out that the 1999 Legislature approved the creation of Category 15, Securities Enforcement, which is in budget account 101‑1050 (Secretary of State) to replace costs previously covered by budget account 101-1053 (Investigations and Enforcement). She added Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 90.851 established the revolving account for investigation, enforcement, and education. She commented that fines imposed for violation of the Securities Act are deposited in budget account 101-1053, and the ending balance is carried forward at the beginning at each fiscal year.
Ms. Watson said that budget account 101-1053 (Securities Investigations and Enforcement) supplements the operating costs for the Securities Division and provides funding of $10,000 per year to the Nevada Counsel on Economic Education to sponsor the web-based stock market game for elementary, middle, and high school classes. She noted that this budget account currently has a balance of $198,921, and funding is recommended in the Governor’s budget in Category 15 for operating expenses of $48,643 for each year of the biennium.
Ms. Watson remarked that the committee could consider transferring $48,643 each year from budget account 101-1053 (Securities Investigations and Enforcement) to budget account 101-1050 (Secretary of State), to offset this cost and reduce the General Fund appropriations by a corresponding amount each year. Senator Raggio asked whether this would offset General Fund money if the requested positions were added. Ms. Watson responded that it would offset General Fund money because the General Fund is accommodating the operating costs for Security Enforcement in Category 15.
Senator Raggio remarked that there are obviously more funds than are needed in the balance. Ms. Watson said that, based on historical analysis, it would leave approximately $100,000 as a beginning cash balance in the budget. Senator Raggio said, ”If they don’t have sufficient money as it goes along, they could come to the Contingency Fund.” Ms. Watson replied that is correct.
Senator Raggio said the committee can approve this budget, subject to verification from Senator O’Donnell’s inquiry in regards to the contract maintenance on the recording software. He added that an appropriate motion can be included saying that the transfer of $48,643 each year will go from budget account 101‑1053 (Securities Investigation and Enforcement) to budget account 101-1050 (Secretary of State), as well as include the two positions that are otherwise not funded in the budget. In addition, he noted, the other positions would be referred to the “unclassified” subcommittee.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑1050 SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY HIS INQUIRY IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACT MAINTENANCE ON THE RECORDING SOFTWARE, AND WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF $48,643 EACH YEAR FROM BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑1053 (SECURITIES INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT), TO BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1050 (SECRETARY OF STATE), AND TO INCLUDE TWO POSITIONS THAT ARE NOT FUNDED IN THE BUDGET, AND THAT OTHER REQUESTED POSITIONS BE REFERRED TO THE “UNCLASSIFIED” SUBCOMMITTEE.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Treasurer Higher Education Tuition Administration – Budget Page ELECTED‑93 (Volume 1) Budget Account 101-1081
Lu Chen, Education Research Statistician, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that The Executive Budget recommends a total of $2,231,274 for the upcoming biennium for the operation of the Prepaid Tuition Program. She pointed out that of the $2.2 million, approximately $1.6 million will come from the General Fund. She said Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, indicated at the February 14, 2001, budget hearing before this committee that the Office of the State Treasurer is not seeking any General Fund from the state after the 2001 ‑ 2003 biennium.
Ms. Chen commented that Senate Bill (S.B.) 271 of the Sixty-ninth Session sunsets the Prepaid Tuition Program before July 1, 2001. She added that Assembly Bill (A.B) 554 has been introduced and will eliminate the sunset provision, if passed. She pointed out that under Category 04-7065 in The Executive Budget, funding for contract services are recommended to be reduced from $421,341 to $370,000, based on the current price for the services.
SENATE BILL 271 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Establishes trust fund for prepayment of tuition at institutions of higher education. (BDR 31-1488)
ASSEMBLY BILL 554: Provides for establishment of Nevada college savings program as authorized by federal law. (BDR 31-357)
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page ELECTED-95
Ms. Chen stated that decision unit E-710 is a technical adjustment reducing the price of computer software and hardware for two new computers from $500 to $315.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1081 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
*****
Millennium Scholarship Administration – Budget Page ELECTED-97 (Volume1) Budget Account 260-1088
Ms. Chen stated that The Executive Budget includes funding of $16,345 in the base for each fiscal year of the upcoming biennium. She said the recommendation was based on the actual expenditure for computer servers purchased in FY 2000. Senator Raggio asked whether this expenditure is for the purchase of those servers. Ms. Chen replied that this is correct, and that it is a one-time cost.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page ELECTED-98
Ms. Chen explained that the recommended funding for enhancement unit E-275 is $4,728 in FY 2002. Senator Raggio asked whether this recommendation is an adjustment on computer prices. Ms. Chen responded that this is correct, it is a technical adjustment.
E-325 Improve Pupil Achievement – Page ELECTED-99
Ms. Chen pointed out that The Executive Budget recommends a $74,000 state General Fund appropriation to establish baseline data regarding student performance in high school and college. She added this will provide data regarding students’ intentions of attending college as well. She said that based on her review of this budget and a 10-year projection of the anticipated revenue and expenditures, including the administrative costs for the Millennium Scholarship Program provided by the Office of the State Treasurer, it appears that the 2 percent allowance will be sufficient to cover the costs related to the operation of the program in the upcoming biennium. She indicated that staff suggests the expenses totaling $74,000 be covered by the trust fund.
Senator Raggio asked whether she believes the 2 percent is sufficient. Ms. Chen replied that it is sufficient. Senator Raggio questioned what should be done with the $74,000 expense. Ms. Chen reiterated that she recommends that it be covered by the trust fund.
Mr. Hataway commented that the Budget Division has already discussed these changes with Ms. Chen and has no problem with these changes.
Mr. Hataway said:
When we prepared the budget, we were concerned about the availability of funding from the 2 percent limit. With the changes for cost of living increases and other changes in the budget, we were not sure that we where going to be able to get it under. Now that everything is settled, it appears that there is sufficient capacity and we have no problem.
Senator Raggio asked whether the rest of the adjustments are for computer pricing. Ms. Chen said that this is correct
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 260-1088 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 10:30 a.m. so the committed could attend the Senate Floor Meeting, and Senator Raggio reconvened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. on April 18, 2001.
DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS
Southern Nevada Correctional Center – Budget Page PRISONS-29 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3715
Carla Watson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that, in technical adjustments for the Southern Nevada Correctional Center, base General Fund appropriations are reduced by $12,827 per year for a cancelled telephone maintenance contract, and for adjusting equipment and vehicle repair funding to the work program amount. She said that base General Fund appropriations are further reduced by $6,580 for adjustments to maintenance contracts and maintenance of buildings and grounds per schedules provided by the Department of Prisons.
Ms. Watson pointed out that staff also reduced base General Funds by $32,436 in FY 2002, and $40,011 in FY 2003. She commented that this reduction is due to the latest projections provided by the department dated March 15, 2001. The projections, she added, indicate funding for propane and fuel oil, as recommended in The Executive Budget, are substantially overstated.
M-100 Inflation & Per Unit Adjustment – Page PRISONS-30
Ms. Watson stated that the M-100 adjustment is a reiteration of the adjustment that was made to base due to over-funding for propane and fuel oil.
E-900 Consolidation of Maintenance Contracts (not included in The Executive Budget)
Ms. Watson pointed out that staff created module E-900 at the request of the Department of Prisons to segregate maintenance contracts within a specific category.
Senator Raggio asked what the status of this institution would be during the biennium. Mr. Hataway replied it is his understanding that this facility is closed. Mr. Ghiggeri commented that this facility closed approximately September of 2000. He pointed out that funding is available in The Executive Budget to rehab the facility during the interim with plans to reopen as a male-inmate facility in 2003. Senator Raggio asked whether the facility would be “mothballed.” Mr. Ghiggeri replied that during the “mothball period” it would be rehabbed and then reopened to house male inmates.
Senator Raggio said that in essence there will be no positions in this facility. Mr. Ghiggeri commented that there would be two maintenance positions left in this budget. Senator Raggio questioned where these positions are in the budget. Mr. Ghiggeri said those positions are in the budget. Senator Raggio asked whether the original plan to convert the facility to a female institution is now obsolete, and whether it is currently rehabbed.
Ms. Watson responded that the latest information she has received from the Department of Prisons is that the facility would be rehabbed and reopened as a male facility.
Senator Raggio asked what action is needed other than technical adjustments. Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out that Ms. Watson identified savings in this budget for maintenance of buildings and grounds. He added that Ms. Watson indicated utilities were slightly over-budgeted, and the maintenance contracts were adjusted to segregate them into a separate category as requested by the Department of Prisons. It appears, he noted, this will result in a General Fund savings of approximately $50,000 in the first year of the biennium and $58,000 in General Fund in the second year of the biennium.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3715 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
B&I, Low Income Housing Trust Fund – Budget Page B&I-99 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3838
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that the only recommendation to this budget is technical adjustments for computer prices in the second fiscal year. He pointed out that pending legislation, Senate Bill (S.B.) 552, would reorganize the status of the Housing Division. Senator Raggio asked whether any adjustments need to be made in this budget in view of the action that was taken by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
SENATE BILL 552: Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-1448)
Charles L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, commented that as a result of the action taken by the Senator Committee on Government Affairs, the only remaining fiscal note is a Category 87, which is the purchasing assessment of $586 in the first year of the biennium and $612 in the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Guernsey commented that page 36 of Exhibit H displays a copy of the Fiscal Note. He noted it outlines the actions as originally contemplated on S.B. 552. Senator Raggio explained that S.B. 552 originally provided autonomy for the agency, but the Senate Committee on Government Affairs changed the tone by removing those provisions, and the Housing Division will retain its present status. Mr. Guernsey pointed out that in budget account 101-3838 (Low Income Housing Trust Fund) the only thing that would apply would be the purchasing assessment of $586 the first year of the biennium and $612 the second year of the biennium.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3838 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
B&I, Weatherization – Budget Page B&I-103 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-4865
Mr. Guernsey said the only technical change in the Weatherization Budget is the adjustment of computer prices. He added that he recently received notification from the Housing Division of a possible increase in federal funds to increase the number of weatherizations. He noted that the agency informed him of the grant award indicating that the grant will rise from $448,900 to $562,559, for an increase of $113,869 in each year of the biennium.
Senator Raggio asked whether this should be adjusted under federal receipts. Mr. Guernsey replied that the adjustment goes under federal receipts and increases the expenditure category.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4865 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITH ADJUSTMENT TO FEDERAL RECEIPTS.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
B&I, Financial Institutions - Audit – Budget Page B&I-115 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3882
Ms. Watson stated that technical adjustments for the Financial Institutions Audit Program include adjusting base assessments by $7,665 each year of the biennium. She pointed out that this will return assessments to the base year amount with corresponding adjustments to reserve and balance forward. She said that reserve and balance forward are adjusted by $277 each year for the Business and Industry statewide allocation.
M-301 Adds Step 9 and 4% COLA – Page B&I-116
Ms. Watson pointed out that decision module M-301 was eliminated. This module, she added, was the Governor’s recommended cost of living adjustment (COLA) for classified positions and the COLA was provided for in M-305.
E-710 Replacement Equipment (not included in The Executive Budget)
Ms. Watson commented that decision unit E‑710 was created by staff. She explained this was because the computer equipment for the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) position, originally funded in Financial Institutions Investigations (Budget Account 101‑3805), should have been funded from Financial Institutions‑Audit (Budget Account 101-3882). She commented the adjusted price for computer equipment, consisting of one desktop personal computer (PC) with software, is $1,515. She noted that this would replace equipment purchased in 1991, according to the division’s inventory schedule.
Ms. Watson asked whether the committee would approve funding for computer equipment for the CPA position. Senator Raggio questioned whether the equipment is necessary. Ms. Watson replied that it is necessary because the equipment has not been replaced since 1991. Senator Raggio asked whether there is any General Fund money in this budget. Ms. Watson stated that there is not; it is fee based. Senator Raggio inquired whether there is one position, and whether the agency contracts with a CPA. Ms. Watson stated that there is one unclassified position, and it is a CPA.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3882 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Cultural Affairs Administration – Budget Page CULTURAL-1 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-2892
Mr. Guernsey stated that there are two basic adjustments in the Cultural Affairs Administration budget. He pointed out that one is to update computer prices and the other is to provide training costs of which a portion was prorated from the Micrographics and Imaging budget, which consists of 12 employees.
E-275 Working Environment And Wage – Page CULTURAL-4
Mr. Guernsey said recommended training costs are charged under decision unit E‑275 totaling $17,000 each year to support department-wide training needs of employees. He noted that this recommendation is based on $100 per employee. A portion of this, he explained, was charged to micrographics, which is the corresponding change that reduces the General Fund by $1,200 in the Cultural Affairs Administration budget.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page CULTURAL-2
Mr. Guernsey commented that decision unit M-200 contains 1 Personnel Analyst II position recommended by the Governor. He added that currently the department has no dedicated personnel management staff. He noted that Scott K. Sisco, Administrative Services Officer III, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, has been performing this function.
Mr. Guernsey pointed out that a major issue in this budget is funding of $9,000 each year for support of the Nevada Humanities Committee. This funding, he said, is a potential duplication of the $200,000 one-shot appropriation contained in Senate Bill (S.B.) 428 and recommended in The Executive Budget.
SENATE BILL 428: Makes appropriation to Nevada Humanities Committee. (BDR S‑1351)
Mr. Guernsey remarked that the Governor submitted, through the Budget Division, a revised budget for a number of the accounts within the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts. He pointed out that the net effect of these would be to fund the director’s office 20 percent from tourism funds, 65 percent from the Nevada State Museum, 80 percent from Railroads and Historic Preservation funding would remain as a flat $10,000.
Senator Raggio asked what the total amount would be for tourism funding. Mr. Guernsey replied that the total amount would be $1,245,200 the first year of the biennium, and $1,305,597 the second year of the biennium. He added the net effect would be to reduce the General Fund in three accounts under the revised budget. He pointed out that the detail is displayed on page 13 of Exhibit H. He said, “The administration, for ease of managing this, is taking the tourism funding out of a number of accounts that are currently recommended in, and consolidating those in these remaining accounts.”
Mr. Guernsey drew attention to page 14 of Exhibit H, a letter from Nancy Dunn, Interim Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Tourism. He said basically this letter indicates that there is an available balance of $3,594,285 the first year of the biennium, and $3,538,901 the second year of the biennium, and the letter outlines possible uses of the funds. He noted that this would still maintain a fund balance of $1,105,000. Senator Raggio asked whether these numbers are consistent, under eligible uses, with the revised budget that was submitted by the department. Mr. Guernsey replied that the numbers provided by the Nevada Commission on Tourism match the numbers provided by the Department of Museums, Library, and Art, very closely.
Mr. Guernsey stated there is additional funding available that the Nevada Commission on Tourism has indicated could be reallocated to the State Parks Division and to reduce the General Fund obligation. He reiterated that this is a proposal from the Governor. He said that when the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means were looking at the budget on the Commission on Tourism, it was observed that there was a significant balance remaining in that account. He added this is one of the proposed uses that the Governor has for those funds.
Senator Raggio said staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on budget account 101- 2892 (Cultural Affairs Administration) at this time.
Museums and History – Budget Page CULTURAL-7 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-2941
Senator Raggio said staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
State Museum, Carson City – Budget Page CULTURAL-12 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-2940
Senator Raggio stated staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
Nevada State Railroad Museum – Budget Page CULTURAL-21 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-4216
Senator Raggio stated staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
Museum & Historical Society, LV – Budget Page CULTURAL-26 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-2943
Senator Raggio stated staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
Lost City Museum – Budget Page CULTURAL-29 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-1350
Senator Raggio stated staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
Nevada Arts Council – Budget Page CULTURAL-61 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-2979
Senator Raggio stated staff recommends that the committee defer the closing on this budget at this time.
Comstock Historic District – Budget Page CULTURAL-33 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-5030
Mr. Guernsey stated that Senate Bill (S.B.) 157 was indefinitely postponed, which was the only issue that needed to be addressed.
SENATE BILL 157: Revises provisions governing Comstock historic district. (BDR 33-954)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-5030 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
State Historic Preservation Office – Budget Page CULTURAL-36 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-4205
Mr. Guernsey stated that staff recommends this budget be closed as the Governor Recommends, subject to final statewide cost allocation adjustments, including Department of Information Technology (DoIT) charges.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4205 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Archives and Records – Budget Page CULTURAL-45 (Volume1)
Budget Account 101-1052
Mr. Guernsey stated that the main issue in this budget is the status of a southern records center, when it may be opened, and whether it is going to be considered seriously by this session of the Legislature. He explained that the initial report to staff and to the Legislature was that the southern records center would not be completed during this biennium. He added that at one time there was indication that the intended building in southern Nevada might be renovated and ready for occupancy during the biennium.
Mr. Guernsey said that he understands that the agency has now decided that the building intended for the southern records center will not meet its needs at this time.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1052 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, commented that information on sales and use tax collections were received and the information is outlined in Exhibit I. He said that, basically, taxable sales for the month of February 2001 increased by 2.6 percent when compared to February 2000. He pointed out that the revenue collected for business activity in March 2001 increased 3.7 percent when compared to March 2000. He added that year-to-date sales tax collections are up 4.9 percent, which compares to an estimate by the Economic Forum of 5.9 percent. This means the state is a full percentage point down on sales tax collection, he noted.
Senator Raggio remarked that this brings the state to almost the lowest percentage in collections when compared to March 2001, which was 5.1 percent. Mr. Ghiggeri replied that is about the same as December 2000. Senator Rawson asked how much money that represents. Mr. Ghiggeri replied that he prepared a scenario (Exhibit J), which assumes a 5 percent growth this fiscal year. He pointed out that this would be approximately a $5.6 million reduction in FY 2001. He noted that would result in a reduction of almost $6 million to the Distributive School Account (DSA).
Mr. Ghiggeri stated:
Additionally, if there is no reduction made by the Economic Forum on the sales tax projections in the out-years and you just reduce the base, you’re looking at a 5.9 percent in FY 2002 reduction, a $6.4 million reduction in FY 2002 in the DSA, a 6.3 percent reduction in FY 2003, and a $6.7 million reduction in FY 2003 in the DSA. It could get worse if you want to look at Table B [Exhibit J], which basically assumes that if there is a 5 percent growth this year in taxable sales or collections, again scenario B, we would be down $5.6 million this year if the Economic Forum reduces their projections from 6 percent to 5.5 percent in FY 2002, and 5 percent in FY 2003. That would reduce the collections to $9 million to the General Fund in FY 2002; $9.8 million, almost $9.9 million, to the DSA in FY 2002; $12.9 million in FY 2003 to the General Fund; and $14 million to the DSA in FY 2003.
Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out that attachments to Exhibit J include various past scenarios on percentage fee changes for gaming, which are significantly bigger numbers than the sales tax reductions.
Senator O’Donnell said in looking at the economic indicators, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has again reduced the interest rate by half of a point. He stated that the reason why the Federal Reserve has decreased half a point is because it foresees layoffs by U.S. Corporations as preliminary action denoting a downturn in the economy. He added that the prediction is that if these layoffs increase or continue, the country is headed for more “dire straits.”
Senator O’Donnell remarked that the Economic Forum has been more conservative than what has been indicated by projected numbers. He commented that his prediction is that the Economic Forum will be even more conservative then the numbers that Mr. Ghiggeri has presented.
Senator Raggio stated, “We will have to act accordingly.”
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Debra Petrelli
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: