MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Finance

 

Seventy-First Session

May 14, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:11 a.m., on Monday, May 14, 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 Joseph M. Neal Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst

Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst

Debra Petrelli, Committee Secretary

 

GUEST LEGISLATURES PRESENT:

 

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District, No. 2

Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District, No. 5

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Calvin R.X. Dunlap, Esq., Concerned Citizen

Daniel F. Polsenberg, Esq., Concerned Citizen

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, 

Michael Neville, Criminal Investigator, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, President, Washoe County District Attorney Investigators Association

Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Educare, Community Living Corporation

Alan Barthuly, Concerned Citizen

Paul Gowins, Reno, Governor’s Task Force to Examine Existing and Proposed Programs in this State for Providing Personal Assistance Services for Persons with Disabilities Executive Order, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation

Mary Bryant, Associate Director, Washoe Association for Retarded Citizen

Alex Haartz, Administrative Services Officer III, Fiscal, Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources

Ron W. Sparks II, Director, Western Interstate Commission For Higher Education (W.I.C.H.E.), University and Community College System of Nevada

Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration

 

SENATE BILL (S.B.) 184:  Adjusts prospective salary of supreme court justices and district court judges. (BDR 1-517)

 

Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 184, relating to judicial salaries was previously heard before this committee on March 19, 2001.

 

Calvin R.X. Dunlap, Esq., Concerned Citizen and practicing attorney in Reno, said he is appearing as an individual in support of S.B. 184.  He pointed out this bill raises a question concerning pay equity.  He said approximately 20 percent of judges receive a salary disparate from salaries of the remaining 80 percent of judges.

 

Mr. Dunlap said the Governor’s Salary Compensation Task Force made recommendations that resulted in the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) drafting a proposal.  He added this proposal would allow for payment for duties performed on commissions, particularly, the commission related to public and Pro Se (individuals that represent themselves without counsel) litigants that use libraries as a resource for information. 

 

Mr. Dunlap commented that S.B. 184 is constitutional and appropriate under a long historical precedence.  He said that while the proposed commission provides benefits and salary equalization for the judiciary, it also performs a great service.   He pointed out that the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada and the courts have dealt with the issues of people representing themselves.  He indicated there is a large percentage of people who seek to represent themselves, particularly in domestic courts, and often there are problems when they do so.

 

Mr. Dunlap stated there is a need to coordinate the efforts of a wide variety of groups in the state to make certain that the litigants who represent themselves are helped in that regard, and to alleviate the burden on the courts. 

 

Mr. Dunlap pointed out that the commission issue has been of historical interest.  He said there was a time when part-time work and ranching supported judges, justices, and their salaries.  He added, at that time, pay equity was not such a problem.  He remarked with the advent of terms of office and the increase of the courts’ caseloads, there has been a burden and an inequity for judges and justices who are not paid the same salary as their counterparts.   He commented the effect is that “senior” judges are often paid less than “junior” judges who have had the benefit of a pay raise. 

 

Senator Raggio stated that the committee has received a proposed amendment to S.B. 184 (Exhibit C).  He asked whether this amendment restores the system used previously to equalize salaries.

 

Daniel R. Polsenberg, Esq., Concerned Citizen and Past President of the State Bar of Nevada’s Board of Governors, appearing as an individual, responded this amendment restores the previous system to equalize salaries.  He pointed out that it uses the same technique to equalize pay for judges.  He said it has the added benefit of creating commissions to explore an area necessary to help people represent themselves in court, most notably in family court.  He added this includes individuals facing issues and are unable to afford an attorney, and who try to represent themselves.

 

Mr. Polsenberg commented S.B. 184 is an appropriate, legal and constitutional way to reach pay equity for judges.  It has been used for approximately 30 years, he added.

 

Senator Raggio said previous testimony was given by Judge Gene T. Porter, Department 1, Eighth Judicial District, on behalf of the Nevada District Court Judges Association.  He commented that the bill would increase the salaries of the supreme court justices from the present amount of $85,000 per year to $107,600.  He added that in 2003, these salaries would increase to the base salary of $150,000. 

 

Senator Raggio commented, with reference to district court judges who currently receive $79,000, their salaries would be increased to $100,000, and in 2003 would increase to $130,000.  He stated salaries have not been increased for approximately 6 years.  This bill would equalize those salaries so there would not be a great disparity between judges whose terms are staggered, he added.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether all district court judges are elected at the same time.  Mr. Polsenberg responded that many are.  He added that when the Legislature increased salaries in 1984, as part of that process all district court judges ran for office at the same time.  He noted that other judgeships have been created since that time, but elections are not all at the same time.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that in Section 3 of the proposed amendment to S.B. 184, a Supreme Court Commission on Law Libraries is created.  He asked whether this is what Mr. Polsenberg was referencing.  Mr. Polsenberg responded that it is. 

 

Senator Raggio asked who would serve on that commission.  Mr. Polsenberg answered the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be able to appoint 2 justices to serve a 2‑year term and another 3 justices to serve 4-year terms.  He added that, while they serve on that commission, they would be finding ways to enable libraries to have resources available to help people represent themselves in court.  He pointed out these justices would be performing these duties during the period of time in which they would be paid the lower salary. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Section 4 of the proposed amendment to S.B. 184 creates a District Court Commission on Law Libraries for the same purpose.  Mr. Polsenberg responded that is exactly correct.  He explained there would be 2 representatives from the Second Judicial District, 6 representatives from the Eighth Judicial District, and each of the other districts would be able to appoint 1 judge each to serve on that commission.

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether the constitutionality of the issue would be addressed by those judges who serve on the commission and receive an augmented salary.  Mr. Polsenberg replied that is correct.  He added the Nevada Supreme Court addressed that issue in 1910 in State vs. Douglas.  This case quotes the California Supreme Court, which said the legislature has the authority to create those separate, and distinct positions, he added.  He said one person can serve as both a judge and a member of the commission. 

 

Mr. Polsenberg commented the legislature cannot force a person to serve in the capacity of both judge and member of the commission, but, if they agree to, the Legislature can pay that person for each of those separate positions.

 

Senator Neal asked, given the existence of the present law library structure, in terms of the people who are now being served, what would this commission be able to do that the current people who work in the library are unable to do.  He said, “You go in.  You ask for certain information.  They point you to the section or they go over and find it for you. They tell you just what you’re looking for, point it out to you, and let you go and read it.  What is different here?”

 

Mr. Polsenberg responded he wishes that were the case.  He stated he has taught legal research at the Clark County community college (Community College of Southern Nevada).  He said he would often be at the library at night and would see many lay people (individuals who do not practice law) attempting legal research on legal issues they are facing.  He added they would get good-intentioned assistance from the library staff, but they were not really getting enough help to find their answers. 

 

Mr. Polsenberg pointed out what these commissions would be looking at are additional things that could be done, especially in the area of creating and providing forms.  He said this would include making forms more readily available to people who represent themselves.  He added this is a step forward. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether anyone else wishes to speak on S.B. 184.  No one came forward.

 

SENATE BILL 461:  Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for new and replacement equipment in computing center. (BDR S-1428)

 

Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 461 was previously heard on March 29, 2001 and required an amendment.  He referred the committee to Amendment Number 122, and pointed out the appropriation was recomputed at $2,523,863.  He said the wording “and associated software” was also inserted into the bill. 

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 461, TO INCLUDE AMENDMENT NUMBER 122.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

*****

 

Senator Rawson disclosed he is an employee of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).  He added this bill does not affect him.

 

Senator Raggio commented it has been noted in the record sufficiently that Senator Rawson and Senator Coffin have both made disclosures regarding the UCCSN. 

 

SENATE BILL 393:  Expands certain retirement and industrial insurance benefits afforded to peace officers. (BDR 23-747)

 

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, stated S.B. 393 deals with the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).  He said this bill was requested by the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN).  He pointed out there are modifications within the bill.  He added the bill is worthy of the committee’s consideration.

 

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, stated he is also a representative of the Professional Peace Officers of Nevada.  He commented he is appearing to request support for S.B. 393.  He said PORAN believes its amendment for S.B. 393 (Exhibit D) is needed legislation, and economically affordable to state and to local governments. 

 

Mr. Dreher remarked that over the years, various peace officer groups, such as attorney general (AG) investigators, and district attorney (DA) investigators have applied, without success, to be included in the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund.  He pointed out peace officer duties are quite similar to those he performed as a Reno detective. 

 

Mr. Dreher questioned why he was allowed into the “early retirement system” and these investigators were not.  The evaluations completed by the PERS staff on various applications were subjective, he added.  He stated no one who evaluated the various applications had peace officer experience.  He added some groups were allowed in and some were not. 

 

Mr. Dreher pointed out that an example was the vote in 2000 to allow the AG investigators into the system.  He said the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund Advisory Board overruled the PERS staff recommendations to deny the AG investigators into the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund.  He commented when the PERS board reviewed the recommendation of PERS staff to allow AG investigators into their system, the PERS board sent the recommendation back to PERS staff for reconsideration and for evaluation. 

 

Mr. Dreher stated that during the interim, 2 new members were added to the police and firemen’s advisory board.  He said the PERS staff, in a subsequent hearing before the police and firemen’s advisory board, again recommended denial of AG investigators into the early retirement system.  He pointed out that the new Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund Advisory Board also voted to deny.  The PERS board denied AG investigators from being included in the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund system, but allowed them into a “promotional” category, he noted.  He said page 6 of Exhibit D deals with promotional types of categories in the prison system. 

 

Shortly after AG investigators were allowed into a “promotional” category, he added, Washoe County District Attorney Investigator’s Association members were also voted into the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund System as “promotionals.”  He pointed out that another example of inequity is the promotional system itself.

 

Mr. Dreher commented, for example, a correctional officer in the prison system, who decides not to be a correctional officer any longer, and decides to be a cook or a maintenance officer, could remain in the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund.  He added this type of decision would also apply to various other positions in the Department of Prisons including nurses, psychologists, physician assistants, physicians, medical administrators, medical directors, electricians, plumbers, air conditioning specialists, heating specialists, facility supervisors, bakers, food service managers, physical education specialists, store keepers, and institutional chaplains.

 

Mr. Dreher pointed out that numerous peace officers, who are category I, II, and III and trained by the Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) commission, which performs the same or similar duties that he performed as a detective, are not allowed into the early retirement system.  He said he believes something is definitely wrong.

 

Mr. Dreher, referring to page 4 of Exhibit D, commented that out of 7,450 peace officers in the state, 312 are not included in the police and firefighter’s early retirement system.  He said this represents 4 percent of the peace officers of our state.  He added he does not believe this measure will open up the “floodgates.”

 

Mr. Dreher remarked that the question becomes, who is responsible for defining who is a peace officer, and who should receive the early retirement benefit?  He asked whether it is the P.O.S.T. commission as defined and described in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 289.500 through NRS 289.600 inclusive and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 289, or is it the duty of the PERS board under NRS 286.061?”  He said:

 

We submit that defining who is a peace officer and who should be included in the early retirement system is the P.O.S.T. commission and the Legislature.  Our position is that PERS duties and responsibilities are the retirement system.  PERS, headed by the Executive Officer George Pyne and his excellent staff of assistants and employees, have made the Nevada PERS system one of the best systems in the United States.  However, PERS does not belong in the peace officer business.  The P.O.S.T. commission and the Legislature should be the decision makers.

 

Mr. Dreher said the Fiscal Note of approximately $1,040,487 attached to S.B. 393 is an aggregate figure that combines both employer and employee costs.  He added that according to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 286.421(3)(a), those costs are split and the projected 9.75 percent figure is really 4.87 percent to the employer and 4.87 percent to the employee.  The cost of adding 312 more positions to the early retirement funds system is $520,244, he noted.  He said of the 312 peace officers in the state, 195 are state employees.  The remaining 117 are local government employees, he added.

 

Additionally, he pointed out, the full financial impact to the state would not be incurred on July 1, 2001, unless all 312 excluded members chose to voluntarily join the fund.  He said those choosing to join would take a 4.87 percent reduction in pay and the state would provide an equal contribution.

 

Mr. Dreher outlined that based on recent “promotional” voluntary inclusions in the early retirement system of AG investigators, which was 5 out of 37 investigators, and the Washoe County DA investigators, which was 9 out of 15 investigators, it appears that approximately one-third of those eligible would take the voluntary 4.87 percent reduction in pay to become members of the police and firemen’s early retirement system.  Mr. Dreher stated the cost of funding S.B. 393 would be reduced even further, if this scenario holds true.  He continued, assuming, conservatively, only one-third of these employees take this benefit, the $520,244 would be reduced to approximately $173,240.  He added that those employees filling future vacancies in those 312 positions, would be employed at a base rate of pay reduced by the 4.87 percent rate.

 

Mr. Dreher referring to page 4 of Exhibit D, said it defines those peace officers under NRS 289.010 that are currently not included in the police and firemen’s early retirement system.

 

Mr. Dreher stated PORAN’s requested amendment for S.B. 393, Section 1, subsection 4, NRS 286.0614, would be amended to read:

 

A peace officer as defined under NRS 289.010 would be included in the PERS system with the exception of NRS 289.160, which are security officers appointed by the board of county commissioners of the governing body of a city; NRS 289.190(3), which are members of the board of trustees of a school district superintendents of school principals and teachers; NRS 289.230, which are California correctional officers, and according to the list attached on the Fiscal Note there are 28,000 California correctional officers; NRS 289.300(2), which is a person employed as a criminal investigator by the State Contractors’ Board pursuant to NRS 624.112, which is because they are currently not in the system; NRS 289.310, which is the commissioner of insurance and chief deputy of insurance; NRS 289.330, which is the railroad police, and any other position covered under NRS 289.010(2) that only employs peace officers that do not provide contributions to the PERS pursuant to NRS 286.

 

Mr. Dreher commented that PORAN proposes eliminating Section 4 of S.B. 393 in its entirety, and leave NRS 617.135 as it is written.  He said PORAN would like to note that at least one category, game wardens, listed on page 5 of the Fiscal Note, currently receive annual physical exams at the expense of the state.  How many others in that section receive annual physical exams at the expense of the state are unknown at this time, he added.

 

Mr. Dreher stated the members of PORAN feel S.B. 393 is economically affordable.  He added it gives the authority of who should be included in the Police and Firemen’s Early Retirement fund, to the P.O.S.T. commission and the Legislature.  He said it takes nothing from the fiscal duties of PERS.  He added it does reduce some of PERS workload and PORAN requests that the Nevada Legislature support passage of this bill. 

 

Michael Neville, Criminal Investigator, Washoe County District Attorney’s office, and President of the Washoe County District Attorney Investigators Association, submitted his position paper on S.B. 393 (Exhibit E).  He added he has been employed by the Washoe County District Attorney’s office for over 11 years, and, prior to that, he served a total of 17½ years with the Reno and Sparks police departments.  He said he would like to specifically address Section 1 of S.B. 393.

 

Mr. Neville commented S.B. 393 seeks to simplify the definition of police officer under NRS 286.061, in a manner that will allow the inclusion of a small minority of Nevada peace officers into approved police and firemen retirement coverage.  Approximately 4 percent of peace officers are currently excluded, he added.  He said there are approximately 7,450 peace officers in the state, as defined under NRS 289.010.  He noted that under the current system, the PERS board has chosen to exclude approximately 312 of them from approved police and firemen coverage.

Mr. Neville pointed out that PERS maintains two separate funds for the payment of retirement benefits.  One fund, he said, is for “police officers and firemen” as defined in NRS 286.061 and 286.042, respectively.  He indicated the other fund is for all other “regular” employees.  He said the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund provides early retirement and enhanced survivor benefits to its members, which are not available to “regular” members.  Accordingly, he added, the contribution rate for the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund membership is greater than that of “regular” PERS membership.

 

Mr. Neville remarked, prior to 1987, the determination of which law enforcement and fire suppression positions would be included in the definitions of “police officer” and “firemen” was made by the Legislature.  He pointed out that a bill in the 1977 legislative session resulted in the wholesale exclusion of many law enforcement positions from police and firemen coverage.  He added that in subsequent legislative sessions, legislation was introduced that sought to include some of these previously excluded positions. 

 

Mr. Neville commented that during the mid-1980s, during a legislative session, the Legislature sought to shift the responsibility of making these determinations from the legislature, to the PERS board.  A resolution at that time charged the PERS board with conducting a study to establish a method for evaluating law enforcement and fire suppression positions for suitability for inclusion in police and firemen coverage, he added.

 

Mr. Neville said at that time PERS Membership Manager, George Pyne, was given the task of conducting the study and devising an evaluation process.  He stated the results of this project were presented to the 1987 legislative session, adopted, and have been in place ever since.

 

With best intentions aside, he said, this evaluation process has been a dismal failure.  He commented that both the standards and the scoring are arbitrary and subjective.  He pointed out the process tries to quantify abstract concepts using 10-point increments.  He referred to page 2 of Exhibit E, which outlines some of the problems with the evaluation process.  He said among these problems are inconsistent field evaluations because personnel conducting the evaluations have no law enforcement experience.  He added that certain points are granted to certain positions, and only 5 points are given for carrying a duty weapon.

 

Mr. Neville stated that under this evaluation process there are agencies with general peace officer powers excluded from coverage, while agencies with very limited peace officer powers are included.  He said, similarly, there are armed positions that are excluded while some unarmed positions are included.

 

Mr. Neville pointed out that of particular interest are employees of Nevada’s youth training centers, in Elko and Caliente.  He indicated that between the two facilities, there are approximately 114 employees and counselors who have been included in police and firemen coverage since 1990.  He said under NRS 289.200, these individuals have very limited peace officer powers as described in the statute.  He added that these individuals are not armed.  Further, he explained, under NRS 289.550, they are required to be P.O. S.T. certified, but they are not.

 

Mr. Neville outlined that on the other side of the equation are AG investigators and DA investigators throughout the state, excluded from approved police and firemen coverage.  He added that under NRS 289.170, these investigators have full peace officer powers.  He said they are all armed, P.O.S.T. certified, and exercise a broad range of investigative and enforcement duties, limited only by the policies of the offices for whom they work.

 

Mr. Neville commented there are approximately 100 gaming control agents who are excluded from approved police and firemen coverage.  These individuals are responsible for policing Nevada’s premier industry, he added.  He pointed out that legalized gaming is constantly under fire from various entities in the federal government.  He said PERS treats gaming control agents as “second‑class citizens” within the law enforcement community.

 

Mr. Neville said in fairness to PERS, in November 2000, the board voted to relax the requirements for promotional coverage, allowing peace officers within “disapproved agencies” to obtain police and firemen coverage, provided that they have at least 2 years of PERS service contributions in an approved position, within an approved Nevada agency.  He noted, as a beneficiary of the board’s action, he is grateful.  However, he added, this creates yet another inequity in the system.  He pointed out there is now a circumstance of 2 peace officers within the same agency, doing the same job, who are not covered equally by PERS.

 

Mr. Neville remarked it is the responsibility of the PERS board and staff to administer the system and to make determinations, subject to legislative approval, as to what benefits should be provided for the members of the two funds.  He added the Nevada PERS system is one of the most solvent in the nation.  He said, “In this very session, PERS has supported legislation increasing benefits for all members without requiring a contribution-rate increase.  They’re good at what they should be doing.”

 

Mr. Neville testified he does not believe PERS should be in the business of defining peace officers.  He said this task is adequately and appropriately handled by P.O.S.T., which is in a better position to regulate these officers and to eliminate any position that is neither in compliance nor is deemed unnecessary.  He concluded that he believes PERS should accept those peace officers as defined in NRS 289 and regulated by P.O.S.T. as being fit and deserving of police and firemen coverage.  In closing he urged the committee to rectify a longstanding inequity in the PERS system and pass S.B. 393.    

 

Senator Raggio commented, “It might be of some historical note to you to know that I am the one who created the role of the district attorney investigator.  We never had any until I served as district attorney.  So I am pretty well aware of what the investigators do in those offices.” 

 

Senator Raggio stated committee members are aware of this ongoing situation.  He added that year after year, many groups have come to the Legislature and wanted to be recognized as peace officers.  He pointed out that many of these groups want to have peace officer powers for one reason or another.  He said over many legislative sessions, the authority to have peace officer status was granted.  It was measured carefully with the understanding that, even though peace officer status was being granted to some groups they were not eligible for early retirement.

 

Senator Raggio commented that when active, online officers in both police and fire activities are compared with individuals who do not have that kind of duty, and are required on some occasions to make an arrest, or carry a weapon.  He said he believes that reasoning was quite logical.  He added those who came in and wanted peace officer powers presented a constant issue before the Legislature.  He noted they had the firm understanding that they would have those powers under limited situations, but would not qualify for early retirement, because early retirement is a cost to the state or local government.

 

Senator Raggio remarked:

 

These requests came so often and from so many groups that the system was created, which Mr. Dreher referenced, to finally establish a police and fire advisory board.  It may be like the jury system in America.  It’s not perfect, but it’s still the best system that was created.  That was created after considerable input and a system, which you referenced, both of you, for determining at what level a person’s duties required or justified their being included under the early retirement law--the stress of the job, the nature of the duties, and so forth.  And that is the reason that [police and firemen advisory board] was created.  …It’s the best system that has been established.  Now your suggestion is to enlarge this…then slice off another group who aren’t going to be eligible for early retirement.  Well, I can tell you, if we do that, [at] the next session or the one after that same group will be in here saying, ‘Well, look, the DA investigators or the gaming control investigators were admitted and there is no reason why we shouldn’t be.’  It was never the intent that everybody who was granted peace officer powers was in such a line of duty or experience that it was necessary for them to have early retirement.  So, I am not prejudging this, but I’m alerting you to the fact that, unfortunately, some of us have been around here long enough to have a pretty good memory as to what has occurred.  I could understand that some of you who have come into the system at a later time may not fully appreciate the effort and the deliberations that have gone into this.  The second issue is, however, you want to whittle it down, Ron.  There is a significant cost to this.  While you say there is some ‘give up’ of salary, that kind of begs the question…because at this point in this session, looking for several million dollars, is going to be a very difficult process at best, even with some of the things we’re looking at.  I guess I’m giving you a little bit of a lecture, and also a little bit of history, and if you want to comment on that, obviously, you can do so. 

 

Mr. Dreher stated, “Senator Raggio is correct and we [PORAN] are not here to take away any of the work from PERS or the history.”  Senator Raggio interjected that each of these groups came in and said they do not want early retirement, but they do want the peace officer capability.  He added, “I’m just alerting you.  That’s historical.”

 

Mr. Dreher replied he understood.  He defined these are some of the things that need to be considered by the committee.  He said the P.O.S.T. commission that has been established is a well-recognized system throughout the United States of evaluating standards and training, and “making us valid and credible, much like the teachers and attorneys.”   He added the P.O.S.T. commission has a very good system.  Senator Raggio commented that is a benefit.  Mr. Dreher agreed.

 

Mr. Dreher said:

 

We’re not saying that PERS is not what they should be.  We’re saying that you have established a committee that’s even better to handle the needs that you’ve expressed—a valid system of defining who is and who is not, a P.O.S.T. commission that says you are either a peace officer or you are not a peace officer. 

 

Senator Raggio asked, “Why isn’t it a good benefit to just have the same kind of retirement that the rest of us have?  Isn’t that a good benefit, just the regular PERS retirement system?”  Mr. Dreher replied that is a very good benefit; however, the standards and the studies have shown that, obviously, a youthful and vigorous workforce is wanted.  He said this is PORAN’s point in requesting this measure.  He added PORAN wants people who are police officers in this state that are credible.  He said, “To look at the examples given, if I am a Reno police officer and I retire and I decide to become a maintenance worker in the city of Reno, should I continue drawing retirement?”

 

Senator Raggio asserted: 

 

We left that benefit because we didn’t want to take it away from somebody who had already earned it.  That was stretching it.  I’m not going to be…I’m being the devil’s advocate here because I think we’ve created over the years a pretty fair system, a good system, one with extremely good benefits.  It’s the envy of a lot of states.  We have a bifurcated system, obviously, for those who endure a great deal of stress, and we recognized that for active-line duty officers and we, maybe stretched it a little bit.  But, you know in a time when we’re looking for everything we can to finance a lot of priorities around here, do you think this is the best thing we could do?  I mean, it isn’t as if we’re denying benefits to those that have peace officer status...  What else could we do to measure the line that we draw between early retirement and regular retirement?  What better could we do than what we’ve done?  Look at this list, Ron, of those who are currently excluded.  Are there those on that list who really have been out there. You don’t see their names out here on this peace officer memorial, for example.  I’m not being… I’m trying to be understanding, but we’re getting towards the end of a session with very difficult financial decisions, and maybe this is something for another time.  I don’t know.

  

Mr. Dreher replied he understands and appreciates being given a hearing on this bill.  He added PORAN requested this hearing so it could explain its concerns and a record could be established.  Senator Raggio commented that if he is out of line, let him know. 

 

Mr. Dreher pointed out that Mr. Neville has done a considerable amount of extensive research and knows the history.  He added, that with reference to page 4 of Exhibit D, the people on this list are definitely qualified individuals.  He said at least half, if not more, of the dollars from the Fiscal Note have been restricted by eliminating the “heart and lung” coverage.  He indicated that A.B. 289, which will be heard in a work session in the next few days, deals with several inclusions.  He pointed out that one such inclusion that applies is NRS 617.135 (game wardens).

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 289:  Expands definition of “police officer” for various purposes relating to industrial injuries, occupational diseases and programs for public employees. (BDR 53-393)

 

Mr. Dreher drew attention to page 4 of Exhibit D, which outlines Nevada peace officers currently excluded from police and firemen coverage and said PORAN’s reason for bringing this list forward is to demonstrate the subjectiveness of the evaluation of the PERS staff.  He added that PORAN feels PERS does not do “bad” evaluations, but rather a different group should be conducting the evaluations.

     

Senator Raggio asked who Mr. Dreher would suggest could do this better.  Mr. Dreher replied the P.O.S.T. commission.  He added he believes with their standards and how the standards have changed over the years, the commission is capable of doing the job.  He remarked there are probably “a million alternatives to this.”  One of which, he added, is an interim study. 

 

Senator Raggio remarked the problem is there are so many studies proposed that the “houses” are apparently going to be limited to three interim studies each.  He indicated the Senate has a “long list,” and perhaps Mr. Dreher should not be optimistic at this time.

 

Senator Raggio said, “I guess I’m being tough on you, but I think Mr. Neville will understand, I have a high regard for the position [District Attorney investigator] or I wouldn’t have created it in the first place.  I understand where you’re coming from, and I just think it’s a difficult thing to grant at this time.”

  

Mr. Dreher pointed out that everything PORAN has expressed to the committee has also been expressed to Mr. Pyne and members of PERS.  He added that Mr. Pyne opposes an interim study because he is doing an updated evaluation on the system.  He reiterated that a record of these concerns was needed, and PORAN wanted the committee to hear its views.

 

Senator Raggio expressed that their presentation was appreciated and they did a good job.

 

Mr. Neville added:

 

Just a couple of comments on your response.  To the best of my understanding and my research, I realize that you were there, literally and physically.  My understanding, you made a comment about a number of these positions [that] were granted peace officer status with the understanding that they would not be included in the police and fire coverage, and that may very well apply to some of those positions I’m not aware of.  As to the DA investigators and the AG investigators, they were covered by police and fire coverage prior to the 1977 legislation.  So they were covered at the time that they were granted peace officer status.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether they were reevaluated under the process.  Mr. Neville replied they were.  When the evaluation process changed in the 1980s, they were excluded. 

 

Mr. Neville commented, with regard to the positions within those few groups excluded in the amendment, those positions are not contributing to PERS.  He said those positions excluded from the bill that do not contribute to PERS are railroad police, California correctional officers, and contractor investigators, who are all retired police officers and are already drawing PERS.  He indicated that, to his knowledge, none of those individuals eliminated in the amendment were covered by PERS.

 

Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System, stated the retirement board is opposed to Section 1 of S.B. 393 because the criteria that the board has adopted has been in place since the study was done in 1987, and it has worked well.  She introduced written testimony (Exhibit F), and said that PERS is reevaluating that criteria to make sure it keeps pace with the changing needs within our police and fire communities, as well as the public policy issues regarding the early retirement system.

 

Ms. Bilyeu commented the evaluation process began about 2 months ago and the study has already been sent out, which, is the criteria to the interested parties to ensure input is received from them. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired how often this process is reevaluated.  Ms. Bilyeu responded this is the first time PERS has done a reevaluation by going back through the criteria.  She pointed out this is because of the issues raised by many of the groups who talked about how the retirement system evaluated these positions.

 

Senator Raggio suggested it would be appropriate to revisit criteria set in 1985.  He added there have been many technological changes, and reassignments of duties and responsibilities.  He said it may be worthwhile to look at this.

 

Ms. Bilyeu responded that is what PERS will be doing.  She explained it is just beginning this process, and anticipates getting through this process with the retirement board over the course of the next year or so.  She added if there are legislative modifications that need to be made, they will be brought to the next legislative session.  Senator Raggio asserted he would certainly endorse that.  He said his impression was that the systematic inclusion of everyone, without other justification, might be inappropriate at this point in time.

 

 

Alan Barthuly, Concerned Citizen, said he was, representing the 19 individual investigators who signed a letter dated May 1, 2001 (Exhibit G), and pointed out that the investigators who signed this letter are in favor of S.B. 393. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether those investigators are with the Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS).  Mr. Barthuly replied this is correct.

 

Mr. Barthuly stated that he started his law enforcement career in 1984 at the University of Nevada, Reno police department.  He indicated in that capacity he was under the early retirement system, and remained there for 12 years.  He said upon taking a promotional transfer to DMV&PS to a department formerly known as the Bureau of Enforcement, he lost that benefit of early retirement, even though he is still mandated by P.O.S.T. and by statute to be a police officer to perform the required 24 hours of training by P.O.S.T., and to have an annual heart and lung exam.  Mr. Barthuly commented it is important that the investigators of the Compliance Enforcement Division be placed back into the early retirement system. 

 

Mr. Barthuly said under NRS 617.135 (“Police Officer” defined), every position in that statute has early retirement benefits, except for the positions listed in Sections 4 and 5, which include investigators with the Compliance Enforcement Division.  He reiterated those are the only groups who do not have early retirement. 

 

Senator Raggio commented he believes Mr. Barthuly’s situation is one that should be looked at in connection with the study being done on this issue.  He added, at this time, a blanket inclusion of all of these groups would be a problem for the Legislature.  Mr. Barthuly remarked:

 

The only thing I would like to address…is that it does have an impact upon police officers, because I’m sure that you are aware that S.B. 349, which is introduced by PERS, is trying to increase the multiplier across the board, and I appreciate Mr. Pynes efforts in doing so.

 

Senator Raggio commented S.B. 349 is currently in the Assembly and he does not know its status.

 

SENATE BILL 349:  Makes various changes regarding public employees’ retirement system. (BDR 23-752)

 

Mr. Barthuly added that being a police officer under the early retirement system would reduce the requirement for retirement from 30 years to 25 years.  This is why he feels it is important that peace officers under NRS 289, and the Compliance Enforcement Division investigator position under NRS 617, be placed in the early retirement system.

 

Senator Raggio commented this may be something that the study will point out.

 

SENATE BILL 486:  Creates Task Force for Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities. (BDR S-970)

 

Senator Rawson indicated that during previous legislative sessions, many disability issues have been dealt with.  He said the state has done some very good things, but has also neglected a number of things.  He commented the state has not taken a comprehensive, systematic look at what the problems are.  He stated that resources are short, but there are serious needs, some of which have been overlooked. 

 

Senator Rawson pointed out that the purpose of S.B. 486 is to “get out on the table” the full nature of the problem.  He said a group of individuals interested in looking at these problems could be assembled, which is why a task force has been discussed.  He said these individuals must use their resources, ingenuity, and creativity to systematically list all of the problems, and also what is being done for them.  He added that would include reporting to the state so that the information could be used in budget considerations.  This does not require giving services or demands that the state change its behavior. The information simply needs to be reported to the appropriate state agency, he added.

 

Senator Rawson commented the state needs to fully evaluate the nature of the problems and whether the problems are ever going to be addressed.  He added that the Olmstead Decision (a United States Supreme Court decision, which questioned the State of Georgia’s continued confinement of two individuals after the state hospital’s physicians had determined they were ready to return to the community) has been an important decision to which states have reacted to in different ways.  He pointed out some states have simply resisted doing anything by saying they will fight it as long as they can.  He noted other states have joined the fray and say they will do things in the “least restrictive way.”   Senator Rawson said S.B. 486 does not directly affect the Olmstead Decision, because this bill is not an attempt to try to avoid a lawsuit. 

 

Senator Rawson said:

 

This is simply a means of our being able to see what is the nature of the problem, and then organizing our resources to do what we can about it.  We recognize that we may never be able to take care of all of the problems in the universe, but we can at least grasp what the situation is and then do our best.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the appropriation of $350,000 is necessary for the creation of the task force, or whether that can be revisited.  Senator Rawson replied that he believes it can be revisited.

 

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Educare, Community Living Corporation, spoke in support of S.B. 486.  She commented that from the last interim study of the standing health committee, the need for planning was discussed together with utilizing the guidelines and principles developed by the Health Care Financial Administration (HCFA), as a response to the Olmstead Decision.  At the time, she added, it was not known that the state was intending to request a similar study, which is part of a group of studies with a cost of $1.8 million for which the Governor has asked.

 

Ms. Berkley stated the study on disabilities was initially budgeted at $500,000.  She added that, currently $350,000 is being requested for expenses of the task force in carrying out its duties and attempt to complete a comprehensive study.  She indicated there is another bill attempting the same thing, which is an interim study.  She said between the study on disabilities, the task force, and the additional interim study, she hopes the legislature can figure the best, most affordable, and effective way to start looking more deeply into the needs of the developmentally disabled.

 

Ms. Berkley commented that S.B. 486 has two parts to it.  The first part creates a 13-member task force.  She explained Educare was very interested in having a task force made up of people who deal with these issues on a day‑to-day basis.  She remarked the Legislature must get tired of hearing from providers and advocates.  She said this is an opportunity for the Legislature to say, “Okay providers, you figure it out, and you tell us what’s best to do.  Because if it doesn’t work, it will be your fault instead of the state’s. “

 

Ms. Berkley testified this task force would have 1 person from Residential Treatment of the Disabled, 1 person from Jobs and Day Training, 4 state employees including 1 for developmental disabilities, 1 for mental illness, 1 for physical disabilities, 1 to represent children, and 2 legislators, including 1 from the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and 1 from the Senate Committee on Finance.  Whether a legislator chooses to serve or not is optional, she added.

 

Ms. Berkley said the bill attempts to get everybody “at the table” at the same time to discuss the problems and deal with issues.  She added she believes it is significant that the United State Supreme Court, in the Olmstead Decision, said there should be a task force composed of all the interested stakeholders to discuss these issues.  She stated when Educare talks about their needs, and the department talks about their priorities or needs, there is often a difference.  She added that because there are different sets of realities and priorities, effectiveness may be compromised.  She noted this makes the task force extremely important.

Ms. Berkley pointed out the second feature in S.B. 486 includes the guidelines and principals that govern the task force.  She said these guidelines were basically copied from the HCFA regulations and principals.  She noted they were very well thought out and comprehensive.  She indicated the federal government is offering the state money to adopt and follow these guidelines.  She said it would also give some measure of protection from litigations, because if the HCFA guidelines are followed, it would give the appearance that the problems are being addressed.  She remarked that even though it was not specifically designed right at the Olmstead Decision, it still adds additional protection.

 

Referring to the question of whether $350,000 is absolutely necessary, Ms. Berkley said it is not.  She commented that Educare felt they could design the ideal situation by hiring a dedicated facilitator who could organize the task force, and break that task force into subcommittees to address the separate needs of the physically disabled and the developmentally disabled.  This way, she added, common issues and problems could be addressed by the task force in developing guidelines in meeting the many issues concerning community-based services for persons with disabilities.

 

Ms. Berkley remarked they will take whatever funding the state desires, plus hopefully, get the $50,000 the federal government is offering for the Olmstead Decision planning processes.  She added that there is some federal legislation that has been drafted, but has not yet been approved, which would add  $700 million in this area.  She said this is because the federal government is also recognizing that most states do not have a policy and procedure in place that deals with issues for community-based services for persons with disabilities, and it is essential.

 

Ms. Berkley commented that Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 32, which is Senator Titus’ interim study, is directed more to the physically disabled, rather than the developmentally disabled.

 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning Nevada’s program for providing services to persons with disabilities. (BDR R-937)

 

Ms. Berkley said, originally, Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, was requesting a $500,000 appropriation.  She pointed out the difference between that request and the current request for a $350,000 appropriation is the more expensive approach of hiring an outside consultant to administer and conduct the study, as opposed to a less expensive alternative of hiring a dedicated facilitator within the state.  She stated by hiring a person with the knowledge of Nevada and certain issues we face, Educare feels they could more easily take part and see that the task force follows through in coming up with solutions to address the issues.  She added that Educare is willing to work with anybody

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the task force is created pursuant to Section 4 of S.B. 486, and whether a report would be required that would include an assessment of how many persons with disabilities are currently in more segregated settings than necessary.  He added that Section 4, subsection 5(b) requires an assessment of the adequacy of the state’s efforts to prevent or correct current and future unjustified placement of persons with disabilities in settings more segregated than necessary.  He asked what the legal effect would be if the task force was created and its report was then delivered to the Governor. 

 

Senator Raggio commented he believes Ms. Berkley appreciates more than others the commitment that has been made, over a long period of time, to mental health and mental retardation disabilities, and developmental disabilities.  He added, “We can’t paint ourselves into a corner.”  Ms. Berkley agreed with Senator Raggio. 

 

Ms. Berkley pointed out that the courts have said, and HCFA is recommending, that just because the Olmstead Decision recognizes certain solutions to these issues, states are not currently mandated to suddenly come up a plan and funding to carry out the implementation of creating a task force.

 

Senator Raggio added there are other priorities as well.  He pointed out there are many problems to deal with and all of them cannot be funded all the time.  He asked what the impact of this type of official task force would be if the official report shows a deficiency, and what could be done.  Ms. Berkley replied that was the whole idea of the planning task force, and, in this case, the “planning” part is emphasized.

 

Ms. Berkley said the courts are saying they cannot force, and will not force, a state to come up with billions of dollars to address the problem.  What they require is a plan that demonstrates there is a direction and a priority.  So that at some point in the future, appropriate services can be provided.   Being without a plan, she added, is what makes a state more liable, or exposed to lawsuits.  She remarked, “Even though I know it feels like we’re putting things down in ‘black and white,’ in fact, HCFA and the federal government are saying that if you do this, then you’re even more protected.”

 

Senator Rawson said it seems that the important thing with the Olmstead Decision is that a waiting list is allowed. 

 

He added:

 

By having a plan and understanding how many people you have in establishing the waiting list, you really are on firmer ground than if you don’t have that circumstance.  You need to show what progress is being made as far as people moving on the waiting list, but it is okay to have the waiting list.  That’s really what this would be directed at. 

 

Senator Neal commented that as he understands the Olmstead Decision, in essence, the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities could result in discrimination.   He added there must be a plan in place, or engaged, saying there is an attempt to define those individuals and place them into settings most suitable to their needs.  He asked why, with the present structure within the Department of Human Resources, this plan cannot be accomplished.

 

Senator Neal added:

 

If you already have a setting where you have institutionalized those individuals, you first go to that [institution] and you try to find places to put them.  And as those [other individuals] come in, you would try to develop suitable places where you can place those persons.

 

Ms. Berkley responded Nevada has fewer people in institutions than any other state.  She said in some cases, this puts Nevada in “better shape,” with regard to complying with the Olmstead Decision, than most states.  However, she commented, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that in an average population, about 3 percent will be developmentally disabled.  She pointed out that 1 percent would mean only 200,000 people of Nevada’s population were considered.  She remarked Nevada currently serves approximately 20,000 people.  Theoretically, she added, there are a lot people who are not being served. 

 

Senator Neal commented:

 

I understand that, but you’ve got a human resources department that is suppose to be dealing in this particular area.  So, if they are going to deal with this particular area, why is it that they cannot come up here with a plan, rather than having a task force.  The Olmstead Decision didn’t say that you have [to have] a task force and even the letter that was sent out to the Governor by the head of HCFA, didn’t indicate that you should have a task force; it said you could develop a plan, and it didn’t say who should develop the plan.

 

Paul Gowins, Reno, Governor’s Task Force to Examine Existing and Proposed Programs in this State for Providing Personal Assistance Services for Persons with Disabilities Executive Order, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), offered he would like to answer this question. 

 

Mr. Gowins said:

 

Hearing this question just made me boil, because I know that Brian [Brian L. Lahren, Lobbyist, Washoe Association For Retarded Citizens Inc] and I, and several at this table, sat in with the Department of Human Resources early in November.  We said to them, ‘Gee, we would like to start working on this Olmstead issue.  We’d really like to address this,’ way before the session came.  What we were told is that the budgetary process was the plan.  We were told that that’s how they were going to do business.  It was stated in the newspaper on several occasions that that’s the department’s stand.  What we’re trying to tell you is that’s not okay and it’s not defendable.  So we need to deal with the Olmstead issue, and this is one method of doing that.

 

Mary Bryant, Associate Director, Washoe Association for Retarded Citizens (WARC), referring to her written testimony (Exhibit H), said she is also the parent of a young child with Down’s syndrome.  She said she would like to voice her thoughts on S.B. 486, and why it cannot be addressed by the Department of Human Resources. 

 

Ms. Bryant read from her testimony, “Since 1977, Nevada has been ranked 51^st among states in overall spending on people with developmental disabilities.”  She added this means a planning process is needed, but not any planning process will do.  She explained the Department of Human Resources has had many years to come up with a decent system or even to say that Nevada needs a plan.  She added that until recently the department denied that Nevada even needed a plan.

 

Ms. Bryant commented that to have an effective planning process, you have to be able to listen and then respond to the needs of the people affected.  She pointed out that before this legislative session, for the last 1½ years, the disability community has been talking to the Department of Human Resources.  She said these talks pointed out the dire need for rate increases to private providers so they could adequately serve people with disabilities. 

She added:

 

Yet, we all sat in the joint money committee when Dr. Brandenburg [Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources] told you guys, when you asked, that he had talked to all the private providers and he was certain and confident that they didn’t need any rate increases.

 

Ms. Bryant stated having the Department of Human Resources responsible for the planning process can only be compared to asking the “fox to plan the new hen house.”  She said, “When you’re done, you’d have a great plan for the fox, but it would really leave the hens out in the cold.”

 

Senator Raggio commented, “Maybe that’s what the department would say about this task force.”  Ms. Bryant replied, ”At least the people who are going to be affected would be the ones that are planning it.”

 

Ms. Bryant said S.B. 486 would allow the planning process to be given to the people who need and have used the services.  She added it also brings in other people from the private-provider community, and people with expertise from around the state.

 

Bryan L. Lahren, Lobbyist, Washoe Association For Retarded Citizens Inc, stated that planning processes are important in a variety of different ways under the Olmstead Decision because they help to define, “over the long haul,” what the basic needs of the state are.  He added that the Olmstead Decision does not require that a state immediately solve the problems, but rather that a state has to have a plan and begin working on that plan over time. 

 

Mr. Lahren remarked the time allowance is very “open-ended.”  For example, he said, New Jersey has just established a 10-year plan for trying to correct “Olmstead” problems, which they quite clearly have.  He added that Nevada has less clear, purely institutional, problems associated with the Olmstead Decision. He said, “Therefore, the problem [in Nevada] would be easier to fix, I suspect, than someplace like New Jersey.  But New Jersey, even with difficult problems, was allowed at least 10 years to develop a plan on how to fix those problems.”

 

Mr. Lahren commented Nevada’s problems have to do with, for example, people with physical disabilities who need in-home support in a greater degree than is currently and readily available to them.  He said these individuals may be inappropriately placed in nursing homes, and these individuals would be people who might be targeted for movement into the community.  He added that Nevada may have problems related to the Olmstead Decision for people who are currently in sheltered employment, and who would benefit from community based-employment, rather than in a segregated environment where they are currently receiving services.

 

Mr. Lahren said these problems exist because the state does not currently have the resources and has not allocated its resources to community-based employment to any significant degree.  He added there are flaws in that part of the system.

 

Mr. Lahren pointed out an extended period of time would be given in which to address those problems.  The fact that there was a plan would give Nevada some immunity from liability, he noted.  He said this is the main reason that WARC has tried to incorporate the “Olmstead” and HCFA language into S.B. 486.   It would generate a planning process and it provides a clear definition of the way in which the community should be involved in that planning process, he added.

 

Mr. Lahren indicated that government exists in order to provide services to people who are in the extremes of need.  He said the people best suited to identify their needs, and what will help them be as independent as possible, are the people who are recipients of this service.  He added the Department of Human Resources does not have an enviable record of engaging the public in the definition of its own public policy or with taking public input.  The department does not have a good record of actually developing public policies that are sensitive to the needs of the people it is serving.  He pointed out that this bill, or some variation on it, includes the people who are recipients of service and the people who administer the services.

 

Senator Raggio asked what is necessary to fund this task force and this planning process.  Mr. Lahren responded, “I don’t know whether $350,000 is the right amount or not.” 

 

Senator Raggio asked how this funding would be spent.  Mr. Lahren replied they would have six meetings, and try to get enough people together to represent a cross-section of the disability community.  He indicated that whatever the least cost would be is what the requested amount would be.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there would be any contracting for planners.  Mr. Lahren replied that WARC would like to have a consultant to help pull the report together.  He added an outside consultant is not necessary to tell the task force what the people of Nevada need.  Senator Raggio commented there are good consultants within Mr. Lahren’s group.  He added they have been doing a good job for a long time.  Mr. Lahren stated he agrees, and this is why WARC believes this process could be driven on the community side.

 

Senator Raggio asked that WARC revisit the Fiscal Note on S.B. 486, and submit it to the committee.  Mr. Lahren asked whether he means to cut this back to the minimum.  Senator Raggio replied they should submit what is financially necessary.

 

Mr. Lahren inquired whether they could have the help of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s fiscal staff.  Senator Raggio responded they could.

 

Senator Raggio said:

 

This committee was chided publicly for not have a hearing on S.B. 364.  That bill was noticed and it was heard in this committee. I will allow the opportunity for you, if you want to have some more input on that, then we’ll reschedule that.  But please undo that criticism because this committee didn’t notice it.  I think Charlotte Crawford [Director of the Department of Human Resources] appeared, and nobody else appeared.  So, Ms. Berkley, you’re the one designated to correct that misimpression. 

 

Ms. Berkley responded she could take that responsibility.

 

 

 

 

SENATE BILL 364:  Establishes developmental services commission. (BDR 38-931)

 

 

Senator Neal commented that as he understands the Olmstead Decision, Medicaid funds are available for carrying this out.  Mr. Lahren responded, “Most of the recipients of services covered by the Olmstead Decision are, in fact, Medicaid‑eligible people, so we’d be buying it at half cost.” 

 

Senator Raggio stated that staff could work with WARC to see if this is feasible.

 

Mr. Lahren, responding to the “unfair press,” stated he takes personal responsibility for that.    He said the WARC had orchestrated a meeting with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette Journal at a time when everyone was unaware that a hearing on S.B. 364 had been held.  He added, “You were certainly not deserving of that [criticism].  We were unaware that the hearing had been held.”

 

Mr. Gowins commented that today’s focus was the Olmstead Decision, which is the driving issue behind this piece of legislation.  He added that the disability community has met with over 100 individuals, who support an interim study.  He said he would not like to let that idea go away.  He testified he is not speaking against this bill, but he does believe there is some merit to an interim study.

 

Mr. Gowins stated he would like to make it very clear that the purpose of the disability forum is not only to meet the requirements of the Olmstead Decision so as not to face a law suit, but to address the issues of the state concerning community-based services for persons with disabilities.  He added he believes the state can be sued regardless of meeting “Olmstead.”  He concluded that the planning process that benefits all of us, not just the ‘Olmstead’ issue, should not get lost in this issue.

 

SENATE BILL 319:  Provides for licensing and regulation of halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers as facilities for dependent and repeals requirements for certification of operators of such halfway houses. (BDR 40-1211)

 

Senator O’Donnell stated he and his co-sponsor Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, brought this measure forward to help solve some of the problems that have occurred in one particular neighborhood, Hazelcrest Development in Las Vegas.  He pointed out that he formerly lived in this neighborhood.  He said, over the years, this community has taken an interest in halfway homes. 

 

Senator O’Donnell commented that a certain individual has purchased several homes in the area and has decided to open alcohol and drug addict rehabilitation programs inside these homes, within this neighborhood.  He said he understands the need for these halfway homes as a means of transitioning drug addicts and alcoholics back into the community, so they can become functioning members of society.

 

Senator O’Donnell remarked, when these halfway homes are clustered together, like elements are in one location, rather than being placed in an environment in which they can get support, mentoring, example, and education.  He said this puts these individuals in neighborhoods that have many halfway houses and a lot of similar‑type people that really need a lot of support.  He noted these individuals cannot get the support they need from each other.

 

Senator O’Donnell pointed out that the idea of halfway houses was to transition these individuals back into the community.  This particular measure restricts the use of halfway houses licensed by the state, he added.

 

Senator O’Donnell explained licensure by the state requires that all of the rules, ordinances, and regulations be followed before halfway houses can be licensed.  Presently, there is a disagreement as to whether or not the county commission can pass ordinances based upon zoning, he noted.  He pointed out there is a federal prohibition against zoning or discrimination against halfway homes.  However, he said, there is not a prohibition against licensure.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated licensure allows the evaluation of all aspects of the functionalism of these homes.  He said this would allow the state to determine whether or not having two or more halfway homes in one particular neighborhood is in fact helpful, or detrimental to the people to be served.  This is our instigation in this measure, he added.

 

Senator O’Connell commented she was first contacted about this issue last summer.  She said that at that time, the Oakcrest community already had five group homes, or halfway houses, established within the neighborhood.  She pointed out they had not had any trouble with those homes.  She indicated that an individual then bought an additional seven homes in the area, and there are approximately 500 total homes in the area.  Senator O’Donnell interjected that he believes Oakcrest consists of approximately 120 homes.

 

Senator O’Connell stated these additional homes were not licensed and the citizens who live in this neighborhood had concerns because of the number of homes being established as halfway homes.  She said these homeowners immediately tried to contact every agency that they thought should legitimately be involved.  She added, of those agencies contacted, not one could decide who had the authority to deal with this problem. 

 

Senator O’Connell commented that during the last legislative session, the Committee on Government Affairs tried to take care of this problem by requiring the Clark County Board of Health to have a map that located licensed homes.  Evidentially, she added, that has yet to happen.  She indicated the measure was placed on the county commission agenda, and the commission felt it did not have the authority to oversee licensing of these types of homes.

 

Senator O’Connell remarked it could not be established whether they were halfway homes or group homes.  She added that this problem is being brought before the Legislature because neither the state nor the county felt they had jurisdiction, and neither did the Health Division, Department of Human Resources.  She said this issue needs to be clarified.  She added this would assist in determining whether the individuals that run these homes are licensed and not just seeking a “capital venture” by turning so many homes into halfway homes all within these neighborhoods.

 

Senator Raggio asked where licensure is provided for in S.B. 319.  He pointed out that Section 8 of the bill strikes some existing language, which is “the bureau of alcohol and drug abuse develops and publishes standards of certification and may certify or deny certification,” then it strikes “operators of halfway houses.”  He added he is not following how this bill works.

 

Alex Haartz, Administrative Services Officer III, Fiscal Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, commented the 1999 legislative session dealt with halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers, and provisions were added into NRS 458.  He said it gave the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, the ability to establish standards for certification.  He added it then required operators of halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers to go through a certification process.  He remarked this included charging a fee that was not to exceed the actual cost of the bureau’s activities.

 

Mr. Haartz said the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse specializes in programmatic activities, not facilities.  He added the Bureau of Licensure and Certification within the division of health specializes in facility issues.

 

Mr. Haartz remarked that S.B. 319 proposes to remove the certification function in NRS 458 from the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and transfer that responsibility by making it a licensure function instead of a certification function.  This licensure function would be transferred to Chapter 449 of NRS, he added, which is the health facilities chapter.  He pointed out that this way the state has clear jurisdiction in licensing those facilities that are operating as halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether that authority to license also gives the authority to determine whether or not these homes are clustered too closely together.  Mr. Haartz replied that would be part of the licensure procedure.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether the Fiscal Note on this bill, which was provided by the Health Division, which indicates a cost of $40,000 and $39,000 in each year of the biennium, respectively, is still valid.  Mr. Haartz responded it is valid as far as he knows.  He added one of the determining factors will be actual workload and how many halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers exists.  He indicated that 10 to 20 are known.  Obviously, he said, it is workload-driven.  He said their goal would be to have minimum, but sufficient, regulation and to keep the costs of licensure as low as possible.

 

Senator Raggio said the committee’s concern is whether or not this Fiscal Note is “in the ballpark.”  Mr. Haartz remarked the division’s projected costs are slightly less than a full-time equivalency (FTE) employee, who would do the licensure inspections getting the regulations in place, the annual workload, and some associated travel.

 

Senator Neal commented the modality of treatment is being removed from halfway houses, and asked whether just another residence was being created.  Mr. Haartz replied that halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers do not provide treatment services for individuals who are recovering.  He added that typically halfway homes are referred to as a “clean and sober living environment, a drug-free environment,” where an individual, through their own volition, rents a room, pays for part of a house, and, in fact, does not receive any treatment services.

 

Senator Neal reiterated that when treatment is taken away, what essentially is left is an individual, a past drug user, which could be anybody, living anywhere, in any neighborhood or community.  Mr. Haartz responded, “When stated that way, you are correct.”

 

Senator O’Donnell clarified, this is correct, but any number of neighborhoods all over the state have former drug abusers, or former alcohol abusers, who are trying to remain sober.  He pointed out the problem with this situation is there is a “clustering” of as many as five or more individuals with former drug and alcohol abuse problems living in one residence.  He added this would include five or more cars, as well.  He emphasized that when you do this five times over, then you have a lot of those individuals clustered in the same neighborhood.

 

Senator O’Donnell commented these people need support.  They need an example, and they need mentoring, he added. 

 

He said:

 

You can’t put a bunch of these homes all together, because the only support, then, is addicts themselves.  And that doesn’t do them any good.  It just does them more harm than good by clustering them together.  So by licensure, allowing the state to licensure, they can look at all aspects and all facets of the rehabilitation of the drug abuser and the addict [alcohol abuser], and thereby make sure that the home location is in their best interest.

 

Senator Neal asked whether there is a special requirement in this bill regarding the distance that these homes should be apart from each other, or whether it will be left up to regulation.  Senator O’Connell replied the law currently states that 660 feet is the distance these home must be apart.  She added this is not the current situation within the Oakcrest neighborhood.

 

Senator Neal asked how many houses would then have to be moved out of the Oakcrest neighborhood.  Senator Rawson replied this would provide that individuals living in those clustered houses, of which some are within just a few houses of each other, would have to move and the house be sold, or converted into something else. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether 600 feet is approximately one-third of the Hazlecrest housing division.

 

Senator O’Connell commented there are two housing divisions close to each other, one is Hazelcrest and one is Oakcrest.  She added originally there were four homes in these housing divisions that have been established for approximately 5 years with no problems.  The problem with these additional seven homes purchased to serve as halfway homes, is concern for the many children living in these neighborhoods, she added.  She said this has caused the problem.  

 

Senator Neal asked whether there are one or two of these homes in the Hazelcrest housing division.  Senator O’Connell replied that the four established halfway homes are not the focus of the problem.  The additional seven homes recently purchased have caused a lot of concern to the people who have lived in these neighborhoods for 20 years, she added.

 

Senator Neal inquired whether the intent of the bill is to “grandfather” those halfway homes that currently exist.  Senator O’Donnell replied it is not the intent. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what difference there would be in the fee paid for certification versus licensure.  Mr. Haartz replied the fee is currently set by adopted regulation at $300 annually.  Senator Raggio inquired what the fee would be for licensure under this bill.  Mr. Haartz responded, with the presumption that there are 20 halfway houses state wide, the fee would be approximately $2,000 per house.  Senator Raggio asked whether this means the fee increases from $300 to $2,000 for the licensure process.  Mr. Haartz replied that is correct under the Fiscal Note that was presented. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether this increase would cover the cost of the requested position.  Mr. Haartz answered it would cover all operation costs.

 

Senator Coffin asked how this legislation coordinates with local ordinances.  Senator O’Donnell replied that this licensure bill requires all licensed halfway houses to conform to all the local ordinances.  He added there is a caveat with the federal government’s purview involved in this issue.  He said, as he understands it, the federal government’s purview disallows discrimination, and passage of any ordinances, other than distance, prohibiting the location of halfway homes. 

 

Senator O’Donnell commented:

 

This is a problem, because there is this hole, or crevasse in the law that does not allow the local governments or the local county commissions to do any kind of zoning.  It’s really tied our hands and people are now taking advantage of these loopholes.  Hopefully, we can revisit this on the federal level as well.  I think the intent of the federal legislation was that you cannot discriminate against alcoholics and drug addicts when it comes to their living environment and their sobriety.              

 

Senator Coffin asked whether this bill was brought to the committee just because of the Fiscal Note, or because the sponsors of this bill needed to have it placed an the agenda to meet the legislative deadline.  He also asked whether it should have actually been heard in the Senate Committee on Human Resources.  Senator O’Donnell remarked that it was heard in the Senate Committee on Human Resources. 

 

Senator Coffin questioned whether local government officials testified in favor of the bill at that time.  Senator O’Donnell read from a newspaper article, “The halfway houses help substance abuse addicts turn around their lives, but a massing of these houses in a southwest Las Vegas neighborhood understandably has upset nearby owners.”  He indicated that this newspaper article is saying Clark County government officials put the ordinances that they were going to adopt on hold predicated on what happens to this legislation.

 

Senator Mathews commented this does not only affect Las Vegas, but it also affects the Reno area as well.  She stated that Reno faces these same problems.

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

PERSONNEL

 

Personnel – Budget Page PERSNL-1 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 717-1363

 

Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referring to the Joint Subcommittee on General Government Closing Report (Exhibit I), said the Department of Personnel’s budget is funded through a payroll assessment and a personnel assessment charged to state agencies as a percent of gross salaries for approved positions.  He commented the Governor’s recommended budget includes a personnel assessment rate of .9 percent and a payroll assessment rate of .25 percent of gross salaries for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, and a payroll assessment rate of .24 percent in FY 2003.

 

Mr. Atkinson stated the subcommittee authorized staff to make the necessary cost allocation adjustments to the Department of Personnel’s budget and adjust the assessment rates accordingly.

 

Mr. Atkinson said the subcommittee had expressed concern about the possibility of identity theft resulting from the use of Social Security numbers on timesheets.  He added that the working group appointed by the subcommittee to examine this issue determined the necessary changes could be made to remove Social Security numbers from timesheets by redirecting $54,660 of the amounts recommended for overtime in The Executive Budget.

 

Mr. Atkinson pointed out that the net result of the subcommittee’s recommendations, when compared to the Governor’s recommended budget, reflects a decrease in budgeted expenditures of $6,825 in FY 2002 and $12,388 in FY 2003. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there was any further discussion.  There was none.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 717-1363, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION AND PRICING, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION.

 

SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  

 

*****

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS

 

Mansion Maintenance – Budget Page ELECTED-5 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1001

 

Senator Raggio referred the committee to Closing List Number 14 (Exhibit J), and said, under Elected Officials, the Mansion Maintenance budget was held open.  He added that Senator Jacobsen had some proposals in this budget, which included the addition of some items.

 

Senator Jacobsen commented that two items were found in need of maintenance.  He said in the family room, after it was last remodeled by private enterprise, lighting fixtures were not installed.  He added there are currently no lighting fixtures in the room, and it is in need of a chandelier, as well as miscellaneous dinnerware. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether this request is for an additional $1,400 to the existing proposed budget.  Senator Jacobsen replied that is correct. 

 

Senator Jacobsen pointed out that another item desired is a pamphlet or handout that could be given to visitors of the mansion.  He added he has checked with the State Printing Division, Department of Administration, and was told the cost would be approximately $10,000 which could possibly be refined or left until the next legislative session.  Senator Raggio stated it appears the current proposal is to add $1,400 to this budget. 

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analyst Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated staff has no additional recommendations to the Governor’s recommended budget.  If the committee chooses to accept Senator Jacobsen’s report, he added, it would be an additional $1,400.  Senator Jacobsen indicated the maintenance could be done in-house.  He said they have an electrician who could handle this job and it does not require any major repairs because the original electrical circuits still exist. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether $1,400 is a valid amount.  Senator Jacobsen remarked this is just an estimated amount. 

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN MADE A MOTION TO AUGMENT BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1001 WITH $1,400. 

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Raggio remarked that staff should notify the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means of this action and keep them apprised of budget account 101‑1001.

 

EDUCATION

 

W.I.C.H.E Loan & Stipend – Budget Page WICHE-1 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 614-2681

 

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated this is a follow-up to the budget closing that was held on May 9, 2001.  She said during that hearing, the committee heard testimony on the need for a reserve in the W.I.C.H.E. Loan & Stipend budget account.

 

Ms. Braun pointed out the director indicated reserve funding was needed in order to fund students who were in 4-year programs they elected to take, instead of 3‑year programs.  She said it was later discussed with the director that all slots are fully funded regardless of the number of years of the program.  She said that in further discussions with the director, it was determined that the need for the reserve is primarily due to the agency wanting to fund new professional slots in FY 2002 and FY 2003.

 

Ms. Braun commented this would, for example, apply to teaching, mental health, and nursing, if a need is shown during planning in FY 2001-02.  She added that this plan goes with S.B. 391, which creates the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (W.I.C.H.E.) scholarship trust fund and appropriates $75,000 to fund 5 slots each in nursing, teaching, and mental health.

 

SENATE BILL 391: Creates Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education scholarship trust fund. (BDR 34-282)

 

Ms. Braun said, on May 10, 2001 the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means closed this budget by selecting option 1, which is on page 5 of Exhibit J.  She pointed out that option 1 sets out a balance forward of the entire $558,284 in FY 2002, and reduces the General Fund appropriation by $333,623. 

 

Ms. Braun remarked the Assembly Committee on Ways on Means also recommended that all new physical therapist slots be eliminated in the upcoming biennium, with the savings in funding to be applied to professional nursing slots.  She pointed out this option would generate funding for 10 nursing slots in each year of the biennium.

 

Ms. Braun said that following the budget closing hearings last week, the director of W.I.C.H.E. submitted a proposal showing how he would like the budget to close, which is on page 6 of Exhibit J.  Ms. Braun indicated this option would fund 5 professional slots each in teaching, mental health, and nursing for a total cost of $75,000 in FY 2003.  She noted that FY 2002 would be a planning year.  In addition, she added, it would provide a reserve of $50,000 in FY 2003, and all other remaining funds, which would be approximately $200,000, would revert to the General Fund at the end of FY 2001. 

 

Ms. Braun referred the committee to a memorandum from Ron Sparks, II, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (W.I.C.H.E.), University and Community College System of Nevada, (page 7 of Exhibit J), which is his proposal to close the budget.  She stated she had previously been asked to work with the agency to come up with some combination of option 1 and option 2 listed on page 5 of Exhibit J. 

 

Senator Raggio asked about the status of the physical therapy slots.  Ms. Braun replied there are currently 6 physical therapy slots funded in each year of the biennium.  She noted the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means requested those slots be eliminated in each year of the biennium, and the funding for those slots be applied toward nursing slots.  Senator Raggio, referring to the director’s proposal, said the director indicates these slots should not be taken away. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that 4 physical therapy students are currently being funded at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada (UNLV) by W.I.C.H.E, and have a commitment to return to Nevada and practice in underserved areas.  He asked why it is necessary for W.I.C.H.E. to fund physical therapy slots since there are other programs available.

 

Ron W. Sparks II said, basically there are 4 slots at UNLV that are required to go to underserved areas of the state.  He added this is because other programs do not guarantee the students will work in underserved areas of Nevada after they graduate.  He stated this gives these students the incentive to do so.  He noted this precedence was set during the last legislative session.

 

Senator Raggio commented that as he understands it, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means eliminated all these slots.  Ms. Braun indicated that is correct.  Senator Raggio asked what their theory was in eliminating these slots.  Ms. Braun replied that at the first budget hearing, there was some concern about a problem placing the physical therapists that came out of the program, because the need was not as big as originally anticipated.  She added the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means felt they could eliminate those slots and redirect the funding into nursing slots, for which there is a big need.

 

Senator Raggio asked, when nursing slots are created, where do the students go to school?  Mr. Sparks replied they could go to in-state or out-of-state schools.  He added nursing students who attend in-state schools are awarded $2,500 per year, and nursing students who attend out-of-state schools receive $5,000 per year.

 

Senator Raggio commented he understands the need for nursing students, but W.I.C.H.E. was intended to serve those students who must go out of state to school because the program they want is not available in Nevada.  He asked whether this program is being re‑vamped.  Senator O’Donnell pointed out that S.B. 391 referred to this issue. 

 

Senator O’Donnell said:

 

We have, as the state matures, more and more educational opportunities for those that we want to educate to fill the slots, or fill the need for our communities.  However, there is still a tremendous need for nursing students.  However, nursing students are a 4-year degree.  They’re not a professional degree, such as a doctor, dentist, or physical therapist.  They’re not beyond the 4-year degree. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the Millennium Scholarship covers these students.  Senator O’Donnell replied that the Millennium Scholarship will solve the problem for those individuals who want to go to nursing schools in-state.  He pointed out that there is an opportunity here to augment the tuitions for those students who do not desire to go to UNLV or the University of Reno, Nevada (UNR), but do desire to go to a [another] “prestigious” college. 

 

Senator O’Donnell added S.B. 391 will require these nursing students to return to Nevada and practice in underserved areas.  He said he hopes this program can be expanded to include the mental health and teaching professions as well.  He indicated this is an opportunity to do something really good for our state.

 

Senator Rawson said:

 

We’ve been trying for 15 years to solve some of the rural health care manpower needs.  We’ve tried a lot of different things.  We’ve finally kind of gone to W.I.C.H.E. and asked them to help us develop a mechanism to get these students to return to the rural areas.  I don’t think it’s been easy for Ron [Ron W. Sparks, II] to do this, as this has developed.  We finally have a mechanism to be able to do this in a number of different fields.  I think it just wasn’t understood by [Assembly Committee on] Ways and Means.  They were, like all of us, looking for every General Fund dollar they could, and I think they just eliminated the reserve.  This seems like a reasonable proposal to me.  It still puts $200,000 back into the budget, and it maintains the reserve, although smaller.  And it keeps these programs alive.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the entire proposal for this budget is.  Ms. Braun replied that the option from Mr. Sparks and W.I.C.H.E would fund 5 professional slots each in teaching, mental health, and nursing, at a cost of $75,000 in FY 2003. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the physical therapy slot would be kept.  Ms. Braun responded that the physical therapy slots would be kept.  She added that at the end of this Fiscal Year, W.I.C.H.E. would be reverting approximately $200,000 to the General Fund.  She noted this would leave W.I.C.H.E. a reserve in FY 2003 of $50,000.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether this is Mr. Sparks’ recommendation.  Mr. Sparks responded it is.

 

Senator O’Donnell said he does not understand why $200,000 is being reverted into the General Fund from W.I.C.H.E., and why only 5 slots in each of these fields are being requested.  He added he understands that is what Mr. Sparks has requested, but it is his intent to augment the nursing staff, which is absolutely needed in the rural areas and Las Vegas. 

 

Senator O’Donnell said:

 

We cannot even open up another hospital.  We have a hospital that is needed in Las Vegas, but we can’t even open it up.  Not because we don’t have the doctors, not because we don’t have the facilities, not because we don’t have the land, it’s because we don’t have any nurses.  We’ve got the Boulder City Veterans Nursing Home, and we’re having a hard time even opening up that facility, because we don’t have any nurses.  I would like to keep as much money in this budget as possible with the maximum amount of slots for nurses and mental health, especially mental health.  We’re dying for mental health people.  I would not be in favor of reverting that money.  I would be in favor of augmenting those slots.

 

Senator Raggio asked Senator O’Donnell how many more slots he is suggesting for nursing and mental health.  Senator O’Donnell replied he believes there is a need for 200 nurses, but understands that number is not feasible.  Senator Raggio added that W.I.C.H.E. cannot fund that amount.

 

Senator Rawson stated Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center offered a gift of $150,000.  He asked whether this gift would “play” into this issue.  Mr. Sparks replied that it would not.  He added that they “fell out of that” when the Governor didn’t recommend the slots for the teaching nurses. 

 

Senator Rawson asked Mr. Sparks whether he is satisfied with the recommendation at this point even though he is being somewhat pressured to do this.  Mr. Sparks remarked that what is in place is adequate, but, W.I.C.H.E has always maintained that, rather than giving funding back to the General Fund, it would like to have more slots and more positions.  He added he does not believe W.I.C.H.E. could go as high as 200 slots, but could probably handle 5 or 10 slots in nursing.

 

Senator Raggio asked if only $100,000 was reverted, and the other $100,000 remained in the budget, how many slots would that $100,000 accommodate in mental health or nursing?  Mr. Sparks responded it could be 5, 10, or more in each, for a total of 25 slots by the time it was done.

 

Senator Neal asked whether scholarships are given outside of the western states for the pharmacy program.  Mr. Sparks replied the process begins inside the region and, if W.I.C.H.E. cannot fund inside the region, they look outside of the region.

 

Senator Mathews questioned how many nursing students, going out of state that W.I.C.H.E pays for, actually return, even though there is a stipulation that they must come back.  She added that she is also aware there are waivers in some circumstances.  Mr. Sparks answered that W.I.C.H.E. currently does not award funding to nursing students, but their return rate in other professions is approximately 70 percent.  Senator Mathews remarked she understood that $5,000 was given to nursing students that attend school out-of-state.  Mr. Sparks responded it is only a recommendation at this time. 

 

Senator Mathews said:

 

My suggestion would be that they all should go within state, and secondly, I heard you mention that UNR and UNLV…  There are quicker ways to get nurses on the street and into the hospital setting. And they are educated just to do that at the community colleges, to serve the hospitals.  Others go off and do other things.

 

Mr. Sparks remarked this is correct.  This bill includes the entire state university system, not just UNR and UNLV.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the Millennium Scholarships are available for nursing students in this system.  Senator O’Donnell replied they are, but, there is no requirement for them to work in Nevada once they receive their degrees.  He added the W.I.C.H.E. program requires them to come back to Nevada.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the motion would be that any nursing slots created though W.I.C.H.E. would have an element or requirement for service in Nevada in underserved areas.  He also asked whether the entire state is an underserved area.  Mr. Sparks indicated that, currently, the definition of where these individuals would be required to service would be anywhere there is “underserved need,” which could actually include the entire state.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 614‑2681, LEAVING $200,000 IN THE RESERVE FOR THE W.I.C.H.E. PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR PROGRAMS IN TEACHING, NURSING, AND MENTAL HEALTH.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Neal commented that his only objection to this vote is that if the committee wants to close the budget, it has to deal with the Assembly, because as he understands some of these programs have been removed by the Assembly.  He added that the reversion might be something they would like to see. 

 

Senator Raggio explained that the Senate will have to come together with the Assembly with any budgets that are “out of sync.” 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Mathews asked how long it takes to get these people into school.  Mr. Sparks replied that they will need 1 year of planning.  He added that he believes those nursing students should not be funded in their first 2 years, but rather in their second 2 years of college.  He said he believes this could possibly increase student enrollment into these programs.

 

Senator Mathews commented that Mr. Sparks is only referring to students that attend UNR and UNLV, because students only have 2 years at the community colleges.  She reiterated that Mr. Sparks said they are looking at people who are in the university system.  She said, “I’m telling you those people who are educated at the community colleges are ready to go on the ward the day they graduate.”

 

Mr. Sparks addressing Senator Mathews said these students will be funded for two years whether they go to UNLV, UNR, or a community college.  He agreed that students attending community college would be funded right away, but suggests that students attending UNLV or UNR on a 4-year program, be funded in their last 2 years.

 

Senator Raggio asked how this affects S.B. 391, and whether this budget is contingent on S.B. 391.  Senator O’Donnell responded that he believes, with the previous discussion, this committee could indefinitely postpone S.B. 391.  However, he added, perhaps an amendment to S.B. 391 could reflect what has been done with budget account 614-2681 (W.I.C.H.E. Loan & Stipend)

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there were any objections to the motion.  Hearing none, he said, the budget will be closed as augmented.

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM

 

Commission on Tourism – Budget Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-21 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 225-1522

 

M-100 Inflation & Per Unit Adjustment – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-23

 

Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that staff has several technical adjustments in budget account 225‑1522.  He said decision unit M-100 is adjusted to reflect the actual amount of tourism funds transferred to the motion pictures program and the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts.

 

M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-23

E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-25

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-26

 

Mr. Chapman commented that modules M-200, E-250, and E-710 have been adjusted to reflect current computer pricing.

 

Mr. Chapman said there was quite a bit of discussion regarding reserve levels projected for this budget account at the end of the biennium.  He pointed out that subsequent to the first budget hearing, the Budget Division submitted a proposal to modify this budget to transfer surplus reserve of funds to the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, and to the Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  

 

Mr. Chapman referred to page 9 of Exhibit J, and indicated the transferred amount to the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts would total approximately $1.2 million in the first year, and $1.3 million in the second year of the biennium.  He said for the Division of State Parks the total would be $567,204 the first year, and $613,989 in the second year of the biennium.  He pointed out that the subcommittees have closed the budgets for the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, and the Division of State Parks with these amounts included.

Senator Raggio asked whether these are budget transfers.  Mr. Chapman replied that is correct.  He added that these are transfers to fund various projects and programs within those respective budget accounts.

 

Senator Raggio said these proposals seem reasonable, and asked whether there are sufficient funds in the tourism budget, and whether there will there be a sufficient reserve to cover the basic programs addressed by the Commission on Tourism.  He added there is a lot of concern about not reducing the efforts of the Commission on Tourism in bringing in tourist dollars to our state.

 

Mr. Chapman remarked that with these transfer adjustments, assuming everything else was to be approved within this budget, it would leave an ending reserve balance of $1.1 million in the tourism budget at the end of the biennium.  He added that according to the agency, this is adequate for its needs.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there is any objection from the committee on the proposal to approve the transfer of the tourism fund reserves, as recommended, which would augment the budgets in the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, and the Division of State Parks.  There were no objections.

 

Mr. Chapman referred the committee to page 9 of Exhibit J, and said paragraph 2 coincides with the reserve issue.  He commented this budget is mainly funded 3/8 of 1 percent, from lodging-tax revenue.  He pointed out lodging tax revenues for this current Fiscal Year (FY 2001) reflect an actual increase of 10.4 percent over the same period in FY 2000.  He added that assuming revenues remain flat for the remaining 2 months of this year, it would suggest approximately an 8.8 percent increase in revenues.

 

Mr. Chapman, drawing attention to the chart on page 13 of Exhibit J, said this lodging tax and reserve re-projection chart reflects an adjustment to revenues for FY 2001, which increases program revenues to approximately $469,000 in FY 2001, if things stay on track.  He added that carrying forward the commission’s projection of revenue increases of 4.5 percent, the increases in FY 2002 and FY 2003 would generate an additional $1.4 million in funds over the biennium.

 

Mr. Chapman stated the committee may wish to consider adjusting the FY 2001 revenues to apply it as a General Fund reduction in another area.  He pointed out that one area that comes to mind is the “one-shot” appropriation of approximately $1.5 million for various improvements to state parks contained in S.B. 448.  Many parks are in rural areas, he added.

 

Mr. Chapman said the committee may also wish to consider adjusting the lodging‑tax revenues to reflect what is happening in the current fiscal year, and whether or not to apply those additional revenues to something similar to S.B. 448.

 

SENATE BILL 448:  Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for improvement projects at state parks and revises particular purposes and extends periods for expenditure of certain money previously appropriated for park improvement projects. (BDR S-1392)

 

Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 448 was heard by this committee on April 4, 2001.  He said Mr. Weaver (Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) appeared on behalf of the Division of Parks, and pointed out that S.B. 448 was funded by the General Fund.  Senator Raggio asked whether the appropriation requests in the budget would reflect funding for the purpose of that bill.  Mr. Chapman replied they would.  He added S.B. 448 requests a General Fund appropriation of approximately $1.5 million.  Senator Raggio commented, as he recalls Mr. Weaver’s testimony, that appropriation would levy some additional federal funding of approximately $1.4 million.  Mr. Chapman said that is correct.  

 

Senator Raggio commented that would seem to be a pretty good use of funds if those calculations are correct.  He added that instead of adding additional lodging‑tax revenue to the reserve, it could be utilized by funding S.B. 448.   Mr. Chapman clarified that the additional lodging-tax revenues would generate approximately  $1.5 million.  He suggests taking $1 million of that and applying it toward the requested appropriation in S.B. 448.  He pointed out that would leave approximately $500,000 as a requested appropriation in that bill.

 

Senator Raggio commented that would make sense.  Mr. Chapman indicated this would still leave “comfort room” for the tourism fund, as well.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that M-200 is a recommendation for a new unclassified Development Specialist position.  He added that this position would be solely dedicated to rural Nevada tourism efforts.  Currently, he noted, there is a rural grant program available to which this position would provide assistance.  He said the position would also be charged with developing a future motivational campaign to lure visitors to rural Nevada.

 

Mr. Chapman said M-200 also includes additional advertising funding of approximately $1 million in the first year and approximately $1.5 million in the second year of the biennium.  The additional advertising money would be for increased promotional marketing efforts targeting the impact of California Proposition 1A (the Indian Gaming Initiative).  He remarked this would increase the commission’s advertising budget from approximately $4 million to $5.5 million per year at the end of the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio inquired about the 5 recreational vehicles (RVs) for the Nevada RV Contest.  Mr. Chapman responded the RVs were included in this decision unit.  Currently, he added, the projection is to buy one RV this fiscal year, which has already been budgeted for.  He said the commission would buy two RVs in FY 2002 and three RVs in FY 2003.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the Nevada RV Contest was.  Mr. Chapman replied it is a sweepstakes-type contest approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in April 2000.  People visiting any of the rural campgrounds throughout the state can fill out an entry form at no charge.  He pointed out the contest is run, and a winner selected by a promotion house.  Mr. Chapman added the promotion is an attempt to get more visitors to the rural campgrounds in Nevada.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that M-200 also increases funding to increase the rural matching grants to local tourism agencies with $125,000 in the first year, and $250,000 in the second year of the biennium.  Currently, this is a $1.25 million grant program, which would be increased to $1.5 million per year by the end of the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee has any objections to issue number 3.  There were none.

 

Mr. Chapman commented that E-175 is the transfers of $571,375 in the first year and $660,896 in the second year of the biennium to fund the startup and operating costs of the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Boulder City.  He said the committee should note that the Nevada State Railroad Museum budgets were closed approving the transfer of these funds. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee has any objections to this funding.  There were none. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether the Boulder City railroad museum is currently an operating museum.  Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied it is a very limited operation at this point in time.  He added the plan is to renovate some cars and lay some additional track as well as promote the museum activities in southern Nevada, so it is more of a tourist draw to southern Nevada.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there are any objections on this issue.  There were none.

 

E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-25

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that module E-250 recommends two new Development Specialists positions.  One would be utilized to run and update the commissions website daily, as well as compile statistics, he added.  He said the commission currently indicates they spend approximately $180,000 for an outside advertising contractor to maintain the database.  He remarked the commission is proposing to fund these positions and utilize the current website funding to buy more promotional airtime and media services.

 

Mr. Chapman stated the second position requested would be more of a statistician‑type position.  Responsibilities of the position would be to compile statistics regarding website visits, and to determine the impact of the commission’s efforts in monitoring visitors, he added.  Senator Raggio said he believes the commission testified to these requested positions.

 

Mr. Chapman commented this decision unit also recommends transferring $95,884 in FY 2001-02 and $69,053 in FY 2002-03 to the Nevada Magazine to allow the two agencies to partner on the design and production of various tourism publications.  He added this was also a decision unit in the Nevada Magazine budget approved in early April 2001.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out there are some additional transfer of funds of approximately $3,900 in the first year and $7,600 in the second year of the biennium, to the Motion Pictures program.  He added that these funds are for increased training.  He said that budget account was also closed recognizing additional funding.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether funds would be transferred to the Nevada Magazine for the publication of these items.  Mr. Chapman responded that is correct.  The publications would include “The Visitor’s Guide,” “The Travel Planner,” and “The Governor’s Recognitions Awards.”  Senator Raggio inquired whether there was any concern from the committee on this issue.  There was none.

 

 

 

E-350 Service at Level Closest to People – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-26

 

Mr. Chapman said E-350 would transfer $40,000 per year to the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts for additional promotional expenses.  He stated that the budget of the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts was closed including increased funding.  Senator Raggio asked whether the committee has any objections to this action.  There were none.

 

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-26

E-720 New Equipment – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-26

 

Mr. Chapman said the replacement equipment includes a pallet jack and 10 desktop computers, and a transfer of funds to the Motion Pictures program for replacement equipment.  Senator Raggio asked whether these requests appear reasonable.  Mr. Chapman responded they are.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that E-720 recommends $7,500 to purchase new mobile radio equipment for use by the commission at their various tourism functions and various shows they attend, which include the Governor’s Conference and the Rural Roundups. 

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether the commission is currently renting this equipment.  Mr. Chapman responded that is correct.  It is included in the hotel and convention services contract that the commission negotiates.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether these requests appear to be reasonable.  Mr. Chapman answered yes.

 

E-730 Maintenance of Bldgs & Grounds – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-27

 

Mr. Chapman said E-730 recommends transfers to the Division of State Parks that were included in The Executive Budget.  He added these transfers are in addition to the those transfers just approved.  Senator Raggio asked whether this decision unit is being adjusted.  Mr. Chapman stated there have been some transfers of funds from one year to the next, and some minor matching adjustments between this budget account and the Division of State Parks budget account.  He added that the Division of State Park’s budget account was closed by the subcommittee.  He noted he does not believe that budget has been presented to the full committee as of yet.

 

Mr. Chapman stated there is some one-time money transferred in this decision unit totaling $263,286 over the biennium.  He added that the subcommittee that reviewed the state parks budget will be recommending that the transfer take effect in the first year of the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked if this adjustment was made, would it be consistent with what the subcommittees did in closing these budgets?  Mr. Chapman responded it would be consistent with the subcommittee’s closing.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether the committee has any objections to this issue.  There were none.

 

 

 

 

E-806 Unclassified Pay Changes – Page ECON DEV & TOURISM-27

 

Mr. Chapman stated the last item would be a reclassification of the current Business Manager position to a Deputy Operations and Finance position adding approximately $11,295 per year in the biennium.  He added the commission has indicated the position supports the Executive Director and is responsible for evaluating the achievements of the professional and technical staff.  He noted that with this position the department would like to create more of an equity issue.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether that reclassification appears to be justified.  Mr. Chapman replied it does appear to be justified, but would also have to be reflected in the unclassified pay bill.  Senator Raggio asked that staff make a note of this issue.

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether the committee has any concerns regarding these proposals.  There were none.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 225-1522 WITH ADJUSTMENTS AS INDICATED, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL TRANSFERS OF TOURISM RESERVE FUNDS, WHICH WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE BUDGET DIVISION, AND UTILIZING $1 MILLION OF COMMISSION RESERVE FUNDS TO REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION AND S.B. 448, AND INCLUDING THE OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE REPORT.

 

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to S.B. 448 and said, consistent with the committee’s action on budget account 225-1522, it should amend S.B. 448 to allocate $500,000 from the General Fund and $1 million from the tourism fund.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 448.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SPECIAL PURPOSE AGENCIES

 

Public Employees Retirement System – Budget Page P.E.R.S.-1 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4821

 

Mr. Ghiggeri stated this budget was heard by the committee on March 7, 2001. 

 

E-806 Unclassified Pay Changes – Page-P.E.R.S.-6

 

Mr. Ghiggeri said module E-806 requests funding of $5,133 in FY 2002 and $10,917 in FY 2003 for normal step increases in each year of the biennium for the Operations Officer.  Subsequent to the release of The Executive Budget on February 26, 2001, the retirement board submitted information informing the committee that the salary schedule for the executive positions was being modified by adding a sixth step to the shared salary schedule of the Executive Officer and the Operations and Investment Officer.  He added that a copy of that revised salary schedule is on page 19 of Exhibit J.  He said the salary schedule was revised in conjunction with the Governor’s recommended pay raise for state employees.

 

M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page P.E.R.S.-2

 

Mr. Ghiggeri commented there are 8 new positions recommended for PERS over the 2001-2003 biennium.  M‑200 contains 2 Retirement Examiners positions and 2 Retirement Technician positions to provide services to PERS members, he added. 

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page P.E.R.S.-4

 

Mr. Ghiggeri said additional position requests are reflected in E-275.  He indicated one is an Information Systems Specialist position in Carson City, and one is an Assistant Investment Officer, also in Carson City.  He stated that 2 Retirement Examiner positions are also requested for the Las Vegas office for the biennium.

 

E-226 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page P.E.R.S.-4

 

Mr. Ghiggeri commented that decision unit E-226 requests an additional $60,000 for computer system changes that would be required if the Legislature decides that PERS should administer the Judicial Retirement Plan.  He said The Executive Budget includes a “one-shot” appropriation of $14.3 million to finance a portion of the unfunded liability generated by the current judicial retirement program. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether it has been suggested that the plan be phased in with funding.  Mr. Ghiggeri replied that even with a phase-in of that system, this additional funding for the computer system would be required.

 

Senator Raggio inquired why additional funding is required.  Mr. Ghiggeri responded additional funding is required to begin the process if the “one-shot” appropriation request is reduced.  Senator Raggio asked how much that requires and how many positions it includes.  Mr. Ghiggeri replied that the request is for $60,000. 

 

Mr. Ghiggeri remarked that PERS has also submitted a request for approximately $88,550 to accommodate the benefit enhancements as recommended by the retirement board.  He added those enhancements are included in S.B. 349.

 

Mr. Ghiggeri said an issue that was not approved by the Legislature was the indexing; however, the modification for the earned credits was approved.  He added that indications are, the substitution of those two items will also necessitate additional funding of $88,550.

 

M-300 Fringe Benefit Changes – Page P.E.R.S.-2

 

Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out that decision unit M-300 recommends $1,017,384 in FY 2002, and $15,480 in FY 2003 to convert hard-copy files to optical images. 

 

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page P.E.R.S.-6

 

Mr. Ghiggeri said E-710 requests $119,546 in FY 2002, and $108,168 in FY 2003, for new modular furniture.  Based on revised prices for personal computers replacement from state purchasing, funding can be reduced by $24,550 in FY 2003, he added.    

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee has any comments on any of these issues.  There were none.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether the $60,000 for the judicial retirement is for computer system changes, and whether the money is needed regardless of when the Judicial Retirement Plan gets phased in.  Mr. Ghiggeri replied that is correct.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether there is a reduction of $24,550 in FY 2003 for personal computer replacement under decision unit E-710.  Mr. Ghiggeri responded that is correct. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there is a revised request for $88,550 in FY 2001‑02 to modify its data processing system to accommodate benefit enhancements recommended by the retirement board.  Mr. Ghiggeri replied that request of $88,500 will accommodate the changes in S.B. 349.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there were any objections from the committee on these issues.

 

Senator O’Donnell asked whether the committee needs to address the unfunded liability.  Senator Raggio answered The Executive Budget includes a one-shot appropriation of $14.3 million to finance a portion of the unfunded liability generated by the current judicial retirement program.  He added that even if a portion of the unfunded liability is funded, the computer system change is still needed.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4821, WITH ADJUSTMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

 

Budget and Planning – Budget Page ADMIN-1 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1340

 

Mr. Chapman referring to the Joint Subcommittee on General Government’s (Subcommittee) closing report on the Department of Administration (Exhibit K), stated the Subcommittee recommends approval of a new Budget Analyst IV position; the elimination of a Management Analyst III position, and reclassification of another Management Analyst III position to a Budget Analyst IV position.  He said the Subcommittee also recommended denial of a Public Service Intern position, which was recommended by the Governor.

 

Mr. Chapman commented the Subcommittee recommends approval of funding for the conversion of the Nevada Executive Budget System (NEBS) from the state mainframe to a stand-alone Windows NT platform to improve processing of budget data input done directly by state agencies.  He said the cost of the conversion has been reduced by $157,230 during the upcoming biennium.

 

Mr. Chapman remarked that the Subcommittee also concurred with the Governor’s recommendation to transfer 6 Pre-Audit positions from the Budget Division to the Division of Internal Audits.  He pointed out that this would facilitate a post-audit environment as roll-out of the Integrated Financial System (IFS) continues to state agencies.  He said the source documentation supporting these transactions will be located at state agencies requiring on-site audit review for compliance with state accounting and internal control policies.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the Department of Administration objected to any of these Subcommittee recommendations.  Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, remarked he would like the committee to understand the Public Service Intern position.  He stated that interns have been used basically for free in the past.  He pointed out that a UNR student put the last statistical abstract together for purposes of acquiring additional class credit.

 

Senator Raggio asked how many Public Service Intern positions there are.  Mr. Hataway replied there is only one Public Service Intern, but the department would hopefully use those funds to parlay that position to 4 quarter‑time positions or 2 half-time positions.  Senator Raggio questioned why the Subcommittee recommended against this position when it appears to be a good program.  Mr. Chapman responded that he knows of no specific reason, only that the Subcommittee did not see a need for it.

 

Senator Raggio asked the committee’s preference. 

 

Senator Raggio also asked what the funding would be to include this Public Service Intern.  Mr. Chapman responded the costs associated with that position are $27,432 in the first year, and $38,412 in the second year of the biennium.  

 

Senator O’Donnell commented he was a member of the Subcommittee, and did not recall any discussion regarding a Public Service Intern position.  He added that he supports the same position as Mr. Hataway on the intern position. 

 

Senator Raggio asserted, “As I understand it’s not just one person; it would cover 3 or 4 people qualifying for this intern position.”  Mr. Hataway remarked the department would take the equivalent of 1 Public Service Intern and parlay that position to 4 quarter-time positions or 2 half-time positions to utilize the position to its full extent.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1340 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION TO INCLUDE THE PUBLIC SERVICE INTERN POSITION.

 

SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

 

 

Division of Internal Audit – Budget Page ADMIN-8 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1342

 

Mr. Chapman referred the committee to Exhibit K, and stated there are no technical adjustments to budget account 101-1342.  He added that the Subcommittee approved the Governor’s recommendation of transferring the Pre-Audit positions from the Budget Division to the internal audits division.  He said the Subcommittee recommended additional funding for training for the professional staff to maintain a professional certification.  He added that the Subcommittee also recommended funding for peer review of the division in accordance with the standards established by the Institute of Internal Auditors.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1342 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Insurance & Loss Prevention – Budget Page ADMIN-16 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 715-1352

 

Mr. Chapman drew attention to Exhibit K, and said the Subcommittee concurred with the Governor’s recommendation to decrease Worker’s Compensation premium costs resulting from a change from a retrospective rating plan to a large deductible plan where claims are paid as incurred.  He added that the Subcommittee also recommended approval of funding for increased commercial insurance premium costs for property and contents.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 715-1352 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Printing Office – Budget Page ADMIN-30 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 741-1330

 

Mr. Chapman indicated on page 13 of Exhibit K there are highlights of budget account 741-1330.  He said the Subcommittee recommends the issuance of a Letter of Intent for repayment of state funds for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), and exterior building improvements if these capital improvement projects are approved by the 2001 Legislature.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out the Subcommittee also recommends approval of funding and expenditure authority to open a quick-print office in Las Vegas.  He said, as the committee may recall, the 1999 Legislature approved the funding for opening of the Las Vegas quick-print office; however, the office encountered difficulties with the equipment vendor.  He added that the Printing Office has indicated they intend to open the Las Vegas office early in FY 2002, either in the Grant Sawyer Building or in office space located in close proximity to the Grant Sawyer Building.

Mr. Chapman remarked there were minor technical adjustments within this account.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 741-1330 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Motor Pool – Budget Page ADMIN-39 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 711-1354

 

Mr. Chapman referred the committee to page 15 of Exhibit K, and said the Subcommittee recommends approval for funding for the operation and depreciation expense associated with the purchase of 102 new vehicles requested in A.B. 523.  He said staff of the Fiscal Analysis Division will make any technical adjustments to the State Motor Pool account that may result from changes to A.B. 523. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 523:  Makes appropriations to Motor Pool Division of Department of Administration and Investigation Division of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for purchase of additional vehicles. (BDR S-1357)

 

Mr. Chapman stated the amount of funding recommended for the State Motor Pool to study the feasibility of utilizing private rental vehicles in Las Vegas and Reno is reduced from $50,000 to $7,000. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what the $7,000 covers.  Mr. Chapman replied the administrator of the division would be essentially conducting the study in‑house and gathering statistics.  Senator Raggio questioned whether $7,000 is adequate for that purpose.  Mr. Chapman answered that according to the administrator it is adequate.  He noted the study will be conducted using computer software.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that the Governor also recommends a capital improvement project utilizing state funds to construct a new motor pool facility in Las Vegas.  If the project is approved, he added, the Subcommittee recommends issuing a Letter of Intent requiring the State Motor Pool to include a repayment schedule of state funds in the agency’s first budget submittal, subsequent to completion of the new facility. 

 

Senator Raggio remarked the committee does not necessarily need to make any decision on that issue at this time.  Mr. Chapman agreed.

 

Senator Raggio asked about the current status of A.B. 523.  Mr. Chapman replied he believes it is still pending.  There have been no significant adjustments that he is aware of. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether this is the appropriation for the new vehicle purchase, and whether it is “hung up” somewhere.  Mr. Ghiggeri remarked A.B. 523 is currently in Assembly ways and means, and is being reviewed for other available funding sources.

 

Senator Coffin asserted he is troubled by the move of the motor pool to University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) property.  He asked whether anything has happened on this issue in the last few months. 

 

Senator Raggio said he believes that it is a capital improvements project (CIP).  Mr. Ghiggeri commented that is correct.  It will be reviewed by the CIP subcommittee, and will have no bearing on the closure of this budget. 

 

Senator Coffin asked whether the budget includes anything relating to the move of the facility.  Mr. Ghiggeri replied there would be no repayment until after this biennium for the completion of the construction of that facility until.  Therefore, there would be no funding required in this budget.

 

Senator Coffin inquired whether there are any alternate locations being considered for the motor pool.  Mr. Chapman responded that his last discussion, prior to the Subcommittee closing the budget, was there were no other alternative locations identified. 

 

Senator Coffin asked whether any other locations have been looked at.  Mr. Chapman replied none he is aware of.

 

Senator Rawson requested that property located at the Boyd School of Law on the UNLV campus be looked at for this move.  He added there are currently a grade school playground and unused space on the property with close proximity to the airport.  He pointed out this would be an excellent location.  He asked that this location be considered.  Mr. Chapman remarked he would make the request.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 711-1354 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Motor Pool Vehicle Purchase – Budget Page ADMIN-45 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 711-1356

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that the Subcommittee concurs with the Governor’s recommendation to replace 106 vehicles during the biennium at the cost of $1.9 million.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSED BUDGET ACCOUNT 711-1356 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Purchasing – Budget Page ADMIN-48 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 718-1358

 

Mr. Chapman commented there were minor technical adjustments in budget account 718-1358 for computer costs.  He said the Subcommittee recommends approval of the budget as recommended by the Governor, with the technical adjustments. 

 

Mr. Chapman noted the transfer of the Surplus Property Account was approved by the Subcommittee.  Senator Raggio asked whether the transfer was in a bill.  Mr. Chapman replied that is correct.  He added that A.B. 542 provides for a change of language, changing the funding from the General Fund to the Purchasing Fund, and this budget is contingent upon passage of A.B. 542.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 542:  Makes various changes relating to personal property of state. (BDR 27-528)

 

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 718-1358 AS RECOMMENDED WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Admin – Administrative Services – Budget Page ADMIN-103 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 716-1371

 

Mr. Chapman, referring to page 23 of Exhibit K, said there are technical adjustments for computer pricing and salary costs that were transferred from the Public Works Board.  He added the Subcommittee recommends approval in this budget for a total of 8 accounting positions within the public works board.  He stated budget account 287-4895 (Victims of Crime) will be transferred to budget account 716-1371 (Administrative Services) to complete the consolidation of all accounting positions within the Department of Administration.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 716-1371 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Dept of Administration – Hearings Division – Budget Page ADMIN-109 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1015

 

Mr. Chapman said the Subcommittee concurs with the Governor’s recommendation to eliminate the separate Workers’ Compensation Hearing Reserve Account.  He added the Subcommittee also recommends establishing a reserve account within the Hearing Division budget for the purposes of addressing increases in caseload, new assignments, and other factors necessitating the hiring of additional staff.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out the Subcommittee also recommends approval of funding to replace the division’s computers, and to reclassify a Hearings Officer position to an Operations Officer position.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1015 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Victims of Crime – Budget Page ADMIN-115 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 287-4895

 

Mr. Chapman said the Subcommittee recommends issuing a Letter of Intent to identify sources and amounts of funding the division may have available to provide assistance to such programs as the Attorney General’s domestic violence counsel and the Network Against Domestic Violence to air public service announcements.  He added this would raise public awareness regarding domestic violence, which the Hearings Division occasionally hears.

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out that the Subcommittee also recommends having the division report periodically to the IFC on its progress regarding funding of public service announcements that address domestic violence.

 

Senator Raggio asked how much funding is available each year for payment to individuals in the victims of crime program.  He added it appears to be $3.5 million each year.  Mr. Chapman responded that sounds correct. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired what the parameters are, and what the limit is for each victim.  Mr. Chapman responded that S.B. 282 addresses an increase on limits for victims.

 

SENATE BILL 282:  Removes certain limitations on amount of compensation that may be provided for loss of earnings and support and for funeral expenses of certain victims of crime. (BDR 16-539)

 

Senator Raggio commented he had some concern when this bill was discussed whether there would be fewer victims who would receive payment.  Senator Neal remarked the bill sets a $50,000 limit.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 287-4895 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

 

Senator Raggio thanked the Joint Subcommittee on General Government and staff for a considerable amount of work in condensing some very complex budgets and stated the report was very helpful and informative.

 

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Debra Petrelli

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE: