MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
May 23, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 7:59 a.m., on Wednesday, May 23, 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, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Debra Petrelli, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, Commission on Economic Development
Nancy A. Dunn, Interim Executive Director and Business Manager, Division of Publications, Commission on Tourism
Philip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Elizabeth Breshears, Family Program Officer, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Kathleen Baker, Member, National Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA)
Alexis Miller, Member, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Mary Lushina, Quality Assurance Manager, Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance, Governor’s Office
Tracy Raxter, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration
Sydney H. Wickliffe, C.P.A., Director, Department of Business and Industry
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons
David Meligan, Warden, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Department of Prisons
Edwin R. Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
Michael Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer II, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources,
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services Inc
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 197: Revises provisions governing date on which offender is eligible to be assigned to participate in therapeutic community. (BDR 16-23)
Senator Raggio said S.B. 197 was acted on in the Assembly with Amendment Number 720. He pointed out that the amendment changed “Bureau” to “Health Department,” which he deemed appropriate. He asked whether there was any objection to the amendment. There was none.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 720 TO S.B. 197.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS, COFFIN AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that following the closing of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) budget, and after all the formulas were run for the various campuses, there were additional reductions of $114,631 and $123,438 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003. He said this was a mechanical issue and he would like the committee to be aware of these additional reductions.
Senator Raggio asked whether the UCCSN fiscal staff was aware of the reductions. Mr. Ghiggeri replied they were.
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, Commission on Economic Development, stated he had an interesting proposal to offer and apologized for its lateness. He said this was an idea crafted by the Lieutenant Governor and she requested that the division seek legislative action. He added the division refers to the proposal as a rural tourism based project development committee.
Mr. Shriver pointed out the committee would allow the use of funds to help rural Nevada develop tourism-based project needs. He said in rural Nevada tourism‑based projects and economic development are nearly one and the same. He said the division works very closely with the rural communities. In light of issues like “Indian Gaming,” he added, the division has a unique way to help the rural areas help themselves.
Mr. Shriver commented the Economic Development Commission, through its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, has infrastructure development funds, but the funds cover a broad array from housing projects to sewer and water projects.
Nancy A. Dunn, Interim Executive Director and Business Manager, Commission on Tourism, said, as Mr. Shriver stated, the Lieutenant Governor came up with this idea. She noted that she and Mr. Shriver explored the existing grant programs on the economic development side. She commented the CDBG program is a wonderful program and is doing great things in rural Nevada. She added the program restricts some of the funding needs that have been identified in rural Nevada.
Ms. Dunn stated the tourism side participates in another grant program designed to promote tourism events in rural Nevada, which also works well. She said the Lieutenant Governor identified a gap that seems to occur in rural Nevada. She said, for example, some rural communities are looking for funding to establish a fair ground, a rodeo ground, or an event center. These are public lands that would be developed to encourage tourism in the community, she added. However, she noted, these communities are not necessarily eligible for CDBG funding, and until they have a fair ground, rodeo ground, or event center, they are not eligible for tourism promotion funding.
Ms. Dunn said they hope to establish a committee that consists of equal members from the tourism industry and the economic development industry. She added this committee would be able to look at grant requests for projects to benefit rural Nevada. She pointed out the Lieutenant Governor would be the chairperson of this committee. She added there is hope any funds remaining in the reserve of the Commission on Economic Development could be used by this committee to fund some of these programs.
Senator Raggio asked whether she was referring to substantial grants when she talked about building fairgrounds. She replied she used “fairground” as an example, but several other ideas have come forward from the rural communities. She added the Commission on Tourism hopes that as this program grows, larger programs could be funded. She said this is a 50/50 effort. The rural communities would be asked to come up with a 50 percent match for these programs.
Senator Raggio asked how the reserve will be protected so it does not drop below an appropriate amount. Ms. Dunn responded legislation has been drafted that says funding in excess of $1.3 million in the reserve fund could be dedicated to this program. She pointed out the committee consisting of economic development and tourism people would decide what the amount over and above $1.3 million would be.
Senator Raggio commented:
The problem that I see there is that if you put the bottom cap at $1.3 million, it opens it up, and there are other committed, dedicated uses of tourism funding that the legislature approves, and if you use it up to a point that we can’t fulfill the needs that we’re using it for, what happens then? Do you understand what I’m saying? If you just have a blank check to use whatever amount, what amount would you suggest would be appropriate if this fund were approved, to put in for the beginning of it?
Ms. Dunn replied that initially they were looking at $1 million to start the program. She said they now realized that funding may not materialize in the reserve.
Senator Raggio asked whether she understood what he was saying. Ms. Dunn responded she understood. Senator Raggio commented that in this budget cycle, tourism funding will be utilized that was not used previously. He added if all of the funds were approved for this request without a cap, the fund could be completely used, with none available for other projects.
Ms. Dunn remarked she understood and recognized that funding is used to benefit the state. She added the commission is open to suggestions for funding alternatives.
Senator Raggio asked how much funding was currently in the reserve, after deducting commitments made in this legislative session. Ms. Dunn responded that she believed it was currently $1.4 million. Senator Raggio remarked if the Commission on Tourism was given $1 million, there would only be $100,000 left in the reserve. Ms. Dunn indicated that funding would have to be over and above the $1 million that remains in the reserve.
Ms. Dunn pointed out the Nevada Commission on Tourism needs to maintain a reserve balance of at least $1 million. Senator Raggio said he understood, and asked whether $1.1 million was in the reserve. Ms. Dunn replied that was correct. Senator Raggio asked where the funding would come from.
Ms. Dunn reiterated she and Mr. Shriver would like authority to establish a joint committee including representatives of both tourism and economic development interests. She added if the funds in the reserve should materialize, they would like the option to be able to use the excess to fund this program. She pointed out they need legislative authority to establish the committee.
Senator Raggio said, “Suppose we did that and we recognized a necessity for maintaining a $1.1 million reserve, and indicated that it would cap at, say initially at $300,000, and out of available funding, unless the legislature otherwise appropriated the funding. I’m just trying to find some way to make it workable.”
Ms. Dunn responded the way the language is written in the draft proposal, it would require legislative approval for funding. She pointed out it would go through the regular budget process, and is designed to be “any available funding,” at the end of a legislative session, and after approvals of the budgets.
Senator Raggio commented he believed there is a need to have a reasonable cap on the reserve, initially. He asked whether the committee had any comments.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A BILL DRAFT FOR THE PROPOSAL FROM THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND HAVE STAFF WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON TOURISM SO THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE LIMITATION ON THE FUNDING, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio commented because the proposal was being made late in the session, he was unsure whether the measure would be successful in getting processed. He added there may also be a legal problem.
SENATE BILL 295: Provides for establishment of registry of putative fathers for purposes of facilitating termination of parental rights and adoption of certain children. (BDR 11-50)
Senator Rawson introduced S.B. 295. He said that many teenage women will become pregnant and give birth to a child, and they have two or three choices on how to deal with that situation. He pointed out they can deliver and raise the child, often alone, they can deliver and adopt the child out, or they can have an abortion. He commented the bill does not deal with the abortion issue, but it looks at the issue of those who want to adopt.
Senator Rawson remarked some of the non-profit agencies in southern Nevada approached him 2 years ago and asked that a bill be drafted concerning this issue. He said these agencies run into difficulties during the adoption process. Once a young woman has decided she wants to give her baby up for adoption, the adoptive parents are often involved with that young women all the way through her pregnancy, he added. He said they try to make a transition so that the adoptive parents can bond to the baby as early as possible.
Senator Rawson indicated there are “father rights” involved in this process. Before an adoption can take place, the father has to give permission for the adoption, he noted.
Senator Rawson said there is a situation that frequently develops where a father is not involved in the process. He stated that some fathers will not allow the adoption to go forward. He remarked some fathers will not actively stop an adoption, but not try to help it go forward, either. In other words, he added, some fathers are not in these young women’s lives any longer. Some fathers see it as a pregnancy that “developed” and they have no intention of raising the child, nor do they contribute financially, he noted.
Senator Rawson pointed out that in many cases there is reluctance for fathers to come forward and take responsibility. He added he does not know whether this is an issue of embarrassment, a hassle for these fathers, or whether they do not want to acknowledge the child. Many, he pointed out, may not want to give up their right to father the baby. Whatever the case, he said, this can drag out through a year and be a very disruptive situation for the adoption.
Senator Rawson pointed out a number of states have dealt with these issues in various ways. He said one approach is to develop a putative father registry. He mentioned that the definition of “putative” is commonly accepted or supposed. He said that in other words, the father is assumed to be this person. There can be more than one putative father in a pregnancy, he noted.
Senator Rawson remarked when parentage is not established there may be more than one supposed father. He said S.B. 295 would establish a registry in which a pregnant woman makes known her desire to adopt out her child, and if the father does want a right to the child, he must register with this putative-father registry. The senator noted this registry would protect the putative father’s rights, because he is notified of any termination proceedings.
Senator Rawson said that, essentially, the young woman will ask for a summary petition to terminate parental rights. He added under this law the putative-father registry would have to be searched, and, if there is a putative father, he would have to be notified. Senator Rawson commented this is a means to more quickly terminate parental rights, or to recognize that some men may want to be involved in the child’s life. In this way, it protects the father’s rights and allows him to have the opportunity to come forward, he noted.
Senator Rawson pointed out there is a lot of confusion about what needs to be done in this type of registry.
Senator Rawson said:
People that either don’t understand it or maybe just don’t approve of this will say, well, you mean every time a man has a consensual sexual relationship with someone, he has to register in this registry? No. It’s anytime that a man becomes aware that there’s a pregnancy and he wants to be involved as the father and maintain his rights. Then the way to assure that is to register. This law was kind of patterned after Ohio, but there are [similar laws in] a number of other states. As this went through the judiciary committee, they had a lot of questions about really safeguarding the rights of these fathers. So, we end up with a law that is a little bit different than any other state. I think in many ways it is superior. It really does protect the rights of these fathers.
Senator Rawson indicated in many of these situations there may be a father that is the same age as the teenage mother, but typically these fathers are six years older than the mothers. He added there will be a cost to set up this putative-father registry. He said the agencies have come forward and said they are willing to pay the cost of setting up this registry and maintaining it through fees they collect.
Senator Rawson commented these agencies are willing to establish a fee that would pay for this registry. He pointed out the difficulty is that nobody really knows how many names will actually go into this registry, or how many searches will be called upon. He added it is estimated there are 600 adoptions per year that could potentially be effected by this registry. He said he believes there are approximately 2,000 adoptions in the state, and most likely all of these would search the registry in the future. In any case, he remarked, it is a finite number, and “we are not talking about hundreds of thousands of adoptions,” but rather a limited number of individuals that would be registering.
Senator Raggio asked whether there is an assumption in the Fiscal Note that 150 men would register. Senator Rawson replied he believed that number is a realistic number. He added the committee should look at how sophisticated of a computer system would be needed and how many personnel would be required. He pointed out if there are 150 adoptions, then about every third day in the year there might be a request to search the registry.
Senator Raggio asked whether the mother can put the father’s name into the registry whether the father wants it or not, under this bill. Senator Rawson replied the young women would be asked, when she files a summary petition, to sign an affidavit that states the probable putative father, the probable place where conception took place, and the probable date of conception. He said it would also include the last known address of the putative father and any relatives of the putative father. Again, he added, this is an attempt to safeguard the rights of any man that is involved in a pregnancy. He said this way a putative father could be notified that there is a summary proceeding about to take place, and that he will lose his rights to the child unless he comes forward.
Senator Rawson stated this is not an effort to go after and punish or force someone to do something. Senator Raggio asked whether this would make it more difficult to track down a father who has not indicated any interest in the child for an unmarried woman who wants to cooperate and give up the rights to an adoptive couple. Senator Rawson responded there is existing law in that area. Senator Raggio said he understood, and asked why there is a necessity to make it more difficult where there is a father who has not acknowledged the situation.
Senator Rawson said:
Take the situation today, without the putative registry. A women decides that she wants to adopt a child, then they have to go through a process that may take as much as a year to try to locate the father. He may be in California, he may have left the state, and there has to be a conscientious effort to try to locate the father. In this case, if they can’t find the father, they simply search the putative father registry. If he hasn’t registered, then it is assumed that he’s abandoned his parental rights and that gives her a presumption if she goes into the court proceeding. I can’t remember the final form of this, if it’s 90 days, there’s still a period of time that they have to wait, but it is less than it would take without the putative father registry. So, it’s a clearinghouse really, to be able to go to the court and say we’ve conscientiously tried, and there is an official registry for men that are interested.
Senator Coffin commented that when he first heard about the bill he had many questions. He said he double-checked with Senator Rawson, and he is now familiar with the process of how the program works through a district attorney’s office. He pointed out in Clark County a man has no control of whether or not he is a putative father. He added if a man chooses to contest that determination, he can through the usual testing process, which can last several months. He said if he is proven not to be the father, the registry would give him the option to leave his name in the registry, if he chooses. If he does not want anything to do with the situation, and he has been proven not to be the father, then he is “free and clear,” and would not be involved in any public documents, he added. He pointed out it is handled on a confidential basis. He remarked that he supports S.B. 295.
Philip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, said he was appearing to provide additional information on S.B. 295. He explained that as S.B. 295 was drafted, it amends Chapter 128 of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS), to establish the registry of putative fathers and establish and maintain a statewide campaign to insure the public is aware of the existence and purpose of this registry.
Mr. Weyrick pointed out under the provisions of the bill, the Health Division is prohibited from charging any fee for registration in the registry, a fee for withdrawing from the registry, conducting a search of the registry, or providing certified copies of the registration form. He said the Health Division is also charged with adopting regulations to carry out the provisions of this bill.
Mr. Weyrick stated, that as drafted, these amendments to Chapter 128 of NRS have a significant fiscal impact on the Health Division, but the bill does not appropriate any funding to cover the projected costs. He remarked the act creates both a one-time and an on-going workload, which includes the adoption of the regulations estimated at $5,000. He said it also includes implementation and management of a statewide media campaign, which would be estimated at approximately $100,000. He pointed out establishing the physical registry, including the receipt and processing of requests for information, would also be included.
Mr. Weyrick said the division has estimated one full-time equivalency (FTE) at approximately $45,000, plus a computer and printer, along with various operation costs and certified mailings, which would total approximately $9,000.
Mr. Weyrick indicated the total cost of the bill is estimated to be $162,500 in the first year, and $155,800 in the second year of the biennium. Senator Raggio commented that is the Health Division’s Fiscal Note. He added there is also a Fiscal Note from the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). Mr. Weyrick replied that is correct.
Senator Raggio commented the Fiscal Note from DCFS shows federal funding is available, but with a General Fund requirement of approximately $26,000 in the first year, and $36,000 in the second year of the biennium.
Elizabeth Breshears, Family Program Officer, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, commented the bill, as originally drafted, would have put the registry within DCFS. She pointed out it was amended to move it to the Health Division.
Senator Raggio asked whether there would be any fiscal impact to the Health Division. Ms. Breshears replied there would not.
Senator Raggio inquired whether the Fiscal Note submitted by the Health Division was still valid. Mr. Weyrick responded that it was. He said the primary cost would be the statewide media campaign, which runs about $6,000 to $7,000 per month for airtime, plus the cost of actually developing the spots. Senator Raggio remarked the Fiscal Note appropriates $100,000 per year, for each year of the biennium. Mr. Weyrick stated that is for the media campaign.
Kathleen Baker, Member of the National Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), remarked NTLA originally had concerns about S.B. 295, with respect to the notice provisions. She said she handles private adoptions and special needs adoptions through the state. She explained some men are unaware they are fathers. She added they are never told and they never find out.
Ms. Baker commented if she has a client that comes in and says she does not know who the father is, she must prepare and serve the notice by publication. She said this takes an extended period of time, and usually takes place after the child is born.
Ms. Baker pointed out the putative-father registry will allow a process, especially for private adoption agencies, that will allow the agency to conduct a due diligence search to try to find the father when a young women comes in and says she would like to place the baby up for adoption. She said if the agency finds an individual who may be the father, it sends a notice to that father stating he may be the father of this child, and if he has any interest in participating in this child’s life, he will need to register with the putative-father registry.
Ms. Baker stated the time-line for the father to register in this process, if the child has not been born, is until 30 days after the child is born. She explained after the 30-day period, if the father has not registered, a judge has the authority to grant a summary petition for termination of parental rights and free the child to allow the adoption to go forward. She added the putative-father registry process will not require as much time, and she believes the registry process can be very beneficial.
Senator Raggio asked whether a notice will be published in a case of termination of parental rights. Ms. Baker replied it will not, because the father will have been notified that if he does not register with the putative-father registry, his parental rights to the child will be terminated. She noted through that process he would already be on notice.
Ms. Baker said the whole idea of this measure is to inform these men they may be the fathers of these children. She stated this will give them the opportunity to come forward and say they want to assume responsibility and be part of the child’s life. Senator Raggio asked whether the registry would only come into play if there is a petition to terminate parental rights. Ms. Baker responded the only time the registry would actually come into play is if an adoption proceeding is going to be started. She said if the child is going to be placed for adoption, then this registry comes into play and the putative father registry is checked. She pointed out it would not come into play in any other area for termination of parental rights, only in an adoption proceeding.
Ms. Baker stated, with respect to the fiscal consequences, an amendment was suggested to allow the State Board of Health to charge a reasonable fee for conducting a search of the registry, or to provide a certified copy of a registration form or certified statement.
Ms. Baker acknowledged the problem will be how to fund the initial campaign. Senator Raggio asked whether the adoptive parents would pay the fee. Ms. Baker replied it would be whoever searched the registry, whether it was the adoptive parents or the attorney on their behalf.
Senator Raggio stated it would have to be a rather substantial fee to offset a cost of over $160,000 a year. Ms. Baker agreed. Senator Raggio added if costs will be $150,000, the fee would need to be approximately $1,000 per applicant. Ms. Baker asserted she did not believe that amount would be feasible. She added she was unaware whether additional funding could be found.
Ms. Baker said while the funding may not be available, this is a good bill for putative fathers and for children who may be adopted. She added the bill will expedite that process. She said NTLA supports S.B. 295.
Alexis Miller, member of Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, commented the organization supports anything that would expedite and finalize adoptions. However, she pointed out there are serious concerns about this method. She said one concern is the woman’s privacy. She noted the woman’s name will be added to a registry without her knowledge. She added that could happen if a man had concerns there is a pregnancy, and he wanted to have parental rights. She stated the woman’s name would be fed into the registry without her knowledge once the man registered. She stated that would compromise the woman’s privacy.
Ms. Miller said another concern was that a man’s silence could terminate his rights to his child. She added if he did not register, his parental rights would be assumed to be terminated, because he had no interest. She pointed out a man might not know there was a pregnancy and he was the father, because he may have had protected sex and there is no reason the woman should be pregnant. She noted if a contraceptive failed, and a women became pregnant, and the man had no idea he should register with the putative-father registry, because of his silence his parental rights to that child would be terminated.
Ms. Miller commented she believes this is a “bandaid” to a bigger problem. She added state funded family planning and sex education is needed to help people make responsible decisions, know what their options are, and avoid these situations.
Ms. Baker stated with respect to a women’s privacy, the access to the registry would be very limited. She added it would be limited to those parties who are specifically searching to find a putative father. She said it could also be used by state agencies looking for a father for child support purposes. In other words, she said, the registry would not be open to the general public.
Senator Raggio asked whether a woman would be compelled to submit information to the registry. Ms. Baker replied the mother would not have to submit any information to the registry. She added only the father submits information to the registry. Senator Raggio asked whether a mother would have to sign an affidavit when the petition to terminate parental rights was filed. Ms. Baker responded the affidavit would be signed and submitted to the court, and not submitted to the putative-father registry.
Ms. Baker added the affidavit would support the mother’s contention, and the agency’s contention, that they had made every effort to find any possible father. If the father cannot be found, she said, the affidavit would be submitted to the court, which states that all steps have been exercised in trying to find and locate the father. She said it would also state that a due diligence search was conducted and a father could not be located. She stated if the woman committed fraud, and did not actually take these steps to locate the father, and had not revealed who the father was, the father could come in at a later point and challenge the termination of parental rights.
Ms. Baker said, “This is in those cases where maybe we really do have a “one‑night stand.” We really don’t know who the father is. We really can’t find the father, and we have a child who is up for adoption, who is in limbo, basically.”
Ms. Baker commented that the due diligence provision of the bill states that “every stone must be turned over,” short of hiring a private investigator to locate the father. She added that the effort must actually be made to locate who the father is, and provide him with notice that he may be the father of a child. Once he is provided with that notice, she said, it would become his responsibility to register with the putative father registry if he had any interest in the child.
In closing, Senator Rawson stated work could still be done on the Fiscal Note, because there would be a cost to this registry. He added it is obvious that a full‑time position would not be needed to do the limited work with this registry.
Senator Rawson said:
And yet it may be enough that you can’t just assume those duties to someone else, so there probably needs to be some recognition that there’s time and effort that goes into maintaining the registry. Probably this is not realistically a full-time position. The publication of this easily fits into the community service guidelines for all of our TV and radio stations. So, a lot of the airtime probably could be, there could be a reduced fee on that. Now, how we arrive at a figure, I don’t know.
Senator Raggio commented the division should reexamine its Fiscal Note and see whether there should be an adjustment. Mr. Weyrick responded the division could do that. However, he said the division has had quite extensive experience using the Nevada Broadcasters Association, which normally provides airtime three to four times greater than what is actually paid for. He added this was factored into the estimate.
Mr. Weyrick pointed out a big part of the position’s duties would be to manage the media campaign and take care of the actual registry functions, which would include sending certified copies. He said he did not feel it would be unreasonable for one person to perform those functions. He remarked that in regard to establishing the fee, if there were 800 searches a year, and funding was based on searches, that would be about $200 per search. He added under NRS 440.700 fees are already established, and the fee for searching one name is only $8. He said the proposal would create a wide disparity between $8 and $200. He said the division has been “wrestling” with this issue to try to find a way to establish the registry with a fee. He added they have yet to be successful.
Senator Coffin asked whether, in reading the legal language, there was any way a male person could accidentally be placed into the registry. He commented that it appears to be entirely voluntary. Ms. Baker responded the only way for a man to get on the registry is for a putative father to actually fill out a registration form and to submit it to the registry. The putative father also would have the right to withdraw his registration, which effectively takes him out of the registry completely, and erases all information about him at that point, she added.
SENATE BILL 573: Transfers office for hospital patients from department of business and industry to office of governor. (BDR 18-1545)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, stated S.B. 573 would create the Bureau for Hospital Patients within the Office for Consumer Health Assistance in the Office of the Governor. He said that in the 1999 Legislature, in S.B. 37 of the Seventieth Session, the Employees Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON) operation was privatized. He pointed out within S.B. 37 of the Seventieth Session, a section created the Office for Consumer Health Assistance in the Office of the Governor. He added it also authorized the Governor to appoint the director.
SENATE BILL 37 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding industrial insurance. (BDR 53-382)
Mr. Hataway said:
I just want to read you the mandate of the mission that the office was directed to fulfill and how that possibly relates to the commission on hospital patients. First: “They will respond to written and telephonic inquires received from consumers and injured employees regarding concerns and problems related to health care and workers’ compensation;” Two: “Assist consumers and injured employees in understanding their rights and responsibilities under health care plans and policies of the industrial insurance;” Three: “Identify and investigate complaints on consumers and injured workers regarding their healthcare plans, policies, and industrial insurance.”
Mr. Hataway pointed out as part of the creation of the Office for Consumer Health Assistance, there were funds authorized and appropriated from the fund for Workers’ Compensation and the General Fund. He added employees from the Employees Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON), the Health Division, and the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy were transferred to this new office to start the process. He said because of the appropriations, the Budget Division was asked to create a budget for this new office and assign the employees’ salaries, benefits, and operating costs.
Mr. Hataway remarked that during the division’s review of the process, a question came up concerning the Office for Hospital Patients. He said the division was told that amounts appropriated had already been “set in stone,” because it was late in the session, the bill was rapidly being processed through the Legislature, and they would have to deal with the office later.
Mr. Hataway stated the division prepared the budget, which was approximately $300,000 per year, for the office. He said it was adopted by the Legislature in the last days of the 1999 legislative session. During the fundamental review process in which he participated, he added, this issue was also addressed. He said it was basically a “common-sense” approach to establish one central office with a central 800 number, and a central process to respond to consumer health, education, and fiscal policy issues for the state. He added that is why this bill is here.
Mr. Hataway commented the question has arisen as to what would happen to the other existing employees within the Office for Hospital Patients. He said the division believes the existing employees would move directly from the Office for Hospital Patients into the Bureau for Hospital Patients and continue to perform their duties.
Senator Neal said, regarding the section of S.B. 37 of the Seventieth Session that privatized the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), it was his understanding that it was geared towards taking care of those problems that might arise as a result of the transfer of authority dealing with injured workers. He added he understood it would allow injured workers the opportunity to report to an agency from which they would receive immediate response. He pointed out the Office for Hospital Patients was put into the statues based on the fact there were problems with hospital costs. He added it would also allow a person to look at that cost and compare it to some type of record as to what other patients were paying. This way, he noted, if they over-paid, they would have a means by which they could seek redress.
Senator Neal asked whether the state will lose anything by combining these two functions. He asked, when there are times that people have to go to the hospital and are over‑charged, will they have to appeal to an agency within the Governor’s Office?
Senator Neal said:
I ask that question because the higher up you go toward the Governor, the more politicized the operation becomes. When you got it down in the Consumer Affairs Division, the people operate on the basis of the law. Are we going to lose the right of these patients to seek redress by transferring this authority?
Mr. Hataway responded that was an excellent question. “This is absolutely the bottom line,” he added. He said EICON had performed the “ombudsmen” oversight for all types of workers’ compensation issues. He commented the initial question was if they are privatized, what would happen to that role. He added that is the reason the separate office within the Governor’s office was established. He said the combination would broaden the service to apply to all consumer health issues, not only industrial insurance issues.
Mr. Hataway commented from his perspective, the service should be enhanced.
Mary Lushina, Quality Assurance Manager, Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance, Governor’s Office, said there would be no change in scope of authority for the Office for Hospital Patients, which would be the Bureau for Hospital Patients in the Office of the Governor. She commented with the enabling legislation to transfer the office to the Governor’s office, they can assist consumers to understand the rights and responsibilities, identify, investigate, resolve issues, and counsel and educate consumers of all types. She stated consumers often call with a variety of different issues. They may call on a quality of care issue, health plan issue, a hospital billing, or other type of claims issue, she added.
Ms. Lushina stated she believes the combination of offices would enhance services to consumers by giving them a focal point to assist them with a “one‑stop shop” with less fragmented assistance.
Senator Neal commented a question was raised about education in the office. He said the hospital patient function is not educational, but rather an investigative function that looks at overpricing for hospital care. He added that following an investigation a hospital patient might seek redress. He asked whether this function will now be substituted by some type of education for the consumer.
Ms. Lushina replied it will not be substituted. She added the bureau would be under the same scope of authority as the current Office for Hospital Patients, including keeping quarterly reports. She said the Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance currently keeps a very extensive database regarding consumers that call the Office of the Governor. She indicated the bureau would have the same scope of authority as the Office for Hospital Patients currently has.
Senator Neal asked what her office currently does in terms of handling complaints that arise out of EICON. Ms. Lushina responded every situation is very individual, whether it is helping an injured worker resolve a claims issue, or whether it is educating people regarding their rights and responsibilities under the law. She added it is very individual to the person and to the case, or to the person that calls.
Senator Neal reiterated he was asking what the Governor’s office currently does to handle complaints that arise out of EICON. He added that was what the Office for Hospital Patients was set up for. Ms. Lushina asked whether Senator Neal could be more specific, because it would depend upon the individual.
Senator Neal said, “Lets assume that individual ‘X’ comes to you with a complaint about EICON, what do you do? What is your response?” Ms. Lushina replied that the office’s response would be to investigate the individual case and resolve the case for the consumer or injured worker. Senator Neal questioned whether the office keeps records of this. Ms. Lushina answered that it does, and it has an extensive database.
Senator Neal asserted Ms. Lushina said “database,” and asked whether the office has records of resolving complaints that come to them from EICON. Ms. Lushina replied it does.
Tracy Raxter, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration, said the Department of Administration acts as the accounting agency for the Office for Consumer Health Assistance, and would answer any questions as necessary.
Sydney H. Wickliffe, C.P.A., Director, Department of Business and Industry, stated the Office for Hospital Patients currently resides within her department. She pointed out it is a two-person office, which is virtually trouble-free. She commented she understands the logic of moving this office to more completely offer services to the customer.
Ms. Wickliffe emphasized her concerns are the same as Senator Neal’s. She remarked the emphasis should be on the continuing care that goes to the consumers regarding billing procedures and billing questions with hospitals. She stated that is currently the function, and she surmised that is what the function will continue to be, once it is moved.
Ms. Wickliffe said it is not important to her where the office exists, but rather the work that it does. The work it will do, she noted, will continue seamlessly once it moves from her department to the Governor’s office.
Senator Raggio asked whether she had any concerns the same service would not be continued. Ms. Wickliffe responded that she had no concerns.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 573.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’DONNELL AND RAWSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATE BILL 574: Transfers responsibility for administering program for property tax assistance for senior citizens from department of taxation to aging services division of department of human resources. (BDR 38-1552)
Mr. Hataway stated S.B. 574 is also a fundamental review issue. He emphasized this is not a tax and revenue function, but rather a social services function, and has always been that way. He said the transfer has been proposed because of major increases in the demographic changes in Nevada, with more elderly, senior people. He pointed out Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, is involved in many services to the senior population. He said it seems a logical process to merge the Property Tax Rebate Program with Division of Aging Services to common databases, identifying service needs beyond property tax rebates.
Mr. Hataway commented the logical and most appropriate place for this responsibility is in the counties. He said the counties collect the fees and receive the benefit of the taxes, and consequently they should handle refunds as part of their revenue stream. He pointed out the logical place for the program is, in his opinion, the Aging Services Division.
Senator Raggio stated S.B. 574 is a lengthy bill, and asked what it does besides change the responsibility regarding tax assistance for senior citizens.
Ms. Liveratti replied that besides transferring the responsibility for administrating the program to the Aging Services Division, it also will keep the level of property tax assistance to senior citizens at current levels. She pointed out S.B. 574 increases the amount of property tax to senior citizens who rent their homes by 1.5 percent. She added the amount of rent to be deemed as accrued property tax would change from 8.5 percent to 10 percent. She stated the maximum amount of refund is $500 or less if it is the actual property tax amount.
Senator Raggio asked whether that is a change. Ms. Liveratti responded the rent increase is a change. Senator Raggio questioned whether that would be beneficial, or whether it would be an increase. Ms. Liveratti replied it would be an increase from 8.5 percent to 10 percent, when the calculation is made of how much of the rent is property tax. Senator Raggio asked whether this would benefit the renter. Ms. Liveratti replied it would benefit the renter by allowing a larger rebate.
Senator Neal asked who would have the responsibility of determining how much a senior citizen would receive. He questioned whether the duty would be with Ms. Liveratti’s office, or would remain in the Department of Taxation. Ms. Liveratti answered that duty would come over to the Aging Services Division, and it would make that determination. Senator Neal queried whether the Aging Services Division would do the calculation on the basis of property taxes.
Ms. Liveratti replied that was correct. She added the senior citizen would fill out an application and the determination would be made. She said the Aging Services Division works with county assessor’s offices in each county. Senator Neal asked whether the information that comes from a county assessor’s office would now come directly to the Aging Services Division without going through the Department of Taxation. Ms. Liveratti responded that was correct.
Senator Raggio asked whether the cost of the change was included in The Executive Budget. Ms. Liveratti answered it was included in their closing budget.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 574.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’DONNELL AND RAWSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATE BILL 193: Makes various changes concerning department of prisons. (BDR 16-311)
Senator Raggio stated S.B. 193 was heard by the committee on April 18, 2001. He added there were questions that the committee needs responses to.
Senator Raggio pointed out that, among other things, S.B. 193 incorporates some provisions of another bill, which was in regard to the Facilities Orientation Training Program.
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons, referring to her written testimony (Exhibit C), commented S.B. 193 was conceived because of a need for the department to look at an organizational structure that would address the needs of today and through 2010. She pointed out there are a number of fragmentations in the department, which is because of the different programs that wardens have at each facility. She said there is no central control where they can organize, consolidate, and become more professional in delivering services.
Ms. Crawford commented that as a result of needing to expand the organization to address the needs of 10,000 inmates, she submitted S.B. 193 to Senator Mark James. She said he introduced the bill and she presented it to the Senate Committee on Judiciary as to how the program would work, and why there is a need for a new organizational structure and a new direction.
Ms. Crawford remarked that as a result of the presentation, the department was notified there needed to be an addition to the bill for training. She said a training module should be included in the bill. She pointed out the bill originally included an appropriation of $1.5 million, and she soon became aware there was no funding. She commented she went back to the association and asked how the problem could best be resolved, because there was not sufficient funding for a $1.5 million field training officer (FTO) program.
Ms. Crawford said she still wanted to work with the associations because of the importance of training. She added it is a priority.
Ms. Crawford stated:
We collectively sat down, worked with the associations and came up with, not the “Cadillac,” but I would like to perhaps describe it as the “Volkswagen,” using existing staff to come up with a staff orientation. All agreed to that, and, in fact, a letter then was sent to Senator James and his committee, indicating that we had resolved this, and everyone seemed to think it was fine to include. Senator James accepted this; he and his committee did.
Subsequently, she added, the department came before this committee and presented the fact that they were going to expand an existing position for the division, and would result in a savings of approximately $11,000 in the next biennium. She pointed out this would be at no cost other than using existing resources.
Senator Raggio noted it was similar to a program the committee heard last session. At that time, he added, the director indicated there was a substantial cost to this type of training. He said that is why the committee’s concerns are evident.
Ms. Crawford assured the committee that she was not in any way derogating the previous administration. She said she believed the program was derived from the San Jose Police Department, and was very extensive and complex. She added she understands the need to advocate for as much staff and training as possible. She noted she is also a realist and understands this funding is not currently available. She said she is willing to work with the committee staff or whomever to assure the committee they will have an employee orientation. She added she wanted to assure the committee she had been diligent in the last year to work with employee associations to try to bring some semblance of order that the committee would be pleased with. She added that, more importantly, the department can function well and maximize the use of existing resources.
Senator Raggio stated there were some parameters in the bill that would require a certain number of weeks of training. He asked what training she was referring to. Ms. Crawford said the department has already expanded its existing training program to five weeks, which has worked very well. She added they have also included “anger management” into their training for some of their officers. She said ongoing work with a hostile environment requires having those skills as well. She noted this minimizes and mitigates many other kinds of activities that the department’s officers often become compulsive with.
Ms. Crawford mentioned at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) a program is intact in which individuals are shadowed. She pointed out it consists of deployment of staff and how existing staff is utilized.
Ms. Crawford said:
Let me say that I believe we can do this without any cost and impact, and I would also commit to you that in an 8-month period I could bring to your staff a training curriculum I think you would be very pleased with and would meet all standards that are set forth by…the Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) committee.
Senator Raggio asked whether the department currently has the staff to offer the program with the currently approved budget. Ms. Crawford replied it does. She added the department has reviewed the program as has been indicated in several documents.
She added:
I know it probably looks and feels different, because we were coming with a $1.5 million request, but then the specifics of what they outlined made it costly, whereby, if we have some flexibility, and you allow us to look at it and collectively work together, we think we can come up with this.
Senator Raggio asked whether she had indicated there was a program already in place at one of the institutions. Mr. Crawford replied there is one in place at NNCC, which is being run by Warden Dan Milligan. She added she has also implemented a program in Lovelock.
Senator Raggio inquired whether these programs are substantially equivalent to what has been proposed. Ms. Crawford responded that they are.
David Meligan, Warden, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, stated that they have a program in place at NNCC, and it has been in place for approximately 1 year. He added it is a comprehensive orientation program that is broken down into certain phases and is delivered to new-hire employees from the moment they are hired by their department on their first day. He said it is given to the employee by the supervisor. The supervisor then assigns an experienced staff member to the new employee, and the staff member and supervisor work with that employee, pending formalized training, which is offered at the P.O.S.T. academy, he added.
Senator Raggio asked Edwin R. Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, whether he was cognizant of what Warden Milligan was saying about their program, and whether it is substantially the same type of program that would be implemented. Mr. Flagg responded the association was hoping for an objective program that would be evaluated every day. He said he believes this program can be implemented with this type of training. He added the scope of the program is a statewide, standardized training.
Mr. Flagg pointed out there are areas that need expertise. He stated each institution can develop its own type of training that they need. He added the association would like to have the training, and believes that a standardized training program can be developed.
Senator Raggio called attention to Section 1.7 of S.B. 193 and said it requires the director to develop and implement a program of facility training for the correctional staff in each institution.
Senator Raggio said, “If you’re doing this, why do you need this in the bill? You’re already are doing it. Why do you need it? Why does the bill have to say so?”
Ms. Crawford responded that apparently there have been previous commitments, and some of those commitments were not followed. She added that was before her time as director of the department. She noted there seems to be a comfort level that if the program is outlined in statute, and she were to leave, the next director would have to continue to follow the statutes. She said it is institutionalizing the program and ensuring it will be carried out.
Ms. Crawford pointed out that her word is her bond, and she will follow through. Senator Raggio remarked it is rather surprising that a program estimated to cost $1.5 million is now going to be done within an existing budget and no additional costs. He asked whether this was correct.
Mr. Flagg commented the way S.B. 76 was written it bound the department to do certain things.
SENATE BILL 76: Requires correctional officers employed by department of prisons to complete program for facility training. (BDR 16-796)
Senator Raggio stated there was much discussion about a certain number of hours of training being needed in different categories. Mr. Flagg pointed out the program in S.B. 193 is nothing like the program in S.B. 76 and has nothing to do with it. He said S.B. 193 provides a training program for new staff who come on line to work in the prison system.
Senator Raggio asked that if S.B. 193 is processed in that manner, whether Ms. Crawford would will assume the responsibility and not come to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to request $500,000 for the program. Ms. Crawford replied, “Sir, if I was going to ask for that kind of money, I’d be asking for it now.”
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Hataway whether the Department of Administration had any problems with this bill. Mr. Hataway replied the department had no problems with it.
Senator Neal stated he believed what the director said in reference to the measure was accurate and truthful. He indicated he recently had a brief conversation with the Governor on the bill. He pointed out one of the reasons the Governor selected Ms. Crawford as the director, was because the institution at Lovelock is one of the best-run institutions in the state. He added that goes with Ms. Crawford’s qualifications and her recognition as a prison official across the country. He added he believes Ms. Crawford should be allowed the opportunity to go forth with the program in S.B. 193 and give her the opportunity to carry it out.
Senator Raggio indicated that a letter signed by Director Jackie Crawford and Gregory W. Smith, State Vice-President, Nevada Corrections Association (Exhibit D), regarding the matter, would be put in the record.
Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out if the committee approved the legislation, and it successfully made it through the Assembly, there would be a work program that would have to be processed to implement the program. He added that was because the budgets were closed.
Senator Neal asked what type of work program, since the department was not asking for any funding. Mr. Ghiggeri replied it would be to transfer funds between budget accounts, which the department currently would be given the authority to do from one portion of the bill. He commented the Department of Prisons would be able to reserve approximately $4,000 to $5,000 per year in savings for reversion.
Senator Raggio said he assumed that could be accommodated. He added if the bill is approved, IFC would want a periodic report on how the program was established, where the programs were established, and how the programs were operating.
Ms. Crawford remarked that would not be a problem.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 193 AND TO REQUIRE A PERIODIC REPORT TO THE IFC ON THE STATUS OF THE PROGRAM.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 435: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, maintenance, and new and replacement computer hardware and software. (BDR S-1367)
Senator Raggio commented S.B. 435 was heard in the committee on March 29, 2001. Referring to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 435 (Exhibit E), he asked whether there was a proposed amendment on this bill.
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said a number of one-shot bills were submitted by the administration for the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS). He commented the fiscal staff worked closely with Michael Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer II, Mental Health/Developmental Services Division, Department of Human Resources. He added the Budget Division was in concurrence with the adjustments.
Mr. Torvinen stated S.B. 435 relates to the Nevada Mental Health Institute in Sparks. He said MHDS worked with staff in the Budget Division. He pointed out there was an adjustment for $10,172 to reduce the bill for the price of computers. He said those prices have been coming down, which has resulted in an adjustment to all of the one-shot bills.
Mr. Torvinen stated the remaining portions of the bill contain provisions for computer hardware, software, and cable work at the campus. He remarked approximately $122,000 would be used for carpet replacement in a number of buildings. He said S.B. 435 would also include replacement equipment for the laundry operation.
Senator Raggio asked whether the name was changed from Nevada Mental Health Institute to another name. Mr. Torvinen replied S.B. 540 addresses the name change. Senator Raggio commented he was curious whether there was a conflict amendment in that regard.
SENATE BILL 540: Changes name of Nevada mental health institute to northern Nevada adult mental health services. (BDR 39-1442)
Senator Raggio asked whether there was any objection to moving S.B. 435 with that adjustment. He added that the amount would become $439,828.
Senator O’Donnell said, “I don’t have a handle on this budget. From the budget office, are we in balance? Due to the Economic Forum’s forecast, or subsequent forecast, are we in balance if we expend this money?”
Mr. Hataway commented the Budget Division went through a series of reductions. He said, “We’re talking FY 2001 dollars, now. We looked at all three years, but, yes, if you all accept the recommendations that we made, including the modifications you have in these bills, we will be okay.”
Senator Raggio stated other “one-shot” reductions had not yet been addressed, which include some major reductions. Senator O’Donnell asked whether there was a public list of the reductions. Senator Raggio responded there was not a current list. There have been discussions on them, he added, but there was not a public list at this point.
Mr. Ghiggeri said he believed the definition in lines 3 and 4 of S.B. 435, should be expanded from “hardware, software and new and replacement computer equipment,” to reflect “replacement equipment and some maintenance items.” He added he believed it should be understood carpet also needs replacement, not only computer equipment.
Senator Raggio asked what would be necessary for an amendment. Mr. Torvinen replied the bill contains, in addition to the computer hardware and software, there is some equipment for the pharmacy, which includes a dispensing cart, some replacement carpeting, replacement equipment for the laundry, office furniture, and equipment for the Cycle Social Rehabilitation program.
Senator Neal asked whether the additions were in the original request amount. Senator Raggio replied it was the same amount.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 435 TO INCLUDE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT AND SOME MAINTENANCE ITEMS.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 436: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, operating expenses and new and replacement computer hardware and software for Rural Regional Center of Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1369)
Senator Raggio stated S.B. 436 was heard before the committee on March 29, 2001.
Mr. Torvinen pointed out S.B. 436 is for the Department of Human Resources Rural Regional Center and Developmental Services section, and referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 436 (Exhibit F). He said the bill was adjusted in the amount of $1,813 to reflect computer equipment price adjustments. He added the bill included about $8,888 of operating expenditures for the lease of copy machines. He said the remaining funding totals $24,503, which would be used for office furniture, fax machines, and computer hardware and software.
Senator O’Donnell asked whether the cost adjustment is for this biennium or for the next biennium. Mr. Torvinen replied it is for this biennium.
Mr. Ghiggeri suggested the operating costs of $8,888 be moved to reflect ongoing costs rather than “one-time” money. He said, additionally, any expansion of the definitions in line 3 of S.B. 436 would be taken care of, which would indicate there are operating costs within the budget. Senator Raggio asked what the amount would change to. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the appropriation for $8,888 should be effective July 1, 2001. He added funding for the equipment should become effective upon passage and approval, and the operating portion should be split between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003.
Senator Raggio asked whether this could all be included in the bill. Mr. Ghiggeri responded it could all be included. Senator Raggio commented that as he understands S.B. 436, of the total amount of $24,503, $8,888 will be for operating expenses effective for FY 2001 and FY 2002. Mr. Ghiggeri remarked that $33,391 would be the new total appropriation. He added that $24,503 would be for equipment, which would be upon passage and approval, and the operating appropriation would be effective July 1, 2001. He noted that an allocation would then be split between FY 2002 and FY 2003.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 436 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLACING $8,888 UNDER OPERATING EXPENSES AND NOT AS A “ONE-SHOT” ALLOCATION.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 439: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Desert Regional Center. (BDR S-1374)
Mr. Torvinen stated S.B.439 provides funding for the Desert Regional Center in Las Vegas. He referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 439 (Exhibit G). He pointed out this is the department’s developmental services (DS) facility in Las Vegas.
Senator Raggio commented S.B. 439 was heard before this committee on March 29, 2001.
Mr. Torvinen said the computer price adjustment in the bill is $3,861, which would leave a balance of $160,581. The balance, he added, would be used to provide replacement furnishing in residential programs, which would include miscellaneous office equipment and furniture, some large equipment, vehicles, and computer equipment.
Senator Raggio asked whether the usage language would need to be changed, along with the amount. Mr. Ghiggeri responded that “new and replacement equipment” would be sufficient to include the items.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 439, ADJUSTING COMPUTER PRICING TO LEAVE A BALANCE OF $160,581 TO BE USED FOR REPLACEMENT FURNISHINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM FOR DESERT REGIONAL CENTER IN LAS VEGAS, TO INCLUDE MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT, FURNITURE, SOME LARGE EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 440: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Sierra Regional Center. (BDR S-1375)
Senator Raggio commented S.B. 440 was heard by this committee on March 29, 2001.
Mr. Torvinen stated S.B. 440 was designated for the Sierra Regional Center, which is the department’s Developmental Services facility in Sparks, and referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 440 (Exhibit H). He said the computer price adjustment for the budget amounted to $16,712, leaving a balance of $120,512. The balance, he added, would be used for replacement furnishings in the residential program, vehicles, and computer hardware and software. Senator Raggio asked whether this is the Sierra Regional Center. Mr. Torvinen replied that is correct.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 440, ADJUSTING COMPUTER PRICING TO LEAVE A BALANCE OF $120,512 TO BE USED FOR REPLACEMENT FURNISHINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM AT THE SIERRA REGIONAL CENTER TO INCLUDE VEHICLES AND COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator O’Donnell said:
I might qualify my objections to all of these. I have no idea what the other portion of this biennium’s budget [is], where those cuts are going to be. Basically, if we expend this money, I have to cut or vote to cut somewhere else. I don’t know what those “somewhere elses” are. For me to expend this money without placing everything on the table, I just don’t feel comfortable doing that.
Senator Raggio commented his statement would be noted. He added the bills include appropriations that were reviewed, and are in the budgets and now they need adjustments. He said these were not “one-shots.”
Senator O’Donnell remarked the budget would have to be cut for this portion of the biennium. Senator Raggio said the mental health agencies budgets were not being cut. He added the committee was adjusting the computer costs. Senator O’Donnell pointed out he was unaware of which budgets would be cut.
SENATE BILL 441: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Rural Clinics. (BDR S-1377)
Senator Raggio said S.B. 441 was heard before the committee on March 29, 2001, and deals with rural clinics.
Mr. Torvinen stated S.B. 441 is for the departments Rural Clinics program, which is the Rural Mental Health program, and he referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 441 (Exhibit I). He remarked the computer price adjustment for this bill was $13,684. He said operating costs were identified for copier leases in the amount of $8,880. He added the adjusted balance of the bill is $163,524 with $8,880 in operating expenditures.
Senator Raggio asked whether this was the same situation that was in S.B. 440. Mr. Torvinen responded that was correct. Senator Raggio inquired whether the $8,880 for operating expenses would be in the next 2 years. He asked whether the amendment would be the same as the amendment in S.B. 440. Mr. Torvinen answered that was correct.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 441, ADJUSTING COMPUTER PRICING TO LEAVE A BALANCE OF $13,684 TO BE USED FOR THE DEPARTMENT’S RURAL CLINICS PROGRAM AND PLACING $8,888 UNDER OPERATING COSTS FOR COPIER LEASES.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 446: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement computer equipment and software for Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1385)
Mr. Torvinen commented S.B. 446 is for the administrative office of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services and referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 446 (Exhibit J). He added the computer price adjustment was for $12,007, leaving a balance of $78,735. He pointed out the appropriation would be allocated primarily for computer hardware and software, fax machines, and miscellaneous office equipment.
Senator Raggio asked whether there were any comments. Mr. Torvinen commented he believed the language in the bill was strictly related to computer equipment. Senator Raggio inquired whether any additional language would be required. Mr. Torvinen stated it appeared to be appropriate to include “other replacement office equipment.” Senator Raggio remarked that staff would add that wording.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 446, ADJUSTING COMPUTER PRICING TO LEAVE A BALANCE OF $78,735 TO BE USED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES FOR COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, FAX MACHINES AND MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator Coffin asked whether the purchase of Microsoft (MS) Windows 98 was still considered the platform that would be used. Senator Raggio inquired whether that request was included in Exhibit J. Senator Coffin replied the information could be found on page 4 of Exhibit J. He added that MS Windows 98 is going to be superseded soon, and asked whether it was most compatible to what the staff is familiar with.
Mr. Torvinen responded currently it is the most compatible system. He added the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) releases a directive of the most current system available. He said whatever system is the most current is what the department will purchase.
SENATE BILL 454: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for implementation of Business Process Re-Engineering Project for Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1410)
Senator Raggio pointed out that this committee heard S.B. 454 on March 29, 2001.
Mr. Torvinen, referring the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 454 (Exhibit K), said the bill was developed to fund a business process re‑engineering (BPR) study for the division. He said:
Since the point in time that this study was put together, the concept was laid out. The computer software company that we use is Advanced Information Management System (AIMS), and it has been acquired by the computer software company that we were looking at, ‘Creative Sociamedics.’ We met. We went to a users group meeting in San Antonio last month and the CEO of ‘Creative Sociamedics’ committed to us that they would support the AIMS software for probably 2 to 3 years, but, we needed to think about transitioning to their product. Their product will be provided to us as an upgrade to the AIMS system, not a new license. It’s kind of a unique opportunity for us. It eliminates the need for a lot of this study that was kind of contemplated in this bill.
Mr. Torvinen added there would be a cost involved in transitioning, and most of it would be Professional Services doing gap analysis and functional requirements to make sure their product will meet the department’s needs. He stated the department believes it will fully meet their needs.
Mr. Torvinen commented he can provide information to the committee that contains “ballpark” numbers and preliminary estimates of the cost of the transition. He added he believes the bill is on the Governor’s “cut list.”
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 454.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 455: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, and hardware and software at Lakes Crossing Center. (BDR S-1419)
Senator Raggio stated S.B. 455 was heard by committee on March 29, 2001.
Mr. Torvinen referred the committee to a detailed description of adjustments for S.B. 455 (Exhibit L), and said the bill is for the Lakes Crossing Center in Sparks. He added the computer price adjustment for this bill is $2,500, which leaves an adjusted balance of $92,100.
Mr. Torvinen said a portion of the bill will be used for security equipment, which includes electronic doors, cameras, and security glass. The remainder will be for computer hardware and software, and miscellaneous office equipment, he added.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 455, ADJUSTING COMPUTER PRICING TO LEAVE A BALANCE OF $92,100 TO BE USED FOR REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT AT THE LAKES CROSSING CENTER IN SPARKS TO INCLUDE SECURITY EQUIPMENT AND COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, AND MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 207: Requires department of human resources to establish program for provision of medical assistance to certain working persons with disabilities. (BDR 38-227)
Senator Rawson stated he had a corrected amendment proposed on S.B. 207. Senator Raggio said he believed the bill had been amended and passed. Senator Rawson responded that was correct. He said the amendment was reviewed by federal government staff and they suggested some minor corrections.
Senator Raggio asked for the current status of S.B. 207. Senator Rawson commented he did not believe the amendment was completed. Mr. Ghiggeri asked whether the amendment had been reviewed. Mr. Guernsey replied he had reviewed it. Mr. Ghiggeri said, “So it has been reported out. It should be on the Senate Floor this morning.”
Senator Raggio asked whether Senator Rawson would like to discuss an additional amendment. Senator Rawson said he believed the amendment should be substituted. Senator Raggio commented the committee should get orientated on the bill before anything else.
Senator Raggio asked whether S.B. 207 would establish a program for medical assistance for disabled persons who are employed. Senator Rawson replied the bill complies with the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1997 (Ticket to Work Act).
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services Inc, stated S.B. 207, which was passed, originally had a Fiscal Note that was removed to make it a cost-neutral bill. He said at the time the bill was passed he was at a meeting with the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy. He commented that at the meeting, federal representatives expressed concerns with the original language the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) had written. He added the new language proposed would remove and replace all the language in the current bill. He noted there would be no substantive changes.
Senator Raggio asked which language would be changed. Mr. Sasser referred the committee to the proposed amendment (Exhibit M). He pointed out Section 1 would say the division will come to the IFC no later than the first meeting after March, 2002, with a proposed program, requiring no appropriations from the General Fund. He added that if approved, it would be implemented pursuant to a timetable agreed to between the department, the IFC, and the federal government.
Mr. Sasser drew attention to Section 2 of Exhibit M and said it is where the main technical problem is. He added the LCB had tried to list some requirements of the Ticket to Work Act in the state legislation and there are some inaccuracies. He commented it was agreed that the easiest thing to do, rather than describe the program in detail, was to cite federal statutes that implement the Ticket to Work Act.
Mr. Sasser indicated he had hoped the Department of Human Resources would have offered the amendment. He said these are technical amendments with technical agreements. He noted the Department of Human Resources is still not proposing the amendment and does not support the bill.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification to whether the Department of Human Resources supported the amendment. Mr. Sasser commented the department did not support the bill. He added the technical division within the department and the Attorney General’s office both believe the technical amendments would help to clarify things if the bill passes, despite the fact the Department of Human Resources did not support it.
Senator Raggio stated that Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, testified on the bill and stated there was a federal grant available for this purpose. Mr. Sasser replied that was correct. He added that the funding for staffing in the bill would come from a grant received from the federal government on the Ticket to Work Act. He noted that staffing would be federally funded.
Senator Raggio asked whether this proposed amendment would be in lieu of the amendment that was previously offered. Mr. Sasser responded that was correct. Senator Raggio questioned whether the committee was being asked to withdraw the previous amendment and to utilize this new proposed amendment. Mr. Sasser replied that was correct.
Senator Rawson said he would move to rescind or replace the previous amendment with this proposed amendment. He added the amendment is technically correct and there would be no substantive change. He stated the committee already acted on the policy and this will make the bill technically correct within federal guidelines.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 207, AND TO AMEND S.B. 207 WITH THE NEW PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND DO PASS S.B. 207 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Guernsey referred the committee to a recap of “one-shot” requests from the Department of Cultural Affairs (Exhibit N), and said S.B. 431, S.B. 432, S.B. 433, S.B. 434, S.B. 457, are all in The Executive Budget and supported by the administration. He pointed out there was not a representative present from the Department of Cultural Affairs.
SENATE BILL 431: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for grants for library collections and equipment requirements. (BDR S‑1362)
Mr. Guernsey stated S.B. 431 consists of two parts. He said, historically, the Legislature has appropriated a fund for disbursement to local libraries around the state. He pointed out one portion of the bill is a request for $1,200,000.
Mr. Guernsey remarked the other portion of the bill would replace equipment for the Nevada State Library for $41,690. He noted there is additional backup to this request contained in Exhibit N, which details some of the items listed for the $41,690. He added there is a brief write up on page 1 of Exhibit N detailing information on the $1,200,000 request.
Senator Raggio asked whether S.B. 431 would require any adjustments. Mr. Guernsey replied it did not require any adjustment.
Senator O’Donnell questioned whether these would be General Fund dollars. Senator Raggio replied that was correct. Senator O’Donnell asked whether this appropriation is in the budget, and whether the budget should be cut for this biennium. Mr. Hataway replied the appropriation is for this biennium, and the budget needs to be reduced.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 431.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 432: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for purchase of computer software and equipment. (BDR S-1363)
Mr. Guernsey stated S.B. 432 was a recommendation from the administration contained in The Executive Budget. Senator Raggio recalled on March 29, 2001, it was recommended for an adjustment of $137,518. Mr. Guernsey replied the reduction from $153,309 to $137,518 was the result of department review of its computer needs. He added the department worked with the Budget Division and DoIT on the reductions. He noted this was the department’s latest presentation.
Mr. Guernsey said the required amount to meet the computer hardware and software replacement needs, department-wide, would be $137,518.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 432 BY REDUCING THE APPROPRIATION FOR COMPUTER UPGRADES TO $137,518 AND DO PASS AS AMENDED.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 433: Makes appropriations to Department of Cultural Affairs for purchase of equipment and to carry out statewide monument program. (BDR S-1364)
Senator Raggio commented S.B. 433 would be held.
SENATE BILL 434: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for participation of Nevada Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas, in planning for Las Vegas Springs Preserve Project. (BDR S-1365)
Senator Raggio commented S.B. 434 would be held.
SENATE BILL 457: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for conservation laboratory and extends reversion date for prior appropriation made to Department. (BDR S-1423)
Mr. Guernsey explained S.B. 457 is an appropriation for Archives and Records to establish a conservation laboratory within its facility. He drew attention to page 3 of Exhibit N and said it is a good write-up on the need for the conservation laboratory. He added when the facility was constructed, there was room for a conservation laboratory within the State Library, but with the lack of funding available at that point in time, the library was unable to establish a conservation laboratory.
Mr. Guernsey said the department feels the conservation laboratory would meet the needs of the State Library. The recommendation from staff is a total reduction of $40,291, he noted.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 457.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Mr. Guernsey drew attention to page 1 of Exhibit N, and said the department has been experiencing a problem during the current fiscal year. He pointed out last legislative session, the Legislature passed S.B. 308 of the Seventieth Session, which appropriated funds for construction of a platform for the railroad station in Boulder City. He added there is a letter on page 11 of Exhibit N, from Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, and it is a reversion date extension request.
SENATE BILL 308 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for remodeling of Boulder City Railroad Museum. (BDR S-1457)
Mr. Guernsey remarked the contract has been put in place for the loading platform, the work is not due to start until June 2001, and they do not expect to finish until late August 2001. He said, “They are asking that one of these bills be amended to allow a reversion date on the prior appropriation…that [it] be extended to December 31, 2001, just to ensure that they are able to complete that project.”
Senator Raggio asked whether the department expects the project to be completed in August. Mr. Guernsey replied that is correct; however, some of the Public Works Board projects run longer than anticipated, and this would give them more time.
Mr. Hataway remarked the Budget Division did not anticipate this reversion, but has no problem with an extension of time.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 457 AS AMENDED BY ADDING LANGUAGE THAT THE PROJECT MONEY IS REVERTED TO DECEMBER 31, 2001.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 456: Makes appropriation to Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment at Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services Juvenile Treatment Facility. (BDR S-1420)
Mr. Ghiggeri commented S.B. 456 is a “one-time” appropriation recommended by the Governor in The Executive Budget. He added the staff reviewed the bill and came up with the recommended reductions to the funding level. He said they have discussed these reductions with the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).
Senator Raggio, referring to a memorandum from Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst, of the Legislative Counsel Bureau Fiscal Analysis Division (Exhibit O), stated the appropriation could be revised to $148,150 from an original appropriation of $178,458.
Senator Coffin commented, “Somehow I think there must be a way we can find $1,000 someplace other than cutting the toys and games.” Senator Raggio stated he believed that amount was an incorrect calculation, and rather it is a correction. Mr. Ghiggeri indicated there was a calculation error when the agency submitted the budget and this merely reflects an itemization adjustment total to reflect $5,750 instead of $6,750. This makes it mathematically correct, he added.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 456 WITH THE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATED BY STAFF AND DO PASS.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 534: Makes various changes relating to control of air pollution. (BDR 40-794)
Senator Raggio stated S.B. 534 was heard on May 29, 2001, and it dealt with the air pollution problem in Clark County. He said there was concern about the funding that might be available.
Mr. Ghiggeri referred the committee to a handout containing funding options (Exhibit P), and said this was not included in The Executive Budget. He added the situation has changed, and testimony recently provided indicated that at the time the Governor constructed the budget, the agency was planning on partnering with surrounding states for their air pollution programs. He said it has been indicated that partnership may not come to fruition.
Mr. Ghiggeri said the Fiscal Division provided three funding options. He pointed out that one option would be to use funding from the Air Quality Management Funds and Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) Emission Control Funds entirely, without any General Fund. He said that option 2 would be 100 percent General Fund. He added that option 3 would assume 50 percent General Fund and 25 percent from each of the two other funding sources.
Senator Raggio commented option 1 would not require a General Fund appropriation. Mr. Ghiggeri remarked that was correct. However, he said, this option reduces the reserve balance in those accounts to the bare minimum level. He added that as indicated on Exhibit P, there may not be sufficient funds in the 2003 – 2005 biennium to continue the program.
Mr. Ghiggeri stated option 2 would be a 100 percent General Fund appropriation, and option 3 would provide for 50 percent General Fund and 25 percent from the two other funding sources.
Senator Raggio remarked the committee should hold S.B. 534 for further review.
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
Debra Petrelli
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: