MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
May 28, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:34 a.m., on Monday, May 28, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District No. 35, Churchill and White Pine Counties and parts of Eureka and Lander Counties Assembly
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County, Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
ElizaBeth Root, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James T. Richardson, J.D., Ph.D., Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance
Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Safety
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Public Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Douglas Walther, Chief, Office of Business Finance and Planning, Department of Business and Industry
Dr. David Thain, Administrator, Animal Industry Division, State Department of Agriculture
Timothy Hay, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Attorney General
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association
Philip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Fiscal Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Chairman Raggio:
In order to accommodate Mrs. De Braga, we will hear Assembly Bill (A.B.) 123.
ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Revises provisions relating to health insurance provided by public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 57-603)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District No. 35, Churchill and White Pine Counties and parts of Eureka and Lander Counties Assembly:
There are several proposed amendments to this bill.
Chairman Raggio:
You mean there are amendments being proposed now?
Assemblywoman de Braga:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are several proposed amendments to A.B. 123, which this committee has before it (Exhibit C, Exhibit D and Exhibit E). My understanding is the fiscal note has been withdrawn from this bill.
What the bill concerns itself with is the state’s self-funded insurance plan, which is not currently regulated by either federal or state law. This bill requires that the self-funded insurance plan comply with the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that other health insurance plans are subject to.
This bill also requires that people under the self-funded insurance plan be given a choice of plans. That is one of the factors being proposed for an amendment to cover the situation in northern Nevada, where there is no choice of plans. If there is any way to give people a choice, either in the law itself or through a Letter of Intent, that requires a sufficient number of requests for proposals (RFP) be sent out, then that is one of the intentions of this bill. In the past year, at the last open enrollment, we ended up in northern Nevada with one plan that did not cover everything proposed to be covered under the law. It did not cover reproductive information or procedures, among other matters.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there someone more familiar on the amendments that can discuss these issues?
Assemblywoman de Braga:
We need direction as to which amendment is proposed for each area.
James T. Richardson, J.D., Ph.D. Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance:
Mr. Chairman, I helped prepare the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). If the committee is of that persuasion, I can point out the areas of disagreement between two of the proposed amendments (Exhibit C and Exhibit D).
Chairman Raggio:
Please understand this committee is not familiar with this bill or its proposed amendments. So, you need to explain it with particularity.
Dr. Richardson:
This bill developed because of problems, particularly in northern Nevada, with the state health plan in the areas of a lack of choice and full coverage on the part of the health maintenance organization (HMO) available at the time. Because of those problems, Mrs. de Braga requested a bill be drafted to enforce the notion of choice where possible, as well as gain review by the Division of Insurance and its commissioner, which had heretofore not been the case with this program. That is the genesis of the bill.
The bill also requires reporting of information and puts time deadlines into the statute that are useful because of the number of complaints against the new board and plan. Those complaints indicated there was insufficient notice on plan and rate changes.
The bill has amendments that were approved in the Assembly. The bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor and, as it came to the floor of the Senate, there were questions raised about its language. The bill, therefore, ended up being referred to this committee because of concerns of possible fiscal impact. So, when that occurred, we went to work on salvaging the bill and what you have before you is the result of that effort (Exhibit C).
Chairman Raggio:
We also have another proposed amendment, which is Amendment Number 985 (Exhibit E). Has this amendment (Exhibit E), proposed by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, been discussed with you?
Dr. Richardson:
I have not seen that proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coffin:
I did not know about that proposed amendment and it looks like no one else on this committee did. Mrs. de Braga, do you have a copy of this analysis by Segal and Company (Exhibit F)? Is that based on the original bill or a change to the bill?
Dr. Richardson:
That analysis was distributed in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor the day of the hearing on this bill.
Senator Coffin:
Has your proposed amendment removed the portions of the matters discussed by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor in Exhibit E?
Dr. Richardson:
The issues in the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) are sections where there was a reference to A.B. 123, as approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor and has fiscal costs associated with it. There is a $5 million figure in that proposed amendment.
Senator Coffin:
“As approved,” does that include the amendment as proposed by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor?
Chairman Raggio:
In the interest of time, I am going to give you a copy of this amendment (Exhibit E). This is amendment number 985 to this bill (A.B. 123) from the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. Please use this time and get together to discuss these issues. We will trail this matter on the agenda.
At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 578. Senator O’Donnell, did you want to speak on this bill?
SENATE BILL 578: Revises provisions governing certain fees charged by department of motor vehicles and public safety and transfers of money to state highway fund. (BDR 43-1561)
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a situation that occurred in the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, which exposed that the amount of money we were collecting for drivers’ licenses production was less than what the Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV&PS) was paying for production of the photo for the driver’s license. This bill places in line a mechanism for DMV&PS to charge the public exactly what they have to pay to produce these licenses.
Senator Coffin:
On this bill, we do not know what will happen on the percentage of the funding dedicated to the DMV&PS. My thought about these drivers’ licenses is what a bargain it is to receive these at $19 and, possibly, this fee should be increased to $50. This subcommittee could raise the first drivers’ license fee, which may raise revenue in the amount of $1.5 million to the State Highway Fund. Renewals could be left at that $19 cost. Would the committee have an appetite to do that given we may be leaning up against the constitutional limit of 22 percent.
Chairman Raggio:
That 22 percent is the administration usage, is it not?
Senator Coffin:
Yes, Sir. That is for the DMV&PS portion of the State Highway Fund.
Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Safety (Mr. Tatro’s prepared speech is exhibit G):
The bill has two changes to the statute. One would reduce the balance forward in the Insurance Verification budget account. The other change would increase the drivers’ license fees to match the cost of the contract. Those changes were both included and approved in the Assembly and Senate in approving the budget for the 2001-2003 biennium.
Chairman Raggio:
Would this sweep anything over $500,000 from the Insurance Verification budget account into the State Highway Fund?
Mr. Tatro:
Yes, Sir. The statute currently states that level at $1 million and we would like to change that to $500,000.
Chairman Raggio:
Is that adequate funding?
Mr. Tatro:
Yes, Sir, it is. The rest of the bill increases the fee for a drivers’ license. It allows DMV&PS to establish regulations to increase the fee to cover the cost of the contract with Polaroid of producing the drivers’ license. That contract goes into effect the spring of 2002. Further, the cost for the digitally prepared card will be $2.076, which exceeds the $1 currently collected.
Chairman Raggio:
What do you estimate the cost of the digitally prepared card will be to the customer?
Mr. Tatro:
The cost for a drivers’ license will be raised to $22 from the existing $20.50.
Chairman Raggio:
What does Section 3 accomplish?
Mr. Tatro:
Section 3 creates the requirement for commercial driver licenses (CDL) and that this fee be added to the other fees associated with obtaining a CDL. That shows it is in addition to the regular fees and becomes effective July 1, 2001. The regulations become effective when DMV&PS begins issuing the digitized drivers’ license.
Chairman Raggio:
When will the increase cost occur?
Mr. Tatro:
In the spring of 2002, in or about March of that year.
Chairman Raggio:
Taking Senator Coffin’s concerns, how do our drivers’ license fees compare with other states in the West?
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Public Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
DMV&PS has conducted a survey of where Nevada’s drivers’ licenses fees are insofar as price, and Nevada is in the middle range of cost. To charge $19.50 for a license every four years is a reasonable, if not cheap, buy in the state.
Senator Coffin:
To show that Nevada’s new fee on drivers’ licenses is competitive, the fee for Idaho is $24.50, Arizona starts at $25, Oregon starts at $27.25, and Texas is $24.
Chairman Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 578. I also want to thank Senator O’Donnell for raising this issue because it has been very helpful. Let us go to A.B. 235.
ASSEMBLY BILL 235: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for unanticipated shortfall in money budgeted for meeting expenses and salaries for personnel in Nevada Athletic Commission. (BDR S-1259)
Douglas Walther, Chief, Office of Business Finance and Planning, Department of Business and Industry:
My understanding of this bill is that, because of an unanticipated increase in a number of fights and the need to pay overtime because the fights are conducted over weekends and evenings, there was a shortfall in the category for expenses of salaries.
Chairman Raggio:
Has committee staff verified this amount?
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Yes, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
There being no further question on this matter, the hearing on A.B. 235 is closed. At this time we will open the hearing on A.B. 273.
ASSEMBLY BILL 273: Makes certain appropriations to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR S-1261)
Dr. David Thain, Administrator, Animal Industry Division, State Department of Agriculture:
Assembly Bill 273 supplies three shortfalls, the first which came about as a result of an accounting error. Secondly, $7,045 was for terminal annual leave expenses associated with retirement of an employee due to health reasons in the Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee budget. The last shortfall was for $6,003 to pay for the director’s retirement plan. When we rolled from the old payroll budget to the new payroll budget, the director was in multiple budgets because of other appointments and the computer system lost his payment from the retirement account.
Chairman Raggio:
Has committee staff confirmed these amounts?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
There being no further questions or testimony, the hearing on A.B. 273 is closed. We will now open A.B. 447.
ASSEMBLY BILL 447: Prohibits unfair lending practices for home loans. (BDR 52‑440)
Timothy Hay, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Attorney General:
We would indicate that, since the bill has been amended after it was originally drafted, we are now able to withdraw the fiscal note and we can accommodate these responsibilities within our existing agency resources.
Chairman Raggio:
Just for the record, what does the bill do?
Mr. Hay:
This bill enhances the ability of the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute predatory lending practices involving credit insurance and other matters.
Chairman Raggio:
What does predatory practices mean? Give this committee an example.
Mr. Hay:
Predatory practices are situations in which a loan is made by a lender without any indication that the borrower may have the ability to repay it and related factors thereto. It enhances the ability of the Office of the Attorney General to look at lending practices, which may inure to the detriment of the borrower for various reasons.
Chairman Raggio:
Is this unusual authority or is this common authority in most states?
Mr. Hay:
It is fairly common in most states and is a situation where we have lower income or fixed income borrowers that may need to refinance, or finance a piece of property which they may not have the ability to repay. In those circumstances the unscrupulous lender may be taking advantage of the fact there is equity in the property that ultimately will be available, but the ability of the borrower to repay is not evident.
Chairman Raggio:
In Section 11 of the bill, I note specific items that are deemed to be unfair lending practices. One is requiring a borrower, as a condition, to provide property insurance on improvements if it exceeds the reasonable replacement value. Is that one of them?
Mr. Hay:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
The other one is for a lender to finance, in connection with a loan, any insurance. What is the reason for that?
Mr. Hay:
This essentially provides for the circumstance in which, as a condition of obtaining the loan, the borrower may be required to obtain credit insurance, disability insurance, or life insurance that is not intrinsically related to the secured instrument, and those additional requirements increase the costs to the borrower. The point of this is, the borrower needs to be informed under the provisions of Section 4 of the bill, that they are incurring costs for additional services that may or may not be intrinsically related to the loan itself. It is a notification requirement, not a prohibition.
Chairman Raggio:
Does it prohibit prepayment penalty on a home loan under $150,000? Is that the intent?
Mr. Hay:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
So, you cannot impose a prepayment penalty if you pay before it is ultimately due?
Mr. Hay:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly right.
Chairman Raggio:
It is our understanding there was a fiscal note of about $400,000 a year previously on the bill.
Mr. Hay:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
For the record, you are saying now the cost can be accommodated within the Office of the Attorney General.
Mr. Hay:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman, we are confident we can accomplish this with existing staff resources.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any others on A.B. 447?
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County, Assembly District No. 8:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I realize you have a busy schedule. If you would like to hear the background of A.B. 447, I would be happy to make that presentation.
Chairman Raggio:
Thank you, but that is not necessary. We will close the hearing on A.B. 447.
At this time, committee, let us look at S.B. 578. If there is no objection I will entertain a motion.
SENATE BILL 578: Revises provisions governing certain fees charged by department of motor vehicles and public safety and transfers of money to state highway fund. (BDR 43-1561)
Chairman Raggio:
If there is no objection I will entertain a motion.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 578.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin:
The research indicates a fee increase of the initial drivers license may be in order.
Chairman Raggio:
Senator Coffin, it is a good recommendation, but it is something to keep in mind when we eventually come to a decision on substantial increases.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Next is A.B. 235.
ASSEMBLY BILL 235: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Business and Industry for unanticipated shortfall in money budgeted for meeting expenses and salaries for personnel in Nevada Athletic Commission. (BDR S-1259)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 235.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Next is A.B. 273.
ASSEMBLY BILL 273: Makes certain appropriations to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR S-1261)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 273.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Next is A.B. 447.
ASSEMBLY BILL 447: Prohibits unfair lending practices for home loans. (BDR 52‑440)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO PASS SENATE BILL 447.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, we heard a number of bills the other day that were “one shot” appropriations. We now have all of the amendments back. They all include the language, where appropriate, that the recipients report to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and language for reversion of any excess funding. Without formally putting them into the record and, if it is agreeable to the committee, we will run with those amendments.
Again, in those amendments there is a provision that, upon request of the Legislative Commission, the agency makes available to the Legislative Auditor any reports that are involved in the use of the funding. Is that satisfactory to the committee? If those are agreeable to the committee, we will present those with the bill and they will be amended on the Senate floor. [No objection noted.]
Now, we will take up a list of bills needing a vote. The first is S.B. 84.
SENATE BILL 84: Provides formula to calculate salaries of officers of Nevada highway patrol of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 23‑750)
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, this bill would require the Nevada Highway Patrol Division salaries be calculated based on the average salaries of law enforcement, which was deemed to be inappropriate to do, particularly for one group of state employees. I, therefore, asked committee staff to look into the feasibility of an alternative to funding this measure. They raised the feasibility of a one-grade increase for the Nevada Highway Patrol Division.
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative counsel Bureau:
The actual amount is higher than what we are recommending it be funded at. We were recommending it be funded at 90 percent of the calculated costs. Historically, the Board of Examiners does not expend all the funding in that account for pay raises.
Chairman Raggio:
So, it would be a pool like we have accomplished with state employees. The estimated cost in FY 2002 (funded at 90 percent) is $1,098,809 in State Highway Fund and $17,075 in General Fund. In FY 2003 it would be $1,167,170 in State Highway Fund and $18,331 in General Fund. If the committee is amenable to doing that, I would accept a motion to amend and do pass.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 84.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin:
Where are we with the 22 percent?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The expenditures for the Nevada Highway Patrol Division do not fall under the 22 percent cap.
Senator O’Donnell:
Senator Amodei was instrumental in getting this bill put forward. I do not believe he has a problem with amending the bill. A lot of the credit for this measure should go to Senator Amodei for his efforts in obtaining a pay increase for the Nevada Highway Patrol Division.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
That is consistent with action we have taken with other groups.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The Governor has recommended a one-grade pay increase for officers of the Division of Parole and Probation, correctional officers of the Department of Prisons and building inspectors.
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill is S.B. 442.
SENATE BILL 442: Makes appropriation to Department of Prisons for replacement equipment. (BDR S-1378)
Chairman Raggio:
Committee staff, do we now have a reduction on this bill?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The Governor has recommended reducing this appropriation by $135,450. However, a subsequent request has been received from the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) for an additional $121,902 for a new boiler at the Nevada State Prison. Committee staff has submitted a handout (Exhibit H) detailing this account and recommends funding the new boiler at that cost, as well as recommends a reduction of $40,700.
$1,034,239 was funded as a “one-time” appropriation and $948 per year was funded as an “on‑going” costs for a lease on dishwasher at the Pioche Conservation Camp. Additionally, staff recommends the funds be “booked” in separate categories for accounting and quarterly reports to be provided to the Interim Finance Committee comparing the actual use with requested use.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Hataway, are you in accord with these recommendations?
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
I will take a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 442.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 442, INCLUDING REDUCING THIS APPROPRIATION BY $40,700, TRACKING FUNDS IN SEPARATE CATEGORIES FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, AND SUBMITTING QUARTERLY REPORTS TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE COMPARING ACTUAL USE WITH REQUESTED USE.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee let us look at S.B. 445.
SENATE BILL 445: Makes appropriation to Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission for analysis of job tasks and study of physical fitness validation for peace officers. (BDR S-1383)
Chairman Raggio:
We have a recommendation for reduction in this appropriation for analysis of job tasks and study of physical fitness validation for peace officers.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The Governor has recommended this be reduced to $100,000 to fund the job task analysis and the physical validation studies.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Hataway, is that agreeable with the Executive Branch?
Mr. Hataway:
Yes, Mr. Chairman
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 445, INCLUDING REDUCING THIS APPROPRIATION TO $100,000.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee let us look at S.B. 449.
SENATE BILL 449: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for replacement equipment for Division of Forestry. (BDR S-1395)
Chairman Raggio:
This bill was heard on March 28, 2001, and is an appropriation for replacement equipment for the Division of Forestry. I understand this may also be reduced, Mr. Ghiggeri?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this was not on the list of reductions by the Governor. However, based on analysis by committee staff, the appropriation can be reduced to $401,693. Details regarding the recommendations have been submitted in a handout to the committee (Exhibit I).
Chairman Raggio:
The appropriation then will be reduced to $401,693. Is there any objection to processing this bill with its amendment?
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 449, INCLUDING REDUCING THIS APPROPRIATION TO $401,693.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill is S.B. 459.
SENATE BILL 459: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to update Nevada Report Card software and for development of new criterion‑referenced tests for pupils in grade 8. (BDR S-1425)
Chairman Raggio:
There is a reduction recommended by the Governor, is there not, Mr. Ghiggeri?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Governor has recommended a reduction to this appropriation by $200,000. Based on committee staff review, an additional $250,000 may be deducted if the decision is made not to fund the Limited English Proficient Assessment (LEPA). I would defer to Mindy Braun, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, for further details.
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative counsel Bureau:
On the LEPA, there were recommendations submitted by the Department of Education to the Office for Civil Rights. The primary concern with having LEPA is the majority of students are in “sheltered” English settings. If they take a version of the assessment in their native language, often that is more difficult for them than to take the examination in English.
One of the recommendations from the agreement between the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights agreement was to do an option where the students would continue to take the state’s Language Acquisition Skill Assessment that is already purchased, and have them take the math computation on the Terra Nova or Norm Referenced Achievement test in lieu of purchasing LEPA.
Chairman Raggio:
That would save $250,000 and that is the agreement between the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights?
Ms. Braun:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was one of their recommendations.
Senator Coffin:
What is a “sheltered” English learning environment?
Ms. Braun:
A majority of students in Nevada are taught primarily in English. This is in comparison to a bi-lingual type of teaching where a student may get their instruction in their native language. So, if a test is given to a student in Spanish, for example, it is hard for that student to conceptualize in the same manner as was taught in English, back into Spanish. That, then, makes it difficult for the students.
Nevada has only 21 schools out of 476 that offer the bi-lingual program where the recommendation would be to have Spanish version examination.
Senator Coffin:
The Office of Civil Rights recommends this?
Ms. Braun:
The Office of Civil Rights wanted the Department of Education to indicate how they were going to provide tests for limited English proficient students. They offered three recommendations. They could purchase the Norm Referenced Achievement test in Spanish. So, essentially, we would have our Terra Nova examination in Spanish. We could also develop our criterion‑referenced test in Spanish.
The third option would be to continue with our Language Acquisition Scale, which we had, and then have all of our limited English proficient students complete the math computation part of our Terra Nova. From what I understood from the information sent to the Office of Civil Rights, the third recommendation, without the Spanish-version tests, would be the best for Nevada students since most of our students are placed in an English-based class.
Chairman Raggio:
I will accept a motion to amend and do pass with what is the recommended amount.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I want to add this also provides for the Nevada Report Card software and for equipment for the criterion‑referenced test, which amount would be $213,110 for the software and $1,106,265 for the test. That would eliminate the funding for LEPA.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 459, INCLUDING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE NEVADA REPORT CARD SOFTWARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $213,110, INCLUDING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,106,265.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
The next bill is S.B. 463.
SENATE BILL 463: Makes appropriation to Department of Prisons for maintenance projects at certain facilities. (BDR S-1432)
Chairman Raggio:
There is a slight reduction to this appropriation.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Mr. Chairman I have a handout detailing the funding in this legislation (Exhibit J). The Governor has recommended the appropriation be reduced by $3,743. Committee staff analysis indicates the appropriation can be reduced by $33,919, $334,376 should be provided as “one-time” funds, and $10,129 per year should be provided for on-going costs. Also, committee staff recommends a Letter of Intent stating this agency report to the Interim Finance Committee on use of the funds since substantial funding is provided for maintenance costs and restocking of maintenance inventories, as well as to “book” funds in separate categories for accounting purposes.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Hataway, is that agreeable with the Executive Branch?
Mr. Hataway:
Yes, Mr. Chairman
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 463, INCLUDING REDUCING THIS APPROPRIATION BY $33,919, PROVIDING $334,376 AS A “ONE-TIME” APPROPRIATION AND $10,129 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM FOR ON-GOING COSTS, AND A LETTER OF INTENT STATING THIS AGENCY REPORT TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE ON USE OF THE FUNDS.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, let us revisit A.B. 123.
ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Revises provisions relating to health insurance provided by public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 57-603)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District No. 35, Churchill and White Pine Counties and parts of Eureka and Lander Counties Assembly:
We did reach an agreement on this measure. We agreed with the amendments as proposed by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor in Senate Amendment 985 (Exhibit E) with one change. That change is on page 5, lines 19 through 23. In some form, we would like to leave that language in and add language that says the following:
This deduction will include the cost of supplemental insurance programs, any subsidization of dependent and retiree health care, administrative costs, and costs needed to maintain adequate reserves that have been approved by the Public Employees’ Benefits Board.
We also request a Letter of Intent covering our concerns about the lack of choice of plans in some of the areas and sufficient requests for proposals be sent out to help ensure plan participants are offered a choice. Additionally, Section 4 of the bill, which is to be deleted, is suggested to be inserted in the Letter of Intent. Section 4 deals with requiring a report to be distributed to employees, state officers and retired employees concerning the previous fiscal year’s activity. We are deleting that part of the bill, but we want it placed in the Letter of Intent.
Chairman Raggio:
I am going to ask one of you, Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, or James T. Richardson, J.D., Ph.D., Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, to present committee staff the suggested language for the Letter of Intent.
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association:
Also, on page 3 of the bill, we understand what is meant here, but it is important for the members of the committee to indicate on page 3, subsection (c), that the 60 days is referred to is 60 days before the final date a plan participant must make their choice during an open enrollment period. That is the way we understand it, but we want to make sure the language is clear and states 60 days from the end of that open enrollment period, not 60 days from the beginning of an open enrollment period.
Senator Coffin:
Mrs. de Braga, could you enlighten us on this bill.
Assemblywoman de Braga:
The intention of the bill is to require that our self-funded insurance plan be regulated. At the present time it does not fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or Nevada law. This places that regulation under the Division of Insurance and its Commissioner, which would require the plan administrator to follow certain insurance regulations followed by other plans under other state and federal directives. The amendment to the bill specifically spells out which portions of the law that covers, such as timely authorization, timely payment, interest assessment in the event of late payment, and so forth.
The second main intent of the bill and its amendment was that plan participants receive notice before automatic deductions are changed. It can be a hardship to many people if they are not given prior notice before the statement is issued. Without this proposal, a plan participant is not given an opportunity to change plans, if that is an option.
James T. Richardson, J.D., Ph.D., Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance:
There was concern the language in Section 9 might be interpreted to preclude the long-term policies of using part of the contribution from the state to the Public Employees’ Retirement Board to partially subsidize dependent and retiree health care, pay for the cost of supplemental insurance and normal, reasonable administrative costs, as well as maintain reserves.
Hence, some version of the suggested language is a statement of clarification. This language is intended to preclude the practice that has been going on since the self-funded plan was established. I would encourage this committee to add that language and work with the bill drafter to ensure the bill states precisely what they think it needs to say.
Chairman Raggio:
Then we need to change this amendment?
Dr. Richardson:
Yes, regrettably, Mr. Chairman, because Section 9 is one area we felt the committee’s direction was needed.
Mr. Gagnier:
On page 2 of the amendment, the new language would be inserted after “Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 7 and 8 and renumbering sec. 9 as sec. 5.”
The new language inserted after would be as follows:
This deduction will include the cost of supplemental insurance programs, any subsidization of dependent and retiree health care, administrative costs and costs needed to maintain adequate reserves that have been approved by the Public Employees’ Benefits Board.
Chairman Raggio:
Then all we would need is the Letter of Intent?
Dr. Richardson:
Correct, Mr. Chairman. We can get that to you as quickly as possible.
Mr. Gagnier:
With the amendment the committee has before it, most of the expensive provisions that were outlined in this letter from the system’s actuary (Exhibit F) are no longer valid.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any other comments on this bill and its amendments? Let the record reflect that Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Employees of Nevada, and Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association and Teamsters Local 14, echo their approval of the proposed amendment as previously discussed.
Mr. Hataway, does the Executive Branch have any concerns regarding these amendments?
Mr. Hataway:
No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
I will take a motion to amend and do pass with a Letter of Intent.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 123, WITH AMENDMENT 985, INCLUDING LANGUAGE INSERTED ON PAGE 2 AFTER “AMEND THE BILL AS A WHOLE BY DELETING SECTIONS 7 AND 8 AND RENUMBERING SEC. 9 AS SEC. 5” AND INSERTING THEREAFTER “THIS DEDUCTION WILL INCLUDE THE COST OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS, ANY SUBSIDIZATION OF DEPENDENT AND RETIREE HEALTH CARE, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND COSTS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RESERVES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ BENEFITS BOARD,” INCLUDING A LETTER OF INTENT.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
Committee, we have bill draft requests. In the last Legislative Session we processed S.B. 560.
SENATE BILL 560 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes various changes relating to governmental administration. (BDR S-1788)
Chairman Raggio:
This has to do with reversion, is that correct? Committee we have a letter from Mr. Hataway (Exhibit K), which discusses this issue.
Mr. Hataway:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have been looking for a place to amend this, but there is nothing outstanding so we need a separate bill draft. The Division of State Lands received an allocation of $10,500 from the Legislative Committee on Public Lands. The agency has done everything necessary except for the printing of the report and they would like to receive an extension of the reversion date to January 31, 2002, to allow them to complete the report and get it printed.
Chairman Raggio:
Otherwise the Division of State Lands would have to return to the Interim Finance Committee and request a new amount. I will accept a motion to request a bill draft.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO SENATE BILL 560 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION, EXTENDING THE REVERSION DATE TO JANUARY 31, 2002.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I received a letter from Don Hataway on May 22, 2001, concerning another appropriation that was placed in S.B. 560, dealing with the Aurora Pines Girls Facility in Douglas County. Senate Bill 560 provided $2.8 million dollars to the Interim Finance Committee for distribution to the Aurora Pines Girls Facility following completion of the work on the camp. The Douglas County Manager submitted a letter to Don Hataway indicating this causes cash flow problems and they would like the money “up front,” prior to expending it, to alleviate cash flow problems. For this to be accomplished, there would need to be an amendment to S.B. 560.
Chairman Raggio:
Douglas County gets the money “up front,” but they would still report on the expenditures, is that correct Mr. Hataway?
Mr. Hataway:
Yes. Otherwise they would have to come to the Interim Finance Committee to get reimbursed.
Chairman Raggio:
Can we do this in the same bill draft?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is what I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, since funding is in this same bill.
Chairman Raggio:
Will the committee accept an amendment to the motion to include both in the bill draft request? Seeing no objection, we will include that in the motion.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to inquire as to the precedent setting measures of not reverting. Is this precedent setting?
Chairman Raggio:
Our actions dealt with non-state agencies to which we make appropriations and we wanted accountability.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
This would be similar to action the committee took on A.B. 609 to extend the reversion date for State Highway Funds on another project on which the DMV&PS was working. Instead of reverting on the date it was originally envisioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the agency, this bill extends the date a little longer so the agency may complete the project.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO SENATE BILL 560 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION, EXTENDING THE REVERSION DATE TO JANUARY 31, 2002, FOR FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND AMENDING SECTION 2 ALLOWING ADVANCE PAYMENT TO DOUGLAS COUNTY FOR FUNDING UP TO THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 1 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AURORA PINES GIRLS FACILITY.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
The next matter is S.B. 295.
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)
Chairman Raggio:
We had a substantial fiscal note on this bill from the Health Division, entitled “Executive Agency Fiscal Note” (Exhibit L), which was handed out to the committee.
Senator Rawson:
There was a proposal for a fairly extensive public-relations campaign, which we reviewed. Ohio used a tri-fold pamphlet as its marketing technique. There are people who need this education process. So, we rethought this measure and produced a revised fiscal note that shows the cost of printing.
Philip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Fiscal Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources:
Based on my discussions with Senator Rawson, we revisited our fiscal note and amended the appropriation. The bill initially requested an extensive media campaign. We have revised it to only creating a tri-fold brochure that can be placed in the DMV&PS, the Welfare Division offices, and other appropriate places, giving information about the registry.
We have reduced the full-time equivalency (FTE) positions from 1 to .5. We have also reduced the cost of the media campaign from $100,000 to $3,000 for the cost of printing the brochures.
Chairman Raggio:
The fiscal note shows a cost in FY 2002 of $44,150 and in FY 2003, it would be $36,616.
Mr. Weyrick:
Yes, Sir, that is correct.
Senator Rawson:
These fees are handled in all of the other vital records. We propose the fiscal note be paid from General Funds and then recovered by charging a fee for access to the registry.
Chairman Raggio:
Does the bill include the fees?
Senator Rawson:
An amendment is needed that would allow the fees to be charged.
Chairman Raggio:
What would the fee be, Mr. Weyrick?
Mr. Weyrick:
Based on estimated figures, given there are 800 annual requests, we estimate the fee at between $55 to $60. It is unclear who would pay that fee.
Senator Rawson:
I have contacted the social service agencies to see if they were willing to pay a fee like this. The various adoption agencies would pay this fee and that would be passed on to the adopting couple.
Chairman Raggio:
If the fee does not materialize, what do you do with this position?
Mr. Weyrick:
One of the reasons we requested General Fund revenue for this position is because, if the fees were not forthcoming in a timely fashion, we would not be able to fund that position or the brochures.
The way the Office of Vital Records and Statistics works now is the operation is funded by General Fund and the fees that are collected revert to the General Fund and the “children’s fund.”
Mr. Weyrick:
Procedurally, the way this would work is to authorize revenue from the General Fund and then we would add a “revenue line,” being fees. If the fees were not collected, it would be because there would be little use of the registry. That would demonstrate a lack of need for the person funded for registry duties.
Chairman Raggio:
If this committee processes this bill, I would suggest we insert a sunset provision to see whether fees materialize. Is that agreeable to you, Senator Rawson?
Senator Rawson:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weyrick:
Mr. Chairman is that something we could do at the Interim Finance Committee meeting?
Chairman Raggio:
No, we would place a sunset provision on the bill so that this law would dissipate at the end of the biennium if fees were not generated to support the cost.
Mr. Weyrick:
Yes, Sir, we would support that recommendation.
Senator Coffin:
Is there a provision for finding revenue to help supplement this endeavor from other sources?
Senator Rawson:
I have talked to other state agencies about them coming up with the revenue directly. They believe this measure is important enough to do that in the future, if it was necessary. This committee could add a line to this bill that would accept gifts, grants and donations.
Chairman Raggio:
If you would like to make a motion to amend the bill to provide: 1) the revenue stream based on the fees is recommended together with authority to accept gifts, grants and donations; and, 2) a sunset provision, then the chair will accept a motion.
Senator Rawson:
There is a second proposed amendment to S.B. 295 (Exhibit M), which has been approved by the working group on this bill. Those individuals include Donald W. Winne, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General, General, Brad Escobar, Family Supporting Adoption, W. Kathleen Baker, Attorney, Reno, Richard Perry, Southern Nevada Adoption Coalition, Janell Evans, Southern Nevada Adoption Coalition, Douglas Evans, and Southern Nevada Adoption Coalition, as well as others.
Mr. Weyrick:
There is one other issue. Section 8 of the bill is permissive and states the following:
An agency described in NRS 127.050, a person who has filed a petition for termination of parental rights pursuant to this chapter or an attorney acting on behalf of a person who has filed a petition for termination of parental rights pursuant to this chapter may request that the division search the registry to determine whether a person who is the subject of a petition for termination of parental rights filed pursuant to this chapter has registered as the putative father of the child. (Emphasis added.)
Do you want to address an addition to your amendment about making that language more of a requirement, rather than permissive?
Senator Rawson:
I am not sure what you have a concern about. Certainly that would require greater access to this, but there are many situations where they do not need to. In other words, if they have all the information and a person that has signed off, then there is no need to access the registry. It is only in the case where they do not know who the father is that a person would go to the registry. It is satisfactory to leave that provision as it is.
Chairman Raggio:
This would be included in the motion?
Senator Rawson:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 295, INCLUDING THE REVENUE STREAM BASED ON FEES COLLECTED, AUTHORITY FOR THE HEALTH DIVISION TO ACCEPT GIFTS, GRANTS AND DONATIONS, A SUNSET PROVISION BY THE END OF THE 2001-2003 BIENNIUM, APPROVAL OF A GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION OF $44,150 IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND $36,616 IN FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND AMENDING THE BILL PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT M.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Raggio:
I intend to recess at the call of the chair because we may have other matters requiring committee review. We have a series of amendments. Let us go through them.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
These are amendments the committee voted on Saturday, May 26, 2001.
SENATE BILL 428: Makes appropriation to Department of Cultural Affairs for expenses relating to continued operation of Southern Nevada office of Nevada Humanities Committee. (BDR S-1351)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
We have the amendments for S.B. 428, which provides for the same amount of funding. It is an appropriation to the Commission for Cultural Affairs in the amount of $200,000 for the continued operation of the southern Nevada office for the Nevada Humanities Committee, which was recommended by the Governor.
SENATE BILL 464: Makes appropriation to Office of Secretary of State for various enabling technology projects, for promotional materials for Commercial Recordings Division, and for new and replacement equipment. (BDR S-1433)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The amendment number to S.B. 464 is Amendment Number 1091. This amendment reduces the amount of the appropriation from $1,400,000 to $467,617.
SENATE BILL 494: Creates Nevada protection account in state general fund. (BDR 31-1430)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Senate Bill 494 has Amendment 1092. This is for the high level nuclear waste. It reduces the appropriation from $5 million to $4 million.
ASSEMBLY BILL 234: Makes supplemental appropriations to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for shortfalls in budgets of Division of Parole and Probation, Field Services, Central Services, Parole Board, Division of Compliance Enforcement and Hearings Office. (BDR S-1258)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Assembly Bill 234 has Amendment Number 1093. This changes the language that was previously in the bill that indicated the shortfall was caused by a decrease in fingerprint revenues to reflect an increase in fingerprint expenses.
ASSEMBLY BILL 641: Makes various changes to Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement. (BDR 43-1330)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Assembly Bill 641 has Amendment Number 1094. This amendment provides for a reversion on June 30, 2003 of the funds that are provided to the Legislative Commission that remains unspent at that time.
SENATE BILL 462: Makes appropriation to Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum of Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources. (BDR S‑1431)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Senate Bill 462 has Amendment 1107. This puts the accountability language in the legislation. This provides $5,000 to the Silver Haired Legislative Forum.
SENATE BILL 444: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for security upgrades and operating expenses at various offices of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1380)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Senate Bill 444 has Amendment Number 1105. This provides funding to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for the Division of Parole and Probation for remodeling and for an alarm system. The installation cost of the alarm system is $35,182 and the provision for on-going costs in FY 2002 and FY 2003 are $37,020 per year.
SENATE BILL 491: Makes appropriation to Opportunity Village Foundation for revitalization of thrift stores that are operated by Opportunity Village Foundation. (BDR S-1354)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Senate Bill 491 has Amendment 1106. This funding was recommended by the Governor and provides $250,000 to Opportunity Village Foundation.
SENATE BILL 451: Makes appropriation to Lifeline Family Education Center for continuation of its nonprofit pregnancy assistance, educational and vocational training programs. (BDR S-1401)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Senate Bill 451 has Amendment 1109. This provides $200,000 for Lifeline Family Education Center. This also provides the usual accountability language.
Chairman Raggio:
Senator Neal, we processed S.B. 451 and, as a result, we would like to indefinitely postpone Senate Bill 78.
SENATE BILL 78: Makes appropriation to Life Line Family Education Center for continuation of its nonprofit pregnancy assistance, educational and vocational training programs. (BDR S-840)
Chairman Raggio:
Out of courtesy to Senator Neal, we did not indefinitely postpone S.B. 78 until he was present on the committee. But, I will now take a motion to do so.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 78.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Jacobsen:
I took care of the marker situation with Senator O’Donnell being ill. I contacted all interested parties. With 250 markers in the state and communication with various state agencies, we can take care of the situation previously discussed. I do not believe any formal action is necessary.
Chairman Raggio recessed until the call of the Chair at 10:20 a.m.
ElizaBeth Root
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: