MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
April 17, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:49 p.m., on Thursday, April 17, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr., presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Richard Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 381.
Assembly Bill 381: Revises provisions governing purpose, membership and procedure of multidisciplinary team to review death of child.
(BDR 38-208)
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27, explained that A.B. 381 had passed out of the Committee on Health and Human Services, and would strengthen existing child death review team statutes to provide additional structure to team activities, and formally collect and analyze information on a statewide basis. Ms. Leslie indicated that Nevada, like every other state, had existing child death review teams, and the primary purpose of those teams was to review certain child deaths throughout the state and provide advice regarding the creation of policy that could lead to the prevention of future child deaths.
Ms. Leslie informed the Committee that she had been working with the existing child death review teams, which included many persons from Washoe and Clark Counties and the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), on development of A.B. 381 for over one year. Ms. Leslie noted that the bill had passed out of the Committee on Health and Human Services without any changes, and it appeared that all concerned were happy with the basic policy delineated in the bill.
According to Ms. Leslie, the fiscal note attached to A.B. 381 would be addressed by a $1 increase in the fee for death certificates. That policy was very similar to the policy that created the Children’s Trust Fund, where $3 was assessed for every birth and death certificate. Ms. Leslie reiterated that A.B. 381 included an increase of $1 for death certificates, which would be allotted to the “Review of Death of Children Account.” Ms. Leslie stated that Mr. Capello was present to testify as a representative of the child protective entities throughout the state.
Ms. Leslie advised the Committee that the Assembly Ways and Means/Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on Human Services had voted to increase fees for death and birth certificates because it had determined that the existing fee structure was significantly less than those within other states. She had advised the Subcommittee about the proposal included in A.B. 381 and Assemblyman Hettrick had made the motion to increase the fees; she emphasized that the Subcommittee had approved an increase of $3 in fees and that recommendation would be presented to the full Ways and Means Committee in the near future.
Michael Capello, Director, Washoe County Social Services, testified that since 1993 child death review teams had been reviewing child deaths across the state, oftentimes identifying various issues and circumstances. However, he pointed out that there was no fiscal support to move forward and make known the issues that had attributed to child deaths, or to propose various solutions, or to provide training to death review team members and other professionals in the community who might assist in helping the teams prevent deaths attributable to child abuse and neglect. Frankly, stated Mr. Capello, the death review teams had not been extremely successful. He reiterated that the teams would toil through the very dramatic and serious child deaths, but would not have many options in terms of implementing any of the suggestions that would come about because of those reviews.
According to Mr. Capello, it was anticipated that the funds raised as a result of the $1 increase in fees proposed by A.B. 381 would be used for public education efforts in various areas statewide, and would address specific issues identified by the local teams as being significant factors leading to the death of children, and which could be preventable. Mr. Capello testified that some issues had been identified, such as the danger of leaving children unattended near swimming pools or in vehicles during warm weather, and the shaken baby syndrome. According to Mr. Capello, various public education campaigns would be identified by the teams as unique to a particular community; for example, a rural team might identify a specific rural issue and the team would attempt to develop a campaign around that issue. In addition, said Mr. Capello, there were training needs for both team members and professionals working with children in the communities, and the revenue from the increase in fees proposed by A.B. 381 would offer an opportunity to bring training into Nevada to help identify those issues.
Mr. Capello stated the bill proposed that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) would conduct some administrative requirements and functions, and it was anticipated that the revenue generated by the proposed increase in fees would offset some of the additional administrative costs incurred by the Division.
Finally, stated Mr. Capello, it was hoped that there would be sufficient funding for research and evaluation of the preventative programs that might result from recommendations offered by the death review committees so that a determination could be made regarding the most effective course of action, and which programs should be replicated in other communities around the state.
Assemblywoman Chowning hoped that someday the need for such teams would cease to exist. She asked which agency would administer the additional funds and whether a budget account would be established in order to provide accountability in the future.
Assemblywoman Leslie stated it was her understanding that there would be a budget account established similar to the Children’s Trust Fund, which would be called the “Review of Death of Children Account,” and would be located within the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). Ms. Leslie explained that A.B. 381 would create an executive committee to monitor the response to team recommendations, assure that the recommendations were implemented, and make decisions regarding the implementation of public awareness campaigns based on the recommendations from the teams.
Ms. Chowning asked whether part of the task of the executive committee would be to recommend legislation. Ms. Leslie stated that recommending legislation would not be a main function, although that could occur, but rather the committee would address preventable issues, such as the drowning of toddlers in backyard swimming pools, which had occurred in the Las Vegas area. Ms. Leslie assumed that the child death review teams would notice that trend when it reviewed such deaths, and would work with other partners in the community to present a public relations campaign to remind people that toddlers needed to be better supervised in order to avoid future drownings. According to Ms. Leslie, there was a built-in accountability mechanism to monitor various issues, such as shaken baby syndrome, related to child death, and to determine the effect of the public relations campaign.
Chairman Arberry questioned the proposed increase of $1 in the fee for a death certificate and asked how much revenue would ultimately be raised. Ms. Leslie noted that Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff had indicated that the amount would be approximately $150,000 per year. She noted that the Ways and Means/Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources had raised the fees by $3, and A.B. 381 would only ask for $1 of that $3 increase. Chairman Arberry asked about the expenses associated with the proposed executive committee. Ms. Leslie explained that a formal fiscal note had not been submitted by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), however, she had talked to the Administrator and there appeared to be some minor travel, training, and printing of annual report costs, which were calculated to be in the $30,000 range. Per Ms. Leslie, if the full $1 fee increase were collected, there would be sufficient funding to implement some comprehensive prevention campaigns. She indicated that to give the Committee an idea of the costs involved, Mr. Capello would provide some numbers regarding much smaller local child abuse prevention campaigns that had been initiated by Washoe County.
Mr. Capello stated that Washoe County had recently conducted a child abuse and neglect prevention campaign, which had been funded via a federal grant. For the period of one month, the county had spent $13,000 on television and radio time for public service announcements (PSAs). According to Mr. Capello, the cost was $7.23 for every 1,000 contacts as a result of those PSAs. The county had also undertaken a project where teams and children drew posters depicting child abuse and neglect in terms of identification and reporting, which were ultimately displayed on Reno’s Citifare busses. Mr. Capello noted that the cost to run the ads as “moving billboards” was $12,500 and, finally, the county had spent approximately $1,500 in theatre advertising. Overall, stated Mr. Capello, the county spent approximately $30,000 for a month-long campaign that would then have periodic follow-up throughout the year with PSAs. That was an example of a campaign on a regional level, and Mr. Capello advised that the county had doubled its efforts because when it bought airtime, it also got about the same amount of additional free airtime.
Assemblyman Beers asked about the size of the region, whether it was just Washoe County, or whether it included the rural areas. Mr. Capello advised that the target area was northern Nevada, as far as primary television stations. Mr. Beers stated that approximately $12,000 per month would be realized from the proposed increase of $1, which was one-third of the budget Washoe County used on its campaign in northern Nevada alone; he did not believe that the funding would make much of a “dent” in the public’s consciousness with that small amount of money within the electronic media. Mr. Beers noted that in the Las Vegas area, there had been television stations that had undertaken publicized campaigns to prevent child drownings. He wondered what the solution would be, and whether a booklet could be distributed by pool contractors which addressed the issue of child drownings.
Assemblywoman Leslie believed that Mr. Beers had brought up a good point, and she hoped that with the extra focus on child deaths that would be brought about by the statewide teams, some creative solutions could be devised. Ms. Leslie stated the campaign would not always consist of “moving billboards” on the side of busses. It was her hope that the statewide team would analyze the data, take a close look at the pertinent issues, and devise a creative solution. Ms. Leslie remarked that it would take awhile to collect the funds, and she believed that the $1 would be an appropriate amount to get the important effort underway.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated that it appeared the concern voiced by Mr. Beers was that the media market in Las Vegas consisted of approximately 1.2 million people compared to a media market in Reno which consisted of 200,000 people, and the amount of money available would not go very far. Mr. Hettrick indicated that it would be his hope that the statewide team would study the issues and wait one year before undertaking a media campaign, which would allow time to provide sufficient funding for that campaign to make a difference. He believed A.B. 381 was a good bill with a good intent, and he hoped it would actually make a difference.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), advised the Committee that the provisions of A.B. 381 would create a separate account where the money from fees would be deposited. He pointed out that there would be no General Fund dollars within the account, therefore, no money would revert back to the General Fund but would balance forward.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, appreciated the effort put forth in the drafting of A.B. 381, and advised that his office had participated in that effort. He voiced support of the bill on behalf of Clark County.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there was further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 381 and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 486.
Assembly Bill 486: Increases limitation on certain fees that State Emergency Response Commission may require certain persons to pay for calendar year. (BDR 40-1256)
Karen Kennard, Executive Director, State Emergency Response Commission, advised the Committee that A.B. 486 was submitted as an agency request through the budget process to increase the amount of the fee cap on fees that were collected for the State Emergency Response Commission. Ms. Kennard explained that fees were collected from facilities throughout the state which stored or manufactured hazardous materials. Fees were awarded by way of grants to county emergency planning committees to support fire, law enforcement, medical, and industry first responders in prevention, response, and mitigation of hazardous materials incidents. Ms. Kennard reported that grants were awarded for planning, training, and equipment.
Currently, stated Ms. Kennard, individual grants were capped at $29,000 from the fees that were collected, and $29,000 times the 17 local emergency planning committees equaled a grant need of approximately $493,000. She noted that the revenue from the fees currently collected by the Commission was approximately $378,000; therefore, A.B. 486 proposed that the fee cap be increased to allow the collection of at least an additional $13,000. Ms. Kennard explained that money would then be awarded back to the counties.
According to Ms. Kennard, the fees charged for the storage or manufacture of hazardous materials was currently capped at $5,000, and that amount had been set at the inception of the federal laws that governed the State Emergency Response Commission. The consumer price index (CPI) would show an inflation rate which would bring the cap up to $7,870 as of 2002. Ms. Kennard noted that fees were charged and capped at $5,000, and at that point the facility could store additional hazardous materials without paying fees. She emphasized that the Commission was requesting that the cap be increased.
On April 2, 2003, Ms. Kennard stated the Senate Committee on Natural Resources conducted a work session regarding S.B. 201, which was originally submitted to request that the fee structure be removed from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) so that it could be established within the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Ms. Kennard reported that the Senate Committee on Natural Resources had voted to increase that fee cap to $15,000, thereby giving the Commission the ability to regulate the fees through the NAC process up to $15,000. According to Ms. Kennard, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources then voted to increase the cap to $7,500 per A.B. 486, so there appeared to be two conflicting bills.
Chairman Arberry asked which bill the Commission would endorse. Richard Mirgon, Cochairman, State Emergency Response Commission, informed the Committee that the two bills were fundamentally identical with the exception of the amount of the cap; A.B. 486 proposed a cap of $7,500 and S.B. 201 proposed a cap of $15,000. According to Mr. Mirgon, the Senate Committee had set the cap higher to eliminate the need for the Commission to approach the Legislature every two years to increase the cap. He noted that the actual fee would be set within the NAC regulations, and the Commission’s intent was to aim for a fee cap of approximately $7,000, and not to reach that cap, which was the agreement the Commission had with the industry.
According to Mr. Mirgon, there were two bills and the Commission was not sure how to proceed; the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources had not been inclined to increase the cap to $15,000 to make the bills identical, and wanted the cap to remain at $7,500.
Assemblyman Marvel advised that he sat as a member of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and, to his recollection, the possibility of a $15,000 cap had not been discussed. Mr. Mirgon recalled that the Chair of Natural Resources encouraged an increase of the cap to $15,000, however, the end result was to retain the $7,500 cap.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how many storage units were located in the state. Mr. Mirgon replied that every entity that either produced or stored chemicals, such as pool companies, would be included, and the total was approximately 9,000 facilities that were storing hazardous chemicals. He added that the intent of the fee was to discourage the storage of high quantities of hazardous materials within a facility.
Mr. Mirgon explained that if a company reached the legal limit of the storage cap, no fee had to be paid, but if the limit was exceeded, a fee was paid to the Commission. Mr. Mirgon emphasized that once an entity had reached the current fee cap of $5,000, it could store as much hazardous material as it wanted, whether it was 5 pounds or 500 pounds. He indicated that part of the intent with the increase of fees was to discourage entities from storing quantities in excess of what was recommended or, in some cases, such as pool companies in Las Vegas, the Commission had demonstrated how to use other chemicals that accomplished the same thing as hazardous chemicals, but were neither regulated nor dangerous. Per Mr. Mirgon, the goal of the Commission was not to punish the entities, but rather was to reduce the stored quantities of hazardous chemicals. However, if entities decided to exceed the recommended amount, the money would come back to the State Emergency Response Commission and would be awarded to local search responders to purchase equipment that would enable them to respond to those facilities if there should be an accident.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether the revenue from the fee was built into The Executive Budget. Ms. Kennard replied that the fee increase was not built into the budget, and that had been done at the recommendation of budget analysts at both the Legislative Counsel Bureau and at the Budget Division. When there was approval of the fee increase on the cap, the Commission would approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to access the revenue.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked whether companies other than chemical companies were required to pay the fee, such as companies that utilized gunpowder. She stated there had been a tragic incident in Clark County that involved an explosion in a model rocket company. Mr. Mirgon explained that other companies were required to pay the fee, however, he did not believe that gunpowder was on the list of extremely hazardous chemicals. He noted that the hazardous chemical list was established either by the federal government or the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, which also determined the quantity that regulated at what point chemicals would become hazardous. Mr. Mirgon emphasized that the Commission had no control over what was referred to as the “list of lists.” Assemblywoman Chowning opined that the Legislature should discuss the issue with the Division of Environmental Protection.
Chairman Arberry asked which bill would be the preference of the Commission, A.B. 486 or S.B. 201. Mr. Mirgon noted that the Commission would prefer S.B. 201 because it would provide an adequate fee structure and the Commission would not be required to approach the Legislature in the future for additional fee increases. Mr. Mirgon stated that the Commission would set fees through the NAC, would hold hearings as necessary, and would work with the industry. He advised that the industry had concurred with S.B. 201, and had voiced no objection to the $15,000 cap.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 486 and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 493.
Assembly Bill 493: Provides for money collected by Commissioner of Financial Institutions and Division of Financial Institutions of Department of Business and Industry to be deposited to and expended from the Fund for Financial Institutions. (BDR 55-463)
L. Scott Walshaw, Commissioner, Division of Financial Institutions, advised the Committee that the bill, quite simply, was designed to create a special account that would allow the Division to deposit its current revenue stream into an account that would then be used for the purpose of operating the Division, which would be a “self-funding” conversion. Mr. Walshaw explained the Division had been operating on a revenue neutral basis for the past 15 years, in that it had operated under a General Fund appropriation. However, said Mr. Walshaw, the Division repaid that appropriation over the course of the fiscal year through the combination of fees and assessments that were levied pursuant to a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements. Those assessments would remain in place, stated Mr. Walshaw, and with passage of A.B. 493 the Division would be allowed to deposit funds into the Fund for Financial Institutions rather than the General Fund.
Assemblyman Marvel asked whether the Division would receive a General Fund appropriation over the upcoming biennium, or did the budget anticipate passage of A.B. 493. Mr. Walshaw testified that the budget had been built on the premise that the bill would be processed, and did not contain a General Fund appropriation. Obviously, stated Mr. Walshaw, if A.B. 493 were not processed, the Division would be required to continue operation under a General Fund appropriation. Mr. Walshaw wanted to ensure that the Committee was aware that the difference would pertain to billings and, more importantly, there would be a cash flow effect on the General Fund if the Division remained status quo and A.B. 493 was not processed. If that occurred, the Division would continue with the General Fund appropriation and, at some point during the course of the fiscal year, would operate in the “red” for a period of three to four months before the final assessment brought in the revenue to “true up” the amount expended from the General Fund. According to Mr. Walshaw, the methodology of A.B. 493 involved two assessments the first fiscal year, which would allow the Division to build up an operating reserve for the remainder of the biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired how often the Division billed. Mr. Walshaw stated that was a difficult question to answer because the billing process was conducted over the course of the fiscal year, for instance, as of July 1, 2003, various licenses would be renewed that would amount to several hundred thousand dollars being placed into the General Fund at that point in time. Mr. Walshaw explained that each month thereafter, there were various fees assessed or billed for examinations, issuance of new licenses, and renewal of mortgage agent certificates, which occurred during the course of the fiscal year. The major billing periods, explained Mr. Walshaw, fell at the beginning of the fiscal year, July 1; the middle of the fiscal year, December 31; and the end of the fiscal year, June 30, and usually involved large licensing renewal periods. Also, at the end of the fiscal year, the Division assessed all the depository institutions, such as banks, credit unions, et cetera, for the annual supervision fee.
Mr. Marvel stated it appeared that at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Division had sufficient funding; Mr. Walshaw concurred, and noted it was really a cash flow issue.
With no further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 493, the Chairman declared the hearing closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 518.
Assembly Bill 518 (1st Reprint): Temporarily prohibits increase in number of limousines in operation and directs legislative study of issues relating to allocation of limousines. (BDR S-1102)
Dave Kimball, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, stated it was his understanding that the Committee had some questions regarding the fiscal note attached to A.B. 518, and he would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Kimball to explain the fiscal note and also explain what effect would occur once the bill had passed. Mr. Kimball indicated that the base budget of the Transportation Services Authority would be affected by $3,000 per year based on 15 less applications, which was not a major issue. According to Mr. Kimball, the issue was how A.B. 518 would impact S.B. 192, and since the budget had been submitted based on estimates for revenue and expenses based on S.B. 192, the amount had been amended from $350 to $200 per limousine. Mr. Kimball testified that the Transportation Services Authority had been under direction to ensure that the bill would pay for itself, and since it would reduce expenses there would be zero impact dollar-wise if A.B. 518 passed.
Chairman Arberry asked about the effect of the temporary regulation prohibiting an increase in the number of limousines, and how long that regulation would remain in place. Mr. Kimball stated that, as he understood the bill, there would be a two-year moratorium to study and make a determination regarding how to proceed, and whether there should be an allocation system in place to regulate limousines in Clark County and, if so, how that would be applied. Chairman Arberry asked whether a carrier would be allowed to increase the number of limousines. Mr. Kimball indicated it was his understanding that the moratorium would commence upon passage of the bill. Chairman Arberry asked what would occur if the market dictated that additional limousines were needed. Mr. Kimball stated that an increase in limousines could not occur after the moratorium was in place.
With no further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 518,Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed. He indicated that the Committee would commence with budget closings.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), informed the Committee that the budget closings it would consider were a staff responsibility, therefore, Committee members had not reviewed the budget accounts in subcommittee or full committee, other than the initial budget overviews.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
CHILD WELFARE TRUST (645-3242) – BUDGET PAGE HR-39
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, LCB, stated that BA 3242 served as a collection account for children’s benefits, which included Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Veteran’s Administration, and court ordered benefits. Funds were transferred from the account to the Youth Community Services budget, BA 3229, more commonly known as the Child Welfare budget, to assist in the cost of care for children in the Division’s custody. Mr. Peri noted that any unused funds were returned to the child or legal guardian when the child left state custody.
There were no significant closing issues in BA 3242, and Mr. Peri explained that the amounts had been reduced dramatically from the actual 2002 figures and the work program, compared to both years of the Governor’s recommended budget. Mr. Peri stated that was based on the continuation of child welfare integration. Based upon the recommended transfer of child welfare foster care and adoption responsibilities to Clark and Washoe Counties, the amounts remaining in the budget represented those amounts for children in the Division’s care in the rural areas of the state. Mr. Peri said the amounts recommended for Clark and Washoe Counties had been removed from BA 3242 and transferred into the Child Welfare Integration budget, BA 3142.
Mr. Peri stated that amount was approximately $98,000 in each year of the biennium for Washoe County, and approximately $500,000 each year for Clark County. According to Mr. Peri, the total amount of children’s benefits to be collected statewide was estimated at $736,266 in the first year of the biennium, and $793,271 in the second year of the biennium; those estimates were based upon an analysis of the actual current caseload in the child welfare system.
Mr. Peri advised that no adjustments were recommended in BA 3242, and staff would recommend closure of the budget as recommended by the Governor.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BA 3242 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT (101-3271) – BUDGET PAGE HR-43
Mr. Peri said that BA 3271 was funded entirely with federal grant funds. There were two primary grants considered in the budget:
Mr. Peri stated that the Division maintained a relationship with the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), and made sub-grants for further improvements in that area.
Mr. Peri advised that staff would recommend closure of the budget as recommended by the Governor.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE BA 3271 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HEARINGS (201-4732) – BUDGET PAGE DMV-104
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated that BA 4732 represented the Office of Administrative Hearings and conducted administrative hearings to ensure the public’s right to appeal sanctions imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). According to Mr. Krmpotic, there were no major closing issues within BA 4732.
Staff recommendations included:
Mr. Krmpotic noted that staff had also increased vacancy savings to include fringe benefits as well as salaries. He added that the Committee should expect to see that type of adjustment in most of the DMV accounts.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BA 4732 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
WELFARE-TO-WORK (101-3226) – BUDGET PAGE DETR-2
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, LCB, indicated that the upcoming biennium would represent the final budget for the Welfare-to-Work program. In FY1998‑99, Nevada was awarded $3.3 million in each year of the biennium to assist the most severely challenged individuals transition from welfare to work. Mr. Rodriguez noted that on July 1, 2001, the budget account was transferred to the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR). There was no General Fund appropriation required in BA 3226, as matching funds had been appropriated in previous years. To date, DETR had expended approximately $1.6 million in support of the Welfare-to-Work program, with a remaining obligation of $637,784. Currently, stated Mr. Rodriguez, there were 688 clients enrolled in the program and DETR would assist the remaining clients with enrollment in other DETR programs in order to minimize the effect caused by the closure of the program.
Mr. Rodriguez informed the Committee that there were no other major recommendations for BA 3226.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BA 3226 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION (101-2600) – BUDGET PAGE INDIAN-1
Mr. Stevens stated that the following adjustments had been made to BA 2600:
Mr. Stevens noted that staff was not recommending any adjustments concerning the possible move of the Commission office, but had wanted to bring it to the Committee’s attention.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BA 2600 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDONOV SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CAPITOL POLICE (101-4727) – BUDGET PAGE PS-98
Mr. Rodriguez stated that there were no major closing issues in BA 4727. Module E-710 recommended replacement of one computer and the replacement of one chair for security guards. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the budget also requested $1,000 to install emergency light bars on new motor pool vehicles that would be received in FY2005.
Mr. Rodriguez advised that the recommendation would be that the budget close as recommended by staff with technical adjustments. He explained that when the budget closed for the Department of Public Safety, cost allocation adjustments would be required in BA 4727.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO CLOSE BA 4727 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
TRAFFIC SAFETY (101-4687) – BUDGET PAGE PS-111
Mr. Rodriguez indicated that BA 4687 was a pass-through account that contained federal grant funds, which were transferred out to the Highway Safety Planning and Administration budget account, BA 4688. Funding was passed through the account to support the operations of the Office of Traffic Safety, local government agencies, local law enforcement jurisdictions, and nonprofit entities. Mr. Rodriguez stated there were no major decision units contained in the account. He noted that as decisions were made in accounts that received funding from BA 4687, staff would be required to make adjustments to reflect transfers to the account, and staff would request that authority.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE BA 4687 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE NECESSARY TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN & ADMINISTRATION (101-4688) –
BUDGET PAGE PS-113
Mr. Rodriguez explained that BA 4688 received funding from the aforementioned pass-through account, BA 4687. There had been no major issues identified within the budget account, however, Mr. Rodriguez noted that decision unit E-350 requested continued funding for the Traffic Records Manager and continued implementation of the Nevada Citation and Accident Tracking System (NCATS).
Also within BA 4688, stated Mr. Rodriguez, was a contract for the Law Enforcement Liaison, which would expire December 31, 2003. The Department indicated that due to the uncertain status of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), future funding was uncertain and the Department would recommend an adjustment to the contract. Mr. Rodriguez advised that the recommendation was to fund the contract through the current term of the extension, which would be until December 31, 2003. Funding for FY2004 would be reduced by $49,500, and Mr. Rodriguez explained that the Department requested elimination of the contract costs of $66,000 in FY2005.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE BA 4688 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE NECESSARY TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM (101-4689) – BUDGET PAGE PS-120
Mr. Rodriguez stated that there were no major issues within BA 4689. Staff had adjusted the revenue projections based on the latest revised estimates from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Mr. Rodriguez indicated that staff would request authority to make technical adjustments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE BA 4689 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE NECESSARY TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblymen Goldwater and Marvel were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM (201-4691) – BUDGET PAGE PS-125
Mr. Rodriguez stated BA 4691 was funded via a $6 fee on all motorcycle registration renewals, and staff had made adjustments to those revenues based on projections from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Mr. Rodriguez said there were no major issues identified within the budget account, however, he would highlight decision unit E‑350, as there were several components the Committee should be made aware of.
According to Mr. Rodriguez, in decision unit E-350, the Department requested $6,624 in each year of the biennium to contract with a third chief instructor, which would place two instructors in both northern and southern Nevada. The Department indicated such action would adhere to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s standard of requirements, which suggested that two chief instructors be present at each class. Mr. Rodriguez stated that decision unit E‑350 also requested $17,871 in FY2004, and $26,111 in FY2005 to continue the contract with the community colleges. The community colleges conducted the bulk of the training for the program, and the funding would continue that contract throughout the upcoming biennium and provide for program growth of 10 percent. The decision unit also requested $15,004 per year to expand the mobile classroom project, which provided motorcycle training classes in the rural areas of the state where access to community colleges was not available. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that decision unit E-350 also requested $1,460 to accommodate additional travel, which would allow attendance at the annual State Motorcycle Safety Administrator conference. According to Mr. Rodriguez, the Department had indicated that the travel was no longer necessary, and staff had made a technical adjustment to remove that funding.
Mr. Rodriguez informed the Committee that staff had also made technical adjustments to correct estimates that had been made for revenue and student participation in the program, and the Department had concurred with those changes.
Decision unit E-351 provided funding for the continuation of the contract with the program manager for the Motorcycle Safety Program. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had approved the contract with Adrian-Haliegh, Inc. to manage the program because the Department was unable to locate a qualified person through the state system to assume the management of the program. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that the Department recommended elimination of the program manager position and that the program continue under the contract program manager.
Per Mr. Rodriguez, decision units E-710 and E-720 contained equipment requests, and adjustments had been made for the computer replacement. Since the computer in question did not meet the time requirement for replacement, the cost had been removed from the budget.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated that there were no further issues with BA 4691, however, staff would request authority to make adjustments as budgets were closed.
Assemblywoman Chowning remarked that she had received feedback, questions, and grave concerns voiced by persons who owned motorcycles and were required to pay the $6 fee each and every time they registered their motorcycle. The reason for the concern was the request for a fee increase for the course from $100 to a cap of $150. Mrs. Chowning stated that after conducting research, she had discovered the existence of a $200,000 reserve, and yet only $48,000 was allocated for the motorcycle safety program. Mrs. Chowning noted that there apparently was no waiting list. Since there were so many people who wanted to take the course the Department would not establish a list and advised persons who called that, if space was available, they could sign up for the class. Mrs. Chowning opined that additional equipment and motorcycles were needed; there were currently 16 motorcycles on loan from various dealers that were used in the program. Mrs. Chowning remarked that the reserve was supposed to pay for equipment, and she asked why $200,000 remained in the reserve and was not being spent on the program. The persons who paid the $6 registration fee wanted to know why those funds were not being used. Mrs. Chowning did not believe the Committee should close BA 4691 until a determination was made regarding the reserve funds.
Mr. Stevens explained that the budgeted reserve for the current fiscal year was $197,000. In the first year of the biennium, that reserve would decrease to $165,000 according to The Executive Budget, and in the second year, it would decrease to $99,364. Mr. Stevens stated there were additional expenses, such as $26,000 per year budgeted for mobile classrooms. The budget did not recommend all of the money requested for equipment, and Mr. Stevens pointed out that the Department had requested $30,000 in equipment in the first year of the current biennium and the recommendation had been for $12,000. In the second year of the biennium, the Department had received all but $200 of the requested amount. According to Mr. Stevens, the Committee could allocate additional revenue into equipment; if the Committee funded the program at the requested level, the result would be an $18,000 increase in the first year of the biennium, which would reduce the reserve to approximately $80,000 in the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Stevens inquired whether the Committee wanted to take action on the account, or whether staff should conduct additional research.
Mrs. Chowning asked that action on the budget be held pending further research regarding reserve funds.
Chairman Arberry announced that action regarding BA 4691 would be held pending further research by staff.
********
EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION (101-4729) – BUDGET PAGE PS-159
Mr. Rodriguez explained that no major issues had been identified within BA 4729, however, there were decision units that should be brought to the attention of the Committee.
Decision unit E-500 requested a significant increase in travel, and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) had indicated that the request for travel was in response to a legislative audit report which had highlighted concerns with the SERC’s operation. Mr. Rodriguez explained that those concerns dealt with tracking grants, conducting field audits, and performing other financial tracking activities associated with grants to ensure that the money which flowed through the account was being spent as intended.
According to Mr. Rodriguez, the Commission requested an increase in out‑of‑state travel of $1,092 in each year of the biennium to attend the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officers (NASTTPO) conference. The Commission had increased its travel by approximately $9,000 in each year of the biennium for in-state travel, which Mr. Rodriguez explained was for the purpose of conducting audits, and to support implementation of a public awareness campaign to make the public more aware of the duties of the SERC and how to contact the Commission. Mr. Rodriguez advised that he had brought that issue to light because the budget for previous years had included travel costs that averaged around $3,000 to $4,000, and a significant increase was being requested by the SERC for the upcoming biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel asked whether the SERC had justified the additional travel costs. Mr. Rodriguez explained that the SERC had supplied a schedule of travel it planned to execute over the biennium, and most of that travel would deal with SERC business, such as additional field audits; he reiterated that the SERC had detailed its travel plans. Mr. Marvel asked whether Mr. Rodriguez believed that the cost had been justified. Mr. Rodriguez replied that if the SERC fulfilled the plan which had been submitted, he believed that the funding would be justified. Mr. Marvel asked whether Mr. Rodriguez could recommend an amount to the Committee. Mr. Rodriguez stated that if the SERC executed the travel plan as presented, then he believed the funding would be representative of the travel required. Mr. Marvel commented that the legislative audit had not been favorable. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that the increase in travel was in response to the audit.
Karen Kennard, Executive Director, SERC, advised the Committee that the legislative audit found that auditing by SERC of its sub-grantees had not been performed, which was partly due to the lack of travel funds. Ms. Kennard indicated that additional travel funds had also been requested for one additional staff member and six new Commission members. According to Ms. Kennard, there would be four additional Commission meetings during the upcoming biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired how often the Commission held meetings. Ms. Kennard replied that the Commission itself met quarterly and three of the working committees met quarterly. She explained that there were seven committees altogether, and the remaining committees would meet as needed. Mr. Marvel inquired about the cost per meeting. Ms. Kennard replied that she could not provide that information at the present time. Mr. Marvel noted that the request would represent a “healthy” increase in travel funds. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that he could provide the requested information.
Mr. Marvel asked that action regarding BA 4729 be held pending receipt of additional justification for the requested increase in travel funding.
Chairman Arberry announced that action regarding BA 4729 would be held pending receipt of information.
********
ADJUTANT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FUND (101-3652) –
BUDGET PAGE MILITARY-6
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), explained that BA 3652 was for the Adjutant General Construction Fund, and was a flow-through account that provided authority to the agency to receive federal funds for construction and major repair projects. Ms. Braun stated that those projects were for both new and existing facilities throughout the state. In addition, the account provided for the use of funds received from the rental of armories.
Ms. Braun informed the Committee that there were no major issues within the account, however, there were two closing items which she believed should be addressed.
Per information received from the agency, stated Ms. Braun, the only anticipated construction projects during the upcoming biennium would involve federal funds for force protection projects, which were actually security projects, and those funds would be expended through federal contracting procedures, and would not be processed through BA 3652.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE BA 3652 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Mr. Stevens apprised the Committee of the upcoming schedule of meetings.
With no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Arberry declared the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: