MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
March 14, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads at 8:09 a.m. on Friday, March 14, 2003, 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.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
James D. Earl, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charles W. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services
Gary Bermeosolo, Consultant, Incoming Administrator, Nevada Veterans’ Nursing Home
Darrel L. Hansen, Management Analyst, Nevada Veterans’ Nursing Home
Ed Gobel
Ron Kruse
Stephen Gibbs
Todd Jennings
Stephen Long, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services:
Dawn Kemp
Linda Westmeyers
Virginia Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Office of Veterans’ Services -- OVERVIEW
Commissioner for Veterans Affairs – Budget Page VETERAN-1 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-2560
Charles W. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services:
My testimony on budget account (B/A) 101-2560 is provided to the subcommittees in written form (Exhibit C). I will outline the six programs of Office of Veterans’ Services: benefit representation, cemeteries, nursing home, guardianship, legislative issues, and information clearing house. The nursing home program is currently the most contentious. Mr. Bermeosolo, the incoming director, and I will address nursing home issues and your questions during discussion of B/A 101-2561.
Senator Coffin:
In 1969 I visited the Omaha and Utah Beach battle sites in Normandy. I visited the cemeteries and was startled to learn that almost 75 percent of the remains of U.S. service personnel had been repatriated. I understand there is a current movement, motivated by anger with France, to repatriate even more remains. Would you be willing to write to the federal office responsible for cemetery maintenance abroad and ask for the number of Nevada veterans still buried in France? I am concerned that additional requests for re-interment will overwhelm our current projections for cemetery usage. I think we should know what to expect. I know you cannot address this issue today, but I think it prudent for you to make the appropriate inquiries. While this may be a “heat of the moment” issue, I did hear a U.S. Congressman addressing the issue.
Mr. Fulkerson:
I share your concerns. I will be in Washington next week and expect to meet with people who can answer this question.
Senator Rhoads:
The Governor is recommending an increase in the cemetery interment fees over the amount you requested. Could you elaborate on this?
Mr. Fulkerson:
The federal government recently increased the amount of money it gives us to pay for an interment from $150 to $300. This doubles interment income over what we have had in the past.
Senator Rhoads:
What does this convert to on an annual basis?
Mr. Fulkerson:
We are looking at $330,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2004 and probably $550,000 in FY 2005.
Senator Rhoads:
Will those revenues be enough with the increase in burials for the next fiscal year?
Mr. Fulkerson:
They will not be enough to run the whole agency. Currently a single burial in our cemeteries costs us $401. We get the balance from the General Fund.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How will closure of the honor camps impact the maintenance of the veterans’ cemeteries?
Mr. Fulkerson:
It will have a big impact on us. We use honor camp inmates on a regular basis. We have been fortunate to have worked out an arrangement with honor camps in both the north and south to provide labor for at least 3 weeks every May to do spring cleanup in preparation for Memorial Day. Frankly, I do not see how to manage without the efforts of honor camp inmates.
Senator Rhoads:
Could you elaborate on the recommended position in enhancement unit E-275?
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page VETERAN-3
Mr. Fulkerson:
My administrative office consists of two other people, Helen Hendrix the budget officer, and Deborah Cruz of the guardianship program. In the last 4 years we have grown from a budget of less than $1 million and 25 people to a budget of $11 million and over 100 people. There has been no increase in administrative support. The demands of the guardianship program are growing. Although the numbers are down, veterans are increasingly dependent on us for help. This severely limits Ms. Cruz’s availability to handle other tasks. I would like to use this analyst to research the numbers of veterans in Nevada, to issue a quality newsletter quarterly, to support the cemetery committees and the veterans’ service commission, to ensure compliance with open meeting laws, and to establish a central filing system.
Additionally, we need someone to assist the veterans’ service representative who single-handedly is trying to be an advocate for 30,000 veterans. The appointment schedule for that service representative now is out to about a 60‑day wait. She serves 2 days a week in Fallon and 3 days in Reno because the full-time service officer, established 4 years ago in Fallon, was not funded in the last Legislative session. We are learning that most of the veterans we handle in the guardianship program are on behavior-control medications; these make them more dependent, consuming more of our time.
Lastly, this position would allow me to address issues of veteran service activities and cemeteries. We are burying veterans in the sand in unimproved areas in Fallon because I did not have time during the nursing home crisis to handle the relevant contract award in a timely manner.
Senator Rhoads:
Could you talk about the need for the two dump trucks, one in Boulder City and one in Fernley?
Mr. Fulkerson:
The two dump trucks were approved in the last Legislative session. However, we did not submit the request for purchase until after September 11,2001 (9/11). We lost the funding for those two trucks.
Assemblyman Parks:
I have been to the Boulder City cemetery on numerous occasions. I noticed a small tractor with a trailer unit used in openings and closings. It seemed to work quite well. Are you continuing to use those?
Mr. Fulkerson:
Yes. We run the wheels off of them. We have a request pending for an additional one in FY 2005. We bought two for the nursing home. I hope to be able to borrow one for cemetery use.
Senator Rhoads:
Seeing no one interested in public comment on this budget, we will go on to the Veterans Home Account.
Veterans Home Account – Budget page VETERAN-6 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-2561
Mr. Fulkerson:
I would like dispel some blatantly false “information” regarding the Nursing Home and Veterans’ Benefits bantered about the Legislature in the last several weeks. While I adopt my written statement of March 14, 2003, on B/A 2561 as my testimony (Exhibit D), I want to emphasize several facts. Contrary to some claims, the home has a shower for every 12 residents. Remember that most residents require assistance in bathing. Consequently, the home has a number of special tubs that open up so a resident can slide into the tub from a wheelchair. My point is that the building is not designed for private bathing.
I would like to introduce Mr. Gary Bermeosolo, our incoming administrator. He has all the qualifications we have been seeking. He has been under contract to assist in the Veterans Administration (VA) certification process so he knows our problems.
Mr. Bermeosolo, Consultant, Incoming Administrator, Nevada Veterans’ Nursing Home:
My background, qualifications, and initial observations on the new Nevada Veterans’ Nursing Home, including the issue of privatization, are found in my written statement (Exhibit E). I sit here as the newest administrator of that facility. I will be glad to elaborate on contentious issues in response to your questions.
Senator Rhoads:
Why has the waiting list declined from 150 to 50?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
In my experience, the waiting list built before opening a home will often decline. We figure we will get one in three. There are a number of reasons for this. Many die. Many find alternative care. When I have opened homes in the past, my goal was to have the waiting list be three times the number of beds in the facility so the facility could be filled.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the time-line for filling the home?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I hope to do that within 2 years. We currently are filling one wing. We opened the dementia, or special care, unit first. That was probably a mistake. It is a very difficult wing to operate. All beds on that wing are filled except for the special care unit beds. Had we started with another wing, we would be full by now. We are waiting for VA certification and the follow-up survey before we move on to the next wing. I hope to have VA certification by the end of this fiscal year, with the opening of the next wing to follow. I believe the next wing will fill very quickly.
Senator Rhoads:
How long have you been on the job?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
This is my sixth week as a consultant.
Senator Rhoads:
Will an updated budget be available soon?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
It will take some time. There are many construction difficulties with the building. As an example, the home has three dining rooms, one on each wing. Each can accommodate 30 people, yet each wing is a 60-bed unit. Feeding 60 people in a room that can hold only 30 is a major challenge. I guess the designer did not think about wheelchairs, and more than 50 percent of our residents will be in wheelchairs. We will have to be creative to make this happen. I need to get a handle on the physical limitations and the costs involved to make the building work. We will be going through each discipline over the next year looking at the staffing levels and the positions. We may have more senior staff than we need; it appears we need a few more hands-on workers. I would like to defer to Mr. Fulkerson on the budget submission.
Senator Rhoads:
We have difficulties because we have not had an agency budget to consider.
Mr. Fulkerson:
The budget for FY 2004 and FY 2005 is basically a mirror of the FY 2002 and FY 2003 budget.
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The budget presented during the last Legislative session anticipated occupancy rates of 80 percent the first year and 92 percent the second year. You are operating with 48 beds filled and will not get to an 80 percent occupancy rate for most of FY 2004. You might reach that rate only in FY 2005. That requires a number of modifications to the budget, including staffing, food service, and operations. Additionally, the rates have changed for VA reimbursement to $56.34. There are a number of adjustments to be made based on a review of travel and the contracts you will retain. There is a lot of detail the Legislature does not have now. This is what we need to work together to address.
Mr. Fulkerson:
That will be provided this session as soon as we can.
Senator Rhoads:
Will VA certification be retroactive once it is obtained?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I certainly hope so. I am still arguing with the VA over this issue. We are debating a date to which the payments should be retroactive. Yesterday we learned that VA staff had settled on a date of August 12. This is very good news. This is the date we admitted our first resident. The staff recommendation has to go to the general counsel’s office for approval. We cannot say what will happen, but I am hopeful we can retain the August 12 date.
The VA requires that we pass a follow-up survey with no deficiencies in order to obtain that retroactive period. I do not know how realistic a perfect score is, given the turmoil we have had at the home over the past few months. We will give it our very best shot.
Senator Rhoads:
If you do not receive retroactive payments, will funds be available to carry through the end of the time period?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
Our chief financial officer, Mr. Hansen, will answer that.
Darrel L. Hansen, Management Analyst, Nevada Veterans’ Nursing Home:
Given the estimated revenue and the remaining appropriations, we will be able to finish the year even without obtaining a retroactive payment from the VA.
Senator Rhoads:
If certification is not received, will you operate 180 beds, or will you continue to limit occupancy to one wing of 60 beds?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
We will strive for 180 beds. We will gain recognition; the real question is the date on which per diem payments will commence. If our next survey shows deficiencies for which we will have to submit a plan of correction, then per diem payments will start upon the acceptance of the plan of correction. The real issue is not one of certification, or “recognition,” to use the VA term, rather the issue is when VA payments will start.
Senator Rhoads:
Would you explain the advantages and disadvantages of state‑operated homes versus contracted operations?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I believe in a combination of services. Ancillary services, those that will not adversely impact patient care, should be contracted out if we can save money. Some services are better left in State hands. Experience in other states bears this out. There are very few contract homes in the country now. Those states that have them have had difficulty in retaining contractors. I can tell you horror stories. In Alabama a contractor left in the middle of the night; he virtually disappeared. His facility had great difficulty commencing services.
The main reason a state can provide better service has to do with staff turnover. The highest turnover in private industry is among the hands-on caregivers. I have worked closely with the private sector for a number of years. I was a legislative officer for 3 years for the National Association of State Veterans Homes. The private sector has a tremendous difficulty with turnover. The last figure I saw for turnover in private homes was an average 114 percent annually. With turnover like that, the patient never gets to know the caregiver. The average turnover for state homes is between 25 and 35 percent annually. This still seems high, but the residents get to know the caregivers and vice versa, and the care is ultimately better. We get to know the names of the family members and even the names of the dogs. Additionally, it is nice to be given a bath every day by the same caregiver who knows what the patient likes. We want to control those hands-on activities and limit our staff turnover.
Mr. Fulkerson:
I would like to add to the privatization issue. I adopt by incorporation my written statement on privatization (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.). My most important point is that quality is higher and costs are lower at state veterans’ homes. Attached to my statement are approximately 20 letters, some from family members reflecting on the care given to patients at the home, and some from commanders of organizations in support of State operation.
Assemblyman Parks:
Could you give us your thoughts on occupancy levels in light of the numbers we have already heard?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I have looked at the figures, and, initially, was concerned that they might be high. I did some research nationally. The average occupancy level is 86 percent for state veterans’ homes. I am told that the 88 percent figure mentioned earlier was predicated on a study of the surrounding Nevada nursing homes. Given the fact that our facility has 180 beds and that we have about 400 veterans in the area for each bed, the 88 percent figure seems to be a good one. I do not want to commit to a 92 percent occupancy rate, but I believe the 88 percent rate is realistic.
Senator Rhoads:
How are different daily reimbursement rates determined, specifically the $55 rate?
Mr. Hansen:
The $55 dollar amount is what the appropriations in the budget come to based on an 88 percent occupancy level. The $81 Medicaid rate is an estimate based on our conversations with Medicaid and our cost-reimbursement setup ratio. We look at total costs, subtract expenses that the VA per diem covers, and then we are reimbursed on a per-patient-day basis for the remaining cost.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you still anticipate that 80 percent of the residents will qualify for Medicaid?
Mr. Hansen:
That is based on information we have gathered. There are four institutions within Las Vegas that run at 80 percent, plus or minus 2 to 3 percent. The nationwide ratio for Medicaid is 79 percent.
Senator Rhoads:
Are there services you believe should be changed from staff to contract, such as grounds, custodial, physical therapy, and food services?
Mr. Fulkerson:
We are looking at all the services at the nursing home for possible contracting. We have not fully investigated them all, and are not prepared to discuss them publicly because of turmoil among budget personnel. We will present decisions throughout this Legislative period and in subsequent Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meetings.
Senator Rhoads:
Will you have that available for this subcommittee so we can make a recommendation?
Mr. Fulkerson:
Yes.
Senator Tiffany:
I have talked about contracting out services. How long have you been on board as the new administrator?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I will not officially take over until April 10. We are now in a transition period. I am continuing on as a consultant for the State until that date.
Senator Tiffany:
How long have you worked for the State as a consultant?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I have worked as a consultant since January. This is my sixth trip, and I have been on site about 6 weeks.
Senator Tiffany:
What have been your top priorities?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
My top priority is to obtain VA certification, the recognition, and to ensure we are ready for the associated survey.
Senator Tiffany:
Where does the issue of contracting services rank on your list of priorities?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
Once I am on board and settled, we will begin looking at that almost immediately, mainly because I want to economize. We can do that while maintaining the level of care. It will be done quickly.
Senator Tiffany:
You speak as though you have had experience in other states with contract services. What have you seen other states do?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I am most familiar with Idaho, although there are 114 veterans’ homes in the United States and I have had affiliations with most of their administrators. Every state is different. There are different philosophies. Medicaid programs differ somewhat. I still have a lot to learn about Nevada’s program in comparison to Medicaid in Idaho. From my perspective, a lot of ancillary services can be contracted out without adversely impacting patient care.
Senator Tiffany:
Can you tell me what those ancillary services might be?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
The list would include contracts for medical services, X rays, janitorial services, and some therapies, although these might be moneymakers because we are Medicaid certified. We have already privatized the food service and have done a cost study to see whether it should remain privatized. We determined it should. Laundry and pest control are also among the services that need to be looked at closely.
Senator Tiffany:
Do you have an X-ray machine at the home?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
We do not. We have a contract with a portable X-ray company. We do not want to install our own X-ray equipment.
Senator Tiffany:
If your decision is not to contract the entire veterans’ home operation, then I highly recommend service contracting be one of your top priorities when you come on board. Certification has to be first without doubt, and filling these beds has to be first.
Mr. Bermeosolo:
We agree.
Senator Rhoads:
Could you elaborate on the $50,000 the Governor put in the budget for a feasibility study of a veterans’ home in northern Nevada?
Mr. Fulkerson:
A private company bought the Carson-Tahoe Hospital in Carson City several years ago. That company has now bought land and is in the process of building a new facility. Its plan is to keep the present hospital facility and use it for auxiliary health care. The manager of the public works board and I met last August with the hospital chief of staff. We discussed the possibility of leasing the 120‑bed ward in that facility to the State for an additional nursing home in Carson City. The hospital chief of staff said they would provide leasehold improvements, remodeling the facility to federal and State nursing home specifications, and would then lease the building to the State on a monthly basis. I spoke to the chief of the state nursing home grant program in Washington D.C. He was receptive to this idea, and said he needed only a copy of the proposed lease for legal review. I see this as a win-win situation. We could get the facility running very quickly, without the arduous task of new construction. The up‑front costs are lower. Neither the State nor federal government would have to front funds for new construction. Additionally, the construction backlog of new nursing homes throughout the United States is significant. If we put in a plan for new construction, it would be at the bottom of the list. Leasing the facility would eliminate construction delay.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the demand for a home in northern Nevada?
Mr. Fulkerson:
One of my service officers just received a call from an Oregon home. There is a Nevada veteran there who would like to come back to Nevada, but does not want to go to Las Vegas. The federal guideline is 2.5 beds per 1000 veterans. There are about 230,000 veterans in Nevada, 180,000 in Clark County, leaving about 50,000 in the catchment area for this home. That works out to about 140 beds. One also has to look at the coverage area of the VA hospital in Reno. It covers 13 counties in eastern California. This geographic area contains another 30,000 veterans.
Senator Rhoads:
What steps will you take to avoid the problems encountered with the Las Vegas facility?
Mr. Fulkerson:
We will not be constructing a new building. The owner will be responsible for any remodeling construction. We will take the key when a certificate of occupancy has been issued. We will ensure the first administrator has had hands-on experience.
Mr. Bermeosolo:
Speaking as a consultant and someone who has opened several homes, I believe the fatal mistake made in Las Vegas was lack of common sense. A new building is merely walls and an empty shell. There are no patient care systems in place. You have to hire people with long-term care experience familiar with systems. These people must be brought into the facility to install the systems. Once systems are in place, people without long-term care experience can be brought in and oriented to the system. That was not done in Las Vegas.
In Las Vegas, we brought in educators, surveyors, and acute-care personnel. We ended up with only a few people who know long-term care. This resulted in chaotic systems. I endorse a new home to care for veterans in the north, but we need to bring in experienced long-term care personnel to get the fundamental systems in place.
Senator Tiffany:
I could not agree with you more. But you will suffer from the sins of your predecessor. We were told the entire staff was spending day and night developing procedures. I took them to task on that because, while the home was not open, we were spending overhead for staff. I knew they were not doing what was necessary. I appreciate your bringing this key issue to our attention.
Mr. Bermeosolo:
When I opened homes in Idaho, the first person I hired was the service officer to build the waiting list so we would have sufficient people to draw from, three times the number of beds, as I mentioned. I hired that person about a year before the home opened. The second person hired was the building supervisor. I wanted that person on-site to learn the building and work with the contractor. The third person I hired was the administrator. I did not bring nurses on until 3 weeks before I admitted the first resident. We opened these homes cost‑effectively. You can buy policies and procedures and tweak them to fit the facility. We will have the advantage of having preexisting policies and procedures for the northern home.
By the way, we have a lot of work to do reducing the bulk of our policies and procedures. If you hire four nurses and have them write policies for 2.5 years, you will have lots of policies. That can create a survey problem. The survey team will look at the policies and procedures and inspect to see that the facility follows them. When you have so many that no one can read them, there is a problem.
Senator Rhoads:
Are any of you aware of a federal law that will allow free nursing home care for veterans in the future?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
Currently the VA has an obligation to provide nursing home care for those veterans who are 70 percent or more disabled. That does not mean the care has to be in a VA facility; most are farmed out to private sector homes. There is talk of lowering that percentage from 70 to 60 percent.
Disabled veterans within VA hospitals needing long‑term care may go into a private contract program lasting up to 90 days. After that, the veteran needs to figure out how to pay for continuance.
I have been surprised at the amount of bad information I have encountered during my stay in Nevada. In every state, there seem to be several self‑appointed authorities on VA matters. The self-appointed authorities in Nevada are not giving the Legislature the straight facts. I am here to help with that. If you have questions, please call me or Mr. Fulkerson.
Assemblyman Parks:
Your location in Boulder City is adjacent to a golf complex. Has it considered underwriting the grounds maintenance? This might be one way to limit costs.
Mr. Bermeosolo:
I am thinking along the same lines. I have never seen anything quite as fantastic as our landscaping; it cost about $1 million. We have a 1-year contract with the City of Boulder to maintain our grounds. After that first year of experience, when we know what it will take, our goal is to continue with city maintenance. I understand the golf course fees are pretty expensive, but the course makes a good neighbor. It is preferable to someone coming in the future and erecting industrial buildings. In Pocatello, a nuclear breeder reactor was sited next to us, which is not a good situation.
Senator Rhoads:
I would like now to turn to public comments.
Ed Gobel:
I am president of the Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, commanding officer of Loudon Veterans Center Museum, State commander of veterans of the Vietnam War, and the southwestern states regional director of the chapel for chaplains, among other veterans’ groups. I am speaking pursuant to a resolution of the Council of Nevada Veterans’ Organizations.
You have before you a news release from Secretary Anthony Princippi. I will refer to it later when I talk about veterans with a compensable degree of disability no longer being required to make extended co-payments.
I am upset at both the process and the situation on the ground. I hear nice things being said, but those statements do not reflect the situation.
There are only four showers at the home; that makes one shower for every 36 veterans. There may be whirlpool tubs where they are necessary for physical therapy, but that does not make up for the shower deficit. It is a disgrace that veterans might get only two showers a week. Four veterans share a single commode. Nursing homes are required by State law to have one commode for every two people. The closets are not handicapped accessible. The desks are not useable by a veteran with a wheelchair with leg lifts.
We see a history of deception going back to the introduction of Senate Bill No. 327 in the 69th Session. It talked about two veterans’ homes, one in southern Nevada and one to be built in northern Nevada.
I do not know where previous witnesses obtained the occupancy rates of which they spoke. Next year they claim 88 percent. We said projected rates were unreasonable 2 years ago. We maintained not even 50 percent of the beds would be occupied 7 months after opening. Occupancy is now at 48 percent. This is an amazing coincidence, is it not? I do not see how we are ever going to fill them. We were told there were 150 people on the waiting list 2 years ago. Sixty veterans died while on the waiting list. That is a disgrace and we need to address that.
The revenue projections and projected per-patient-day costs do not reflect the actual costs. If you look at the actual budget, you will see the per‑patient costs are somewhere between $400 and $800 per day based on the amount the home is spending while employing 73 people.
The FY 2004 and FY 2005 revenue assumptions presume Medicaid will cover 80 percent of the veterans in nursing home care. If I were going in under Medicaid and giving up all my assets, why would I not choose one closer to my home where I can get a shower every day and have two people sharing a single commode? You should not be forcing veterans to go in under Medicaid. Anyone suggesting so is a disgraceful person.
Private rooms are supposed to be for patients who need to be isolated. In fact, we are auctioning off rooms to the most affluent veterans. This is illegal.
Referring to privatization, or whatever term is preferred today, I appreciate Senator Tiffany’s comments. We could not have a higher turnover than we have in our veterans’ home right now, and it has not been open that long
As the interim director said, it is very unlikely we will meet the criteria in April for the new survey because we do not even have the people in place yet. Officially, the director will not be other than an interim director until at least April 10. We need a nursing director and quite a few other positions filled before we can even apply for the survey. It does not look likely those things will happen.
What are our alternatives? We can reduce the population. Reducing the number of veterans to a room would allow for more shower facilities per person. I do not know if assisted bathing is a person’s preference. Most of us who fought for our country value our independence. We want the freedom and independence we have earned and do not want to go under Medicaid.
We should start prosecuting those people who have misled us over the last three Legislative sessions. Last session we discovered the facility was actually 81,100 square feet; we had been told it would be 115,600 square feet. We were told only two people would share a commode when, in fact, four people share a commode today.
Senator Rhoads:
Let me interrupt you. We have several other people who want to testify, please wrap up your presentation.
Mr. Gobel:
I will wind up quickly. We talked about closing the veterans home and presented the alternative of using it for the homeless under a Veterans Administration (VA) policy. Unfortunately, we do not meet the requirements of a homeless shelter because we cannot give people enough baths. We should never force veterans to give up all their assets under Medicaid to receive two showers a week when they can enter any nursing home and receive human treatment.
The news release from Secretary Princippi dated July 8, 2002, (Exhibit G) talks about co-payments for extended care. The VA was mandated by Congress in the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act to initiate extended-care co-payments. Contrary to the obfuscation we have heard, here is what it says:
The following veterans will not be required to make extended‑care copayments: veterans with any compensable service-connected disability, veterans whose incomes…
Senator Rhoads:
We have all that information in front of us, and will enter it in the record.
Mr. Gobel:
Thank you. I will end my testimony.
Senator Rhoads:
We will hear from someone in Carson City before returning to Las Vegas.
Ron Kruse:
I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer. I want to support totally the testimony you have heard this morning. I am a current vice chairman of the Nevada Veterans’ Service Commission. I served on active duty for 21 years, from 1952 to 1973. I am a 30-year member of the Fleet Reserve Association of 140,000 members. The fleet reserve group includes former Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard personnel. It was one of the founding members of the military coalition of 37 federally charted organizations. These are the people backing veterans’ homes. I am also a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and of Post 8583 in Minden, and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) chapter 388 in northern Nevada. We have been here before. This project started 8 years ago, and I was here then. All of us remember when now-Congressman Jon Porter, then a senator from Boulder City, said, “When you veterans get your act together, bring it forward and you will get the legislative support.” We got our act together; we got the support. We are where we are today. The testimony we heard this morning is another step in the right direction to make things right. We need to succeed. We do not want failure. This project is not a failure. It is going to go forward. We in the hearing room are in direct support.
Stephen Gibbs:
I am the state judge advocate for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. On behalf of our state commander and past national surgeon general, we sat down with Mr. Fulkerson. We have close to 7000 members in Nevada. We have the oldest congressionally-chartered organization in the United States. As our state commander has said, the VFW is against privatization of the veterans’ home.
Todd Jennings:
I am first vice commander of district four and capital post number four of the American Legion. I also serve on the national public relations committee for the American Legion. I will keep this brief. We strongly oppose any privatization that may have a negative effect on any service member in the care facility.
Stephen Long, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services:
I would like to welcome Gary Bermeosolo. It is reassuring to know someone with that much experience will be on the staff. I am in a unique position. I am not in the chain of command of the nursing home. It is my privilege to visit the home at least once a week. I get to see the care that is given, and meet with the staff and patients. I have recently surveyed 16 of the residents of the home. I was overwhelmed at the satisfaction they have with their care and the services provided to them. They could not be happier. All 16 were pleased to be in the home. These are veterans who answered our nation’s call, many in World War II. They deserve the best care we can provide. If corporate America had shown its true colors recently, we would see where they are coming from. Some of the naysayers about privatization overstate their qualifications and representation as well as their vision and divine guidance. It is reassuring to visit the home and visit with the veterans. It makes you proud to be a veteran and a state employee. I encourage Legislators to visit the nursing home, talk to the residents, and observe the level of care they are getting. I think they will be very impressed.
Ms. Dawn Kemp:
I am a state employee in the Office of the Attorney General, but I am not testifying in an official capacity. Rather, I am testifying as an advocate for my mother, a resident of the facility in Boulder City. The issue of contracting services is a very emotional issue for me. I have had health care responsibility for my mother since 1996. She has been in five facilities.
The reason for my testimony today is my opposition to contracting patient medical care. The elderly have difficulty dealing with changes. My mother came to the facility recently. All patients become attached to their caregivers. The previous testifier talked about changeover in staff. I have not observed that in the time my mother has been at the facility. I think I can speak with some expertise since she has been in five facilities as her health has declined.
She has received the best treatment, the best care, and the closest attention at this facility. I am delighted she is there. I appreciate the fact that Nevada has this facility, enabling veterans to be near their families. My mother was in the Oklahoma veterans’ facility for 2.5 years. I could not bring her back here to be with her family. She had to go to Oklahoma because there was no facility in Nevada, and she needed that level of care. She never wanted to go to a private or county-run facility. A veterans’ facility is not a government facility from a veteran’s perspective. They are with other veterans. There is a sense of camaraderie I cannot understand. In speaking with veterans in Nevada, I am told that they would not go to a county facility either. These veterans who have paid a price for the defense of our country want to be together. There is something special about their being together. I request that you not privatize their care.
If my mother’s care were privatized, she would have to deal with another caregiver change. Even though she has been in the home 3 months, it is still new to her. She is beginning to acquire attachments to the people. It would be difficult for her to face another change. You may lose patients if you privatize. In my mother’s former facility, she had to change floors. That change caused her condition to deteriorate. We knew she was going to die, and had to change her back to her former floor. The staff wanted to move her so she would have more female companionship, but any change to an 88-year‑old is major.
She receives excellent care where she is now. Formerly, she was in a private room where she had a bathroom. However, she was not kept as clean as she is at this facility. I am very impressed when I visit her, and I do not inform staff of my visits in advance. They bathe her and take the time to keep her very clean regardless of the facilities. Yes, the closet is small, and there may be other inadequacies, but she is receiving very good care. Staff calls me, as no other facility has ever done, to let me know if something is happening. As an example, no one ever told me at her former facility that her undergarments were worn out.
It would be a mistake to add another layer of bureaucracy or a contract to the care of these patients. I have experienced the patient advocacy of veterans’ groups who do not have family. I cannot speak directly to the finances, but would point out that my mother, having served under General MacArthur, paid a price. I have been awakened at night by my mother’s screaming. All veterans have paid a price. I ask that we not talk about dollars and cents when we speak of veterans’ care. There has to be another place in the budget to find money that might be saved by privatization of this facility.
Linda Westmeyers:
I am a national veterans’ service officer. Veterans tend not to mention that they are our heroes. They deserve the best possible care we can provide. Unfortunately, the home in Boulder City is not designed to do that. It has tremendous inadequacies, despite the good intentions of some staff. Our veterans have put their lives and sacred honor on the line in defense of our great nation. They deserve the best possible care. I advocate closing the veterans’ home and using the facility mentioned in the Princippi press release, allowing veterans to get care without out-of-pocket expenses. The notion of having a veteran go on Medicaid is abhorrent. It is antithetical to every promise made by our government to every veteran at every level of service to the country.
Senator Rhoads:
Mr. Fulkerson, would you like to discuss this news release from the VA?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
This news release is anything but good news. I am surprised at how it is being viewed. The news release is announcing that folks getting these services free in the past will now have to pay a co-payment. We should not be excited about this at all. Prior to the news release and the millennium act, these services were free. The VA announcement says they are no longer free.
Senator Rhoads:
The news release was made back in July, was it not?
Mr. Bermeosolo:
That is correct. The gentleman citing from the news release was taking the words out of context. If you will look at the phrase quoted, you will notice how it has to tie into the paragraph above, “the new co-payment is expected to affect between 2,000 and 3,000 veterans currently receiving VA extended care.” Taking that into account, the meaning is that of those 2000 to 3000 veterans, the ones with any compensable service-connected disability will not have to pay a co-payment. This letter is not saying that from here on out all veterans with service-connected disability are going to get free extended care. I am sorry. That is not what it says. I wish it did.
I know time is short, we do have some additional information we would like to provide to you.
Senator Rhoads:
There will be another work session on veterans’ budgets at a later date. Other subjects could be addressed at that time.
Department of Motor Vehicles -- OVERVIEW
DMV, Central Services – Budget page DMV-46 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 201-4741
Virginia Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
I would like to introduce Martha Barnes to address budget issues.
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
The Central Services and Records Division is tasked with the responsibility of processing titles, driver license renewals, registration renewals, specialty plates, as well as handicapped plate and placard requests received by mail.
The division also maintains driver license history records, films documents for retrieval, ensures data integrity, processes record requests, and manages the centralized call center. This budget, utilizing money from the Highway Fund, was prepared in accordance with Executive Budget instructions and, if there are no questions on the base, I will present the enhancement modules.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-48
Enhancement module E-275requests two driver warehouse worker positions for the tag plant based on the population growth and the need to comply with occupational safety and health requirements. The two permanent positions have a conflict with the two-man safety rule for the handling of hazardous waste and working on high voltage or heavy equipment during daily operations. When one employee makes the 3-day trip to deliver plates to the south, it leaves the other employee to maintain daily operations, the shipping and receiving of supplies, and repairs of equipment or machinery. In order for the remaining employee to make local deliveries, the tag plant must be shut down, which in turn stops the production of license plates. During the past 2 months, production was stopped for 39.5 hours due to off-site obligations. This equates to approximately 79,000 license plates not being produced during this time period. The requested employees would allow the department to comply with the two-man safety rule and schedule work hours to compensate for daily operations, sick time, and vacations without stopping plate production.
E-277 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-49
Enhancement unit E‑277 requests one half-time and two full-time positions to maintain the workload and improve title turnaround time. Title turnaround time, from the time documents were received until a finished product was placed in the mail to the customer, was 30 days in January 2002. The title section worked 798 hours of overtime in a 2.5-month period to reduce the backlog to 12 days but have returned to a 16-day turnaround utilizing current resources. With the addition of requested staff, the current turnaround time of 16 business days could be decreased.
E-278 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-49
Enhancement unit E-278 requests two positions for the registration renewal by mail section to ensure compliance with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353.250. The statute directs money be deposited daily if it is more than $10,000, and this section receives approximately $200,000 a day in revenue. On August 31, 2001, the section was within a 3-day turnaround. Utilizing current staff, a manual check-logging system was implemented on September 13 in an attempt to comply with the recommendation of the department’s internal auditor. After 7 business days of utilizing this procedure with existing staff, the section was at an 8-day turnaround, which is unacceptable. In order to return the section to a maximum turnaround time of 5 days, the manual check-logging system was suspended. The two requested technician positions and the companion module E-301 would allow the maintenance of a check‑logging system to improve security and bring us into compliance with statute.
E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page DMV-50
Enhancement unit E-300 requests the purchase of document imaging/filming equipment for the microfilm section responsible for maintaining current record information. Courts, law enforcement agencies, other State and local government agencies, and the general public rely on the department’s record information. We are requesting the current microfilm cameras and optical character recognition (OCR) equipment be replaced by the implementation of document imaging to improve the department’s document repository, record retention, and provide for efficient information retrieval. The present equipment is old and breaks down frequently. During FY 2002, the 8-year-old cameras were down for repairs a total of 697 hours, and for FY 2003 a total of 1,000 hours so far. Camera downtime since FY 2001 prevented the department from filming approximately 3.2 million documents. The equipment is becoming obsolete and maintenance support is not guaranteed. The cost comparison, coupled with the department’s move toward digitized document management, would prove more cost-effective. The acquisition of this equipment would also benefit the field office technicians by allowing them the opportunity to research digitized documents from their workstations. Currently, the technicians must leave their windows to perform this task, contributing to the customer wait time. If this equipment is not approved, the backlog of documents waiting to be filmed will grow and additional storage will be needed.
E-301 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page DMV-50
Enhancement unit E-301 is the companion module for E-278. This equipment will be used to scan and record revenue received by mail so daily deposits can be made in compliance with statute. The equipment is about the size of a printer and will allow staff to pull checks from the registration renewals, scan them, prepare them for deposit and provide a check log. The technicians can enter the transactions to renew the registration without ever handling the revenue. This will ensure efficiency in this section regarding internal controls.
E-304 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page DMV-51
Enhancement unit E-304requests the funding to lease or purchase equipment enabling the department to produce decals, rather than contracting with a vendor. This equipment would ensure the ability to control the production, security, and inventory of decals from a secure, centralized location. The department currently orders decals and preprinted data mailers from a vendor 1 year in advance. As a result we must project the anticipated use, which is becoming increasingly difficult with the population growth and the increased usage of the Web. There is a bill being considered this session allowing a 2‑year registration. This equipment would provide the means for the department to issue 2-year registration decals. In the past, the need to preorder decals has resulted in excessive or inadequate stock, causing waste or costly emergency orders. Vendors produce decals in rolls of 500, as a minimum, to keep costs down. This equipment will allow the department to produce and deliver decals to an office in smaller amounts causing less waste. By controlling the production of decals, the department could maintain inventory levels as usage directs, discontinue the lengthy manual processing of transactions caused by inadequate supplies, and issue decals meeting the department’s standards.
Senator Rhoads:
Could you elaborate on your reference to State law requiring that funds in excess of $10,000 must be deposited by the following day?
Ms. Barnes:
Currently the mail for the registration by mail section sits in trays after delivery until the technician takes it out to process the renewals. That could take 1 to 3 days. In order to bring us into compliance, we would like to deposit the money before the technician actually processes the renewal.
Senator Rhoads:
Would the two new positions be involved in that process?
Ms. Barnes:
That is correct.
Senator Rhoads:
Have reductions in overtime been included in this recommendation?
Ms. Lewis:
Are you asking about the overtime request in the overall budget being reduced in anticipation of additional staff?
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
This has to do with overtime in the mail-in renewal section. If these two positions were to be approved, would there be an overtime reduction from last fiscal year in the upcoming biennium?
Ms. Lewis:
I think we would have to go back and look at that. We used overtime in order to get the title section caught up. We are asking for additional staff there. It seems logical that we would have a corresponding reduction in our overtime need with the additional staff. We can look at it.
Senator Rhoads:
The vehicle renewal transactions by mail have decreased from some 600,000 in 1999-2000 to 560,000 in 2001-2002. Why do you need new positions in light of this decrease in workload?
Ms. Barnes:
The reason for the decrease is because many people now use our alternative methods, the Web, telephone, and emission stations.
E-277 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-49
Senator Rhoads:
Could you elaborate on the need for two positions in E-277? How will these positions impact the title turnaround time?
Ms. Barnes:
This involves 2.5 positions for the title section. We anticipate a decrease in the turnaround time of at least 2 days based on the implementation of these positions.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the turnaround time now, about 14 days?
Ms. Barnes:
Actually, it is now 16 days. We would like to reduce turnaround time to 14 days with these positions, but, ultimately, our goal is less than that.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the impact of errors made by field office staff in processing title documents on the title processing unit in central services? Does the field office staff process a greater percentage of titles than in previous years?
Ms. Lewis:
One of the changes made when we implemented this system was the decentralization of titling. The technicians in the field offices now have the ability to respond to customer requests for titles by entering relevant information in the system. Because this is a new process for field technicians, the error rate has been significantly higher than that in central services. Central services technicians have developed significant expertise. Additional training has taken place. There is an impact on central services since the staff in Carson City has to deal with error correction. We are working on sending the errors back to the originator in the field. If the technician understands why he made an error, he will learn from that experience. Once that process is in place, that is, putting the correspondence back in the field office where the error occurred, central services will be helped.
Senator Rhoads:
Would you comment on requiring the transfer to microfilm? I think we provided money last session to transfer records to microfilm.
Ms. Lewis:
Are you referring to the contract we had with State Micrographics?
Senator Rhoads:
Yes. Could you give us the status of the backlog, how the work is progressing, and what you are doing to solve the problem? How would you comply with State statutes and regulations if document imaging were used to retain documents?
Ms. Lewis:
The contract we had with State Micrographics occurred in FY 2002. We have paid them the total amount we had received for assistance in microfilming. When State Micrographics gave us a proposal, they did not understand the magnitude of microfilming vehicle titles. Once we worked through that, we assumed the title backlog microfilming and they did some additional driver’s licenses. They are still working on the project. They have committed to a completion date of June 2003. We are not paying them additional money since they committed to the microfilming. Our microfilm backlog is now over 5 million documents. The new requested equipment for statutory compliance regarding microfilming does two things. It microfilms and produces output in a document imaging environment so that it can be accessed by technicians in the field while we remain in compliance with document retention requirements.
Senator Rhoads:
Could you explain more on the decals? If you order them in advance, will you know how many you need each month?
Ms. Barnes:
We have four different colors that can be used in a 4-year period. We will be reusing the colors at a later time. If we over‑purchase, we will be able to use the stock in later years. We will be using a different color for each year.
Senator Rhoads:
Will this increase the budget savings as compared to previous years?
Ms. Barnes:
Currently, the pre-printed data mailers are purchased from a different budget.
Senator Rhoads:
Staff tells me your proposal would increase the cost to the State of producing license plate decals and mailers.
Ms. Barnes:
The per-unit cost is a little bit more.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-48
Senator Rhoads:
Would you elaborate on the positions associated with E-275?
Ms. Barnes:
Two positions are requested for the tag plant. We now have a problem in keeping the tag plant open for daily operations. We make deliveries every day. We make both a northern and a southern run to deliver plates to our offices. This leaves only one person at the tag plant to supervise the inmates and take care of daily operations.
Senator Rhoads:
How many special license plates do we have?
Ms. Barnes:
I think we have 14. There are probably 100 different types of plates, but we have 14 specialty plates with different backgrounds. There are four pending, and quite a few proposals this session.
Senator Rhoads:
What does it take to get a specialty plate? What are some of the specialty plates?
Ms. Barnes:
Among our specialty backgrounds are Future Farmers of America, the rodeo plate, and the Lake Tahoe plate. We consider a specialty plate as a plate having a specific background. Other plates have the current standard sunset background.
Senator Rhoads:
We are likely to have additional questions that staff will provide in writing.
DMV, Verification of Insurance – Budget page DMV-77 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 201-4731
Ms. Barnes:
Budget Account 201-4731 is self-funded and funds the insurance verification program. At the close of FY 2002, this budget reverted $7,833,559 to the Highway Fund. Funds are generated by utilizing information provided by insurance companies toward the identification of uninsured motorists traveling Nevada roadways. This budget was prepared in accordance with Executive Budget instructions. If there are no questions, I will turn to the one major enhancement module in this budget.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-78
Enhancement unit E-275 requests two positions for the insurance verification program. This program has never run at full capacity and we believe it has the potential to effectively reduce the uninsured motorist rate if given the resources to address every lapse of insurance coverage. The program currently addresses added and cancelled insurance coverage from the information provided by the insurance companies. Approximately 900 postcards are sent daily to verify insurance coverage of Nevada drivers. We would like to increase this number to 1200 cards per day. The requested staff would allow the verification section to maximize the effectiveness of the program’s goal to identify and remove uninsured motorists from Nevada’s roads.
Senator Rhoads:
The department did not receive new positions as it increased the number of verification notices sent to citizens from 250 to 900 daily over the biennium. Why are new positions required to send out 300 more notices daily?
Ms. Barnes:
With 1200 cards a day, the positions will increase our telephone coverage. We also need people to input information. The 2.5 positions will provide for this.
Senator Rhoads:
How do you police insurance coverage? Does the insurance company notify the department when someone purchases insurance?
Ms. Barnes:
The insurance company sends us a tape informing us of any additions and deletions from company coverage. We then match that information against our database to determine whether there is a record in the system.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you have a way to check for next-day cancellations?
Ms. Barnes:
Usually insurance companies will resend that information. We run input against our database most every day.
Senator Rhoads:
When do you anticipate hitting 1200 daily?
Ms. Barnes:
We would like to do it as soon as we have the necessary resources.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the driving need to increase the number of verification notices?
Ms. Barnes:
The entire point of the program is to get uninsured motorists off the highways. We are finding that some people purchase insurance, register their vehicles, and then immediately cancel their insurance. The program seeks to identify this.
Senator Rhoads:
Would you explain why vehicle registration suspensions exceeded the number of reinstatements processed each year?
Ms. Barnes:
Part of the reason for the difference between suspensions and reinstatements is that often information is sent to us that does not match that already in the system. For instance, if your name were on the registration, a business name was on the insurance, and these did not match, we would send out a notice to the customer to try to determine a resolution. We might involve the insurance company as well. Additionally, people do not always reinstate with us.
DMV, Motor Vehicle Pollution Control – Budget page DMV-83 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4722
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
This budget deals with the department’s vehicle emission control program. It supports 31 staff, primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with state air quality laws and regulations as they relate to vehicle emissions and testing. Employees in this account provide training and certification for all licensed emission inspectors; conduct inspections, investigations, and audits of licensed emission stations; enforce the state’s opacity laws as they relate to heavy‑duty diesel vehicles; and inspect dealer vehicle inventories to ensure the presence and proper installation and operation of emission equipment. Also, staff members routinely serve on various air quality boards and forums, and cooperate with the State Division of Environmental Protection and local air quality agencies to develop and implement strategies to improve air quality. The Governor’s recommended base budget includes the continued funding of the permanent positions in this account.
Assemblyman Parks:
Would you comment on the increase in cost of smog certificates, apparently to provide additional funding to local air quality programs?
E-376 Environmental Policies & Programs – Page DMV-85
Mr. Benzler:
That is in E-376. This decision unit seeks to increase revenue to the pollution control account by increasing the fee for emissions certificates from $5 to $7. The unit is supported by Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-1266, which will be introduced later in the session. As indicated in our handout on this budget account (Exhibit H), the request is driven by substantial fund increases requested by the various state and county agencies supported by the account. The proposed change will fund those increases while also keeping the reserve in the black. Once implemented, the increase will provide an additional dollar to each county under a dedicated grants program. That additional dollar will be in lieu of their request for additional funding under the provisions of NRS 445B.830.2(d), which relates to the priority level for funding of certain agencies. The remaining dollar is intended to offset the funding needs of State agencies.
Assemblyman Parks:
Is the dollar that would go to state agencies needed to retain the reserves?
Mr. Benzler:
When we put the proposal together, we were looking to fill a large hole. After the Governor’s budget was released, there were changes to the agency requests. Presently, if we maintain the $5 fee, the reserve would be sufficient to fund the state agencies, but it would not address the county requests for additional funding. Those requests are $1.5 million annually.
Assemblyman Parks:
Could you comment on Senate Bill (S.B.) 189 and how it would impact your operations?
SENATE BILL 189: Provides for biennial inspection and testing of emissions in certain counties. (BDR 40-1018)
Mr. Benzler:
That bill from Senator Titus creates biennial testing for vehicles of model year 1996 and above. The bill has a large fiscal impact as currently written. We have submitted a fiscal note. I do not have the figures with me now, but it involves several hundred thousand dollars.
Assemblyman Parks:
Have you taken a position on the bill?
Mr. Benzler:
We have not. I understand there will be more meetings to discuss the bill’s specific provisions. Our concern is the fiscal impact.
Assemblyman Parks:
Would you address the set-aside funding for capital construction under E-350? The recommendation is for $400,000 annually to fund a 3400 square foot addition to the petroleum laboratory in Reno.
E-350 Service at Level Closest to People – Page DMV-85
Mr. Benzler:
That request of $400,000 annually is to support construction of a fuel-testing lab for the department of agriculture. Apparently it has a capital improvement request pending that may even be heard today. This request is to support that construction. Additionally, the decision unit requests a set‑aside in the amount of $400,000 annually in anticipation of adding a second emission lab during the FY 2005 and FY 2006 biennium to serve the growing population of Clark County. While there is no capital improvement request currently pending for this project, the department intends to have one for consideration by the next Legislative session.
Assemblyman Parks:
The funding from the pollution control account recommended for the Reno expansion does not seem to be consistent with the estimated time frame for the expenditure of cash. Can you comment on this apparent discrepancy?
Ms. Lewis:
I would like clarification. Are you addressing the emission lab for Las Vegas, or the agriculture lab?
Assemblyman Parks:
I am interested in the agriculture lab in Reno.
Ms. Lewis:
I am not aware of the capital improvement budget timing. I do not know when construction is slated.
Assemblyman Parks:
Are you just allocating funds for that improvement?
Ms. Lewis:
The decision unit contains two issues. It contains the agriculture lab. Agriculture approached us, informed us of their capital improvement submission, and that forms part of the decision unit. The other part involves our anticipated need for a second lab in Clark County. We have not submitted a capital improvement request, but plan to do so for the next Legislative session.
Assemblyman Parks:
In the interest of time, I am going to ask staff to work with you on timing. Why should we set aside funds now for the Clark County project?
Ms. Lewis:
The approach the department took last fall, while working on budget issues, was to identify all future demands on the reserve. We worked on projections through FY 2007, much as we have done in the past because so many agencies are impacted by this account. The responsible approach was to put all our plans on the table. Our plans for a second lab in Clark County were included. While the expenditure is not immediate, we wanted to ensure that the funds were obligated and that we had an accurate picture of the reserve.
Assemblyman Parks:
I am going to ask the staff to work with you on this. We also have some concerns regarding the balance forward on that account.
Would you comment on the addition of one compliance investigator?
Mr. Benzler:
That comes pursuant to a request from Washoe County. The Division of Environmental Protection supported it. The investigator position would expand the heavy-duty diesel enforcement program into Washoe County. Like Clark County, Washoe County has been declared an area in serious non-attainment. This request is intended to address its needs.
Assemblyman Parks:
I think there was also a request for a police package on a vehicle. Would you explain the operation of this program as it pertains to the need for police equipment?
Mr. Benzler:
This operation involves uniformed officers traveling in marked vehicles who stop vehicles exceeding the state’s opacity requirements. In other words, they make traffic stops. For safety reasons, we want to ensure they have the proper equipment. The vehicles we are requesting would replace the original vehicles.
DMV, Records Search – Budget page DMV-89 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 201-4711
Ms. Barnes:
The record sales and certification unit has the responsibility of researching and disseminating driver license and vehicle registration information to insurance companies, financial institutions, vehicle dealerships, attorneys, enforcement agencies, courts, other governmental agencies, and the general public. Revenue for this self-funded budget is generated from fees collected by processing these requests. At the end of FY 2002, this budget reverted $5,820,297 to the Highway Fund. The budget was prepared in accordance with Executive Budget instructions. Maintenance unit M-500 and Enhancement unit E-928 are companion modules for cleanup of a position inadvertently left in B/A 4741 following the reorganization in 1999.
Assemblyman Parks:
It appears as though a transfer into the account offsets the transfer out of this account.
Ms. Barnes:
Those are two separate positions, so there is no net change.
Assemblyman Parks:
What are the duties of the position recommended for transfer from the central services account?
Ms. Barnes:
That position is a supervisor dedicated to sales and certification. We really need it in the correct account.
Senator Rhoads:
We are going to roll the last budget we were scheduled to hear today over into our next work session. With no indication of public comment either here or in Las Vegas, the meeting is adjourned at 10:27 am.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
James D. Earl,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman
DATE: