MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session May 12, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 1:35 p.m., on Friday, May 12, 1995, Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary L. Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Robert A. Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst Ron Steele, Program Analyst ASSEMBLY BILL 136 Makes various changes related to state financial administration. John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, explained A.B. 136 proposed three changes related to state financial management, specifically the changes in agency work programs and position reclassifications that currently require Interim Finance Committee (IFC) approval. The first and most significant change proposed is in section 1, subsection 4 on page 1 at line 14. The current law requires that work programs of over $2,000 that when combined with all other changes and allotments increases or decreases any allotment by either 10% or $25,000, whichever is less, must be approved by IFC. The proposed change would provide that a single work program that increases or decreases any allotment by $100,000 or more must be approved by the IFC. Anything less than that would not require approval. To put the change in perspective, Mr. Comeaux went back and looked at IFC activity for FY 1994 and FY 1995 to date. In FY 1994 at seven separate meetings of the committee, a total of 552 work programs were submitted to the committee. Of the 552 work programs, 379 were under $100,000 and would be eliminated from consideration if the bill were passed. That represents approximately 69% of the total. Of the total 552 work programs that were submitted, according to the records of the Department of Administration, none of them were denied and only 17 of them were changed. Of the 17 work programs that were changed, 7 were changed by the committee. Six of the work programs changed were under $100,000, which represents 1.1% of the total. For FY 1995 to date, 310 work programs had been submitted. Of the 310 work programs, 204, or approximately 66%, were under $100,000. Of the 310 total work programs, 2 were denied, but both of those were over $100,000, and a total of five had been changed, two by the committee, of which one was over $100,000 and one was under $100,000. Mr. Comeaux pointed out if what is proposed in A.B. 136 had been in effect over FY 1994 and FY 1995 to date, the practical effect would have been very small. Mr. Marvel inquired how closely A.B. 136 paralleled the bill of the 67th legislative session. Mr. Comeaux stated the bill was pretty close to the previous bill. There may have been a provision or two in the other bill that were not included in A.B. 136. Mr. Marvel stated it was the feeling of the committee that $100,000 might have been too high. Mr. Comeaux commented there was no magic in the way he arrived at $100,000. If the committee was comfortable with some figure below $100,000, Mr. Comeaux would agree. He did not feel the thresholds had changed since the law was put into effect, and just the effect of inflation would have probably doubled the threshold. Mr. Marvel pointed out the raise in the threshold would cut down on the paperwork, and Mr. Comeaux agreed. Mr. Comeaux remarked IFC was reviewing work programs which otherwise would not have been reviewed. He supported the concept of adjusting the thresholds. Mr. Price inquired what the theory behind A.B. 136 was. Mr. Comeaux stated the purpose was twofold, the first being to lighten the workload not only for IFC but also for the Budget Division. The agencies would continue to prepare the work program. Work programs which require IFC approval are reviewed twice, once to decide whether they should be submitted to IFC for approval and again after approval, so it would reduce the workload of the committee. The other purpose, due to the fact that the thresholds have not been adjusted since the law was passed, if the thresholds were right initially, they are not right anymore just due to inflation. For example, the absolute threshold presently is $2,000. Any work program over $2,000 may need to go to IFC for approval. If $2,000 was right 15 years ago, that same value is significantly higher when stated in terms of today's dollars, which would be $4,000 to $5,000. Mr. Price stated IFC provided a committee of the legislature an opportunity to keep track of what transpires between sessions, which also prepares a group of people for the next session. Mr. Comeaux stated that even under the existing law, most of the work programs submitted by agencies do not go to IFC because they are under the limits provided in the statutes. For example, total work programs received by the Budget Division in FY 1994 were 2,200, and only 552 were required to be submitted to IFC. The remainder of the work programs were either under $2,000 or were under 10% or $25,000 of the original allocation, whichever was less. Ms. Tiffany commented the reason the bill was not approved during the 67th legislative session was because changing the threshold became a difficult decision. She inquired what the difference in workload would be if the threshold was $10,000 versus $2,000. Mr. Comeaux stated he did not know because it would depend on the agency. Ms. Tiffany suggested looking at a different threshold to see how it would affect the workload. Mr. Comeaux pointed out the second change in A.B. 136 was in section 2, page 2, lines 34 through 38. The current law states that agencies other than the university and community college system and the vocational licensing boards may not change a position from one occupational class to another without the approval of IFC or the legislature when it is in session. The change would propose that the approval process be eliminated and agencies be required to notify the legislature within 30 days of any such reclassification. Mr. Comeaux stated the third change is in section 3 of A.B. 136 at the bottom of page 3, line 47. Currently, governmental grants not exceeding $50,000 which do not involve new employees and have been approved by the Budget Division may be accepted by agencies without IFC approval. The proposed change would increase the $50,000 threshold to $100,000, but it would leave the other criteria in effect. It would not involve new personnel and would require approval by the chief of the Budget Division. Mr. Comeaux commented there was one other housekeeping change indicated in the bill in section 4, line 36. The actions subject to IFC approval currently include NRS 353.224, the reclassification provision. The change would eliminate that provision and would be consistent with section 2. Mr. Marvel inquired if some grants were subject to a public hearing. Mr. Comeaux explained any grant containing that as a separate requirement, most notably block grants, are subject to a public hearing. Those grants would be sent to IFC regardless of the amount. Mr. Close asked if the same types of numbers were available on the grants as were available on the work programs. Mr. Comeaux stated he did not have the information with him but would provide it to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if section 2 was after personnel had approved the reclassification and provided notification. Mr. Comeaux responded yes. After the process has been completed by personnel, IFC must provide approval. It is suggested that the process be the same and notification would be provided to the legislature or IFC within 30 days. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there was a loophole that allowed some agencies to reclassify microcomputer specialists prior to the consolidation. She asked if the bill would widen the loophole. Mr. Comeaux remarked there was always room in the system for manipulation. He felt a number of the microcomputer specialists were marginal when they were reclassified. When the agency realized the position would be lost along with the person who performed other duties as well, the reclassification was rethought. Instead of 51% microcomputer specialist, it was really 51% other duties. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in favor of or in opposition to A.B. 136. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 136 and opened the hearing on A.B. 247. ASSEMBLY BILL 247 Makes appropriation to division of agriculture of department of business and industry for maintenance and repair of facilities leased by division of agriculture. Jack Armstrong, D.V.M., Acting Administrator, Division of Agriculture, introduced M. Kent "Tim" Hafen, Chairman of the Nevada State Board of Agriculture, who would provide the primary testimony regarding A.B. 247. Mr. Hafen explained A.B. 247 was a one-shot appropriation for repairs to the building currently occupied by the Division of Agriculture. The lease was first acquired in 1960 for a building constructed for the Division of Agriculture. The lease expires June 20, 1995. The terms of the current lease are costly, but the division would like to extend the lease for two years and negotiate a month-to-month lease thereafter until a new lease can be negotiated to include maintenance and janitorial services at a cost of $1.00 to $1.04 per square foot. In order to stay in the present building, it must be brought into compliance with specifications provided by the lease. The building is 16,000 square feet. Because of budget reductions, the janitorial staff was laid off in February 1992. Those services have since been provided by the staff of the Division of Agriculture on a rotational basis. However, there are a couple of items that need to be brought into compliance before a new lease can be negotiated. Mr. Hafen noted the cost to bring the building and the parking lot into compliance is $26,180, of which 71%, or $15,985, would come from the general fund. The industry or nongeneral funds total 29%, or $10,000. The repairs include $1,720 for concrete steps, $7,680 for painting inside, $6,870 for painting outside, and $9,910 for overlayment of the parking lot. Mr. Hafen stated he was not satisfied the overlayment of the parking lot should be borne by the Department of Agriculture. However, the parking lot repair entered into the negotiations for the new lease. The old lease was not specific but indicated repair to the parking lot may be the responsibility of the lessee, and a deputy Attorney General gave an opinion it was the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. Chairman Arberry expressed concern over the expenses related to the repair of the property which would be leased for only two more years. Mr. Hafen stated the lease had been favorable to the present time at $0.51 per square foot. The department had the responsibility of repairs, maintenance and janitorial services under the terms of the old lease. There was a contention the property was not kept as it should have been. Chairman Arberry commented he did not support leases which required the state to maintain the property. Mr. Hafen pointed out the new lease would shift responsibility for the property maintenance and janitorial services to the owner. Mr. Allard asked if the lease was not renewed, would the state still need to make the repairs to be in line with the terms of the old lease. Mr. Hafen indicated that was the opinion of the deputy Attorney General. Mr. Close inquired if the parking lot had to be overlaid or if it could be sealed. Mr. Hafen replied it needed to be overlaid. When Mrs. Brower asked if the old lease was $0.51 per square foot, Dr. Armstrong replied yes. Mrs. Brower inquired if it was true that the current lease was $0.51 per square foot, the state was going to make repairs to the building and parking lot, and the lease would increase to $1.04. Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, stated he had been involved with the Department of Agriculture regarding the old lease and in contemplation of the new lease. The new lease would likely not be associated with the current building. The lease market rate in Reno is currently $1.00 to $1.05 per square foot for a full-service building, and the rate may be higher for the new lease because of special applications regarding the laboratory and additional plumbing. The old lease is $0.51 per square foot for a net lease where the lessee does the maintenance. The addition of utilities could cost $0.18 and custodial would add $0.05 per square foot, for a total of approximately $0.75 per square foot for a 10-year-old lease. If the cost to the state for maintenance was prorated, the cost would still be less expensive than a full-service lease. In most cases, it is better to have a full-service lease because it is easier to budget the cost every two years. Mrs. Brower inquired what the price of the new lease would be. Mr. Meizel responded the new lease would probably be $1.00 or more per square foot for a full-service lease. Mrs. Brower queried for how long the rate of $0.51 per square foot would be effective. Mr. Meizel replied until July 30, 1995, but the lease would be extended for two years at an increased rate of approximately $0.60 or $0.61 per square foot. When Mr. Price requested the address of the leased building, Mr. Hafen replied 350 Capitol Hill, Reno, Nevada. Mr. Price inquired who the owners of the building were. Mr. Meizel replied two sisters by the name of Larena owned the building. Mr. Dini commented the current way of doing business was through net/net leases which benefited both the lessee and the lessor. Mr. Hafen remarked painting and fixing the steps was required by the lease, and the parking lot could be argued. But by overlaying the parking lot, it might make the landlord more amenable to a short two-year lease and a month-to-month lease thereafter which would provide the department the flexibility of searching for a new location. Chairman Arberry inquired if a new lease had been signed, and Mr. Hafen replied no. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 247. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 247 and opened the hearing on A.B. 248. ASSEMBLY BILL 248 Makes appropriation to division of agriculture of department of business and industry for trucks and safety clothing and equipment for plant industry program. Robert Gronowski, Bureau Chief, Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, explained A.B. 248 was an appropriation in the amount of $175,942 for trucks and safety equipment involved with the weights and measures function. A request was being made for a truck, a hoist mechanism and a trailer operated as one unit to test scales at large plants at a replacement cost of $150,000. The current truck is a Mack which was purchased in 1974 and has 218,306 miles on it. The hour meter indicates the engine has 8,472 hours of running time. From 1991 to 1994 repairs on the Mack truck have totaled $17,193.45, and in 1995 repairs include $800 for the clutch, $500 for air lines, $100 for air valves, $1,000 for bushings on the rear axle, and $800 for a transmission synchronizer. The hoist lifts two 1,000- pound weights simultaneously to be placed on a scale or a hopper. The hoist is 24 years old and has been rebuilt three or four times. The hoist extension is bent. The extension rollers and nylon pads have become worn. The cost to repair the hoist is $600. Mr. Gronowski noted the second request is for a new gasoline testing vehicle at a cost of $24,425. The state has 10,092 gas pumps, of which 99% are large gas stations. The latest station built in Las Vegas has 80 pumps. The task of sampling each pump by hand is impossible. The new equipment would allow testing to be accomplished 10 times faster and would reduce the need for one additional inspector in the next biennium. Mr. Gronowski described the last request as $794 for FY 1996 and $723 for FY 1997 for safety equipment for weights and measures inspectors. In the past, the inspectors had been required to purchase their own equipment or go without. OSHA requires the state to provide safety equipment for hazardous jobs. The weights and measures section has the highest rate of injury due to the large weights and the employment conditions. The safety equipment would help cut the accident rate. Mr. Marvel inquired what the charge for the scale test is. Mr. Gronowski replied a large platform scale costs from $100 to $160 per scale. Mr. Marvel asked if the Mack truck tested scales statewide. Mr. Gronowski stated the truck was only for southern Nevada. A similar vehicle was replaced four years ago for northern Nevada. Mr. Marvel noted he paid $40 in the past to be weighed at a small livestock scale. He inquired if the state had a fee schedule. Mr. Gronowski replied yes and pointed out the livestock scale was a much smaller vehicle with a maximum of 20,000 pounds. The large scales were for 100,000 pounds and above for asphalt plants and aggregate hopper type plants. Mr. Marvel queried whether the fee charged by the state covered the cost of service. Mr. Gronowski stated the fee covered approximately half of the cost, including the salary of the employees and mileage. The other half came from the general fund. Mr. Marvel asked if depreciation was factored in. Mr. Gronowski replied no, since the trucks needed replacement only once every 20 years. Mr. Marvel inquired if an advance had been charged in the past for gasoline tests. Mr. Gronowski stated he had been directed to charge a fee prior to service. He recommended to the Board of Agriculture that the practice of advanced billing be stopped, and the suggestion was subsequently approved by the board. Mr. Hafen explained approximately three years ago the Board of Agriculture approved a policy of billing in advance for all fees as a matter of economics and efficiency. The Department of Agriculture was audited, and it showed approximately $29,000 had been collected for which services were not provided. It was proposed that the money be refunded. The refund money will be derived from stale claims, budget savings, and salary savings. Starting July 1 billing will be provided at the time of service. Mr. Hettrick requested information about the three 5-gallon tanks. Mr. Gronowski explained the tanks were certified by national standards to measure five gallons, and they increased efficiency 10 to 20 times over performing the measuring process by hand. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in favor of or in opposition to A.B. 248. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 248 and opened the hearing on A.B. 249. ASSEMBLY BILL 249 Makes appropriation to division of agriculture of department of business and industry for veterinary medical services. Dr. Armstrong explained the appropriation contained in A.B. 249 was for various items of equipment in Veterinary Medical Services. The primary expenditure is for replacement of two vehicles in addition to certain laboratory equipment. Chairman Arberry inquired if the refrigerator for Veterinary Medical Services was the type that used the new Freon and was more expensive to repair. Dr. Armstrong replied the refrigerator was the standard household side-by-side type. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 249. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 249 and opened the hearing on A.B. 250. ASSEMBLY BILL 250 Makes appropriation to state predatory animal and rodent committee for equipment. Gary Simmons, State Director, Cooperative Animal Damage Control Program, explained A.B. 250 was an appropriation for specialized safety equipment identified as a result of an Executive Order signed by the Governor in 1993 on workplace health and safety. The Cooperative Animal Damage Control Program was reviewed and a safety plan was designed for the program which identified necessary safety equipment. The equipment was primarily for helmets, flight suits, and flight gloves as depicted in Exhibit C for those employees who do aerial hunting. The request also includes a net gun and a tranquilizer gun, both for use in controlling animals primarily in urban areas. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 250. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 250 and opened the hearing on A.B. 251. ASSEMBLY BILL 251 Makes appropriation to Nevada junior livestock show board for gate panels to ensure safety of exhibitors, spectators and animals. Stephanie D. Licht, representing the Department of Business and Industry as the leader of the Rural Services Agriculture Cluster, explained A.B. 251 was an appropriation for panels for the Junior Livestock Show Board. She introduced John Jeans, who would present testimony regarding the bill. John Jeans, Education Consultant, Department of Education, stated he served on the Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board, was a Nevada FFA advisor and worked closely with a number of youth groups. He expressed concern for a number of hog panels used primarily by the Nevada Junior Livestock Show Boards, but they were also shared by the state and county fairs. The panels were 10 to 15 years old and presented a safety concern to the exhibitors, spectators, and the animals. Ms. Licht read into the record a letter of support for A.B. 251 (Exhibit D). Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 251. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 251 and opened the hearing on A.B. 252. ASSEMBLY BILL 252 Makes appropriation to office of state public defender of department of human resources for computer hardware and software. James J. Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender, explained A.B. 252 was an appropriation for computers for the State Public Defender's office. He provided a handout to the committee of Findings and Recommendations from the legislative audit and a breakdown of the appropriation in A.B. 252 (Exhibit E). Mr. Jackson indicated the State Public Defender's office has no computer equipment. Tasks are completed manually with respect to record keeping and budgetary matters. The office uses IBM Wheelwriters to prepare documents. The appropriation in A.B. 252 is an initial request for three computers in Carson City, one computer in each of the two regional offices in Winnemucca and Ely. Mr. Fettic inquired what the effect of the various crime bills will be on the office of the State Public Defender. Mr. Jackson stated the result will be more work. Mr. Fettic stated the need for the computers will become even greater, and Mr. Jackson agreed. Mr. Arberry asked if county funds could be used to offset some of the expenses for the computers or was it all to come from the general fund. Mr. Jackson responded the reason for the general fund appropriation is because this was seen as the initial step as called for in the audit. The first request was slightly larger and was broken down. It was then rewritten as an enhancement appropriation. Ms. Tiffany commented she would like to look to the counties for some support as opposed to all the funding coming from the general fund just because the audit report recommended automation. She asked if there would be any problems in acquiring some county funds. Mr. Jackson did not personally anticipate any problems. The counties wanted to find out as soon as possible exactly what their share of the cost will be. The bulk of the services went to county clients; however, state clients would benefit greatly, particularly those in Ely State Prison on death row. Ms. Tiffany asked what happened to the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR). Mr. Jackson explained the Department of Information Services (DIS) estimated it would cost $35,000 for the study. Ms. Tiffany asked if it was necessary to do the BPR since the State Public Defender's office was getting automation without the BPR. Mr. Jackson stated beyond the basic need for word processing, DIS wanted to study the type of programming that would be necessary for record keeping, case/client tracking, conflicts checking, etc. Mr. Arberry inquired if the budget process took into consideration any amount of money the counties might contribute toward the expense of the computers or would the state bear the cost and the county would add matching funds. Rebecca W. Ward, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, stated contributions by the county were not considered in the budget, but the Budget Division could look at splitting the cost. She believed the county paid 57% and the state 43%. Mr. Jackson noted DIS made an initial determination there was a need and a way to pay for the study through the legislative process plus sharing the expense with the counties. Ms. Tiffany requested justification in writing for the BPR. Mr. Dini stated he felt it would be an unfunded mandate for the counties. He inquired what counties were being served by the State Public Defender's office. Mr. Jackson replied the counties were Carson, Storey, White Pine, Eureka, Lincoln, Humboldt and Pershing. Chairman Arberry remarked that since the State Public Defender's office was doing work for the counties, it was not an unfunded mandate. Mr. Dini pointed out the legislature passed the laws that make the work of the public defender necessary; therefore, it was an unfunded mandate. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if a needs assessment had been performed. Mr. Jackson did not feel a formal needs assessment had been performed. The initial interview approximately three years prior was brief, and resulted in a short document indicating there was a need but further study on tracking would be necessary. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there was an apparent suggestion in 1994 for a two-phase approach, and the needs assessment would be between $25,000 and $35,000. She remarked the money might be better spent on equipment. Mr. Close inquired for how long the 57%:43% ratio between the state and the county had been in effect. Mr. Stevens explained the ratio changed based on the number of counties the State Public Defender's office served. If a county pulled out of service, the mix would change. Mr. Close asked how long the sharing program had been in effect. Mr. Stevens noted the State Public Defender has always been funded partially through the general fund and partially through the counties. Mr. Close asked if it was unusual for the counties to share in the cost of computers. Mr. Stevens commented that was for the committee to decide. Mr. Hettrick remarked there must be software for law offices available without the necessity of performing an assessment. He felt the money would be better spent on equipment. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 252. There being none, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 252. JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON MENTAL HYGIENE AND MENTAL RETARDATION Mr. Hettrick stated the subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12 has completed its review of the 12 budgets which provide support for the Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation. The subcommittee allowed the new administrator to review the budgets and present any modifications or changes before budget closings were considered by the subcommittee. As a result of the administrator's review, a number of changes are recommended in the division's budgets to more adequately reflect the needs of the clients during the coming biennium. Funding changes Overall the Executive Budget recommends an increase in general fund of approximately 10 percent in FY 1996 and an additional 4 percent in FY 1997. The joint subcommittee, in their closing actions, has recommended the general fund be increased an additional $92,414 in FY 1996 and an additional $249,155 in FY 1997. Before addressing specific budget accounts, the subcommittee reviewed and made recommendations in three policy areas. 1. In-patient hospital admission policy changes The new administrator of the division, in conjunction with psychiatric and clinical staff, re-examined the admission policies at the two major mental health in-patient facilities and determined that budget modifications would be necessary. As a result, the in-patient census at the Las Vegas Mental Health Center was increased to 79 clients from the budgeted 55. At the Nevada Mental Health Institute, the projected in-patient census was increased to 52 clients versus 40. 2. Mental retardation out-of-state placements The joint subcommittee became aware of the out-of-state placement of a number of mentally retarded clients (both adults and children). As a result, the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation presented budget modifications for the northern and southern Nevada mental retardation budgets in order to bring back approximately 24 children to the state of Nevada beginning in August, 1995. This may require additional budget adjustments in the Welfare Division's Medicaid budget which has not yet been closed. Mr. Hettrick stated it was his recollection there were beds not being used, and a significant amount of money was being expended for out-of-state placement. Bringing the children back to Nevada would not necessarily be less expensive, but it would be easier for the families with children in Tennessee or Utah to visit their children. 3. Title XIX match In order to more properly track the Title XIX (Medicaid) match, within the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the subcommittee is recommending that a separate medical payments/expenditure category be created for the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation within the Welfare Division's Medicaid budget. This will allow the state to more closely monitor the expenditure of Title XIX funds in support of mental hygiene and mental retardation activities. The subcommittee is also recommending that the division periodically report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau the amount of general fund dollars utilized as match for federal Title XIX funds. Budgets recommended to be closed Mental Hygiene/Mental Retardation Administration Page 1013 The joint subcommittee concurred with the request of the administrator to move the medical program coordinator positions from the Nevada Mental Health Institute and Las Vegas Mental Health Center budgets to the Central Administrative budget along with the proposed new quality assurance units. This will allow maximum control and flexibility of these important functions. The subcommittee is also recommending that one of the medical program coordinators be compensated an additional $12,000 for assuming additional statewide responsibilities. One of the coordinators will oversee the entire program. Mental Hygiene/Mental Retardation Regional Training Page 1019 The joint subcommittee recommends that this budget be closed Governor recommends. Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services Page 1023 The joint subcommittee agreed to modify the budget to accommodate an in-patient population of 79 clients in each year of the coming biennium over the budgeted amount of 55 clients. The subcommittee concurred with the Governor's recommendation to provide a new treatment site in North Las Vegas. In addition, the subcommittee recommended an additional service site to be located in Henderson. The Henderson office is projected to start in January 1996 with a staff of seven positions including a full-time senior psychiatrist and would cost approximately $236,000 in FY 1996 and $414,000 in FY 1997. Mental Health and Mental Retardation Food Service Page 1035 The joint subcommittee recommends that this budget be closed Governor recommends with the exception of technical adjustments necessary to accommodate the additional increase in in-patient census at the Las Vegas Mental Health Center. Nevada Mental Health Institute Page 1039 The subcommittee recommends that the budget be modified to adequately handle an in-patient census of 52 clients each year of the coming biennium. In addition, due to past problems in administrative direction and turnover of medical and administrative personnel, the Nevada Mental Health Institute was recently notified by the Health Care Financial Administration (HCFA) that unless significant changes were made, the facility would be facing de-certification within 90 days. As a result, the joint subcommittee is recommending additional funding for building renovation as well as three psychiatric social workers and one clerical support position for records and charting. This will address problems determined by the HCFA survey. The adjustments were made so the state would not lose matching funds. Facility for the Mental Offender Page 1049 In reviewing the budget and staffing of the Lakes Crossing facility, the subcommittee and the division became concerned about the inadequate staffing levels for the higher in-patient census of 36 clients. The Executive Budget was constructed anticipating an in-patient census of 32 clients, however, the facility has been at full capacity of 36 clients. In order to provide adequate in-patient staffing levels, it is recommended that three additional forensic specialist positions be added to the budget. Rural Clinics Page 1055 The Executive Budget is recommending the re-establishment of a number of offices including Battle Mountain, Lovelock and Fernley. The Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation requested that the openings of Lovelock and Battle Mountain be delayed, however, the joint subcommittee felt it was imperative that with the opening of the new Lovelock prison that the rural clinics office in Lovelock should not be delayed. However, at the request of the agency, the subcommittee has agreed that the Battle Mountain office be delayed until 2-1-96. The joint subcommittee is also recommending that a new Silver Springs office be established to meet the growing demand for services in the Silver Springs area. The new Silver Springs office would be delayed until April 1996 and is projected to cost approximately $39,842 in FY 1996 and $105,654 in FY 1997. Southern Nevada Mental Retardation Services Page 1063 The subcommittee recommends budget adjustments for the return of six mentally retarded clients who are currently placed out-of-state to be returned in August 1995 and six additional clients to be returned in November 1995. State staff would return to the Desert Developmental Campus to operate the 12 beds. This will require adjustments within the welfare Medicaid (Title XIX) budget to pay for two six-bed ICFMR facilities in the community to be operated by private providers. Northern Nevada Mental Retardation Services Page 1073 Budget adjustments are also necessary within this budget in order to return six mentally retarded clients to Nevada in August 1995 and six additional clients in November 1995. State staff would return to the southern developmental campus to operate the 12 beds. Additional adjustments will be necessary in the welfare Medicaid (Title XIX) budget to pay for two six- bed ICFMR facilities in the community to be operated by private providers. Community Training Centers Page 1081 The joint subcommittee has provided additional funding to meet the waiting list demands for the Community Training Center programs with funding provided for approximately 41 additional clients. In addition to a 6 percent rate increase in FY 1996, and an additional 3.5 percent increase in FY 1997, it is recommended that the payment rates be adjusted to more properly reflect the costs and appropriate payment levels. Payments to the Community Training Centers are spread throughout four budget accounts, and the net increase of the recommended changes is approximately $193,000 in general fund in FY 1996 and $198,000 in general fund in FY 1997. Rural Mental Retardation Services Page 1083 The joint subcommittee recommends only minor technical adjustments to properly reflect the proposed receipt of Title XX (Social Services) disbursements from the separate Social Services budget. In addition, at the request of the division, the subcommittee recommends that the name of this budget account be changed from Residential Placement to Rural Mental Retardation Services to more accurately reflect the services provided. Family Preservation Page 1091 The subcommittee recommends that this budget be closed Governor recommends, however, it is recommended that the name of this account be changed from Mental Retardation Home Care to Family Preservation to more accurately reflect the services provided. Mr. Hettrick stated he would be happy to answer any questions concerning the subcommittee's recommendations on closing the Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation budgets. Ms. Tiffany noted she voted against the community training center budget. She requested clarification of $183,198 recommended for the backlog. Mr. Hettrick stated the report was in the budget package on pages 29 and 30. The community training centers (CTC) received $83,000 in FY 1994, which was removed from their base budget when it was not spent. The $83,000 was recommended to be replaced in order to pick up 19 clients from the waiting list. To eliminate the remaining waiting list, $102,100 for FY 1996 and $105,668 for FY 1997 was also added. Ms. Tiffany requested the budget be held because she felt it was too much money and there was no justification for it. There was no government agency that she knew of that had their waiting list completely eliminated. For instance, the Drug Commission had 1,600 patients waiting. Chairman Arberry stated staff did their best to provide information to the committee before the closing. It would be at the pleasure of the committee to hold the entire budget until Monday in order to review the information or to close the budgets except the CTC's. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the private sector companies had done a good job of easing the state's responsibility, but she would be glad to listen to the debate regarding the CTC's. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE DIVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE AND MENTAL RETARDATION BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND TO HOLD THE COMMUNITY TRAINING CENTER BUDGET. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. * * * * * Mr. Dini stated he felt a lot of work went into the budgets. The programs were solid, they were dealing with disabled people, and the budget should go forward. Chairman Arberry called for a vote on the motion. * * * * * THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. PRICE, MRS. CHOWNING, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MR. SPITLER, AND MR. DINI VOTING NO. MR. HETTRICK ABSTAINED, AND MRS. EVANS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE ALL THE BUDGETS OF THE DIVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE AND MENTAL RETARDATION ACCORDING TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. MARVEL, MS. TIFFANY, MR. PRICE, MR. ALLARD, MR. CLOSE, AND MRS. BROWER VOTING NO. MRS. EVANS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. * * * * * Mrs. Brower stated she would like to hold the budget until she has an opportunity to review it. Mr. Spitler commented it was his understanding the purpose of holding a budget was to seek additional information. According to the remarks of Ms. Tiffany, she did not like what the subcommittee recommended. Ms. Tiffany pointed out the subcommittee heard the budget one time. Everyone agreed and a motion was made. The private sector people argued because they did not get everything they wanted, so the budget was held by Senator Rawson. When the subcommittee returned, there was no discussion. Ms. Tiffany stated Senator Rawson proposed the recommended closing adjustment, a five-minute discussion was held, there was a vote, and it was closed. So there was not enough information. Mr. Hettrick stated the budget was held the first time it was considered for closing because Brian Lahren said they were not sure what the motion was about and they did not understand what the subcommittee was doing. It was close to floor time, so they requested the budget be held until the next meeting, which the subcommittee did. At the next meeting, Mr. Lahren came with a written statement saying what was done was satisfactory, and that was when the budget was approved. Ms. Tiffany stated a motion was made with a recommendation on how to close the budget, but it did not address reducing the backlog. The motion was $83,000 would be reinstated and the rate would be changed; new numbers were then referenced and that adjustment requesting the new numbers was not discussed enough. Mr. Marvel inquired if the co-chairman of the subcommittee felt comfortable with all the budgets. Mr. Hettrick said he was comfortable with the budgets but he did not want there to be a feeling the budget could not be reviewed. When they are reviewed, he felt the same agreement would be made. Ms. Giunchigliani recommended holding the budgets until Monday so they could be reviewed. Mr. Hettrick pointed out the vote would have been different had Mrs. Evans been present, as she supported the subcommittee report. Mr. Marvel suggested closing the budgets with the exception of the CTC. Mr. Dini stated he did not mind holding CTC until Monday, but he felt strongly about the disabled people. It was his understanding the budgets were closed in subcommittee the way Mr. Hettrick presented them, and he voted accordingly based on that understanding. Ms. Tiffany remarked she was not representing a different thought. She wanted the committee as a whole to hear the exact justification. If the justification for the additional money to remove the entire backlog was heard, she would have been comfortable with the report. She wanted to hear more information from the agency head or the CTC with Mrs. Evans present because it was done too quickly. Mr. Close commented he voted no as a courtesy to any member of the committee who was concerned with the budget. He was impressed with the subcommittee's work in closing budgets and the consensus of the members. He hoped the process would continue. Mr. Marvel stated he gave Ms. Giunchigliani the same courtesy of holding a budget on a subcommittee he was chairing. Mr. Spitler felt he needed to trust the work of the subcommittee. But the reason he would like to see all the budgets held is because he would like to review all the budgets more carefully if Ms. Tiffany feels there was not an adequate hearing. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE DIVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE AND MENTAL RETARDATION BUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND TO HOLD THE COMMUNITY TRAINING CENTER BUDGET. * * * * * Ms. Giunchigliani stated the report was not received a day ahead of time and suggested holding all the budgets. Mr. Price inquired what difference holding all the budgets until Monday would make. Chairman Arberry stated after the subcommittee report was given by Mr. Hettrick, he asked what the pleasure of the committee would be, whether to hold all the budgets so the committee could review the information since staff did not present it in advance or to accept the report. The committee recommended closing all the budgets, then hold one budget, then close all. The idea was not whether the committee would be out by June 8. Chairman Arberry called for the pleasure of the committee, and it was decided to hold the budgets until Monday. There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jonnie Sue Hansen, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means May 12, 1995 Page