MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session May 3, 1995 The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Bob Coffin Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dean A. Rhoads Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Cristin Buchanan, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Charles M. McGee, Judge, Second Judicial District Margaret Springgate, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office Dawn Gibbons, Chairman, Children's Cabinet Sherri Lakin, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Drennan A. Clark, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military John E. Neill, Chief, Fiscal Services, Department of Prisons Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Frank Adams, Deputy Chief, Division of Investigation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Raymond L. Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Galen Mitchell, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Peace Officers Association Darrell Feemster, Coordinator, Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center Beverly Crawford, Interested Citizen Pat Johnson, Coordinator, Sun Valley Family Resource Center Rita McGary, Case Manager, Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center Bob Wolf, Vice Chairman, Children's Cabinet at Incline Village Carla Hanson, Executive Director, Children's Cabinet at Incline Village Catherine A. Blankenship, Executive Director, Boys & Girls Club of Western Nevada Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum Sheila Ward, Lobbyist, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition Sheila Leslie, Lobbyist, Children's Cabinet Gissou Farahi, Chairman, Alliance for Child Care Phillip Galeota, Lobbyist, City of Reno Marilyn Ives, Action for Nevada's Children Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 405. SENATE BILL 405: Provides for establishment of family resource centers in certain neighborhoods to provide and administer social services. Charles M. McGee, Judge, Second Judicial District, appeared before the committee to extend his support for S.B. 405. He stated the federal government eliminated $472 million in funding for the safe, drug-free school and communities program, leaving a budget of only $10 million for the program. President Clinton has cut assistance for delinquent and at-risk youth and battered women, by 75 percent, decreasing the grant from $50 million to $15 million. He commented, "In recognition of this...trend, we ...came up with some ideas about how to build...social services in a declining funding...environment." He reflected the community resource centers will allow the people from a community to design and operate a program which is reflective of the problems in that particular community. "It is about helping people to help themselves," he summarized. Senator Raggio questioned if the judge has been involved with the resource centers in Washoe County. Judge McGee replied that he is a founding director of the Children's Cabinet, which helped build a number of programs at minimal cost to the taxpayers. Senator Raggio inquired as to what percentage of taxpayer dollars are utilized for the resource centers and Judge McGee stated less than 50 percent. Senator Raggio reviewed section 5 of the bill and questioned how families can obtain social services at the family resource centers or whether the centers will be utilized primarily for assessment and referrals. Judge McGee clarified families can actually receive social services at the resource centers. Senator Raggio questioned what social service agencies assist at the resource centers. Judge McGee reflected each resource center assembles as wide a collaboration of social service agencies as possible, given the particular needs of that community. A letter from Judge McGee (Exhibit C) was distributed to the committee for the record. Senator Rhoads asked if a certain number of family resource centers have been planned and where are they going to be located. Margaret Springgate, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office, distributed a copy of a letter from Sandy Miller (Exhibit D) which details the history of the development of resource centers. Additionally, Ms. Springgate distributed copies of letters in support of S.B. 405 (Exhibit E) and prepared testimony urging support from state agency and department heads (Exhibit F and Exhibit G). Ms. Springgate reviewed the misconceptions of family resource centers and highlighted their goals and activities. She stated: The Governor recognized the strengths of the family resource centers...and saw that they could be the best avenue for a more friendly approach of social services. With the help of a trained coordinator, families would have better knowledge of what the state has to offer and better access to the services...There are...children, who today might be an education problem, tomorrow will be a welfare or prison problem...When a family goes into a resource center, the family is met by a coordinator who assesses what the family's needs are and...the families then can help themselves to build a stronger base. Ms. Springgate advised that of the total amount budgeted for family resource centers, $70,000 has been allocated for contract services with nonprofit organizations, such as the Children's Cabinet, to enable the superintendent of public instruction to "decide which areas, in terms of priority, are most in need of this service." The contractors will assist communities in developing neighborhood councils which will devise plans for family resource centers in their particular neighborhoods. Senator Raggio queried as to the availability of the appropriate groups and organizations within the target areas. Ms. Springgate replied, "There are a lot of nonprofit organizations, who deal with providing service, that could help the superintendent." Senator Raggio asked if the budgeted amount of $70,000 per year of the biennium is sufficient for contractual services and Ms. Springgate answered in the affirmative. He then questioned if the family resource centers will obtain funding from other sources, as well as from the state. Ms. Springgate indicated the family resource centers do have other funding sources. She clarified the funding allocated in the Executive Budget (School Improvement budget, page 181, Enhancement 126 Accessible, Flexible Responsive Government [E-126]) is not meant to cover all of the expenses for the centers. Senator Raggio requested clarification as to whether it is the Governor's wish to only partially fund the centers inasmuch as the centers will have other funding sources. He stated, "We need to establish whether the Governor is proposing a fully funded system, which...could be quite costly...The Governor is not requesting that General Fund appropriation be augmented at this time, is he?" Ms. Springgate indicated the Governor's proposal is to fully fund the contract services for developing the resource centers. She stated the funds allocated to the resource centers will be utilized for the coordinator only, not to pay for a location for the center or to provide classes. Senator Raggio asked if public schools are being contemplated for use for the centers. Ms. Springgate reflected public schools will be used if that is where a particular community decides to locate its family resource center. Senator Raggio commented, "We need to get an overall picture of how this will operate...While there may be support for the proposal, there would be concern about the financial obligation...being assumed by state participation..." Ms. Springgate explained: ...The superintendent [of public instruction], together with the contractors, will...prioritize, based upon the amount of money...available and the needs of the neighborhoods, to identify areas where...resource centers will be placed. We do not want these to fail, so we want to make sure that the coordinator is adequately funded and that the services can be provided. Ms. Springgate continued her testimony in support of S.B. 405, stating a Grant and Project Analyst position has been requested to research private and public funding, which will be utilized by state agencies to provide services to the resource centers. She clarified the budgets for the resource centers are not one-shot allocations, but rather General Fund appropriations, which the Governor intends to recommend in the following biennium. She commented: ...We anticipate a system where...people can reapply for the seed money ...and that the superintendent [will] be able to use money that she obtains through grants or gifts, for the purposes of the family resource center...There is nothing you can do that is more cost effective than in providing the individual approach envisioned in these family resource centers. Senator Raggio asked if the resource centers will provide parenting classes Ms. Springgate responded, "Again, it is what the community determines it needs, but I believe...most of the resource centers that exist now are very involved in teaching parenting classes." Senator Raggio inquired, "How would you get the parents, who really need the parenting skills, involved? They are not the ones that are going to go out there and form these centers." Ms. Springgate agreed on the initial hesitation on the part of many parents; however, the coordinators of the centers will actively seek out parents in an attempt to get them involved. Dawn Gibbons, Chairman, Children's Cabinet, submitted testimony (Exhibit H) in support of S.B. 405. Senator Raggio inquired as to the extent of involvement the Children's Cabinet has in northern Nevada. Ms. Gibbons recounted the Children's Cabinet has offices in Reno, Incline Village and Carson City, serving 11,606 families. The Children's Cabinet also helped establish the Family Cabinet in Las Vegas. Senator Jacobsen pointed out his concern over the increase in minority children in the rural counties and questioned if it will be more beneficial to locate the resource centers in schools where the children will be a captive audience. Ms. Gibbons indicated, " We could do it through the schools or through the churches, whatever is more convenient, and where the helping hand is going to be so that it is least costly to the government and to the taxpayers." Sherri Lakin, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, appeared before the committee in opposition to S.B. 405. She stated the family resource centers will bring social services to the campuses of schools and bring Nevada in compliance with federal legislation passed in 1994. Senator Raggio requested an analysis of the federal legislation Ms. Lakin referenced. Ms. Lakin assured the chairman she will provide him with the analysis of the legislation. She testified the federal legislation appropriates small grants to the states and dictates how the schools should operate. She implored: When looking at S.B. 405...ask yourselves do the members of the community feel the service is [a] proper function of the schools?...I do not believe Nevadans will want this service...I believe centralizing on-campus centers will cause other agencies to close...There is nothing in this bill that requires parental permission for treatment or counseling of a student...section 15 part d...talks about to educate and assist parents to help their children. I have seen...the teacher training material and...I believe most of it is parent bashing...it is indoctrinating parents into doing it the way the state would have them to do it. Senator Raggio clarified his concerns are whether public funding should be appropriated and whether schools should be utilized to house the resource centers. He emphasized S.B. 405 does not mandate the facility to be located at a public school nor does it mandate parents and children to participate. Ms. Lakin emphasized her position that the education community should not be involved in family resource centers. She stated: I think this is a roundabout way for getting child-care onto campuses and getting early intervention in the name of education readiness...Statistics show that early intervention is not always helpful with children... I can ...spend hours talking about early intervention, and the statistics that I have read...and how little it actually does, except to take the children out from the influence of parents. I...recently read...when kindergarten was started...the definition...given was a gentle way to remove the child from the mother's influence. Another thing that concerns me...is who is going to define at-risk...I have seen that at-risk definition...so broad that...any neighborhood...could be considered at-risk. I think it should be a more narrow definition, especially when we are going to pass a bill that speaks to that issue. Senator Raggio indicated the usual definition of an at-risk neighborhood is based upon the number of families receiving public assistance. Ms. Lakin countered that poverty should not be a predicate for determining at-risk families. She asserted, "We can't paint everyone with the same brush...and that is what I believe the at- risk definitions are doing." Senator Raggio emphasized the existence of statistics which show a relationship between the socio-economic status of a community and the level of crime committed within that community. Ms. Lakin expressed her disapproval "at the wording in this bill that gives the appointed bureaucrat the authority to appoint more bureaucrats...I feel it is taxation without representation." Senator Raggio inquired whether the Eagle Forum is proposing any amendments to the bill and Ms. Lakin answered in the negative. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to S.B. 405 and stated: This is nothing more nor less than school, health and welfare clinics that...are so very costly. Your own fiscal note shows...that this is only seed legislation, a pilot project, so you need to recognize that this would only be the beginning of the taxpayer cost. It was mentioned that this is intended to be a self-help system...I see it as an introduction to the government system...to foster dependency on...services. Ms. Lusk revealed some questions the committee should consider when making a decision on whether to pass the bill: Should you decide to pursue this bill, I am asking that...assurance be provided to answer these questions. How will all the residents in any given neighborhood be polled so that we do not have a problem where a select few are polled, and reach a certain conclusion, to the exclusion of others? How will all of the parents be a part of the decision-making process and will they have advanced written information...as to...the specific services that would be provided in these centers? If a minor is to be provided any services, will there be...specific advanced written consent from parents for specific services...In our opinion, there are better ways to use that money that will be of greater value in the lives of children... Senator Raggio declared: I am keenly aware of the present trend...on the utilization of taxpayer dollars for welfare. I do not support the idea that people should be kept on welfare forever. I believe that there has to be self-help, but that has to be generated in some way, and in these at- risk neighborhoods, if someone wants to step forth and help themselves, shouldn't we do that, even though it is taxpayer dollars? Ms. Lusk interjected by placing a family resource center in a school setting, there are no assurances, "That once placed in a school, that a child could not walk into that system and access those services without parental knowledge, and certainly there are no assurances in the bill that place...an assurance of advanced, specific written permission of parents." Senator Raggio concluded if a parent does not want to participate, he does not have to. The chairman commented, "I do not see the compulsion. I draw the same distinction...should we provide free lunches at school to at-risk children? We do so. Would you feel that that was inappropriate?" Ms. Lusk stated there is no relationship between the two programs the chairman referenced. She conceded the bill does not contain a compulsion for families to participate in the resource centers; however, neither is there protection written into the bill to provide parents with the right to consent to their children using the facilities. Senator Raggio drew attention to the fact that the bill is primarily focused towards parents rather than children. Ms. Lusk replied, "The wording is couched in the terms of families...the children could in fact walk in and access those services and...there is no assurance of parental involvement, parental knowledge and parental consent." Senator Raggio recessed the hearing on S.B. 405 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 413. SENATE BILL 413: Makes appropriation to state public works board for program of capital improvements for office of the military. Drennan A. Clark, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military, asserted the language in section 6 of the bill will need to be amended to reflect that any unexpended funds should be reverted after the completion of the project. He cited the reason for the amendment is the project may not be completed by June 30, 1997. There being no questions or comments from the committee, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 413 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 230. ASSEMBLY BILL 230: Makes appropriation to department of prisons for expenses related to opening of Lovelock correctional facility. Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed Exhibit I to the committee. John E. Neill, Chief, Fiscal Services, Department of Prisons, indicated Exhibit I is a summary of the changes negotiated between the department and the fiscal analysis staff. He clarified A.B. 230 was amended to provide start-up equipment for Phase I and staff relocation expenses only, and makes no appropriation for Phase II. Senator Raggio inquired if the figures contained in the first reprint of A.B. 230 conform with the revised figures contained in Exhibit I. Mr. Neill answered in the affirmative. Senator Raggio questioned if the appropriation in A.B. 230 fully funds the expansion of Lovelock Prison to include units 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Neill answered in the negative and stated the revision to the bill is primarily due to the deletion of appropriations to complete units 3, 4 and 5. He clarified it will be necessary to draft another bill to appropriate funds to complete Phase II, which constitutes units 3, 4 and 5, of the prison. Mr. Miles asserted A.B. 230 is strictly for the purpose of opening the prison. He clarified, "The Phase II part was taken out by the Assembly because those decisions had not been made yet." Mr. Neill informed the committee the department is currently in the process of hiring staff, as appropriated in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 325, to enable the department to have adequate staffing for the opening of the prison on July 1, 1995. ASSEMBLY BILL 325: Makes supplemental appropriation to department of prisons for unexpected increase in incarcerated offenders. Senator Coffin requested an update as to the progress of finding and providing the Lovelock Prison staff with housing. Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, explained he has received information as to an expansion of a trailer park as well as a new subdivision, both of which will provide additional spaces. Senator Coffin queried as to the availability of obtaining short- term leases on mobile homes for the prison staff should they not wish to purchase a mobile home. Mr. Bayer indicated he will have to look into the possibility and report back to the committee with the information. SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 230. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Raggio inquired as to the status of a bill for an appropriation for Phase II of the prison. He questioned if a bill draft has been requested. Mr. Neill answered in the negative. Senator Raggio solicited a motion from the committee for a bill draft. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Reopening the hearing on S.B. 413, Senator Raggio requested a motion. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 413, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE CHANGE OF THE DATE ON LINE 25 OF PAGE 1 OF THE BILL, TO INSERT THE WORDS `COMPLETION OF PROJECT' IN PLACE OF THE DATE SPECIFIED. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Opening the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 406, Senator Raggio called on Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to provide an explanation of the bill. SENATE BILL 406: Revises provisions governing organization of department of motor vehicles and public safety. Ms. Erdoes provided an overview of the bill, at the request of the chairman. She stated the bill established several new divisions and it allows the director to retain his ability to establish other divisions within the department. Senator Raggio queried whether the bill deletes any divisions within the department. Ms. Erdoes confirmed S.B. 406 deletes the Registration Division and the Drivers' License Division and assigns the duties of those divisions to the department. Senator Raggio inquired as to where, in the department, the duties of the two deleted divisions will be reassigned. Ms. Erdoes responded: We go through and...take out all the references to the Registration Division and put [the duties] in, just as general reference to the department. What that allows is the department to be organized, in any fashion that the director deems necessary, to carry out these functions. Senator Raggio requested clarification that the duties of the two deleted divisions will be general duties under the department and Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative. Senator Raggio questioned if the bill establishes a new training division and a special services division. Ms. Erdoes answered affirmatively and stated the Division of Emergency Management and the State Fire Marshal Division are deleted and reincorporated within the department as bureaus of the new special services division. Ms. Erdoes indicated under S.B. 406, the Capitol Police will be transferred from the Buildings and Grounds Division to the Nevada Highway Patrol. Senator Raggio questioned, "What does that do? Does that do away with the Capitol Police?" Ms. Erdoes responded the chief of buildings and grounds currently has the responsibility to hire police officers and under S.B. 406, that duty will be transferred to the chief of the highway patrol. Senator Raggio asked if the Capitol Police will then become Nevada Highway Patrol officers, or will they retain their identity as the Capitol Police? Ms. Erdoes clarified the Capitol Police are not identified in statute and therefore, it is possible they will become Highway Patrol officers. Senator Raggio expressed concern whether the bill will allow the chief of the highway patrol to dismiss the Capitol Police staff and replace them with highway patrol staff. Ms. Erdoes reflected: Actually, that would depend on their status as classified employees of the state. This [S.B. 406] does not make any special provisions one way or the other for the staff. It simply changes the responsibility...so it would leave the option open whether the [Nevada] Highway Patrol wanted to...make those people...be transferred over to become under the [Nevada] Highway Patrol or put some place else. Senator Raggio indicated the wording of the bill clearly sets forth that: The chief of the [Nevada] Highway Patrol shall appoint such personnel of the Nevada Highway Patrol as necessary to assist the chief of buildings and grounds in carrying out the duties that are now carried out by the Capitol Police. That seems to me to say that they have to be personnel of the [Nevada] Highway Patrol. Ms. Erdoes agreed, the appointed officers will have to be personnel of the Nevada Highway Patrol; however, "Whether they were actual troopers, or personnel of another designation, is up to the chief." Ms. Erdoes continued her explanation of the bill, indicating the bill provides that the chiefs of all the divisions within the department will be classified employees for all purposes except retention. Senator Raggio queried whether other departments within the state are set up similarly to the proposed special classification of the chiefs of the divisions within the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS). Ms. Erdoes stated that it is unusual for such special classifications and indicated she believes only the Department of Prisons may have a similar set up. Senator Raggio questioned how hearing officers are presently appointed if, in the bill, it is proposed they are appointed by the director of the department. Ms. Erdoes remarked that she is not familiar with the current procedure for hiring hearings officers and that she will look into the procedure and report back to the committee with her findings. Senator Raggio questioned the ethicality of the director appointing the hearing officers. He asked, "How can the hearing officer be independent in making determinations that may go against the department if, in fact, he...or she serves at the pleasure of the director?" He requested Ms. Erdoes to research the potential ethical problem caused by that proposed duty of the director. Senator Jacobsen requested the department to provide the committee with a chart showing the proposed reorganization. James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated he will have charts delivered to the members immediately. Mr. Weller commented that section 12, line 11, should be amended to read, "Assistant to the Director" and he clarified that that is an established position. Next, he drew the committee's attention to line 16 of section 12 and explained that in the 1993 legislative session, concerns were raised about transferring the hearings officers to the Department of Administration. Senator Raggio inquired as to how the hearings officers are currently appointed and whether they are currently located within the DMV&PS. Mr. Weller affirmed the hearings officers are located within the department and they are appointed through the "normal appointment process." He clarified, "I could have a say in it, if I so desire, but I usually do not." He declared that should the committee wish to revisit the suggestion of transferring the hearing officers to the Department of Administration, he will not be opposed. Senator Raggio assured Mr. Weller, "There is no reflection on you, as the director. It is just a basic issue as to how they can be impartial. If they have to rule against the department and they serve at the pleasure of the director, it seems to me to be a problem there." Mr. Weller addressed Senator Raggio's earlier question regarding the Capitol Police and assured the committee it is the intent of the department to maintain the Capitol Police as the Capitol Police and have them be a branch out of the Nevada Highway Patrol. He asserted it is not the intention of the department to terminate the employment of the Capitol Police staff. Senator Raggio requested Ms. Erdoes to make the appropriate amendments to set forth the assurances made by Mr. Weller to retain the identity of the Capitol Police. He encapsulated, "What you are after is that the Capitol Police, as they presently exist, would operate under the aegis of the department and specifically of the [Nevada] Highway Patrol Division." Mr. Weller answered affirmatively. Senator Raggio asked how the reorganization of the department, as contained in the bill, relates to the proposed split of the department of motor vehicles and the department of public safety. Ms. Erdoes explained S.B. 406, "...with the exception of section 2, is included in the split bill. They are combined. You would either want to go with this bill or with the split bill, as it stands now, because it has this reorganization in it." Senator Raggio questioned if by passing S.B. 406, will the committee be authorizing the split of the department of motor vehicles and the department of public safety. Mr. Erdoes responded, "No...If you do not choose to go with the split, but you still wish to carry out this reorganization of the DMV&PS, as it stands, then this is the bill that you would want." Senator O'Donnell drew attention to section 97 of the bill and asked whether the funds collected will be deposited into the Highway Fund or into a training fund. He commented, "I am concerned that if we are going to be doing the same level of training for Haz-Mat (hazardous materials), that we make sure that the same level of funding be allocated for that particular training facility, otherwise, only 22 percent of that money is going to be available." Frank Adams, Deputy Chief, Division of Investigation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, surmised the funds collected will be deposited into a separate account, thereby not affecting the level of funding for training. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Erdoes, "Can we do that constitutionally?" Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative pointing out that section 25 of the bill relates to the management of the funds received. Senator Raggio inquired whether the bill relating to the proposed split of DMV&PS has been introduced and Ms. Erdoes answered in the negative. Senator Raggio next questioned whether an adjustment will be necessary to fund the department of public safety if it is segregated from the department of motor vehicles. Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative and stated the department of public safety has been proposed to be funded from the Highway Fund. She concluded, "It is the opinion of my office that this could cause a problem because it is not directly related to the administration of the highways." Senator Raggio clarified the split of the DMV&PS will require an additional $1.2 million appropriation from the General Fund should the split occur. He commented, "If that proposal is going to be reconsidered...inform this committee as soon as possible." Senator Raggio called a recess at 9:55 a.m. Reconvening the meeting at 11:55 a.m., Senator Raggio requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1658. BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1658: Makes appropriation to City of Reno for costs relating to construction of National Automobile Museum. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1658. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND RHOADS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Returning to S.B. 406, Senator Raggio solicited testimony in opposition to the bill. Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He reviewed section 12 of the bill, which proposes to change the hearing officers to the unclassified service to allow the director to dismiss the hearing officers for any reason. Mr. Gagnier pointed out the hearing officers in the Department of Administration were changed to unclassified service during the 1993 Legislative session, which has resulted in those hearing officers being replaced by political appointees. Mr. Gagnier also indicated the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) opposes sections 17, 29, 86, 90 and 91 of the bill, which contain references to the Capitol Police. He commented, "...When I try to get a piece of legislation passed that changes something...legislators say..., `Is it broken. If it is not, do not try to fix it'...I would say that about the Capitol Police...We...think that [the Capitol Police]...should be left alone." Mr. Weller distributed a chart of the DMV&PS as it currently exists (Exhibit J) and a chart of the proposed reorganization (Exhibit K), as requested by Senator Jacobsen. Raymond L. Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, provided an overview of the charts distributed by Mr. Weller. In reference to the organizational chart, he indicated the Motor Vehicle Division box is shown for convenience purposes, to maintain a "status quo" until such time as the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) can be completed. Once the BPR has been finished, a final decision will be made on how to structure the motor vehicle programs. Mr. Sparks drew attention to the chart depicting the Office of Technical Support Services box and stated if the bill is passed, it is the intention of the department to consolidate the two existing data processing units, one from the motor vehicles division and one from the public safety division, into one technical support services division. Mr. Weller interjected the department had consolidated the two data processing units "to get the best benefit for the whole department;" however, the Assembly sent a letter ordering the department to separate the two units back to their original divisions. Senator O'Donnell commented: Historically...we have had a director of the department of motor vehicles and we have had a director...the public safety...the real problem here is the fact that we cannot attract good quality people to stay as a department deputy chief, or chief...in this particular equation. I would strongly encourage the committee to...reevaluate the salaries if we are not going to split the departments. Reevaluate the salaries commensurate to the responsibilities...they are woefully underfunded and we need to attract the best quality people we can in that arena. Senator Jacobsen queried whether, under the proposal of a security force at the Governor's mansion, the Capitol Police will provide that service or whether the Nevada Highway Patrol will be responsible for that duty. Mr. Weller responded that according to the proposal by the Governor, the security team will consist of six Nevada Highway Patrol officers. He promptly commented, "That is another reason we suggested putting the Capitol Police with the [Nevada] Highway Patrol...to coordinate better, the responsibilities as far as the two different entities...." Senator Jacobsen affirmed: I am not all in favor what the Governor is advocating, but it may prove to be a necessity...I want some assurance that we have...a mutual agreement between all of our law enforcement people...I want to make sure that they are all tied together, regardless of what their job might be, that in an emergency, they operate as one.... Mr. Weller corroborated Senator Jacobsen's comment and stated, "That is another reason to pull it together." Mr. Sparks clarified: The issues of the additional security for the Governor and the issue of the transfer of the Capitol Police into the department are two separate issues...The department is sensitive to...the apprehensions that...the Capitol Police personnel have...We have not gone through and decided all of the details of how the assumption of that unit into the [highway] patrol would be accomplished, but it would be in view of their concerns. Galen Mitchell, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Peace Officers Association, testified in opposition to S.B. 406. He indicated the bill consolidates the peace officers' powers of the State Fire Marshal Division and the Bureau of Enforcement into the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI), transferring the duties but not the positions. He asserted the bill will "significantly impact the officers who presently hold these positions." Mr. Mitchell emphasized: Therefore, the Bureau of Enforcement officers, particularly, are reclassified to lesser positions. There is no provision...to make sure that the police officers within the Bureau of Enforcement would have seniority and would be able to transfer into other positions. Senator Raggio asked into what positions the officers of the bureau will be transferred. Mr. Mitchell indicated the officers will become compliance investigators. He stated the bill, if passed, will have an enormous impact on the automotive industry due to the changes which will occur in the duties of the enforcement officers. Mr. Mitchell provided a detailed overview of the current responsibilities of the Bureau of Enforcement, paraphrasing that the bureau acts upon the automotive industry in much the same way as the Gaming Control Board regulates the gaming industry. He stressed: If you take the police officer powers away from the investigators...you have stripped registration and drivers' license from investigating...things that go on in the automotive industry...If you are going to transfer a few of the positions...my recommendation would be, take all of the Bureau of Enforcement over into NDI... Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 406 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 405. Darrell Feemster, Coordinator, Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center, distributed a handout outlining Family Focus Center activities (Exhibit L). He stressed the function of family resource centers is to educate the public about the needs and resources of the community. Senator Raggio inquired whether the Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center is located at a public school. Mr. Feemster answered in the affirmative, clarifying the center occupies an office within the school and is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He clarified the center conducts other classes and activities from 7:00 p.m. till 9:00 p.m, on occasion, and is open year round. Senator Raggio asked if the figures contained in Exhibit L are from a specific period of time. Mr. Feemster responded the figures contained in Exhibit L reflect what the Glenn Duncan Family Focus Center has accomplished since June of 1994. Beverly Crawford, Interested Citizen, attested the Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center has been of tremendous value to her and her children. She explained, "They have helped me keep my job, they have helped me set up day care so that I can keep my job...and helped me keep my place to live." Senator Raggio asked if the Glenn Duncan center operates a child- care facility. Mr. Feemster answered in the negative and stated the center locates the resources available in Washoe County. He commented, "In Ms. Crawford's case, we were able to connect her with the Children's Cabinet, which does have a program that allows for day care...." Senator Jacobsen inquired as to the ratio of volunteer hours versus paid hours. Mr. Feemster replied: The cost-effectiveness and efficiency of this program is based upon our parental volunteers as well as...other resources...Currently at the Glenn Duncan Family Focus Center, we have interns from the University of Nevada, Reno...We use parental volunteers...The other thing that...adds to the cost effectiveness is that we communicate with...agencies...We ...are in a highly at- risk community and by allowing the agencies to come in to provide their services, it eliminates the cost of doing outreach offices throughout the city. Senator Jacobsen asked who determines whether the family resource center is in an at-risk neighborhood. Mr. Feemster observed that at-risk determination is based primarily upon the socio-economic status of the community. He reviewed, "Glenn Duncan currently has...85 percent of their student population living below the poverty level...and 70 percent of those families...earn less than 70 percent of the poverty level...It is the lowest income area in all of Washoe County." Senator Mathews commented the school located adjacent to Glenn Duncan Elementary School, also contains a high 70 percent range of at-risk families. She stressed, "Anything you can do to help these families get on the right track is a plus, in my opinion." Ms. Crawford interjected the Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center has enabled her to enroll her deaf daughter into a kindergarten program from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. whereas most kindergarten programs are only « day. The center has also "provided parenting groups and meetings for me...so that I could learn how to help my children," she testified. Pat Johnson, Coordinator, Sun Valley Family Resource Center, reported the Sun Valley Family Resource Center was opened in October of 1994 and operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily. She remarked on the various programs the Sun Valley Family Resource Centers provides and the benefits realized from those programs. Senator Raggio questioned how many families have been served by the center since it opened. Ms. Johnson surmised the center serves approximately 15 to 20 families a week, not including those families and individuals that utilize the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) and immunization programs. Senator Raggio inquired whether the Sun Valley Family Resource Center is staffed by volunteers or paid staff. Ms. Johnson clarified that she is in a half-time position funded by a grant and the remaining staff are volunteers and university student interns. Senator Rawson asked about Ms. Johnson's professional background. Ms. Johnson responded she is a special education teacher for the Washoe County School District. Senator Rawson asked if it is necessary for social workers to be a part of the centers. Ms. Johnson affirmed that social workers are essential to the centers inasmuch as the social workers are familiar with the social services available to the families that utilize the resource centers. Senator Rawson questioned whether the family resource centers will encourage families to utilize the welfare system instead of teaching them self-sufficiency. Ms. Johnson responded, "I would hope that what we do is give people hope and give them a helping hand...As Ms. Crawford said, she had somebody help her to keep her job and that would be the goal...." Senator Rawson asked Ms. Crawford, "Would you have been on Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) anyway? Would you have had food stamps, anyway? Are we adding to that or are we making any aspect of this more efficient?" Ms. Crawford reflected that she has not been on the ADC program in over 1 year and her food stamps will be cut off in 1 month since she has a job that pays her over what is allowed to be qualified for the food stamp program. She stated she receives help with Medicaid, however. Senator Rawson inquired if Ms. Crawford was put on the ADC program when she first obtained the services of the family resource center and she answered in the negative. Senator Rawson inquired if the family resource center prevented Ms. Crawford from going back on the ADC program. Ms. Crawford answered in the affirmative. Mr. Feemster advised the committee on current and upcoming programs the Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center will have available. He stressed, "I think the real emphasis is on making people self- empowered. People want to feel that they can do better...As people take a step at a time, they are able to recover...do the sorts of things...we all want to do in our lives, and that is to advance and do well." Rita McGary, Case Manager, Glenn Duncan Family Resource Center, pointed out that very few participants to the family resource center are involved in the welfare system. She gave a brief synopsis of the most frequent services the center provides. Bob Wolf, Vice Chairman, Children's Cabinet at Incline Village, testified in support of family resource centers. He indicated the centers provide resources to communities throughout the state. Senator Raggio asked if the Children's Cabinet at Incline Village utilizes school facilities. Mr. Wolf stated the organization leases and provides resources through a vacant state building. Carla Hanson, Executive Director, Children's Cabinet at Incline Village, provided a brief history of the Children's Cabinet at Incline Village and reviewed the various programs it provides to the community. She stated, "We ask you strongly, to support this because we think we can help one another. We can make our families stronger and we will not rely on the welfare system." Catherine A. Blankenship, Executive Director, Boys & Girls Club of Western Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 405. She provided a history of the program and reviewed the goals of the organization. Senator Raggio asked how long the center has been in operation. Ms. Blankenship stated the center has been in operation for approximately 2 years. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, provided testimony in opposition to S.B. 405. She emphasized that government involvement usually exacerbates the problem it seeks to resolve. She outlined the portions of the bill she is opposed to, specifically referring to the duties the bill assigns to the superintendent of public instruction, specifically to approve the location and the plan of each resource center. Additionally, Ms. Hansen stated the bill provides for social services which essentially takes "more responsibility away from parents." Ms. Hansen pointed out the bill also contains a provision for a program to reduce the rate of pregnancies in unmarried teenage girls. She commented: Now we all want to do that, but we have very different philosophies about how to go about reducing that...In the Southern Governor Conference report...they give five examples of different kinds of comprehensive health services, and every...one of them focuses on school based clinics with regard to handing out contraceptives and giving abortion referrals...That is what we are going to be doing in some of these clinics...A study done...showed that these programs, in fact exacerbate...the very problem they are meant to resolve...It should be our goal to remove that from the schools, to remove that from clinics and return that responsibility to parents. Senator Raggio questioned if Ms. Hansen is suggesting the family resource centers propose to offer "those kind of items." Ms. Hansen surmised, "I think that is one of the things that the Children's Cabinet...in connection with Planned Parenthood...do now." She identified confidentiality as another concern, stating: How will we protect people's privacy that are involved in these? How do we protect their individual health records and school records? With the computerization of everything, we do need to be concerned about the individual privacy of counseling...medical...school...and welfare services. Senator Jacobsen commented: As I look at this handout [Exhibit L], I have to appreciate all of the accomplishments that they have made...I cannot find fault with any of it...Something is better than nothing and I think you have to appreciate the fact that there is a lot of dedication here, both paid and volunteer. I welcome anything in that manner. Ms. Hansen proclaimed, "I welcome volunteer and private efforts, too. That is the way it needs to be done, you are absolutely right. Not with government money." Senator Jacobsen retorted that government involvement, in many cases, can be helpful. He said, "I think these people should be commended for what they do." Ms. Hansen clarified her concern lies with the limited input the public will have to oversee the governing boards of the family resource centers and the superintendent of public instruction, since she is not an elected official. Sheila Ward, Lobbyist, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition, spoke against passage of S.B. 405, mirroring the concerns set forth by Ms. Hansen. Senator Raggio solicited testimony from audience members to address the concerns raised by Ms. Hansen regarding the issue of invasion of privacy of records and the allegations that the resource centers will be utilized to dispense contraceptives to minors. Sheila Leslie, Lobbyist, Children's Cabinet, provided written testimony (Exhibit M) in support of S.B. 405. She addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Hansen and stated: In regard to...confidentiality issues, all counseling and all social workers are bound by state statutes in terms of confidentiality regulations...I appreciate...and share the concern as far as computerization. I am working on the task force in Washoe County to look at that issue... Senator Raggio asked if the bill should be amended to provide specific language guaranteeing privacy of the records. Ms. Leslie answered in the affirmative. Senator Raggio invited the audience members, both in favor of or in opposition to the bill, to submit appropriate language to guarantee privacy of the records, should the bill be approved. Addressing the allegation raised by Ms. Hansen regarding the utilization of the family resource centers to provide contraceptives without parental consent, she indicated state laws are specific as to what services can be provided without parental consent, "which is basically nothing...parental consent is always required." She stressed: I would like to refer you to page 3, section 12...It is the people...who...live in the neighborhood, who have kids going to those schools, who would control the family resource center...As to the allegation that these are really school based clinics in disguise, they are not. If that was our intent, we would not have written this [section 12] into the bill. Senator Raggio questioned whether Ms. Leslie can go on record that the family resource centers will not be used to dispense contraceptives. Ms. Leslie said she cannot, since it is up to the individual neighborhood councils as to what services the center will provide. She conceded, "That is not the intent. I will go on record to say that...is not the intent...I do not know a family resource center in our state that does or intends to [provide contraceptives]." Gissou Farahi, Chairman, Alliance for Child Care, distributed written testimony (Exhibit N) in support of S.B. 405. Phillip Galeota, Lobbyist, City of Reno, gave testimony in support of S.B. 405. He attested, "We believe that family and neighborhood and community resource centers are elemental to government resolving some of the issues that are facing society today." Marilyn Ives, Action for Nevada's Children, submitted a fact sheet (Exhibit O) for the review of the committee and asserted that Action for Nevada's Children is in favor of S.B. 405. There being no further testimony on S.B. 405, Senator Raggio closed the hearing. Exhibit P and Exhibit Q were submitted subsequent to the hearing on S.B. 405. Exhibit R was distributed to the committee members in accordance with previous requests for information (Exhibit R. Original on file in the Research Library.). The hearing was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Cristin Buchanan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Finance May 3, 1995 Page