MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session June 17, 1995 The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 11:00 a.m., on Saturday, June 17, 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 Steve J. Abba, Program Analyst Sue Parkhurst, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services Michelle Gamble, Program Assistant, Nevada Association of Counties Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources Christopher Thompson, Chief, Health Care Financial Analysis Unit, Department of Human Resources Charlotte Crawford, Acting Director, Department of Human Resources Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, State Board of Sheep Commissioners John L. McLain, Principal Resource Specialist, Resources Concepts, Inc. Roy W. Trenoweth, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources John Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Nevada Supreme Court Frances M. Doherty, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Government Affairs Section, Office of the Attorney General Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Marietta Grass, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Attorney General SENATE BILL 471: Makes provisions governing eligibility for coverage for long-term care under state plan for assistance to medically indigent. Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), presented written testimony for inclusion in the record (Exhibit C) and then spoke in support of Senate Bill (S.B.) 471. Mr. Hadfield said S.B. 471 is the culmination of many years of effort by the Nevada Association of Counties, working in concert with other health care provider groups to examine the very difficult issue of long-term care in the State of Nevada. Currently, Nevada's counties participate in a Medicaid match program for long-term care that provides counties with access to the match funds for those patients whose income is between $714 and 300 percent of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is $1,374. Mr. Hadfield further testified Nevada's counties entered into this program in 1989, somewhat reluctantly, because at that time they were faced with a severe shortfall of funds to pay for this responsibility, which was placed upon the counties in 1979 when the state chose at that time to cap its responsibility at $714. (He noted that in 1979, 300 percent of SSI was $714.) Since then and in the subsequent years, he stated, NACO has appeared before the Legislature and has been working with state agency personnel in an attempt to devise a means of alleviating the counties' burden with regard to responsibility for long-term care patients. One measure undertaken by NACO to assist the counties was the Legislature's approval of a property tax increase, Mr. Hadfield pointed out. However, he continued, NACO has continuously stated that due to the unique nature of long-term care and the dispersement of population throughout the state, this program could not survive in the long run by relying on the local tax base of individual counties. He said there are now three counties that are unable to make the Medicaid match payment for the program for the final billing of the current year. Continuing, Mr. Hadfield said this is a program that requires all 17 of Nevada's counties to participate in order to qualify as a state program. The counties pay money to the state that the state holds for federal match. Mr. Hadfield pointed out this is not a county program but a state-federal program. He said S.B. 471 would in effect change the relationship that has existed since 1979 between the State of Nevada and Nevada's counties and would return the state's responsibility to the level of obligation that existed prior to 1979. This simply asks that the state would be responsible for those patients up to 300 percent of SSI, with the counties still being responsible for those patients whose income exceeds that level, Mr. Hadfield said. Stating he does not wish to make light of this matter and is aware the committee is well apprised of the situation, Mr. Hadfield pointed out this is a program that has grown in magnitude and is currently budgeted in the Executive Budget at approximately $32 million over the biennium. If Nevada's counties cannot match the funds as required they will lose $15-$16 million in federal funds they are using to help cover the cost of care for the long-term patients. Since not all of the counties in the state can afford to pay for the match as it is, Mr. Hadfield stated, clearly the loss of the federal matching funds would be disastrous for the program. With that kind of loss, even Clark County would be unable to meet its obligation, he asserted. Continuing, Mr. Hadfield said NACO is looking to the Senate Committee on Finance for leadership to help the counties craft a policy that will help them "struggle and survive." He stated the counties' survival in terms of this program will require an appropriation from the state General Fund for the three counties that are currently unable to make the match payments, and a mechanism is needed to allow counties to access the funds. Alternatively, an increase in the state's level of responsibility for this program is required, Mr. Hadfield stated. Mr. Hadfield said testimony to be offered by May Shelton, representing Washoe County, will illustrate what is happening in all of Nevada's counties and might provide some insight as to the difficulties being experienced in some of the state's smaller counties whose assessed valuations do not increase, who are at the combined $3.64 property tax cap (thus precluding an increase in the county's property tax as an option), and who would regard themselves as fortunate to realize 6 percent in growth in revenue because they do not share in what has been a very robust economy in Nevada. Mr. Hadfield emphasized that Nevada's counties do not participate equally in the robust growth experienced by the state. Mr. Hadfield remarked the counties are mired in an extremely difficult situation. He said NACO has been meeting with representatives of the State of Nevada over the past months in effort to resolve this issue. He stated there are counties in Nevada that will not make it through the biennium without having to address the situation. May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services, testified in support of S.B. 471 in her capacity as chairperson of the Nevada Association of County Welfare Directors. She said her counterpart in Clark County, Danelle Hahn, also supports the measure and the association's recommendations for resolution of the problem at hand. Ms. Shelton presented her remarks from a prepared text (Exhibit D). Accompanying her written testimony are two graphs (Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2). In her concluding remarks, Ms. Shelton said the social service agencies at the county level will be there to "catch those who fall through the net" when federal block grants and welfare reform proposals are implemented, and they will need flexibility and assistance from the state to do so. Senator Raggio asked what action has been taken with reference to the cap. Mr. Hadfield said in the joint subcommittee hearing it was NACO's understanding the committee had recommended the cap be increased from $714 to $750, effective in July 1995. Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, affirmed this is correct and said both the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means approved the subcommittee's recommendation in their budget closings. Referencing the graph entitled "Health Care Assistance Program Expenditures By Category," Senator Rawson noted that for Fiscal Year (FY) 1987-1988, the graph indicates at least half of the care is inpatient care and only 9 percent is nursing home care. He noted that by FY 1995-1996 the percentage of nursing home care had increased to 31 percent while the proportion of inpatient care expenditures had declined to approximately 20 percent. He asked, "Shouldn't the inpatient care be more expensive than the nursing home care?" Questioning the significant increase in the costs, he said the total numbers (of long-term care patients) and not just the percentages must be increasing. Ms. Shelton affirmed Senator Rawson's observation. She said what is helping with inpatient care are programs such as the intergovernmental transfer (IGT) that holds counties harmless and helps the hospitals to absorb what they are not being paid by the counties. She further stated, "In nursing home care, the numbers go up; but you have patients in a bed every day, usually until they expire, and that could be years. So the cost of a bed could be about $90 a day, every day, year in, year out." Senator Rawson requested a comprehensive explanation as to how the state and county budgets would be impacted "if we start changing the figures." Mr. Hadfield called upon Michelle Gamble, Program Assistant, Nevada Association of Counties, to respond. Ms. Gamble said she has performed studies of the number of cases that have been in the county match program since its inception. She testified that on February 28, 1990, the total number of county match cases for the program was 125, statewide. As of April 29, 1995, the total number of such cases is 1,023. Senator Rawson commented the growth has been significant, but has not been as great as the figures cited by Ms. Gamble would indicate. Continuing to seek an explanation for the increasing costs and the flow of patients out of the inpatient category, he asked if patients are being "dumped," or if it has become easier for them to be treated in other than inpatient facilities. Ms. Shelton responded, stating one of the reasons is that pensioners (persons receiving SSI or social security) receive cost-of-living increases every January, and that "bumps" them over the $714 level. She said if one examines what the Medicaid program is responsible for, it would probably be seen that the pool of patients at that income level is not growing as fast as the next group, with income ranging between $714 and $1,374. Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, said the purpose of testimony from the Welfare Division at this hearing is to present some of the impact of the fiscal note. He said it is correct, as indicated in earlier statements, that both the Senate and the Assembly closed this budget at the $750 level, up from the previous level of $714. The committees' closing action provided additional funding of approximately $212,000 in the first year of the biennium and approximately $249,000 in the second year. Continuing, Mr. Willden said to increase the cap to $1,374, which is the maximum level currently allowed by law, the budget closing action calls for the counties to provide approximately $13.3 million in FY 1996 for their share "up to the cap," and approximately $15.6 million in FY 1997. He stated that to increase the cap to the full 300 percent level, "those county dollars would need to be replaced with General Fund dollars." Mr. Willden further stated the division has provided the committee's fiscal analysis staff with information regarding the effects of increasing the cap by $100, to $814. He said an increase to that level would require a shift of approximately $3.4 million from the counties to the state General Fund in FY 1996 and nearly $4 million in the second year of the biennium. Senator Rawson asked if the Welfare Division has any recommendations with respect to a reasonable way to approach this situation, in view of the fact three counties are expected to default on their payments for the program. Mr. Willden responded that something needs to be done with regard to the counties that are defaulting. He said the division has received official notice from one county that is defaulting, which is Lyon County. Lyon County has sent a letter indicating the county will be unable to make its payment for the current billing period; the county has not made a payment since March 29, 1995. Mr. Willden said the division replied with a letter indicating that something needs to be done before the close of the year to avoid the situation of being technically in default. He stated that as indicated earlier by Mr. Hadfield, this would put the entire program in jeopardy. Senator Raggio inquired the amount owed by Lyon County. Mr. Willden replied the most recent billing sent to the county requests $96,454. Mineral County has verbally notified the Welfare Division it will not be able to make its payments, either. The most recent billing to Mineral County was for $37,369. Additionally, the division has been informed that White Pine's payment of approximately $7,000 is in question. The total amount owed by the three counties whose payments are in doubt is approximately $150,000. Senator Raggio asked if it is the case that to raise the cap from $750 would cost approximately $500,000 over the biennium, while to increase it to the level of $814 would cost approximately $7.5 million. Mr. Willden replied yes. He said there are a very small number of cases that fall within the $714-$750 range and that the largest concentration of cases is near the $800 level. Senator Rawson asked Mr. Willden if the division would recommend a simple supplemental appropriation from the state to address the current situation on an emergency basis, with the idea that the attempt would then be made to "sort it out." He said he is seeking to determine how the problem should be addressed in the future. Mr. Willden responded that in his opinion something must be done for FY 1995, because otherwise nearly $30 million in federal funds needed to pay for the program is in jeopardy. Senator Rawson asked if a $150,000 General Fund appropriation will cover the needs for the upcoming biennium. Mr. Willden replied that such an appropriation would only solve the problem for FY 1995. Senator Rawson said he is attempting to ascertain what must be done to meet the needs through the biennium. Mr. Willden said he does not have a specific answer because he cannot predict the level of shortfall in FY 1996 and FY 1997, which he said relates to "the capping language on the counties" and the amount of revenue the counties can raise. Commenting this response is "almost too simplistic," Senator Raggio asked who determines, and how it is determined, if a county is unable to meet its required match payment. Mr. Hadfield responded, stating the first measurement of a county's ability to make its match payment is the amount of money available in those funds that are dedicated for that purpose. The three counties whose payments are in question have depleted these funds, and as a result they have stopped paying their hospital bills and other bills. Mr. Hadfield told the committee the counties have been continually asked why they cannot simply take the funds from another source, but the situation is that the counties do not receive a significant amount of additional revenue and in fact are always confronted with the possibility of losing their revenue sources. He said the tax base of those counties does not grow significantly. Continuing, Mr. Hadfield testified the county budgets do not have a growth factor built in over time, and the counties are struggling to survive. He said the funds that some propose the county should obtain from another source would have to be obtained from the core of the county general fund, which would be the public safety services. Mr. Hadfield said this program is of such a magnitude that in some of the counties there will be no general fund budgets because they are consumed by the costs of long-term care patients. He said one long-term care patient represents 10 cents on the tax roll of Esmeralda County. He further stated these counties do not have the tax base to sustain the costs of a program experiencing this kind of growth. Mr. Hadfield said the counties have examined the possibility of increasing taxes again and NACO has a bill in process to achieve that end, but it would not help all of the counties because they have reached the level of the tax cap. Senator Raggio inquired as to the amount of funding allocated to this program. Mr. Hadfield replied it is required by law that the funds for the program are increased every year by 4.5 percent, "tied back to the old 4.5 percent ad valorem cap," and there is a 10-cent allowable tax rate; 1 cent goes to the supplemental fund. The senator asked if there is anything that "prevents their adding more funds above that percentage." Ms. Shelton said the statute does specify there will be no intergovernmental transfers and no money from any other source; however, there is a conflicting statement indicating if there is a medical emergency the funds can be obtained from whatever source is available. She said the district attorney's office in Washoe County was not able to provide a legal definition of "medical emergency." She further testified it is the opinion of the district attorney the county should pay its bills to the extent possible. Senator Raggio asked whether, if the money cannot be obtained from the state, there is some means to allow more money to flow into the counties' indigent care fund from other sources. Mr. Hadfield told him the three counties in trouble are at the maximum tax levy of 10 cents. He stated, "It's the magnitude.... There isn't enough money out there to transfer around to deal with this program if we don't piece together a larger tax base to deal with it." He said if the county commissioners are authorized to spend whatever is necessary from their general funds, they are then confronted with the situation of having to cut other programs. He reiterated some of the counties simply do not have the growth to provide an adequate revenue base to meet the needs, and in order to obtain additional funds for the indigent care program from county revenues it would be necessary to eliminate other services. Mr. Hadfield maintained this would be "just be like throwing sand at the beach into the wave; it's just going to consume all of us." Senator Rawson suggested as an option requiring the larger counties to pay a larger percentage of the long-term care funds to provide a contingency fund from which counties unable to make their payments, or those experiencing an unexpected increase in their payments, could obtain assistance. Mr. Hadfield replied the 4.5 percent annual increase relates to the property tax cap, which has subsequently been changed to 6 percent. He said that with regard to whether or not the counties could build a reserve of some kind, it is unlikely because the extra funds simply are not available. Senator Rawson requested further clarification of NACO's recommendation. Mr. Hadfield responded it is clearly necessary to help the counties experiencing difficulty in making their payments. He said one of NACO's concerns is that there are patients whose long-term care costs the state is presently paying for that the state knows will become the counties' responsibility during the course of the upcoming biennium, because the increase in the match as reflected in the Executive Budget is triggered by the increase in cases that were the state's responsibility, but that become the counties' responsibility or by an increase in the number of new residents that qualify for the program. Mr. Hadfield said the counties have requested information indicating which state cases in which counties will become the counties' responsibility over the next 2-year period, but have been advised the state does not maintain this type of data for Medicaid programs. Mr. Hadfield said NACO is suggesting, therefore, that if the cap cannot be increased by the proposed $100, a pool of funds is needed to assist counties that are unable to make their match payments. He stated: "The only way we're going to get saved is if [the indigent patients in long-term care facilities] die sooner.... Or, we have to know, from the state, exactly where these people are going to [become the responsibility of the counties] over the next 2-year period, so we can take a close look, county by county, to see what kind of capacity they have." Senator O'Donnell summarized the problem as follows: Nevada has various counties that have very small populations and do not have the economies of scale that the larger counties have. These counties are at the $3.64 property tax cap, but because they do not have the economies of scale they must continually return to the Legislature to request funding and to seek relief. The senator voiced the opinion the Legislature should be entertaining some kind of mechanism to provide an emergency or equalization fund to improve the financial situation of the struggling counties. The other problem, Senator O'Donnell continued, is the catastrophic cases and wildly fluctuating medical costs the smaller counties may have. He said somehow a mechanism must be devised to equalize the burden of medical costs among the counties of Nevada. He commented it puts the Legislature in an awkward position to have the smaller counties asking the other counties to bail them out. Mr. Hadfield replied there is a great deal of logic in the senator's observations, but the problem is that in 1979 the state had the responsibility for indigent care, and at that time the Legislature took action to remove the state from participation in the program above the $714 level and made the counties responsible without providing the funding. He maintained the counties would not be in the situation they are in now if what had been a state program at 300 percent of SSI had not been capped and left unaddressed. Continuing, Mr. Hadfield commented that the longer the situation has been left unaddressed the worse it has become, and now it is a problem for the entire state. He said while he agrees the economies of scale are clearly a problem, that is probably the reason the federal government considers indigent care to be a state program. He expressed the opinion the federal government never intended that 1,700 counties across the country would be operating a long-term care match program and that the government would be taking payments from each of those counties. Senator Raggio invited comment on this issue from representatives of the Department of Human Resources. Christopher Thompson, Chief, Health Care Financial Analysis Unit (HCFAU), Department of Human Resources, testified the agency shares the concerns raised by the counties regarding the significance of this program and the need to address the shortfalls currently being experienced by three of the counties. He said the agency administrators believe that as testified by Mr. Willden, an appropriation of $150,000 would be sufficient to resolve the problems for the current fiscal year, and the department would recommend that if the appropriation is approved any payments out of that fund would be contingent upon review by the Department of Taxation in coordination with the Department of Human Resources. Senator Raggio asked how the proposal for the $150,000 appropriation addresses the counties' representation that they cannot survive during the next biennium if that is the only action taken by this Legislature. Mr. Thompson responded the department does not at this time have projections as to the amount of shortfall, if any, that might occur over the next biennium. He voiced the opinion that in order to maintain this program it would be appropriate to provide a mechanism for the counties to be able to approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for any supplemental appropriation that might be needed, but reiterated it should be done upon review of the Department of Taxation in coordination with the human resources department. Commenting he is not impugning the veracity of any of the representations of the counties, Senator Raggio asked if the Department of Human Resources determines that in fact there is an inability of a particular county to make the match payments and if so, how the determination is made. Mr. Thompson replied that at this point a determination of that type has not been made, and the state's assessment is based upon the representation of the counties, which in Lyon County's case has been made in writing and which has been indicated verbally by the other counties. Senator Raggio inquired whether the department has the authority and the ability to make an independent determination that the case as represented by the counties is accurate. Mr. Thompson answered the department does not currently have the procedures to make such a determination. He said if it is the intent of the Legislature that the agency assume this responsibility, procedures would be established to ensure first of all that the counties are doing everything possible within their budgetary constraints to make their payments, and secondly that they are meeting all of the needs they possibly can; that is, that they do not have county remedies. Mr. Thompson further commented that since this is an issue that has arisen in the last few months, it is not one the agency has directly studied with the counties. He said the department can undertake the study if the Legislature so requests. Reiterating that he is not impugning anyone's veracity, Senator Raggio said his concern is that if the proposal were approved and contingency funding were set aside, there would need to be a means of verifying the inability of a county to meet its obligations with regard to the indigent care program. He pointed out that counties approach the Legislature to request salary increases for county officers, saying they have the funding for that purpose. He said that additionally, a bill has passed the Senate which prevents the invasion of funds such as those for indigent care during salary negotiations, and he suggested the counties should have been actively supporting the bill in view of their concerns about their funding. The senator reiterated the need for a mechanism to verify whether or not a county has the ability to "make the match" if the proposal for a contingency fund is to be adopted. Mr. Thompson stated he completely agrees. He remarked that within the indigent programs, when the 10-cent levy was implemented there were controls placed on how much money a county would have to spend, particularly in the area of inpatient hospital care, such that once a county has used all of its funds, what is essentially a hold harmless provision exempts the county from being required to pay for indigent hospital care over the amounts in the 10-cent levy. There is also the supplemental fund, he noted. Referencing Senator O'Donnell's comment regarding counties pooling their resources, Mr. Thompson said that has been done for hospital care by means of the supplemental fund for indigent cases as well as the indigent accident fund. Senator O'Donnell interjected this has not occurred with regard to long-term care. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Thompson said from the representations made by the counties and by NACO the department is aware there is a pressing need in the current fiscal year for financial assistance to the counties indicated, and the department would support an appropriation of $150,000 for that purpose. Charlotte Crawford, Acting Director, Department of Human Resources, reiterated the agency supports setting aside the $150,000 and assuring those funds are truly needed by the counties involved. Senator Raggio asked if the $150,000 might be funded from unused provider tax monies. Ms. Crawford replied yes. SENATE BILL 501: Revises provisions governing cost allocations for state agencies. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, explained the proposed amendments to S.B. 501. The first amendment (Exhibit F) would address lines 7 through 10 on page 1 and would clarify the ability of the director to allocate the appropriate costs for these two agencies, but not to collect the costs. The second amendment addresses lines 16 through 19 and allows the two entities, with respect to the attorney general's office, to determine the extent to which those services need to be requested, and at the point in time in which they are requested, to determine the charges that would be negotiated. SENATE BILL 534: Makes appropriation to division of forestry of state department of conservation and natural resources for reseeding areas burned by fires. Mr. Hadfield called attention to a report, copies of which were distributed to committee members (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.), of a study that was undertaken by NACO after being commissioned by the Nevada Legislature in 1987 to examine the wildfire management system in the State of Nevada. He said S.B. 534 brings forward a request to implement one of the many recommendations in the report. He noted that Resource Concepts, Inc. was one of the primary contractors. John L. McLain, Principal Resource Specialist, Resource Concepts, Inc., provided testimony in support of S.B. 534, reading from a prepared text (Exhibit H). Additional printed material provided to the committee is included with his written remarks. Copies of the executive summary of the wildfire management report were also distributed to the committee (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Senator Raggio asked the purpose of the $428,600 General Fund appropriation in S.B. 534. Mr. McLain said the requested appropriation would be used to establish an interagency seedbank to be administered and operated in conjunction with the Nevada Division of Forestry Nursery Program. Senator Raggio requested a cost breakdown indicating the computation of the appropriation amount. Roy W. Trenoweth, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, offered to make available to the committee copies of the breakdown he had in his possession and provided a copy of the document for the record (Exhibit J). Senator Raggio asked Mr. Trenoweth if the establishment of a seedbank can be achieved with existing personnel. Mr. Trenoweth replied yes. He said the project was discussed in 1988, prior to his tenure as state forester. The senator asked if the costs (listed in Exhibit I) are still operable. Mr. Trenoweth responded the agency has verified the costs are still valid. In response to further questioning from Senator Raggio, Mr. McLain described the kinds of grass to be seeded in the seedbank program. Senator Rhoads asked if the seeding is to be done on private as well as federal land. Mr. Trenoweth said the grass will be planted on any land, but private land owners would have to pay for the service. The senator inquired whether the federal government would be required to reimburse the State of Nevada for the planting on federal lands. Mr. Trenoweth replied yes. He said in 1988 the former director of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Billy Templeton, was strongly in favor of this legislation and was willing to provide funding for the project. Senator Rhoads voiced concern about the possibility of the State of Nevada having to fund the reseeding of all federal lands in the state that are burned. Mr. Trenoweth said he did not believe this would occur. Senator Raggio requested Mr. Trenoweth to obtain the answer to the question raised by Senator Rhoads and to determine if the federal government is still interested in the reseeding program. Senator Jacobsen testified in support of S.B. 534, noting he sponsored this bill and has attempted to gain passage of similar legislation since 1989. He expressed the opinion there is nothing more bleak or unsightly than a burned-off area. He said research indicates the best time to reseed such an area is immediately after a fire has subsided. He further stated it is anticipated this can be done with the aircraft on hand, and inmate honor camp crews can be used to do the work. He suggested it might be advisable for the state to acquire at least two 60-foot reefers (refrigerated trailers) to haul the seed to burned areas as an alternative to a permanent location, although he believes the airport where the Division of Forestry airplanes are housed would be a good location. Continuing, Senator Jacobsen stressed the need to implement the reseeding program and make it operational as soon as possible. He said usually what occurs after a fire is the seed is either not available, or once it is known the seed is needed the price increases substantially. He said the program has a great deal of merit and if not funded at the level requested, a reduced version of the proposal should be considered. Senator Raggio requested the Division of Forestry to attempt to scale down the cost of the proposal, per Senator Jacobsen's suggestion, and return to the committee the following Monday with the revised request. Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, State Board of Sheep Commissioners, voiced support for S.B. 534 on behalf of the sheep commission. Senator Jacobsen was excused from the hearing at this time to attend a funeral. SENATE BILL 562: Eliminates office of coordinator of program for substance abuse education, prevention, enforcement and treatment. John Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), testified S.B. 562 would align the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 458.370 with budget actions already taken by the Senate Committee on Finance. He said this committee transferred the drug coordinator position to the Division of Parole and Probation to work in the Lifeskills activities, and this measure would merely correct the statutory language. Senator Raggio asked John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, if S.B. 562 has the support of the administration. Mr. Comeaux replied yes. Senator O'Donnell said the proposal is also recommended by the joint subcommittee, and Senator Raggio noted it is consistent with the committee's budget action. ASSEMBLY BILL 217: Makes appropriation to division of child and family services of department of human resources for vehicles, equipment, supplies and building maintenance for northern and southern child and adolescent services. Senator Raggio noted the appropriation in this bill is for $199,967. John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, testified in support of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 217. He said the appropriation for the Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services (SNCAS) totals $148,948 and would be used to fund the replacement of carpeting in four buildings, interior and exterior renovation and refurbishing, two 15-passenger vans, two computers, two printers, and some furnishings for the living units at the SNCAS facilities. The portion of the appropriation to be used for the facilities in the north ($51,019) is to be used for the purchase of a lawn mower, office equipment and furnishings, one 15-passenger van and some furniture for the living units. Senator Raggio ascertained from Mr. Comeaux the funding request is included in the Executive Budget. ASSEMBLY BILL 226: Makes appropriation to office of the attorney general for applying for federal grants concerning family violence. Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, provided testimony in support of A.B. 226 after introducing Frances M. Doherty, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Government Affairs Section, Office of the Attorney General, who was also on hand to testify on this measure. Justice Rose said the onetime appropriation requested in A.B. 226 would be used to fund the start-up costs of the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council (NDVPC) and for application to the federal government for grant money. He testified the omnibus crime bill and the Crimes Against Women Act (CAWA) have provided, collectively, over $400,000 earmarked to Nevada for the next 1 to 2 years. Continuing, Justice Rose said the NDVPC is the best vehicle for the State of Nevada to obtain the funds and use them. He noted that in 1993 he appointed a state team to attend a landmark conference about domestic violence in Nevada's communities as it relates to the courts. This state team, composed mostly of judges, returned from the conference and reported that they as judges can have a real impact on domestic violence. Justice Rose said the team was part of the thrust behind a 1-day training session on domestic violence that was presented and has also worked with the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV), which is composed of professionals and concerned citizens involved in domestic violence prevention. This group obtained a federal grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI) and then held hearings throughout the state on the issue of domestic violence. The end result was a plan for action responding to the problem of domestic violence in Nevada, Justice Rose stated. He said the plan is a very good, comprehensive statewide plan that includes input from throughout Nevada. Justice Rose further testified the Nevada team and the NNADV have gone as far as they can, and consequently the Governor was asked to appoint a statewide council similar to those that have been established in many other states with regard to addressing the problem of domestic violence. Governor Miller has requested the attorney general to establish the council. Justice Rose said the council is directed to do whatever possible to respond to the crisis of domestic violence, the first step being to implement the plan created by the Nevada team and the NNADV. Part of the implementation entails applying for federal grant funds that are available. Justice Rose said it is best to have a council, a statewide representation of people who are concerned about and involved in the problem of domestic violence, for this purpose. Concluding, Justice Rose voiced the opinion the $20,000 appropriation in A.B. 226 could reap tremendous benefits in terms of obtaining federal grant funds that the State of Nevada should be able to secure. Senator Raggio thanked Ms. Doherty for providing material for the committee's review prior to the hearing. The material included Ms. Doherty's written testimony (Exhibit K), supporting documents (Exhibit K-1 and Exhibit K-2) and a copy of the SJI plan (Exhibit L. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Senator Raggio asked if the June 15, 1995 deadline for applying for membership on the council (page 2, Exhibit K) presents a problem. Ms. Doherty said it does not. She said applications have been received from individuals throughout the state who are involved in the issue of domestic violence, including judges, prosecutors, police officers, clergy, medical professionals and others. She stated the council will be a body that is completely and entirely focused, with the expertise and leadership necessary to implement the action plan and to direct the federal grant funds to the entities most appropriate to address the remedies provided in the plan. Senator Raggio inquired as to the likelihood the state will receive federal grant funds for this program. Ms. Doherty said it is very likely the funds will be provided. She said the federal government has said Nevada is eligible for the funds, but must take two steps to obtain them: (1) Prepare a state plan within the next 120 days to illustrate the manner in which the state intends to comply with the provisions of the crime bill pertaining to violence against women, which will be developed with the assistance of the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council; and (2) establish to the federal government that the state has worked with all of the entities that will be represented on the council. The council will facilitate the state's eligibility for the federal funds and actually securing the funds, as well as the likelihood of continuing to receive the federal grant funds well into the future, Ms. Doherty stated. Senator Raggio drew attention to a letter from Governor Miller, dated June 17, 1995, endorsing and urging legislative support of A.B. 226. He requested Ms. Doherty to inform the committee as to the membership of the NDVPC. Ms. Doherty responded the council will be made up of 51 percent survivors of domestic violence and a minimum of 25 percent representatives from the rural areas of Nevada. It will be composed of prosecutors, police officers, victim service providers, and representatives of the tribal governments (because there is a significant inter-jurisdictional issue concerning the Native American tribal population that "causes a huge problem" with regard to repetition of acts of domestic violence). In response to further questioning from Senator Raggio, Ms. Doherty said the $20,000 appropriation will be used purely for administrative purposes and to facilitate contact among members of the council, including necessary travel. She said the council membership has not yet been selected, and steps are being taken to ensure representation on the council is well balanced. She commented the qualifications of the prospective council members are "really exciting." Ms. Doherty noted domestic violence is a serious issue across the board for both genders and all ages, but 96 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. She called attention to letters of endorsement for A.B. 226 that were provided by the prosecutors in Reno and Sparks (Exhibit M). ASSEMBLY BILL 227: Makes appropriation to office of attorney general for certain office equipment. Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, testified in support of A.B. 227, which contains a one-shot appropriation to the attorney general's office that Ms. Nielsen said essentially provides for needed equipment purchases in the area of telephone equipment, computers, filing cabinets, book cases and other equipment. Senator Raggio noted the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means added software, communication enhancements and office equipment. Ms. Nielsen said these items were in the agency's original request. Senator Raggio directed the committee's attention to a detailed summary of the one- shot appropriation request (Exhibit N). Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the purpose of the 14 acoustical panels for the attorney general's office. Marietta Grass, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Attorney General, explained the acoustical paneling is for open areas housing clerical staff and the panels will serve as space dividers. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux if this request is in the Executive Budget. Mr. Comeaux indicated it is. SENATE BILL 501: Revises provisions governing cost allocations for state agencies. SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 501, AMENDING LINES 7-10, PAGE 1 WITH THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT O (ATTACHED) AND AMENDING LINES 16-19, PAGE 1 TO PROVIDE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALLOCATION WILL NOT BE CHARGEABLE UNLESS AND UNTIL SERVICES OF THAT OFFICE ARE REQUESTED BY THE BOARD, AT WHICH TIME CHARGES FOR SERVICES WILL BE NEGOTIATED. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 562: Eliminates office of coordinator of program for substance abuse education, prevention, enforcement and treatment. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 562. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 217: Makes appropriation to division of child and family services of department of human resources for vehicles, equipment, supplies and building maintenance for northern and southern child and adolescent services. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 217. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 226: Makes appropriation to office of the attorney general for applying for federal grants concerning family violence. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 226. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 227: Makes appropriation to office of attorney general for certain office equipment. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 227. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-2139: Revises provisions governing obligation of state agencies to pay for services. Senator Raggio requested Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, to review the purpose of this bill draft request (BDR). Mr. Miles said the existing statute requires agencies to provide secretaries, travel expenses and other support services for the attorney general. All of those costs have been transferred to the attorney general under a cost allocation plan, and this measure adjusts the statutory language accordingly. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 18-2139. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 126: Revises limit on balance in fund to stabilize operation of state government. Senator Raggio noted this bill was heard on May 24 and was held pending receipt of clarifying language. Mr. Miles explained the revisions to the bill (Exhibit P) that were made in response to concerns expressed by the controller's office. He said the proposed revisions are an attempt to more fully describe the General Fund appropriations that were included in the "rainy day fund" calculations. He further stated the controller's office has indicated approval of the proposed new language, which qualifies the term "revenue" with the words "unrestricted general fund." Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux if he has any concerns with the proposed revisions. He replied no. Senator Coffin asked how the proposed measure affects the current ending fund balance. Mr. Miles replied it would have no immediate effect. It becomes effective July 1, 1995, so the first test would be June 30, 1996, at which time the ending fund balance would be tested to see if it exceeded the threshold in NRS 353. In further questioning the senator asked if there will be limitations placed on the amount of money that can be appropriated. Mr. Miles and Mr. Comeaux answered no. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 126, THE AMENDMENTS BEING THE REVISIONS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT P. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 241: Increases number of members of state board of parole commissioners. The committee discussed the proposed new language for S.B. 241 as presented in Exhibit Q. Senator Mathews noted the absence of a provision for an ordinary citizen as one of the board members, which she noted the state of Colorado had included to provide balance in the makeup of its parole board. Senator Raggio replied the committee examined a number of different models and then selected what appear to be the best features from among them. He said this matter can be addressed during the proposed interim study, but he suggested it would not be advisable at this time and in this case to include an ordinary citizen on the parole board in view of the concerns regarding the qualifications of the board members. The senator voiced approval of the proposed changes presented in Exhibit Q. Senator O'Donnell asked if the proposed amendment would proscribe any of the existing board members from returning. Senator Raggio said it would not and referred the senator to section 4 on the last page of the amendment (page 14, Exhibit Q), which indicates the new requirements take effect upon expiration of the members' current terms of service. He said the provisions would not force the removal of any of the board members. Senator O'Donnell inquired whether the existing board members qualify for service on the board under the proposed amendment. It was ascertained they would qualify if they have been on the board for 6 years. Senator O'Donnell referred to subsection 4 of section 1 (page 9, Exhibit Q) and questioned the requirement that members of the board must have a criminal justice or law degree and 6 years of experience in one of several specified fields. He suggested it might not be advisable to allow law enforcement officers to serve on the board, equating it with selecting a police officer to serve on a jury. Senator Raggio responded it would not be desirable to preclude former law enforcement officers from serving on the parole board. Senator O'Donnell assented. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 241 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Q. SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 243: Revises provisions governing orders for payment of money belonging to school district. Senator Raggio noted S.B. 243 was heard on April 5. Mr. Miles explained the proposed amendments to the measure as outlined in Exhibit R. He said the bill is designed to allow an acceleration of payment of claims against the school district. At present all claims must be presented to the board, and the amendment would require the board to prescribe rules or procedures under which bills that need to be paid could be paid more quickly and then ratified by the board. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 243 WITH THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE (EXHIBIT R) TO BE INSERTED AFTER LINE 9 ON PAGE 1, AND DO PASS AS AMENDED. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 405: Provides for establishment of family resource centers in certain neighborhoods to provide and administer social services. S.B. 405 was heard by the Senate Committee on Finance on May 3. Senator Rawson said he has a potential amendment to this bill that would accomplish three things: (1) Require parental consent for specific services offered to minors by the resource center, which would bring it in line with existing law; (2) require that local governing boards and neighborhood councils operate under the open meeting law and that the meetings be posted, and (3) require that the superintendent obtain approval from the State Board of Education for the approved neighborhood plans. Senator Raggio inquired whether the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the agency. Senator Rawson replied no. Mr. Miles called attention to a memorandum distributed to the committee (Exhibit S) that concerns two additional proposed amendments to S.B. 405. The first would be to add an appropriation of $565,000 to provide the funding that was removed by the joint subcommittee from the School Improvement budget account (page 182 of the Executive Budget). The subcommittee's intention was to include the funding in the legislation establishing family resource centers. If the Senate Committee on Finance recommends passage of S.B. 405 or S.B. 365, which also relates to family resource centers, the $565,000 appropriation would need to be added to the legislation. SENATE BILL 365: Requires establishment of family resource centers in certain neighborhoods to provide and administer social services. The other amendment pertains to the confidentiality of records and was prepared by Margaret Springgate, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office. Senator Raggio requested clarification of the scope of the confidentiality provisions. Senator Rawson responded the confidentiality provision would apply to anything that is said. Further discussion ensued regarding the scope of the proposed confidentiality provisions, and the bill was held pending further consideration. Senator Mathews recommended passing the bill without the confidentiality amendment. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux to inform Ms. Springgate there is concern about the broad scope of the confidentiality language. SENATE BILL 470: Makes appropriation to department of education to develop and carry out new high school proficiency examination. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 470. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 430: Revises provisions governing regulation of emergency medical services in certain counties. Senator Rawson noted this bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, but was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance when a fiscal note was attached. Senator Mathews said the amounts indicated in the fiscal note ($210,000 in FY 1996 and $173,000 in FY 1997) were in dispute. Senator Raggio requested Senator Mathews to notify the chair when the actual amounts have been determined and announced the hearing on S.B. 430 would be scheduled for the following week. ASSEMBLY BILL 303: Requires state board of education to adopt program to provide pupils with skills to make transition from school to work. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux if the $4 million appropriation for occupational education is in the Governor's budget. Mr. Comeaux replied yes. Senator Raggio noted the measure was somehow sent to the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, despite the $4 million appropriation included in the bill. He requested Mr. Comeaux to briefly comment on the measure. Mr. Comeaux testified the program addressed by A.B. 303 is a partnership between the education community and local businesses to establish vocational education programs that are geared to graduate students with the skills required by local industry groups for their work force. Senator Coffin commented the hearing on this measure was well attended and "well testified," and he recalled there being no opposition to the bill. He said strong support for A.B. 303 was offered by the Nevada Manufacturers Association, the chambers of commerce throughout the state and the economic development authorities. He noted the legislation was initiated 4 years ago. A hearing on A.B. 303 by the Senate Committee on Finance was to be scheduled for the purpose of examining the fiscal impact of this measure. SENATE BILL 18: Requires study of rates charged for leasing grazing rights on private property in Nevada. SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 18 WITH THE INSERTION OF THE WORDS "FOR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC DEPARTMENT" AFTER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND DO PASS AS AMENDED. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND JACOBSEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sue Parkhurst, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Finance June 17, 1995 Page