MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 21, 1995


The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, 
at 8:20 a.m., on Wednesday, June 21, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Larry Peri, Program Analyst
Cristin Buchanan, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Tracey Raxter, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration
Lyn Callison, Accountant, Administrative Services Division, Department of 
	Administration
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services
Robert N. Calderone, Director, Juvenile Services, Washoe County, and President, 
	Nevada Association of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers
Bill Lewis, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Carson City, and Vice President, Nevada 
	Association of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers
Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County
Cranford Crawford, Assistant Director, Clark County Department of Family and Youth 
	Services
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Daniel Hammack, Major, Executive Officer, Highway Patrol Division, Department of 
	Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Tim Carlson, Director, Commission on Economic Development



Senator Raggio directed the committee's attention to amendments that have been 
received for bills previously processed: Senate Bill (S.B.) 18, S.B. 217 and S.B. 211. 
The amendments were reviewed, and the committee indicated approval of the 
amendments as written.

SENATE BILL 18:	Requires study of rates charged for leasing grazing rights on private 
property in Nevada.

Senator Raggio noted the committee acted on S.B. 18 on June 16, 1995.  
Amendment No. 1116 (Exhibit C) amends section 2, page 1, line 24 by inserting, after 
"Nevada," the words "for the department of agricultural economics of the Max C. 
Fleischmann College of Agriculture of the University of Nevada, Reno."

SENATE BILL 217:	Makes appropriation to department of prisons for expenses related 
to Stewart conservation camp.

Senator Raggio said the committee took action on S.B. 217 on June 16.  He reviewed 
the amending language contained in Amendment No. 1068 (Exhibit D).

SENATE BILL 211:	Makes appropriation to mental hygiene and mental retardation 
division of department of human resources for certain 
equipment and refurbishment of facilities.

The Senate Committee on Finance acted on S.B. 211 on March 23.  Senator Raggio 
informed the committee the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means has amended 
this bill with Assembly Amendment No. 1003, deleting the amount of $707,342 and 
inserting the amount of $713,763.

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative 
Counsel Bureau (LCB), said the Assembly amendment essentially removes duplication 
contained in the related Capital Improvement Project (CIP) request (CIP 95-M20).  

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ACTION OF THE 
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS TO INCLUDE 
ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NO. 1003 WITH S.B. 211.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS RHOADS AND RAWSON WERE 
ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 567.

SENATE BILL 567:	Revises provisions governing obligation of state agencies to pay for 
services.

Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, provided 
testimony in favor of S.B. 567, which she noted was requested by and introduced 
through the Senate Committee on Finance.  She testified the bill amends Nevada 
Revised Statutes (NRS) 228.113, and also Chapter 353 of NRS, to simply make the 
law reflect the actual budgeting mechanism for the attorney general's office.


Ms. Nielsen explained there are essentially two components to the request in the bill. 
 The first relates to the fact the agency is on the state cost allocation plan.  Section 1 
in S.B. 567 provides that agencies on the cost allocation plan would not be subjected 
to billing by the attorney general's office, as is the current practice, and that those 
agencies which are not part of the plan may be charged for salaries and other 
expenses associated with services provided by the attorney general's office.

Section 2 in S.B. 567 provides an amendment to Chapter 353 which simply provides 
that the director of the Department of Administration will prepare an annual state 
allocation plan, to conform to current practice.

Senator Raggio asked if S.B. 567 addresses the problem of duplicate billing of certain 
costs (for example, travel).  Ms. Nielsen replied yes.  She said there has been some 
confusion in connection with the change to the state cost allocation plan, but in the 
upcoming biennial budget all travel costs will be in the budget of the attorney general's 
office and will be paid directly from that budget.  

Senator Jacobsen asked whether a record of the time spent by the deputy attorney 
generals (DAGs) on their cases, and related information, is available to the public.  Ms. 
Nielsen responded the DAGs track all hours spent on all projects for all clients, and this 
record is part of what is used to determine the cost allocation.  The information is 
provided to administrators and others who examine the cost allocation plan.  Ms. 
Nielsen indicated the record is public, but there may be confidential elements.  She 
said a record of the total number of hours spent on a case is definitely available to 
anyone requesting this information.

The hearing on S.B. 567 was closed, and the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 246 was 
opened.

ASSEMBLY BILL 246:	Makes appropriation to motor pool division of department of 
administration for purchase of additional vehicles.

Tracey Raxter, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration, 
introduced himself and his associate, Lyn Callison, Accountant, Motor Pool Division, 
Department of Administration, and then testified in support of A.B. 246. 

Mr. Raxter noted A.B. 246 would provide a General Fund appropriation to the Motor 
Pool Division in the amount of $983,368 for the purchase of 73 vehicles.  He said the 
vehicles are being requested by various state agencies to meet their transportation 
needs in response to growth in caseloads and state programs as well as an increase 
in the volume of rental requests received by the Motor Pool Division.  He further stated 
the vehicle requests by the state agencies have been reviewed by the  LCB fiscal 
division and adjusted to reflect the inclusion of the 73 vehicles in this bill.

Senator Raggio inquired if is correct that according to federal or state regulations, 10 
of the 73 vehicles must be alternatively fueled vehicles.  Mr. Raxter replied yes.  In 
further questioning the senator ascertained it is a state regulation that applies.  Mr. 
Raxter noted the state regulation is actually more strict than the federal regulation, 
requiring that in the first year of the biennium, 15 percent of the new vehicles must 
utilize alternative fuel; in the second year that figure increases to 25 percent.


Senator Raggio further inquired as to which type of alternatively fueled vehicles qualify 
for purchase by the state.  Mr. Raxter replied, "Obviously, compressed natural gas, 
which is the type we have been utilizing.  I believe electric could qualify."  Senator 
Raggio asked what type the state purchases at present.  Mr. Raxter responded the 
state currently purchases compressed natural gas vehicles, which is the type that 
appears to be most readily available.

Senator Raggio questioned the value of the applicable regulations at both the state and 
federal levels and the practicality of the vehicles.  He asked if the alternatively fueled 
vehicles meet the intended purpose of the regulations.  Mr. Raxter replied the 
regulations are intended to promote cleaner air, and in that light they probably meet 
the test.

Senator Raggio asked which state agencies use the alternatively fueled vehicles.  Mr. 
Raxter cited two agencies that use the vehicles, the Division of Parole and Probation 
and the Division of Buildings and Grounds, and said only agencies located in Reno or 
Las Vegas can use these vehicles because the fueling facilities are located in those 
areas.  The senator inquired as to the specific location of the fueling facilities in Reno. 
 Mr. Raxter replied the facilities are at the Sierra Pacific Power Company.

In response to further questioning by Senator Raggio, Mr. Raxter indicated there are 
four alternative fuel facilities in Las Vegas.  The senator remarked, "So you don't take 
a very long trip with these cars, is that it?"  Mr. Raxter affirmed this and stated that 
is the reason for the inclusion in the appropriation request of two tanks for the 10 
vehicles, enabling longer traveling distances.  

Senator Mathews asked if the eight mid-size sedans in the request are all allocated to 
the parole and probation division, noting there have been some problems with that 
agency's use of compact vehicles.  Mr. Raxter replied yes.  He said the agency will be 
receiving eight intermediate-size vehicles in the one-shot appropriation, and 12 in both 
years of the biennium from the motor pool vehicle replacement account.

Senator O'Donnell commented there is a bill in the Senate Committee on Government 
Affairs that would require the Purchasing Division to purchase vehicles that meet a 
minimum standard gas mileage requirement.   He asked if this might pose a problem 
for the Motor Pool Division.  Mr. Raxter replied it should not be a problem, because a 
majority of the vehicles purchased by the Motor Pool Division are compact sedans, and 
these vehicles meet or exceed the minimum gas mileage requirements.  The senator 
asked if all of the vehicles have manual transmissions.  Mr. Raxter said no, some of 
the vehicles have automatic transmissions.  

Senator Raggio instructed that the handout provided to the committee, containing a 
breakdown of the vehicle sizes and costs, be included in the record.  The document 
is attached to these minutes as Exhibit E.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 246, and opened the hearing on A.B. 255.

ASSEMBLY BILL 255:	Requires establishment of standardized system of 
information concerning juvenile justice and makes 
appropriation to division of child and family services of 
department of human resources for state automated child 
welfare information system.

John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human 
Resources, spoke in support of A.B. 255.  Stating this is a two-part bill, he said the 
first part of the measure (section 5 of the second reprint) provides the appropriation 
for the state's share of the federally mandated State Automated Child Welfare 
Information System (SACWIS) program.

Mr. Sarb stated the SACWIS project is desperately needed by the division.  He noted 
the Department of Information Services (DIS) has ranked the Division of Child and 
Family Services (DCFS) as the most technologically impoverished agency in state 
government.  He said the consequences include a substantial amount of wasted 
productivity for the agency, measured both in financial terms and in attention to client 
services.  Mr. Sarb testified the division is currently completing the first phase of the 
project, consisting of the business process reengineering (BPR) and the functional 
specifications for automating.  He said the Phase II request for proposal (RFP) is in 
preparation.  He expressed optimism regarding the potential of the BPR, which he said 
is probably the most important project for the agency over the biennium.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the content of Phase II.  He asked if this phase consists 
of a needs assessment.  Mr. Sarb replied Phase II includes a cost benefit analysis, a 
feasibility study and the preparation of the implementation RFP. 

Senator Raggio further questioned Mr. Sarb as to the content of Phase III and the 
schedule for phases II and III.  He ascertained that Phase II, the needs assessment, is 
to be performed in FY 1996, and Phase III, the system design and partial 
implementation of the project, is scheduled for FY 1997.  He inquired as to the 
targeted date of completion for the entire project.  Mr. Sarb responded it is scheduled 
for completion in the early part of FY 1998.

Senator Raggio asked what portion of the SACWIS project is federally funded versus 
the portion funded by the state.  Mr. Sarb replied that from the present time until 
October 1, 1996, the project is 75 percent federally funded and 25 percent state 
funded.  After that date, the funding ratio is 50/50, state/federal.  The senator inquired 
whether there will be usable information in the interim until the entire system has been 
implemented.  Mr. Sarb answered the BPR has generated a substantial amount of 
usable information, including many recommended changes in the agency's information 
processing that should be, and will be, effected.

Returning to his explanation of A.B. 255, Mr. Sarb said the second part of the bill 
creates a standardized system for the reporting, collecting, analysis, maintenance and 
retrieval of information concerning juvenile justice.  He stated this is the next step in 
what has been a 4-year legislatively directed process.

In 1991, Mr. Sarb continued, the Legislature commissioned a study of the juvenile 
justice system.  Among the concerns noted by the NCCD (National Council on Crime 
and Delinquency), the organization that conducted the study, was that the agency's 
data collection is woefully inadequate.  Mr. Sarb stated that in 1993 the Legislature 
required the development of a juvenile justice data collection plan.  That plan was 
presented to the Legislature during the current legislative session, and the provisions 
of A.B. 255 flow out of the recommendations in the plan.

Mr. Sarb acknowledged the data collection proposal is not without controversy.  He 
stated that while he has heard, and he appreciates, the concerns expressed by 
opponents of the proposal, it is time to proceed with the development of this project. 
 He said the state is on the verge of sweeping changes in juvenile justice.


After verifying that A.B. 255 is intended to standardize the definitions and reporting 
of juvenile justice data, Senator Raggio inquired as to the kind of objections that have 
been indicated.  Mr. Sarb deferred to opponents of the bill to speak to this question, 
but he stated that chief among the objections he has heard most recently is the desire 
to report the data in aggregate form rather than as individual case data.  Mr. Sarb 
asserted that aggregate data is of no use to the agency because it does not lend itself 
to analysis.

Mr. Sarb said the need for the SACWIS system was highlighted during the current 
legislative session when the question arose as to whether to certify juvenile offenders 
as adults at the age of 14 versus the age of 16 for certain types of offenses.  He 
indicated that given the information vacuum in which the DCFS has been operating, 
the agency cannot accurately provide the statistical data requested by the Legislature. 
 He said the inability to provide such information is a disservice to the Legislature and 
an embarrassment to himself as a manager.  

Concluding his testimony in support of A.B. 255, Mr. Sarb reiterated this project will 
not be easy, but must be undertaken in order to provide the necessary data for 
decision-making by the Legislature and the agency.

Senator Jacobsen asked if Mr. Sarb has statistics available as to the number of 
juveniles currently in the juvenile justice system in Clark County, Washoe County and 
the rural counties.  Mr. Sarb indicated part of the problem with the current system is 
the lack of standardization, which results in unreliable data.  The senator inquired 
whether juvenile crime is on the rise in the State of Nevada.  Mr. Sarb replied in the 
affirmative.  He said the two phenomena that have been observed anecdotally are the 
increase in juvenile crime resulting from the growth in population, and a trend toward 
more violent crimes by juveniles.

Senator O'Donnell questioned Mr. Sarb regarding the Legislature's authorization of 
funding for the BPR.  Mr. Sarb answered the funding was authorized by the Interim 
Finance Committee (IFC) in June 1994.  He verified the BPR is nearly completed.  
Senator O'Donnell further questioned Mr. Sarb regarding the cost effectiveness of the 
proposed project and the anticipated benefit to the state should the requested 
appropriation ($1,687,500) be approved.   As an example of a benefit to be realized, 
Mr. Sarb noted the agency's professional field staff currently spend 50-65 percent of 
their time on paperwork.  It is anticipated the staff time required for paperwork would 
be significantly reduced with the new system.  Mr. Sarb said the BPR speaks to some 
of the existing processes that are unnecessary or antiquated.

Senator O'Donnell commented the new computer system is not merely intended to 
track juvenile offenses and encompasses much more than that.  Mr. Sarb said the 
juvenile justice data collection is the smallest part of the proposal, the major part being 
the SACWIS project.  The senator inquired as to what part of the project the federal 
government has agreed to fund.  Mr. Sarb responded the federal government will fund 
automation of the child welfare-related component of the system to produce certain 
information required at the federal level as well as information utilized by the states 
related to client tracking, foster care and other services.

Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the cost of the project.  Mr. Sarb said the cost for the 
one-shot request in A.B. 255 is $1,687,500, and the total cost of the project is 
approximately $6 million.  He affirmed the senator's remarks that for $6 million it will 
be possible to automate the entire Division of Child and Family Services and maintain 
computerized records "with an identifying number but no names."  He noted these 
provisions speak to the juvenile justice component, which is related to but also 
separate from the SACWIS project.  He said the SACWIS will be both a client tracking 
system and a management information system for child welfare in Nevada.


Mr. Sarb noted there are 4,000 children in state custody at this time, and under the 
current system it is unlikely the exact number of children in the system at a given time 
(a relatively simple request) could be provided.  He emphasized the project is very 
much needed, in terms of management data, client tracking and the work performed 
by field staff.

Senator Raggio requested Mr. Sarb to briefly discuss the provisions in section 1 of 
A.B. 255, which pertain to the juvenile justice information system.

Mr. Sarb stated subsection 1, section 1, specifies the kinds of information that would 
be required to be collected in juvenile justice.  It includes basic demographic 
information and major milestones encountered in any case proceeding through the 
juvenile justice system.

Regarding subsection 3, section 1 on lines 13 and 14, page 2 of the bill, Senator 
Raggio inquired as to the reason for the provision that the information maintained in 
the standardized system must not include the name or address of any person.  Mr. 
Sarb responded that confidentiality concerns entered into the decision to include this 
provision.

In further questioning Senator Raggio ascertained that section 2 reflects existing law 
on records that are open for inspection by court order only, and contains a provision 
excluding from the requirement for a court order information that is maintained in the 
standardized system established pursuant to section 1 of the bill.  Section 3 is also 
existing law that relates to the sealing of records.

Senator Raggio invited further testimony from proponents of A.B. 255.

Representatives of four county juvenile probation agencies came forward to testify on 
A.B. 255 and identified themselves as follows: Rob Calderone, Director, Juvenile 
Services, Washoe County, and President, Nevada Association of Chief Juvenile 
Probation Officers (NACJPO); Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas 
County; Bill Lewis, Chief Probation Officer, Carson City, and Vice President of the 
NACJPO; and Cranford Crawford, Assistant Director, Clark County Department of 
Family and Youth Services.

Mr. Lewis drew attention to a handout distributed to the committee containing 
statistical information previously requested by Larry Peri, Program Analyst, Fiscal 
Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit F).  Mr. Lewis said there are 
differences among the various jurisdictions in the manner of documenting and 
collecting data, but the counties' judicial districts have a strong interest in moving 
forward cooperatively with the states to devise a means of providing the best possible 
data to the Legislature.


Continuing, Mr. Lewis said the table of statistics in Exhibit F reveals that in 1994, 
44,545 offenses were committed by 28,700 juveniles.  Of this number 2.5 percent 
(693) of the juvenile offenders were committed to the Division of Child and Family 
Services.  The bill dictates to the county judicial districts the data to be provided, and 
the districts are seeking the ability to provide input as to the data to be collected.  Mr. 
Lewis noted there is a substantial cost to the counties to provide the information; for 
example, during the past 2 years, Carson City has spent $65,000 in providing 
hardware and software for the juvenile court/juvenile probation system.  The county 
purchased a special software program, JCATS (Juvenile Court Activity Tracking 
System) for tracking juvenile case activity, which has proven unsatisfactory because 
it does not provide reports that are needed.  

Mr. Lewis stated A.B. 255 presents difficulties for the county judicial districts and will 
involve a cost to the counties.  He said staff and financial assistance from the state 
is desired.  He commented that, as he understands it, none of the funding provided for 
in this bill would go toward juvenile justice data collection but would be utilized entirely 
for the child welfare component of the system.

In summary, Mr. Lewis emphasized the counties would be required by A.B. 255 to 
provide a substantial amount of information on 28,700 juveniles, which requires staff.

Senator Raggio requested clarification of Mr. Lewis's position on this bill.  He asked 
if the districts favor the proposed system of collecting the information.  Mr. Lewis 
replied that in general he favors the formation of a partnership between the counties 
and the state for the purpose of devising a good data collection system, but he said 
the counties will be unable to provide some of the specific elements required by 
A.B. 255 under the existing system.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the elements referred to by Mr. Lewis.  Mr. Lewis cited 
as an example the elements relating to each individual juvenile and the dates of any 
detention of that child.  During the course of a calendar year, some youths come into 
the system several times, for misdemeanors, felony offenses or probation violations. 
 The make-up of the composition of the household in which the juvenile resides is 
another element that would be difficult to provide.  Mr. Lewis elaborated on the 
difficulty encountered in attempting to assess the family background and then to 
compile the data to submit to the state.  He stated the county probation agencies are 
interested in moving forward and having a better system in place for the next 
Legislature.  He reiterated it will not be easy, and the counties are hoping to obtain 
funding assistance to allow hiring of a computer programmer to facilitate the 
cooperative efforts between the counties and the state.

Mr. Crawford testified next.  Voicing agreement with the testimony of Mr. Lewis, he 
stated the Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services believes the data 
collection is necessary and has computerized most of the necessary data, but lacks the 
capability to produce the reports in the desired format.  He said the agency would be 
required to add at least one or two staff to perform data processing, and another 
person to perform computer programming functions in order to provide the desired 
output.  

Continuing, Mr. Crawford testified the family and youth services agency he represents 
is in the process of undergoing a BPR for the purpose of determining a better method 
of collecting data, planning, producing programs and "determining what it is that we 
are actually doing."  He further stated, "We would be willing to try to incorporate both 
of these together as we go along this process, but at this point we are not able to do 
that because we're not even able to get some of the [statistics] at this point out of the 
system that we have."  He said this is due to the lack of technical assistance.  He 
stated at present it is necessary to obtain the services of a programmer each time 
specific statistics are requested, and if the information cannot be obtained from the 
county's system it must be compiled manually. 


Mr. Crawford emphasized the difficulty that would be encountered by Clark County 
in complying with certain requirements of A.B. 255.   He noted the county would be 
responsible for providing two-thirds of the information that goes into the system if the 
bill passes, entailing additional work for the agency and a drain on existing staff.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the Clark County agency is currently compiling the 
type of information that would be required in section 1 of A.B. 255.  Mr. Crawford 
responded the data is being collected, but it cannot be compiled and reported in any 
particular format at present.  He explained that while raw data can be provided, 
programmed data cannot.  He said the agency has no computer programmers on staff, 
necessitating utilization of the county system for programming assistance;  however, 
even if such assistance is available there may be significant delays in obtaining it.  Mr. 
Crawford stated the agency is concerned about the impact of the bill in terms of the 
requirements to provide certain data within specified time frames and formats.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Lewis if the county he represents (Carson City) is currently 
collecting all of the data required under section 1 of A.B. 255.  Mr. Lewis replied no. 
 He explained the county is having a difficult time entering all of its data and is 
struggling with the process of producing reports from the present system.  He said 
there have been discussions between Douglas County and Carson City aimed at 
working together to obtain technical assistance that would facilitate the ability to 
report data in a suitable format.

Senator Raggio further questioned Mr. Lewis regarding what would be needed for the 
county to be able to comply with the requirements of A.B. 255 in terms of additional 
staff and equipment.  Mr. Lewis replied the first priority would be technical assistance, 
and the second would be part-time staff for data entry purposes.  The senator 
suggested the data collection required by the bill is of the type that the counties would 
wish to obtain for their own purposes, whether or not the bill mandates such 
collection. Mr. Lewis agreed.  He noted that 18 months ago Howard Snyder, a juvenile 
expert from the National College of Archive Data Collection (NCADC), addressed a 
meeting attended by county chief probation officers and state personnel, and explained 
how to initiate and begin development of a statewide data collection effort.  He said 
the counties fully support that goal.

Mr. Calderone presented testimony at this time.  He stated that Washoe County spent 
approximately $85,000 last year to develop the JCATS tracking system.  He took 
issue with what he referred to as a representation made by Mr. Sarb that conveyed the 
impression the chief probation officers have not been actively participating in this 
process.  He stated, "If it's time for anybody to get up and get started, I think it's 
more for the state to get started on some of their stuff as opposed to us."  He said it 
is obvious the chief probation officers have attempted to develop a data gathering 
system.  He noted that Douglas County also has the JCATS program in place.

Continuing, Mr. Calderone indicated the data required by the state is essentially 
available, but not necessarily in a usable format.  He said part of the chief probation 
officers' concern is that because the state is allowed to establish regulations regarding 
the format of the data and related aspects of data collection, state personnel can 
request data in a format that is not compatible with the counties' existing computer 
systems, which have entailed substantial expenditures of time and money.  The 
counties lack the additional resources that would be required to reprogram the 
computers in order to comply with the state requirements.  Mr. Calderone asserted 
there is no mechanism in the bill to prevent the occurrence of such a situation.


Senator Raggio asked Mr. Calderone if he sees value in having a statewide data bank 
containing the necessary information that is reported in a uniform manner.  Mr. 
Calderone replied yes.  He said the chief probation officers fully support such a 
concept.  He maintained the problem is that the development of a data collection 
system has been addressed in a haphazard, sporadic manner, and the appropriate 
technical assistance and financial support have been lacking.  He suggested this has 
resulted in the development of data requirements that may be irrelevant to some of the 
decisions that are made at the state level.  He explained that Mr. Snyder of the 
NCADC described the need for information as a kind of reverse pyramid, wherein at 
the county level, the volume of detailed data required may be greater than at the state 
level, and at the legislative level the volume required may be even less.  

Continuing, Mr. Calderone stated it is the goal of all of the chief probation officers to 
obtain as much information as possible.  He said the chiefs are working together to 
achieve standardization in areas such as offense categorization and data elements.  He 
further stated the counties' concern is the possible imposition of a requirement to 
provide programmatic data that will entail substantial costs to redesign and reprogram 
the current computer systems in order to provide the data in a format that is usable 
to the state.   Mr. Calderone said there is no guarantee at this point the state system 
will be compatible with the counties' JCATS tracking system.

Calling upon Mr. Sarb to explain how the various requirements under discussion came 
to be amended into A.B. 255, which initially was a simple appropriation request for the 
SACWIS, Senator Raggio inquired as to the source of the recommendation to establish 
a central repository for juvenile justice information.  Mr. Sarb replied the amendment 
was requested by an Assembly committee.

Senator Raggio asked if the bill contains provisions that address the costs which would 
be incurred by local districts in their efforts to comply with the state requirements in 
A.B. 255.  Mr. Sarb responded part of the debate on this issue relates to the bill's 
fiscal impact.  He voiced the opinion that the point made by the senator regarding the 
value to the county probation agencies of the information required in A.B. 255 is a 
valid one.  He remarked, "The information that is required here is information that you 
would expect any normally well-run probation department to be collecting in some 
fashion right now."

Referencing Mr. Calderone's remarks concerning the "reverse pyramid" description of 
the informational needs of the county relative to other entities, Senator Raggio asked 
whether in fact the state and legislature require lesser amounts of information than do 
the counties.  Mr. Sarb answered the state probably requires a lesser amount, but as 
pointed out by Dr. Snyder of NCADC, aggregate data that is not constructed from 
case-specific data is unreliable.

Senator Raggio inquired if the state is currently collecting data of the type required in 
A.B. 255.  Mr. Sarb replied it is not being collected from the county probation 
departments, but a portion of the data required of the DCFS in subsection 2 of 
section 1 is currently being collected.  

Senator Raggio asked whether the information that can be provided by the county 
probation departments at the present time is sufficient.  Mr. Sarb replied it is not.  In 
response to further questioning by the senator, Mr. Sarb indicated the form of the data 
currently being provided is not sufficient to provide the kind of detailed, relevant 
information that is needed.


Senator O'Donnell suggested the ability to provide more extensive information might 
not be worth the $1.687 million cost.  Mr. Sarb replied the $1.687 million for the 
SACWIS is entirely independent of the provision in A.B. 255 pertaining to juvenile 
justice data collection.  The senator requested further explanation of the benefits to 
be derived from the $1.687 million appropriation, other than automation of the DCFS. 
 Mr. Sarb answered the funds will enable the total automation of the division.  He 
noted the results of the BPR study are to be formally presented on June 29 in Carson 
City, and he indicated the study will substantially explain the direction in which the 
agency is heading with regard to the data collection process.

Senator O'Donnell commented he has a philosophical problem with the role of the 
state in the juvenile justice system.  He expressed the opinion the juvenile-related 
problems should be addressed at the local level rather than at the state level.  He 
stated, "When you try and aggregate higher and higher to a higher level of 
government, with juvenile problems, I think you are doing the community a disservice 
and...the juvenile a disservice."  He asserted the county probation officers perform 
their functions quite well.  He empathized with the agencies' difficulties in providing 
the mandated information, given the problem of incompatibility of computer systems.

Senator O'Donnell proposed the DCFS design an appropriate data format, obtain the 
necessary funding, and have the counties apply for a grant to allow reprogramming of 
their computer systems in order to produce the type of data required by the state.  He 
maintained this would solve the problem.

Mr. Calderone remarked, "I think you hit the nail right on the head." 

Mr. Sarb responded, "I don't think this [the applicable portion of A.B. 255] is 
substantially different than what you've just described."

Senator Coffin commented the Department of Prisons cannot presently provide the 
Legislature with appropriate information regarding the juvenile records and crime 
patterns of inmates that explains how they became involved in crime.  He inquired 
whether A.B. 255 will facilitate the provision of this type of information.  Mr. Sarb 
replied in the affirmative.  He further stated that while he is not unsympathetic to the 
concerns presented by the chief probation officers, part of the chiefs' argument 
(relating to the costs of their computer systems) actually supports the data collection 
requirements in the bill.  He explained the division hopes to work with the counties 
over the biennium to develop an automated system that will eliminate the need for the 
county probation agencies to continually revamp their computer systems at substantial 
cost.  He indicated it is not so much automation as standardization of definitions and 
terms that is the paramount concern at this time.

Continuing, Mr. Sarb noted there is at present not even a common understanding of 
what constitutes a referral.  He asserted the major part of the amendment pertaining 
to juvenile justice data collection addresses the need for standardization.

Senator Coffin raised the question of access to sealed juvenile records.  Mr. Sarb said 
pending legislation would make the records more accessible.  The senator inquired 
whether the difficulty in obtaining these records hinders the information-gathering 
process.  Mr. Sarb said information required by the DCFS is available.  Discussion 
ensued as to the availability of juvenile records to county and state agencies.


Mr. Calderone commented the ideal situation would be the establishment of a 
computerized data base throughout the entire correctional system containing historical 
information about adult offenders in the system.  He said the question is one of how 
to achieve this goal and who is to pay for it.  He remarked that a project of the type 
under discussion is difficult, expensive and time-consuming.

Senator Raggio asked if the representatives of the county probation departments 
testified before the appropriate committees in the Assembly on A.B. 255.  Noting that 
he tracks all of the bills for the Nevada Association of Chief Probation Officers, Mr. 
Lewis said this bill initially had no juvenile justice elements and was subsequently 
modified.  There has been no opportunity to offer testimony on the bill prior to this 
hearing, he indicated.

Senator Raggio invited testimony from Mr. Cook, representing Douglas County.  Mr. 
Cook echoed comments made previously that the juvenile justice data collection 
project is a difficult undertaking.  He said the county supports a project of this type, 
but cost is an issue.  He further stated the county had proposed as a starting point 
collecting the data in aggregate form, a capability the county currently has.    

Senator Raggio requested the representatives of the county probation departments to 
compile a report of the information the counties currently have the capability to 
submit, on a uniform basis, to the DCFS.  He further requested that copies of the 
report be submitted to the committee and to Mr. Sarb.  He stated the committee will 
not act upon A.B. 255 at this time.

Mr. Lewis addressed the question raised previously by Senator Coffin concerning the 
accessibility of juvenile records to concerned agencies.  He said all of the jurisdictions 
 currently provide to the facility superintendents copies of the court reports on the 693 
youths committed to the county youth camps in Douglas County and Clark County and 
the state juvenile facilities in Elko and Caliente.  The court reports include all of the 
juvenile offender's prior records, the school progress reports, family background 
reports and related information.  He said the information is available to the state.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 255.  He agreed to allow a brief report by 
Senator Jacobsen's on the water situation at China Spring Youth Camp.

SENATE BILL 548:	Makes appropriation to Douglas County for repairs or replacement 
of well and appurtenant equipment at China Spring Youth 
Camp.

Regarding the status of the water situation at the China Spring Youth Camp in Douglas 
County, Senator Jacobsen said the cost of installing a water treatment plant is 
estimated at $100,000, compared to a cost of $15,000 to drill a new well.  He 
recommended the Legislature set aside $15,000 for drilling a new well and allow the 
agency to obtain the funds from the IFC.

Senator Raggio said the information would be held until the committee processes this 
 measure.

ASSEMBLY BILL 566:	Extends period during which committee on benefits shall 
review history of claims paid from state's group insurance 
for certain public officers and employees.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), 
testified in opposition to A.B. 566.


Senator Raggio stated this bill will be held until proponents of the measure are 
available to testify.

ASSEMBLY BILL 630:	Requires reimbursement of legislative counsel bureau for 
drafting legislation for certain entities.

Senator Raggio requested staff to explain A.B. 630.  Mr. Miles said the bill was not 
requested by the LCB but originated in the Assembly.  He said two members of the 
Assembly who are interested in this bill were notified of the hearing, but are not in 
attendance.  Senator Raggio instructed staff to notify Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick and 
Assemblyman Larry Spitler that the hearing will be rescheduled.

The hearing on A.B. 630 was closed, and A.B. 692 was opened.

ASSEMBLY BILL 692:	Abolishes highway patrol special account.

Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety 
(DMV&PS), came forward to offer testimony in support of A.B. 692.  With him were 
Major Daniel Hammack, representing the Highway Patrol Division, DMV&PS, and Sgt. 
Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association.  

Senator Raggio said it is the chair's understanding A.B. 692 must be approved in order 
to conform with the budget actions related to this measure.  Mr. Sparks affirmed this. 
He said the budget closing action abolishes the special account and consolidates it 
with the regular highway patrol account.

Senator Raggio asked John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, if 
approval of A.B. 692 conforms with the recommendations of the administration.  Mr. 
Comeaux indicated in the affirmative.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the position of the highway patrol representatives, 
who previously opposed A.B. 692, has changed.  Major Hammack responded it 
appears the concerns expressed by the highway patrol have been addressed, and it 
remains to be seen what will occur.  He thanked those who expressed support for the 
 Nevada highway patrol.

The hearing on A.B. 692 was closed, and the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution 
(A.J.R.) 26 of the Sixty-seventh Session was opened.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 26
OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION:	Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to 
clarify exemption from debt limitation of 
money borrowed to retrofit state buildings to 
make use of energy more efficient.

This measure was held due to the absence of proponents to present testimony.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 35
OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION:	Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to allow 
investment by state to stimulate economic 
development.


Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development (CED), 
testified in support of this measure.  Noting this is the second legislative session the 
bill has come before the Senate Committee on Finance, Mr. Carlson said it will proceed 
to a vote of the people if it is approved by the 1995 Legislature.

Letters sent to the committee in support of this measure are appended to these 
minutes as Exhibit G and Exhibit H.

Senator Raggio observed A.J.R. 35 of the Sixty-Seventh Session was heard during the 
previous session.  After determining that none of the new members of the committee 
required further testimony on this measure, Senator Raggio closed the hearing.

Senator Raggio noted the presence of Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 
39, who stated his desire to testify on A.B. 630.

ASSEMBLY BILL 630:	Requires reimbursement of legislative counsel bureau for 
drafting legislation for certain entities.

Mr. Hettrick stated A.B. 630 resulted from collaboration between Mr. Spitler and 
himself after they realized the cost involved in bill drafting when the Assembly 
Committee on Ways and Means approved an appropriation for the drafting and printing 
of the numerous bills processed during the current legislative session.   He noted there 
are two other bills pending that are similar to this measure.  He expressed the hope the 
bills would be merged in some fashion, and a version passed that would impose a fee 
for bill draft requests (BDRs) to reduce frivolous requests.  He noted the BDRs are 
charged to the Legislature.  

Mr. Hettrick further commented it is important the fee not be flexible; otherwise, the 
Legislature opens itself to argument with regard to cost variances.  He said there 
should be a certain number of BDRs for which a fee is not imposed so it does not 
prohibit the smaller counties and other small entities from requesting bill drafts.  The 
fee should be a reasonable amount that pays for the bulk of the costs, Mr. Hettrick 
stated, and the language in A.B. 630 has been drafted accordingly.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the average cost of a bill draft.  Mr. Hettrick said the 
cost estimates range from $500 to $700, probably closer to $700, per BDR.  The 
senator verified this bill would exempt legislators, legislative committees, state 
agencies, officers of the executive branch of state government, supreme court justices 
and district court judges.  He requested explanation of subsection 2(b), which provides 
 the fee shall not apply to the first five legislative measures prepared for a given entity 
for a particular session of the legislature.  Mr. Hettrick said this is the provision aimed 
at ensuring the BDRs are affordable to the smaller entities. 

Senator Raggio observed A.B. 630 should probably have been referred to the Senate 
Committee on Legislative Affairs.  

Mr. Hettrick indicated this bill is also endorsed by Mr. Spitler.

The hearing on A.B. 630 was closed.  The committee then took action on S.B. 266.

SENATE BILL 266:	Requires research division of legislative counsel bureau to prepare 
certain information related to federal mandates and 
encroachments.


Senator Raggio noted the committee acted previously to amend and do pass this 
measure.  He drew attention to the amendment requested by the committee and 
subsequently received for processing, Amendment No. 1163 (Exhibit I).

Senator Rhoads, as the bill's sponsor, explained the amendment substitutes "research 
division" for "auditor."

The committee approved sending Amendment No. 1163 to the secretary's desk on the 
Senate floor.

Senator Raggio stated no additional bills will be considered at this time except 
S.B. 567, which he said the committee will act upon because of the necessity to 
process Senate bills.  He added the committee must inquire as to why many Senate 
bills are not being processed in the Assembly.

SENATE BILL 567:	Revises provisions governing obligation of state agencies to pay for 
services.

SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 567.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

In discussion on the committee's work load, Senator Raggio stated he must receive 
any additional bills that require consideration by the committee.  He also requested 
suggestions from the committee with regard to which of the pending bills should be 
indefinitely postponed.

At 9:35 a.m. Senator Raggio stated the committee will be in recess until the call of the 
chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Sue Parkhurst,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:





Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman


DATE: 	




Senate Committee on Finance
June 21, 1995
Page