MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
March 12, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons (excused)
Mr. Josh Griffin (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. William C. Horne
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 82: Extends date of expiration of Newlands Project Water Rights Fund and related program for acquisition of certain surface water rights. (BDR S-346)
Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 82 and acknowledged Assemblyman Tom Collins. Mr. Collins introduced himself and said the bill was a good bill that Assemblyman Mortenson would address when he arrived at the meeting.
Mr. Edwin D. James, P.E., General Manager, Carson Water Subconservancy District (CWSD), introduced himself. Mr. James referred the Committee to Exhibit C, the A.B. 380 Water Rights Purchase Program Start-up Timeline, and Exhibit D, meeting minutes of the Carson Water Subconservancy District Newlands Committee Meeting of May 21, 2002. Mr. James apologized for referring to Exhibit C as the A.B. 380 Water Rights Purchase Program Start-up Timeline; he said that A.B. 380 was the original bill number and that was how the program was referred to. Mr. James said the current bill was an extension of the original bill. Mr. James said the good news was that he was not appearing before the Committee to ask for money, he was only asking for time. Mr. James said the original bill was designed to last for five years in 1999. On June 7, 1999, the Governor signed A.B. 380, which established legislation to move forward in purchasing water rights in the Newlands Project to alleviate litigation problems there. On June 8, 1999, the first meeting of users was held. There were no policies or procedures on how to set up a program so when the bill was signed, Mr. James started working on setting up the program. Mr. James said that part of the legislation established the Carson Water Subconservancy District to be the administrator of the program. Mr. James said the District was not a signatory to the program but was a neutral party chosen to administer the program.
Mr. James said that in October 1999, the Carson Water Subconservancy District (CWSD) accepted the appraisal report for water rights in the Newlands Project. He said the CWSD had to determine how much the water rights were worth because the CWSD could pay no more than the fair market value for the water rights. Mr. James said that in the fall of 1999, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) decided that it needed to conduct an environmental assessment before any monies could be expended. Mr. James said the program set up funding to purchase water rights. He said $4 million would come from the state, $9 million would come from the federal government, $2.5 million would come from the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA), and any other funds that could be located. Mr. James said that the majority of the funding would come from the federal government even though the federal government was not a signatory to the program. He said that in the fall of 1999, the federal government determined it could not provide any funding until it had completed an environmental assessment. Mr. James stated that the Board of Directors of the Carson Water Subconservancy District decided at that time that it did not want to move forward with the program until it was guaranteed that the federal funds were available. Mr. James said it would not have been fair to start using the state funds and the TMWA funds if the federal funds were not available. He said the program would not be successful without the federal funds. Mr. James stated that in August 2000, the BOR finalized its environmental assessment. At that time the BOR said it could authorize the funds it had agreed to in A.B. 380. On September 20, 2002, the Board of the CWSD approved the purchase procedures and authorized staff to begin purchasing the water. Mr. James said that in November 2000, the Board signed its first contract with the BOR and in December 2000, the CWSD began receiving funds from the federal government.
Mr. James said that although A.B. 380 was enacted in 1999, the CWSD had actually lost a year and a half getting the program going, and that had been a real concern.
Mr. James stated that the program had purchased a little over 1,200 acres of water rights. He clarified that he meant acres, not acre feet. He said the program had been set up in acres and the goal of the program was to purchase 6,500 acres. Mr. James said there had been some “hiccups” along the way but the program was moving along.
Mr. James explained that Exhibit D was the meeting minutes from the May 21, 2002, meeting of the Carson Water Subconservancy District Newlands Committee. He said that the CWSD was only the administrator of the program and any action required agreement by the signatories of the program. Mr. James said the signatories were the City of Fallon, Churchill County, the Pyramid Tribe, the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA), and the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. Mr. James said that there had been a discussion to extend the program an additional two years as shown on page 3 of the minutes. Mr. James said all the signatories of the program agreed to request the extension of time. Mr. James said he had received letters from Churchill County and the City of Fallon supporting the bill but all the other signatories had also agreed to the extension. Mr. James said the bill was straightforward; all that was requested was an additional two years to reach the goal of acquiring 6,500 acres of water.
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson introduced himself. He said A.B. 82 was Ms. Marcia de Braga’s bill.
Mr. Steve Walker, Walker & Associates, introduced himself and said he represented the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. He said the Truckee Meadows Water Authority, as a signatory of the agreement, was supportive of the extension.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in support of or against A.B. 82, and since there was no further testimony, he closed the hearing on A.B. 82 and opened the hearing on A.B. 252.
Assembly Bill 252: Makes appropriation to State General Fund from Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government. (BDR S-1233)
Mr. Andrew Clinger, Deputy Director, Budget Division, introduced himself. Mr. Clinger said that A.B. 252 would appropriate $100 million from the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government to the state General Fund for fiscal year 2003.
Ms. Carole Vilardo, representing the Nevada Taxpayers Association, introduced herself and said she supported the passage of A.B. 252. She said the Fund should be the first line of defense before any taxes were raised.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak for or in opposition to A.B. 252. There was no additional testimony and Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 252 and opened the hearing on A.B. 254.
Assembly Bill 254: Makes supplemental appropriations to Department of Motor Vehicles for certain unanticipated shortfalls in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (BDR S-1232)
Mr. Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, introduced himself. Mr. Colling said he would present testimony and answer questions on A.B. 254, which requested a number of supplemental appropriations for various budgets within the Department. Mr. Colling said the requests in A.B. 254 were prepared and originally submitted at the beginning of the fiscal year with the Department’s budget request. Since that time, the Department had continually reviewed the status of each budget and initiated savings or alternative programs where practical. Mr. Colling said he was requesting that two additional items be added to the FY2003 Supplemental Request, however, the total amount needed had been reduced by $469,808. Mr. Colling referred to Exhibit E, which listed each request in the bill with the revised amount requested. Mr. Colling said Exhibit E also listed the two additional items that had been requested. Those two items were sent to the Budget Division on February 26, 2003, which was much later than the other requests were sent.
Mr. Colling explained that there were two requests for Budget Account 4715. The first request originally asked for $667,590, and the Department was currently asking for $156,500. That reduction was based upon the actions taken at the June 2002 Interim Finance Committee meeting. At that meeting the method by which the toll-free 800 telephone calls from the public were made was changed. The Department’s bills were averaging approximately $50,000 per month during fiscal year 2002 for the 800 number. Mr. Colling said the first monthly billing in FY2003 was $65,000. The bills had since dropped to approximately $6,000 per month, which was a significant reduction. Mr. Colling said the second request in Budget Account 4715 was for $308,400 for the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) billings for facility charges, Web services, the housing and maintenance of servers, disk storage, and the Silvernet, which had all exceeded the amounts budgeted and the additional funding was needed to pay DoIT for those items.
Mr. Colling said the Department had one request for Budget Account 4732. The original request was for $44,200 and the Department was currently requesting $15,000. Mr. Colling said Budget Account 4732 was a very small budget for the Department’s hearing office. He said there was an employee who would officially retire on June 30, 2003, and his terminal leave pay would be $34,851. The Department had been able to address some of the need in the budget through other savings but the additional $15,000 was needed.
Mr. Colling said there were two requests for Budget Account 4735. The first request was for $30,419 for Qmatic warranties that had not been budgeted. The second request was for $66,000 for state-owned building rent that was not properly budgeted. Those funds were needed for the Field Services operation and with their very low vacancy rate, the remaining balances in other categories would not be able to offset any of the shortfalls.
Mr. Colling stated that the request for Budget Account 4740 had been for $49,096. That amount had been reduced to $26,000 in the fingerprint category. Mr. Colling said the Department currently received revenue from clients such as dealer salesmen who were required to be fingerprinted. Since the fingerprint category was funded from a Highway Fund appropriation, any increase in fingerprint activity above the projected amount resulted in a shortfall in the budget. Mr. Colling said the Department had requested a bill draft request (BDR) to change the funding mechanism in that category. If the BDR was approved the revenue received for each fingerprint check would be used to directly offset the payments to the Criminal History Repository.
Mr. Colling said the next request was for Budget Account 4742. The Department was requesting $125,925 for security guards in the Department’s field services offices. The request was necessary because it had not been sufficiently budgeted for in the previous biennial budget. The contract in place for the service was a statewide contract with the Wackenhut Corporation.
Mr. Colling said the request for Budget Account 4717, was an additional request that the Department had asked to be added to the supplemental request. The Department needed $20,472 for the salary category. That amount represented additional group insurance costs that all budgets were asked to absorb.
Mr. Colling stated that the final request was for Budget Account 4745, which was an additional request for $73,106 in the salary category that the Department asked be added to the supplemental appropriation. Mr. Colling said that Budget Account 4745 was charged $40,261 for additional group insurance costs. In addition, the Department had a position that had been budgeted at a Step 1 but was actually hired at a Step 9. The result of those two issues was that the salary costs had been increased and the Department needed the requested funds to remain within budget.
Mr. Colling explained that the total funding that had been requested from the Supplemental Request had been reduced from the original request by $469,808, to a total of $821,822.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked why the Department had a shortfall in the amount needed to pay the DoIT charges. Mrs. Chowning also wanted to know why the appropriate amount for the security guards and the Qmatic warranties had not been budgeted.
Mr. Colling answered that the request for the $308,400 for DoIT expenditures was for the Department’s usage of DoIT services. As the Department’s usage of the DoIT services fluctuated, the DoIT charges also fluctuated. Mr. Colling said the Department had no control over the use of the DoIT services. Mr. Colling said that whatever usage occurred during the year was billed for. He said the Department had estimated its usage and the costs but the estimated funds were not sufficient.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the problem came about because the billing rate had not changed but the Department used more services than it had anticipated. Mr. Colling responded that Mrs. Chowning was correct in her analysis of the problem.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked that Mr. Colling comment on the shortfall for the Qmatic warranties and the security guards. Mr. Colling said that the funds necessary for the Qmatic warranties had been improperly omitted from the budget for FY2003. Mr. Colling said the warranties were very important for the Department.
Ms. Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, introduced herself. She said that in 2000 the Department had appeared before the Interim Finance Committee on a number of different issues to address issues within the Field Services budget. One of the issues was an increase in the cost of the security guards for the DMV Express offices. Ms. Lewis said that when the budget was built for the 2001-03 biennium the incremental increase for that contract was inadvertently left out. The amount requested was the amount the Department had requested from the Interim Finance Committee and the Department had missed it in the budget.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in support of or in opposition to A.B. 254.
Ms. Jeanette Belz, representing the Associated General Contractors (AGC), Nevada Chapter, introduced herself. She said that the word “opposition” was a “little bit” of a strong word. Ms. Belz said she was pleased that the request had actually been reduced but she would suggest a possible amendment if the Committee was interested in processing the bill. She suggested that the funding could perhaps be a loan from the Highway Fund. Ms. Belz said that the original numbers in the bill were $1.3 million, which equaled the cost of 8 lane miles of a 3‑inch overlay. Ms. Belz said that every dollar that was not in the Highway Fund meant that the highways could not be maintained.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Belz to provide a copy of her proposed amendment to the bill. Ms. Belz agreed to provide a proposed amendment.
Ms. Ginny Lewis said she wanted to add for the record that the 22 percent funding cap on the Highway Fund was an issue. She said the Department had revised its revenue projections. There had been an increase in the revenue collected for the insurance verification program. Ms. Lewis said that with those revisions and the requested supplemental funds, the Department’s expenses for fiscal year 2003 were still within the 22 percent cap.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak for or in opposition to A.B. 254. Since there were no additional comments, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 254 and opened the hearing on A.B. 238.
Assembly Bill 238: Makes appropriation to Interim Finance Committee for allocation to Eighth Judicial District of State of Nevada for operational expenses of mental health court in Clark County. (BDR S-1089)
Assemblyman William C. Horne introduced himself and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on A.B. 238. Mr. Horne said that A.B. 238 provided for the funding of a Mental Health Court in Clark County. He said that in 2001, the 71st Session of the Legislature passed a bill presented by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie that allowed for the creation of a Mental Health Court in Washoe County. Through the tireless efforts of Ms. Leslie and Judge Peter Breen, and many others, Washoe County had operated a successful Mental Health Court program. The program diverted mentally ill individuals from the expensive practice of housing them in hospital emergency rooms and jails and instead directed them to appropriate services for treatment, housing, medication, and other services. Mr. Horne said he would like to duplicate the beneficial Washoe County program in Clark County. Mr. Horne said the bill requested $600,000 to mirror what Governor Guinn had placed in The Executive Budget for northern Nevada mental health programs. Mr. Horne said a needs assessment estimated that over 83,000 people in Nevada suffered serious mental illnesses with 69 percent of that number, or just over 57,000, residing in southern Nevada. Mr. Horne said to put the jail costs in perspective, the Clark County Detention Center, the City of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas, had an estimated total of 23,928 incarceration days in 2002, at an estimated cost of over $2.6 million. Mr. Horne said there was also a significant emergency room cost to temporarily house mentally ill individuals. Mr. Horne stated that he would spare the Committee the pain of watching him labor in explaining the importance of the Mental Health Court in southern Nevada. He said that he had instead enlisted the aid of those much more knowledgeable than himself to speak on the issue.
Mr. Horne introduced Judge Peter Breen, Rick Loop, and Lieutenant Stan Olsen. Mr. Horne said he had provided Exhibit F, the Mental Health Crisis Recommendations Submitted by the Southern Nevada Mental Health Coalition and the Chronic Public Inebriate Task Force, July 17, 2002. Mr. Horne referred the Committee to Exhibit G, which was a letter of support from Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Horne thanked the Committee for its time.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the funding for the bill was intended to go directly to the courts. Mr. Horne said that Mr. Loop would address that question in his presentation but the funds would be going directly toward services with some funding used for a part-time bailiff.
Judge Peter Breen, Second Judicial District Court, introduced himself. He said he was honored to be able to testify in support of A.B. 238. He said that it was known that the subject of the mentally ill in criminal law had existed for a long time. Judge Breen said that the population of the mentally ill churned around in the criminal justice system. He said those people were competent but could not keep themselves away from jail and from the criminal law. Judge Breen said he knew the Legislature had been doing the right thing in Nevada by the creation of the Mental Health Court two years ago in Washoe County. That pilot project had validated what people already knew. It was the right thing to do because those that had better mental health had a responsibility to help those that did not. Judge Breen said that besides being the right thing to do, the criminal court that was devoted to the mentally ill saved money and was the efficient way to connect the mentally ill to systems that they did not connect to themselves. Judge Breen said the Mental Health Court saved resources. Judge Breen referred to Exhibit H, Mental Health Court, Nevada’s Pilot Project, November 01 – October 02. He said that Exhibit H was a history of the Mental Health Court over the preceding two years. Judge Breen said the Mental Health Court would cut down on the jail time dramatically from an average of 50 days to 18 days in jail for the same people that were going through the system. Judge Breen said the people in the system were not unknown to the staff of any metropolitan jail. Judge Breen said the mentally ill could be identified and the savings clearly demonstrated. Judge Breen said the bill would require the Legislature to make an initial investment but the court would clearly save the government money in the long run as well as give the Legislature unequaled satisfaction.
Mr. Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Court, introduced himself. He said that on behalf of the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Honorable Chief Judge Gene Porter, he was before the Committee to support A.B. 238. He said he would refer to some information that could be found in Exhibit F, which had been previously submitted by Assemblyman Horne. Mr. Loop said there had been considerable discussion regarding a specialized Mental Health Court among the judges in the administration of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Mr. Loop said that Judges Voy, McGroarty, and Senior Judge Lehman, had expressed an interest in being the Mental Health Court judge and had visited Judge Breen’s Mental Health Court in the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. Mr. Loop said those judges sent their regrets that they could not be present at the meeting. He said that Judge Voy and Judge McGroarty’s calendars required that they remain in Clark County and Senior Judge Lehman was at home successfully recovering from surgery. Mr. Loop said the Eighth Judicial District Court was seriously considering implementing a pilot Mental Health Court, however, the real obstacle was money for direct services to the mentally ill. Mr. Loop said services for counseling, medication, beds, and other services were needed. In the Eighth Judicial District Court a pilot Mental Health Court could be started with existing judges, staff, and facilities. Any additional staffing requirements, for example, a case manager, and part-time hourly bailiff, could be obtained from alternate funding sources that would not have a fiscal impact on either Clark County’s General Fund or the state budget. Mr. Loop said that if A.B. 238 was passed, virtually all of the $600,000 could be utilized for direct services to the target population throughout the two-year pilot program. Mr. Loop said that all contracts for services would have requests for proposals (RFPs) done.
Mr. Loop said that Exhibit F contained interesting numbers. He said that it had been estimated that in Clark County there were approximately 24,000 beds a year occupied by mentally ill inmates at a cost of approximately $2.7 million annually. Those numbers did not include the costs of arresting, transporting, booking, treating, and medicating those individuals while they were in custody. It also did not account for those individuals, who, because of their untreated mental illness, eventually committed serious offenses that led to a prison sentence. Mr. Loop said that with that in mind, the aggregate cost to both Clark County and to the state of Nevada far exceeded the estimated $2.7 million annually. Since the Eighth Judicial District Court had no experience with a Mental Health Court of the nature proposed, and it was relatively new to the Second Judicial District, he could not tell the Committee what treatment costs would average per participant, how many individuals could be treated for the money appropriated, or the true scope of the problem of mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system in Clark County. Mr. Loop said he could, however, tell the Committee that everyone was very familiar with the many successes of the Drug Court and he had every reason to believe that a Mental Health Court would also be successful in keeping its participants out of jails and prisons. Mr. Loop stated that if the funds were appropriated to the Eighth Judicial District Court for the pilot program, the court would provide the Committee, during the 2005 session, with a full accounting of how the money was spent, the results of their efforts, and a better understanding of the scope of the problem in Clark County. Mr. Loop thanked the Committee for the opportunity to comment on the bill.
Mr. Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association South, introduced himself. Mr. Olsen said the issue of the mentally ill in southern Nevada had a large impact on law enforcement and there was no halfway point for mentally ill people, the only alternatives were the jails. Mr. Olsen said he had looked at a group of 25 repeat offenders, mentally ill people that were continually creating disturbances and misdemeanor crimes. Over a 17-year period those 25 people created 8,113 arrests. Mr. Olsen said that represented a significant cost and represented just one area of command within the metropolitan district of Metro Police. He said he did not include Henderson or North Las Vegas. Mr. Olsen said the issue addressed all law enforcement agencies in all of southern Nevada. He said that Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs had been formed at Metro. Mr. Olsen said that 35 police officers had just completed the training as crisis intervention team officers. Those officers had learned about the medications mentally ill persons had to take, the side effects, negotiating skills, and how to “talk individuals down” from tense situations. Mr. Olsen said another group would be starting the program soon and both the Henderson Police Department and the North Las Vegas Police Department had expressed interest in participating in the program. Mr. Olsen stated that law enforcement was meeting the issue halfway but it needed help to go the whole way. Mr. Olsen said the Mental Health Court would do that. He said that many mentally ill people did not belong in jail but were in jail repeatedly because there was no other choice.
Ms. Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, introduced herself and said she represented the City of Las Vegas. Ms. Dempsey said the City of Las Vegas had been active in the past couple of years with the mentally ill, as well as the chronic public inebriates. She said the City had tried to provide alternatives as to where those persons were taken. Ms. Dempsey said the City of Las Vegas supported the bill and she referenced Exhibit G, a letter from Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, supporting the bill.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, representing District No. 27, Reno, introduced herself. She said she was also testifying in her capacity as the Specialty Courts Coordinator for Washoe County. She said she supported A.B. 238. Ms. Leslie stated that she had worked with the Mental Health Court and Judge Breen’s pilot project for the past year. She said that Judge Breen had referenced a case study that had been done and she wanted to reference that the case study involved six of the most difficult clients that had been enrolled in the pilot project. The jail records of the clients had been researched and it was found that those clients had multiple arrests. Ms. Leslie said one woman had been arrested 20 times for prostitution. She would go to jail, get released, get arrested, go to jail, and so on. Ms. Leslie said the clients’ hospitalizations were also numerous. One person had seven hospitalizations in a year. Ms. Leslie said that since the clients had been in Mental Health Court for a range of six to nine months, a dramatic reduction in jail time was noted. She said she had observed only one hospitalization and that one involved an individual who had been released from jail, came to court, and started talking about things in the ceiling. Ms. Leslie said that individual was sent directly from the court to the hospital, where he was stabilized. She said he was doing well since he was released from the hospital. Ms. Leslie said that she had seen firsthand that jail time and hospitalizations in state facilities had been dramatically reduced by the program. Ms. Leslie said she had also seen the human side of the program and she would love to have any Committee members visit Mental Health Court. Ms. Leslie said that everyone who had observed the court in session had walked away a changed person because they had seen the struggle that the individuals went through just to lead their daily lives. Ms. Leslie said what could be seen was the intervention and the special role that the judge could play. She said the judge held the clients accountable for what they needed to do and he held the system accountable for making sure the system provided the services that the mentally ill desperately needed.
Ms. Leslie said there were cases where individuals had been asked to go to the state mental health institute for an evaluation. The clients would go for the evaluation, return the next week to appear before the judge and say that they had asked for an evaluation and were sent away. Ms. Leslie said those clients had not asked for the evaluation in the correct way. She said the judge was able to work with the mental health system to get that type of problem ironed out so that currently when people needed those kinds of services they could go through the system faster. Ms. Leslie said it was efficient, it was the humane thing to do, the right thing to do, and with the mental health crisis in Clark County the program would be an excellent companion piece to go along with some of the other things in the budget to really, truly make a difference. Ms. Leslie said Assemblyman Horne had her full support for the bill.
Chairman Arberry asked if A.B. 238 would be needed if A.B. 29 was passed. Assemblyman Horne answered that he was unfamiliar with A.B. 29. He asked the Chairman to refresh his memory on the bill.
Mr. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, said that A.B. 29 provided for an additional administrative assessment to be collected in certain cases involving misdemeanors to pay for certain programs established by the district courts which would be specialty courts, Drug and Mental Health Courts.
Assemblyman Horne answered that A.B. 29 would also funnel funds to the specialty courts and he was unsure whether it was just Mental Health Court and Drug Court or if it was for all the courts.
Judge Peter Breen said there were two things about A.B. 29 of interest. If the bill were passed the money would not be available immediately because it had to be collected and put into a fund to be expended. Also, A.B. 29 would provide funding for all specialty courts including the Mental Health Courts.
Exhibit I, Testimony of James J. Vilt, Esq., of the Nevada Disability Advocacy & Law Center to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Regarding Assembly Bill No. 238, dated March 12, 2003, was submitted although Mr. Vilt was not present at the hearing.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was any further testimony for or against A.B. 238 and since there was none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 238 and opened the hearing on A.B. 255.
Assembly Bill 255: Extends reversion date of appropriation made during previous Legislative Session to Department of Human Resources for Medicaid Management Information System. (BDR S-1269)
Debbra King, Administrative Officer IV, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, introduced herself and Mr. Mel Rosenberg, Chief of Information Technology. She said Mr. John Whaley, the Division’s lead for the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) Project, and Mr. Ray Mendez, the Division of Information Technology’s (DoIT) project manager for MMIS, were seated in the audience.
Ms. King said A.B. 255 would extend the reversion date of the appropriation made by the prior legislative session to implement the Medicaid Management Information System. The bill was requested by the Division to allow completion of the project according to Ms. King. Ms. King referred the Committee to Exhibit J, Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). She said the exhibit showed an initial project time line and cost for the MMIS project. The design, development, and implementation (DDI) phase was initially scheduled to begin in July 2001 and be completed by July 2004. The total estimated costs were projected at $23.8 million, of which 90 percent would be federally funded and 10 percent would be state General Funds. Ms. King said the 2001 Legislative Session provided the General Fund appropriation for the first phase of the DDI in the amount of approximately $2.1 million. It had been anticipated that during the current biennium the Division would need an additional appropriation of $452,000. Ms. King said the Division would not need that additional appropriation. Ms. King said the DDI contract was not awarded until September 2002, with work beginning in October 2002. The project time line was accelerated to implement on October 2003, to avoid the need to modify the existing Legacy computer system, to become Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997 (HIPAA) compliant. It was estimated that to modify the existing system to become HIPAA compliant would cost approximately $10 million. Ms. King said the modifications would only have been in use from October 2003 until July 2004; therefore, the Division elected to accelerate the implementation to avoid the additional cost. As a result of the delay in the contract award and the acceleration of the implementation time line, the initial two-year project implementation had been shortened to 12 months. The total costs of the implementation, excluding operating costs, were now estimated to be $20.1 million, a reduction of $3.7 million from the original estimate.
Ms. King said that although the accelerated time line had been challenging to all the participants, the Division was able to meet the first major milestone on February 1, 2003, with the implementation of the pharmacy point of sale system. Ms. King said the point of sale system was successfully implemented with a minimum of problems. The system did identify existing problems with third party liability data, which had been resolved for point of sale, and would be resolved for final implementation of MMIS.
Ms. King said that at the current point in time the project had not missed any critical deadlines and was projected to be financed within budgeted amounts. Ms. King said that while the time line for individual deliverables might not have been met, none of the delayed deliverables were in the project’s critical path. Ms. King pointed out that pages 2 through 4 of Exhibit J listed the major project milestones. Ms. King thanked the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding A.B. 255.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the project was an unfunded mandate from HIPAA. Ms. King answered that modifying the current system to become HIPAA compliant would have provided matching funds at the 75 percent 25 percent rate. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what had happened. Ms. King responded that the Division evaluated the need to spend $10 million on the existing system to become HIPAA compliant versus accelerating the implementation. Ms. King said it was the Division’s judgement that it made more sense to speed up the implementation than to spend the $10 million on a system that would have been used for nine months.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that was not a bad idea because she believed that too many times federal grants were accepted that wound up costing the state money that it had not anticipated spending.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak for or against A.B. 255. Since there was no testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 255 and called for a short break. After the break, Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 256.
Assembly Bill 256: Makes supplemental appropriation to Consumer Affairs Division of Department of Business and Industry for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. (BDR S-1237)
Chairman Arberry called for testimony on A.B. 256. Mr. Andrew Clinger, Deputy Director, Budget Division, said the bill was for a supplemental appropriation for outstanding bills incurred during FY2002.
Chairman Arberry said the bill would be rescheduled because no one from the agency was present to testify on the bill.
Chairman Arberry announced that the Committee would next take action on bills.
Assembly Bill 148: Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR S-808)
Speaker Perkins said two amendments had been proposed. One amendment was to add the words “policies and procedures” before the investment portion of the audit and to remove the $90,000 that would have to be paid toward the audit. Speaker Perkins said that he believed that in a billion dollar enterprise the University and Community College System could afford the $90,000. He said the reason the University and Community College System wanted to add the words “policies and procedures” was that the System did not want the audit to reach back to the donors. Speaker Perkins said it was not his intention to reach back to the donors but he did not believe the wording was necessary as long as he made it very clear that that was not what the bill was attempting to do. Speaker Perkins said it would be one less amendment that would burden the legal staff given the time constraints placed on the legal staff.
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 148.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Gibbons, and Mr. Griffin were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 252: Makes appropriation to State General Fund from Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government. (BDR S-1233)
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 252.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Gibbons, and Mr. Griffin were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 73: Revises provisions concerning certain crimes committed against older persons. (BDR 15-357)
Chairman Arberry commented that there was no money needed at the present time for the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 73.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Gibbons, and Mr. Griffin were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 82: Extends date of expiration of Newlands Project Water Rights Fund and related program for acquisition of certain surface water rights. (BDR S-346)
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 82.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Gibbons, and Mr. Griffin were not present for the vote.)
There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:24 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: