MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
March 31, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Monday, March 31, 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
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, District No. 8
Assemblyman Marcus L. Conklin, District No. 13
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. and began the order of business with Assembly Bill 34.
Assembly Bill 34: Provides that once person has been convicted of felony for operating vehicle or vessel while under influence of alcohol or controlled substance, any subsequent violation is treated as felony. (BDR 43-137)
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, District No. 37, introduced himself and greeted the Committee members. He said he was there to present Assembly Bill 34, titled the “once a felon always a felon” Driving Under the Influence (DUI) bill. He said currently there was a weakness in the state of Nevada DUI laws. He said that if a person was cited for a DUI once every 30 months for an entire lifetime it was possible to never serve a prison term.
Mr. Conklin cited some important statistics regarding driving under the influence of alcohol. He said 30 percent of all fatal crashes involved alcohol use. Drivers with one or more DUI convictions were 1.4 times more likely to become involved in a fatal accident. Alcohol was a factor in 40 percent of Nevada crash costs. In 1997 alcohol-related crashes cost Nevada more than $1.1 billion. In the nation in 1998 a legally intoxicated person sat behind the wheel for 1 of every 140 miles driven; in Nevada that figure was 1 of every 90 miles. He noted that most Nevadans living in southern Nevada drove 90 miles in a day. He said the odds were high that they were passing at least one person who was not driving safely.
Mr. Conklin said A.B. 34 had three primary components. First it stated that any person who had been convicted of a felony DUI, that is, had either received three DUIs in a seven-year period, or had killed or maimed an individual as the result of driving intoxicated in our jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction in the United States, once a felony DUI status had been achieved, any subsequent DUI violation would also be construed as a felony. The second element of A.B. 34 stated that the subsequent felony DUI penalty would draw a sentence of 2 to 15 years. The third element of the bill described aggravating additional penalty circumstances if a driver had achieved felony status, and was cited for driving intoxicated with minor passengers defined as passengers 15 years of age and under. Mr. Conklin said that was the essence of A.B. 34. He said he would end his remarks to allow people in the audience to testify on behalf of the bill. He asked for questions.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the fiscal note was to A.B. 34. Mr. Conklin said the fiscal note was $4,625. Mr. Marvel asked what that figure represented. Mr. Conklin said it represented a small increase of number of prisoners. Chairman Arberry commented that the fiscal note affected the prisons. He asked if there was anyone present at the hearing from the prisons. Mr. Marvel wondered why the bill was in Ways and Means.
Assemblywoman Leslie said the bill seemed to be about prisoners. She asked Mr. Conklin if he could explain how many individuals the bill would affect per year.
Mr. Conklin said he did not have an exact number. He said one report indicated that between 25 and 30 individuals would be affected. He said representatives from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Stop DUI were present and they could better answer the question. He said the real issue of A.B. 34 was not only about imprisonment but also about preventing individuals from becoming repeat offenders.
Ms. Leslie said if as many as 25 to 30 individuals were affected the fiscal note was wrong. She said she would research the question further. Chairman Arberry noted that they were discussing the fiscal note with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff and no one from the prisons was there to comment. Chairman Arberry thanked Mr. Conklin for his testimony and asked if there was anyone else present who would like to speak on behalf of Assembly Bill 34.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, representing the Lyon County Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) introduced herself. She said MADD completely supported A.B. 34. She said she had distributed a handout containing information on the costs of DUI crashes in Nevada (Exhibit C). She testified that MADD hoped that A.B. 34 and all DUI laws would act as deterrents. She said it would be much preferable to avoid DUI crimes than to have to prosecute, adjudicate, and provide services to victims involved in those crashes. She said MADD saw the bill as a unique and beneficial opportunity to address chronic and repeat DUI offenders. She reminded the Committee that since the inception of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 484.3796, the “305 Program,” that offered DUI offenders treatment and residential confinement in the community, a $6 to $10 million savings to the state had resulted because of the number of offenders who served prison time in the community rather than in jail. She said A.B. 34 would send a message to Nevada residents that driving under the influence of alcohol would not be tolerated, and individuals who repeatedly offended would be treated in the appropriate manner. She thanked the Committee.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee. There were none. He thanked Ms. Stadler for her testimony.
Jim Holmes, Chairman of the Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, introduced himself. He thanked the Committee for taking his testimony. He said that in the past 7 years he had spoken personally to over 17,000 offenders at the Victim Impact Panel in Reno. He said the Task Force estimated that approximately 30 percent of those were repeat offenders. He said the members of the Task Force strongly supported A.B. 34 legislation as a deterrent for DUI offenders. Regarding the fiscal note, Mr. Holmes said the Task Force was prepared to contribute up to $4,600 to the state as reimbursement for expenses incurred for increased numbers of prisoners. He thanked the Committee.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked Mr. Conklin for further explanation of A.B. 34. He said he understood that the bill would eliminate the current 30-month cycle. He said if that were the case, the fiscal note could not be correct. Mr. Hettrick said he needed further clarification regarding the 30-month cycle.
Mr. Conklin testified that A.B. 34 dealt with the worst DUI offenders; they were already felony offenders. He said a different law covered the 30-month cycle. He said he used it to illustrate the liberality of Nevada’s current DUI laws. He said A.B. 34 dealt with individuals who had already been convicted of a felony DUI, and attempted to prevent those individuals from continuing along that path.
Mr. Hettrick said he was not familiar with Nevada’s first offense DUI law. He asked if the first “driving under the influence of alcohol” citation was a felony offense.
Mr. Conklin explained that was not a felony. He said if an individual was stopped for a DUI in the state of Nevada it was a misdemeanor, referred to as “a Misdemeanor I.” In Nevada an individual could get a Misdemeanor II provided the second DUI occurred within 7 years of the Misdemeanor I. A third DUI offense that occurred within 7 years of the Misdemeanor I became a felony. Mr. Conklin said if an individual did not receive a third DUI within any 7-year period that constituted the 30-month cycle of 7 and ½ years. Therefore, an individual could continue to commit DUI offenses, get misdemeanor DUIs with a jail term of 6 months or less and a minimal fine and return to the streets.
Mr. Conklin said the problem was bigger than what was addressed in the bill. The function of A.B. 34 was to target a specific population of DUI offenders. He illustrated his point by saying it was possible under current Nevada statute for an individual to drive with an alcohol blood level of 0.10, hit a family of four, kill everybody in the car, go to prison, get out in one to four years, go from jail to the bar, get loaded, get in a car, drive down the street, get a DUI ticket and it would be a misdemeanor. He said that was not right and that A.B. 34 was trying to address that situation.
Mr. Hettrick said once an individual had a felony DUI it was on the record in perpetuity and would apply to the felony DUI forever.
Mr. Conklin said they had heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee that the record could be sealed after 15 years at the choosing of the felon. Therefore, if a person stayed clean for 15 years and chose to seal their record the next offense would be a misdemeanor.
Chairman Arberry said when an individual served time, he or she could not be sentenced or retried for the same crime. He asked Mr. Conklin to explain how A.B. 34 affected that.
Mr. Conklin said there was a 15-year closing period on the first felony and A.B. 34 was like any other repeat offender law. He said they were addressing people who repeated the same crime over and over again. Those individuals were a potential threat to everyone and to themselves. He said the purpose of A.B. 34 was to deter those individuals from becoming that threat. Mr. Conklin concluded that the state had an obligation to protect Nevadans and if repeat offenders could not be deterred they should be put away and helped.
Chairman Arberry asked for further questions. He asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of Assembly Bill 34.
Kristin Erickson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office and representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, introduced herself. She testified that her office and the Association viewed Assembly Bill 34 as a very important piece of legislation that would save lives and protect the community. She and her colleagues in Clark County had reviewed the figures as provided by Mr. Conklin and found 25 to 30 people affected by A.B. 34 extremely generous. After review, they did not believe the number affected would be higher and thought it would more likely be much lower. Ms. Erickson said there would be an increase in prison time but thought the increase was well deserved. She said the bill addressed the most extreme DUI offenders. Those were individuals who continually violated the DUI laws, had been given at least a minimum of four opportunities to change their conduct, and had failed to do so.
Ms. Erickson said increased jail time would have a minimal impact. When an individual was arrested they were jailed until convicted, at which time they went to prison. At the time of arrest an individual was screened by court services. In Washoe and Clark Counties, even a third-time felony DUI was usually screened. Often the offender signed a contract, and some of them were required to appear for daily breath tests. If the offender agreed to certain terms and conditions they were not held in custody. Ms. Erickson testified that the majority of DUI offenders were not held in custody. Therefore the impact on jail time was minimal. She thanked the Committee and asked for questions.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee. There were none. He thanked Ms. Erickson for her testimony.
Chairman Arberry asked for further testimony on behalf of Assembly Bill 34. He asked if there was anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 34. There was no further testimony. Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on Assembly Bill 34 closed.
Chairman Arberry opened the meeting for budget closings.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, provided some general information about budget closings to the Committee. He said Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff might need to make modifications to budgets based on decisions that were made after budgets were closed in Committee. He said the adjustments could be based on global decisions that were made later in the legislative process and could involve more than one budget account. He said the adjustments could include cost allocations statewide from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Information and Technology, and various department-wide cost allocations. Cost allocation adjustments could include items in the M-100 series and other maintenance units. He said, depending on what decisions were made by the Committee, staff might need to adjust the M‑300 series fringe benefits rates. Adjustments could be made to cost assessments on a global basis, such as personnel or payroll assessments or rents on state-owned buildings, or based on changes in data processing equipment purchases. Mr. Stevens said they had recently received information from Purchasing that reduced the amount allocated in The Executive Budget for personal computers from $1,500 to $1,145. There was also a change in the price for laptop computers and servers. He said, as the Committee closed budgets in the coming weeks, LCB staff needed the authority to make global adjustments based on decisions that might be made later in the process.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
AG, NEVADA JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW BOARD - BUDGET PAGE AGRI-8
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 101-4980. Mr. Stevens said staff had removed a duplicate seasonal salary cost of $1,109 in each year of the biennium. He said that was the only change they had made in that account. The Department of Agriculture was aware of the change and concurred. He said there were no other adjustments and staff recommended that the account be closed.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4980 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Gibbons were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG, GRADE AND IDENTIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS – BUDGET PAGE AGRI-18
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-4541. He said LCB staff had no recommendations for that account. He said under other closing issues there was information they had reviewed for the Committee earlier that dealt with minor problems in cost allocations in that account. He said LCB would reconcile those problems once all the Department of Agriculture accounts were closed.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-4541 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Gibbons were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
B&I, CAPTIVE INSURERS – BUDGET PAGE-B&I-45
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3818. He said LCB staff had no recommendations for that particular account.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3818 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Gibbons were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
B&I, INSURANCE RECOVERY – BUDGET PAGE-B&I-047
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3821. He said LCB staff had no recommendations for that account.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3821 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Gibbons were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
B&I, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS– BUDGET PAGE-B&I-056
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3828. He said the Committee needed to provide LCB staff some direction on how they would like to handle that budget account. He said the Committee would encounter similar situations several times during the session. He said in Budget Account 101-3828 The Executive Budget recommended an increase from $15 to $22 in the assessment that insurers paid to finance that budget account. Mr. Stevens said Assembly Bill 453 was in process and would implement that change. He said LCB staff had eliminated the change from that particular account and would reinstitute it based on the passage of A.B. 453. Mr. Stevens said staff could take the opposite approach, leaving the change in the budget and extracting it if A.B. 453 failed. He said the Committee would have to decide how to handle the situation. He said time did not permit waiting for passage of every piece of legislation that might affect a budget before it was closed. He said it would be staff’s responsibility to track those bills and make the appropriate adjustments or bring them back to the Committee if there was something extraordinary in the legislation. Staff merely needed to track whether or not the bill was passed. Mr. Stevens summarized that the Committee could extract the change from the budget and return it based on passage of A.B. 453 or they could leave it in the budget and extract it if A.B. 453 failed.
Chairman Arberry asked for an opinion from the Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN Marvel moved to close budget account 101-3828 as recommended by the governor and GIVE staff the option to make adjustments according to passage or failure of assembly bill 453.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN Giunchigliani seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
B&I, INSURANCE COST STABILIZATION – BUDGET PAGE-B&I-059
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3833. He said staff had no recommendation for that account.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN chowning moved to close budget account 101-3833 as recommended by the governor.
ASSEMBLYMAN Parks seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
HR, SOUTHERN FOOD SERVICE – BUDGET PAGE-MHDS-046
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3159. He said that budget provided for the operation of the state-owned central kitchen by a private vendor. The Governor had made a number of adjustments in this account for decreases in beds at the facilities that the central kitchen served. The adjustments could change as the budget went through the budget process. If adjustments made in the number of beds differed from the Governor’s recommendation, staff would adjust those accounts based on the changes. He said at that time staff had no recommendations and recommended the Governor’s recommendation.
Chairman Arberry asked how significant the changes might be in that account.
Mr. Stevens said staff did not know. He said the Mental Health and Developmental Services’ (MHDS) budgets had not closed. He noted that decision units E-451 and E-452 increased food service in psychiatric observation unit beds at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS). E-600 reduced raw food costs due to recommended closure of 12 Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICFMR) beds at Desert Regional Center (DRC). There were a number of items that had been taken into account based on the Governor’s recommendations that affected the account. Mr. Stevens said if those assumptions were changed and the subcommittee closed those budgets differently, and added or deleted beds, staff would need to make adjustments to that particular account.
Chairman Arberry put that budget account on hold.
DMV, SALVAGE WRECKERS/BODY SHOPS – BUDGET PAGE-DMV-71
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-4690. He said there was an account in the Department of Motor Vehicles, Salvage Wreckers/Body Shops, that had two adjustments. He said there was a $684 decrease in state-owned building rent and a $20 change in the elimination of one-time expenses associated with the vehicle purchase in FY2002.
ASSEMBLYMAN Marvel moved to close budget account 101-4690 as recommended by staff.
ASSEMBLYMAN Parks seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Hettrick was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
PS, HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANTS ACCOUNT – BUDGET PAGE-PS-68
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 201-4721 and said there were two adjustments in that account. Staff made a $630 adjustment based on information from the Purchasing Division on the cost of personal laptop computers. Computer software had been adjusted by $220 based on recent price changes that had been outlined by the Purchasing Division.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN Giunchigliani moved to close budget account 201-4721 as recommended by staff.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Hettrick was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CNR, NEVADA TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY– BUDGET PAGE - CNR-025
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-4166. He said staff did not have any recommendations for that account. He noted that Assembly Bill 305 could withdraw the state of Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. Passage of A.B. 305 would affect that budget.
ASSEMBLYMAN Marvel moved to close budget account 101-4166 as recommended by the GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CNR, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION – BUDGET PAGE - CNR-105
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-4149. He said staff had no recommendations for that budget account.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI moved to close budget account 101-4149 as recommended by the GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN cHOWNING seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CNR, FORESTRY NURSERIES – BUDGET PAGE - CNR-134
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 257-4235 and noted that there were two adjustments to that account. He said there was an adjustment in the duplicate uniform allowance that was included in the budget and a minor adjustment in the amount provided for software purchases.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL moved to close budget account 257-4235 as recommended by STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN cHOWNING seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
EBO, POLICE CORPS PROGRAM – BUDGET PAGE - POST-001
Mr. Stevens introduced Budget Account 101-3772 and said that staff recommended a change in the purchase price for two personal computers in the first year and one personal computer in the second year of the biennium based on state purchasing prices.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK moved to close budget account 101-3772 as recommended by STAFF.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS seconded the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Chairman Arberry recessed the Committee at 8:41 a.m.
Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order at 8:54 a.m.
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8 and Chairwoman of the interim Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families, introduced herself. She said in 1997 Nevada began making radical changes to the way the state handled abused and neglected children that were placed in foster care. She said the changes began with Nevada’s codification of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the concept of which was that children were not to linger in foster care and that their needs should take priority over the needs of their parents. The committee had created a statutory presumption, the core of which was that the child came first and every child should have permanency in their environment. At that point they conducted an interim study, Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 53, and made radical suggestions to the state’s child welfare program that included shifting management of the child welfare programs for Clark and Washoe Counties to the counties. Originally the county handled the front-end, meaning they dealt with the abuse that required removing the child from the home. The county conducted the investigations through the county’s Child Protective Services (CPS), and then shifted the management of the case to the state. Time and money were lost through that process. Furthermore, the child was often moved several times, changing homes, schools, and therapists because the county and the state paid differently and had different contractors. Those factors contributed to the idea of shifting the services from the state to the county. Ms. Buckley said there was no bifurcation in the rural communities. In those communities the state handled the child from day one. She said there were similar problems in the rural areas so they increased the caseload ratios and foster payments to create a responsive system for the children.
Ms. Buckley asked Chairman Arberry if they should present all three bills together or separately. Chairman Arberry told Ms. Buckley to handle the bills as she saw best.
Assembly Bill 482: Makes various changes concerning funding of child welfare services and institutional care of persons covered by State Plan for Medicaid. (BDR 38-687)
Ms. Buckley introduced Assembly Bills 482, 5 and 25. She said that the three bills came out of the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. She said she would begin with Assembly Bill 482. Ms. Buckley testified that one of the charges to the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families was to develop a future funding formula. She said their formula, as presented in A.B. 482, was developed by the Department of Human Resources, presented to the Legislative Committee, and they unanimously adopted it. She said they were not going forward with it. She said she wanted to explain A.B. 482. It came out of the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families but they could not unilaterally introduce it, and so the bill might be where they would go in the next interim.
Ms. Buckley explained the intent of A.B. 482 and said Director Willden would explain the core of the bill. She testified that currently Clark and Washoe Counties paid for a portion of long-term care in the medical program. The plan of A.B. 482 was to “swap” the county long-term care responsibilities and attendant funds with the state child welfare responsibilities and attendant funds. The swap concept made budgetary sense. There was extensive review of how much it would cost to do both programs. The Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the fiscal staff for Washoe and Clark Counties reviewed the costs until the Department felt comfortable with them. When they determined the program costs on both sides were equal they recommended a swap.
Ms. Buckley said the advantages to the swap were that they could desist from nit-picking over petty details and focus on developing the numbers, ascertaining the risks, and agreeing to the exchange. If there were some gross assumptions that were wrong, that could be changed later. She said both sides felt comfortable with the concept and that was the future funding plan.
Ms. Buckley testified that the Governor did not like the future funding plan because of concern that it was “too much too fast.” As a result they had developed a second future funding plan that was presented as preliminary and the Governor included it in The Executive Budget. Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Willden to present the bill in detail.
Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, introduced himself. He distributed a handout (Exhibit D) to the Committee describing how the funding plan worked. He said the material in Exhibit D was extracted from the Department’s budget and the page numbers would appear randomly. The first page, numbered 21, outlined the history of A.B. 1 of the 17th Special Session. The second page, numbered 22, titled “What Was The Plan?” outlined the swap plan intent. Mr. Willden testified that the Interim Study Committee had recommended the swap plan and forwarded it to the Department of Human Resources and the Washoe and Clark Counties’ social services agencies for refinement. The swap plan proposed to end system bifurcation in Clark and Washoe Counties. It would swap the long-term care county match costs in those two counties for what was called the “back-end services.” “Back-end” referred to such areas as foster care, adoptions, and related services. Mr. Willden said that although Section 4 of A.B. 482 stated that long-term care would be swapped with all of the back-end services, that did not accurately describe the funding plan. The funding plan would take the long-term care costs and swap them for equal costs to the back-end portion of child welfare services. Mr. Willden explained that back-end services costs were greater than long-term care costs so a straight services swap would not be equal. Instead they proposed to swap an amount equal to long-term services and the remaining back-end services costs would remain the counties’ responsibilities shared with the state on some pro rata formula.
Mr. Willden testified that as they developed The Executive Budget two major areas of concern became apparent. The first dealt with uncertainty over the growth of long-term care costs that had been increasing over the last few years at a fairly rapid rate. The concern was whether or not the swap would be fair to both the state and the county. The second area of concern dealt with the increasing costs for child welfare. Mr. Willden noted that historically funding for the child welfare system was suppressed. There had been considerable discussion in FY2002 about funding shortages, increasing staff ratios and foster care rates, and adding new services. Many cost increases would be required to bring the underfunded child welfare system up to par. Those two areas of concern raised the question of how to define and measure true growth rate. He said they had not found a clear answer.
Mr. Willden said that The Executive Budget did not deal with the swap plan. Instead it was funded by what was termed a “straight up” method. Appropriate dollars had been included in The Executive Budget to cover the child welfare costs that had been transferred to the counties and a few limiters were attached to the costs as shown on pages 22 and 23 of Exhibit D. The limiters were attached with the idea that a swap would be phased-in over the next biennium and would be concluded by October 2004. Mr. Willden said that The Executive Budget proposed a foster care rate standardized throughout the state at $21 per day, as noted in the first bullet on the third page of Exhibit D, page 23. That rate would be uniform throughout Nevada regardless of location. Staffing ratios were standardized at a ratio of 1:28. The county budget building process disallowed cost of living increases and other budgetary elements that the state disallowed in the budgeting process.
Mr. Willden said that the funding for the next biennium was shown at the bottom of page 23 of Exhibit D. The Executive Budget contained standardized staffing ratios and the standardized foster care rates for the next biennium. He said that salary and benefit cost-of-living increases, as well as Consumer Price Index (CPI) costs that the Legislature granted for state employees, would apply to the county integrated costs. The same formula would apply to operating expenses: whatever cost levels the state budgeted in those areas would apply to the counties. If the counties chose to budget higher numbers or increased costs over what the state allowed, they would have to fund the difference. Mr. Willden said that was a preliminary bridge plan.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Willden to clarify what he meant by the counties being on their own to fund their expenses.
Mr. Willden gave three examples to clarify the state/county funding relationship under the plan. In the first example he said $21 per day was the budgeted foster care rate for the next biennium. A county could choose to have a $23 per day foster care rate, the state would fund to the $21 rate, and the county would be responsible for funding the $2 increase. Mr. Willden said the state would pass-through appropriate federal dollars to the counties but state dollars would not fund a non-federal share that required an increase. The county would have to fund that increase.
Chairman Arberry asked what would be the effect if the county tried to pressure the state to pay the increase.
Mr. Willden said that the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means made the decision for a foster care funding rate and that rate would be the only amount the state would pass-through to the counties; anything beyond that could not be passed through.
Mr. Willden gave two more examples. He said if a county granted higher salary increases than the state funded, for example, gave a 5 percent salary increase while the state only funded at 2 percent, the county would have to provide the additional 3 percent difference. He said the same formula would apply for operating expense increases.
Mr. Willden turned the discussion to the fourth and fifth pages of Exhibit D that helped to illustrate the swap concept using two bar graphs. In the middle of each bar graph was an arrow and the words “FY04 Swap Amount.” The arrow indicator on the “Washoe County Match Swap” bar graph showed roughly $4.7 million that was the county match costs for Washoe County. The arrow indicator on the “Clark County Match Costs” bar graph showed roughly $15.4 million as the county match costs for Clark County. Mr. Willden said the state would assume costs at those amounts and would run the long-term care county match programs in those counties.
Mr. Willden referred the Committee to the spreadsheets on pages 19 and 17 of Exhibit D. He said in exchange for taking the swap and assuming those responsibilities the state would trade the costs of $4.7 million, as identified on the Washoe County spreadsheet column C line 6, salary costs of about $4.1 million; line 9, operating costs of about $600,000; and indirect costs on line 19 of $700,000. The swap concept would take those three costs and swap them for the long-term care cost, as they were roughly equal. Everything else on the spreadsheet, like the costs of child welfare, would be equally borne by the state and the county. The same concept would hold for Clark County as shown on the Clark County spreadsheet, page 17, in Exhibit D. Column C, line 6, showed salaries; line 10 showed operating costs; and line 19 showed indirect costs. The total was roughly $17 million. Mr. Willden said the concept was to swap the long-term care costs. The state would absorb them from the county and would not fund the child welfare costs; the counties would absorb those. That was the swap concept. He noted that was not what was in the budget.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Willden to explain the difference in dollars between the presentation and The Executive Budget.
Mr. Willden said he could not explain the difference between the two except to note that there was no trade of costs. There was an entire cost of child welfare. He said that pages 17 and 19 of Exhibit D for Washoe and Clark Counties showed a gap of total expenses for FY2004 and FY2005. Using the spreadsheet on page 19 as an example there was a gap of about $1.2 million in column D and a gap in column G of about $1.3 million. That was the cost of integration.
Mr. Willden said the swap took a portion of that $1.2 and $1.3 million and traded the costs so that the total cost stayed the same. The effect would be to simplify the costs for child welfare and have the state pay the salary, operating, and indirect costs for their staff and that the state would absorb the long-term core county match program. The total cost for integration did not change. However, because the Governor was uncomfortable with the swap the plan was funded straight up. The Executive Budget contained the funding difference, the gap that was fully funded in the budget.
Ms. Buckley testified that the Governor was concerned that the plan might be too risky and decided that, although the county match program was for a defined population determined by percentage of poverty, it presented too much of a risk. She said the Interim Committee did not see the plan as too much of a risk because the state controlled the statutes. If the plan became too risky they could rewrite it the next session. She noted that the plan was riskier to the counties than to the state. She said they were working in good faith with the state and did not find a risk.
Assemblyman Goldwater noted that the county supported the plan because its goal was to serve the children. He said it sometimes seemed that financial matters caught up administrators and legislators when their concerns should be the non-financial desire to serve the children.
Ms. Buckley said there was no doubt a bifurcated system did not serve children well and jeopardized all of their federal funding. She agreed with Mr. Goldwater that they had to keep the children in mind.
Assembly Bill 5: Requires Director of Department of Human Resources to include in State Plan for Medicaid requirement that young adults who have "aged out" of foster care are eligible for Medicaid. (BDR 38-691)
Ms. Buckley introduced Assembly Bill 5. She said that the Committee had heard it last session. She explained that when children aged out of the foster care system they were released without any health care support. The agency that had essentially been the parent for most of the child’s life stopped all health care support. There was no health care coverage or bridge to obtain services for them. She asked the Committee how many of their children and how many of them were ready to be on their own at 19 without any health care insurance or bridge to services in place. A.B. 5 required the Medicaid plan to include children up to the age of 21 who were aging out of the foster care system. She said that was the concept of A.B. 5. She testified that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCSF) had awarded Thom Reilly, while he was a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a contract to study children who had aged out of foster care. Mr. Reilly received many letters reporting that the children had not done very well. In one particular case a sister called and said her brother had passed away. He had special health care needs and diabetes, and when he aged out he tried to ration his insulin and died. Ms. Buckley said if there had been a health care coverage bridge for the child until he got a job and could afford insulin, he might be alive today. She said that was the essence of A.B. 5 but the bill was not in The Executive Budget and she thought its chances of passage were low. Ms. Buckley concluded her testimony by saying that if anyone asked what the state should be doing, A.B. 5 was one of the answers.
Assemblyman Andonov confirmed that the aging out took place at 18 and the health coverage would continue until the individual was 21.
Edward Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), introduced himself. He testified that DCFS supported A.B. 5 as an important benefit for children. He said he was there to answer any questions about the fiscal note to the bill.
Assemblywoman Leslie said she had reviewed the fiscal note with their fiscal staff and said it was important to enter the cost into the record. She said the fiscal note under Budget Account 3243 was complicated and the cost to the state would be about $650,000 a year.
Mr. Cotton said that the fiscal note was in sections. He said that DCFS, the Division of Welfare, and Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), determined that the cost to FY2004 General Fund would be about $668,570 for that particular section.
Ms. Leslie asked if that figure was based on the number of youth projected aging out that would need Medicaid.
Mr. Cotton said that there were 373 children currently in the 18- to 21-year-old age group. The DCFS estimated that about half of those would access the program presented in A.B. 5 because some would leave the state and some were not locatable. Using that criterion the DCFS used 187 individuals to arrive at a cost of $650,000 per year.
Ms. Leslie said she would “put it on her short list.”
Assembly Bill 25: Makes various changes concerning provision of public services for children. (BDR 38-690)
Ms. Buckley testified next on Assembly Bill 25. She said it was the last bill that came out of the interim Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families to come before the Committee. A.B. 25 authorized an agency that provided child welfare services to enter into an agreement with children who were aging out of their system to provide services if the child was enrolled as a student at a university, college, trade school, or technical school. The support could not extend beyond the 22nd birthday. For children who were aging out of the system at 18, but were not ready to be on their own, if they wanted to attend school A.B. 25 would allow them some continuing support.
Ms. Buckley testified that A.B. 25 had a second provision unrelated to the first. She said Section 3 of the bill specified that an employee of an agency that provided a child welfare service could be a foster parent so long as the child was not on their specific caseload. She said that idea also was a result of the Interim Committee meetings. Many of the agencies’ workers were dedicated to children and would make excellent foster care parents. The Interim Committee designed the requirement that the child not be on the worker’s caseload to prevent conflicts of interest. The legislation was similar to other states and was designed to increase the number of potential individuals in the foster parent pool.
Mr. Cotton said there was a fiscal note to A.B. 25 that showed a cost of about $2.2 million for FY2004. He pointed out that they strongly supported the bill. It was designed to support children who were in some type of an educational institute trying to “make a path for themselves” after their 18th birthday. Mr. Cotton noted that a factor in the cost of the bill was that it provided for support to age 22 and there would be no federal funds for the last year. He stated that the second part of the bill had no fiscal implications. He concluded his comments by saying that if there were issues with the fiscal note the issues applied only to the first part of A.B. 25. The second part, that made it easier for DCFS or Clark County or Washoe County child welfare employees to become foster parents, had no fiscal implications.
Chairman Arberry asked what would happen to the fiscal note if the provisions in the bill ended at 21.
Mr. Cotton said if the program ended at 21 years of age it would remove $125,171 from the total cost. He said they began with 373 children aged 18 to 21 as their base and added in 42 children aged 21 to 22, making a total of 415 children aged 18 to 22. They then estimated that 50 percent of those would actually be locatable and living in the county and state. That gave a total number of 207.5 individuals. They then estimated 75 percent of those would be in some sort of trade school and meet the qualifications of A.B. 25. That total number was 156 children; 16 of those would be age 21 to 22, which translated into $125,000 in savings.
Chairman Arberry thanked Ms. Buckley and Mr. Cotton for their testimony. He asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak on behalf of A.B. 5, A.B. 25, or A.B. 482.
Michael Capello, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services, introduced himself. He wanted to comment on A.B. 5 and A.B. 25. He said that over the last two years they had worked with the interim Committee on Children, Youth and Families. He testified that, recognizing the implications of the fiscal notes, those two bills were considered better than a good idea.
Mr. Capello testified that many of their children who were aged out of the system had spent their last few years at higher levels of care. In some instances the state paid hundreds of dollars a day to maintain children in facilities that met their mental health needs. Often those individuals needed psychotropic and other medications. When they aged out of the system they left a very high cost facility in which the state and counties had invested many years and dollars and were placed in a position of not being able to afford their basic medications. A.B. 5 would give those individuals the opportunity to participate in Medicaid and have access to those medications. A portion of those children would be eligible for Medicaid through other categories but many would not. Mr. Capello said that the state and counties invested considerable resources to bring those children to a place where they might be independent and by not providing a bridge for the children aging out of foster care homes, they were washing money down the drain. When they aged out and needed medications to manage behavior or mental health issues, they would not be eligible for assistance. He reiterated that A.B. 5 was better than just a good idea.
Mr. Capello testified that the A.B. 25 fiscal note projected forward those children who were already out of the system and the cost to provide service to them. He suggested that they reevaluate the figures and discuss beginning the program in July 2003, making eligible only those individuals who were currently in the system and then moving forward. He said that would reduce that initial fiscal note. The costs would build up over the years as children moved into the eligible age ranges. He said that the current fiscal note seemed to project all the children who were already out of the foster care system in that age range and then reduced that figure to a percentage that might be locatable. He suggested they reassess a start date from which they could move forward.
Chairman Arberry said Legislative Counsel Bureau fiscal staff wanted Mr. Cotton to have his staff calculate the cost for that change.
Mr. Cotton said they would do that. He said that might make the fiscal note a bit higher because the 50 percent of locatable children tied into the program could be higher. He said they could work with Clark and Washoe Counties and their rural communities to come up with a new figure.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak on behalf of A.B. 5, A.B. 25 or A.B. 482.
Michael Alastuey, representing Clark County, introduced himself. He said they agreed with and supported the testimony that had been presented on the three Assembly Bills. He testified with regard to A.B. 482 that if the Committee should entertain a swap concept, Section 4 in particular would need to be clarified and new language inserted to ensure the mechanics of the bill worked according to the swap concept that Mr. Willden outlined in his handout. Mr. Alastuey said for the record that they supported the bills and should A.B. 482 go forward they would want to work on language to ensure that it was clear.
Mr. Goldwater said with regard to the fiscal note on A.B. 5 that it seemed high for the population under consideration. He surmised that was caused by the cost of mental health drugs.
Mr. Alastuey said he believed that contributed to the high figure but could not answer for the scope of the entire fiscal note.
Chairman Arberry said that was a question for the Division of Child and Family Services. He asked Mr. Cotton to return to respond to Mr. Goldwater’s question.
Mr. Cotton testified that the figure was built on a cost per eligible that was derived from the cost on an average per person in the program. The figure did not distinguish anything specific such as medication.
Mr. Goldwater said the age group under consideration was a good population for health insurance and should be relatively inexpensive. He added that a population that needed psychotropic drugs would elevate the cost to the fiscal note. He said he was not convinced that the group under consideration would be medicating. He suggested that they could provide for basic health care and take “half a loaf” with the bill. He believed the bill was very important.
Mr. Cotton said for the record the figure they used was $651.94 per recipient per month and that was derived from the 2002 Medicaid projection program.
Mr. Goldwater said he thought that was high for that age population. He said if they were more careful with the fiscal note it would not be so intimidating. He said he would be happy to work on the fiscal note with some help if the Committee had a desire to move it forward. He thought it was a key piece of legislation.
Chairman Arberry suggested Mr. Goldwater should work with DCFS. Mr. Cotton said he would be very glad to do that.
Patricia Thompson, Administrative Services Officer III, Health Care Financing and Policy, introduced herself. She said that the Division had used the general welfare cost per eligible and did not break it out by age.
Mr. Goldwater said that the oldest and sickest were included in the fiscal note figure. He said the age group under consideration for A.B. 34 probably helped bring the average down. He said the Committee should consider the bill and thought the fiscal note was wrong. He reiterated that he would be happy to make it right for that bill.
Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the Nevada Women’s Lobby (NWL), introduced herself. She said the NASW and NWL urged the committee to support A.B. 5. They asked the Committee to consider the cost implications of not providing for the health needs of that population. She said when they could not get health care they got sicker and went to emergency rooms. Ms. Gang said she had read in a recent publication on children’s health that, “The single most important task of any society was the care and nurturing of its children. The health and well being of children should be the measure of effectiveness of policies and a gauge of our priorities.” She concluded and said that keeping in mind Nevada’s ranking with regard to children’s services and health, they had a long way to go. A.B. 5 would help that population and she hoped that the Committee would consider putting those children on “their short list.”
Chairman Arberry asked for any further testimony on behalf of A.B. 5, A.B. 25, or A.B. 482. He asked if there was anyone in opposition to any of the bills.
There was no further testimony and Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on the bills closed.
Mr. Stevens said that there was a Subcommittee meeting on Tuesday on Capital Improvement Programs and Public Safety. He said on Wednesday the Interim Finance Committee would meet at 8:00 a.m. until about 9:30 a.m. in room 4100.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Catherine Caldwell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: