MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
April 30, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, April 30, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Assembly District No. 8
Mr. Rod Sherer, Assembly District No. 36
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Jeff Ferguson, Program Analyst
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 219 (1st Reprint): Requires Department of Administration to conduct study concerning feasibility and desirability of relocating certain state agencies to rural communities under certain circumstances. (BDR S-1088)
Assemblyman Rod Sherer, District No. 36, presented A.B. 219 to the Committee and said there had been a fiscal note of $2,600 attached to the bill. He indicated that there would be funds available through donations so the fiscal note had been removed.
Mr. Sherer explained that A.B. 219 would direct the Department of Administration to appoint a committee to conduct a study on the feasibility of relocating one or more state agencies to rural communities. The committee would be composed of people knowledgeable about state government as well as people familiar with rural areas, and the results of the study would be submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau no later than September 1, 2004.
Mr. Sherer said that A.B. 219 was an attempt to examine the situation in rural areas and try to aid those rural areas. He said he enjoyed living in Pahrump as there were many advantages to living in a rural area and pointed out that the 2000 Census had shown that approximately 14 percent of Nevadans lived in rural areas. A.B. 219 might provide a way to stimulate the economy, particularly as many of the rural communities, such as Tonopah, were struggling economically. Mr. Sherer urged the Committee to support A.B. 219.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that she had researched a similar issue at the beginning of the session relating to the balance between northern Nevada and southern Nevada. She said that her research led her to the conclusion that as new programs were created that balance was being taken into account; however, the rural areas were lacking services. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 219 was focused on specific services.
Mr. Sherer explained that the bill was not targeting specific areas; rather, it would examine the possibility of relocating some services, such as a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, to a rural area. He pointed out that there were many ways of communication that would not require divisions to be located in the same place. Mr. Sherer added that it would be an opportunity for those people who lived in rural areas to work in rural areas; currently many residents of Pahrump were state employees and commuted to Las Vegas for work.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that A.B. 219 would be funded through donations, and once the money had been received, the director of the Department of Administration would appoint a commission to conduct the study. Mr. Sherer indicated that was correct.
Assemblywoman Chowning confirmed that the funding for the study was not included in the budget for the Department of Administration and would be paid through donations. She thanked Mr. Sherer for his efforts to help the rural communities.
Cindy Nixon of Hawthorne, Nevada, read a statement (Exhibit C) in support of A.B. 219. She said that A.B. 219 was a progressive step toward a healthy, thriving economy for the entire state of Nevada. There were many small towns and communities that would welcome the opportunity to work for the state. Ms. Nixon pointed out that office rental in Hawthorne was much less expensive than renting in Las Vegas, Reno, or Carson City. In addition, housing rental and purchase was less expensive.
Ms. Nixon commented that citizens in rural Nevada paid taxes, but the small communities were struggling. School enrollment was shrinking and businesses were fighting to remain open. She opined that if 60 state employees were to relocate to a rural community that would save the businesses in that community as well as introduce a diversity of culture and careers to help the community and its citizens.
Ms. Nixon outlined some of the advantages of living in a rural community and said that state employees might enjoy that lifestyle as well. She emphasized that the state should take the lead in promoting the relocation of business to the rural areas, and she urged the Committee to support A.B. 219.
As there were no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 219 closed.
Assembly Bill 264 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-62)
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9, presented A.B. 264 and noted that the bill originally had a fiscal note of approximately $450 million; however, that amount had been reduced. She apologized for not having the new fiscal note and indicated that if the Committee wished to process the bill the fiscal note would need to be examined in more detail.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained that the bill originally had 75 sections with several different policy decisions. The first component was a lengthening of the school year for teachers and students by five days over the biennium, two days in the first year and three days in the second year. She noted that one additional day cost approximately $10 million and said the reasoning behind the request was that there were more programs and curricula being mandated but less time to teach. She added that it was not cost-effective to lengthen the day as each minute would cost approximately $2.9 million. The second component was on page 7, in Section 41 of the bill, which addressed the need to retain veteran teachers in at-risk schools by allowing those teachers to earn an extra one-fifth credit toward retirement credit, which was more cost-effective for the state and of greater value to the teacher than a $2,000 one-time stipend. The third component was in Section 68 and recommended that a pool of $9 million in each year of the biennium be established for local school districts to bargain a salary schedule, which could include skill-based pay, career ladder, market‑based pay, and school-based or group-based incentives.
Assemblyman Beers requested clarification regarding the salary schedule. Ms. Giunchigliani explained that the current pay schedule was based on experience and education. There had been criticism of that pay schedule, and she recognized there were problems, but she did not support merit pay. With the current pay schedule, the only way for a teacher to make more money was to become an administrator. Ms. Giunchigliani said that A.B. 264 would allow the union and the school district to negotiate a market-based pay system or a performance-based pay system that would be parallel to the salary schedule and would be additional revenue based on what the teachers did. She gave the example of an experienced teacher who chose to mentor other less-experienced teachers and said that the mentor would receive an incentive to do that through a stipend or other mechanism. Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized that the intent was to keep teachers in the classroom as well as recognize those teachers who chose to go beyond their own workday to train or help other teachers.
The fourth component was in Section 70, which stated that by the end of the 2004 school year, all school districts would offer a beginning salary of $30,000 per year. Ms. Giunchigliani said that none of the school districts had reached that mark, and Washoe County School District was the lowest with a starting salary of approximately $27,000 per year. She pointed out the importance of having a good base salary and then offering incentives in order to attract and retain good teachers.
Assemblywoman Gibbons remarked that in order to compare salaries one had to include benefits, and she asked if the $27,000 in Washoe County School District could actually be compared to salaries in places such as Modesto, California, which offered approximately $42,000. Ms. Giunchigliani said that was merely a salary-to-salary comparison as it was very difficult to add in the different benefits, including the retirement system, and still keep the comparison fairly equitable.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in support of A.B. 264 and said she appreciated the work that Ms. Giunchigliani had done on the enhanced compensation. She indicated that she had met with several of the Committee members individually to discuss the Distributive School Account (DSA) issues and the funding for enhanced compensation had been included in the budget. She opined that the language in the bill provided the framework for progress regarding enhanced compensation.
Ms. Cahill stated that salary was a mandatory subject of bargaining and the bill would allow enhanced compensation to be used as well. She indicated that enhanced compensation programs had been bargained in Lyon County. The Washoe County School District had built framework language in contracts to move forward on a system of enhanced compensation that would be defined through bargaining. Clark County School District also had established a framework that would be put in place if funding became available.
Ms. Cahill said she supported the provision for a longer school year and felt the best way to attract and retain teachers would be by raising the base salary to $30,000 per year. She noted that the Clark County School District lost approximately 50 percent of newly hired teachers within five years, and she said Nevada was simply not competitive with surrounding states in terms of salaries and benefits.
Mrs. Gibbons questioned the national average for the number of school days and asked if there was a correlation between the number of school days and test scores. Ms. Cahill said she would research that question and provide that information at a later time.
Mr. Beers observed that Ms. Cahill had mentioned the Lyon County School District, and he asked for a more detailed explanation of that situation. Ms. Cahill offered to provide a copy of the contract language that had been negotiated. She said the Lyon County School District had adopted a program that would be a school-wide incentive program. If funding became available for the program, each school in Lyon County would establish their own goals for performance, and when those goals were reached, everyone in the school would be eligible to receive a bonus in addition to the base salary. Ms. Cahill noted that was one form of enhanced compensation, but she opined that each school district should be able to adapt programs to their needs.
Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District, said the four components, as outlined by Ms. Giunchigliani, were supported by the school district, although there were financial concerns. The additional five days were consistent with the iNVest proposal but would cost Clark County School District approximately $45 million. Also, the cost of the retirement credit had not been calculated, but the minimum starting salary requirement would cost the district approximately $120 million. Mr. Kadlub reiterated that Clark County School District supported the concepts of the bill, but additional funding was needed.
Dotty Merrill, Washoe County School District, said she was in support of the concepts of A.B. 264, but she emphasized that funding was needed to implement those concepts. She commented on the $30,000 salary base and said there were concerns that raising the base without changing the rest of the scale would create an inequity. Ms. Merrill was not sure how that “rollover fiscal impact” would be addressed.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed with Ms. Merrill regarding the inequity and said the focus needed to be on retaining as well as attracting teachers. She said the salary schedule would have to be accommodated percentage-wise, but lengthening the school year would increase the base salary, and then there would have to be bargaining across the schedule to create equity.
Curtis Jordan, Superintendent, Esmeralda County School District, spoke in support of the concepts in A.B. 264. He agreed with earlier testimony that the funding was a concern. Without additional funds the school districts would not be able to carry out the provisions in the bill. Mr. Jordan expressed concern regarding the long-term funding of the provisions. He noted that building those enhanced compensation benefits into the negotiated agreement would require long-term funding.
As there were no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 264 closed.
Assembly Bill 179 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that she wanted to apologize to anyone who was present to hear Assembly Bill 179. The bill was not ready yet and the hearing date had been moved to May 5, 2003.
Assembly Bill 332 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to persons with disabilities, service animals and service animals in training. (BDR 38‑1)
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., District No. 7, presented A.B. 332 and explained that the bill made changes relating to the treatment of persons with disabilities and service animals. The bill would define what a disability was as well as how service animals trained to aid those individuals with disabilities should be treated. Those individuals found to be abusing service animals would be fined no less than $500 and no more than $2,500 and might be imprisoned for no more than one year. Additionally, there were provisions in the bill that would allow service animals to accompany their trainers to work and into public buildings as well as making it unlawful to deny housing to a person with a service animal. In conclusion, Mr. Arberry stated that A.B. 332 addressed important issues and was needed.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Arberry to explain the fiscal note. Mr. Arberry said the fiscal note was the cost for enforcement and had been submitted by the Attorney General.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the cost would be approximately $29,250 in each year of the biennium. She questioned the provision that would make abuse of service animals a gross misdemeanor and asked if the intent had been to increase the fine. Mr. Arberry stated that the intent was to make abuse a gross misdemeanor because it was a very serious matter. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani opined that the penalty was rather harsh and said the Committee might wish to reconsider that provision.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any guidelines regarding who was eligible to train service animals. Mr. Arberry said he had been unable to identify the specific language in the bill, but he believed the bill would also define who was eligible to be a trainer.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani mentioned that she had a friend who trained service animals and she noted that one of the issues was that there were not any licensing facilities to license trainers. Mr. Arberry agreed that was a problem.
Assemblywoman Leslie said that A.B. 332 had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs; however, a similar bill, S.B. 231, had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services. She noted that portions of A.B. 332 had been incorporated into S.B. 231 and said those bills would need to be reconciled.
Assemblywoman McClain pointed out that S.B. 231 had not had a fiscal note attached. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed that the bills would need to be examined.
Assemblywoman Chowning applauded the provisions of A.B. 332 and related a story of a teacher in Clark County who trained guide dogs and was told if she brought the animal to school, she would be fired. The school district was sued and the issue was resolved after much time and money was spent. Mrs. Chowning opined that the bill would prevent similar situations.
Mr. Arberry thanked the Committee for their consideration and repeated that A.B. 332 addressed serious issues, particularly for those individuals who needed service animals to maintain their quality of life.
There were no further questions or comments so Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing on A.B. 332 closed.
Senate Bill 396: Makes supplemental appropriation to Health Division of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from increased cost of maintenance of effort requirement for Substance Abuse and Treatment Block Grant. (BDR S-1226)
Phil Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, spoke in support of S.B. 396 and read from prepared remarks (Exhibit D). He said the bill would allow the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse to meet its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement for state expenditures as required by the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant. The Bureau’s current FY2003 state General Fund appropriation was $38,915 short of the required MOE, which was calculated according to the average of the last two years’ actual expenditures or MOE requirements for those two years. Mr. Weyrick indicated that he had included an attachment that detailed that MOE calculation (Exhibit D).
Mr. Weyrick said that the state’s current federal SAPT Block Grant was approximately $12.8 million. The General Fund appropriation of $3.07 million comprised approximately 14 percent of the Bureau’s $21 million budget. Failure to meet the required MOE would cause the following results:
· The federal Block Grant funding could be dollar for dollar by the amount of the shortfall.
· The Health Division had requested a waiver to exclude the MAXIMUS funding in the MOE calculation as a non-recurring funding initiative for a specific purpose. Indications from the federal advisors were that the waiver could not be granted if the state did not meet the MOE. If the waiver were not granted, there would be a significant impact on future years’ MOE calculations.
· The federal Block Grant award would be delayed substantially because additional federal reviews were conducted when the MOE was not met. Not being able to draw federal funds would affect the cash flow in the budget, and a cash advance might be required.
Mr. Weyrick noted that the federal year began on October 1, 2003, and if the federal grant was delayed until February or March 2004, that would affect the cash flow in the budget. He added that he had included attachments detailing the dramatic increase in grant funding compared to the maintenance of effort as well as the decreasing percentage of General Fund appropriation in the budget (Exhibit D). Mr. Weyrick urged the Committee to support S.B. 396.
Kevin Quint, Chairman, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) Advisory Committee, spoke in support of S.B. 396 and read the following statement into the record:
BADA receives nearly 75 percent of its total budgeted revenue from the SAPT Block Grant. A requirement of that Block Grant is that states receiving those funds maintain a spending level of state General Funds called maintenance of effort (MOE).
If the MOE is not met, this sends a message that Nevada does not need all of its SAPT Block Grant funds, which could impact future increases Nevada is entitled to receive. In addition, BADA’s funding trend related to state General Funds is relatively flat, with a 1.3 percent increase over the last six years. During that same time frame, the SAPT Block Grant has increased $5,134,380 or 83.4 percent. That has been a good deal for Nevada. The risk of losing future increases is not worth the minimal increase in General Fund appropriation to meet the MOE.
Even in extremely lean economic times, $38,915 is a small price to pay for ensuring that over $12 million a year in federal funding continues to flow into Nevada, and this is not just money. It’s an investment in our substance abuse treatment and prevention infrastructure. These programs literally save money, they save lives, and they help to improve the quality of life for individuals, for communities, and for all Nevadans.
Mr. Quint thanked the Committee for their consideration and offered to answer any questions.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions or comments, there being none, he declared the hearing on S.B. 396 closed.
Senate Bill 246 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Supreme Court of Nevada for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from deficit in collection of administrative assessments. (BDR S-1223)
Judy Holt, Manager of Budget and Finance, Administrative Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of Nevada, introduced Janette Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court, and presented S.B. 246. Ms. Holt explained that S.B. 246 was a request for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $610,000. The original request that had been included in the budget had been for approximately $500,000; however, there had been an increase in the shortfall in the administrative assessments necessitating the increased request. The Supreme Court’s primary operating budget was comprised of funding from administrative assessments and General Fund. Typically, when there was a shortfall in administrative assessments, the General Fund would supplement the budget. Similarly, if there was an excess of administrative assessments, then money would be reverted to the General Fund.
Mr. Marvel asked how much money was needed, and Ms. Holt said the Court was approximately $710,000 short in the assessments, but the Court was only requesting $610,000 in S.B. 246 as the Court had devised some savings plans, including delaying testing of court interpreters and deferring the final printing of Nevada Reports, Volume 117.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 246 and the meeting was recessed at 9:03 a.m.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting back to order at 9:20 a.m. and indicated the Committee would hear A.B. 325.
Assembly Bill 325 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to motor vehicles that have sustained certain damages. (BDR 43-222)
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8, explained that A.B. 325 related to vehicles that had been rebuilt after sustaining damage. She said there were dangerous cars traveling the roads, and the purchaser of a car might be unaware if that car had sustained serious damage prior to purchase. Ms. Buckley pointed out that the Assembly Committee on Transportation had already heard the bill and approved the policy, but the bill had come to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means due to fiscal concerns, including a fee charged for a salvage title. She indicated that representatives from the Department of Motor Vehicles were present to answer questions.
Ms. Buckley commented that she had proposed a similar bill in the previous legislative session, but the bill had been defeated due to concerns raised by insurance companies. During the interim, she had met with representatives from insurance companies, the DMV, rent-a-car companies, and automobile auction businesses in order to develop a bill that would be supported by those groups. A.B. 325 had been the result, and Ms. Buckley opined that the bill was good public policy.
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Compliance/Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, spoke in support of A.B. 325 and said he would like to congratulate Ms. Buckley on the finished product. He indicated that there was a $10 fee mentioned in the bill, and he said that subsection 4 of Section 16 was written as new language but was not new language. The major changes that should have been italicized were the change from “department” to “state agency” and adding one part created by NRS 487.450 at the end of that language in subsection 4. In subsection 6, that language was existing language in NRS 487.050. He indicated that current language made wreckers exempt from the $10 salvage charge. Mr. Felices indicated that Martha Barnes was present to answer questions regarding the fiscal note.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred to the handout provided by Ms. Barnes (Exhibit E) and asked if the amount shown as revenue generated was the total amount of revenue or merely the amount of new revenue generated based on passage of A.B. 325.
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, responded and said the revenue generated had not changed. The only change had been the number of positions requested in the fiscal note, and it had been determined that with the purchase of an online printer the number of positions could be reduced from four to three, changing the amount to $106,149.80 in the first year of the biennium (Exhibit E).
Mr. Stevens repeated his question and asked if the $354,216 listed under FY2004 (Exhibit E) was based on all transactions or only the new transactions resulting from A.B. 325. Ms. Barnes indicated that amount was based on new transactions.
Mr. Stevens stated that the revenue and the expenditures were placed in different budgets and that was a mechanical issue that needed to be addressed. Ms. Barnes indicated that the Department was cognizant of that issue and explained that the revenue went into one account and was then transferred to the other account to cover expenses. Mr. Stevens said that would solve the problem; however, the Committee needed to determine whether to place that item into the budget during budget closings or to require the Department to return to the Interim Finance Committee contingent on passage of the bill.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that a portion of the DMV’s budgets had been closed in the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation, and as Assemblyman Parks was the chairman of that Subcommittee, she asked him to work with staff to resolve the mechanical issues.
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance, said he had worked with Ms. Buckley on A.B. 325 and was in support of the bill. He said the bill would have a positive impact on consumers in the state of Nevada by removing salvaged vehicles and irreparably damaged vehicles from the roadways. One of the concerns that had been discussed in the Assembly Committee on Transportation was the salvage bill of sale. Mr. Werbeckes explained that under current laws, when a vehicle was sold by the insurance company, it was sold on a salvage bill of sale, meaning that once the title was received from the claimant, or insured, the company could sell that vehicle the following day. Under A.B. 325, the insurance company would have to secure a salvage title, which in Mr. Werbeckes’ opinion, was appropriate.
Mr. Werbeckes only concern was the possible delay in receiving the salvage title from the DMV. He indicated that representatives from the DMV had testified in the Assembly Committee on Transportation that those titles would be received within one week or less so that the insurance companies could sell the vehicles. Mr. Werbeckes noted that on any given day, there were approximately 250 vehicles in the salvage yard at a cost of $5 per vehicle per day, which would become very expensive if the titles were not sent and the vehicles were not sold for several weeks. Mr. Werbeckes reiterated that the title turnaround time was his only concern, but as long as the DMV was able to return those titles within a week, he was willing to pay the $10 fee, and he felt the bill would be of benefit to Nevada.
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association (AAA), Nevada, voiced her support of A.B. 325. Ms. Foster said that AAA, as a motor club and an insurance company, felt that the bill would keep unsafe cars off the road, and she urged the Committee to support the bill.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 325 and turned the meeting over to Chairman Arberry.
Assembly Bill 29 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning administrative assessments and forfeiture of bail. (BDR 14-130)
Deborah Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, presented A.B. 29 and explained that there had been several bills relating to administrative assessments, but A.B. 29 was the bill that had achieved consensus among the courts. The total amount of the requested administrative assessment increase was $15, a portion of which would support specialty court programs.
Chief Justice Agosti pointed out that the courts were not funded entirely through the General Fund, a substantial portion of the budget was funded through administrative assessments. She noted that the Committee had already heard S.B. 246, which was a request for a supplemental appropriation as the projected revenue from administrative assessments had declined approximately 17 percent since the previous biennium. Chief Justice Agosti opined that the decline was due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which had caused the focus of law enforcement to shift from traffic control to areas of patrol and security lessening the number of citations being written.
Chief Justice Agosti said the courts collected approximately 80 percent of the administrative assessments that were assessed; however, the volume of assessments had decreased and so had the amount. She indicated that by raising the administrative assessments, the courts hoped to fund the specialty courts, provide funding for technology personnel in the Supreme Court, and make up the shortfall that had been experienced in the current biennium.
Chief Justice Agosti indicated that the Committee had been provided with a handout (Exhibit F), and she explained that Figure 1 in Exhibit F outlined the effects of A.B. 29. Administrative assessments were set by statute and were assessed according to the amount of the fine, which amount was at the discretion of the court. For example, if an individual were fined $500, the administrative assessment would be $105 by statute. If the county chose to impose the facility fee, the amount would be raised to $115. A.B. 29 would increase the total administrative assessment an additional $15, which would raise the amount to $130, which would be an increase of approximately 13 percent in the administrative assessment. She pointed out that the percentage increase would vary with the amount of the fine, and the percentage increase would be greater with lower fines.
Chief Justice Agosti indicated that Figure 2 in Exhibit F was a breakout of the fines and the administrative assessments that might be expected for specific offenses. The chart included current assessments as well as the assessments if A.B. 29 passed. Figure 3 showed how Nevada would compare to other western states in terms of assessments and surcharges for misdemeanors.
Chief Justice Agosti indicated her portion of the presentation was over and she turned the time over to Mr. Titus to explain A.B. 29 in more detail.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Nevada Supreme Court, said he would be referring to Exhibit F as well as to Exhibit G, which outlined the proposed amendments to A.B. 29. Mr. Titus said he would be discussing the goal and intent of A.B. 29, and then other representatives from the various court programs would be discussing the needs of the specialty courts and district courts.
Mr. Titus explained that Section 1 of the bill provided for the $5 assessment to be used to fund the specialty courts. He noted that A.B. 29 had originally contained a $15 assessment for specialty courts, but there had been concern across the state regarding the amount of total assessments that would be applied compared to the fine. Those concerns had led to much discussion and compromise, and A.B. 29 was the result.
Mr. Titus noted that the funds generated from A.B. 29 would go to the Office of the Court Administrator, and the Court Administrator would distribute those funds to the specialty courts. Item 5 in Exhibit F was a Judicial Council resolution, and Mr. Titus explained that the intent was to allow the Judicial Council, which was comprised of representatives from limited and general jurisdiction courts and the Supreme Court, to recommend how the funds should be distributed. The resolution stated that the existing specialty courts would receive priority, but the goal was to eventually expand specialty courts so that all Nevada citizens would have access to them, regardless of where they lived. He opined that A.B. 29 would make it possible to achieve that goal.
Mr. Titus continued his presentation and directed the Committee’s attention to the summary in Exhibit F. He explained that Section 2 of the bill increased the general administrative assessment, found in NRS 176.059, by $10. The current distribution of that assessment was 51 percent to the Office of the Court Administrator and 49 percent to the General Fund. Mr. Titus pointed out that 60 percent of the 51 percent went to the Supreme Court to offset budget proposals in the amount of approximately $1.5 million. He commented that the percentages the General Fund received were outlined in Exhibit F and indicated that the amounts were estimations based on FY2003 numbers.
Mr. Titus indicated that there were proposed amendments to A.B. 29 (Exhibit G). He noted that the majority of the amendments were technical changes, and he said that the changes had been approved by Chairman Anderson of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. He directed the Committee’s attention to page 2 of Exhibit G and said the proposed amendment added the wording regarding funding of the specialty courts. In Section 3, the court facility assessments were addressed, and the proposed amendment ensured that as assessments were included in the amount posted for bail, if bail was forfeited those assessments should be distributed accordingly.
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 addressed bail forfeitures for gross misdemeanors and felony cases. Mr. Titus explained that currently when a defendant forfeited bail that money was collected and sent to the state to be distributed to the Victims of Crime Fund. Those four sections would give the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) the responsibility to monitor those assessments with the intent of increasing the collections and then sharing that increase with the Victims of Crime Fund. Further research had indicated that the initial plan of a 50 percent split for the Victims of Crime Fund and the AOC would decrease the amount received by the Victims of Crime Fund, which had not been the intent. Thus, the amendment changed that percentage and the portion for the Victims of Crime Fund would be 90 percent and the AOC would receive 10 percent. Mr. Titus indicated that the administrator of the Victims of Crime Fund had agreed with that change and was supportive of the AOC’s efforts to increase collections.
Mr. Titus said that Section 10 of the bill included a provision that the Court Administrator would provide a report to the Legislature on the distribution of the funds collected. He noted that Figure 1 of Exhibit F was a breakout of the new assessments and the percentages of the assessments that would be a fine. Figure 1 showed the theoretical application of A.B. 29, while Figure 2 demonstrated the practical application of the bill.
Mr. Titus indicated he would be discussing the needs of the courts. The AOC depended entirely on assessments to fund its operations, specifically judicial education and statewide court technology efforts. Judicial education included funding for mandatory educational requirements for general and limited jurisdiction judges. The technology efforts of the Courts included state-sponsored limited and general jurisdiction case management systems, as well as the technology of the trial courts. The senior judge program was also funded exclusively by administrative assessments; however, as there had been a decline in assessments, that program was not being used and the courts had been asked to avoid requesting assistance from senior judges unless the need was dire.
Mr. Titus pointed out that the AOC’s share of the assessments had decreased approximately $1.2 million, while the overall amount had decreased approximately $2.3 million. As the collection rate was approximately 80 percent, the decrease was due to a decline in the number of citations written rather than a lack of collection. Mr. Titus noted that over the last several years, the AOC had assumed a greater role in the administration of the Nevada Judicial Branch. The first area the AOC had worked to expand was the technology of the courts; however, those efforts had been hampered by the lack of funding. The AOC was also active in assisting courts in areas of administration relating to fees, fines, and forfeitures, and the AOC had created a task force to study collections. The task force had generated several recommendations, but once again the lack of funding had made it impossible to implement all the suggestions.
Mr. Titus observed that there had been several pieces of legislation in the current session that could potentially increase the responsibilities of the AOC, and the Legislature was depending upon the AOC to take a more active role in the Judicial Branch. In addition to those responsibilities, the Nevada Supreme Court had reconstituted the Judicial Council in order to increase statewide judicial responsibility and the AOC acted as its secretariat. The AOC had administrative responsibilities for the Supreme Court as well, and with A.B. 29, the AOC would be tasked with overseeing the Supreme Court budget and the budgets of the specialty courts as well.
Mr. Titus indicated that the AOC hoped to expand its support of technology and judicial education and was proposing to hire additional personnel with the new revenue generated by A.B. 29.
Mr. Marvel questioned the distribution formula that would be used to determine the amount received by the specialty courts. Mr. Titus said that the formula had not been determined, but he felt the formula would be similar to existing federal grant requirements. He assured the Committee those procedures would be developed. He pointed out that there would be a time lag between the passage of A.B. 29 and the receipt of the new revenue, and he said he would like to wait and determine the actual amount that would be generated before disbursing the funds.
Mr. Marvel asked if the courts throughout the state had standardized the collection of the administrative assessments. Mr. Titus said there had been an audit in 2002 and a plan had been developed to address those issues, and while currently collection was not standardized, he hoped it would be by the next biennium. Mr. Marvel asked if the lower courts were being cooperative, and Mr. Titus indicated that those courts were being cooperative and were even taking leadership roles.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that the specialty courts would use the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Mr. Titus said that was standard procedure whenever there were any major contracts to let. He remarked that he believed the RFP process had been used in the rural courts, and Ms. Giunchigliani contended that had not happened. She then asked how he defined a “major” contract if the rural courts had not qualified. Mr. Titus said that “major” would be defined as costing $100,000 or more. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Legislature should establish criteria, and she opined that there should be RFPs with all the specialty courts and drug courts.
Peter Breen, District Court Judge, Department 7, Second Judicial District, Washoe County, addressed the Committee and spoke about the needs of the specialty courts. He commented that he had come to the Legislature on five different occasions requesting support for the specialty courts, and the Legislature had been very generous. Since the establishment of the drug courts, Nevada had been used as a model for drug courts throughout the nation. Judge Breen added that the convention of family court professionals had recently been held, and the ninth annual convention of drug court professionals had been held in Reno. Between the two conventions, there had been over 6,000 delegates, and Judge Breen opined that the success of the specialty courts was evidenced by the multiplicity of the numbers. There were approximately 1,000 graduates of the adult drug court program in Washoe County, and Clark County had approximately 4,000 graduates, 80 percent of which would not be going to prison due to the success of the drug courts.
Judge Breen opined that A.B. 29 was the future of the specialty courts. A.B. 29 would provide a relatively stable source of funding for the specialty courts and would supplement those courts in existence as well as help to develop additional courts throughout the state. Judge Breen said that every county in every district would be willing to institute a specialty court if the funding was available. A.B. 29 would also aid in standardizing and unifying the various courts’ approaches to mental illness and drug addiction and recovery.
Judge Breen cautioned the Committee that A.B. 29 was not the panacea; there was still work to be done. The amount of new revenue that A.B. 29 would generate was unknown and more time would be needed to determine exactly how much money would be available to fund the needs of the courts. Judge Breen added that there were many types of specialty courts in addition to the drug and mental health courts mentioned. He said that the appropriation requested in The Executive Budget was essential to the operation of the current drug court. Without the appropriation, the Washoe County adult drug court would have to reduce the number of clients served by one-third, and the rural courts would cease to exist as they were dependent upon that funding.
Judge Breen informed the Committee that the RFP process had recently been completed with regard to the Washoe County specialty courts, and he believed the process would be completed by the end of the week, and the process would be repeated every few years.
Mrs. Chowning remarked that the recidivism rate for the drug court program was approximately 20 percent, and she asked if that rate had been a consistent percentage over time. Judge Breen said the success of the drug courts was determined by the recidivism rate. He said that there was an 80 percent chance that an individual charged with a felony would be rearrested within a certain number of years, and there was an 80 percent chance that an individual who had been incarcerated would return to prison. Judge Breen noted that the 80 percent recidivism rate was a well-known statistic from the United States Department of Justice, but the drug courts across the country had a recidivism rate of approximately 20 percent.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that A.B. 29 was projected to generate approximately $2.5 million, while the state currently appropriated approximately $1.3 million. She opined that the courts might need start-up funds, but then the assessments should be used to make up for the loss in the General Fund appropriation.
Judge Breen argued that there were many entities seeking the funds generated by A.B. 29. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that with the way the budget was constructed and what had been previously appropriated, there should be an additional $1.5 million for start-up costs.
Mrs. Gibbons commended Judge Breen for his work with the drug court. Judge Breen thanked her for her comments.
James Hardesty, District Court Judge, Department 9, Second Judicial District, Washoe County, endorsed the testimony given by Judge Breen and added that the senior judge program was a vital program. He said that the majority of the money in the senior judge program had been used in the Eighth Judicial District up to that point, but Washoe County was now facing those same caseload problems, and the funding for the senior judge program was critical.
Nancy Saitta, District Court Judge, Department 18, Eighth Judicial District, Clark County, said there was an obvious need for continued funding of drug courts, but there was also a great need for mental health courts as at any given time, 10 percent of the prison population in Clark County was in need of mental health services. She agreed with Judge Hardesty that the senior judge program was essential to the operation of the courts in Clark County and that the program was dependent upon receiving revenue from A.B. 29. Judge Saitta reminded the Committee that Clark County was currently facing a construction defect crisis, and three judges had been assigned to handle those cases in addition to their regular caseload. Without the senior judge program, the court would be unable to continue processing cases effectively. She reiterated that the funding was essential to the operation of the district court, as well as the specialty courts.
Judge Hardesty interjected that he wished to supplement what Judge Breen had said by pointing out that the Second Judicial District had proceeded with its plans for a mental health court without receiving any funds. Judge Hardesty said that he and Judge Breen and Assemblywoman Leslie had donated their time to run that mental health court, which served in excess of 30 defendants per month. Judge Breen said the results had been “staggering” and was an extremely important part of the criminal justice system and was on the verge of success. He repeated that there would be significant competing interests in establishing programs throughout the state and funding was needed.
Archie Blake, District Court Judge, Department 2, Third Judicial District, Churchill and Lyon Counties, said that he administered the rural drug court program. He agreed with Judge Breen’s comments and requests and indicated that he would address the RFP issue raised by Ms. Giunchigliani. He explained that the rural courts had difficulties finding providers and used all that were available so an RFP was impractical. He said the additional funding was needed in order to recruit providers.
Michael Griffin, District Court Judge, Department 1, First Judicial District, Carson City and Storey County, said there had been a Commission on Rural Courts, of which Assemblyman Marvel was a member, and the Commission had worked to develop a plan for establishing drug courts in some of the rural counties, such as White Pine County. He said that if a drug court could be established with funding, then it would be possible to have counselors in those communities to provide the mandated counseling for certain offenses, such as domestic violence. He said the rural courts would be asking for assistance from the state in order to provide help to those smaller communities that were in need of specialty court services.
Richard Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission, spoke in support of A.B. 29. He said there were two main parts of the bill: the funding of the specialty courts and the increase in the administrative assessments, which would benefit the POST Commission. As an agency that was dependent on funds from administrative assessments, the passage of A.B. 29 was vital to the continuation of the POST Commission’s mission as established by S.B. 68 in the 1999 Legislative Session. Mr. Clark indicated that the POST Commission had suffered a 10 percent shortfall in assessments in FY2002 and a 15 percent shortfall in FY2003. He explained that in 1983, all the assessments collected that were not used to support the court system were designated solely for the training and education of peace officers; however, as the fund had grown, other agencies had received a portion of the administrative assessments. He stated that the POST Commission, as well as those other agencies, needed the passage of A.B. 29, and he urged the Committee to support the bill.
As there were no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 29 closed and indicated the Committee would be closing budgets.
Jeff Ferguson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said he would be presenting the budget accounts from the Attorney General’s Office. He explained that he would be presenting an overview of some issues that influenced several budget accounts and the Committee would be discussing those issues globally rather than in each individual budget account.
Mr. Ferguson indicated that the first issue related to the fraud control units. He reminded the Committee that during earlier hearings there had been a discussion regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of some of the Attorney General’s fraud control units. During those hearings the Attorney General (AG) had testified that he was reviewing each of the Office’s divisions and units and would make changes based on those reviews. The AG had also indicated that the Office would develop new performance indicators.
Mr. Ferguson indicated that the AG’s Office had downplayed the premise that a fraud control unit’s effectiveness could be measured in terms of financial recovery and said it should be measured by the unit’s activity in areas such as criminal referrals processed, investigations conducted, cases opened, and so forth. Mr. Ferguson pointed out that there had been several LCB audits that stated that performance indicators should be outcome-based. Thus, the Committee might wish to consider issuing a Letter of Intent to the Attorney General’s Office requesting that it adopt outcome-based performance measures for each of the Office’s four fraud control units. The Letter of Intent could request a summary of the results of the Attorney General’s review of each fraud control unit, including descriptions of any changes that had been or would be made to the units. Further, the Letter of Intent could suggest the fraud units include the outcome-based performance indicators in their existing quarterly reports to the IFC.
The next issue Mr. Ferguson addressed was the request from the AG’s Office for an additional 10,492 square feet of office space in the Grant Sawyer Building. At the time, it was believed that the Office would have to use all or none of the space; however, upon further review, it was discovered that the Office would be able to opt for less space, and the Office had indicated that 8,900 square feet of additional office space would be sufficient. Mr. Ferguson said that staff had adjusted the Office’s budgets to reflect the decreased rent costs, and he pointed out the adjustment was reflected in the budget accounts.
Continuing to the final issue of position reclassifications and salary adjustments, Mr. Ferguson reminded the Committee that the Attorney General had indicated that he wanted to reclassify and adjust salaries of a number of positions, which were not included in The Executive Budget. Mr. Ferguson said that the Governor and the Budget Office did not support the reclassifications. He indicated that he had more detail regarding the reclassifications and if the Committee wished, he would provide that information as well. Mr. Ferguson noted that the reclassifications and salary adjustments would be considered separately by the unclassified pay subcommittee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO REQUEST A LETTER OF INTENT, TO BE ISSUED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO APPROVE THE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS NECESSITATED BY THE CHANGE IN RENT COSTS, AND TO NOT APPROVE THE RECLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the change in office space would affect other budget accounts, such as the Victims of Crime, which would have had to relocate its offices from the Grant Sawyer Building due to the expansion of the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Ferguson indicated he would get that information for Mrs. Chowning.
MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
AG SPECIAL FUND (101-1031) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 29
Mr. Ferguson said the main issue of Budget Account 101-1031 was the request for a General Fund appropriation of $2 million to pay legal costs associated with Yucca Mountain. The Governor recommended that the appropriation be authorized for use in both years of the biennium. The Attorney General testified that approximately $1.6 million from the Nevada Protection Fund would be utilized first with the $2 million General Fund appropriation utilized last. The Office had indicated there would not be any additional funding requests for Yucca Mountain beyond the 2003-2005 biennium.
Mr. Marvel asked if there was any money left in the account from a previous appropriation. Mr. Stevens said there was approximately $1.6 million in the account and the proposal was to use that money before using the $2 million General Fund appropriation. Mr. Marvel said he would prefer that the Attorney General return to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for authorization.
Assemblyman Hettrick said the $2 million should be given to the IFC and then the Attorney General would have to come before the IFC and demonstrate the need for the money before receiving it.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET BY APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $2 MILLION TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THEN ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REQUEST THE FUNDS FROM THE IFC.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG INSURANCE FRAUD (101-3806) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 32
Mr. Ferguson presented Budget Account 101-3806 and said the main closing issue was the collection of assessments. The Attorney General’s Fraud Unit retained 85 percent of assessments and transferred the other 15 percent to the Insurance Division of the Department of Business and Industry. Statute required that the Insurance Commissioner receive all money collected from fraud assessments and transfer 85 percent to the Attorney General. That change had been made at the September 2002 IFC meeting and The Executive Budget reflected the change. Additionally, there was a request for $3,400 in FY2004 for replacement computer hardware and software in decision unit E-710. The Attorney General had testified that he wanted to rescind E-710, which had been done.
Mr. Ferguson reminded the Committee that there had been numerous omissions and errors in several of the budget accounts, and the Committee had requested that staff work with the Attorney General’s Office to correct those problems. He informed the Committee that the necessary adjustments had been made.
Assemblyman Goldwater commented that every time a bill was proposed that was related to the duties of the AG, it seemed that the AG’s Office was unable to absorb any additional work and was always requesting an additional attorney or a secretary for “every pencil that gets lifted across state government.” He questioned whether the Office’s workload was such that additional personnel were constantly needed.
Mr. Ferguson said that the budgets that had been submitted were relatively lean compared to what historically had been presented. He added that the Attorney General had indicated during the hearing that he would systematically review all the units within the Office and anticipated making changes based on those reviews. Mr. Ferguson noted that the Office was currently undergoing an audit, which might lead to additional changes.
Mr. Goldwater said he was awaiting the results of the audit as well as the results of the changes made by the Attorney General. Mr. Goldwater said the audit might answer questions regarding workload.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG MEDICAID FRAUD (101-1037) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 36
Mr. Ferguson said there were no major issues to note in BA 101-1037. He said the Office was requesting two motor pool vehicles in decision unit E-500 and some replacement computer hardware and software in decision unit E-710. He noted that the work program year contained an incorrect number of FTEs.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FRAUD (101-1033)
BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 41
Mr. Ferguson said BA 101-1033 had no major issues, but the Office was requesting funding for a door lock system upgrade to the Reno office and some replacement computer hardware and software. He noted that staff had made adjustments to the base in the account.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG CRIME PREVENTION (101-1036) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 49
Mr. Ferguson presented BA 101-1036 and said that the major issue was the elimination of the Crime Prevention Coordinator position in decision unit E-600. That elimination would reduce the General Fund appropriation by $57,404 in FY2004 and $58,012 in FY2005. The Attorney General had testified that the Children’s Advocate would assume the duties previously performed by the Crime Prevention Coordinator.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDONOV SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG TORT CLAIM FUND (715-1348) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 53
Mr. Ferguson noted that the major issue in BA 715-1348 was the transfer of $55,000 from the Board of Examiners’ contingency fund into the Tort Claim Fund in The Executive Budget. Upon further review and discussion with the Budget Office and the Attorney General’s Office, that transfer had been removed. Mr. Ferguson indicated that the closing sheets reflected the removal of the revenue as well as a corresponding decrease in reserves and balance forward.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG EXTRADITION COORDINATOR (101-1002) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 56
Mr. Ferguson indicated that there were not any major closing issues in BA 101‑1002. He said that the Attorney General had testified that the budget as recommended by the Governor would be sufficient to meet the needs of the Office.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG COUNCIL FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS (101-1041)
BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 59
Mr. Ferguson presented BA 101-1041 and explained that there had been omissions in the account. He indicated that staff had worked with the Attorney General’s Office and the Budget Office to determine that, based on the revenue in the account, there was insufficient funding to support the activities and the position as recommended. As a result, the base in the budget account had been amended to reduce the account from 1.0 FTE to 0.51 FTE. Decision unit E-125 recommended new revenue that would restore the position to 1.0 FTE.
Mr. Ferguson explained that E-125 would authorize the Council for Prosecuting Attorneys to collect an additional $15,000 per year in administrative court assessments from A.B. 29. Those funds would be used to fund the aforementioned position, which was a change from the recommendation in The Executive Budget. Mr. Ferguson noted that if A.B. 29 did not pass, that position would be reduced. He said there had been adjustments made for revenues and $100 in General Fund had been added in order to allow access to the Interim Finance Committee Contingency Fund if necessary.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
AG VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (101-1042)
BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 63
Mr. Ferguson explained that there had been a missing expenditure category in the base budget for sub-grants to the courts. He indicated that staff had worked with the AG and with the Budget Office to modify the budget account, and as a result there were assessments to courts and the reserves were sufficient to maintain the operation of the program.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
CFS JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS (101-1383)
BUDGET PAGE ELECTED – 70
Mr. Ferguson indicated that The Executive Budget had recommended moving BA 101-1383 from the Division of Child and Family Services into the Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General had rescinded that request.
Mr. Ferguson reminded the Committee that in previous sessions, a Letter of Intent had been issued. He recommended that a Letter of Intent be issued with a slight modification: the semi-annual report should continue to be provided to the Fiscal Analysis Division for distribution to the IFC members; however, that report would only be placed on the IFC agenda as an informational item if requested by a member of the Committee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH A LETTER OF INTENT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
Chairman Arberry interjected that he had a BDR for the Committee’s consideration.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1342.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Arberry informed the Committee that they would be voting on bills.
Assembly Bill 418: Privatizes construction management duties of State Public Works Board. (BDR 28-1189)
Speaker Perkins explained that A.B. 418 proposed privatizing construction management duties of the State Public Works Board. He said that, in having discussions with representatives of the Board, he had realized that it might not be feasible to fully privatize; however, he believed there was an opportunity to privatize the construction management duties of some of the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects.
Speaker Perkins indicated that he had a proposed amendment to A.B. 418 which suggested that the Board, over the next two biennia, would select no fewer than two appropriate projects. Speaker Perkins commented that two biennia would not allow the Legislature to evaluate the process by the next legislative session so he suggested that the Board choose a couple of projects over the next biennium, and then the Legislature would be able to determine whether full privatization was a path to pursue.
Chairman Arberry clarified that the amendment would direct the Board to select a couple of projects over the next biennium, rather than over the next two biennia.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 418.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 475 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning providing health insurance for child pursuant to court order for support. (BDR 3‑1246)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 475 AS AMENDED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 476: Requires public employers to ensure that employees comply with laws governing registration of motor vehicles and obtaining drivers’ licenses. (BDR 23-1316)
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested amendments to the bill. She outlined the amendments as follows:
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 476.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 486: Increases limitation on certain fees that State Emergency Response Commission may require certain persons to pay for calendar year. (BDR 40-1256)
Mr. Stevens explained that the bill increased the amount of money that the State Emergency Response Commission could charge a business that stored hazardous materials. He noted that there was a companion bill, S.B. 201, which was on the second reading file on the Assembly Floor, and the Committee could choose to hold A.B. 486 and bring S.B. 201 before the Committee.
Mr. Marvel said that the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining had heard S.B. 201 earlier and the consensus had been to raise the fees. He opined that the Committee should wait to take action on A.B. 486.
Assembly Bill 488 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning ditches. (BDR 48-1293)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 488 AS AMENDED.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 543: Repeals credit against general tax on insurance premiums for certain assessments paid by insurers providing industrial insurance. (BDR 57-962)
Mr. Goldwater opined that the bill should be passed because the insurance companies would still receive the home office tax credit, and he felt it was an important budgetary and policy issue.
Mr. Hettrick commented that the Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON) had requested that if the bill passed, that the effective date be changed to January 1, 2004. The Committee appeared to be in agreement regarding that amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 543.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
WICHE LOAN AND STIPEND (614-2681) BUDGET PAGE WICHE – 1
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented BA 614-2681, which provided state General Funds for the cost of professional student slots.
Ms. Braun indicated there were two closing issues. The first issue concerned a proposed dental federal matching program, which was a pilot program recommended by the Governor for the purpose of obtaining new matching federal funds for dental slots under the Health Care Access Program (HCAP). The program would utilize state funding for two dental slots and those funds would be matched with federal funding through the University’s medical school. Those funds would be utilized to reimburse the education costs of selected dental school licensed graduates in exchange for a two-year practice obligation to serve the medically underserved in the state. Because the program targeted graduates, the risk of student dropouts was assumed to be less. During the first hearing for the budget account, the Committee requested confirmation from the University of Nevada School of Medicine that they were in agreement with the proposed program, and that documentation had been received.
Ms. Braun said, if the program were approved, staff recommended that the two federal dental slots be removed from the out-of-state program, with costs for the slots remaining at the in-state rate. In addition, the Committee might wish to issue a Letter of Intent to the agency requesting that the program not be built into the 2005-2007 base budget and requiring that the agency submit documentation to the 2005 Legislature showing the effectiveness of the program.
Ms. Braun indicated that the second closing issue concerned the Governor’s recommendation to eliminate one student slot in each of the fields of Optometry, Physical Therapy, and Veterinary Medicine, and she noted that staff concurred with the Governor’s recommendation. Ms. Braun said the Senate Committee on Finance had closed the budget and had chosen to remove an additional dental slot, which would bring the three-year program to one slot, while adding one slot to veterinary medicine. She said there were technical adjustments, which had provided a savings of $8,100 in FY2004 and $32,851 in FY2005.
Mr. Marvel asked if the proposed changes would affect students currently in the dental program. Ron Sparks, Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), answered and said it would not affect current students.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH A LETTER OF INTENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
WICHE ADMINISTRATION (101-2995) BUDGET PAGE WICHE – 4
Ms. Braun said BA 101-2995 provided for the costs of administering the WICHE loan and stipend fund. She said there were no closing issues, and staff recommended that in-state travel be reduced by $873 in each year of the biennium.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Susan Cherpeski
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: