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 3:40 p.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
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:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 516 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing taxes on motor vehicle fuels. (BDR 32-622)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, stated that A.B. 516 was a re-referral from the Assembly Taxation Committee and dealt with distribution of the gasoline tax, at least that portion received by local governments. There had been a slight change in the formula and Mr. Leavitt said he believed it had been re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means because in A.B. 516’s original form it had contained an indexing of gasoline taxes based on the consumer price index (CPI). That provision was removed from the bill upon the recommendation of the Assembly Taxation Committee. Removal of the provision made the fiscal note attached to A.B. 516 negligible. Mr. Leavitt stated the change in the formula was somewhat complex.
Chairman Arberry asked if his understanding was correct that A.B. 516 would only have an impact on local government. Mr. Leavitt responded that was correct and further stated it was a slight adjustment in the distribution of the gasoline taxes. This bill corrected a flaw in the provisions governing taxes on motor vehicle fuels.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 516 closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 521.
Assembly Bill 521: Expands title and duties of Section for Control of Emissions from Vehicles of Department of Motor Vehicles to include enforcement of certain matters relating to use of special fuel. (BDR 43-1273)
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA), stated that A.B. 521 had been drafted at the NMTA’s request for a number of reasons. A.B. 521 dealt primarily with the enforcement of dyed fuel issues within the state of Nevada. Mr. Capurro said the NMTA was concerned about the use of non-highway fuel, which had not been taxed, on Nevada highways. There had been indications that there was a fairly substantial amount of fuel that was unaccounted for as far as the tax situation was concerned. What A.B. 521 would do was provide authority to the Compliance Enforcement Division (CED) of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enforce the dyed fuel laws of the state in addition to the enforcement provided by the Nevada Highway Patrol. A problem had occurred because the DMV budget could be no more than 22 percent of the funds that went into the state Highway Fund. What had been contemplated was the transfer of six vacant, funded positions from the Highway Patrol budget to the Compliance Enforcement Division of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The restriction on the DMV budget made this transfer an almost insurmountable problem, however, there was nothing in the bill itself that set forth specific amounts to go to the DMV for this activity. Mr. Capurro said the NMTA would like to see A.B. 521 passed, giving the authority to the CED. The NMTA had already discussed this matter with the Federal Administrator for the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) in Nevada. The FMCSA had indicated there were federal funds available for the purchase of equipment and necessary training for the existing employees within the Compliance Enforcement Division of the DMV.
Mr. Capurro stated that the Nevada Motor Transport Association thought it was important to have additional coverage for dyed fuel enforcement throughout the state. During the last legislative session the vacancy rate in the Commercial Enforcement Division of the Highway Patrol had been 14 employees; currently, the vacancy rate was 27 employees. A.B. 521 was an attempt to improve the dyed fuel enforcement because it was a monetary issue.
Mr. Capurro asked for consideration in passing A.B. 521, without the fiscal note, to give enforcement authority to the Department of Motor Vehicles, Compliance Enforcement Division.
Chairman Arberry requested a representative from the Department of Motor Vehicles testify before the Committee regarding A.B. 521.
Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, testified in favor of A.B. 521 and stated that she would concur with Mr. Capurro’s testimony. There were some unresolved issues concerning the DMV budgets, and transferring the six funded positions from the Highway Patrol to DMV would push DMV over the 22 percent restriction. Ms. Lewis said she absolutely supported eliminating the fiscal note because DMV could not handle the expenditure side of the bill.
Chairman Arberry stated that if he understood correctly, DMV would not be able to absorb the six positions from the Highway Patrol because of budget restrictions.
Ms. Lewis stated that Chairman Arberry was correct and Mr. Capurro had explained that if the authority remained in A.B. 521, the positions would not transfer from the Highway Patrol, only the authority to administer the program.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Lewis if the DMV had the staff to implement the program. Ms. Lewis referred the question to Russ Benzler for an answer.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, responded that the positions referred to by Mr. Capurro and Ms. Lewis were existing positions in Las Vegas. Those positions performed heavy duty diesel emission testing, and while that function was being done, those positions would also be doing the tank dipping. Mr. Benzler noted that it would be existing personnel performing those duties.
Chairman Arberry stated that the Committee was attempting to determine if the Department of Motor Vehicles supported A.B. 521 or not.
Mr. Benzler stated that the DMV absolutely supported the portion of A.B. 521 concerning the authority for dyed fuel enforcement.
Col. David S. Hosmer, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, testified in support of A.B. 521 by stating that because of the funding problem at the DMV he pledged that the Nevada Highway Patrol would work to increase the staffing levels. Col. Hosmer recognized that dyed fuel could be a serious tax evasion problem in Nevada and stated that the Highway Patrol would work with the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Nevada Motor Transport Association by attempting to implement some improved enforcement techniques for secondary highways.
Mrs. Chowning applauded the efforts of the people who testified on behalf of A.B. 521. She stated that millions of dollars were being lost because of lack of enforcement.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 521 closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 537.
Assembly Bill 537 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding state personnel. (BDR 23-1155)
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified in favor of A.B. 537. Mr. MacKenzie stated that he appreciated the Committee’s time regarding this bill and as state workers did not have collective bargaining, the Legislature was SNEA’s arena for discussing issues.
Mr. MacKenzie stated that A.B. 537 came out of the Government Affairs Committee with full bipartisan support and contained five components:
Chairman Arberry asked what the fiscal impact of A.B. 537 would be.
Mr. MacKenzie stated that the paid regular shift component was about alternative workweeks with 10-hour or 12-hour scheduled days. Under state regulations a full-time state employee worked a 40-hour week, yet if that employee did not work on a holiday, they received only 8 hours of pay even though they ordinarily worked a 10-hour or 12-hour daily schedule. For example, if a state employee normally worked a 12-hour shift and did not work on a holiday, he or she would be paid for 36 hours in that week. A.B. 537 had been proposed to correct that inequity. The argument against A.B. 537 was that an inequity was created between workers because some workers did not work alternative schedules. Those in favor of the bill argued that there were benefits for management that were offset by costs by using alternative schedules.
Assemblyman Beers stated that he did not fully understand the argument against the bill and asked Mr. MacKenzie to reiterate. Mr. MacKenzie responded that it was his understanding that the argument against that portion of A.B. 537 was that it created an inequitable situation among employees because not all employees worked alternative work schedules. The employees that worked 8 hours would still receive 8 hours for a holiday and the employees that worked an alternative schedule would receive 10 hours or 12 hours for a holiday, which Mr. MacKenzie believed was equitable because the concept was the 40-hour workweek.
Mr. MacKenzie continued with his presentation regarding the accrued sick leave being split in a catastrophic fund portion of A.B. 537. Mr. MacKenzie explained that after a state worker was paid in full for accrued sick leave, they forfeited the remainder to the state. Quite often, the Catastrophic Leave Fund did not have many hours, and state workers wanted to donate up to 120 hours of forfeited sick leave into the Catastrophic Leave Fund when retiring or terminating state employment.
Mr. MacKenzie explained the arbitration component of A.B. 537. The proposed bill would allow arbitration at the Employee Management Committee level. The Employee Management Committee was comprised of six people, three management personnel and three employees. Currently, the Employee Management Committee had no case law in which to examine issues, it was basically a matter of opinion. For example, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Employee Management Board, at the city and county level, there existed case law, which could be studied in order to reach a consistent determination. One of the problems that the Employee Management Committee was having was inconsistency of decisions. Two workers could appear before the Employee Management Committee with the same issue and the same background and receive two different decisions. If the three management representatives voted one way and the three employee representatives voted another way, creating a tie vote, the decision went to the management side and the employee lost. The fiscal note on the arbitration component of A.B. 537 was approximately $14,000, which Mr. MacKenzie stated was a good value compared to litigation.
Mr. MacKenzie commented on the proposed two-grade increase for maintenance personnel in the Department of Corrections (DOC) included in A.B. 537. That proposal was meant to correct an inequity that occurred in the last legislative session when correctional officers were given additional raises because the DOC wages were approximately 40 percent lower than city, county, and private sector workers. Maintenance workers had not been included in that wage increase.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated that it appeared there had been some amendments to A.B. 537 and asked what the present fiscal note was.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded that a revised fiscal note had been received from the Department of Personnel, but it had not gone through the traditional process because that was not done unless the Chairman of the committee or the Speaker requested it. The current fiscal note listed a fiscal impact of approximately $1.2 million per year, which Mr. Stevens could not verify as correct.
Mr. MacKenzie continued his presentation regarding all position classifications that dealt with inmates on a regular basis in the Department of Corrections to be classified as correctional officers. The purpose of that proposal was to rectify the procedure for future salary increases to Department of Corrections personnel, such as maintenance workers and forensic workers. Mr. MacKenzie commented that he had been informed that the reason those workers had not been given salary increases in the last legislative session was because they did not have “correctional” in front of their titles, even though they regularly interacted with inmates.
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association/Teamsters Local 14, commented on the holiday pay for the alternative work schedules component of A.B. 537. Mr. Wolff reminded Chairman Arberry that they had discussed the issue in 1997 and had agreed that if a variable workweek were considered, everything would be equal because “80 hours was 80 hours and 40 hours was 40 hours.” According to Mr. Wolff, the employees who worked 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, now believed there was an inequity.
Mr. Wolff said that he did not understand the inequity because he used to do budgets, and when you did budgets you budgeted for full hours at a certain rate of pay. When a holiday occurred on an employee’s regular day off and that employee worked for the Nevada Highway Patrol, that employee was paid for 8 hours although that employee was on a 10-hour-per-day workweek. That meant the employee had to augment the 40-hour workweek with 2 hours of vacation time or sick leave. However, when that same employee went on vacation or used sick leave he or she had to give up 10 hours.
Mr. Wolff stated that he did not see the inequity. He further stated that he supported the rest of A.B. 537.
Assemblywoman McClain commented that she had worked 10-hour days for 4 days per week under two different scenarios; one where she received 10 hours pay for a holiday and the other where 2 hours were given back. Ms. McClain maintained it was only fair to be paid for 10 hours for the holiday because for a week of vacation, 10 hours per day vacation time was used.
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, testified in opposition to Sections 1 and 4 of A.B. 537. Exhibit C, entitled “Annual Hours of Holiday Pay,” and Exhibit D, “Hours Employee Actually Works in Holiday Week,” were presented to the Committee. Ms. Greene stated that the proposal in Section 1 had been brought before the state’s Personnel Commission at public hearings on several recent occasions. After hearing extensive testimony from all parties involved, the Personnel Commission had declined to adopt this measure based upon issues of equity as well as cost to the state. Employees were not required to work innovative work schedules; rather an employee must elect to, and be approved for, a schedule that spanned more than 8 hours. As an example, some employees had elected to work four 10-hour days of the workweek, giving them three days off. Currently, all employees not scheduled to work on a holiday were paid for 8 hours on a holiday. When an employee’s regular shift was more than 8 hours they were required to use 2 or 4 hours from annual leave or sick leave to make up the difference.
Ms. Greene directed the Committee’s attention to Exhibit C and Exhibit D. Ms. Greene stated that Exhibit C illustrated the inequity of the proposal. Under the provisions of A.B. 537 an employee who elected to work a 4-day, 10-hour workweek would receive 110 hours of pay for 11 holidays in the year. An employee who worked a regular 8-hour shift would only be entitled to 88 hours of holiday pay. In Exhibit D it was viewed another way. An employee who worked a typical 8-hour day in a workweek actually worked 32 hours in a holiday week and received 8 hours of pay for the holiday. An employee who worked four 10-hour days only worked 30 hours in the same holiday week. This additional benefit was perceived as an inequity by many employees and managers as well as members of the Personnel Commission. Furthermore, this proposal had a fiscal impact of approximately $460,000 annually.
Ms. McClain asked about the equity when a 10-hour per day employee took sick leave for a day and was charged for 10 hours, and an 8-hour per day employee took sick leave for a day and was charged for only 8 hours.
Ms. Greene responded that the 10-hour per day employee was actually gone for 10 hours, while the 8-hour per day employee was gone for only 8 hours.
Ms. McClain said that she understood that, but the holiday for the 10-hour-per-day employee was a 10-hour holiday to them because they were missing 10 hours of work.
Ms. Greene stated that the 10-hour-per-day employee would be getting an additional benefit that the 8-hour-per-day employee would not, additional holiday pay.
Ms. McClain commented that it was in how one viewed a benefit, because four 10-hour days was not exactly a wonderful schedule, and it helped management more than anyone. The 10-hour-per-day employees were still working 40 hours per week and 80 hours per pay period.
Ms. Greene responded that the 10-hour-per-day employees received 3 days off on the weekend versus 2 days, so that was a benefit.
Ms. McClain pointed out that those employees had already worked 40 hours.
Ms. Greene agreed that those employees did work 40 hours per week, but they had to choose and be approved for an alternative work schedule. No employee was forced to work anything but an 8-hour shift.
Ms. McClain stated that if it was the employee’s choice, and it had been approved by management, she did not see an inequity between a 4-day, 10‑hour shift and a 5-day, 8-hour shift.
Ms. Greene referred to Exhibit C and Exhibit D and stated that an employee who worked a regular 5-day shift during a holiday week was actually working 32 hours, while the employee working an alternative 4-day shift during a holiday week was only working 30 hours.
Ms. McClain reiterated that each employee was still working a full 40-hour week.
Assemblyman Griffin asked for clarification of the schedule for a 4-day, 10-hour shift employee. If the holiday occurred on a day when the employee did not work, for example, the employee worked Monday through Thursday and the holiday fell on Friday, would the employee receive holiday pay for that Friday.
Ms. Greene answered that the employee would receive 8 hours of holiday pay.
Mr. Griffin summarized that the employee would receive pay for 40 hours of work on Monday through Thursday, and receive an 8-hour bonus of holiday pay for Friday.
Ms. Greene responded that was correct.
Ms. Greene continued with her testimony regarding A.B. 537 by stating that while the Department of Personnel was not conceptually opposed to augmenting the Catastrophic Leave Fund, the fiscal note was about $393,000 per year.
Ms. Greene stated that Section 4 of A.B. 537 would permit arbitration for grievances in lieu of the Employee Management Committee. The Department of Personnel was opposed to this provision and believed it to be costly and unnecessary. The statutes and regulations provided that an employee could file a grievance with a supervisor and if the employee was not satisfied with the resolution at that level, the employee could climb the chain of command through the Department. The intent was to resolve grievances at the lowest level possible. Only those grievances not resolved within the Department went to the Employee Management Committee. There were over 16,000 classified employees in state service, including the University System. In 2002, only 28 grievances were brought before the Employee Management Committee for hearing. In response to concerns brought forth in the last legislative session, the Governor had appointed new members to the Employee Management Committee. The Employee Management Committee was comprised of six regular members and six alternates. There were a total of six members who represented management and six members who represented employees. In appointing members to represent employees, the Governor received recommendations from the various unions and organizations representing state employees, and the appointments were made from those recommendations.
The budget of the Department of Personnel, as approved, provided funding in FY2003 to send the Chair and Vice Chair of the Employee Management Committee to the National Judicial College for training. Ms. Greene stated that this was to ensure that the Employee Management Committee adhered to judicial standards when conducting hearings and operated with greater administrative efficiency. Ms. Greene stated the Department of Personnel believed that the new Employee Management Committee should be given an opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness in adjudicating employee grievances.
Ms. Greene requested that Section 5 of A.B. 537 be clarified so that only trade positions and forensic positions were affected, because the way it was written it stated “all positions.”
Chairman Arberry suggested that Ms. Greene put the request for clarification of Section 5 of A.B. 537 in writing to be given to LCB staff. Ms. Greene stated she would submit the request as soon as possible.
Speaker Perkins asked if any other public employee groups counted “a day for a day” as opposed to an “hour for an hour,” in a week where a holiday fell. Ms. Greene responded that there were some public entities that paid differently because other jurisdictions had different collective bargaining units. Speaker Perkins asked if Ms. Greene had a sense of what plan the majority of local governments used to determine alternative shift holiday pay. Ms. Greene replied that the last time the Department of Personnel checked with other public entities, it had seemed to be a “mixed bag.”
Ruth A. Jones, Personnel Officer III, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), testified in opposition to Sections 1 and 4 of A.B. 537. Ms. Jones submitted Exhibit E, “Testimony on A.B. 537 and Inequity Proposed in Section 1 of A.B. 537.”
Ms. Jones read the following testimony into the record:
The Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation opposes Sections 1 and 4 of A.B. 537.
Section 1 of the bill would revise the amount of payment an employee is entitled to receive for a holiday based on his work schedule. Specifically, this section would allow an employee on an innovative schedule such as four, 10-hour days, to be paid 10 hours for a holiday that falls on one of their regularly scheduled workdays. An employee on a “4/10” schedule would then only work 30 hours for the remainder of that week. An employee on a traditional, standard 5-day, 8-hour-per-day schedule would get 8 hours for the holiday and would be required to work 32 hours for the remainder of the week. This proposal would result in employees on a traditional 5-day, 8-hour schedule working more hours during a holiday week than employees on an innovative schedule. As you can see, this proposal would result in a dramatic inequity between employees who work different types of schedules. The Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation cannot support this type of inequity and strongly opposes this section.
Sections 2 and 3 propose a method of automatically supplementing each Department’s catastrophic leave bank. The Department is not opposed in principle to this proposal.
Finally, Section 4 of this bill provides for arbitration as an alternate grievance resolution process to the Employee Management Committee. Arbitration is costly and would potentially result in inconsistent decision-making. The Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation opposes the adoption of arbitration as a grievance resolution process.
Thank you very much for the time to speak in opposition to this bill today.
Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer, Department of Human Resources (DHR), testified in opposition to Sections 1 and 4 of A.B. 537. Ms. Masters stated that the DHR had difficulty in supporting Section 1 of A.B. 537, as the Department had many employees interested in working innovative workweeks. However, everyone could not be afforded the opportunity because the Department had the obligation to staff their agencies in a manner that best met the needs of clients and public. Ms. Masters stated that Section 1, if adopted, would confer a differential benefit upon selected employees.
Ms. Masters related concerns regarding Section 4 of A.B. 537. Operating two dispute resolution systems concurrently would increase the potential for inconsistent decisions. Arbitrators would not have the same knowledge base as the Employee Management Committee and there would be no incentive for the arbitrators to ensure their decisions would be consistent with the Employee Management Committee.
Finally, with regard to Section 5 of A.B. 537, Ms. Masters brought to the Committee’s attention that the DHR also employed maintenance staff in institutional settings, including Lake’s Crossing Center, juvenile correctional facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and residential facilities. Depending on how positions that had contact with inmates were defined, Section 5 could cause inequities with positions in the Department of Human Resources. For example, at Lake’s Crossing Center for the Mentally Disordered Offender, there were clinical social workers, nurses, psychologists, and other staff who worked with clients in a secured facility.
Speaker Perkins commented that he was somewhat astounded that witnesses testifying in opposition to Section 5 of A.B. 537 were raising concerns that an unbiased third party in an arbitration setting would be “inconsistent,” and not have information that was available to the Employee Management Committee. He further commented that was what happened in an arbitration hearing; both sides presented their case and an unbiased third party made the decision.
Ms. Masters responded that her primary concern was that both systems would be operating at the same time. Some grievances would go before the Employee Management Committee, whose members represented both management and employees. The Employee Management Committee members were familiar with state laws and state personnel regulations, so they would be rendering decisions on the grievances that came before them. There would also be a separate system operating where certain employees might elect to go before an arbitrator and the arbitrators would not necessarily have the benefit of the Employee Management Committee decisions or the same knowledge of personnel regulations. Ms. Masters said that was what she had been referring to when she spoke of the possibility of inconsistent decisions.
Speaker Perkins said he appreciated Ms. Masters’ answer, but stated if the American Arbitration Association or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service were used, they were professional arbitrators. Part of what professional arbitrators did was to ask for information and allow both sides to present their facts, including state laws and personnel rules and regulations. When that information had been presented, professional arbitrators ruled, based upon what the law was. They did not use a different body of knowledge or information to make a decision. Speaker Perkins stated that having been on both sides of arbitration, employee and management, he believed the system worked extraordinarily well for both.
Linda Covelli, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), Local 4041, testified on behalf of A.B. 537. Ms. Covelli stated she wanted to shed a new light on the issue of the holiday pay for alternate work schedules in Section 1 of A.B. 537. When the 8-hour holiday pay had first been placed in the Personnel Act, state government was Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which served the public for many years. Ms. Covelli stated that the times had changed to the point that those hours no longer served the public, making the alternative workweek no longer a benefit to just the employee, but to the public as well. It was Ms. Covelli’s understanding that there was a proposed bill before the Legislature to change the hours of the state museums in order to better serve the public. The Governor had issued an Executive Order requesting state agencies to examine alternative workweeks. Ms. Covelli stated that the law needed to be examined in order to make it more effective for the workplace than it was currently.
Ms. Covelli commented on the Employee Management Committee that was recently appointed by the Governor. She stated that in a recent case before that committee the same state employee received a tie vote three times in one day. The employee lost the case because a tie vote was always in favor of the employer, the state. Ms. Covelli said the same problems were occurring with the new committee as had occurred with the old committee. Arbitration was a fair way to go for employees who wanted an unbiased decision.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Covelli if she had seen the fiscal note on A.B. 537.
Ms. Covelli responded that she had glanced at the fiscal note but had not studied it.
Chairman Arberry requested that Ms. Covelli read the fiscal note and provide an opinion to the Committee about whether it was an accurate fiscal note. Ms. Covelli stated that she would.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 537 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 408.
Senate Bill 408 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfall in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 for shortfall in revenue collections and expenditures relating to psychiatric services at rural clinics. (BDR S-1229)
Peggy Clark, Administrative Services Officer II, Rural Clinics Community Mental Health Centers, Department of Human Resources, testified in support of S.B. 408. Ms. Clark read the following testimony into the record:
Good afternoon, Chairman Arberry and members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I am Peggy Clark, Administrative Services Officer for Rural Clinics Community Mental Health Centers. With me at the table is Dr. Larry Buel, Rural Clinics Director. We are here to support S.B. 408, which provides supplemental appropriations to Rural Clinics in order for our agency to continue to provide mental health services to approximately 3,000 persons at 16 clinics located across rural Nevada, including severely mentally ill adults and severely emotionally disturbed youth.
As amended, S.B. 408 requests supplemental funding in the total amount of $740,598. This funding would be utilized to offset an outside revenue shortfall for FY2003 of $700,117. In addition, $40,481 is being requested to ensure we are able to meet our contractual commitments to psychiatrists who provide critical medication clinic services at eight of our locations.
Rural clinics will also be making cutbacks totaling $60,267 in several areas of our budget to reduce the amount of the supplemental request as much as possible.
The possibility that revenue shortfalls might occur in the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services budgets was acknowledged by the Nevada Legislature during the 2001 Legislative Session. The Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means issued a Letter of Intent stating that if the increased revenues to be collected or vacancy savings were not realized, the division should consider approaching the Interim Finance Committee for additional funds to meet those budget deficits so that services would not be reduced.
Ms. Clark presented Exhibit F, “Peggy Clark Testimony and Letter of Intent” to the Committee.
Chairman Arberry stated that the biggest concern was whether S.B. 408 needed to be implemented right away. Ms. Clark responded that the Office of the State Controller had provided authority to pay the obligations of Rural Clinics Community Mental Health Centers. Therefore, the bill did not need to be acted upon immediately.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 408 closed and adjourned the meeting at 4:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Anne Bowen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: