MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
March 3, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:22 a.m., on Monday, March 3, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
Senator Alice Costandina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Julie Walker, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Michael B. Neville, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney Investigators Association, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Marcus Hodges, President, Nevada Attorney General’s Investigator Association
Cory Cooper, Storey County Sheriff’s Department
John Tewell, Councilman, City of Fallon
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement Board, Public Employees’ Retirement System
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada COPS
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association
Raymond C. McAllister, Professional Firefighters of Nevada
Janelle Kraft, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Kathryn Landreth, Legal Counsel, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Chairperson, Southern Nevada Mental Health Coalition
Richard E. Steinberg, Chief Executive Officer, WestCare Foundation
Maureen Brower, Lobbyist, WestCare
Rich Schneider, President and General Manager, Channel 5 Public Broadcasting Corporation
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Scott M. Craigie, Clark County School District
Bill Hanlon, Lobbyist, Professional Development Program, So. Nevada
Florence Rogers, Assistant General Manager, Nevada Public Radio
Jay Bartos, Radio Station KNPR
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources
Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources
Tom Pierce, Chairman of Department of Special Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Reggie Bennett, Coordinator for Independent Living Service
John Chambers, Chairman, Developmental Disability Planning Council
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Burke Consortium of Carson City, The Nevada Republican Assembly
Senator Raggio called for the committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-641, recommended by the Legislative Committee on Education. The measure would make changes concerning the transportation of pupils and chartered schools. It requires the State board to prescribe qualifications for persons who provide training in certain aspects.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-641: Makes various changes regarding transportation of pupils. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 230.)
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34-641.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked the staff to present the latest information on the sales and gaming tax. Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said sales tax for January 2003 collections were up 6.8 percent, with the fiscal year to date being up 4.8 percent. At the December 2 meeting, the State of Nevada Economic Forum reprojected sales tax income to grow 5.2 percent for this fiscal year. In order to arrive at that growth rate, the collections for the remainder of the fiscal year would have to average 5.6 percent. If collections remain at the 4.8 percent level for the balance of the year, there would be an approximate $2.6 million shortfall in revenues projected by the economic forum. He stated that gross gaming tax collections for December 2002 business were up 19.3 percent, while collections for the first 7 months of the fiscal year were up 4.1 percent. On December 2 the economic forum projected gross gaming tax collection to grow 3.2 percent. To attain that rate they must average a 2.2 growth for the balance of the fiscal year. If the collections remain at the current level, the collections for gaming percentage fees would be up approximately $4.8 million over the projection by the economic forum.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for Senate Bill (S.B.) 45.
SENATE BILL 45: Revises requirements concerning eligibility to participate in Public Employees’ Retirement System as police officer under certain early retirement provisions. (BDR 23-307)
Senator Mathews stated the bill revises requirements for determining whether a police officer is eligible to obtain early retirement benefits under the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). Section 1 of the bill revises the definition of “police officer” to include a member of a system who is filling a full-time position with a participating public employee, and who has all or some of the powers of a peace officer. The definition excludes persons appointed by a school district to protect school property, members of school boards, superintendents of schools, principals, teachers, the commissioner of insurance, or the chief deputy of the commissioner of insurance.
Senator Mathews explained that currently the public employee retirement board must determine whether a person holding a position of police officer is eligible for early retirement under the Police and Firemens’ Retirement Fund. Section 2 removes this authority from the board and restricts the authority to firemen only. This amendment gives a police officer eligibility for early retirement benefits if he or she complies with the definition of a police officer set forth in section 1 of the bill. She stated that section 3 contains a technical amendment needed to clarify that an employee can become eligible for benefits as a result of the determination made by the board, as in the case of firemen, or is eligible for benefits by complying with the definition of police officer. She said section 4 of the bill ensures that a police officer who is serving in that position on June 30, 2003, and who is eligible for benefits from the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund, continues to be eligible for those benefits if he or she remains in that position.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), stated that an inequity exists in the PERS early retirement portion and S.B. 45 would correct that inequity (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). According to the Peace Officers Standards of Training (P.O.S.T.) commission, there are 8500 professional peace officers in the State. Of those, 310 are not allowed to have police early retirement benefits under the current system. S.B. 45 would provide them the same benefits given to the other 8200 peace officers. A survey by PERS of the current evaluation methods for determining who should receive the benefits revealed that, nationwide, Nevada is the only state that determines eligibility of police and fire personnel through the PERS board. PORAN conducted its own detailed research on this survey. Mr. Dreher stated that he believed the PERS staff’s conclusion, that important public policy statements supporting early retirement indicated in the original police and fire study remain relevant today, is not accurate. He said when PORAN results were given to the PERS board, there was no debate nor discussion with the ad hoc committee members until recently.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Dreher who would make the determination if PERS did not. Mr. Dreher said according to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 289, the statutory definitions determine who is in the system. He stated the current process used by PERS and reviewed by the Police and Fire Advisory Committee is biased and improperly applied. He said PERS should not determine who is in the police early retirement system.
Senator Raggio asked if the bill had retroactive application. Mr. Dreher responded that if one chooses to validate his prior time, it does, but the person would be responsible for paying on his own. The 310 individuals who are not receiving the early retirement benefits fit the NRS 286.061 definition of a police officer. Mr. Dreher stated the PERS proposed evaluation system does not fix the problem. The promotional aspects of the evaluation process has placed cooks, electricians, maintenance workers, and others into this system, he declared, but the evaluation has not allowed eligible positions entitled to the benefits in the system. S.B. 45 is economically affordable and would provide equity to the 310 enforcement officers who currently do not get the early retirement benefits. It would authorize the Legislature to determine who should be included in the police officers and firemen’s early retirement system.
Michael B. Neville, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney Investigators Association, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), stated that the current evaluation process used by PERS to determine eligibility was a failure. He said the process tries to quantify abstract concepts. Field evaluations conducted by PERS staff are inconsistent and the PERS staff conducting the evaluations have no law enforcement experience. Points are granted to positions for which heart and lung medical exams are required and denied to those positions not covered by the provisions of heart/lung, despite the fact that neither employee nor employer has any control over which positions are covered by that provision.
Mr. Neville said that the process calls for a score of 75 out of 100 points, but only 5 points are given for carrying a duty weapon. He said there are agencies with general peace officer powers excluded from coverage, while agencies with limited peace officer powers are included. Further, there are armed positions that are excluded, while unarmed positions are included. The 114 employees of the Nevada Youth Training Centers at Elko and Caliente have been included under the police and fire coverage since 1990. However, their police powers, as defined in NRS 289.200, are very limited. They are not armed, and despite the fact that they are required to be Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) certified under NRS 289.550, they are not, because it is not a requirement in their job descriptions. Conversely, attorney general investigators and district attorney investigators throughout the State are excluded from the retirement system even though they have full peace officer powers under NRS 289.170. They are P.O.S.T. certified, armed, and exercise a broad range of investigative and enforcement duties limited only by the policies of the attorney general or the district attorney for whom they work.
According to Mr. Neville, Nevada gaming control agents, the largest group under consideration in the bill, are excluded even though they are charged with policing Nevada’s premier industry. Following last session, he reported, Ms. Bilyeu agreed to perform a study and form an ad hoc committee. The result was a survey sent to 54 PERS systems throughout the country (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Thirty-eight were returned and of those, thirty-three indicated retirement coverage was provided for police officers and firemen. The survey concentrated on the 33 respondents who had a retirement system for public safety personnel, with questions 10 and 11 bearing heavily on the issue as shown in sections 2 and 3 of the survey. These questions in the exhibit provide a multiple-choice listing as well as a write-in choice, he said. The responses to those questions show that the process used by PERS to determine eligibility is out of sync with the rest of the nation.
After receiving the survey data from Ms. Bilyeu, Mr. Neville reported he conducted research on his own and contacted as many PERS agencies as possible, researched statutes, and compiled comprehensive information. The most significant fact was, of the four states with retirement board involvement, none utilized an evaluation system. Mr. Neville said his findings were referred to Ms. Bilyeu, but were not discussed at the two meetings held by the ad hoc committee, nor was there any discussion of adopting another process. He stated PERS did not conduct an objective, comprehensive, or participatory assessment of its evaluation process. He stated that his final input was a letter written to Ms. Bilyeu at her request for input. He added when he addressed the PERS board recently, he heard discussion for the first time of a recommendation regarding evaluation that had been made by the PERS staff to the board, section 6. The $2 million portion of the fiscal note, section 1, has been eliminated.
Mr. Neville stated the recommendation to the PERS board would be to do another actuarial study to find what validation rate would be self-sustaining so there would be no impact to the employer. That is, the employee who wished to be retroactive and validate his time could do so by paying for it himself. The only payment by the employer would be the 4.112 percent increase in the employer’s portion of the contribution rate.
Marcus Hodges, President, Nevada Attorney General’s Investigator Association, stated that his office had been trying to get into the system for years. Finally, the group was given promotional status only, but individuals must match with 2 years of service before they can enter the system. At the same time, Secretary of State investigators who do the same types of investigation, have the same police power, and the same category definition under NRS 289, immediately enter the system and are given those retirement benefits.
Cory Cooper, Storey County Sheriff’s Department, said he was informed in 1997 that he was not on police and fire retirement. PERS told him the necessary criteria had not been sent in by the county, and it would have to be corrected for the PERS point system evaluation to be included in order to resolve the matter. Eventually, in July of 2000, he was told he was eligible if he wanted to follow through, but he would have to pay thousands of dollars to validate the rest of his time. He said though he worked for Storey County for 14 years, he has only 2.5 years in the retirement system because of point system evaluation by PERS.
Senator Raggio asked for speakers in opposition to the bill.
John Tewell, Councilman, City of Fallon, stated that he could be considered neutral on the bill.
Mr. Tewell said he wished to discuss NRS 286.520 (4). Senator Raggio stated that because Mr. Tewell’s discussion was not germane to the bill being heard, he could not consider the subject; however, he said Mr. Tewell could comment.
Mr. Tewell said NRS 286.520 (4) was pertinent to his situation because he went to work for the Churchill County School District, and 1 year later was elected to the city council. Normally, the two positions would run concurrently, but the school district placed him on a probationary period while the city paid into PERS. After the probationary period, the school district qualified Mr. Tewell for PERS, and he was required to choose which entity would pay. Because of the few months that the city paid into PERS, when he retired from the school district he could not receive any retirement until he left his position, retired or was voted out of his city councilman position. He explained that if an individual is serving in the same office where a service credit had been received as a member, that prevents the individual from receiving retirement from an entity, such as his case with the school district.
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement Board, stated that the issue for the re-employment restrictions that affect the PERS retirees are found in NRS 286.520. There are specific exemptions for elected officials serving in the Legislature as well as those being elected for the first time to a county commission or city council. She said Mr. Tewell is very unique because he served in a city council position prior to his retirement from a different agency and then went back and was re-elected. She said there is a specific statute that states if an individual has already received service credit in a position as a city councilman or county commissioner, that individual cannot again retire from a position, stay in that position, and receive benefits simultaneously. Ms. Bilyeu said that statute is in place to promote elective service, but also to ensure that individuals do not retire from elective service and then immediately return to the same position again after election. She stated that the issue had been addressed with Mr. Tewell and the City of Fallon.
Senator Raggio asked if there was some recommended statutory change, and Ms. Bilyeu answered there was not. She stated that the City Attorney of Fallon had been asked to look to A.B. 555 of the 71st Session for assistance in Mr Tewell’s situation.
Ms. Bilyeu said the retirement board has voted to oppose S.B. 45 on several grounds addressing policy as well as fiscal issues. The board is opposed to the bill because in 1986 the PERS procedure for evaluation was put into place by the Legislature. This method was a result of a study ordered by the Legislature in a Senate concurrent resolution, S.C.R. No. 46 of the 63rd Session. It states that the Legislature had previously determined which employees are eligible for early retirement as police officers and firemen. The retirement board conducted a study of early retirement, and recommended the methodology to review positions that would support the public policy for early retirement for public safety positions. The Legislature and the board focused on what the general public will receive for the additional cost associated with early retirement.
Ms. Bilyeu asserted the public is entitled to a youthful and vigorous front-line public safety force engaged in the protection of the public from physical harm. Early retirement supports this policy to keep the workforce young and capable of the physical demands associated with fighting fires or apprehending suspects. For the additional payment, the public will get a physically capable workforce designed to protect it. The criteria established by the retirement board was adopted from the 1986 report to the Legislature, and the procedure for evaluation was in that original study. It is designed to determine whether the position, not the individual, is responsible for the direct protection of the public from physical harm at least 75 percent of the time.
Ms. Bilyeu stated the PERS staff makes every effort to give the positions full evaluation because these are first-responder positions. The highest ratings will be given to those positions whose primary duties involve keeping the public from physical harm, such as patrolling, first response, guarding of criminals, apprehension, and arrest of suspects. She declared there is confusion related to the second type of coverage allowed by the statute, which is promotional coverage. One of the findings of the original study was that primary coverage would be for positions at the front-line. However, she explained, any person who had served in a front-line capacity for at least 2 years could be promoted from the front-line and up the chain of command and still retain coverage and early retirement if peace-officer status was a requirement of the position. That secondary coverage provides public employers with opportunity to promote staff members, an opportunity which would otherwise be lost if employees were required to return to the ordinary fund if they sought promotion. She indicated many positions in the fund that would not qualify for front-line coverage are part of the fund if the occupants of the position have moved up the chain of command after putting in 2 years of front-line service. If one of the promotional positions is filled with an individual who does not have the 2 years of front-line service, his service is credited in the regular fund.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that in the updated study of early retirement performed during the interim, staff made certain the public policy set forth in the original study was still valid. Staff conducted the national survey to research policies of other states, and made suggestions to better the process. PORAN attended the meetings and made comments to the retirement board regarding its positions on the issue. She stated Mr. Dreher and Mr. Neville are correct that Nevada is in the minority with respect to how positions are covered. However, the board believes the process better addresses Nevada’s underlying public policy, and a return to a statutory list dilutes the value of early retirement to the public at large.
Senator Raggio asked whether the other states automatically cover employees if they are designated as peace officers in the statute, and Ms. Bilyeu said it varies from state to state. Senator Raggio stated that groups come in every year with issues dealing with peace officer powers, and the committee wrestles with the concept of who should be covered by early retirement. It is a cost to the employer and to the state or entity employing these individuals. That is the reason the study was commissioned in l986. Senator Raggio recollected that they looked at many other states to determine what qualifying language should be used, but in that process some employees were overlooked. Senator Raggio asked if there had been an update on the study.
Ms. Bilyeu stated the retirement system board would disagree with the comment that the study was biased. Prior to the study, the retirement board reviewed the definition of “police officer” under NRS 286.062. To get promotion coverage, the individual must be promoted in the chain of command and must be employed by a participating public employer with covered positions in the system. That limits promotional coverage up the chains of command of divisions within the employers. She explained a different approach is used now with respect to promotional coverage, because employers are looked at as a whole. The State of Nevada is an employer within the system, yet it has many divisions and departments. The board allowed the State to be considered as a single employer so that employees from those divisions and departments could come into the fund on a promotional basis. Thus, she said, individuals who left front-line coverage could still have the opportunity to come in under promotional coverage. Some of the groups that Mr. Dreher and Mr. Neville have talked about have not returned to the system for that reconsideration. She stated they could be reviewed under the new approach the retirement board has taken.
Ms. Bilyeu claimed that under the approach in S.B. 45, the Legislature is placed in the position of facing the competing groups once again seeking to be included on the list of peace officers instead of seeking to be included on the list for early retirement. The issue becomes who is a peace officer and who is not. She surmised this will cause increase of costs over time, because one group will be on the list while another with similar duties will not be on the list, and that group will seek to be included on the list as well.
According to Ms. Bilyeu, PORAN provided PERS with research that was used in the study. The ad hoc committee was not responsible for writing the study update that was done for the retirement board. PORAN was responsible for input to the retirement system for that study. Ms. Bilyeu stated there were two meetings with the ad hoc committee to allow that process and to give some insight. PERS requested official positions from all employee associations with respect to coverage for police officers and firemen, and that information was gathered and put in the study update.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that, regarding the contribution rate impact, retroactive costs can be mitigated if the individual is required to pay the full actuarial cost associated with moving service credit from the regular fund over to the early retirement fund. The fiscal note refers to an ongoing payroll increase due to more positions participating in the early retirement fund for which the higher contribution rate applies. These costs, $313,880 to the State and $156,940 to local government, are the employer-half of those costs, she said. Employees must share by contributing an equal amount to the system.
Ms. Bilyeu said the language of the bill indicates that every peace officer shall be a member of the early retirement fund. Under the current process, which will be superseded if the bill passes, PERS allows incumbents of positions a choice to move to the police and fire personnel fund if their positions are determined to be eligible for early retirement. This bill appears to remove this choice, as the current process would be abandoned. Ms. Bilyeu stated the current process works.
Senator Raggio asked who comprises the committee of experts who assist in the process. Ms. Bilyeu named two line-police officers nominated by police associations to participate on the police and fire personnel committee, two line-firefighters nominated to serve, and a management position that rotates back and forth between the two professions. The retirement board includes a police officer member and a firefighter member.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Bilyeu to explain the claim that attorney general investigators cannot participate in early retirement while investigators in similar positions in the Secretary of State’s Office have been allowed to participate. Ms. Bilyeu stated investigators in the office of the Secretary of State have been admitted to the fund in similar fashion as the investigators in the office of the Attorney General on a promotional basis, not a front-line basis. Senator Raggio asked if the fiscal note has been mitigated, and Ms. Bilyeu stated that Senator Mathews sent a letter asking for reconsideration of the retroactive portion of the fiscal note. The validation rate was put into place when contribution rates between regular system and the police and fire system had a difference of 3 percent. The greater positions came into the fund during that timeframe. Since then, she said, 12 people per year validate their service. There may be some actuarial loss or gain associated with the individuals, but in review of this with the actuary, a full-price cost for validating the service would mitigate retroactive costs associated with the bill.
Senator Raggio asked what effect the bill would have on the actuarial status of the system and the contribution rate. Ms. Bilyeu stated that retroactive costs would have a contribution-rate impact, but now the retroactive costs could be mitigated. There would be no actuarial contribution rate impact now, but there would be a payroll cost. Senator Raggio asked whether the bill had to be amended for this to occur, and Ms. Bilyeu stated it could be handled by policy by the retirement board. She added that a review of the prison system positions, such as cook, baker, and electrician, revealed that they are included on a promotional basis only. It appears most incumbents are not in early retirement at this point. If this bill were to pass, they would be automatically included in the police and fire personnel fund, due to the language of NRS 289.220, which states:
The director of the department of corrections and any officer employer of the department so designated by the director have the powers of a peace officer when performing duties prescribed by the director. For purposes of this subsection, the duties which may be prescribed by the director include, but are not limited to the general exercise of control over offenders within or outside the confines of the institutions and facilities.
Senator Raggio asked if there is a way to correct a mistake. Ms. Bilyeu stated that under NRS 286.190, the retirement board has the ability to correct errors or inequities. Senator Raggio asked whether the employee had to pay for the correction. Ms. Bilyeu said the service credit could not be granted without the monies being paid into the system to validate it.
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada COPS, stated that he opposed the bill because he would like to see the process perform as it was designed. He declared the police and fire boards have expertise in those areas, know by the job descriptions who is entitled and who is not entitled, and, for that reason, the process should stay intact. However, he stated, there would not be opposition to redesign the point system to ensure no one is left out who is entitled to early retirement.
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association, stated opposition to S.B. 45. He said the organizations he represents are supportive of the process that has been in place since the 1980s. He asked Senator Raggio to note that Mr. Bob Hatfield of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) could not be present, and asked that his opposition to the bill be voiced.
Rusty McAllister, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, stated that he was opposed to the bill because it would create inequity in the way the bill is written. He stated the only ones who would have to go before the police and fire advisory and PERS boards for approval for early retirement are firefighters. Should the bill pass in the current form, it removes all promotional requirements for police but not for firemen. If a fire department hired a chief from another state, he would not be covered because he had not served 2 years in a front‑line position in the State of Nevada. The same is not true for police officers, he said. If a police chief is hired from another state, he or she would automatically be included. Those individuals on the police and fire committee know what the positions are, what the jobs are, and have the ability to look at the facts. He added if in doubt, more information is gathered, and if criteria is not met a recommendation of denial is given to the PERS board. There is a right to appeal, and the system works.
Mr. Dreher stated that as a proponent of the bill, the statutory definitions and public policy have been satisfied in S.B. 45. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Dreher if anyone designated with peace officer powers under S.B. 45 would automatically be authorized to enter the system. Mr. Dreher said that was correct, with the exception of those noted in the bill, but no one else could come in. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Dreher if he meant that anybody who eventually is given any peace officer status for any purpose would automatically then be eligible for early retirement in the future. Mr. Dreher said that in the future if, for example, a homeland security police force was created, they would have to come in front of this board through the P.O.S.T. certification, obtain approval, then go before the Legislature to get accepted. If they did that, they would get the benefit of the early retirement. He explained section 4 would not allow the electricians or the maintenance people to remain in the system except those under section 4, who are currently receiving those benefits. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Dreher if this was the case even though they are not in peace officer status. Mr. Dreher said even though they are not in peace officer status, there are some that are currently receiving the benefits. For example, if a police officer quits his job and becomes a clerk in the City of Reno, he should not be maintained in the system and stay in the police and fire early retirement system. Several people have been allowed to do that under the way the promotional system works. Mr. Dreher stated the bill was never proposed to have an impact on the firefighters in any way. The inequity in the system affects peace officers, not firemen, he asserted.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 45 and opened the hearing on S.B 151.
SENATE BILL 151: Makes appropriation to establish mental health component of community triage center in Clark County. (BDR S-678)
Janelle Kraft, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), testified she has been a member of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition Task Force on hospital emergency room overcrowding. She stated the major contributing factor for the overcrowding is the number of chronic inebriates and mentally ill persons who are waiting in emergency rooms for mental health beds to become available. She claimed they are given no treatment, are usually released before the bed becomes available, and continue to recycle through the hospitals, jails, shelters and courts. The cost to taxpayers is great.
Ms. Kraft asserted a crisis triage center is needed that could provide a space for paramedics, firefighters, and police to take people in crisis, but not in need of emergency care. The local government has agreed to provide funding according to its population, and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, the area hospitals, and Clark County have provided money to support this operation. She stated it is an opportunity for local governments and private hospitals to partner with the State of Nevada in funding an operation where patients can be dropped off, triaged, and referred to a program for treatment. The emergency responders can be returned to their first priority, emergency care responsibilities. Ms. Kraft provided a handout (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). She stated that WestCare has provided an existing facility for this operation.
Kathryn Landreth, Legal Counsel for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Southern Nevada Mental Health Coalition, stated the number one Legislative priority of the groups she represents is following the study to develop a crisis triage center to supplement the mental health system in southern Nevada. She stated there are now 31 police officers available 24 hours-per-day, 7 days of the week, to deal with people in crisis, many of whom are suicidal. The triage center would allow the police department to deal with the suicide problem more effectively. A jail aftercare program has been added, at no expense to the taxpayer, and a mental health court will be developed. She said that a study determined that Las Vegas is the only major city in America that does not have a psychiatric emergency room.
Richard E. Steinberg, Chief Executive Officer, WestCare Foundation, stated that WestCare is a nonprofit corporation and has been in Nevada for 30 years serving large-area drug abuse, mental health issues, and behavioral health issues of persons of all ages. Mr. Steinberg stated that funding for WestCare comes from a variety of sources, including the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, the Clark County, federal funding, and additional special funding from Healthy Nevada monies. There is committed funding as well. Clark County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City have agreed to fund one-third of the monies. The hospitals have agreed to fund one-third (Exhibit F. The Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Senator Raggio asked how the figure of $680,000 per year in the bill was calculated. Mr. Steinberg stated the part of the state portion that was requested for one-third of the funding represents 17.6 percent of the overall system. The balance has already been committed for the community triage center and the annual operational cost is $3,812,833. Senator Raggio asked the manner in which it was being funded. Mr. Steinberg said one-third came from the hospitals, one-third came from Clark County and the four cities. Currently, one‑half of the remaining one-third was derived from the liquor tax, and Healthy Nevada. Senator Raggio asked whether this would be in addition to what the State is presently funding, and Mr. Steinberg indicated that was correct.
Senator Raggio asked why the additional request would be needed, and Mr. Steinberg responded that the formula design which everyone agreed to in the south was to have a one-third, one-third, one-third funding, and this would be the balance of the State’s one-third to that system.
Maureen Brower, Chairman, WestCare Nevada Board of Directors, stated the board is fully supportive of the funding and sees this as a tremendous benefit to the community.
Senator Raggio inquired if it is a psychiatric emergency center and Mr. Steinberg responded that it is a combination of psychiatric and mental health issues, and detox issues. It currently operates at 930 North 4th Street in Las Vegas, although the facility is moving to 401 South Martin Luther King Boulevard in Las Vegas. Senator Raggio pointed out that S.B. 151 talks about the establishment of a mental health screening and stabilization component. Mr. Steinberg explained it will be a medical overlay to the present operation. It was originally designed as a social model system of detox. Now, a medical overlay for detox as well as the medical mental health for the psychiatric work is being done. Senator Raggio asked the meaning of “medical overlay”, and Mr. Steinberg said it was having 24-hour nursing staff, physician extenders, a psychiatrist, and a medical doctor involved on a full-time basis.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 151 and opened the hearing on S.B. 177.
SENATE BILL 177: Makes appropriation to Department of Education for certain nonprofit public broadcasting stations that primarily serve educational, informational and cultural needs of communities in Nevada. (BDR S-1094)
Rick Schneider, President, General Manager, Channel 5 Public Broadcasting, Reno, stated the appropriation is the same one that has been approved for the last several sessions. It is shared by all public broadcasting stations around the State, he said, including the small, rural low-power television stations, and public radio stations. This bill funds the education services provided by Channels 5 and 10 and is most important to the rural stations. Mr. Schneider asked that the State’s investment be maintained at the same level.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, explained as a public licensee of the public television station, KLVX, Clark County School District supports S.B. 177.
Senator Raggio asked how many other stations benefit from the bill and Mr. Schneider responded there are five other rural low-power television stations that share in the appropriation and seven public radio stations.
Scott M. Craigie, KLVX Public Broadcasting, KNPB Public Broadcasting, said the appropriation has been approved since 1989 and it has been a great investment. The appropriation last session was $300,000 and it was distributed by a formula system across the State that is a combination of a base grant of an approximately $9-10,000 for the rural low-power television stations and the radio stations, $60,000 for Channel 5, and approximately $100,000 for Channel 10 over the biennium.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 177 and opened the hearing on S.B. 190.
SENATE BILL 190: Makes appropriation for creation of certificate program and provision of stipends to certain teachers. (BDR S-894)
Bill Hanlon, Lobbyist, Professional Development Program, southern Nevada, stated the goal of professional development is increased student achievement. (Exhibit G.) He stated that goal was reached by increasing the content level and knowledge of classroom teachers, and addressing their instructional practices. Two standards are used, one is a common-sense standard, and the second is a “my kid” standard, which means children in the classroom should be treated the way teachers would like their own children to be treated. He asserted increased student achievement should be the focus.
According to Mr. Hanlon, there is a shortage of teachers, nationwide, particularly in the areas of math, science, English language learners (ELL), and special education. Professional development for teachers is needed. Mr. Hanlon said the Governor set aside approximately $17.5 million for stipends to address areas of shortage, and Mr. Hanlon stated he would like to see the stipends attached to some type of criteria such as the RPDP teacher certification program. The certificate program would offer that opportunity and would also address concerns identified in the No Child Left Behind Act by challenging teacher quality. A plan of self-study in Math and Science would be offered to teachers, and by taking that course, those teachers hired with the RPDP certificate would be guaranteed to have the skills to be successful teachers at specific grade levels. As an enticement to take the course, a $2000 stipend would be offered when the program was completed to teachers in the areas of shortage, using the money set aside in the Executive Budget. If the teachers signed a contract agreeing to implement what they were taught, share their test results, come to follow-up meetings and trainings, and allow observation of their implementation of what was learned, the stipend would be continued the following year. The courses required in the program are included on page 2.
Mr. Hanlon presented a budget breakdown, shown on page 3 of Exhibit G and a demonstration of how the teaching method called First Outer Inner Last (FOIL) is used for mathematics, pages 4-9. Teachers will learn to use the pattern development the students have already learned in elementary school to introduce FOIL, and then use FOIL to show them how to use it in computations so there is a direct connection. He noted this method would be used in all subjects. A connection would be built to either outside experiences or previous knowledge to build on their concepts of math.
Senator Raggio said that S.B. 190 would be continued on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. The hearing on S.B. 92 was opened.
SENATE BILL 92: Makes appropriation to Division of State Library and Archives of Department of Cultural Affairs for distribution to Nevada Public Radio Corporation for support of its statewide Radio Reading Service for blind and print-impaired persons. (BDR S-141)
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District 7, said the bill provides an appropriation of $50,000 for Nevada Public Radio through the division of State Library and Archives of the Department of Cultural Affairs. It will fund the radio reading service for the blind and print-impaired persons. The program has been in effect since 1993, and it has statewide application. He stated that he had a letter from Lamar Marchese, General Manager of KNPR in Las Vegas who was unable to be at the hearing (Exhibit H.). Mr. Care disclosed that he sits on the community advisory board of KNPR in a volunteer capacity.
Senator Raggio reiterated the appropriation would be requested in the amount of $50,000 for the Nevada Public Radio Corporation, and its use would be limited under section 2 for satellite fees and expenses directly related to the expansion of the radio reading service.
Florence Rogers, Assistant General Manager, Nevada Public Radio, said the recipient of the appropriation contained in S.B. 92 is the Nevada Public Radio Corporation, a non-profit benefit corporation incorporated in Nevada since 1975, with the mission of providing quality, non-commercial radio programming and services to Nevada. Ms. Rogers reported KNPR-FM in Las Vegas signed on the air in 1980. KTPH is operated in Tonopah, KMNR in Panaca, and KWPR in Lund‑Ely, giving 73 percent of the State’s population access to the programming. Since 1993, Nevada Public Radio has operated the 24-hour-a-day reading service, broadcast on a sub-frequency of KNPR. Anyone who is unable to read standard, printed material is eligible to borrow a special receiver needed to hear the service. The receivers are loaned free of charge by Nevada Public Radio, and KNPR is the sole provider of this service in Nevada to this group of citizens.
Jay Bartos, KNPR, stated the volunteer core in Las Vegas conducted 1200 hours of readings last year to keep the reading service operating, and this was augmented by out-of-state services. Until November of last year this service was confined to southern Nevada. With the help of a $48,000 grant from the federal government, and cooperation of radio stations in southern and northern Nevada, the service was expanded to Reno, Carson City, Tonopah, Elko, and Ely. The grant covered only the expansion of the service. The service is now open and running in the new locations, and State support is requested to help meet increased operating costs of statewide service. There are 200,000 seniors in Nevada, many of whom experience difficulty with reading, and it is estimated that 35,000 Nevadans are blind or visually impaired. The amount requested would augment private funds raised by the station and provide one-third of the annual radio reading service operating budget.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 92 and opened the hearing on S.B. 164.
SENATE BILL 164: Creates the Office of Disability Services within Department of Human Resources to coordinate and administer certain services and programs for persons with disabilities. (BDR 38-701)
Senator Alice Costandina Titus, Senatorial District No.7, stated that during the last interim she and others on the subcommittee studied State programs for providing services to persons with disabilities. She said that in addition to various meetings in conjunction with the study, the group worked in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources task force on the disabled, created as a result of A.B. 513 of the 71st Session. A copy of the report (Exhibit I. Original is on file at the Research Library.) was handed out with a summary of recommendations and information about hearings. Senator Titus stated the goal of the meetings was to make serving the disabled a priority for the State, rather than an afterthought. Additionally, the group identified and consolidated existing programs and services so they would be more accessible to the disabled.
Senator Titus testified S.B. 164 calls for reorganization within the Department of Human Resources and creation of an Office of Disability Services. Sections 5 through 12 provide for the new office to be a clearinghouse for information for the disabled, administer and coordinate services and programs for the disabled, monitor the implementation of the strategic plan developed by the task force, and ensure Nevada’s compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Olmstead Act. She noted it would change the term “physically handicapped” to “persons with physical disabilities.” In section 28, the bill calls for $130,000 each year of the next biennium to fund, through legal services, an office of ombudsman for the disabled. The ombudsman would serve as a last resort for persons with disabilities after going through the new office and other mediation services. The organization is a first priority, with the ombudsman component the second priority.
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, said she supports S.B. 164. She, too, noted the passage of this bill would provide for an Office of Disability Services operating as the State level coordinating body among agencies of State government providing services to people with disabilities, and would serve as the focal point within State government for the interests of people with disabilities, and their families. Programs currently under the office of community-based services that will transfer to the new Office of Disability Services are personal care assistance services, programs for persons with traumatic brain injuries, telecommunications relay services, independent living services, deaf resources, and assistive technology. She added the Developmental Disabilities Council and all of its programs would also be part of the Office of Disability Services. Creating the Office of Disability Services does not require new funds and is included in the Executive Budget, but it does include an appropriation of $130,000 each year of the biennium to establish an independent community-based ombudsman. Mrs. Liveratti stated the ombudsman would be responsible for mediation.
Senator Raggio asked if the office could be established without an ombudsman. Mr. Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources answered that it could.
Mrs. Liveratti said the bill requests a technical amendment to Sections 21 and 22B as a result of the office transfer from the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation to the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Raggio asked whether the staff had a copy of the amendment, and they verified that a copy was available.
Tom Pierce, Chairman, Department of Special Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), stated as a member of the Governor’s Steering Committee, member of the Governor’s Task Force on Disability, and Chairman of the Adult Services Committee on the Task Force on Disability, this was the best step on behalf of the people with disabilities that the State has taken in many years.
Reggie Bennett, Coordinator, Independent Living Service, stated he supports the Office of Disability and S.B. 164.
John Chambers, Adaptive Recreation, Developmental Disability Planning Council, stated that services for people with disabilities in Nevada are fragmented and there are no statewide coordinating organization or agencies for these services. He suggested this could be remedied by an Office of Disability Services that would provide a point of entry and give service coordinating assistance.
John Wagner, stated he is against a new office; he said the duties could be accomplished within the current office by eliminating the problems there. Mr. Wagner stated he would like to see reorganization within the office without giving it a new title, new director, and new staff. He also stated he feels an ombudsman position was unnecessary and would be an added expense.
Senator Raggio indicated that the new office would be in the department, it does not create a new department, and it moves the Office of Community‑Based Services from the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation to the Department of Human Resources, so it could be considered a reorganization.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 164 and said that S.B. 190 would be added to the agenda on Wednesday, March 5. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Julie Walker,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: