MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
April 11, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:12 a.m., on Friday, April 11, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
James D. Earl, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charles W. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services
Lawrence Jacobsen
Ronald Kruse, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission
Gerthie Polk, Chief, Youth Parole Bureau, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Edwin R. Flagg, Nevada Corrections Association
Eugene J. Columbus, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Public Safety
Sherry R. Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget and Planning Division, Department of Administration
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Senator Raggio:
We have before us bill draft request (BDR) S-1335. We authorized this bill to make a supplementary appropriation to the Office of the Military. I will entertain a motion to introduce the bill.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1335: Makes supplemental appropriation to Office of the Military for unanticipated shortfall in money for utility costs in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 493.)
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1335.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
In deference to Senator Shaffer, we will turn to Senate Bill (S.B.) 324. I ask that all witnesses be as concise as possible.
SENATE BILL 324: Makes various changes concerning Veterans’ Home Account and Gift Account for Veterans’ Home. (BDR 37-305)
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1:
I am the conduit that brought this bill forward. It may be the fastest piece of legislation you will pass this morning. It deals with changes in the account the State Treasurer maintains for certain Veterans’ Home money. Establishment of a gift account will make the processing of money faster and better.
Charles W. Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services:
This bill allows funds donated by veterans through the purchase of the special veterans license plate to be deposited in the gift account for the Veterans’ Home so that it does not revert to the General Fund at the end of each fiscal year (FY). In FY 2002, $97,338.28 reverted to the General Fund. To date this fiscal year over $83,000 has been received through the veterans license plate program. Additional information is contained in my written testimony (Exhibit C).
Senator Raggio:
Senator Jacobsen, you have been involved with these issues both as a Legislator and as a private citizen. Can you provide additional insight?
Lawrence Jacobsen:
Many people visiting veterans’ cemeteries make a donation. We would like to spell out what the donations are for. They have no place in the General Fund. This money should be utilized for the cemeteries or other veterans’ activities. The money flowing into the fund will continue to grow as Nevada draws more and more veterans because of the services and benefits we provide.
Last year on Veterans’ Day we had about 300 people visit the cemetery at Fernley and a comparable number at the cemetery in the south. The Fernley cemetery was to have had a western motif with no grass. We discovered every time the wind blew, sand covered everything up. Today we have grass over all the plots. We utilize inmate crews to help take care of the cemeteries. Several American Legion and Veterans of Foreign War posts also take an interest. Some 3000 veterans are buried at Fernley and 13,000 in the south. Although these are national cemeteries, the federal government pays only about half of the expenses. Nevada pays the other half. The donations come from the veterans and they should be used for veterans’ purposes.
Senator Shaffer:
I have a conflict; I own two plots, one for me and one for my wife.
Ronald Kruse, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission:
I am a retired Navy master chief. I totally support this bill. Nevada knows how to make things happen.
Mr. Jacobsen:
Criticism has been levied at the Veterans Home. I have visited a number of times. Veterans have been trained to fight; we sometimes have a hard time getting them together on issues, but we had no trouble on this one.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 324 and turn to S.B. 242 pertaining to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles.
SENATE BILL 242: Makes changes pertaining to Interstate Compact on Juveniles. (BDR 5-1198)
Gerthie Polk, Chief, Youth Parole Bureau, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
I am here to support this legislation. My written testimony reviews the national survey and recommendations for change produced by an advisory group in July 2000 (Exhibit D). If this bill is enacted, Nevada will be required to: identify a representative to work on the National Commission; establish a seven member State Council for Interstate Juvenile Supervision; develop administrative procedures governing the operation of the compact in the state; and conduct training for juvenile justice professionals. There is no fiscal impact in FY 2004. The projected fiscal note for FY 2005 is $82,142 and for the following biennium $149,102. More information on the history of the compact, its requirements, and a breakdown of costs is contained in my written testimony.
Senator Raggio:
I think the compact becomes effective after 35 jurisdictions have adopted it. Is that correct? How many states to date have approved the compact?
Ms. Polk:
Thirty-five states are required to make the compact effective. I believe most states are now considering the compact as we are. Perhaps one state has already approved it.
Senator Raggio:
This bill is exempt. I would like staff to find out whether other states are contemplating action. What was the main problem with the existing compact that would require renunciation and adoption of a new compact?
Ms. Polk:
The original compact was enacted in 1955. Although there have been many amendments, many states did not adopt all amendments. As a result, state obligations and responsibilities vary.
Senator Raggio:
Where did this bill come from?
Ms. Polk:
Senator Washington sponsored the legislation.
Senator Raggio:
Is funding for this bill in the budget?
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
It is not in the budget.
Senator Raggio:
According to the Division of Child and Family Services, the total cost would be $82,142 in FY 2005 and approximately $150,000 in the following biennium.
Ms. Polk:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
We will close on S.B. 242 and turn to S.B. 265.
SENATE BILL 265: Requires certain correctional officers employed by Department of Corrections to be certified by Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission before performing certain responsibilities. (BDR 23-1279)
Edwin R. Flagg, Nevada Corrections Association:
Before an officer hits the yard in a corrections institution, he needs to be trained and certified by the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission (P.O.S.T.). The Department of Corrections has 172 vacancies. Prolonging these vacancies by an additional 6 to 8 weeks to allow for training will not make much difference.
Senator Raggio:
Did we discuss this issue in previous sessions?
Mr. Flagg:
A bill introduced during the last session would have required all personnel supervising Nevada inmates to be peace officers. We thought this took care of the issue. Then the attorney general’s office issued an opinion to the effect that the Director of the Department of Corrections could determine who was a peace officer. We contend that only the P.O.S.T. can determine who is a peace officer. This situation has resulted in the current bill.
Senator Raggio:
The department’s fiscal note indicates a cost of $1.2 million a year or a total of $2.4 million over the biennium. The note says the Department of Correction does not object to the measure, but also indicates that not putting trainees in institutions before training would increase the time a position remains vacant. The note states the department’s relief factor does not include any relief for vacant positions, and relief for only 3 days or 24 hours of regular training. Typically a trainee will receive 8 weeks of training, and leaving the position vacant will impose a cost on the department. Each week will cost the department $1,184 in relief factor; unbudgeted relief will result in overtime. In essence, the department is saying that if the 172 vacant positions remain vacant for an additional 6 weeks, then the total cost would be $1.2 million a year. This is not small change.
Mr. Flagg:
I do not argue that point. However, the trainees are not in place in any event. When a trainee enters the institution, he may wait 3 months before entering the academy for training. There are three training academy cycles a year; each cycle lasts 6 to 8 weeks. That breaks down into 4 weeks of on-the-job training and 4 weeks of classroom training. There is a rotation so that a trainee spends 2 weeks in training followed by a week in the prison yard. I cannot justify the $1.5 million price identified by the department.
We want the people certified, and having completed training, before they work in the prison yards. In our maximum-security prison, people are hired and go to work the next day. They do not know what an inmate is, nor are they familiar with our terminology. Knowledge and training can mean survival in the prison system.
Eugene J. Columbus, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association:
We feel it is the department’s responsibility to train officers before they perform duty in the prison yard and behind the fence line. The demands are different from most jobs, and the more training an individual has, the better for him and his coworkers.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada:
Last session we put forward a bill to ensure that officers hired by rural areas and state agencies received P.O.S.T. certification within a year of commencement of employment. This was to ensure trained people were hired. Many agencies now have a standard requiring P.O.S.T. certification within a year. We believe we have achieved our initial goal. The reason for this bill is to achieve the next objective. In local law enforcement, an officer is not put on the street without P.O.S.T. certification. They are not sworn officers during police academy training, only after this training is an officer sworn-in, and only then does he come to work. In this way, we ensure the officer is trained; we also reduce the State’s liability.
If the situation in corrections is as it has been described, then that department has great potential liability. Our reason to support this legislation is to prevent an officer from being hurt on the job by providing the type of training that has been described. We ask your support.
Senator Raggio:
There is a provision of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 209.131 that reads in part:
NRS 209.131 Director of department: Duties. The director shall:
1. …
5. Ensure that any person employed by the department whose primary responsibilities are:
(a) The supervision, custody, security, discipline, safety and transportation of an offender;
(b) The security and safety of the staff; and
(c) The security and safety of an institution or facility of the department,
is a correctional officer who has the powers of a peace officer pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 289.220
It is this provision of the NRS that is cited in section 3 of this bill.
Senator Tiffany:
Has an officer been hurt prior to going to P.O.S.T. certification training?
Mr. Columbus:
As far as we can tell, no such officer has been injured. We do not want to see it happen.
Senator Tiffany:
It only takes one.
Mr. Columbus:
We take this day-by-day.
Senator Tiffany:
How many people do the prisons hire annually who would be required to undergo P.O.S.T. certification training before assuming prison duties?
Mr. Columbus:
I do not have that information.
Senator Tiffany:
I am sure that is how the department computed the fiscal note.
Senator Raggio:
Does staff have a comment?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I believe the fiscal note references 172 positions.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that built into the budget?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Turnover is not built into the budget. When a new institution is opened, we make provision to hire staff before opening for training.
Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Public Safety:
In the event this bill passes, I have an amendment, outlined in my letter to Senator Raggio dated April 9, 2003 (Exhibit E). I have attempted to recruit a deputy over the last year. I found it necessary to go to an open competitive process. Even though potential candidates in Nevada had advanced degrees in management and other fields, they could not meet the minimum qualifications of the job description because they were not P.O.S.T. certified. The deputy position is strictly a managerial one. Deletion of the P.O.S.T. certification requirement would expand the pool of eligible candidates by eliminating an unnecessary requirement.
Senator Raggio:
Are you just using this bill to address your special circumstances? I understand you are not required to be P.O.S.T. certified. Are you asking the same for your deputy?
Mr. Sutton:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
We cannot guarantee the bill will pass, so you may need to address your problem with an alternative solution.
Mr. Sutton:
I understand that.
Senator Raggio:
Does the budget office have a position on S.B. 265?
Sherry R. Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget and Planning Division, Department of Administration:
The additional cost of training is significant. It is not built into the budget. Maybe the committee can come up with additional General Fund revenue to cover this expense.
Senator Raggio:
You are not recommending it at this time, are you?
Ms. Blackwell:
No, we are not.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 265 and turn to S.B. 401.
SENATE BILL 401: Revises provisions concerning disposition of money received from concessions on property within state park or property controlled or administered by Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-1262)
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
This bill revises a portion of NRS 407.065. It would affect the deposit of money received from concession and property leases. The changes in the bill would allow the department to deposit those revenues in the same account that receives our regular user fees. The request stems from a recent Legislative Counsel Bureau audit. The proposed legislation will provide authority for continuation of our historic practice.
On page 2, line 29, the bill deletes the requirement that rental and lease payments must be deposited into the General Fund. The effect of the change on line 38 is to allow rental and lease payments to be credited to the park maintenance account. That account was created by the Legislature about a decade ago; it has been quite beneficial to the division because it allows us to take care of our maintenance backlog.
Senator Raggio:
How much would this change divert to the park maintenance account?
Mr. Perock:
We collect a little over $100,000 in leases and concession fees. This is not a significant amount in light or our total revenue of about $2 million annually.
Senator Raggio:
Is that in the maintenance account?
Mr. Perock:
Yes, anything exceeding the allocation required for collections of revenues goes into this maintenance account. It is a nonreverting account.
Senator Coffin:
The same paragraph you quoted from, paragraph (f), contains the provision “no concessionaire may dominate any state park operation.” Do we have any situations where a concessionaire is dominant?
Mr. Perock:
No, when we release a request for proposal (RFP) for a concession, we have already determined through the master plan process what type of services and facilities would fall within the prohibition. We do have a winter ski concession at Spooner Lake that is pretty much all there is, but during the summer, it is a normal picnic area.
Senator Coffin:
I find the language strange. I do not know how one defines “dominant.” Perhaps it is obsolete language; more tenured Legislators may know its origins. It is not up for discussion now.
Senator Raggio:
Is the $100,000 amount the annual or the biennial income?
Mr. Perock:
It is annual income.
Senator Raggio:
This bill would entail a cost to the General Fund of about $200,000 over the biennium.
Mr. Perock:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
What is the Governor’s position on this bill?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The budget is currently constructed with these funds deposited in the target accounts; there would be no impact on the Governor’s recommended budget.
Mr. Perock:
This was not our BDR; it was one of the administration’s BDRs.
Senator Raggio:
Would the Governor support this bill?
Ms. Blackwell:
The answer is “Yes.”
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 401. This bill is not exempt. I will entertain a motion.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 401.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
We heard S.B. 345 on March 31. You will recall the testimony. This bill is designed to clarify that certain payments are to be categorized as disability payments where allowed by federal law. There was opposition from retirement system personnel to the bill; witnesses testified that, even if passed, the bill would not be effective pursuant to their interpretation of the federal tax provisions. Some felt the bill would address the situation. The issue seems to be whether the committee should pass the bill, thereby providing the opportunity for the argument on coverage and applicability to continue.
SENATE BILL 345: Provides direction to Public Employees’ Retirement System regarding payment of certain benefits. (BDR 23-88)
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 345.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
Is there any further business?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
There are no budgets to close despite the agenda item “Close Budgets.” Our agendas will include that item until the end of the session. Since the committee completed budget closures during its last session, we have no carry-overs for
today. We will have additional budgets to close during the next committee meeting.
Senator Raggio:
We stand adjourned at 8:54 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
James D. Earl,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: