MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
May 20, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:33 a.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Oceguera, Clark County Assembly District No. 16
Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst
Judy Coolbaugh, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Diane Comeaux, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Ian Campbell, Government Documents Coordinator, Washoe County Library System
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs
Sara F. Jones, Administrator, Division of State Library and Archives, Department of Cultural Affairs
Scott G. MacKenzie, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, Local 4041
M. Laura Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services
Jeff Parker, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General
Stan Miller, Claims Manager, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General
Ivan R. “Renny” Ashleman, Lobbyist, Clark County
Charles Duarte, Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources
Charles C. Perry, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association
Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources
Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
P. Forrest “Woody” Thorne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefits System
Kim Huys, Chief Accountant, Office of the State Controller
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
F. Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada
Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources
Senator Raggio:
A handout entitled “Senate Committee on Finance, Closing List #14A”(Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) has been distributed to the committee.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
HR, Children and Family Administration – Budget Page DCFS-1 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3145
Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The adjusted base budget reflects the transfer out of 159.61 full-time employee (FTE) positions and associated costs to continue the integration of child welfare services between the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Washoe, and Clark Counties authorized through the passage of A.B. No. 1 of the 17th Special Session. The reductions in this budget are being transferred to the Child Welfare Integration budget account (B/A) 101-3142. It is the account established solely for the costs related to the integration of the child welfare system. The subcommittee took no action on the overall recommendation within the Executive Budget, but it did take action on some of the other items
E-475 Effectiveness Of Family Services – Page DCFS-5
Under item 2, page 3, of Closing List No. 14A, decision unit E-475 is recommended to develop standards for child abuse and neglect reporting, and to establish a standardized appeals system. Three new FTE positions are recommended, two to serve as hearing officers and an ombudsman. The DCFS has identified the positions as a priority, because the federal Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act requires a hearing process. The current bifurcated system results in inconsistencies that make the State more liable for lawsuits. The subcommittee approved this decision unit and the new positions.
E-477 Effectiveness Of Family Services – Page DCFS-5
Under item 3, page 3, of Closing List No.14A, a new social worker position is recommended in decision unit E-477 to pilot a centralized Child Protective Services intake process for all incoming calls for Carson, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties. The subcommittee approved this decision unit and the new position.
E-900 Transfer In From 3142 – Page DCFS-7
E-902 Transfer In M303 From 3142 – Page DCFS-7
E-902 Transfer In E720 From 3142 – Page DCFS-8
Under item 4, page 4, of Closing List No. 14A, decision units E-900, E-902 and E-903, which recommended a transfer of 21 existing FTE positions and associated costs, were not approved by the subcommittee. It was felt that any departure from the established pattern would appear to compromise the intent of the Child Welfare Integration budget account, which is to isolate all integration-related costs in one central budget account.
Under other closing issues the subcommittee also approved amendment number 63, which recommended the elimination of the duplicate position, and administrative assistant III. The position was transferred to the Child Welfare Integration budget and was not removed from the budget. The amendment eliminates the position in the budget account. The subcommittee also approved the recommended technical adjustment, which reduces various Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997 (HIPAA) related operating costs by $31,000 in General Fund support in each year of the biennium.
Senator Raggio:
I would like to have a representative of the Department of Human Resources (DHR) explain the Child Welfare Integration program. I believe everyone here understands the value of the program, which began in the 71st Session after a great deal of discussion. The biggest concern is the cost to the State and the on-going costs that would be incurred. Most of the costs are related to the transfer in of positions and the higher salaries for these positions. If we delay the program, there would be a General Fund savings of over $6 million during the 2003-2005 biennium. What kind of an agreement has been reached with reference to the ongoing costs for the program?
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
I can answer the program questions. Our deputy administrator can best answer the specific questions about the program financing. The agency has spent the last year developing plans for a future funding formula. It is now able to update you on the financial implications and the agreement to fund the program in the future.
Diane Comeaux, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services,
Department of Human Resources:
Would a brief history on the proposed agreement be helpful?
Senator Raggio:
Yes, I believe the committee needs a full understanding of the situation.
Ms. Comeaux:
In A.B. No.1 of the 17th Special Session, there is a requirement for the DCFS and the counties to develop a future funding plan for integration. That plan has been completed, and it was presented to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in November 2002. The plan submitted addressed shared responsibilities for back‑end services and a swap of counties match costs for required long-term care. The Governor did not include this recommendation in his budget. He expressed concern with the inequities in the swap for the county match program. Mr. Willden, Director, DHR, met with the Governor to hear his position on future funding for the program. Two items the Governor is committed to maintaining are a caseload staffing ratio of 1 to 28, and the funding of foster care provider rates.
Senator Raggio:
What services will the staff be providing?
Ms. Comeaux:
The services will be required for maintaining and supporting children in foster care. The Governor is committed to a rate of $21 per day for foster care providers. If Legislators approve future rate increases, the nonfederal share of the increase will be passed through to the counties. If the counties increase the foster care daily rate, or choose to pay a higher rate than the State, the counties will be responsible for the nonfederal share of the increased costs.
Senator Raggio:
In what event does the State become liable?
Ms. Comeaux:
If the Legislature chooses to raise the foster care daily rate, then the Governor believes the State has an obligation to pass through the nonfederal share of the funds to the counties. Similarly, if the State were to approve future cost of living allowances (COLA) for salary and benefits, or consumer price index increases for operating costs, the nonfederal share of the funds would be passed through to the counties.
Senator Raggio:
Which employees is the State approving the COLAs for?
Ms. Comeaux:
If the State approves COLAs for State employees, the COLA increase is to be passed through to the counties.
Mr. Cotton:
If the counties approved a COLA on their own, separate from any State legislative action, they would be responsible for funding the increases.
Senator Raggio:
What would be “passed on” to the county?
Ms. Comeaux:
The value of the COLA would be passed on to the counties.
Senator Raggio:
If the State approves COLAs for its employees, even though the positions are now considered county employees, the State will be responsible for paying the COLA increase for those county employees. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
That condition is part of the agreement?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct. This arrangement is not necessarily an agreement. This is the commitment the Governor is willing to make.
Senator Raggio:
I understand that. That is why I am asking about it. When you say, “pass on” to the counties, the language implies the counties would be responsible. The State pays the amount of any nonfederal share of foster care provider rate increases the State makes.
Ms. Comeaux:
The DCFS will pass the funds through to the counties.
Senator Raggio:
You are saying it becomes the State’s responsibility. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Cotton:
If the State Legislature does not approve the rate increase, the county is responsible for the pay increase.
Senator Raggio:
Is there anything further?
Ms. Comeaux:
The Governor believes the State is responsible for funding reasonable increases in caseload growth based on appropriate projections.
Senator Raggio:
The State is responsible for funding of any growth in caseload. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct. The Governor is committed to working with the counties to transfer the higher levels of care in future years to their jurisdiction.
Senator Raggio:
Would you clarify that statement?
Ms. Comeaux:
The Governor is referring to those children who are in higher-level care placements. The State will pay those costs in the 2003-2005 biennium. The Governor would like the DCFS to work with the counties to transfer the higher‑level care placement costs to the counties in the future.
Senator Raggio:
The State will pay the higher level of care costs for the upcoming biennium. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
What plan is the DCFS going to work on with the counties for the future?
Mr. Cotton:
Assembly Bill No. 1 of the 17th Special Session transferred basic foster care and in‑home care of children to the counties. The bill gave the higher level of care placements, such as residential high-cost placements, to the State. There was discussion about the counties taking over the responsibility for this care in the future. Savings and efficiencies will be made in the future by keeping children out of the higher level of care placements. The ultimate goal is to have an unbifurcated system. The Governor’s objective is to transfer this last “piece” over to the counties.
Senator Raggio:
That suggestion leaves the situation unresolved and ambivalent in its future direction.
Mr. Cotton:
During this upcoming biennium, the State would be responsible for the higher level of care placements. After that time, the plan is to have the counties take over the care costs.
Senator Raggio:
Does that mean that following this biennium the costs are going to be transferred to the counties?
Mr. Cotton:
It means the DCFS will be working with the counties during the 2003‑2005 biennium to get a programmatic and a financial plan ready to accomplish that objective.
Senator Raggio:
What will the plan be at the end of this biennium?
Mr. Cotton:
The DCFS hopes the plan will be an integrated system in which the child will be the counties’ responsibility from the beginning to the end of placement with appropriate funding from the State. The Governor is committed to working toward that change. The goal is to provide a continuum of care with the responsibility for the care vested in the rural counties as well as Washoe and Clark Counties.
Senator Raggio:
Would the State continue to fund the costs?
Mr. Cotton:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
If the positions are transferred to the counties and the county decides to give a COLA to all its employees, the county would pay for the increase. If the State grants a COLA, the State would have to pay for the COLA as it applies to these transferred positions. Will the employees get the benefit of both COLAs?
Ms. Comeaux:
The employees will not be eligible for both COLAs. The DCFS will simply pass the funding on to the counties to offset any costs the counties incur by the State giving COLA increases to the employees. In A.B. No. 1 of the 17th Special Session there is also a provision to provide a “hold harmless” to all employees transferring to the counties and therefore they would be entitled to state approved COLAs.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, can you verify that the information the committee has heard is the Governor’s position?
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
Can the committee assume we are no longer dealing with the proposal for the back-end costs for the long-term care swap? I would like you to reaffirm this proposal. If it is approved, the committee is concerned about future hidden costs.
Mr. Comeaux:
As Ms. Comeaux indicated, the original thrust of the department was an attempt to come up with some swap mechanism so the DCFS could take one program and give the counties the other. We were unable to come up with a resolution that the Governor found satisfactory. Therefore, the Governor just evaluated the pieces that are being transferred to the counties, and what would happen to those costs in the future. The Governor indicated his willingness to support State participation to the extent that has just been presented. Every 2 years, the situation will have to be looked at again. The higher levels of care placements are still an outstanding issue. How those placements are funded will have to be resolved in the future.
Senator Raggio:
I would like to request that Mr. Willden submit to this committee, in writing, the details the committee has just heard, so we can make our final decision based on the report. The report will become part of the record. I also request the administration be signatory to the report.
Senator Tiffany:
How many employees are we talking about transferring?
Senator Raggio:
There are 159.61 FTE positions being transferred to the counties. Is that correct?
Mr. Peri:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
In item 4, page 4, of Closing List No. 14A, 21 FTE positions are being transferred in. Why is that transfer being done?
Mr. Peri:
Those positions were recommended and approved in A.B. No. 1 of the 17th Special Session. The Governor requested the positions be transferred out of B/A 101-3142 into B/A 101-3145. The subcommittee did not approve that recommendation.
Senator Raggio:
If the committee should approve this budget, what is the staff’s recommendation on those positions being transferred in? Do they still go into the DCFS Administration budget?
Mr. Peri:
Staff recommends the positions remain in the Child Welfare Integration B/A 101-3142.
Senator Raggio:
Why is there a need for a separate budget account if the programs will be phased into the counties?
Mr. Peri:
Assembly Bill No.1 of the 17th Special Session was specific in authorizing the creation of the Child Welfare Integration budget account. It was to be solely responsible for all the costs related to Child Welfare Integration. The appropriations made in A.B. No.1 of the 17th Special Session are in this account. The integration budget is the collection point for existing and new resources. The resources are then transferred to Washoe County, Clark County, or are expended by DCFS for the rural counties.
Senator Raggio:
Under this proposed agreement, if new positions become necessary because of caseload growth, which entity will be paying for those costs?
Ms. Comeaux:
The State will be paying those costs.
Senator Raggio:
The State pays all the costs of any new positions. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, is that also your understanding?
Mr. Comeaux:
Yes, it is based on a 1 to 28 caseload-staffing ratio.
Senator Tiffany:
The state employees being transferred to the counties will become county employees, but the State is obligated to pay those employees any COLAs or pay raises the State approves. Is that correct?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
The State will be immediately picking up a pay differential, because county salaries are higher. That is where the $6 million comes in.
Ms. Comeaux:
In addition to the 159.61 FTE positions from this budget account, there are other employee positions being transferred from other budget accounts. In total, Clark County will receive 154 FTE positions. The State has already transferred 53 FTE positions to Washoe County.
Senator Tiffany:
Will this arrangement for funding always be the State’s responsibility?
Ms. Comeaux:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Does the committee have any further questions? We are going to take up the next budget account.
Child Welfare Integration - Budget Page DCFS-11 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3142
Mr. Peri:
This is the new budget account for the costs related to Child Welfare Integration. The funds recommended transferred to Washoe and Clark Counties are for salary costs for DCFS employees that have transferred and will transfer to the counties, related operating costs, and placement costs. There is a table on page 7 of Closing List No. 14A that shows the breakout of estimated costs for child welfare services in Clark County, the southern region, and Washoe County, the northern region. Also shown in the table are the estimated costs for the DCFS to provide services to severely emotionally disturbed (SED) children in foster care. A total of 327 children have been identified as SED. The Governor recommends a total of $47,739,393 in fiscal year (FY) 2003‑2004 and $52,206,954 in FY 2004-2005. The subcommittee did not take action on this item. Closing issue number 2, page 7 of Closing List 14A discusses Budget Division Amendment No 50, which realigns salary costs for the employees being transferred to Clark County. The amendment recommends an increase in personnel expenses in the amount of $502,028 in FY 2003-2004 and a decrease in the amount of $453,993 in FY 2004-2005. The subcommittee did approve this item.
The DCFS has also submitted a separate amendment discussed under closing issue number 3, page 7, of Closing List 14A. The attached memorandum on page 11 indicates the DCFS is requesting to increase federal funds in this budget by implementing the most recent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rates. The cumulative effect of the FMAP changes would reduce the General Fund in this budget by $603,323 in FY 2003-2004 and by $974,877 in FY 2004-2005. The DCFS proposes that the General Fund savings in this budget be applied to the Youth Community Services B/A 101‑3229 to assist in eliminating a shortfall of $1,154,223 in each year of the biennium caused by the over-budgeting of Title XX Purchase of Social Services revenue. The subcommittee did approve this item.
E-201 Demographics/Caseload Changes - Page DCFS-14
E-202 Demographics/Caseload Changes - Page DCFS-14
E-351 Service At Level Closest To People - Page DCFS-15
Other closing items are decision units M-201 and M-202, which include projected increases in adoption subsidy and foster care caseloads, and decision unit E-351 includes restoration of one-time capital expenditures and additional one-time employee transfer costs for Clark County. For the future funding of child welfare services, the Governor indicated that Washoe and Clark Counties would be treated in the same manner as a State agency for future increases.
Senator Raggio:
Who makes up the statutory committee on Children, Youth and Families that was created by A.B. No. 1 of the 17th Special Session?
Mr. Peri:
The committee has ten members. Five members are from the Senate and five from the Assembly. The chairmanship rotates, and the committee is scheduled to “sunset” in 4 years. The committee’s purpose is to monitor the progress of the integration of child welfare services and oversee the development of the funding plan.
Senator Raggio:
If we delayed this proposal, there would still be substantial costs to the State. What would the General Fund savings be if we deferred this program for 2 years?
Mr. Peri:
The DCFS would have to continue its responsibilities in the southern region. The General Fund savings would be approximately $3 million in FY 2003-2004 and $3.6 million in FY 2004-2005.
Senator Raggio:
The $6 million total for the biennium is mostly the cost of higher salaries payable to the county employees. Is that correct?
Mr. Peri:
That is one of the components.
Senator Raggio:
Is the pay differential to raise the salaries of the transferred state employees to the county’s higher pay scale the principal cost?
Mr. Peri:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
When can the committee expect to see the plan in written form and signed off by the Governor and the DCFS? Can we have it tomorrow?
Mr. Comeaux:
Yes, you can.
Senator Raggio:
Staff has indicated that all the remaining budgets in the DCFS are connected with the requested report, so we will defer action on all of them until we receive the report.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Public Employees Retirement System – Budget Page PERS-1 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4821
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I have distributed to the committee the “Suggested Closings” (Exhibit D) for this budget. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means closed this budget yesterday with the recommended staff technical adjustments. It also deleted from the closing a total of $111,146 in each year of the biennium for non‑holiday overtime pay.
Senator Raggio:
What is the amount of the recommended increase for the retirement contribution rate?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The amount of the increase is 1.5 percent, which would be shared equally between the employer and employee. Therefore, each party would have an increase of 0.75 percent.
Senator Raggio:
What is the cost of that increase?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The cost is $15.6 million in FY 2003-2004 and $16.2 million in FY 2004-2005.
Senator Raggio:
What would the effect be if we deferred this increase until the next biennium?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I cannot speak for the system, but I would guess it would result in a larger increase in the next biennium.
Mr. Comeaux:
Mr. Ghiggeri is correct. Delaying the increase until the next biennium would result in a larger increase at that time. The system is required biennially to have an actuarial study completed.
Senator Raggio:
I understand this increase is necessary to meet the actuarial study findings, and to keep the system on track with actuarial soundness. If the increase of $30 million over the biennium were deferred, the effect would be to underfund the system, and it would not meet the actuarial soundness test.
Mr. Comeaux:
As you know, Mr. Chairman, part of the suggested rate is required to fund the unfunded actuarial liability that is already there. Not funding this increase now would magnify the system’s liability.
Senator Raggio:
The largest component of the total cost is for the K-12 education system and the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).
Senator Tiffany:
What is the purpose of combining the state employees with the K-12 education system and the UCCSN?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
We are not combining the groups. It is just to show what the cost for each pool would be.
Senator Tiffany:
Was it Assemblyman Hettrick’s proposal that recommended deferring this increase until the service tax was initiated in the second year of the biennium? The tax collected for the first 6 months would not be applied to any budget account, but would be used to fund this system and others. Was this the budget account he suggested for placement of the funds?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I cannot answer your question.
Senator Tiffany:
I believe he was recommending funding the system from the service taxes collected. The amount would be put into the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government.
Senator Raggio:
What action did the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means take on closing this budget?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
They closed this budget with the technical adjustments approved, and deleted the non-holiday overtime pay in each year of the biennium.
Senator Tiffany:
What would happen if we delayed this increase?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Potentially it would cost more. The system would have to make up the losses over the biennium plus any new cost increases.
Senator Rawson:
Is it a reasonable decision in a tough budget year to delay the increase? The plan is not in immediate trouble. Would delay be a prudent action?
Mr. Comeaux:
It depends on your viewpoint. If you have reason to believe it will be easier to fund the increase sometime in the future, then the increase could be delayed. I do not believe I would describe the action as “prudent,” but it would not be a particularly disastrous move to make. It is an action that the system could recover from in the future. Very probably, it would just be postponing the inevitable.
Senator Raggio:
Staff has just reminded me that closing this budget does not finalize that decision, because it is not included in this budget. This is just the budget that funds the system. I will accept a motion to close this budget account.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑4821 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND WITH THE DELETION OF $111,146 IN NON‑HOLIDAY OVERTIME PAY IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 214.
ASSEMBLY BILL 214 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to publications by state agencies and certain local governments. (BDR 33-1078)
Senator Raggio:
What is the purpose of this legislation?
Ian Campbell, Government Documents, Washoe County Library System:
I am here to express support for A.B. 214. The purpose of the bill is to establish an electronic database for state and local government publications, which are deposited to the State Publications Distribution Center for permanent retention and access. It requires the Division of State Library and Archives to adopt regulations, with input from local governments, concerning the type and format of electronic data to be used for publications. By passing A.B. 214, Nevada electronic government information will be preserved and made accessible for future researchers, just as printed publications are preserved for future generations today. My complete testimony has been distributed to the committee as Exhibit E. The testimony of Martha Gould, who is also in support of A.B. 214, has been distributed to the committee as Exhibit F.
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs:
I have distributed to the committee a copy of “EXECUTIVE AGENCY FISCAL NOTE” (Exhibit G). The legislation is designed to save the history of the state. In today’s environment, more and more documents are being created in the form of electronic publications, and the state is losing that history.
Senator Raggio:
Is this fiscal note still appropriate for the first reprint of the bill?
Mr. Sisco:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
The cost would be a General Fund appropriation in the amount of $58,423 in FY 2003-2004 and $61,136 in FY 2004-2005. This amount is for one FTE position and associated costs. Is that correct?
Mr. Sisco:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
What will be the duties of the position?
Mr. Sisco:
This bill would develop an entirely new program within the state library system. The position would be responsible for coordinating the development and standardization of electronic formatting regulations for publications with state and local governments and for making the material accessible to the public.
Senator Raggio:
What present system is the state library using to store electronic publications and documents?
Mr. Sisco:
Those are not being saved. The material is being lost. The agency tries to work with the local governments, but without this legislation the agency has no “teeth” to enforce regulations. The agency still receives 12 copies of every printed record published by state and local governments. Those documents are distributed to state publication centers throughout the state.
Senator Raggio:
Currently, adequate staff is not available to perform this job. Is that correct?
Mr. Sisco:
The agency does the best job it can with the resources it has available. The Division of State Library and Archives is struggling to keep up with the current level of workload, and this additional responsibility of collecting and preserving all electronic data is impossible for the agency to staff.
Senator Raggio:
Is one staff position sufficient to do the job? This project could become a much larger program.
Mr. Sisco:
The agency believes it is; it looked at the program as conservatively as possible. This is a way to get the program started.
Senator Tiffany:
The agency has a document management system in place, so is this proposal for converters or translators for material coming in from other electronic data systems? Or is the purpose to electronically file all the publications in the state library and archives system? I do not see this problem as a “big deal.”
Mr. Sisco:
There was a considerable amount of concern coming from the local governments about what electronic format would be required.
Senator Tiffany:
It will just be the format used in the existing document management system.
Mr. Sisco:
The format needs to be uniform, so the information posted to the Web site will be accessible to the public and researchers. The agency needs to go one step further and microfilm the records for long-term retention. The agency would actually have the responsibility for putting all this information on the Web site.
Senator Tiffany:
Once you have an established electronic format, there is no need for a position. What physical duties would this position be performing?
Mr. Sisco:
The position will receive those records, work with the local governments to get the documents, and place the information on the Web site. At some point in time, those records will be placed on microfilm for permanent retention in a record storage depository.
Senator Tiffany:
Is this position going to be a technician position?
Mr. Sisco:
It is a combination. The agency has a single Web site developer for the department, but the person has a difficult time keeping up with that function. In the beginning, this new position will set the standards and work with the local governments for preserving the electronic documents, but later, the duties will include placing the information on the Web site.
Sara F. Jones, Administrator, Division of Library and Archives, Department of Cultural Affairs:
At this point, there is not a standard electronic format for every publication in the state. A lot of agencies use the portable document format (PDF) system. The readers’ side of the PDF system is free of charge, but the development side is proprietary software. If the company changes its products or ceases to be in existence, the agencies would be stuck with the problem of trying to retrieve and recreate the electronic documents. The position requires librarianship skills, because the information cannot just be “dumped” on a huge server without having an organized system for retrieval in place. Documents would have to be available in a consistent and reliable manner. My complete testimony is contained in Exhibit H.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 214 and open the hearing on A.B. 341.
ASSEMBLY BILL 341: Effectuates specific and limited waiver of immunity of State under Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution with regard to certain federal laws regulating employment practices. (BDR 3‑356)
Senator Raggio:
I think it would be helpful for the committee to hear the background information on the purpose of the bill, and then we will consider the fiscal note.
Assemblyman John Oceguera, Clark County Assembly District No. 16:
The bill seeks to include an express 11th Amendment immunity waiver in federal court for employees of the State of Nevada. Under the 11th Amendment, a state is entitled to constitutional sovereign immunity in federal courts, and in the state’s own court system, against lawsuits brought by private individuals claiming damages resulting from federal causes of action. The constitutional sovereign immunity applies to the state, state agencies, and to state officers and employees acting in an official capacity. I believe persons employed by the State should be allowed to enforce certain federal rights against the State without impediment or restriction.
In a recent case, in the state’s motion for summary judgment based on its 11th Amendment immunity, the federal district court ruled from the bench that the claim was barred by the state’s sovereign immunity. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and unanimously ruled that the Congress of the United States properly exercised its authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity on Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the case is still pending a final ruling.
Senator Raggio:
There has not been a final ruling on whether or not, not withstanding the 11th Amendment, the right exists.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
The federal appellate court ruled the claim could be brought against the State. Is that correct?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Yes, that is correct. The provisions of A.B. 341 were drafted to effectuate a specific and limited waiver of the State’s constitutional sovereign immunity with regard to the following federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). State employees should be extended the same rights as all other municipal and county employees now have.
Senator Raggio:
What types of claims could be brought to the courts which are not currently being heard? For example, what type of claims could be heard under the FMLA?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
It would allow a claim to be brought in federal court.
Senator Raggio:
I understand that, but what types of claims are we talking about? Give us some examples.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
An example would be the violation of the law permitting leave for an unborn child or personal health problems.
Senator Raggio:
That example refers to the FMLA. What types of cases would come under the FLSA? Would that be overtime pay?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Cases coming under the ADA would be for failure of the State to bring its buildings up to standard. Is that correct?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
In this state, we have a long list of buildings that are still not meeting the federal standards under the ADA. How would we cope with the situation? The State would be subjecting itself to a great number of lawsuits over those issues.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Prior to 1999, the cases were brought to court under the provisions of the 11th Amendment. Since that time, the immunity waiver under the 11th Amendment has come into question. I do not believe the number of cases would be increased.
Senator Raggio:
The attorney general’s fiscal note on the bill indicates a $3.8 million General Fund appropriation would be required to fund three FTE positions and associated costs. Is the fiscal note amount still correct?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Yes, it is.
Scott G. MacKenzie, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, Local 4041:
I have distributed a handout to the committee entitled “Testimony given April 2, 2003 on AB 341” (Exhibit I). Since 1996, Nevada state employees have not been granted 11th Amendment immunity waiver rights in federal court. Most newly hired state employees are unaware that 11th Amendment immunity has not been waived by the State of Nevada. All casino employees, and all other private sector employees, have federal laws to protect them. Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 284.345, Nevada law allows for the adoption of federal laws. If the State truly honors these current regulations, there should be no issue with accepting the 11th Amendment immunity waiver. Assembly Bill 341 allows the standard set by federal law to apply to Nevada state employees and gives the current Nevada regulations integrity.
Senator Raggio:
The bill specifies the federal laws that the State is being asked to waive 11th Amendment immunity on, such as the ADA. The State has many buildings that do not meet the ADA standards. Would the passage of A.B. 341 open up lawsuits under the ADA that currently cannot be brought against the State?
Mr. MacKenzie:
I believe the bill is very limited in how many federal regulations would be open for possible lawsuits against the State.
Senator Raggio:
One of the federal regulations is the ADA. The State would be immediately committing to several hundred million dollars to upgrade state buildings to meet the ADA standards.
Mr. MacKenzie:
I would suggest this bill could be amended to eliminate that particular federal regulation.
Senator Raggio:
The U.S. Supreme Court decision is still pending, and that decision will determine whether or not this bill is even necessary.
Mr. MacKenzie:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
What kinds of claims, that are not currently being heard, could be brought under the FLSA?
Mr. MacKenzie:
Our hope is that the bill would create an environment in which management would be more careful are dealing with employees who are requesting items covered by the FLSA. It is management’s job to make sure the law is properly applied so claims do not end up in court. The State’s attitude has been no matter what we do, we cannot be held accountable for our actions.
Senator Raggio:
I was under the impression state employees do have rights under existing state laws. Those existing laws should eliminate the need for employees to pursue remedy under the federal laws and in federal courts.
Mr. MacKenzie:
My understanding is the State has adopted the federal laws under state statute.
Senator Raggio:
I would like to have some clarification on this situation.
M. Laura Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
We urge the committee to support A.B. 341.
Senator Raggio:
Is the position of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that the State should not have immunity from any federal or state laws?
Ms. Mijanovich:
There are approximately 19,000 people in the state who can be considered second-class citizens because they are not allowed to seek legal remedy for claims other citizens of Nevada are entitled to pursue.
Senator Raggio:
Does the ACLU believe the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed?
Ms. Mijanovich:
Yes, the ACLU does believe it should be repealed.
James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance:
I want the record to reflect that in a series of recent cases in the U.S. Supreme Court this issue has been heard. The U.S. Supreme Court, in close decisions, has basically disallowed state public employees from making use of certain federal antidiscrimination statutes.
Senator Raggio:
How many other states have waived their 11th Amendment immunity for this purpose?
Mr. Richardson:
Minnesota has waived its sovereign immunity for most of the antidiscrimination federal laws. A number of other states are considering such actions.
Senator Raggio:
The main concern of the committee is the potential liability from lawsuits being brought against the State, and the fiscal impact those claims, if successful, would have upon the General Fund.
Mr. Richardson:
Under the existing state law, these types of cases can be brought to trial, but there is a $50,000 cap placed on any awarded damages.
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services:
I believe, with reference to the ADA, the bill only specifies the waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity for suits brought under Title I of the ADA. Title I deals with employment discrimination. Titles II and III deal with making public accommodation in government operations and facilities to make services accessible to people with disabilities. Title II and Title III would include bringing a state building up to the ADA standards. Opening a new level of liability to the State under Titles II and III is not possible under this bill, as they are not included in the request for waiver of immunity.
Senator Raggio:
Would workplace conditions be included under Title I of the ADA?
Mr. Sasser:
Under Title I, the employer is required to make appropriate and reasonable workplace accommodations for an employee with disabilities, but it would not cover the retrofitting of state buildings to bring them up to ADA standards. The 11th Amendment basically deals with whether or not the State has consented to be sued in federal court. In terms of the fiscal note on the bill, I believe the State has already been defending these types of lawsuits prior to this recent series of cases. The State has continued to use those same legal resources to defend itself. It is now raising 11th Amendment arguments, which were not utilized as defenses in the past. I do not believe passage of the bill would involve any change in staffing patterns needed for the State to defend itself in suits brought against it. There is potential liability for the State if discrimination suits are brought against it and won in federal courts.
Jeff Parker, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General:
I have distributed a handout to the committee entitled “Testimony of Solicitor General, Jeff E. Parker on AB 341” (Exhibit J). I have presented my testimony in previous hearings. I can summarize it for the committee and answer some of the questions posed.
Senator Raggio:
Does this bill eliminate a legal defense that otherwise would be available to the State?
Mr. Parker:
Yes, that is correct. The Office of the Attorney General (AG) does not oppose A.B. 341, but as the State’s attorney, the AG is obliged to advise the State of increased liability exposure and increased costs if the bill is passed. The costs are detailed in a fiscal note attached to Exhibit J. Out of fifty states, only one state, North Carolina, has waived sovereign immunity for the FMLA, FLSA, ADA, and ADEA.
Senator Raggio:
The fiscal note indicates a General Fund appropriation in the amount of $1,915,383 in FY 2003-2004 and $1,897,915 in FY 2004-2005, with an ongoing required funding of approximately $3,795,830 in future biennia. Is that correct?
Mr. Parker:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
The tort claim liability for the State is approximately $1.5 million per year. Is that correct?
Mr. Parker:
Yes, that is correct. The bill was designed to allow new claims for damages against the State. Given the expansion of possible causes of action to which the State would be exposed if this bill passes, the total liability of the State could more than double. It would permit plaintiff attorneys to sue in federal court to avoid the $50,000 current state cap on damages.
Senator Raggio:
Passage of this bill would make it possible to avoid the Nevada tort damage cap of $50,000 for each occurrence. Is that correct?
Mr. Parker:
Yes, that is correct. The pending U.S. Supreme Court decision may or may not have a muting effect on what this State chooses to do here. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 11th Amendment now applies to situations where a citizen of the state is suing its own state. Prior to this decision, 11th Amendment rulings were held to apply to a citizen of one state suing a citizen in another state.
Stan Miller, Claims Manager, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General:
I have contacted all AG offices in the other 49 states. As Mr. Parker testified, North Carolina is the only state that has waived its sovereign immunity for these causes of action, with a couple of minor exceptions. North Dakota has waived its immunity for the FLSA only. In an Iowa Supreme Court decision, Iowa was ordered to waive its immunity for the FLSA. Minnesota has not waived its sovereign immunity. All A.B. 341 will do is remove the $50,000 state tort claim cap on awarded damages.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 341 and open the hearing on A.B. 395.
ASSEMBLY BILL 395 (1st Reprint): Provides for assessment of fee on certain facilities for intermediate care and on facilities for skilled nursing. (BDR 38-999)
Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10:
This is a measure that raises taxes, but it does so for an interesting reason. In 2001, the Legislature changed the way the State reimbursed long-term care facilities for providing services. That change in methodology has been phased in over the last several years, and the process will finally be completed in 2004. The reimbursement schedule is dependent on the provision of receiving adequate funding from the state and federal government. The federal reimbursement amount is leveraged by matching state funds. This bill raises the tax on all the providers to increase the state’s federal reimbursement.
Senator Raggio:
Is the increase of the fee shown in Section 6 of A.B. 395?
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
It says the bill would establish a uniform rate for a non-Medicare patient day equivalent to 6 percent of the total annual accrual-basis gross revenue for services provided. What does this mean in plain English?
Ivan R. “Renny” Ashleman, Lobbyist, Clark County:
This is a formula to calculate a daily rate, which can be multiplied by the total number of care days, to determine a total amount of taxable liability.
Senator Raggio:
What does that mean in dollars? Is this a service care provider tax?
Mr. Ashleman:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
What changes does it make in the service care provider tax rate, and what is the current service care provider tax rate?
Mr. Ashleman:
The State currently does not have a service care provider tax. This tax would generate additional funds that would be eligible for a federal match. It is estimated the tax would bring in approximately $11 million. The purpose would be to use the funds generated to enhance the Medicaid reimbursement to the nursing homes. The State’s current reimbursement rate does not reimburse the nursing homes for their actual costs. This new infusion of funding would get the State very close to reimbursing the nursing homes for their actual costs.
Senator Raggio:
I want to read into the record the revenue estimates from the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP). It states:
This authorizes the DHCFP to establish a fund with a 6 percent assessment on all revenues received by nursing facilities, and this fund is to be used exclusively to increase nursing facility revenue by distributing the fund and related federal funds to Medicaid providers through enhanced rates. The following fiscal impact may occur as a result of this bill. The agency is responsible for extensive administrative responsibility without any provision for the cost. It is expected the continuous administration of the assessment would require committing one full-time management analyst plus any additional staff for development of the assessment. The cost is related to state administration and does not qualify for federal funds. The cost is expected to be $131,493 for the biennium, entirely state funded, and not included in the proposed regulations. Furthermore, the funds must only be used to enhance nursing facility reimbursements. Federal regulations limit the total reimbursement for institutional care that qualifies for federal funds to the Medicare upper payment limit (UPL). The agency will not exceed the UPL for any facility or service regardless of the available resources of the fund. Federal regulations limit provider taxes to 6 percent of gross revenues. In the analysis provided by the Nevada Health Care Association, a 6 percent assessment on gross revenues was projected to generate over $14 million. After deducting something under $400,000 in fees assessed by the Bureau of Licensure, the assessment cannot exceed $13.674 million. With the FY 2004 federal matching rate of 54.3 percent, this assessment is projected to bring in $16.2 million in federal funds for total revenue of $29.9 million. With the FY 2005 federal matching rate of 56.03 percent, it is projected to bring in $17.4 million in federal funds for total revenue of $31 million. The total projected revenues for the biennium for Medicaid budget are $61 million.
What does all that mean?
Charles Duarte, Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources:
I have distributed a handout to the committee entitled “Testimony Assembly Bill 395” (Exhibit K). The fiscal note is correct with one exception. The first reprint of the bill allows for a 1 percent assessment of the fees, brought in through the tax, to be used to fund the administrative services the agency will be providing. Approximately $131,000 would come out of the assessment tax collected to fund a position for the DHCFP.
Senator Raggio:
Is that the only change in the fiscal note? I have your memorandum, which states the bill is to include the amended language requested by the DHCFP. This language was included in the first reprint of A.B. 395. It mandates the assessment would be an allowable Medicaid reimbursable expense and therefore, removes the fiscal impact originally determined by the agency. Is that the only change?
Mr. Duarte:
The agency is requesting an additional change to specifically exclude the Veterans’ Nursing Home (VNH) from the bill, so it is not included as a taxable facility. As a public facility, the agency believes it should not pay the service care provider tax.
Senator Raggio:
Does the VNH benefit from the federal funding?
Mr. Duarte:
It already receives federal funds as well as a mix of Medicaid funds. As a revenue source, the agency also pays the VNH on a cost basis, so the bill will not benefit the VNH.
Senator Raggio:
Is there some question remaining on whether or not the service care provider tax will be eligible for federal matching funds?
Mr. Duarte:
No, there is no question. It will be eligible as long as it meets the tests that are required by federal law. That includes the requirement that the tax be uniform and broad based across all the service care providers. If the tax is established in regulations in that manner, the agency does not see any problem in having the service care provider tax approved by the federal government.
Senator Tiffany:
This tax or assessment fee is a very clever idea. I am impressed. Has the industry bought into the idea? Is there an association that all the service care providers belong to and did they all agree to this idea?
Charles C. Perry, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association:
The answer to your entire question is “yes.” This is a bill that the association brought forth, and we have discussed it at some length with the DHCFP. We asked Assemblyman Goldwater to sponsor the legislation for us.
Senator Raggio:
What is the additional cost, if any, to the DHCFP? Does the 1 percent assessment collected from the tax remove any cost to the State to perform the administrative functions?
Mr. Duarte:
Yes, that is correct. There will be no General Fund impact to the State.
Senator Raggio:
What does that mean?
Mr. Duarte:
The fees assessed will pay for the position within the agency.
Senator Raggio:
What liability will there be to the State if, for some reason, there is a determination the funds do not qualify for federal matching funds? Does it become a continuing State responsibility? I want the answer on the record.
Mr. Ashelman:
It will not be a continuing obligation to the State, because it is a separate fund. Section 8 of A.B. 395 contains the following language:
must be a separate and continuing fund, and no money in the Fund reverts to the State General Fund at any time. The interest and income on the money in the Fund, after deducting any applicable charges, must be credited to the Fund. Any money received… must be deposited in the State Treasury for credit to the Fund.
Senator Raggio:
I want the language included that states if, for some reason, the assessment does not qualify for matching federal funds, the State will not be responsible.
Mr. Duarte:
I would like to comment on your request. In Section 6, subsection 5, the language states: “This act is an allowable cost for Medicaid reimbursement purposes.” That language means if, in the future, the federal government were to change its regulations to disallow these types of service, care provider taxes would be used to raise reimbursements, and the cost would be built into the base budget of nursing facilities across the state. In terms of the agency’s methodology, reimbursements are made on a price basis. The agency periodically assesses the cost basis. The cost basis would have risen because of the service care provider tax, so future federal reimbursements would be greater because the base is higher.
Senator Raggio:
Should language limiting the State’s liability be included in the bill?
Mr. Duarte:
It is also a concern to the agency, so such language would seem appropriate.
Senator Raggio:
The agency needs to prepare some language that will reduce the potential risk to the State if the service care provider tax does not qualify for federal matching funds. It also should include language building the cost of administration into the base budget.
Senator Rawson:
Does a court decision exist stating the State has to meet the basic expenses? I believe the decision was about 10 years ago.
Mr. Duarte:
There was such a case. I believe it was in California, and the ruling stated that despite the elimination of the Boren Amendment in federal law, facilities need to be reimbursed at a reasonable rate for efficient providers. The agency has currently frozen service care provider rates because of the State’s fiscal problems. There is a possibility of suits being brought against the State to enforce higher rates.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 395 and open the hearing on A.B. 255.
ASSEMBLY BILL 255: Extends reversion date of appropriation made during previous Legislative Session to Department of Human Resources for Medicaid Management Information System. (BDR S-1269)
Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources:
I have distributed two handouts to the committee. One is entitled “Testimony Assembly Bill 255” (Exhibit L), and the other is “Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS)” (Exhibit M). Assembly Bill 255 will extend the reversion date of the appropriation made during the 71st Session to the DHR for the MMIS. This bill was requested by the DHCFP to allow completion of its MMIS implementation.
Page 1 of Exhibit M indicates the original project time line and costs for the MMIS implementation. The DHCFP had initially planned to begin the design, development and implementation (DDI) phase in July 2001 with project implementation occurring in July 2004. Total cost of the DDI was projected at $23.8 million. The project is funded with 90 percent federal funding and 10 percent State funding. The 71st Session provided a General Fund appropriation of $2,090,840 to begin the DDI of the MMIS. It was anticipated an additional General Fund appropriation of $452,731 would be needed to complete the project by FY 2004. This additional appropriation is no longer needed.
The DDI contract was not awarded until September 2001, with work beginning in October 2001. The project implementation time line was accelerated to October 2003 to avoid the need to modify the existing Legacy System to become compliant with HIPAA. It was estimated that modifications to the existing system could cost approximately $10 million and only would have been used from October 2003 until July 2004 when the MMIS was fully implemented. The DHCFP elected to accelerate the implementation to avoid these additional costs.
As a result of the delay in the contract award and the acceleration of the implementation time line, the initially projected 2-year implementation time line was shortened to 12 months. The total costs of the implementation, excluding operating costs, are now estimated to be $20.1 million, a reduction of $3.7 million from the original estimate. While this accelerated time line has been challenging, the DHCFP was able to meet the first major milestone on February 1, 2003, with the implementation of the pharmacy point of sale (POS) system. The POS system was successfully implemented with a minimum of problems. The POS system did identify existing problems with third party liability data. The problems have been resolved in the POS system and will be resolved for the MMIS prior to full implementation. At this point in time, the project has not missed any critical deadlines and the cost is under the total projected budget. While the time line for the individual deliverables may not have been met, none of the delayed deliverables are in the project’s critical path. Pages 2 through 4 of Exhibit M provide the major project milestones.
Senator Raggio:
Why is it necessary to extend the reversion date?
Ms. King:
The initial appropriation was for $20.3 million for FY 2003-2003. It was anticipated the DHCFP would need an additional $4.5 million in FY 2003-2004. The agency does not need the $4.5 million. However, the expenditure of the $20.3 million will continue into FY 2003-2004, which is the reason for the request for extension in the reversion date.
Senator Raggio:
The agency is simply requesting a date extension on the original appropriation. There is no additional appropriation required.
Ms. King:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 255 and open the hearing on A.B. 469.
ASSEMBLY BILL 469: Makes supplemental appropriation to Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfall in money for medical care and higher-level placements for Medicaid-eligible children. (BDR S-1326)
Ms. Comeaux:
I have distributed a handout entitled “Testimony AB 469 Supplemental Appropriation” (Exhibit N). This bill makes an appropriation to the DCFS for an unanticipated shortfall in the Youth Community Services budget. The funds pay for medical care, acute care, and residential treatment for Medicaid-eligible children in the agency’s custody. A $1,113,588 appropriation is requested. This amount, with savings from other categories, will be used for matching federal Medicaid funds to cover a shortfall of $5,004,000. The budgeted caseload for FY 2003 for the Medicaid medical category is 4377 children. The actual caseload, as of February 28, 2003, was 3510 children, which is 20 percent less than budgeted. Similarly, the caseload was 18 percent less than budgeted in FY 2002 and the agency finished the fiscal year within Legislatively approved authority. Based on the anticipated decrease in caseload, it initially appeared there would be sufficient funds in the Medicaid category to pay expenses in FY 2003. However, the actual monthly cost per child increased from $351 per month in FY 2002 to $456 per month in FY 2003. This is an increase of 39 percent over FY 2002 and a 55 percent increase over the FY 2003 budgeted monthly cost per child of $295. This unanticipated increase in the cost per child has created a shortfall the agency cannot cover in savings from other categories.
Senator Raggio:
This appropriation is not included in the Executive Budget. Does the Governor agree with the position of the witness who has just testified in this matter?
Mr. Comeaux:
Yes, he does.
Senator Tiffany:
What does higher-level placement mean?
Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
The higher levels of care are covered and paid for out of the agency’s category 17, which is Title XIX medical care, acute care, and residential treatment center care funds.
Senator Tiffany:
Does acute care require hospitalization?
Mr. Baumann:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that hospitalization in the state?
Mr. Baumann:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 469 and open the hearing on A.B. 249.
ASSEMBLY BILL 249 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR 23-549)
P. Forrest “Woody” Thorne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefits System:
This bill establishes the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) as the agency of record for benefit payroll deductions. This will eliminate duplication of effort in maintaining these records. It requires a timely notice of a change in the status of an employee with an administrative penalty if the notice is not received in a timely manner. The notice will ensure that PEBP will receive information about additions, terminations, and changes, such as leaves without pay, which may have an affect on the premiums. It eliminates the evidence of insurability provision for reinstating retirees, which brings the statute into compliance with the HIPAA requirements.
Senator Raggio:
The HIPAA requirements do not allow PEBP to have an evidence of insurability provision?
Mr. Thorne:
Yes, that is correct. Another major section of the bill changes the retiree subsidy for state retirees. It will limit retirement credit payment to only years of state service as opposed to payment for any public service in the State of Nevada.
Senator Raggio:
Where is that section in the bill?
Mr. Thorne:
That would be Section 24 in the bill.
Senator Raggio:
Section 24 amends NRS 287.046. What is the change?
Mr. Thorne:
The change is on lines 30 and 31. The wording is changed from, “subsidies are given to those who retire from the State” to “subsidies are given to those who retire with State service.” Therefore, regardless of which public entity a person retires from, retirement credit for years of service is only given for State years of service, and the subsidy is based on that total number of years.
Senator Raggio:
Does the change in language create an additional cost to the program?
Mr. Thorne:
The PEBP expects the change to be a “fiscal wash,” because some retired employees will have a reduced subsidy since they will only be paid for years of State service. It is believed the amount of savings generated by the reduced subsidy will cover the additional subsidy given to retired employees who had years of service with the State, but retired from another public entity. This would become effective on July 1, 2004. It will give the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), PEBP, and personnel offices time to research records to assign employees into the two categories. It will eliminate the “sunset” provision for the PEBP’s two private sector members of the Public Employees’ Retirement Board (PERB). Their input to the PERB has been invaluable.
Senator Raggio:
What are the names of the private sector board members?
Mr. Thorne:
Currently, the two board members serving from the private sector are Randy Kirner and Jim Pettis.
Senator Raggio:
How many members does the Public Employees’ Retirement Board have?
Mr. Thorne:
There are nine members serving on the board.
Senator Raggio:
Seven of the board members represent various public agencies, and the two other board members represent the private sector. Is that correct?
Mr. Thorne:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
There is a section in the bill that refers to a “repeal.” What is being repealed?
Mr. Thorne:
The section would repeal the biennial open enrollment for pre-1994 retirees after one final open enrollment period. Local entity retirees prior to 1994 did not have an option, when they retired, to join the PEBP as retirees. Two one-time open enrollment periods have been held in the past between 1993 and 1995. The PEBP has observed a declining number of retirees taking advantage of the option. At the last open enrollment, 7500 notices were sent out by the PERS, and the PEBP received 600 requests for enrollment information. Twenty retirees actually enrolled in the system. The PEBP is planning on holding one final open enrollment. It will be publicized and will give pre-1994 retirees a final option to come into the PEBP. The last items covered in the bill are changes in language for clarification.
Senator Raggio:
Is a representative present from the Office of the State Controller? The committee has a letter from the Office of the State Controller (Exhibit O) that requires explanation. It is relevant to a proposal to amend A.B. 249 (1st Reprint).
Kim Huys, Chief Accountant, Office of the State Controller:
I do not have a copy of the letter.
Senator Raggio:
This letter from the Office of the State Controller was addressed to the Teamsters Local Union. We will provide you with a copy. The committee would like an explanation of the issue covered in the letter.
Ms. Huys:
In this bill there is a section that authorizes the State Controller to promulgate rules and regulations relating to payroll deductions.
Senator Raggio:
What section are you referring to?
Ms. Huys:
It would be Section 2. The rules and regulations are in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 281.250. The NAC covers payroll deductions for unions as well as other charitable organizations. It sets forth the appropriate number of employees required before the State will make a payroll deduction.
Senator Raggio:
Are you referring to the statement that says, “At least 51 percent of the officers or employees of the State who are eligible to be members of a homogeneous unit must request their payments be withheld from their paychecks and paid to the organization”? Is that the issue in question?
Ms. Huys:
Yes, the current calculation is 51 percent.
Senator Raggio:
How does the proposed amendment change the language?
Ms. Huys:
The amendment would remove the controller’s authority to set membership requirements for a payroll deduction of union dues. The amendment will set a threshold in statute for the number of participants required for a union dues payroll deduction.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:
I have distributed a handout to the committee entitled “2003 SESSION (72nd), PROPOSED AMENDMENT AB 249” (Exhibit P). This amendment provides fairness to all state employees with regard to payroll deductions by revising NRS 281.129. The law currently authorizes any officer of the State, except the legislative fiscal officer, who disperses money in payment of salaries and wages of officers and employees of the State, to withhold payroll deductions upon written request. The funds collected are paid to the specified charitable organizations, employee credit unions, savings bonds, employee, and labor organizations. Although not stated in the statute, this employee benefit has been expanded to payroll deductions for life insurance, automobile insurance, home owner’s insurance, disability insurance, deferred compensation plans, and others. Of all these payroll deductions, only one has an additional permissive restriction that allows the State Controller to promulgate rules and regulations for payroll deductions for employees who belong to employee or labor organizations. The question is, why is this the only group being regulated, and why are the regulations so restrictive and complicated? Just recently, the State Controller sent out letters to all labor organizations mandating the organizations justify their right to payroll deductions based on the provisions of NAC 281.250.
Currently, only one employee organization, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), enjoys the privilege of statewide organization and payroll deductions without meeting the requirements of a homogeneous unit as stated in NAC 281.250. This situation is grossly unfair, denying state employees who wish to join organizations, other than the SNEA, the right to payroll deductions. The proposed amendment revises NRS 281.129, Section 1, referring to payroll deductions for employee organizations and labor unions by adding subsection 5, after the words “labor organizations,” to read, “who have 100 members or those organizations that currently have payroll deduction status as of January 1, 2003.”
Senator Raggio:
What is the compelling need for labor organizations to have payroll deductions for union dues?
Mr. Wolff:
Payroll deductions are the backbone of the organization. If we cannot offer them to our members, we can lose members because check writing is inconvenient.
Senator Raggio:
What objection does the State Controller have to this recommended change?
Ms. Huys:
I would have to defer the answer to the State Controller.
Senator Raggio:
When can we expect an answer from the State Controller?
Ms. Huys:
You can have the answer this afternoon.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada:
We support this amendment.
Mr. MacKenzie:
The SNEA supports A.B. 249, but it is opposed to this amendment. The SNEA is the only employer organization that qualifies for the payroll deduction because it plays by the rules.
Senator Raggio:
If your organization has the benefit of payroll deductions, why are all organizations not included? What is the necessity for the rule?
Mr. MacKenzie:
The rule is to keep too many employee organizations from tripping over each other, from infighting, and from competing for the same members.
Senator Raggio:
Why is the need to enroll members competitive? Is the payroll deduction for dues a benefit the SNEA has for its members that is better than what is offered by other organizations?
Mr. MacKenzie:
We are directly competing with all these organizations for membership.
Senator Raggio:
Why does it matter? It would seem that people would join your organization based on whether or not your organization is going to be helpful to them. Why is the ability to have payroll deductions an issue?
Mr. MacKenzie:
If a payroll deduction is allowed for every organization with 100 members, why not allow it for 75 or 50 members? There are multiple employee organizations with multiple voices on the same issues, so no single employee organization speaks for all.
Senator Raggio:
I understand that, but why are payroll deductions causing this rupture?
Mr. MacKenzie:
Currently, the State allows member organizations to join in groups of 50. Being permitted a payroll deduction for dues is based on the total membership of the organization because there are state administrative costs for preparation of a check with a payroll deduction.
Senator Raggio:
Was this amendment opposed in the Assembly?
Mr. MacKenzie:
My understanding is the Assembly did not hear the bill.
Senator Raggio:
Are you saying the Assembly did not hear A.B. 249?
Mr. MacKenzie:
No, I am sorry. Originally the amendment was brought to the Assembly as a separate bill, but it was not heard.
Senator Raggio:
Does someone here know what I am asking and can explain this situation?
Mr. Wolff:
Assembly Bill 169 was introduced at the beginning of the 72nd Legislative Session. The bill included the language of this proposed amendment. The SNEA went to the committee chair and blocked the bill from being heard.
ASSEMBLY BILL 169: Revises provisions governing voluntary deductions for employee organizations and labor organizations from payroll of state officers and employees.
Senator Raggio:
What committee was that?
Mr. Wolff:
It was the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
Senator Raggio:
Then what happened?
Mr. Wolff:
The committee understood our problem and knew we were in danger of losing our payroll deduction for union dues. There is no fiscal impact to the State for making payroll deductions. I am bringing the language here as an amendment to A.B. 249 so I could have a hearing and present our case. We had the support in the Assembly to pass this bill, but it was not even given a hearing.
Senator Raggio:
The Assembly has not heard this amendment. Is that correct?
Mr. Wolff:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Then this is the first time the amendment has been considered. Is this correct?
Mr. MacKenzie:
Yes, that is correct. To have 100 employees eligible for a payroll deduction is unheard of. The number is too low. There are 17,000 State employees. If you divide that total into groups of 100, you would have 1700 employee organizations.
Senator Raggio:
As I understand it, the amendment says an employee organization must have a minimum of 100 members to receive a payroll deduction, or have already qualified for a payroll deduction by January 1, 2003. Is that correct?
Mr. Wolff:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. MacKenzie:
I can understand allowing existing organizations to continue to have a payroll deduction, although I still believe they should meet the criteria of the NAC 281.250.
F. Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada:
We support A.B. 249, and we are not involved with the amendment issue. I am responding to a section of the bill itself. The Retired Public Employees of Nevada organization has worked hard to permit pre-1994 retirees to enter the PEBP. We somewhat reluctantly agree with the repeal of that section because we do recognize, as Mr. Thorne pointed out, there is a diminishing number of retirees taking advantage of the option to join. We support having one final open enrollment period for those pre-1994 retirees.
Senator Raggio:
They will be given that one last opportunity to join; then the door is closed. Is that correct?
Mr. Bibb:
Yes, that is correct. We would like to go on record as regular attendees at all the PEBP meetings, and we do support the elimination of the “sunset” provision for the two board members who represent the private sector. Their experience has brought meaningful dialogue and information to PEBP, and we believe it is wise to retain their membership on the PERB.
Mr. Richardson:
We were not involved in the discussion of the proposed amendment, but I strongly urge the committee to support A.B. 249. It contains some very important cleanup language that updates the PEBP. We also join in supporting the retention of the two private sector board members.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 249. We will take up A.B. 255, which we heard this morning. I will accept a motion.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 255.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
I will accept a motion on A.B. 469.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 469.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
On March 24, we heard S.B. 258. We took action to include in the UCCSN budget the necessary appropriation for the continuation of the Pediatric Diabetes, and Endocrinology Center (PDEC) at the School of Medicine. Therefore, some of this bill is no longer required. Is that correct?
SENATE BILL 258: Makes appropriations to University of Nevada, Reno, for certain expenses of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology Center at School of Medicine. (BDR S-1204)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, that is correct. The PDEC was fully funded by a General Fund appropriation of $567,000 and $235,000 in fee funds in each year of the biennium.
Senator Raggio:
I believe we need to address the supplemental funding that is required for this year.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, that is correct. In conversations we have had with the representatives of the UCCSN, $44,772 is required to complete this fiscal year. That will be for the months of May and June. Effective May 1, 2003, the PDEC will be operating in a deficit mode with the center being kept open until June 1, 2003, with loans from various self-supporting accounts. The May loan will be repaid with the supplemental appropriation. If the supplemental appropriation is not approved, the center will be closed on June 1, 2003, and the May operating loans will not be repaid. Patients would be referred to regular pediatricians or emergency room doctors.
Senator Raggio:
If we amend the bill to just provide the supplemental funding of $44,772, would that solve the problem?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, that would solve it.
Senator Tiffany:
I have an amount of $59,000 required for the supplemental appropriation.
Senator Raggio:
That was the original amount requested, but in discussion with the UCCSN representatives, a reduction to the amount of $44,772 was agreed to.
Senator Tiffany:
It appears the UCCSN only asked for 1 year of funding, but we gave them 2 years.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
In the closing of the UCCSN budget, funding was provided for both years. The program was also expanded to establish a PDEC in northern Nevada.
Senator Cegavske:
Has any information been obtained on the possibility of receiving federal funds for the treatment of obesity? Staff, do you have any information?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I have no information on that.
Senator Raggio:
I will accept a motion for S.B. 258.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND BY DELETING SECTION 2, AMEND SECTION 1 TO INCLUDE AN APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,772, AMEND SECTION 3 TO INCLUDE OPERATING COSTS FOR MAY AND JUNE 2003, AND DO PASS S.B. 258 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
On March 26, 2003, the committee heard S.B. 352. The bill designated a Nevada Cancer Institute. Senator Rawson, did you indicate the appropriation that was included could be deleted?
SENATE BILL 352: Designates Nevada Cancer Institute as official institute of State of Nevada and makes appropriation for creation of infrastructure needed to establish oral cancer and forensic institute. (BDR 40-650)
Senator Rawson:
Yes, that is correct. The designation is the important aspect of the bill.
Senator Raggio:
Would the Cancer Institute qualify for federal funding if the designation is made?
Senator Rawson:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Would the federal funding be available without the State appropriation?
Senator Rawson:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
I will accept a motion on S.B. 352.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND BY DELETING THE STATE APPROPRIATION AND DO PASS S.B. 352 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
The committee has received a letter from the Office of the Governor on the child welfare integration and future-funding plan (Exhibit Q).
Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources:
I was in another meeting earlier and did not hear the discussion on the issues.
Senator Raggio:
I see you put the future-funding plan details in the Executive Budget request. The last item on the second page says, “Determining if a ‘fixed funding formula’ can be agreed to in a future legislative session after each county has at least a full year of integration experience.” That seems to be a wide-open door. What does that statement mean?
Mr. Willden:
In the original discussion about the future-funding plan, the costs needed to be identified, and then a potential swap was suggested. The Governor was not comfortable with the long-term care swap and removed that suggestion.
Senator Raggio:
It was our understanding the division was not comfortable with that provision either. There was an uncertainty and concern that future long-term care costs would skyrocket.
Mr. Willden:
Yes, that is correct. There are significant unknowns related to future growth. We were trying to establish some agreed-upon formula that would last into the future in which the State and the counties would share costs. We have had difficulty actually determining the actual Child Welfare Integration costs because there is no previous experience to draw on. Washoe County is fully integrated and will have good data shortly on a full year of operation costs. Clark County has no data on costs. This is leaving the door open. When we have full-year costs we can come back and evaluate the full-year integration costs in Clark and Washoe Counties. Without saying there will be a formula, we can at least look at it and see if we can agree on a sharing formula for the costs. That decision cannot be made until we have 1 full year of costs.
Senator Raggio:
There is no percentage formula for sharing the costs.
Mr. Willden:
That is correct. There is no percentage formula for the next biennium.
Senator Raggio:
When A.B. No.1 of the 17th Special Session was processed, it was with the firm understanding that the State would not acquire additional costs if this integration program were implemented. Since that time the commitment has been eroded and that is what concerns this committee. There was a proviso at the time A.B. No.1 of the 17th Special Session was passed that the counties could back out of the agreement if they chose. We want a firm understanding of what the future liability will be for the State. If, after a full year of integration experience, the counties come back and say they do not have enough funding, the plan will already be in operation. What happens then?
Mr. Willden:
With or without integration, the Governor has a commitment to the staffing ratio of 1 to 28. That item alone is an increased cost for the system. We will be bringing the State’s under-funded system up to a certain funded level.
Senator Raggio:
However, the State would not be paying the higher salaries.
Mr. Willden:
Yes, that is correct. The second consideration is the foster care provider rate. Washoe County has a higher rate than the rest of the state. The Governor has said the State will only commit to a $21 daily rate. If the counties give higher COLAs for their employees and the rate is higher than what the State gives its employees, the State will not be funding those higher COLAs. The State will only fund the amount of COLA that the State gives its employees.
Senator Raggio:
The problem with that arrangement is that it will never end. What kind of a situation is the State creating? Is that policy used for any other county employees?
Mr. Willden:
I am not aware of any county employees with that arrangement. There would be a funding mechanism to pass through COLAs.
Senator Raggio:
You could have a situation in which a small group of county employees will get a pay raise and the rest of the county employees will not.
Mr. Willden:
If the counties do not give a COLA and the State does, no funds would be passed through to the counties.
Senator Raggio:
If the State gave a COLA and the counties did not, are you saying no funds would be passed through to the counties?
Mr. Willden:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
That is not the way the arrangement was presented here earlier today. How many employees are being transferred to the counties?
Mr. Willden:
The number is around 150.
Senator Raggio:
We need to make the arrangement clear. If the State gives a COLA at the State level, do only the transferred employees get the COLA and the other county employees do not get any COLA or pay raise?
Mr. Willden:
That is not my understanding of the arrangement.
Senator Raggio:
In other words, the State is only going to guarantee payment of a COLA if the county also grants one. If the amount of the State COLA increase is less than the one the county declares, the employees will receive payment from the State to make up the difference. Is that correct?
Mr. Willden:
Yes, that is my understanding. The arrangement is based on reimbursable expenses.
Senator Raggio:
Your explanation has clarified the situation. The committee would like the understanding in writing so future problems are not created by the same type of misunderstanding. With that understanding about the future-funding COLA liability for the State, I will accept a motion to close the five Division of Child and Family Services budgets that we heard earlier today. Staff will read the budgets into the record.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The budgets to be closed are:
HR, Children and Family Administration – Budget Page DCFS-1 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3145
Child Welfare Integration – Budget Page DCFS-11 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3142
HR, Child Care Services – Budget Page DCFS-25 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3149
HR, Youth Community Services – Budget Page DCFS-29 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3229
HR, Child Welfare Trust – Budget Page DCFS-39 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 645-3242
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNTS 101-3145, 101-3142, 101-3149, 101-3229, AND 645-3242 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF ASSURANCE DETAILING THE AGREED UPON FUTURE FUNDING PLAN FOR CHILD INTEGRATION.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Tiffany:
I am uncomfortable creating a “hybrid” employee. I do not believe the State has made these arrangements for any other employees.
Senator Raggio:
The State made the same arrangements with the Washoe County employees who are already engaged in implementing Child Welfare Integration.
Senator Rawson:
I believe it needs to be clear the people working on the Child Welfare Integration program in Washoe County are Washoe County employees. They are not “quasi-state” employees. The State is obligating itself to pay an equivalent amount for salary. There is a State obligation for the care of the children involved, but they can receive better care if the program is operated at a county level. The State is committing itself for the same costs it would incur if the program were operated by the State. We make the same type of arrangements in the juvenile justice program. This arrangement is not a unique model.
Senator Tiffany:
They may be county employees, but the State is paying their salaries.
Senator Raggio:
The State is reimbursing the employees for the pay differential.
Mr. Willden:
Yes, that is correct. The State will be passing through to the counties federal funds and some state funds. The counties also have to provide funds.
Senator Cegavske:
Do we have a fiscal note that gives the total amounts the State will be obligated to pay?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The table on page 7 of Closing List No. 14A gives the total costs recommended by the Governor to fund the child integration program. The total funding recommended in the Executive Budget is $47,739,393 for FY 2003-2004 and $54,206,954 for FY 2004-2005. The General Fund appropriation amount is $28,904,210 in FY 2003-2004 and $32,430,797 in FY 2004-2005. The General Fund comprises approximately 60.5 percent of the total costs in FY 2003-2004 and 62.1 percent in FY 2004-2005. The remaining funds, primarily federal, total $18,835,183 in FY 2003-2004, or 39.5 percent of the budget, and $19,776,157 in FY 2004-2005, or 37.9 percent of the budget.
Senator Raggio:
If we delay taking action on transferring the program to the counties, the State would still have to fund the program.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
I meant to emphasize that the future funding plan for the integration program needs to be monitored. I am going to ask for a Letter of Intent stating semiannual reports to the IFC are required. In particular, any discussions about the fixed funding formula in the future will be brought to the State’s attention. What is the committee’s schedule for tomorrow?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The committee will be hearing a number of bills, and a joint committee meeting is scheduled to go over budget differences.
Senator Raggio:
I urge the committee to look at all the bills that are still in this committee. Most of the bills require a General Fund appropriation. I request you advise me of any bills that can be indefinitely postponed. If you believe some of the bills are critical and have to be processed please advise me, because the committee needs to determine the total amount of funding required for the upcoming biennium.
Senator Cegavske:
Could staff provide us with the remaining bills?
Senator Raggio:
Yes, the staff will do that. By Friday, the committee should know the definitive amount of funds that have to be raised for the biennium. This meeting is adjourned at 11:41 a.m.
Judy Coolbaugh,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: