MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2016 MEETING OF THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE Las Vegas, Nevada
Chair Paul Anderson called a regular meeting of the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to order at 9:11 A.M. on February 11, 2016, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4100 of the Nevada Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Assemblyman Paul Anderson, Chair Senator Ben Kieckhefer, Vice-Chair Senator Pete Goicoechea Senator Mark Lipparelli Senator David Parks Senator Michael Roberson Senator Aaron Ford for Senator Smith Senator Joyce Woodhouse Assemblyman Derek Armstrong Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson Assemblywoman Irene Bustamante Adams Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton Assemblywoman Jill Dickman Assemblyman Chris Edwards Assemblyman John Hambrick Assemblyman Stephen Silberkraus Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson Assemblyman Randy Kirner Assemblyman James Oscarson Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle Assemblywoman Heidi Swank Assemblywoman Robin Titus
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Senator Debbie Smith
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU STAFF PRESENT: Rick Combs, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Cindy Jones, Fiscal Analyst, Assembly Mark Krmpotic, Fiscal Analyst, Senate Sarah Coffman, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Alex Haartz, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel Eileen O’Grady, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel Cheryl Harvey, Fiscal Analysis Division Secretary Carla Ulrych, Fiscal Analysis Division Secretary
EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Agenda Exhibit B: Meeting Packet – Volume I Exhibit C: Meeting Packet – Volume II Exhibit D: Meeting Packet – Volume III Exhibit E: Nevada Dispensary Association – Public Comment Exhibit F: Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Opinion to Senator Farley
A. ROLL CALL.
Rick Combs, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau and Secretary, Interim Finance Committee, called the roll; all members were present, except Senator Smith, who was excused.
B. PUBLIC COMMENT. Senator Tick Segerblom spoke in regard to Agenda Items E-35 and E-36 concerning the Medical Marijuana Program. He said the Division of Public and Behavioral Health was requesting authority to utilize funds to help expedite certain processes. He said the dispensary program was working well and medical marijuana products were being produced; however, the medical marijuana card system needed to be expedited. He said approximately 13,000 medical marijuana cards had been issued in Nevada compared to 100,000 cards in Arizona. Senator Segerblom said there were patients who had been diagnosed with diseases such as cancer who had to wait almost two months before they received their medical marijuana card.
Senator Segerblom indicated that Brenda Erdoes, Legal Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, recently provided her legal opinion concerning two issues that could expedite patient access to medical marijuana and related products. He encouraged the Committee to review the legal opinion and approve the division’s use of funds as requested. Senator Segerblom said the state earned revenue each time someone applied for a medical marijuana card or purchased medical marijuana. He encouraged the Committee to support Agenda Items E-35 and E-36 and to provide additional funds as needed, because the medical marijuana industry was new in Nevada and required the state’s support.
Phillip Peckman, Nevada Cancer Coalition, said he owned a licensed dispensary and cultivation facility. He expressed concern regarding the length of time patients had to wait to receive their medical marijuana cards.
2
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21, 2015, MEETING.
SENATOR KIECKHEFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21, 2015, MEETING.
ASSEMBLYMAN SILBERKRAUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson was not present for the vote.)
D. WORK PROGRAM REVISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NRS 353.220(5)(b). INFORMATIONAL ONLY – REQUIRED EXPEDITIOUS ACTION WITHIN 15 DAYS.
Cindy Jones, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said Agenda Item D included two work programs submitted for expeditious action within 15 days. She said both items related to federal funds for system enhancements for the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP) and the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS). The system modifications were necessary to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Security and Privacy Standards. Fiscal staff had no questions or concerns, and no action was required.
1. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $585,000 in federal Title XIX grant funds to complete the system modifications required to comply with the recently published Affordable Care Act Security and Privacy Policy and Guidance for the Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Payments to State Agencies category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM D.2. Work Program #C34578
2. Department of Health and Human Services - Welfare and Supportive Services - Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $585,000 in federal Title XIX grant funds and transfer of $65,000 from the Personnel Services category to the Health Care Reform (HCR) Eligibility Engine category to complete the system modifications required to comply with the recently published Affordable Care Act Security and Privacy Policy and Guidance for the Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the HCR Eligibility Engine category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM D.1. Work Program #C34553
3
E. APPROVAL OF GIFTS, GRANTS, WORK PROGRAM REVISIONS AND POSITION CHANGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 353 OF NRS.
The Committee expressed interest in hearing testimony on the following items: Agenda Items E-4, Office of the Attorney General; E-12, Department of Education; E-13, Department of Education; E-27, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), DHCFP; E-35, DHHS, Division of Public and Behavioral Health (DPBH); E-36, DHHS, DPBH; E-49, DHHS, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS); E-67, Department of Agriculture; E-68, Department of Agriculture; and Position Reclassifications, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Employment Security Division. Ms. Jones noted that Agenda Item E-54, Department of Public Safety, was withdrawn on February 11, 2016. Assemblyman Edwards requested further testimony on Agenda Item E-63, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Assemblywoman Titus requested further testimony on Agenda Item E-20, DHHS, Director’s Office. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams requested further testimony on Agenda Item E-1, Office of the Attorney General. Assemblyman Thompson requested further testimony on Agenda Item E-5, Office of the State Treasurer. Sarah Coffman, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, stated that Agenda Items E-41, DHHS, DPBH, and E-45, DHHS, DWSS, involved allocation of block grant funds and required a public hearing. Ms. Jones stated there were adjustments to Agenda Item E-25, DHHS, DHCFP. She said the adjustments reflected calculation errors and modifications to the anticipated caseload and costs associated with provider rate changes. Ms. Jones said category 12 was reduced from $596,834 to $575,135 and category 86 was reduced from $553,826 to $432,127. Ms. Jones stated there were adjustments to Agenda Item E-28, DHHS, DHCFP. She said Title XXI Federal Receipts was reduced from $12,435,479 to $10,607,593. Additionally, Reimbursement of Federal Expenses was increased from $832,828 to $958,484 and Transfer from IGT Account was reduced from $596,834 to $575,135. With regard to categorical expenditures, Ms. Jones said category 12, Program Medical Expenditures was reduced from $13,260,720 to $11,492,791. Ms. Jones said Fiscal staff, the Governor’s Finance Office Budget Division and the agency were in agreement with the technical adjustments to Work Programs C34633 and C34532.
4
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DICKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REMAINING WORK PROGRAM REVISIONS, INCLUDING THE NOTED ADJUSTMENTS TO AGENDA ITEMS E-25 AND E-28, AND POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS IN AGENDA ITEM E.
SENATOR FORD SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Office of the Attorney General - Violence Against Women Grants - FY 2016 - Addition of $1,025,811 in federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - Services Training Officers Prosecution (STOP) grant funds to provide a victim-centered response to crimes against women of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, dating violence, stalking, and sex trafficking throughout Nevada. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the STOP grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34275
Elizabeth Greb, Management Analyst and Grants Unit Supervisor, Office of the Attorney General (OAG), said Agenda Item E-1 requested approval to accept the federal Services Training Officers Prosecution (STOP) grant. She said the STOP grant was a formula grant received by the OAG each year from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVAW). Ms. Greb said the grant funds would be placed in budget account 1040, category 18, STOP Grant Administrative Costs, and then subgranted to government and nonprofit agencies statewide for projects that met the purposes of the STOP grant.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams said she appreciated the OAG’s efforts in the area of women’s violence, because it was an area of particular importance in her community. She asked how many subgrantees were in Southern Nevada.
Ms. Greb replied that the STOP grant was a statewide grant distributed 30 percent to Clark County, 30 percent to the Carson City/Reno/Sparks/Douglas area and 30 percent to the rural counties.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams said the population in Southern Nevada was significantly higher than the rest of the state. She asked how it was determined to provide only 30 percent of the STOP grant funds to Southern Nevada.
Ms. Greb replied that STOP grant funds were required to be distributed as equitably as possible throughout the state, especially in areas where there were no services or where populations were underserved.
5
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked the agency to provide a list of subgrantees in Southern Nevada, and Ms. Greb agreed. Ms. Greb said the next grant cycle would begin soon and subgrants would be awarded July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. She stated that the STOP grant was a competitive grant within the 30/30/30 guideline as previously noted. Ms. Greb said she could provide a current list of subgrantees and/or the new list when it became available.
Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson said, in regard to the mandate that STOP grant funds be provided to underserved areas, the money was meant to ensure that victims of sex trafficking, sexual violence, etc., had access to services regardless of their location. Although the services may not be robust, the STOP grant funds ensured there were some services available in underserved areas. Ms. Greb confirmed that was the intent of the funds. She reiterated that the funds were awarded through a competitive process, and government and nonprofit agencies were encouraged to apply. The state infrastructure for services pertaining to domestic, sexual or dating violence were fairly limited. Ms. Greb said the grant funds had probably funded all eligible agencies for years, regardless of location.
Assemblyman Oscarson said he was president of an organization that was awarded a subgrant; therefore, he would abstain from voting.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUSTAMANTE ADAMS MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-1.
SENATOR KIECKHEFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Oscarson abstained from voting.)
2. Office of the Attorney General - Violence Against Women Grants - FY 2016 - Addition of $203,149 in federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - Sexual Assault Services Provider (SASP) grant funds to improve sexual assault victim’s safety outcomes and increasing sexual assault offender accountability outcomes. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the SASP grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34300
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
3. Office of the Attorney General - Violence Against Women Grants - FY 2017 - Addition of $189,292 in federal Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) grant funds to add one new position to coordinate and oversee the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative federal grant program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Personnel Services category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively
6
approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34741. RELATES TO ITEM J.2.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
4. Office of the Attorney General - Tort Claim Fund - FY 2016 - Transfer of $1,098,690 from the Reserve Category to the General/Fleet Tort Claims category to provide adequate budget authority through fiscal year end. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the General/Fleet Tort Claims category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34304
Nick Trutanich, Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney General, said the purpose of Work Program C34304 was to transfer authority from category 86, Reserve, to category 15, General/Fleet Tort Claims, to allow the Torts Division to have sufficient authority available to pay tort claims that may arise in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. Mr. Trutanich said last calendar year the OAG worked diligently to resolve matters that were ready for resolution, including five cases that were approved by the Board of Examiners. In each of these matters, the events that triggered liability occurred prior to 2015 and in a few cases, as far back as five years.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the state’s excess liability insurance policy covered outside counsel fees. He said it was indicated that the OAG attempted to receive insurance coverage for a larger claim due to the significant cost of outside counsel fees.
Mr. Trutanich replied that the state’s excess liability policy had a retain limit of $2.0 million, which meant the insurance policy kicked in when settlements or claim expenditures reached or exceeded $2.0 million. He said outside counsel fees could also be paid through the excess liability policy. With regard to the significant fees in the San Francisco case, Mr. Trutanich said there was a claim made on the excess liability insurance policy in March or April 2015; however, the claim was denied. He said the OAG was undergoing efforts to recover a portion of the fees.
Senator Kieckhefer appreciated that the OAG was attempting to recoup the funds from the insurance policy.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DICKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-4.
SENATOR KIECKHEFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Office of the State Treasurer - College Savings Trust - FY 2016 - Addition of $50,000 in Non Cash Revenue for national marketing of Nevada's College Savings Program required by Putnam. Requires Interim Finance approval since
7
the amount added to the Putnam Marketing category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34412
With regard to the Nevada College Savings Program, Assemblyman Thompson asked why there was a reference to national marketing for a statewide program.
Linda English, Deputy State Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer, replied that the programs offered through the Office of the State Treasurer were actually national programs, which was common among programs in Nevada due to the relatively small population. In order to bring the highest quality, lowest cost programs to residents, the Office of the State Treasurer allowed companies like Putnam Marketing to market nationally and include specific benefits for Nevada residents. For example, in Nevada’s State Street Global Advisors Upromise 529 Plan, the provider allocated $100,000 toward a matching grant program that was applicable only in Nevada. Although the work program referenced a national marketing plan, Ms. English said the plan was also used for marketing in Nevada. She said the Office of the State Treasurer requested a revised contract with Putnam Marketing to include an annual minimum marketing commitment specifically in Nevada.
In response to a question from Assemblyman Thompson regarding the required annual minimum marketing commitment, Ms. English replied that the contract with Putnam Marketing had been revised to include a $50,000 marketing minimum per year in Nevada. She said Putnam Marketing typically spent more than $50,000 per year, but the revised contract required proof that the minimum requirement was met.
ASSEMBLYMAN THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-5.
SENATOR LIPPARELLI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Department of Administration - Enterprise Information Technology Services - Application Support - FY 2016 - Transfer of $145,673 from the Reserve category to the Information Services category to fund projected expenditures through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Information Services category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34572
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
7. Department of Administration - Enterprise Information Technology Services - Security - FY 2016 - Transfer of $66,127 from the Personnel category to the Information Services category to fund projected expenditures through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval
8
since the amount transferred to the Information Services category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34608
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
8. Department of Administration - Risk Management - Insurance and Loss Prevention - FY 2016 - Transfer of $50,000 from the Reserve for Workers’ Compensation category to the Insurance Premium Workers’ Compensation category, $121,130 from the Reserve category to the Auto Comprehensive and Collision Claims category, and $206,109 from the Reserve category to the Property Claims category to pay for anticipated claims through fiscal year 2016. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Property Claims category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34510
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
9. Department of Education - Student and School Support - FY 2016 - Addition of $130,716 in federal Advanced Placement Fee Payment grant funds to align federal and state authority to continue the payment of advanced placement test fees for eligible low income students. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Advanced Placement Fee Payment category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34455
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
10. Department of Education - Student and School Support - FY 2016 - Addition of $166,125 in federal Rural and Low Income Schools grant funds to provide funding to rural, high-poverty districts to assist them in improving instruction and academic achievement. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Rural and Low Income category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34457
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
11. Department of Education - Student and School Support - FY 2016 - Addition of $204,896 in federal Migrant Consortium grant funds to align state and federal authority for migrant education activities. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Migrant Consortium Administration category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34550
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
12. Department of Education - Account for Alternative Schools - FY 2016 - Addition of $2,930,546 in federal Charter School Program grant funds to support the expansion of the number of high-quality charter schools in Nevada and
9
provide financial assistance for the planning, program design and implementation of those charter schools. This request includes two new positions to provide support for this program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Nevada Charter School Program Aid to Schools category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.13. Work Program #C34690
Refer to testimony and motion for approval under Agenda Item E-13.
13. Department of Education - Account for Alternative Schools - FY 2017 - Addition of $4,966,444 in federal Charter School grant funds to support the expansion of the number of high-quality charter schools in Nevada and provide financial assistance for the planning, program design and implementation of those charter schools. This request includes two new positions to provide support for this program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Nevada Charter School Program Aid to Schools category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.12. Work Program #C34710
Mindy Martini, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education (NDE), said Agenda Items E-12 and E-13 requested approximately $8.0 million in new revenue for the federal Charter School Program (CSP) grant. She said the purpose of the grant was to expand the number of high-quality charter schools in Nevada and improve current charter schools. Ms. Martini said there were four objectives for the program:
• Increase the number of high-quality charter schools, especially those that serve at-risk students; • Improve student achievement in Nevada charter schools, particularly for underachieving students; • Promote the high-quality dissemination of Nevada charter school best practices to other schools; and • Strengthen the overall quality of the Nevada charter authorizing and administrative infrastructure.
Ms. Martini said the NDE planned to use 75 percent of the CSP grant funds to award subgrants to applicants to enable them to plan and implement high-quality charter schools. Of the remaining 25 percent, up to 5 percent would be used for administrative purposes, which would include the hiring of an Education Programs Professional and Grants and Projects Analyst to oversee and administer the CSP. She said 10 percent of the grant funds would be reserved for dissemination activities and the remaining 10 percent would be set aside for a Revolving Loan program.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Titus concerning out-of-state travel, Patrick Gavin, Director, State Public Charter School Authority, replied that the grant required NDE staff to travel to Washington, D.C. for federally-mandated
10 meetings related to the CSP. He said those travel assumptions were mandated to be built into the budget as a condition of the award.
Ms. Martini said, in addition to having two staff oversee and administer the program, the NDE was considering several contracts. One contract was for the National Center for Special Education Services to assess the needs and develop strategies to improve the capability of providing great services for students with disabilities within the charter schools. Additionally, the NDE was considering a contract with the National Association of Charter School Authorizers to strengthen the authorizing practices of the NDE. Ms. Martini said the NDE was also considering a third-party evaluator to perform evaluation-type elements.
Assemblywoman Titus asked if the $2.4 million would be used to open new charter schools or to improve current charter schools. Ms. Martini replied that there were three components to the CSP. The first component was the Planning and Implementation grants that would be used for charter schools that had a charter contract, as well as charter schools that had been operating less than three years. The funds would be used for planning activities such as recruiting and professional development for staff, and initial implementation activities including community outreach, equipment and education supplies and curriculum materials. Ms. Martini said the funds would also cover initial costs that could not be met by other state and local resources, such as accounting, attendance or registration systems. She said the key to planning and implementation was the implementation costs.
The second component to the CSP was the Dissemination grants, which totaled approximately $400,000 in each year of the 2015-17 biennium. The purpose of the Dissemination grants was to disseminate information to charter schools from other charter schools with a history of strong implementation to ensure that best practices were shared among schools.
Ms. Martini reiterated that 5 percent of the CSP grant funds would be used for administrative expenses, including two staff members and contracts with the National Center for Special Education Services and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
Ms. Martini said the final component of the CSP was the Revolving Loan program, which totaled approximately $800,000 during the 2015-17 biennium. She said the purpose of the Revolving Loan program was to complement a charter school’s current loan program to be used for expenses such as construction costs, that were not covered by the school’s existing loan. Ms. Martini said the NDE was currently working through the details of the Revolving Loan program with the federal government.
Assemblywoman Titus said a significant amount of funds were being provided by the federal government through the CSP grant and she asked if the NDE was
11 required to provide outcome data. Ms. Martini replied that Nevada had the CSP program eight years ago and an evaluation was a component of the grant. Ms. Martini said a third-party evaluator reviewed recipient satisfaction, as well as the impact of the Dissemination grants on the schools. In other words, the evaluation would determine whether the disseminated information had been applied by the schools; the overall improvement outcome of the school; and how many educational personnel were aware of the information received from the Dissemination grant.
Assemblyman Sprinkle said he supported the CSP grant and its goals. He said during the 2011 Legislative Session the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA) was established as a separate entity from the NDE with the idea that the SPCSA would be solely responsible for regulation and oversight of the charter schools. That being said, he asked why the NDE applied for the CSP grant. Although the SPCSA was ineligible to apply for the grant funds, he asked why the SPCSA did not work in conjunction with the NDE. Also, Assemblyman Sprinkle said the positions requested by the NDE would help with the dissemination of the grant program, however, it sounded as though the NDE intended to continue the program long term. He asked how the SPCSA was associated and what were the future goals of the program from the standpoint of the NDE.
Ms. Martini replied that the CSP had three separate components. She stated that the first component was the Harbor Master account approved by the 2015 Legislature, which supported and recruited quality charter schools. The second component was the oversight of the CSP grant, which awarded post-charter planning and implementation grants to help charter schools succeed. The final component was the authorizing authorities including the SPCSA, Achievement School District, Washoe County School District, Clark County School District and Carson City School District. Ms. Martini said the authorizing component was responsible for reviewing the grant application and monitoring how well the charter schools were complying with the regulations and laws of Nevada. She said, from the NDE’s perspective, the three components were seen as separate entities working together to create a high-quality charter school program in the state.
Senator Kieckhefer said, as he understood it, the SPCSA was not eligible to apply for the CSP grant, because the SPCSA was a local education agency under Nevada law and the grant was available to state education entities only, and Ms. Martini said that was correct.
Assemblyman Sprinkle wanted to ensure that the NDE would be working in conjunction with the SPCSA so that the process of creating a high-quality program in the state was seamless. Ms. Martini replied that the SPCSA had been and would continue to be an active participant in the process.
12
Mr. Gavin thought the CSP grant was a critical component of expanding the number of high-quality charter school seats statewide and the SPCSA was happy to partner with the NDE. Although the NDE was the eligible applicant for the grant, the SPCSA had been an active participant and provided input when possible based on the constraints of state and federal laws. Mr. Gavin said the NDE had an important role as the authorizer of charter school authorizers (with the exception of the SPCSA and the Achievement School District). He explained that school district or Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institutions that wanted to sponsor charter schools were required to go through the NDE approval and licensure process. Mr. Gavin said the CSP would support the dissemination of best authorizing practices across all authorizing types within Nevada, not just within the SPCSA. Although the SPCSA currently oversaw 23 charter schools, there were 16 charter schools that were overseen by school districts. Mr. Gavin said the goal was to ensure that charter schools sponsored by school districts were providing the same exemplary educational experience for their students as the SPCSA.
Assemblyman Thompson asked for the definition of a high-quality charter school. Mr. Gavin replied that the definition of a high-quality charter school, as set forth in federal law, was a four or five-star school that had held that designation for three or more years.
Assemblyman Thompson said there were mainly one and two-star public schools in his district. He noted that one of the objectives of the CSP was to reach students who were at the greatest risk of not meeting state academic standards. Considering that high-quality charter schools were four and five-star schools, he asked how that would work in a district such as his.
Mr. Gavin replied that one of the primary reasons the state applied for the CSP grant was the recognition that Nevada currently had a sector that was more representative of its urban periphery, suburbs and rural areas than it was of the urban core, in terms of where Nevada had the highest quality schools, which was a result of past policy decisions. Since the 2011 Legislative Session, the Legislature had been working to reverse some of those policy decisions, which was evident by the new schools that had opened in areas such as East Las Vegas that were replicating the high-quality model. Mr. Gavin said one of the critical components to attracting high-quality organizations to establish schools in Nevada’s urban core was to provide supplemental support and funds directed at high-need communities through means such as the CSP grant.
Assemblyman Thompson asked if the lottery system was in place for all charter schools. If so, how would at-risk students be reached through the CSP? Assemblyman Thompson explained there were many families in his district that wanted their children to attend charter schools; however, the lottery system selection was handled through a waiting list or by virtue of a sibling attending the school, rather than a need-based system.
13
Mr. Gavin said the provision for lotteries was mandated by both state and federal law for charter schools, so there was limited flexibility. The Nevada Revised Statutes permit schools to give admissions preference to students who meet a particular at-risk criteria; however, the requirement must be included in the school’s charter school application. Mr. Gavin indicated there was an increased number of schools in urban areas of other states that provided admissions preference to at-risk students. He said Nevada had several schools that provided admissions preference to at-risk students, typically charter schools that were authorized by school districts. Also, Equipo Academy, within the SPCSA portfolio, gave admissions preference based on zone and geography to ensure that it was drawing students from East Las Vegas.
Mr. Gavin referenced a bill sponsored by Senator Harris during the 2015 Legislative Session that required a minimum of 45 days public notification from when a charter school was scheduled to open in a particular community. The bill also mandated an additional 45 days for families to apply for admission to the new charter school. He said charter schools were strongly encouraged to provide even broader notification and application timelines than the required minimum. Mr. Gavin said the notification and application timelines were intended to ensure that as many people as possible were given ample time to apply to new charter schools.
Mr. Gavin noted that S.B. 509 (2015) permitted the Superintendent of Public Instruction to mandate a weighted lottery policy for charter schools that gave additional weight to at-risk students, pursuant to federal law. He said the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the form of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), also specifically provided for weighted lotteries within a charter school.
Assemblywoman Swank said she supported the CSP grant and thought the state could benefit from more grants. She asked if the two new positions would be eliminated when the grant ended or if they would become the state’s obligation.
Ms. Martini replied that the positions and expenses would be eliminated at the end of the grant period unless the state chose to retain the positions at its own expense. She said ideally the benefit of implementing the CSP would be cause for the state to continue funding the program.
Assemblywoman Dickman asked when the NDE anticipated a decision concerning the Revolving Loan program. She also asked how the remaining funds would be used if the Revolving Loan program was denied. Ms. Martini replied that the NDE was in constant communication with the federal government regarding the Revolving Loan program. If the program was denied then the remaining funds would be used to strengthen the planning, implementation or dissemination portion of the grant.
14
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked if the SPCSA could be a subgrantee to avoid duplication of effort. If not, how could duplication of effort be avoided?
Mr. Gavin replied there had been many conversations about the possibility of the SPCSA as a subgrantee; however, it appeared that was not feasible. He said, from the federal government’s perspective, it was about segregation of duties. Performing the authorizing function was very different from the responsibilities of a state education agency. He explained that, per the No Child Left Behind Act, the responsibility of the NDE was to monitor the performance of charter school authorizers and ensure a standardized method for measuring performance. Mr. Gavin noted the statute changed as part of the ESSA and in future years there may be opportunities for other types of entities to apply for the CSP grant.
In response to a question from Senator Kieckhefer concerning the Nevada Charter School Special Education Consortia, Ms. Martini replied that she did not have information on the consortia; however, she would provide the information to the Committee. She noted, however, that one of the pieces of the CSP grant was to increase services to special education students in the charter schools.
ASSEMBLYMAN KIRNER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS E-12 AND E-13.
SENATOR ROBERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
14. Department of Agriculture - Registration and Enforcement - FY 2016 - Transfer of $68,412 from the Reserve category to the Equipment category to fund the replacement of a nitrogen/sulfur analyzer for registration and certification of commercial fertilizers. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Equipment category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34559
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
15. Department of Agriculture - Nutrition Education Programs - FY 2016 - Addition of $11,651,049 in federal School Lunch Program Grant funds to support the increase in school lunch meal counts. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the School Lunch Program category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34591
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
15
16. Department of Agriculture - Nutrition Education Programs - FY 2016 - Addition of $4,363,224 in federal School Breakfast Program Grant funds to support the increase in school breakfast meal counts. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the School Breakfast Program category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34605
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
17. Department of Agriculture - Nutrition Education Programs - FY 2016 - Transfer of $31,794 from the Reserve category to the Operating category to fund projected expenditures through fiscal year end. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Operating category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34604
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
18. Department of Business and Industry - Housing - Weatherization - FY 2016 - Transfer of $190,231 from the Reserve category to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEA) Subgrants category and $29,840 from the Reserve category to the Governor's Office of Energy Senior Energy Program category to properly align funds balanced forward from fiscal year 2015. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the LIHEA category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34603. WITHDRAWN 1-26-16.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
19. Governor's Office of Economic Development - FY 2016 - Addition of $200,000 in federal State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) grant funds to enhance the number of small businesses exporting goods and increase the value of those exports. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the STEP category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C33875
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
20. Department of Health and Human Services - Director's Office - Consumer Health Assistance - FY 2016 - Addition of $42,000 in Per Member Per Month Fees transferred as a subgrant from the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange for temporary navigators to assist with health insurance outreach and enrollment through April 30, 2016. Requires Interim Finance approval since the cumulative amount added to the Access to Care Ombudsman category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34631
Assemblywoman Titus asked if $42,000 in per member, per month fees was the correct figure.
16
Dena Schmidt, Deputy Director, Director’s Office, DHHS, replied that the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange (SSHIX) charged a per member, per month fee and a portion of those fees were subgranted to other agencies to perform navigation activities. Ms. Schmidt explained that the $42,000 was an extension of a current subgrant to continue outreach activities.
Assemblywoman Titus inquired about the number of members in the SSHIX. Ms. Schmidt said she did not have the information but would provide it to the Committee.
Assemblywoman Dickman asked the amount of the per member, per month fee. Ms. Schmidt said she did not have the information but would provide it to the Committee.
Senator Kieckhefer thought the per member, per month fee was 3 percent of the premium fee and that the fee covered the overhead for the SSHIX.
Senator Kieckhefer asked why navigators were needed through April 30, 2016, if open enrollment was closed.
Janise Wiggins, Governor’s Consumer Health Advocate, Director’s Office, DHHS, said, although open enrollment closed on January 31, 2016, some people still may require assistance with enrollment in qualified health plans through the SSHIX or Medicaid. She explained that navigators provided assistance to individuals with special enrollment periods due to loss of coverage, or individuals who required assistance adding or removing dependents from their plan.
Senator Kieckhefer replied that the Office of Consumer Health Assistance had navigators who performed those specific duties on a full-time basis. He asked how individuals needing to enroll in the health exchange would receive assistance if health exchange navigators would be eliminated after April 30, 2016.
Ms. Wiggins replied that the April 30, 2016, date was established by the SSHIX. In preparation for the new grant cycle, the SSHIX offered an extension to several grantees while the exchange prepared for the next grant cycle. Ms. Wiggins said the extension would fill the gap to avoid laying off navigators for three months while waiting for the new grant monies to begin, which was May 1, 2016.
In response to a question from Senator Kieckhefer, Ms. Wiggins said the Office of Consumer Health Assistance would apply for a grant from the SSHIX that would begin May 1, 2016.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the grants provided by the SSHIX were made available through the per member, per month fees targeted to support the navigation infrastructure on a year-round basis, and Ms. Wiggins said that was correct.
17
ASSEMBLYMAN OSCARSON MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-20. SENATOR KIECKHEFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Goicoechea and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
21. Department of Health and Human Services - Aging and Disability Services - Federal Programs and Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $1,840,815 in federal Balancing Incentive Program grant funds transferred from the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy to support continued enhancements to the case management system designed to improve access to long-term services and support. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Balancing Incentive Payments Program category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.29. Work Program #C34655
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
22. Department of Health and Human Services - Aging and Disability Services - Desert Regional Center - FY 2016 - Addition of $860,211 in federal Title XIX Waiver grant funds to support an increase in the Residential Placement/Supported Living Arrangement caseload through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Resident Placement category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34620
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
23. Department of Health and Human Services - Aging and Disability Services - Rural Regional Center - FY 2016 - Transfer of $30,416 from the Transfer to Rural Clinics-Rent category to the Operating category and $12,359 from the Transfer to Rural Clinics-Rent category to the Reserve for Reversion category due to the relocation of the Elko office. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Operating category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. RELATES TO ITEM E.24. Work Program #C34506
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
24. Department of Health and Human Services - Aging and Disability Services - Rural Regional Center - FY 2017 - Transfer of $37,043 from the Transfer to Rural Clinics-Rent category to the Operating category and $5,731 from the Transfer to Rural Clinics-Rent category to the Reserve for Reversion category due to the relocation of the Elko office. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Operating category exceeds 10 percent of the
18
legislatively approved amount for that category. RELATES TO ITEM E.23. Work Program #C34592
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
25. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Intergovernmental Transfer Program - FY 2016 - Addition of $143,008 in Managed Care Organization (MCO) Enhanced Rates revenue and transfer of $453,826 from the Reserve category to the Transfer to BA 3178 - Nevada Check Up category to cover a projected shortfall in program expenditures due to caseload increases, the implementation of the Enhanced MCO Capitated Rate to Safety Net Providers for targeted services, and the required transfer to the Division of Public and Behavioral Health for immunization expenditures for children enrolled in the Nevada Check Up Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since that amount added to the Transfer to BA 3178 - Nevada Check Up category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.28. Work Program #C34633
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
26. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Administration - FY 2016 - Transfer of $821,323 from the Reserve for Resident Protection category to the Civil Monetary Penalty Payments category to allow the division to transfer funds to the Division of Public and Behavioral Health to support the Comprehensive Resident Safety and Prevention Program, an interdisciplinary quality improvement initiative designed to assist nursing facilities in providing individualized, person-centered care and improving fall-related care processes and outcomes. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Civil Monetary Penalty Payments category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.32. Work Program #C34533
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
27. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $185,882 in federal Title XIX grant funds and $20,654 in Vital Records fees transferred from the Division of Public and Behavioral Health to support the Health Information Technology (HIT) project to develop the infrastructure for health information technology in Nevada and develop a sustainable platform for collaboration of health information data between all public and private stakeholders. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the HIT grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34666
Marta Jensen, Acting Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP), DHHS, said the purpose of Work Program C34666 was to recoup available funds to develop the infrastructure for a Health Information Technology (HIT) project in Nevada and develop a platform for collaboration between the
19 various health partners throughout the state. By implementing an HIT plan throughout the state, the division would have the ability to analyze health information available through various partners, both public and private, which would help evaluate and analyze the data and improve the health of Nevadans.
Ms. Jensen said, through a separate initiative, staff worked with public and private stakeholders and it became clear that each entity had unique health-related data, but there was no method of combining the data to view it from a holistic perspective. Initially, the group created a plan to develop the infrastructure to access demographic and health-related data, which was in disparate locations in various formats, and bring that data together. The plan would utilize the data to present information in a useful way to providers, payers and patients for purposes of improving health by:
• Creating a health analytics tool to measure population health and improvement; • Promoting increased availability and exchange of patient health information through a statewide health information exchange (HIE); and • Providing technical and business support to providers who are adopting or implementing either Electronic Health Records (EHR) or an HIE.
Ms. Jensen said the work program requested the necessary authority to fund a full-time position to serve as the project manager to expand HIT in Nevada and build a mechanism for HIE. She said the position would be funded through September 30, 2021, with 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds. Work Program C34666 transfers the 10 percent state share from the DPBH through its Health Statistics and Planning account.
Senator Kieckhefer said that in 2011 he was a member of a subcommittee that reviewed the original HIT bill created as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (S.B. 43, 2011). Subsequently, a state health exchange was created, which failed. Legislation was revised during the 2015 Legislative Session to instruct the Director of DHHS to work with an individual exchange (S.B. 48, 2015). Senator Kieckhefer said the state currently had a single health exchange; however, there were significant gaps regarding who was feeding data into the exchange from a provider perspective.
Dena Schmidt, Deputy Director, Director’s Office, DHHS, said part of the division’s efforts were to increase the utilization of the state’s HIE. She said the state also had several claims’ databases as well as state registries. There was a general agreement among stakeholders that all health-related information needed to be assembled into one centralized location, or at least have a tool that would allow all of the information to be analyzed at the state level. Ms. Schmidt said having health-related data easily accessible would allow for more effective decision making through the legislative process, grant-making processes, and public health initiatives. Overall, the data would provide a better understanding
20 of population health trends. Also, the data would help Medicaid have more accountability in its Managed Care Organization and service structure.
Senator Kieckhefer thought the mission of the division was to build out the input and aggregate data, and collect and utilize it for population health purposes.
Julia Peek, Deputy Division Administrator, DPBH, DHHS, replied that the HIE was one tool used for the HIT. For example, the HIE was being used for Syndromic Surveillance. The division received HL-7 messages from hospitals through the HIE. Ms. Peek said the HIT Project Manager would have the necessary technical skills to provide a better understanding of the HIT arena and how to obtain the HL-7 messages and other data, such as population health.
Senator Kieckhefer said Nevada’s State Health Care Innovation Plan (SHCIP) was an initial step in what would be a very large overhaul of Nevada’s healthcare system, and Ms. Schmidt agreed. He asked if the division anticipated the new HIT Project Manager would put together a platform that would require a state-funded HIT system. Ms. Schmidt indicated the HIT Project Manager and the SHCIP would help identify the appropriate actions and technology solutions required to overhaul the state’s healthcare system.
Senator Kieckhefer said approximately $3.5 to $5.0 million was previously spent on HIEs and he asked if anything that resulted from those efforts would be beneficial. Ms. Schmidt replied that the HIT Operational and Strategic Plan had been used as a baseline in recent efforts. She said the actual system resources and funding could not be reallocated, because there was already an existing HIE in the state; however, the division was partnering its efforts with that existing HIE.
In response to a question from Senator Kieckhefer regarding a technology investment request (TIR), Ms. Jensen replied that a TIR could be expected during the 2019 Legislative Session at the earliest.
Assemblyman Sprinkle said the length of time it would take to improve Nevada’s healthcare system was frustrating; however, he supported the division’s continued efforts.
Assemblyman Sprinkle said one of the key components to developing an HIT infrastructure was gaining provider input and participation. He said the incentives had not been sufficient enough for providers to update their own infrastructure within their offices or facilities, and the division did not have enough authority to enhance provider participation. Assemblyman Sprinkle asked how the division planned to increase provider participation.
Ms. Peek replied that she had participated in the data portion of the State Innovation Model and there had been provider input from emergency medical services, hospitals and private practices on the SHCIP plan. Also, HealtHIE Nevada, the HIE
21 developed by providers, was currently utilized by the division. Ms. Peek said the division was directing a lot of its efforts at providers, such as improving the processes for vital records. She thought the overall goal was automation that would reduce duplication of processes.
Assemblyman Sprinkle asked about other avenues available to help incentivize providers to participate in the program, because he thought it was the core foundation of what was trying to be accomplished.
Ms. Peek said, from the public health perspective, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided the incentive as part of meaningful use to receive the additional reimbursement. She said one of the challenges the division faced was the inability to accept HL-7 messages, but she thought the HIT Project Manager would help resolve that problem.
Ms. Schmidt said there was no authority to provide incentives from an HIE perspective; however, there was a new platform and the HIE was working strategically to improve that platform to add more value for providers in order to increase participation.
Assemblyman Thompson asked if a vendor had been selected. Ms. Peek replied that there would not be a vendor per se. She said there was one HIE that could accept HL-7 messages, so it was being used to transmit data into the public health registries. Ms. Peek said the division would use the request for proposal process to select a vendor if a secure File Transfer Protocol, data warehouse or “cloud” environment was necessary.
Assemblyman Thompson asked if the goal was to eliminate some of the other systems after a centralized system was in place. Ms. Peek replied that the goal was to decrease the number of systems to decrease duplication of efforts by providers; however, she said it was a difficult process to combine several systems into one.
Assemblyman Thompson thought the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) would be a helpful reference tool, because it was an evidence-based structure. He encouraged the division to speak with the vendor to gain a better understanding of the process of building the system. Ms. Peek thanked Assemblyman Thompson for his suggestion. She said the division had consulted with the HMIS vendor.
Assemblywoman Titus said as a healthcare provider she found the lack of communication between the systems frustrating. The HL-7 interface had not transpired as promised. For example, she found it difficult to interface with the state system to report immunizations. Additionally, she was informed the vendor charged an additional cost for the electronic medical records system to communicate with the state system.
22
Assemblywoman Titus noted that vital statistics and signing of death certificates were working well as of January 1, 2016, and she thanked whomever was responsible for resolving the matter.
Ms. Peek agreed with Assemblywoman Titus that the HL-7 messaging system was complicated. The division was hopeful the HIT Program Manager could bridge the gap and successfully make the provider input and data analysis systems communicate.
Assemblyman Oscarson said he recently spoke with Ms. Jensen regarding the process of combining multiple health information systems and how important it was for the state. For example, the electronic immunization program allowed easier access to immunization records. However, he said the information was only as accurate as the people who entered the data. Assemblyman Oscarson encouraged the division to continue the stakeholder meetings with providers and others who were responsible for entering data. He appreciated and supported the division’s efforts and looked forward to seeing it come to fruition.
Cindy Jones, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, indicated the division requested an adjustment to the work program.
Bonnie Long, Administrative Services Officer, DHCFP, DHHS, replied there was a change to the step of the position being requested; therefore, the amount of the work program was reduced. She said Federal Title XIX funds were reduced to $167,065, the transfer from the DPBH was reduced to $18,562, category 1 was reduced to $26,270 and category 73 was reduced to $159,357.
Senator Kieckhefer said during the 2015 Legislative Session, legal counsel advised that fees collected and designated for specific use in statute could not be used for purposes outside that specified use. He asked if the fees under the new allocation would conform with the specified use for those funds.
Ms. Peek replied that the HIT Project Manager would initially focus on the CMS meaningful use data for public health. The division had to identify the specialized registries that authorized providers were allowed to use, such as birth and death registries and the birth defects registry, all of which were focused in the vital records category and could be applied toward meeting meaningful use. Ms. Peek reiterated there was duplicate entry for some systems such as the birth registry. The division hoped to streamline the birth registry by pulling HL-7 messages from electronic medical records to reduce the amount of data hospitals were required to enter. She said that another efficiency was in the area of the birth defects registry. She explained that staff had to visit hospitals to manually obtain birth defect information; however, the registry would greatly improve if the process was automated. Ms. Peek said it might be possible to
23
include the birth defects registry as another module within the state’s Web-enabled Vital Records Registry System used for the birth registry.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the duties of the new HIT Program Manager would align with NRS 440 and the approved use of Vital Statistics and Vital Records fees. Ms. Peek confirmed that the position would be used to directly improve the functions of the Office of Vital Records registry.
ASSEMBLYMAN OSCARSON MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-27. SENATOR KIECKHEFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
28. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Nevada Check Up Program - FY 2016 - Addition of $12,435,479 in federal Title XXI grant funds, $832,828 in Reimbursement of Expenses funds, and $596,834 in funds transferred from the Intergovernmental Transfer Program account to cover projected expenditure increases due to higher than anticipated caseloads, the implementation of the Enhanced Managed Care Organization Capitated Rate to Safety Net Providers for targeted services, and required transfers to the Division of Public and Behavioral Health for immunization expenditures for children enrolled in the Nevada Check Up Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Program Medical Expenditures category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEMS E.25 and 30. Work Program #C34532
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
29. Department of Health and Human Services - Health Care Financing and Policy - Nevada Medicaid, Title XIX - FY 2016 - Addition of $4,435,129 in federal Balancing Incentive Program (BIP) Reinvestment funds to cover BIP expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the BIP Reinvestment category exceeds $75,000 RELATES TO ITEM E.21. Work Program #C34187
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
30. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Immunization Program - FY 2016 - Addition of $727,784 in federal Title XXI grant funds transferred from the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy to fund projected vaccine costs for children enrolled in the Nevada Check Up Program through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance
24
approval since the amount added to the Vaccines (Rural) category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.28. Work Program #C34521
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
31. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Women, Infant, and Children Food Supplement - FY 2016 - Addition of $88,494 in Women, Infant and Children (WIC) grant funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture which includes a Breastfeeding Performance Bonus Award in recognition of the agency's achievement in improving breastfeeding rates among WIC participants. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the WIC Breastfeeding Program category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34466
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
32. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Health Care Facilities Regulation - FY 2016 - Addition of $821,323 in Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) funds transferred from the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy for the implementation of the Comprehensive Resident Safety and Prevention (CRiSP) program, an interdisciplinary quality improvement initiative designed to assist nursing facilities in providing individualized, person-centered care and improving fall-related care processes and outcomes. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the CRiSP-CMP Contract category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.26. Work Program #C34531
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
33. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Public Health Preparedness Program - FY 2016 - Addition of $509,542 in federal Public Health Emergency Preparedness grant funds and $41,707 in Hospital Preparedness Program grant funds to promote and protect the health of all Nevadans and visitors to the state through prevention of disease, injury, disability, early detection of threats to public health, and response to natural and human-caused events. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Public Health Emergency Preparedness category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34647
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
34. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Biostatistics and Epidemiology - FY 2016 - Addition of $61,000 in federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Education Program (SNAP ED) funding transferred from the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) to oversee data collection and analysis to evaluate the nutrition and health status of
25
Nevadans. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Transfer from DWSS-SNAP ED category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34379
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
35. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Medical Marijuana Establishments - FY 2016 - Addition of $3,173,583 in Establishment Licenses and Fees funds anticipated through the end of the fiscal year, adds eight new contract positions to meet medical marijuana establishments workload obligations, and increases expenditure authority projected through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Dispensaries and Establishments category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34479
This item was heard in conjunction with Agenda Item E-36. Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E-36.
Joe Pollock, Deputy Division Administrator, DPBH, DHHS, said Nevada’s Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was still in its infancy and mistakes had been made. For example, the estimated staffing needs for completion and review of Medical Marijuana Establishment (MME) applications were inadequate. Therefore, the division hired contracted staff in an effort to meet mandated activities. He said the division had maintained contract staff as the workload increased and as a result, the MMP was facing over expenditures of funds in four categories. Mr. Pollock said Work Program C34479 proposed to realign expected revenue and increase expenditure authority by $464,000. The funds would be used to maintain current contract staff and hire additional contract staff needed to conduct plan reviews and opening inspections for approximately 175 MMEs that were expected to open by the end of FY 2016. He said the expected revenue between now and the end of FY 2016 was estimated at $3.5 million, which would be placed in reserves and earmarked for the state Distributive School Account (DSA). Assemblyman Oscarson said, as he understood it, MME inspections had fallen behind, which delayed issuance of MME licenses. He asked if the licensing fee was paid upon licensure. Mr. Pollock replied that MME applicants paid $5,000 at the time of application. Upon approval, a certificate number was issued for the MME; however, the certificate was considered provisional until construction of the building was complete, as well as local building code inspections and the opening inspection. He said the MME was invoiced for the remainder of the certificate fee upon completion of the opening inspection. The MME could open for business when the certificate fee was paid in full. Mr. Pollock said 385 certificates had been issued for MMEs, 72 of which were currently open for business. He said
26
175 MMEs anticipated opening for business by June 2016 based on responses to a renewal registration questionnaire sent to licensees. Assemblyman Oscarson asked if a lack of personnel was contributing to a delay in opening inspections for MMEs. Mr. Pollock replied that the division had been able to perform inspections upon request. He said the division had even performed preliminary walk-through inspections for several MMEs to expedite the process. Mr. Pollock said the main concern was whether the division would have sufficient staffing to respond to MME inspection requests in April, May and June 2016, when inspections were expected to increase significantly. He did not think the division could provide timely responses to inspections during that timeframe based on current staffing levels. He said any delay in the opening of an MME caused the establishment to lose money, because they were paying personnel and building costs but not earning income. The division wanted to hire and train additional staff before the number of inspections began to increase. Assemblyman Oscarson asked if the division was certain building codes and other requirements were being met by the MMEs that anticipated opening in the next several months, and Mr. Pollock said that was correct. He said once staff was trained the division would be prepared to handle the April through June rush of inspection requests. When the number of inspections began to decrease, staffing levels would be reduced. Assemblyman Sprinkle asked how complaints were generated and who submitted complaints. He also asked why there had been a considerable increase in complaints. Lastly, he asked about the process after a complaint was verified by the division. Mr. Pollock replied that reasons for complaints varied. For example, there had been grievances filed by one establishment against another and members of the public had complained about being denied access to an MME. In addition to responding to complaints, an inspector was also required to witness destruction of product if lab results indicated product was tainted, which took time away from inspection duties and plan reviews. Mr. Pollock said the division had not anticipated such a large number of complaints, and the number of complaints and complaint inspections would only increase as the number of operational MMEs increased. Chad Westom, Health Bureau Chief, DPBH, DHHS, said additional complaints included MME employees selling in quantities larger than allowable by law; product sales to patients prior to division approval; and inventory that was logged incorrectly. Also, the division worked with law enforcement regarding alleged drug transactions and stolen plants. Mr. Westom explained that the division was obligated per NRS and NAC to investigate all complaints. Based on projections, he confirmed that the number of complaints was higher than anticipated. Assemblyman Sprinkle said it was still unclear why there had been a dramatic increase in complaints. He asked if the complaints were justified and legitimate.
27
Mr. Westom replied that the division did not have data determining how many complaints had been substantiated; however, a significant number of complaints were found to be valid upon inspection and the MME was required to provide corrective action. He said there were a number of ongoing complaints and the division was handling them as quickly as possible with limited staff. Assemblywoman Titus said when the discussion first began today she was under the impression the division needed additional contract staff to handle the MME applications. However, then the division indicated that MMEs were open for business and division staff was experiencing an increased workload with complaints, inspections and product destructions. She was concerned that eight additional contract staff would be an insufficient amount to handle the workload as additional MMEs opened later in the year. Mr. Pollock replied that the division had a contract inspector through the end of FY 2016. Along with its FTEs, the division had been capable of handling the workload based on the current number of MMEs, because the establishment openings had been spaced out over a one-year period. He said, although the division was unable to handle complaints as timely as desired, every complaint was reviewed upon receipt. Mr. Pollock explained that in April, May and June of 2016 the division expected a significant increase in the opening of new MMEs, which was why there was a need for additional contract staff. The division thought the eight additional contract positions would be sufficient to handle opening inspections. The division would have a better indication of the number of routine inspections after the rush of MME openings. He said there would be a large number of routine inspections between April and June each year if the division maintained the 12-month mandate. Mr. Pollock said the division hoped to space the timing of routine inspections to be more evenly distributed throughout the year. He said the division would need to maintain some of the contract inspectors, but ultimately, the division would strive to determine the appropriate amount of staff and include that number in the 2017-19 budget. Assemblywoman Titus requested a status report of the number and type of complaints received by the division. She said the information would help the Legislature anticipate new direction and regulatory processes for MMEs. Chair Anderson said he understood the need for additional staff during times of increased workload. He asked if inspectors were paid through industry fees or General Funds. Mr. Pollock replied that the MMP was funded through industry fees; however, the fees had not been received as quickly as anticipated. He said the division would collect the majority of outstanding certificate fees within the next several months. The division would maintain enough funds to begin FY 2017 and the remainder of the funds would be earmarked for the DSA. Chair Anderson said it seemed that contract staff were a stopgap measure until the industry became fully functional and could support FTEs. Mr. Pollock said that was correct. He said, because the division underestimated the workload, the
28 number of FTEs was also underestimated. Contract staff were a temporary fix until the division determined an accurate number of FTEs. Chair Anderson thanked Mr. Pollock and the division for their efforts. He appreciated that the division recognized that impediments came at a cost to MMEs and patients alike. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams inquired about the provisional certificates and registration renewal fees for MMEs. Mr. Pollock replied that 72 MMEs were operational and certificate fees had been paid in full. Initially, the DPBH determined that certificate fees would not be collected until the establishment opened for business, which meant there had not been a reliable source of income to maintain the MMP. Mr. Pollock said the division was at the mercy of establishments becoming operational and bringing in revenue; however, some MMEs were waiting to see how the industry performed before opening for business. He said, if the 175 MMEs opened as projected during April through June, the division would collect the bulk of the fee revenue then. Mr. Pollock said renewal fees were due one year from when a certificate is issued. The division would begin collecting renewal fees beginning FY 2017. He said renewal fees varied between $1,000 to $5,000 depending on the type of establishment. Mr. Pollock explained that certificates were not issued as a provisional certificate necessarily; however, the certificate was deemed provisional, because by law, all the requirements had not been met. The final certificate is issued after the MME passed their opening inspection. Mr. Pollock said if the entire fee had been collected at the time each certificate was issued then the renewal registrations would already be occurring. He said the division was working to correct the situation as far as fee collections were concerned. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked if the division anticipated that all 175 MMEs would be ready to open within the next several months. Mr. Pollock said that was correct. He said the division notified MME licensees that contract staff would be hired based on their responses to the renewal registration questionnaire; therefore, it was in their best interest to provide accurate information to the division. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams appreciated the division’s proactive approach. She asked about the contingency plan if the number of MMEs scheduled to open April through June was less than anticipated. Mr. Pollock replied that the division would reduce the number of contract staff if the workload was less than expected. Additionally, contract staff had a tendency to be transitory; therefore, it was unlikely that all eight contract staff would still remain by April. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams said she was concerned about spending funds in anticipation of a large number of MMEs becoming operational. She
29 asked if there was a trigger mechanism to fall back on to avoid supporting four months of contract positions and not utilizing the money wisely. Mr. Pollock replied that the division was in constant communication with industry, monitoring progress and receiving updates. He said NAC required that a MME open within 18 months of issuance of certificate. The division indicated to industry that certificates would not be revoked if the MME licensee was making significant progress toward becoming operational. He said the division recognized there were always unforeseen circumstances and obstacles that could delay the process; however, if the division became aware that a MME was not taking steps to open, the division would revoke the certificate. Mr. Pollock said that certificate would then become available during the new application process in August 2016. Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked for the renewal registration questionnaire and responses, as well as the complaint information requested by Assemblywoman Titus, because it would help the Committee make informed decisions. In response to a question from Assemblywoman Carlton regarding fees, Mr. Pollock said the fees, excluding collection times, were established in the NRS. He noted there was no mention of provisional and final certificates in the NRS. He thought the fees should have been collected upon issuance of each certificate; however, that did not transpire. The division initially elected not to collect fees until the MME opened for business, which was a logical train of thought, because it would be difficult to pay fees in the absence of income. Mr. Pollock said the division was revising the regulations to establish a fee collection schedule. Assemblywoman Carlton asked if the fee collection schedule would require paying a portion at the beginning and end of the process. She stated that when she worked as a waitress she was required to obtain certain credentials before she could work. She said MMEs that had paid their fees were supporting their competitors until the competitors were operational. Assemblywoman Carlton said it appeared MME licensees were holding on to certificates and she wanted to ensure they were not taking advantage of the time situation. She thought they should be as financially invested as their competitors. Assemblywoman Carlton inquired about the revised regulations. Mr. Pollock replied that the revised regulations would mandate that all certificate fees were due July 1, but no later than July 15, each fiscal year. He said any establishment that had not opened would be required to pay its certificate fee within that timeframe. The certificate renewal fee would be due between July 1 and July 15 of the following year, regardless if the establishment was open for business. Mr. Pollock indicated the certificate would be revoked if the establishment was not open by July 1, 2017. He stated that if an establishment opened and paid its certificate fee in March 2016, for example, then the certificate would be due for renewal in March 2017; however, the division would
30
prorate the renewal fee to extend the certificate through July 1, 2017. He said fees paid during the fiscal year would be included in the budget and DSA for the same fiscal year. Mr. Pollock said NRS permitted the division to bill up to the amount of the certificate fee for the renewal fee. Assemblywoman Carlton requested a comparison of how the division was handling things currently versus the proposed regulation revisions. She was concerned about the investigation process and asked if the cost to remediate was paid using reserves or at the expense of the MME itself. Assemblywoman Carlton thought a comparison would answer a lot of questions before the regulations were presented to the Legislative Commission.
36. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Marijuana Health Registry - FY 2016 - Transfer of $208,147 from the Reserve category to the Operating category, $110,064 from the Reserve category to the Medical Marijuana Operating category, $5,902 from the Reserve category to the Information Services category, and $44,162 from the Reserve category to the Division Cost Allocation category to fund projected expenditures through the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Operating category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34484
Joe Pollock, Deputy Division Administrator, DPBH, DHHS, said the Marijuana Health Registry (MHR) Program, similar to the Medical Marijuana Program, was still in its infancy. Likewise, the estimated number of administrative staff needed to complete the Medical Marijuana Patient Registration (MMPR) application review and approval process proved to be inadequate. He explained that NRS provided a 30-day MMPR application review and approval period; however, the division had to hire contract staff, because it had been unable to maintain the requirement. Mr. Pollock said contract staff reduced the review and approval average timeframe from 60 days to approximately 21 days. However, the division was facing over expenditure in four categories as a result of hiring contract staff.
Mr. Pollock said there were currently 14,000 medical marijuana cardholders in the State of Nevada. The State of Colorado topped out at approximately 2 percent of its population, and if that held true for Nevada, there would be approximately 60,000 medical marijuana cards. He said the division received approximately 300 applications per week. As indicated, the average review and approval time was 21 days; however, industry was asking the division to reduce the timeframe to less than 10 days. Mr. Pollock said the division continued to work on streamlining the process without adding additional staff.
Mr. Pollock said Work Program C34484 proposed to realign expenditure authority by transferring $368,000 from reserves to cover expenditures. He said the division would continue utilizing contract staff, therefore, additional staff would not be necessary. At the request of industry, the division continued to look
31 for additional ways to reduce the application processing time. Both the division and industry continued to contribute ideas to expedite the process. Mr. Pollock said the work program would allow the division to maintain its average 21-day processing period.
Chair Anderson asked how the current contract staff were funded. Mr. Pollock replied that the division was using funds established in its budget. He said those expenditure categories were not yet overextended; however, if the work program was not approved then contract staff would have to be eliminated to avoid overextending expenditures. Mr. Pollock noted the mandated 30-day maximum processing time would not be feasible without the additional contract staff.
Chair Anderson asked if the division was requesting additional authority to replenish resources for contract staff which had been expended, and Mr. Pollock said that was correct.
Assemblyman Oscarson said the application processing time indicated by the division contradicted other information he had received. He asked when the processing time decreased to 21 days, because he was informed that some patients were waiting 48 to 70 days for application approval. Assemblyman Oscarson asked the division to describe the medical marijuana application process and any improvements. He also asked if the application process would become automated.
Mr. Pollock replied it was possible that some applications took longer than 21 days to process, especially because the division was receiving over 300 applications per week. Overall, however, the average number of days to process an application was 21 days until the approval letter was mailed. He said the division was considering several options to automate the application process, which would accelerate the process by reducing the need for regular mail.
Mr. Pollock said background checks were one of the major delays in the process; therefore, the division was considering ways to accelerate that process as well. Currently, the division sent information to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to conduct background checks. He said the process began with a name check followed by a fingerprint check if the first result was inconclusive. He noted the fingerprint check was a longer process than the name check. Mr. Pollock said the division was working to automate the process of relaying the information to the DPS. The division was also working to establish an electronic interface with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), because currently applicants had to take their approval letter to the DMV to request their medical marijuana card, which caused another delay. Mr. Pollock said the division had ideas to quicken the process; however, it was a matter of funding and the best use of those funds.
Mr. Pollock said, overall, the division was meeting the 21-day timeframe. Accelerating the process was difficult using the current processes; however, the
32 division would continue to work with industry to develop and implement ideas when possible. He said that accelerating the process was critical for MMEs and patients alike.
Assemblyman Oscarson understood that background checks took a significant amount of time. He asked how often applications were sent to the DPS for background checks. Mr. Pollock replied that applications were currently sent to the DPS once per week; however, the division was going to begin making daily deliveries. He said the division was working to establish an electronic interface that would allow applications to be submitted to the DPS electronically as they were received.
Mr. Westom noted that not all states required a background check for medical marijuana patients. He also noted that a portion of the medical marijuana application processing time was dependent on the patients themselves.
In regard to automating the medical marijuana card application process, Mr. Westom said the division would be launching the online application program within several weeks. He said the online payment program would take longer, because certain aspects were not solely dependent on the division. Mr. Westom explained that currently the patient paid $25 at the request of an application. The patient was then required to complete the application and obtain a physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana. He said $75 was due at the time the application was submitted to the division for processing. Mr. Westom said it took an average of 12 days for the division to assemble the documents for delivery to DPS for the background check. Upon receipt of their approval letter, the patient was required to take the approval letter to the DMV to request their medical marijuana card. He said it took approximately 10 to 14 days for the patient to receive their card in the mail. Mr. Westom said the division was working to develop an electronic interface with the DMV to automate the process and eliminate the need for patients to visit the DMV in person.
Mr. Pollock noted that, at the request of industry, the patient could now use their approval letter and government issued identification to purchase product within 14 days of the date of the letter. He said the limited 14-day use of the approval letter was to encourage patients to obtain their actual medical marijuana card as intended.
Chair Anderson asked if using the approval letter to purchase product was a newly implemented procedure. Mr. Pollock replied that the division began the process in December 2015.
Chair Anderson asked if the approval letter indicated that patients could use the approval letter within 14 days to purchase product, and Mr. Westom said that was correct. He added there was also information on the website and staff was available to answer questions via telephone or e-mail.
33
Assemblyman Armstrong asked if information was submitted to the DPS electronically or by hardcopy for background checks. Mr. Westom replied that the division currently delivered hard copies to the DPS. The division was working closely with both the DPS and DMV to brainstorm ideas for innovation and speed. He said the division was willing to make deliveries more often if the DPS was capable of working on background checks more frequently.
Mr. Pollock said the division was considering requesting background check results in electronic format. He said the cost of background checks would increase from $20.00 to $23.50; however, it would expedite the process.
Assemblyman Armstrong asked if the documentation submitted to the DPS must be in original form. He thought it would save time and money if the applications could be submitted to the DPS electronically. Mr. Westom said the division was considering submitting applications electronically to the DPS; however, security measures were required due to the sensitivity of the information. He said, on average, it took approximately 12 days for the DPS to complete a background check.
Senator Roberson referenced an LCB legal opinion concerning the delay in the background check process (Exhibit F). He said the legislative opinion spoke to the ability of the division to permit a patient to purchase medicine while awaiting the results of a background check. The legal opinion stated that, while not required in statute, the division would be within its authority to approve an application and issue a medical marijuana card or letter of approval without waiting for the Criminal History Repository to report on the applicant’s criminal history. If the division subsequently received a report from the Criminal History Repository indicating that the holder or his/her designated primary caregiver had been convicted of a prescribed crime, the division would then be required to revoke the medical marijuana card or letter of approval (Nevada Revised Statutes 453A.225, as amended by Section 19, Chapter 506, Statutes of Nevada, 2015, page 3098). Senator Roberson asked the division to comment.
Mr. Pollock said the division welcomed the opinion. He said the process the division had taken based on NRS was that the application could be denied if the applicant did not pass the background check. He said that NRS did not state that a medical marijuana card could be revoked if the patient did not pass the background check; therefore, the division took the position that the patient must pass a background check prior to purchasing product. He did not see the logic in withholding medication to someone based on criminal history. Mr. Pollock said based on NRS the division was required to deny the application, not revoke the card; however, if the legal opinion advised otherwise then the division would oblige.
34
Assemblyman Edwards said medical doctors regularly prescribed controlled substances that did not require a background check. He asked why a background check was required for medical marijuana if it was treated as medicine. Mr. Westom replied that the division was treating medical marijuana as a medicine; however, physicians could not prescribe medical marijuana, just recommend it.
Mr. Westom noted that a background check was required per NRS 453A. He said background checks had been a requirement since the inception of the Medical Marijuana Program; however, the division was open to new direction that was still compliant with statute.
Assemblyman Edwards remarked that unless there was a substantial reason why a background check could be proven necessary, the law should be revised to eliminate the requirement, and Mr. Pollock agreed. Mr. Pollock thought the original intent of the background check requirement was to reduce the likelihood that someone with a history of selling illegal drugs would gain access to medical marijuana.
In response to a question from Assemblyman Edwards regarding the length of time to perform a background check, Julie Butler, Division Administrator, Department of Public Safety, said her division housed the Criminal History Repository and the division was statutorily mandated to conduct background checks. She said background checks were turned around within 5 business days from when the DPBH delivered the applications. Background checks requiring fingerprints were turned around within 15 days as allotted by statute; however, the division had reduced that processing time to 5 business days. Ms. Butler explained that the process was lengthy, because it was a manual process, meaning staff had to physically enter information into databases, process the applications, and provide a rap sheet to the DPBH in its weekly batch. She explained that the division was in the process of modernizing its systems; however, the division had done an excellent job of reducing the processing time to 5 business days. Ms. Butler said the division averaged approximately 953 applications per month compared to 560 applications during the same time in the prior fiscal year. She thought the division was meeting the service level adequately, not causing a burden on the process.
Ms. Butler said, if the Legislature was going to consider eliminating the background check requirement, the DPS would be reluctant to collaborate on an automated solution in the interim, because it would be a poor use of funds. The division would be willing to work with the DPBH in the meantime regarding daily deliveries and devoting staff to the process.
Assemblyman Edwards asked if the DPS could use the same background check for medical marijuana that was used for firearm purchases. Ms. Butler replied that the firearms application was specific to that process and information was
35 verified through different databases. To use the same process for medical marijuana applications would require a lot of filtering, because the information required for firearms was different than the information required for medical marijuana cards.
Senator Parks said the complaints he had received were focused on delays with the DPS and DMV. He recalled that approximately $90,000 was allocated for reprogramming activity, of which $20,000 had been expended. Senator Parks asked for a status update.
Mr. Westom replied that the $90,000 was for the electronic interface between the DPBH and the DMV, which would eliminate the need for a patient to visit the DMV to obtain their medical marijuana card. He said the division had been working on that project in addition to an automated portal for the dispensaries to record patient purchases, as well as the online medical marijuana card application program.
Jude Hurin, Division Administrator, Management Services, DMV, said the department had a very positive partnership with the DPBH. He said both agencies were working on the electronic interface project to eliminate the need for patients to physically go into the DMV for their registry card. He thought a more accurate timeframe would be available at the end of March 2016, but the goal was to have the program implemented before the end of the summer.
Mr. Hurin said he had heard complaints about the length of time it took for patients to receive their medical marijuana card. He said it took 7 to 10 days through the current vendor for patients to receive their card. With the new automated process, the DPBH would provide applicant information electronically to the DMV, the DMV would verify certain information and submit it to the vendor to process the medical marijuana card. Mr. Hurin said the streamlined process would reduce the number of complaints and reduce the number of customers visiting DMV offices.
Chair Anderson thought it was encouraging to hear the agencies were working together to expedite the timelines. Although the average time for the DPBH to process medical marijuana applications was 21 days, the overall process could take as long as 40 to 45 days for a patient to receive their medical marijuana card, because three agencies were involved in the medical marijuana application process. He said many patients were unaware that multiple agencies were included in the process. Chair Anderson requested timelines from the DPBH, DMV and DPS concerning the online medical marijuana application program and subsequent online payment program, the electronic interface between the DPBH and DMV, and the electronic submission of medical marijuana applications to the DPS for background checks.
36
Mr. Westom indicated the medical marijuana online application would be complete by the end of February 2016 unless there were unexpected delays. He said the online application system would allow patients to submit the majority of their documents online and print an invoice to mail with their payment. Technology such as barcode scanners would be used to streamline the process for staff. Mr. Westom said the Information Technology programmers indicated the online payment system would follow shortly after the automated application system. He did not have a specific timeframe, but Mr. Westom said the project was a priority for the division.
Chair Anderson asked if patients were required to have Nevada-issued identification to purchase product with their approval letter. Mr. Pollock replied that Nevada-issued identification would be necessary to obtain a Nevada medical marijuana card, because it would allow the individual’s information to be verified through the portal. Once the application was approved and the letter was issued, the 14-day timeframe to purchase product began.
With regard to background checks, Mr. Pollock said the fee to receive electronic background check results was $3.50. He stated he would meet with DPS within the week to see how quickly the process could be implemented. Mr. Pollock said he would provide follow-up information to the Committee.
Mr. Hurin said the electronic interface between the DPBH and DMV would be completed by August 2016; however, that was contingent upon the available resources of both agencies. He said he would have more specific details by the end of March 2016. Chair Anderson thought the electronic interface would also help reduce some of the burden on the DMV.
Chair Anderson said it sounded as though things were coming together quickly. He requested that the DPBH, DMV and DPS provide updated timelines at the April 2016 IFC meeting. Additionally, he requested an update on the changes that had already been implemented, the impact on the 21-day turnover rate, and the overall timeframe faced by the consumer. Chair Anderson also requested a status update from the DMV, as well as information regarding the reciprocity piece, which allows non-resident patients to purchase product from a Nevada MME.
Chair Anderson called for public comment on Agenda Items E-35 and E-36.
Marla McDade Williams, Nevada Cannabis Coalition (NCC), said the NCC supported daily delivery of applications to DPS, as well as electronic delivery of background check results. Additionally, the NCC supported the DMV electronic interface, because it would be extremely helpful for patients.
37
Will Adler, Nevada Medical Marijuana Association (NMMA), said he echoed the comments of Ms. McDade Williams. Additionally, the NMMA supported the written comments submitted by the Nevada Dispensary Association (Exhibit E).
Mr. Adler clarified that background checks were required for medical marijuana applications per Nevada statutes. He said the statute was written 15 years ago when the MMP did not have dispensaries; therefore, he thought the statute should be reevaluated during the upcoming 2017 Legislative Session.
Eva Losey-Grossman, Marketing and Communications Director, Sierra Wellness Connection, echoed the previous comments. She said the average time to receive a medical marijuana card used to be approximately two months; however, it had decreased to one month. The delayed processing time meant patients were required to renew their medical marijuana card in advance to avoid having their card expire, which would prevent the patient from purchasing product. Ms. Losey-Grossman said patients felt they were only receiving a 10-month card in spite of paying for 12 months.
Ms. Losey-Grossman said visiting the DMV was a bone of contention with patients, because they did not like the idea that their medical marijuana card might be linked to their driver’s license causing them to be targeted by the police and arrested. She indicated that many patients were reluctant to get their medical marijuana card specifically for that reason. Also, patients with disabilities and post-traumatic stress disorder found it difficult to go to the DMV.
Ms. Losey-Grossman said patients could only use their medical marijuana letter of approval for 14 days to purchase product, yet it took approximately 14 days for patients to receive their medical marijuana cards from the DMV. She said this timeframe required patients to visit the DMV as soon as their letter arrived to avoid a gap in their medication. Ms. Losey-Grossman said she had seen many approval letters that were postmarked one day prior to the letter’s expiration date. She also indicated that the approval letter did not state that the patient had only 14 days to use the letter to purchase product. Many individuals thought their patient number was in a database that dispensaries could use to verify that an individual had been approved to purchase product. Ms. Losey-Grossman said the DMV was providing patients with a form similar to a temporary driver’s license, which many patients thought could be used as a temporary medical marijuana card. Many patients were irate to discover that the temporary card could not be used to purchase product and she thought that could be the reason for many of the complaints.
Ms. Losey-Grossman said the confusion over the 14-day timeframe to purchase product with the approval letter could have repercussions for many patients, especially those with terminal cancer and seizure disorders who relied on their medication. Patients could resort to purchasing marijuana illegally or end up in the hospital or dying due to the absence of medication. She said many terminal
38 patients with minimal time to live were forced to purchase their medical marijuana in California due to the length of time it took to receive a medical marijuana card in Nevada. Ms. Losey-Grossman encouraged the division and the Committee to take whatever steps necessary to reduce the overall processing time.
John Ritter, Las Vegas resident, said he was involved in a medical marijuana business that cultivated, produced and sold medical marijuana and related products. He had a positive experience working with the DPBH and Mr. Pollock and Mr. Westom were very receptive to suggestions. Mr. Ritter said the division was working hard to manage the MMP and its regulations. He appreciated the division’s focus on accelerating the processing time for medical marijuana cards.
Mr. Ritter said many MME owners had spent millions of dollars to become operational, while other licensees were taking minimal steps toward opening their facility, despite the approaching deadline. He was concerned that those licensees were waiting to find out if recreational marijuana would be approved in November 2016, because it provided an 18-month window to apply for a new license while spending little money in the interim. He recalled hearing Mr. Pollock say that licenses would be revoked for any facilities that were not open by July 2016. Mr. Ritter wanted to ensure that was the policy of the division, because it was very important to MME owners who had moved forward aggressively within the stated deadlines and made substantial investments.
Dr. Nick Spirtos, M.D., Women’s Cancer Center and The Apothecary Shoppe, said the DPBH had been incredibly helpful. He found it unusual for a government agency to work so closely with industry. Dr. Spirtos encouraged the Committee to assist the division in expediting the process of issuing medical marijuana cards.
Dr. Spirtos said the Women’s Cancer Center was conducting three randomized trials for patients with pelvic and back pain and patients receiving chemotherapy. He received between 9 and 12 calls per day from patients, but only 1 out of 20 callers had a medical marijuana card. Dr. Spirtos said there were patients who wanted to participate in the trials and the Women’s Cancer Center wanted to perform the research as mandated in Nevada statute; however, the delay in processing medical marijuana cards prevented forward progress.
Chair Anderson agreed that the agencies were all actively working together to ensure that consumers received the necessary services. He chose to allow public comment, because the medical marijuana industry was new to Nevada and he wanted the Committee to be as informed as possible.
ASSEMBLYMAN OSCARSON MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS E-35 AND E-36 AND REQUIRE THE AGENCIES TO PROVIDE UPDATED
39
INFORMATION AT THE APRIL 2016 MEETING OF THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Titus said she supported the motion. However, she thought it was important for the state to recognize marijuana either as a medicine or a recreational drug and treat it accordingly. She thought it was senseless to require background checks on medical marijuana, because it was not a requirement for any other medication. Assemblywoman Titus said she was interested to see the type of data that would develop as the issue moved forward.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
37. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment - FY 2016 - Addition of $610,741 in federal Enhanced Nevada Benefits to Homeless Individuals grant funds to enhance the Cooperative Agreement to Benefit Homeless Individuals (CABHI) program in Nevada's three distinct communities which include Washoe County, Clark County and the rural/frontier counties. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the CABHI Enhancement Grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34632
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
38. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment - FY 2016 - Addition of $376,637 in federal Strategic Prevention Framework Partnership for Success (SPF/PFS) grant funds and transfer of $53 from the Division Cost Allocation category to the SPF/PFS Grant category to support programs, policies and practices used to reduce the prevalence of prescription drug misuse/abuse by people 12 to 25 years old. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the SPF/PFS Grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34465
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
39. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment - FY 2016 - Addition of $1,202,252 in federal Cooperative Agreements to Benefit Homeless Individuals (CABHI) grant funds and transfer of $107 from the Certification Program category to the CABHI grant category to provide permanent housing, evidence-based treatment, and critical supportive services to chronically homeless men, women and children who have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the CABHI grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34476
40
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
40. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment - FY 2016 - Addition of $207,161 in federal Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) grant funds and transfer of $70 from the Meth Prevention Maintenance of Effort category to the PATH Grant category to support non-profit coalition partners that provide a variety of services at the local level. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the PATH Grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34477
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
41. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment - FY 2016 - Addition of $535,200 in Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block grant funds to support various non-profit treatment providers and coalitions to provide substance abuse prevention and treatment programs statewide. Requires Interim Finance approval since the work program involves the allocation of block grant funds and the agency is choosing to use the IFC meeting for the required public hearing and since the amount added to the SAPT Block Grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34509
Agenda Item E-41 involved allocation of block grant funds, which required a public hearing. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Seeing no requests for public testimony, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
42. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Rural Clinics - FY 2016 - Transfer of $74,316 from the State Transitional Home Care Indigent Drug and Lab Program category to the Indigent Drug and Lab Program State Transitional Home Care category to continue to provide necessary services to behavioral health clients. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Indigent Drug and Lab Program State Transitional Home Care category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34488. REVISED 1-12-16
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
43. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services - FY 2016 - Transfer of $439,330 from the Personnel Services category to the Professional Services category to fund projected costs for contract psychiatrists to support current operations and maintain quality patient care. Requires Interim Finance approval
41
since the amount transferred to the Professional Services category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34520
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
44. Department of Health and Human Services - Public and Behavioral Health - Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services - FY 2016 - Transfer of $279,320 from the Personnel Services category to the Mental Health Technician Services category to fund contracted Mental Health Technicians to support current agency operations and maintain quality patient care. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Mental Health Technician Services category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34501
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
45. Department of Health and Human Services - Welfare and Supportive Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - FY 2016 - Addition of $293,700 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to continue support services and job incentives to New Employees of Nevada (NEON) participants to assist the division in meeting federal work participation rate performance standards. Requires Interim Finance approval since the work program involves the allocation of block grant funds and the agency is choosing to use the IFC meeting for the required public hearing and since the amount added to the NEON Program category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34471
Agenda Item E-45 involved allocation of block grant funds, which required a public hearing. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Seeing no requests for public testimony, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
46. Department of Health and Human Services - Child and Family Services - Children, Youth and Family Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $298,820 in federal Family Violence Prevention and Services grant funds to support direct services to promote awareness of victims of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence, as well as their children. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Family Violence category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34150
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
47. Department of Health and Human Services - Child and Family Services - Children, Youth and Family Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $415,509 in federal Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, Title IV-B Subpart 2 grant funds to support services that address family support, family preservation, time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support. Requires
42
Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Promoting Safe and Stable Families category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34191
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
48. Department of Health and Human Services - Child and Family Services - Children, Youth and Family Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $325,991 in federal John H. Chafee Foster Care Independent Living (CHAFEE) Program funds to provide services to current and former foster youth between the ages of 16 and 21 to achieve self-sufficiency prior to and after exiting the foster care system. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Independent Living category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34151
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
49. Department of Health and Human Services - Child and Family Services Community Juvenile Justice Programs - FY 2016 - Addition of $177,174 in federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Education Program grant funds to establish a sustainable training program for youth and staff. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the PREA Education Grant category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34118
Ross Armstrong, Deputy Administrator, DCFS, DHHS, said Work Program C34118 established revenue and authority for a new grant for Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) education programs across the state. The work program would fund a one-year Social Services Program Specialist position, including training and travel.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the PREA education programs would relate to county-owned juvenile facilities as well as state-owned facilities. Mr. Armstrong replied that the majority of the grant efforts would focus on state-owned facilities. As part of the Governor’s certification to the federal government that Nevada would be compliant with PREA, only state-run facilities or facilities funded by the state, such as China Springs Youth Camp and Spring Mountain Youth Camp, would be covered. However, the Social Services Program Specialist would also be a resource for counties interested in becoming compliant with PREA.
ASSEMBLYMAN HAMBRICK MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-49.
SENATOR KIECKHEFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
43
50. Department of Health and Human Services - Child and Family Services - Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services - FY 2016 - Transfer of $55,542 from the Utilities category to the Deferred Maintenance category to complete flooring projects on the West Charleston campus through the State Public Works Division. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Deferred Facilities Maintenance category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34253
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
51. Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation - Disability Adjudication - FY 2016 - Addition of $223,622 in federal Disability Determination grant funds to support the move and expansion of operations to increase program services in Southern Nevada. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Program Move and Expansion category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34627
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
52. Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation - Vocational Rehabilitation - FY 2016 - Addition of $646,872 in federal Section 110 Vocational Rehabilitation grant funds to provide increased services to eligible clients including pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to Client Services category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.53. Work Program #C34545
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
53. Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation - Vocational Rehabilitation - FY 2017 - Addition of $696,965 in federal Section 110 Vocational Rehabilitation grant funds to provide increased services to eligible clients including pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to Client Services category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E.52. Work Program #C34615
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
54. Department of Public Safety - Forfeitures - Law Enforcement - FY 2016 - Transfer of $36,000 from the Reserve category to the DeLung Training category to fund ongoing Leadership training for the Department of Public Safety. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the DeLung Training category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34498
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
44
55. Department of Public Safety - Highway Patrol - FY 2016 - Addition of $289,616 in federal Highway Safety Grant funds transferred from the Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety account to fund overtime for state troopers in support of the agency's ongoing participation in various highway safety and enforcement events. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Joining Forces Grant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34378
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
56. Department of Public Safety - Highway Safety Grants Account - FY 2016 - Addition of $516,019 in Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration funds to align state and federal grant authority. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Motor Carrier Safety category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34587
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
57. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office - FY 2016 - Addition of $138,529 in Historic Preservation Funds (HPF) to cover obligated HPF subgrants awarded to local governments for historic preservation programs and activities pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the HPF Subgrant category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34317
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
58. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - State Parks - FY 2016 - Addition of $31,773 in federal U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration - Recreational Trails Program grant funds for the RecTrails Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the cumulative amount added to the State Trails category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34429
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
59. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - Environmental Protection - Administration - FY 2017 - Addition of $17,418 in Division of Environmental Protection Indirect Cost Allocation funds and transfer of $76,933 from the Personnel Services category to the Reserve category, $345 from the Operating category to the Reserve category and $306 from the Information Services category to the Reserve category to support the transfer of an Environmental Scientist position from the Administration account to the Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred from the Personnel Services category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEMS E.61 and 62. Work Program #C34356
45
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
60. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - Environmental Protection - Water Pollution Control - FY 2016 - Transfer of $483,460 $470,298 from the Reserve category to the Water Permit Fees category to enable the agency to become compliant with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency E-Reporting Rule. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Water Permit Fees category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34467. REVISED 1-21-16.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
61. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - Environmental Protection - State Revolving Fund - Administration - FY 2016 - Addition of $30,775 in federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund grant funds to fund the transfer of an Environmental Scientist position from the Administration account to the Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Program account. Requires Interim Finance approval since the cumulative amount added to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 10% Set Aside category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEMS E.59 and 62. Work Program #C34438
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
62. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - Environmental Protection - Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Program - FY 2017 - Addition of $95,002 in federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Safe Drinking Water State Revolving grant funds transferred from the Division of Environmental Protection to fund the transfer of an Environmental Scientist position from the Administration account to the Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Personnel Services category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEMS E.59 and 61. Work Program #C34434
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
63. Department of Wildlife - Fisheries Management - FY 2016 - Addition of $10,058 in federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services - State Wildlife grant funds and $22,387 in Sportsmen Revenue transferred from the Wildlife Account for the continuation of research and study of the relict leopard frog. Requires Interim Finance approval since the cumulative amount added to the State Wildlife Grant Aquatic Conservation category exceeds 10 percent of the legislatively approved amount for that category. Work Program #C34537
46
Assemblyman Edwards asked Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) staff to explain the purpose of researching the relict leopard frog, and discuss the cost and duration of the study. Tony Wasley, Director, NDOW, introduced Liz O’Brien, Deputy Director of Administrative Services, and Jon Sjoberg, Fisheries Division Administrator. In response to the question from Assemblyman Edwards, Mr. Wasley explained that the relict leopard frog was a candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. He said the study was for a period of five years, and was in its final year. Mr. Wasley noted that the work program inaccurately represented that the study was near its completion. In addition, the work program incorrectly requested a transfer of Sportsmen Revenue for part of the funding. He explained that NDOW staff worked with Fiscal staff and Budget Office staff to determine that Sportsmen Revenue would not be requested to fund part of the study; rather, federal State Wildlife grant funding would be requested for the total amount of $32,445. Mr. Wasley explained that NDOW had a statutory responsibility to manage 892 different species. Approximately 5 percent of those species generated revenue; therefore, it was essential to use Sportsmen Revenue to manage the other species that did not generate revenue. The potential listing of the relict leopard frog was one example. Mr. Wasley said the non-federal portion of the study was an in-kind contribution through the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). He said NDOW was confident that this kind of research and collaborative effort with UNLV could keep species like the relict leopard frog off the endangered species list, which would benefit all Nevada citizens and allow the state to retain management authority for that species. He said the NDOW Division Administrator, Jon Sjoberg, would speak more specifically about the relict leopard frog. Jon Sjoberg, Fisheries Division Administrator, NDOW, explained the relict leopard frog was an endemic species that occurred only in the Colorado River system, primarily in Clark County, but also in Arizona and Utah. The species was petitioned to be listed as an endangered species by an outside environmental organization back in 2005. Mr. Sjoberg said NDOW anticipated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would decide whether to place the relict leopard frog under endangered species protection at the end of 2016 or early 2017. Mr. Sjoberg noted, what was characterized as a study was actually direct conservation implementation, which was being handled by UNLV. He described the effort as “on the ground” conservation work to improve the status of the relict leopard frog through a multiparty conservation agreement to which NDOW was a signatory, along with the state of Arizona, the National Park Service and
47 several other entities. The funding was used specifically for on the ground work to improve the status of the relict leopard frog and influence the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine that protection of the act was not warranted. As a result of that ongoing work, NDOW established multiple additional populations of the relict leopard frog in Southern Nevada, all of which were doing very well. He said the effort significantly increased the animal’s status on the ground, which could prevent the relict leopard frog from being federally listed as an endangered species. Assemblyman Edwards asked how much money had been spent on the study. He noted that relict leopard tadpoles were available for sale at a low price on the Internet, which raised questions as to how endangered the relict leopard frog could possibly be. Neither he nor his constituents understood the reasoning for spending state or federal money on a frog that was not endangered, lived throughout the Colorado River system, and was available for sale on the Internet. Mr. Sjoberg noted that, because the relict leopard frog was a protected species, it would be a violation of both state and federal law to sell them. He explained that the relict leopard frog was not common, occurred only in very limited areas along the Colorado River system, and was a native species for which NDOW was responsible. He said the implications of this particular unique species being added to the federal endangered species list could be significant for development in Southern Nevada. There would be a social and economic benefit to managing the species in hopes of keeping it from being federally listed as an endangered species. Assemblyman Edwards asked what areas would be closed for development in Southern Nevada if the relict leopard frog was added to the federal endangered species list. Mr. Sjoberg said the historic range of the species was within the Colorado River drainage, the Muddy River drainage, and the Virgin River in Southern Utah. Any of those areas could potentially be affected by a species listing, particularly areas near a riparian or river corridor. Senator Goicoechea asked for the estimated population of the relict leopard frog. Mr. Sjoberg did not know the specific number, but estimated the population in the wild to be around two to three thousand among approximately six populations, most of which had been reestablished as part of the conservation program. Assemblywoman Titus appreciated the clarification that Sportsmen Revenue would not be used to fund the research. She thought it would be inappropriate to use Sportsman Revenue dollars for such a purpose. ASSEMBLYMAN EDWARDS MOVED TO DENY AGENDA ITEM E-63. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
48
SENATOR KIECKHEFER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E-63, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE TOTAL REQUESTED AMOUNT OF $32,445 WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES STATE WILDLIFE GRANT FUND. ASSEMBLYWOMAN TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Edwards said he was not convinced that this was the best way to spend taxpayer dollars, whether the funding came from the state or federal government. If the relict leopard frog being listed as an endangered species was truly a threat to any significant portion of the state, the universities should be able to perform the research without additional funding.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Edwards opposed the motion. Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
64. Department of Wildlife - Fisheries Management - FY 2016 - Addition of $222,773 in federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services - Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration grant funds and $74,258 in Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Decal fees transferred from the Wildlife Account to enhance the AIS Inspection and Decontamination Program. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the AIS Outreach and Inspection category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34546
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
65. Department of Wildlife - Habitat - FY 2016 - Addition of $122,800 in federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services - Wildlife Restoration grant funds for wildlife water development activities. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount added to the Wildlife Water Development category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34593
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
66. Deferred Compensation Committee - FY 2016 - Transfer of $172,993 from the Reserve category to the Operating category to enable record-keeper Voya to provide refunds to certain former Deferred Compensation participants who had accounts with the former record-keeper Mass Mutual. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Operating category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34614
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
49
67. Department of Agriculture - Registration and Enforcement - FY 2016 - Transfer of $20,968 from the Reserve category to the Personnel Services category, $2,056 from the Reserve category to the In-State Travel category, $13,480 from the Reserve category to the Equipment category, $2,484 from the Reserve category to the Information Services category, $5,251 from the Reserve category to the Agriculture Enforcement Unit category, and $661 from the Reserve category to the Uniforms category to fund a new Agricultural Enforcement Officer position in Southern Nevada. Requires Interim Finance approval since cumulative amount transferred to the Equipment category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E. 68. Work Program #C34878. RECEIVED AFTER SUBMITTAL DEADLINE, 1-29-16.
Refer to testimony and motion for approval under Agenda Item E-68.
68. Department of Agriculture - Registration and Enforcement - FY 2017 - Transfer of $64,366 from the Reserve category to the Personnel Services category, $2,757 from the Reserve category to the In-State category, $372 from the Reserve category to the Information Services category, $8,748 from the Reserve category to the Agriculture Enforcement Unit category, and $270 from the Reserve category to the Uniforms category to fund a new Agricultural Enforcement Officer position in Southern Nevada. Requires Interim Finance approval since cumulative amount transferred from the Reserve category exceeds $75,000. RELATES TO ITEM E. 67. Work Program #C34880. RECEIVED AFTER SUBMITTAL DEADLINE, 1-29-16.
Jim Barbee, Director, Department of Agriculture, introduced Dale Hansen, Fiscal Administrator.
Mr. Barbee explained the Department of Agriculture was requesting an additional Agricultural Enforcement Officer to serve in Clark County. The addition of this position would address some of the issues experienced by the department since 2011, when a full-time enforcement position and a half-time enforcement position in the Las Vegas area were eliminated due to budgetary constraints.
Mr. Barbee noted that the Department of Agriculture oversees quarantine on both plant and animal species across the state. The lack of enforcement officers has been a weakness for the department in Southern Nevada. In the meantime, enforcement officers from Ely have responded to issues on a limited basis in Clark County as the need arose.
Mr. Barbee explained the department’s biggest issue was the lack of monitoring in the Las Vegas area. The requested Agricultural Enforcement Officer position would handle disease quarantine issues. The position would also cooperate with Clark County Animal Control to handle livestock vehicle accidents. In the past, the department has lacked knowledge to effectively handle a large animal
50 livestock situation in a public environment. The new position would also monitor the health papers required for high-profile livestock events. Mr. Barbee said Las Vegas does not have a tremendous amount of livestock in the area, primarily equine, but a significant amount of livestock was transported via Highway I-15 and I-95 South. He said the new Agricultural Enforcement Officer would be responsible for patrolling plants and animals traveling into or through Nevada for disease and pest issues.
Mr. Barbee said the department also handled some estray livestock issues, such as horses that were turned loose or escaped cattle. Mr. Barbee said an Agricultural Enforcement Officer would typically handle these types of situations.
Mr. Barbee explained the department did not have a way to deal with issues involving disease and pest in plants and animals in Clark County. For example, in April 2015 a dog came through McCarran International Airport from Germany with inadequate health papers. The dog had Canine Leishmaniases, which is a zoonotic disease that can be transferred to humans. Zoonotic diseases can be fatal in humans and animals if the disease is not treated. Mr. Barbee said Canine Leishmaniases is an airborne disease and it originates from the Mediterranean area of Europe; therefore, it thrives in a hot, arid environment. Mr. Barbee said the diseased animal was discovered by chance when the owner of the dog took the animal to be neutered and the veterinarian on call made the diagnosis. Unfortunately, the veterinarian did not retain the animal and Agricultural Enforcement Officers from Sparks and Ely spent several days in Las Vegas tracking down the dog to put it in quarantine. Over the past three years, the department has had similar situations in which enforcement officers were sent from other counties to handle enforcement duties in the Clark County area.
Mr. Barbee reported that Clark County Animal Control had continually requested that the Department of Agriculture assign an Agricultural Enforcement Officer to Clark County; however, that had not been possible due to a limited budget capacity. Mr. Barbee noted that Senator Goicoechea voiced concern during the 2015 Legislative Session that the position was not included in the Department of Agriculture’s budget. He said, at that point in the legislative session, the department’s budget had already been approved by the 2015 Legislature. Mr. Barbee said the lack of an Agricultural Enforcement Officer in Clark County was a glaring problem, as well as a public health issue.
Senator Goicoechea said he was sympathetic to the situation in Clark County. The state was asking Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Clark County Animal Control to deal with issues that pertained to state laws and regulations. Senator Goicoechea added that he would have preferred the position be funded through the Contingency Account rather than the department’s reserves.
51
Senator Goicoechea said Southern Nevada needed an Agricultural Enforcement Officer, especially because it had the largest population in the state. He said the equine population outnumbered people in many rural counties. Senator Goicoechea said domestic livestock and equine crossed into Nevada from California, Arizona and Utah, and those animals were legal in Nevada unless there was an Agricultural Enforcement Officer to prevent entrance to Nevada. He said the average law enforcement officer did not have the knowledge to determine if there was an issue with a herd of cattle.
Senator Goicoechea said he represented a large portion of rural Clark County and an Agricultural Enforcement Officer was in critical need. He encouraged Committee members to support the request.
Assemblyman Oscarson agreed with Senator Goicoechea’s remarks. He said Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties were badly in need of an Agricultural Enforcement Officer. He appreciated the efforts of the Department of Agriculture to supply the necessary resources to reduce the need for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and other law enforcement agencies to handle plant and livestock matters.
Assemblywoman Titus asked Mr. Barbee if the Agricultural Enforcement Officer would be involved in brand inspection or predator control.
Mr. Barbee replied that brand inspection would be handled by the Agricultural Enforcement Officer in a limited capacity and primarily for high-profile livestock events such as the National Finals Rodeo (NFR). There was a lot of money invested in large livestock events and the organizers and participants preferred the work be performed by full-time Department of Agriculture staff rather than intermittent staff.
In response to the question from Assemblywoman Titus referencing predator control, Mr. Barbee explained that Wildlife Services was a separate component from the Agriculture Enforcement Unit. The Department of Agriculture worked in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services in terms of predator control; however, the Agricultural Enforcement Officer would be available in emergency situations.
SENATOR GOICOECHEA MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS E-67 AND E-68.
ASSEMBLYMAN OSCARSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
52
69. Department of Corrections - Prison Medical Care - FY 2016 - Transfer of $240,748 from the Personnel Services category to the Professional Services category to allow for the continuation of required health care services to inmates for the remainder of the fiscal year. Requires Interim Finance approval since the amount transferred to the Professional Services category exceeds $75,000. Work Program #C34855. RECEIVED AFTER SUBMITTAL DEADLINE, 1-29-16.
Refer to motion for approval under Agenda Item E.
RECLASSIFICATIONS
Agency/ Position Present Class Title, Class Proposed Class Title, Class Agency Account Number Code, Grade and Salary Code, Grade and Salary Number Department of 550/4554 0050 Program Officer 1 Facility Manager Agriculture – Code:07.649 Grade:31/03 Code:09.603 Grade:37/01 Administration Employee/Employer Paid Employee/Employer Paid Retirement Retirement $42,323.76 $50,195.52 Department of 902/4770 0069 Workforce Service Rep. 3 Management Analyst 1 Employment, Training, Code:12.157 Grade:30/01 Code: 07.637 Grade:33/01 and Rehabilitation – Employee/Employer Paid Employee/Employer Paid Employment Security Retirement Retirement Division $37,291.68 $42,323.76 Department of 902/4770 5182 ESD Appeals Referee 1 Management Analyst 2 Employment, Training, Code:12.135 Grade:36/01 Code: 07.625 Grade:35/01 and Rehabilitation – Employee/Employer Paid Employee/Employer Paid Employment Security Retirement Retirement Division $48,086.64 $46,019.52 Department of 902/4770 6736 Unemployment Insurance Management Analyst 2 Employment, Training, Rep. 3 Code: 07.625 Grade:35/01 and Rehabilitation – Code: 12.167 Grade:31/01 Employee/Employer Paid Employment Security Employee/Employer Paid Retirement Division Retirement $46,019.52 $38,899.44 Department of Wildlife 702/4460 0005 Accounting Technician 3 Accounting Assistant 4 – Fiscal Services Code: 07.140 Grade:34/01 Code: 02.300 Grade 29/01 Employee/Employer Paid Employee/Employer Paid Retirement Retirement $44,077.68 $35,830.08
Renee Olson, Division Administrator, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) said the request was in an effort to provide support within the Employment Security Division (ESD) Administrator’s office for programs in the field. Currently, there was one Management Analyst in the ESD Administrator’s office who was responsible for ongoing preparatory fiscal analysis and support during legislative sessions; however, the workload required additional staff who could provide the appropriate level of support. She attempted to utilize various vacant positions within the division; however, after the 2015 Legislative Session and experiencing a significant reduction in Unemployment Insurance funding, it was determined that three of the positions were not the appropriate classifications. Ms. Olson said she placed an emphasis and priority on determining the most appropriate plan of action. Ultimately, the
53 division chose to establish a Management and Administration Support Services (MASS) unit within the ESD Administrator’s office to provide high-level analytical and research support.
Senator Kieckhefer asked Ms. Olsen to discuss how long the three positions had been vacant. Ms. Olson replied that at least one position had been vacant since July 2015, but some of the positions had been vacant much longer.
Senator Kieckhefer asked why the division chose to request the positions now rather than during the legislative process. Ms. Olson replied that the department struggled to keep up with the amount of analysis and preparation required for the division’s budget request. She said the division developed initiatives and priorities and communicated that information to DETR’s Fiscal Management unit. Ms. Olsen thought the division had inadequately prepared its budgets in the past and it was important to assemble an effective team in order to provide the required information that would assist in the decision-making process during the 2017 Legislative Session.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the division was concerned about reallocating frontline and customer service staff to administrative roles.
Ms. Olson responded the she did have some concern, but she could not disconnect the impact of the MASS unit and being able to make timely decisions, which would also have an impact on the frontlines. She said the MASS unit would play a very large roll in bill tracking during legislative sessions, because it was important to be aware as new bills are introduced and address the issues within those bills. Ms. Olson said, if the division overlooked a bill that impacted processes within the division, the frontline staff could be responsible for addressing administrative issues created by that particular bill. She said the MASS unit would also be responsible for monitoring budget accounts on a monthly basis and providing a budget status report, which revealed the amount of funding remaining in each grant. Ms. Olsen said it was critical to have timely analysis of the division’s budget status. She said a lack of capacity in decision-making processes would ultimately impact frontline and customer service staff.
Assemblyman Thompson said it was critical that individuals applying for unemployment benefits received their payments in a timely manner. He asked the division to discuss the need to improve certain processes within DETR.
Ms. Olson agreed that certain areas needed improvement. She said the division recently released the contribution section of the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Project (UInv), which was the final phase of the program. The UInv also included tax and benefits sections in addition to the contribution section. As a result of the UInv, workflow changes occurred, which required changes in staffing.
54
Ms. Olsen said it was important to respond as quickly as possible to reductions in funding. A more timely budget analysis by the ESD Administrator’s office would have helped determine the appropriate staffing levels based on existing funding. She understood the importance of timely and efficient customer service. Ms. Olson said the division struggled to find the appropriate staffing levels for the frontlines, while having enough capacity to perform research and analysis at the administrative level.
Assemblyman Thompson appreciated that Ms. Olsen was taking into consideration DETR as a whole, because frontline staff and customers were as important as the administrative functions.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked about the performance measures of frontline staff set by the U.S. Department of Labor. Ms. Olson replied that she did not have that information, but would provide it to the Committee.
Ms. Olson said the division was working to improve the Appeals unit and ensure the UInv was being utilized as fully and efficiently as possible. Once the Appeals process was running well, the division needed to make sure it staffed the appropriate positions based on workflow. Ms. Olson said the division was working hard to solve the backlog in the Appeals unit.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams said, if performance measures were not being met, she was concerned about reallocating frontline positions.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams, Ms. Olson replied that DETR has a centralized Financial Management unit with approximately 25 to 30 staff. She stated that the MASS unit proposed for the ESD would function differently than the main Financial Management unit. Ms. Olson explained that the Financial Management unit provided accounting and reporting to the divisions. The MASS unit would manage funds, and evaluate and analyze how the numbers impacted the various programs. Additionally, the MASS unit would provide the division’s budgetary request to the centralized Financial Management unit to prepare the overall agency budget.
Chair Anderson said it was a significant task to balance state and federal funds, each with different regulations. He recalled during the 2015 Legislative Session there was discussion regarding reductions in unemployment claims. As a result, a number of positions were eliminated within DETR. Chair Anderson asked the division to discuss its request to increase administrative staff as the demand for services decreased.
Ms. Olson replied that approximately 36 positions were eliminated in the first year of the biennium and another 14 in the second year. As mentioned earlier, Ms. Olsen attempted to repurpose several positions; however, the classifications
55 were not appropriate to perform the functions of the MASS unit. She said she was working to correct the misalignment of the positions. Ms. Olson said funding for the Unemployment Insurance unit was stabilized and the division needed to focus on which positions should be reclassified; however, that could not be completed until there was enough capacity to provide the analysis to make those decisions. She understood that it appeared the division was loading positions into the administration side, but everything was tied together within the division.
Chair Anderson said he appreciated the clarification from Ms. Olsen. He said, based on the report from the U.S. Department of Labor dated September 30, 2015, the state was rated poorly for performance measures in areas such as average age of pending appeals and appeals decisions. He noted that the division was requesting to remove positions from areas weakest in performance and moving those positions to areas that were given good performance ratings by the U.S. Department of Labor. Chair Anderson asked the division to provide further explanation.
Ms. Olson said she understood the Committee’s perspective. She said the division was still completing work on the benefits and contributions sections of the UInv. During the restaffing analysis of the division, it may be determined that the division required less of one position and more of another. For example, it may be determined that the division required less Appeals Referees and more Administrative Assistants. Ms. Olson noted that the positions for which the division was requesting reclassification had been vacant for a while. She said the division was at a level with its funding where it could bolster aspects of the division that were lacking; however, an analysis would need to be performed to determine the areas in most need of staffing.
Chair Anderson explained that some Committee members were struggling to understand the effectiveness and justification for reclassifying the three positions, especially if other indicators may show a different approach could be more effective for the division.
Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson appreciated that Ms. Olsen was advocating for the needs of the division. She thought the division was focused on restructuring the work to provide better outcomes and metrics while remaining compliant with federal laws, and determining how to serve the public in a more efficient manner.
Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson said there were many state agencies that had unmet staffing needs. She thought approving the division’s reclassification request could be a step in the right direction to help the division reorganize itself. Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson requested that the division provide an update on the status of the reclassified positions in the near future. Also, she thought there needed to be discussion during the 2017 Legislative Session about
56
how to address staffing needs across the board and across all agencies to avoid poor performance ratings on federal metrics.
Chair Anderson clarified that the ESD should provide a six-month update on the overall progress of the reclassified positions to the Committee. He was still unsure that reclassifying the positions was the appropriate step, but he believed that Ms. Olson was doing what she thought was best for DETR and the ESD.
Ms. Olson said she would provide the Committee with a status update in six months.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BENITEZ-THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION AND REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A SIX-MONTH UPDATE.
SENATOR GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Kieckhefer commended Ms. Olson on her efforts to run the ESD more effectively. He did not support the motion however, because he thought it should be handled during the 2017 Legislative Session.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Senator Kieckhefer, Assemblywoman Dickman and Assemblywoman Titus opposed the motion. Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
F. STATEMENT OF CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT BALANCE.
Cindy Jones, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said the unrestricted General Fund balance as of July 2016 was $3.9 million. Since that time, an additional appropriation of $9.0 million was made from the 2015 Legislative Session and $1.35 million was reverted from prior appropriations, for a balance of $14.25 million. Ms. Jones said, after meeting costs and allocations totaling $445,000, the balance of the unrestricted General Fund was $13.8 million. She said there was one request before the Committee today for the Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol, that would reduce the unrestricted General Fund balance if approved. Ms. Jones noted that the Highway Fund Contingency Account balance was $1.7 million and there were no requests before the Committee. She said the restricted General Fund balance was $16.2 million with one request before the Committee today. If the request
57
for the DHHS, Aging and Disability Services Division was approved for $104,890, the restricted General Fund balance would be reduced to $16.133 million.
G. REQUESTS FOR ALLOCATION FROM THE IFC CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT (GENERAL FUND) PURSUANT TO NRS 353.268. (Note: IFC may approve a different amount for an allocation than the amount requested).
1. Office of the State Treasurer
a) Request an allocation of $37,046 to support the rollout of the Education Savings Account program for the balance of FY 2016. WITHDRAWN 1-27-16. b) Request an allocation of $538,021 to support the rollout of the Education Savings Account program for FY 2017. WITHDRAWN 1-27-16.
There was no discussion on this item.
2. State Department of Agriculture – Veterinary Medical Services
a) Request for an allocation of $43,101 for FY 2016 to fund an Agricultural Enforcement Officer II position. WITHDRAWN 1-29-16. b) Request for an allocation of $76,841 for FY 2017 to fund an Agricultural Enforcement Officer II position. WITHDRAWN 1-29-16.
There was no discussion on this item.
3. Department of Public Safety – Nevada Highway Patrol – Dignitary Protection – Request for an allocation of $109,432 to fund visiting dignitary protection services relating to the 2016 presidential campaign.
Jim Wright, Director, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said the request was to support the Highway Patrol Division’s Dignitary Protection Services related to the 2016 Presidential Campaign as requested by the United States Secret Service (USSS). The original request of $109,432 was based on projections provided to the Highway Patrol Division by the USSS in December 2015. The projections were based upon new practices by the USSS for protection services to the top presidential candidates. Currently, the USSS was providing services to four candidates; however, the original projections were based on protection services for six candidates. Mr. Wright said, based on the most recent information provided by the USSS, the amount of the work program was reduced to $49,439.91. He stated this was the most accurate projection to date, excluding unanticipated visits.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Titus concerning unused funds, Colonel Dennis Osborn, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, DPS, replied that unused funds for the purposes of visiting dignitary protection would revert to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year.
58
Assemblywoman Dickman inquired about reimbursement from the USSS for dignitary protection services. Colonel Osborn replied there was no mechanism to receive reimbursement through the USSS for dignitary protection services. He verified this information with counterparts in states such as Iowa, Colorado and Washington and ultimately, it was each state’s financial responsibility to provide protection services.
Assemblyman Sprinkle said he recalled extensive discussions during the 2015 Legislative Session about reimbursement from the USSS for dignitary protection services. He asked if the state was mandated to provide dignitary protection services and if it was the policy of the division to perform any service requested by the USSS without reimbursement. Colonel Osborn replied that it was the policy of the division to provide services at the request of the USSS per NRS 480.330.
Assemblyman Sprinkle asked if the division was included in discussions concerning upcoming dignitary visits and protection services.
Colonel Osborn replied that he was not aware until late in 2015 that dignitary protection services would be provided to the top presidential candidates. The division had not been privy to conversations regarding protection for the top candidates, which was why Colonel Osborn verified with other states how the situation was being handled. He recalled the only other time he had seen a similar practice was when President Obama ran for office the first time and was extended Secret Service protection prior to receiving the Democratic bid. Colonel Osborn expected the practice of providing dignitary protection to top presidential candidates would continue now that it had been implemented.
Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson thought Nevada’s citizens benefitted greatly from the engagement of political candidates. She thought it should not be taken for granted, because Nevada had been a “fly-over” state for many years and voters often went to the polls never having met the candidates. Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson said Nevada had an amazing opportunity for its citizens to have access to candidates, regardless of which party they represented, and that privilege should be valued. She did not want the legislative record to reflect that Nevada felt burdened by providing dignitary protection. Chair Anderson agreed with Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson’s comments.
Senator Kieckhefer noted that in 2008 the actual expenditures for the Dignitary Protection Services account were approximately $30,000; however, the division requested only $17,000 for FY 2016. He recommended the division strive for more accurate projections in its budget during future election cycles.
59
SENATOR KIECKHEFER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM G-3 IN THE REVISED AMOUNT OF $49,440.
ASSEMBLYMAN SILBERKRAUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
H. REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION FROM THE IFC CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 514, SECTION 60 (2015 Legislature) – Department of Health and Human Services – Aging and Disability Services Division (ADSD) – Senior Citizen’s Property Tax Assistance – Request for an allocation of $104,890 to implement the Senior Citizen’s Property Tax Assistance Rebate program.
Chair Anderson reminded the Committee that the Senior Citizen’s Property Tax Assistance Program (SCPTA) was a one-shot appropriation of $5.0 million to reinstate the program during the 2015-17 biennium.
Jill Berntson, Deputy Division Administrator, Aging and Disability Services Division (ADSD), DHHS, said the purpose of the SCPTA program was to refund a portion of property taxes to eligible senior citizens. She said the division received feedback from the Committee during the October 21, 2015, IFC meeting, and the request included updated income and eligibility criteria which reflected that feedback. Ms. Berntson said the applicant must be 65 years of age or older with income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to qualify for the SCPTA program. She said the FPL was based on household size, so it increased as the number of household members increased. The claimant and/or their partner could not own any other real property besides the residence where they live. If their residence had an assessed value of more than $500,000, the division would request a credit report to see if there were any other mortgages or real property. Lastly, the asset limit was set at $150,000; therefore, the claimant and/or their partner could not have assets exceeding $150,000.
Ms. Berntson said the request was for an initial allocation of $104,890, which would give the division authority to hire contract staff to administer the SCPTA program, perform outreach, accept initial applications and begin the eligibility review process. Ms. Bernston said the division would request the remainder of the funds to be used for the SCPTA rebates at a later date.
Assemblyman Thompson asked about outreach efforts for the SCPTA program. Ms. Berntson replied that contract staff would conduct outreach at senior centers around the state. Additionally, ADSD staff would reach out to senior citizens at health fairs and a variety of other locations.
60
Assemblyman Thompson said senior centers and health fairs were obvious choices for outreach; however, those efforts may not reach all seniors. He encouraged the division to be as creative as possible with outreach efforts for the SCPTA program. Ms. Berntson thanked Assemblyman Thompson for his input. She said the division welcomed any suggestions or requests for outreach from the Committee.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams, Ms. Berntson replied that renters were excluded from the SCPTA program, because during the previous program it had been difficult for County Assessors to determine what portion of the applicant’s rent went towards property taxes. She explained that the division recommended excluding renters from the new program to keep administrative costs to a minimum.
Assemblywoman Dickman remarked that she was hesitant about the self-attestation of liquid assets.
Assemblywoman Dickman asked if the metrics could be changed to reach more senior citizens or if the maximum rebate amount for the SCPTA program could be increased. Ms. Berntson replied that the Committee may wish to consider increasing the $500 rebate cap if all the funds were not expended.
Chair Anderson inquired about the $500 rebate cap. Ms. Berntson said the $500 rebate cap was the same cap used in the previous program. The division chose to use the same cap, because it was uncertain how many seniors would qualify for the new program.
Chair Anderson agreed with Ms. Berntson. He said the rebate was meant to reduce some of the financial burden of property taxes on senior citizens.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DICKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM H.
SENATOR ROBERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams said she supported the SCPTA program and her district was interested in having the program restored even if it was for a limited time. However, she was concerned that a large portion of individuals were being excluded from the program, because they were renters rather than homeowners.
Chair Anderson asked how many renters participated in the previous program. Ms. Berntson replied that in 2011 there were 9,500 renters that received a rebate.
61
Chair Anderson said without renters there were approximately 7,000 households that would participate in the program, which would expend nearly all the resources. He said the SCPTA program was potentially a short-term program and adding complexity to the program would increase administrative costs, thereby reducing the available funds for rebates. Ms. Berntson said that was correct. She explained that including renters in the program would require additional contract staff to verify rent and the portion of rent that was for property taxes.
Chair Anderson said the Legislature had hoped to include renters in the SCPTA program, but not at the expense of an effective program. He said the concerns of Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams were valid, property taxes were incorporated into rent, therefore, renters were technically paying property taxes; however, it was difficult to determine precisely what portion of rent was for property taxes.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ACCEPT GIFTS AND GRANTS PURSUANT TO NRS 353.335 – State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – Division of State Lands – Request approval to accept a donation of land from the Nevada Land Trust for the benefit of the Division of State Parks.
Charlie Donohue, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), said the division’s request was for approval to accept a donation from the Nevada Land Trust of 45 acres of undeveloped land in the Carson Range, near the Ash Canyon area, west of Carson City. The land was contiguous to the eastern portion of Lake Tahoe, Nevada State Park and adjacent to other public lands owned by the federal government and Carson City. Mr. Donohue said the land had unique riparian habitat and wet meadow values and served as a public access route to Hobart Lake, a portion of Lake Tahoe, Nevada State Park. He said the property would be assigned to the Division of State Parks for management purposes.
Assemblywoman Titus asked about the economic impact on the county that would lose the land tax revenue. She also asked if the land was in useable condition and what the cost to the state would be in the future. Mr. Donohue did not have the assessed tax value available, but said he would provide it to the Committee.
Senator Kieckhefer thought it was likely the Nevada Land Trust was tax exempt.
Eric Johnson, Administrator, Division of State Parks, DCNR, said the division always considered future liability prior to accepting a donation. He said the
62
property under discussion today had negligible foreseen costs with the exception of using native vegetation to fence a wetland area that was being jeopardized by off-highway vehicles.
SENATOR KIECKHEFER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM I.
ASSEMBLYMAN KIRNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Ford, Senator Lipparelli, Senator Roberson and Assemblywoman Carlton were not present for the vote.)
J. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
The Committee expressed interest in hearing testimony on the following items: Agenda Item J-5, Department of Agriculture; and J-8, the Department of Transportation.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams requested further testimony on Agenda Item J-4c, Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE).
Senator Kieckhefer requested further testimony on Agenda Item J-6b, DHHS, DCFS.
1. GOVERNOR’S FINANCE OFFICE – Budget Division – Quarterly report of the agency activity relating to contracting with current or former employees of the state, for the period ending December 31, 2015, pursuant to NRS 333.705.
There was no discussion on this item.
2. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL – Violence Against Women Grants – FY 2016 – Notice to add 1 FTE Management Analyst II position to provide project coordination for the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) grant. This results in an increase from 5 FTE to 6 FTE for the Violence Against Women Grants budget. RELATES TO ITEM E.3.
There was no discussion on this item.
3. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION – State Public Works Division a) Information regarding the Project Exception Report pursuant to NRS 341.100(8)(g). b) Report on Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities Bidders’ Preference pursuant to NRS 338.13846.
There was no discussion on this item.
63
4. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION a) Quarterly report on the progress made by the School of Medicine in obtaining federal approval for the research program on the medical use of marijuana, as well as the status of activities and information received through the program, for the period ending December 31, 2015, pursuant to NRS 453A.600.
There was no discussion on this item.
b) Semiannual report on the accomplishments of the Nevada Center for Biomedical Research, previously known as the Whittemore Peterson Institute, for the period ending December 31, 2015 (letter of intent, 2015 Legislature).
There was no discussion on this item.
c) Biannual report on Registration Fees and Non-Resident Tuition Fees pursuant to A.B. 490 (2015 Legislature) for the period of July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams concerning Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institution revenue, Heidi Haartz, NSHE, replied that Assembly Bill 490 (2015) required the NSHE to provide a report based on the revenues collected during the first six months of the fiscal year. She said the institutions reported their information differently. Nevada State College and the community colleges deposited student fees upon receipt, whereas the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) recorded receipts on January 15 and the University of Nevada, Reno recorded receipts on February 1. Ms. Haartz said the amount reported for UNLV was revenue collected for just the fall semester, while Nevada State College and the community colleges reported revenue collected for the fall and spring semesters.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked where that information was indicated in the report provided by the NSHE. Ms. Haartz replied that the information was not specified in the report, because the law required that the NSHE report revenue collected during the first six months of the fiscal year. She said the NSHE had provided a breakdown of fee revenue by semester at the request of LCB Fiscal staff.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams requested a copy of the breakdown of fee revenue by semester, and Ms. Haartz agreed.
5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – Nutrition Education Programs – Annual report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Breakfast After the Bell Program pursuant to S.B. 503 (2015 Legislature) for the period of September 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015.
64
Jim Barbee, Director, Department of Agriculture, said Senate Bill (S.B.) 503 (2015) required the department to provide a status report regarding the Breakfast After the Bell Program.
Donnell Barton, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Division, Department of Agriculture, said the department had moved quickly to establish an online grant award system for the Breakfast After the Bell Program. The department sent letters to principals and administrators and provided technical assistance and training webinars to the districts to gear up for implementation of the program
Catrina Peters, School Nutrition Services Manager, Department of Agriculture, said the department wanted to provide an update on the figures included in its end of the year progress report concerning S.B. 503. She said, as of January 31, 2016, the department awarded 109 grants, totaling $970,000. The majority of the grant awards, approximately $385,000, were for personnel costs for staff to prepare and serve additional meals. Another large expenditure category was for equipment and supplies, such as ovens, milk coolers and additional point of service systems. Ms. Peters said dramatic and exciting achievements had been seen in the increase in breakfast participation, which had historically been a struggle in Nevada. At Breakfast After the Bell schools there was an increase in breakfast participation from approximately 20 percent to 40 percent. She said 1.1 million additional breakfasts had been served from the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year through the end of November 2015, compared to the same months during the 2014-2015 school year. Ms. Peters said the school districts had up to 60 days to submit a claim, which was the reason for the department’s delay in providing updated information to the Committee.
Ms. Peters noted that Nevada had experienced an additional $3.0 million in federal reimbursement for breakfasts alone.
Assemblyman Armstrong recalled during the 2015 Legislative Session that the intent was for the state to receive more than $10.0 million in federal reimbursement. He asked if the department anticipated increased federal reimbursement in the future.
Mr. Barbee clarified that the department hoped to gain a 10 percent increase in participation in the program and $3.0 million in federal reimbursement for breakfast in each year of the 2015-17 biennium. He said the department had reached its first year’s goal by November 30, 2015. Mr. Barbee said the department projected approximately $5.0 million in federal reimbursement funds by the end of the first year. At the end of the biennium, the department anticipated $10.0 million in federal reimbursement funds.
Ms. Peters said, in terms of federal reimbursement for lunch and breakfast combined, the state received $6.4 million from September through
65
November 2015 alone. Based on that information, she said the department looked forward to the total amount at the end of the school year.
Assemblyman Thompson thanked the department for its efforts. He thought the leveraging of funds was helpful for the state. He said the Breakfast After the Bell program was beneficial for students, because hunger made it difficult for students to perform to their maximum potential.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked for clarification concerning the number of schools that applied for the grant. Ms. Peters replied that the information provided to the Committee was as of December 2015; however, as of the end of January 2016, the department had awarded 109 grants totaling $970,000. Ms. Peters said she would provide an updated report to the Committee.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked for specific information pertaining to the schools in Clark County that received grant awards. Ms. Peters said she would provide the information to the Committee.
Assemblywoman Bustamante Adams asked if the department had inquired with schools that had not applied for the grant. Ms. Peters replied that the department performed extensive outreach to all eligible schools. She said the two schools that had not submitted an application were both district-sponsored charter schools in Clark County. Ms. Peters said she gave a presentation to all eligible charter schools regarding grant activities and how to complete a grant application. Additionally, the department had reached out via telephone and e-mail.
Assemblywoman Benitez-Thompson said there were 109 schools that applied for grants, which was $970,000 of the $1.0 million that was allocated. She asked if residual funds would be placed in reserves if the two remaining schools did not apply. Ms. Peters indicated the funds would revert to the General Fund.
6. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES a) Division of Health Care Financing and Policy – Quarterly report on the Disproportionate Share Hospital Supplemental Payment Program, for the period ending December 31, 2015, pursuant to NRS 422.390.
There was no discussion on this item.
b) Division of Child and Family Services – Semiannual report on the progress of reopening and management of the Summit View Youth Correctional Center for the period ending December 31, 2015 (letter of intent, 2015 Legislature).
Ross Armstrong, Deputy Administrator, DCFS, DHHS, said the division submitted its semiannual report on the progress of the reopening of
66
Summit View Youth Correctional Center. He noted that all of the physical projects were complete (page 129, Exhibit D). Mr. Armstrong said there were six youth from Clark County and one from Carson City scheduled for the facility beginning February 23, 2016.
Senator Kieckhefer asked if the division anticipated any additional problems moving forward. Mr. Armstrong replied that the goal was to establish a safe facility for the youth, acquire staff, and offer excellent programming to make the best use of time. He said staff would receive training from a nationally-recognized positive behavioral intervention system to provide a system overlay for the whole facility. Youth would begin at the facility following that training.
7. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY – Division of Emergency Management – Emergency Assistance Account – Quarterly report on the status of the Emergency Assistance Account for the period ending December 31, 2015, pursuant to NRS 414.135(5).
There was no discussion on this item.
8. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – Report on the activities of the Advisory Committee on Transportational Storm Water Management and the implementation and efficacy of the department’s storm water program pursuant to S.B. 324, Section 10.3 (2015 Legislature).
Dave Gaskin, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said a number of positions were approved during the 2015 Legislative Session for NDOT’s Storm Water Program. He said all management positions were filled with the exception of the recently vacated Information Manager position. Additionally, a Public Information Officer, Training Officer and several Information Technology Specialists had been hired and lower-level staff, including compliance inspectors and maintenance personnel for the Elko, Reno and Las Vegas districts, were in the process of being hired.
Mr. Gaskin said another large portion of the budget was for equipment to support the Storm Water Program activities. Nearly all the storm water equipment approved for FY 2016 had been ordered and would be distributed as described in the table on page 137 of the meeting packet (Exhibit D). He said additional equipment would be ordered in FY 2017 as well. Mr. Gaskin said some equipment would be delayed due to custom construction. Likewise, larger pieces of equipment, such as the culvert flusher trucks, would arrive later in the year.
Concerning program development, Mr. Gaskin said NDOT was establishing policies and procedures, which were the infrastructure of the Storm Water Program. Items in development included:
67
• Clarifying storm water roles and responsibilities with NDOT districts • Filling staff vacancies • Updating the Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMP) Program Compliance Manual, the Runoff Control Plan, and the Construction Site Inspection Oversight Compliance Manual • Developing the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program • Developing Compliance and Enforcement Policies and Procedures
Senate Bill 324 (2015) gave NDOT the authority needed to carry out the terms of its permit and the requirements under the Clean Water Act, so there were many policies and procedures to implement the authority provided in the bill.
Mr. Gaskin said it was important to provide training and awareness about the Storm Water Program to staff, contractors and the general public. He said the following modules and classes were in development:
• Responding to Illicit Discharge • Reviewing the Construction BMP Manual • Performing Construction Site Inspections • Controlling Storm Water Runoff • Performing Storm Sewer System Maintenance, Street Repair and Road Improvements • Applying Pesticides, Herbicides and Fertilizers
Mr. Gaskin provided an overview of website updates for NDOT and the Storm Water Program, including public education and reporting of illicit discharge (page 140, Exhibit D).
Mr. Gaskin said S.B. 324 (2015) established the Advisory Committee on Transportational Storm Water Management. He said the committee was designed to ensure sound implementation and functioning of the NDOT Storm Water Program and to monitor the program’s status and efficacy. Committee members were appointed by Leo Drozdoff, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Members included Leo Drozdoff, DCNR; David Emme, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP); Dave Gaskin, NDOT; Craig Madole, Associated General Contractors of America; and Gale Fraser, representing the public. Mr. Gaskin said the first meeting was on November 30, 2015, and the next meeting was scheduled for March 2016.
Mr. Gaskin said NDOT was in negotiations with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to resolve enforcement issues resulting from an audit the EPA performed on NDOT and its Storm Water Program. There were several meetings between NDOT, EPA, DCNR and NDEP and a resolution would be reached soon. Mr. Gaskin said the negotiations would not delay the implementation of the Storm Water Program. The NDOT had made significant
68
progress and continued to build an effective and sustainable storm water program.
Senator Goicoechea said he was aware of culvert surveying taking place on secondary state routes, such as 892 and 376. He asked if that was part of the Storm Water Program. Mr. Gaskin replied that mapping of the components was a large part of the program and it was required by the EPA and NDOT’s storm water permit issued by the NDEP. He said NDOT had historically mapped on paper; however, the department was now mapping via geographic information systems to integrate inspections, maintenance and other activities in a more effective, automated manner.
Senator Goicoechea said the process of mapping appeared labor-intensive and he asked if the project was more work than anticipated. Mr. Gaskin replied that NDOT was making significant progress and the mapping inventory was almost complete, with the exception of some work in the urban areas of Clark County. He said NDOT was working with its information technology staff to develop automated mechanisms, such as databases and programs, that would allow inspectors in the field to send information electronically. Mr. Gaskin said he did not foresee a major stumbling block with regard to automated mapping.
Assemblywoman Carlton asked for the district breakdowns. Mr. Gaskin replied that District I was Las Vegas, District II was Reno, and District III was Elko.
Assemblywoman Carlton said she had some concern with how the vehicles were dispersed between NDOT Headquarters and the districts. She asked why it was necessary for NDOT Headquarters to have four crew trucks in addition to two sedans. Mr. Gaskin replied that approximately half of the Storm Water Program personnel were located at NDOT Headquarters, including the Public Information Officer and many managers and training personnel. He said the vehicles were used to provide training and public education throughout the state.
9. LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR – Six-month reports on agencies’ implementation of recommendations made by the Legislative Auditor pursuant to NRS 218G.270. a) Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs b) Department of Health and Human Services c) Department of Public Safety – Office of Director d) Nevada State Athletic Commission e) Judicial Branch f) Department of Corrections – Information Technology Security g) Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation Division h) Department of Education
There was no discussion on this item.
69
10. Reports on the use of consultants for the July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, reporting period: a) Reports from school districts pursuant to NRS 391.155. b) Reports from boards and commissions pursuant to NRS 333.705(7). c) Reports from Nevada System of Higher Education, pursuant to NRS 333.705(7).
There was no discussion on this item.
K. PUBLIC COMMENT.
There was no public comment.
L. ADJOURNMENT.
Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 2:18 p.m.
______Assemblyman Paul Anderson, Chairman Interim Finance Committee
______Rick Combs, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Secretary, Interim Finance Committee
70