MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 29, 1993

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:05 a.m., on Monday, March 29, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda.  EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani

      Mr. Dean A. Heller

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mr. John W. Marvel

      Mr. Richard Perkins

      Mr. Robert E. Price

      Ms. Sandra Tiffany

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

      Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

     

 

AB386Revises provisions of SB97 of this session concerning management of solid waste.

 

Lew Dodgion, Administrator of Division of Environmental Protection, introduced himself.  He stated AB386 is a trailer or amendment to SB97 which deals with the solid waste regulations and provisions.  SB97 provides the statutory authority for the state division of Environmental Protection and the District Health Departments of Clark and Washoe Counties to set up and administer a solid waste management program equivalent to the federal program. 

 

Mr. Dodgion explained SB97 transferred the responsibility for collecting the dollar surcharge on tires, which supports the program, from the Division of Environmental Protection to the Department of Taxation and the provisions of AB386 are to clarify and to provide for the Department of Taxation to collect the dollar surcharge.

 

Mr. Perry Comeaux, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, explained AB386 contains most of the provisions necessary for the Department of Taxation to take over the collection of this tax.  He noted there were two issues to discuss.  He pointed out the statement on page one, section one, subsection two, line 13, "Monthly, in accordance with the regulations...".  He explained this statement would require monthly filing and payment of the tire tax.  Mr. Comeaux indicated the Department of Taxation's planned to integrate this tax with the sales and use tax.  This would result in some quarterly filing rather than monthly.  Therefore, he recommended the word "monthly" be deleted and the statement begin with "In accordance...".

 

Mr. Comeaux pointed out the statement on page one, lines 21 to 23 "... adopt regulations establishing acceptable methods for accounting for and transmitting to the department money collected by retailers pursuant to subsection 1."  He indicated the Department of Taxation recommends after the word "collected", the phrase "or required to be paid" be added.  This would remove any doubt should the retailer fail to collect the tax, they would still be obligated to pay the state the fee.

 

He noted on page two, section 4, line 33 provides for a transfer of $27,000 to the Department of Taxation from the trust fund to pay for the programming necessary to integrate the tire tax program into the sales tax data processing system.  He explained the Department of Taxation will be in the process over the next 12 to 18 months of rewriting the sales tax system computer program.  He emphasized the funding for the enhanced business tax system and modification of the 20-year-old sales tax system was requested from the general fund in the Department of Taxation's budget which was presented to the committee earlier this session.

 

He reiterated an unfortunate part in obtaining an up-to-date system is the time period prior to implementation.  Upon completion, the integration of the tire tax into the new system will minimally impact the Department of Taxation's work load because the duties will be spread out among a number of areas.  He emphasized during the interim period, the activities associated with the tire fee would be centered on one tax examiner position.  This one person will be preparing deposits, processing returns, and distributing the delinquency and accounts receivable information to the revenue officers.  Mr. Comeaux pointed out the Department of Taxation does not have this position available.  He remarked if they assigned an existing tax examiner to this fee, the person would not be able to properly attend to the excise tax they are currently assigned.

 

Mr. Comeaux reiterated the Department is already stretched very thin in personnel and an additional tax examiner would be necessary to process the tire tax for the 12 to 18 month period prior to the new system being operational and the tire tax is incorporated into it.  He estimated the on-line date to be as early as September 1994 or as late as December 31, 1994 when the contract with the vendor expires.  He recommended an additional transfer to the Department of Taxation in the amount of $32,081 for FY94 and $16,176 for FY95 be authorized from the Solid Waste Management account in the state's General Fund to provide for the resources to properly administer this tax.

 

Mr. Comeaux explained, according to page 2, section 4, subsection 3, line 45, the transfer of the $27,000 is scheduled to revert on June 30, 1993 and the correct year should be 1995.

 

Vice Chairman Spitler reiterated an additional $32,000 for FY94 and approximately $16,000 for FY95 would be needed and asked when the job would be completed.  Mr. Comeaux replied the $16,176 for FY95 would fund the position through September 31, 1994.  Mr. Spitler asked if this would be a full-time position.  Mr. Comeaux responded it would and explained the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had indicated they had used a number of part-time positions for administering the tax.   The part-time positions actually equaled nearly a half-time position.  He stated the Department of Taxation noted the half-time position had not included any kind of enforcement or administration of the tax and to do the job properly, nearly a full-time position would be necessary. 

 

Mr. Spitler inquired how much of the taxes were not being collected currently.  Mr. Comeaux estimated approximately $200,000 was not being collected.  Mr. Spitler asked if this position would be doing site visits.  Mr. Comeaux indicated a revenue officer would do the actual site visit, but this position would do all preparatory and delinquent work up to the site visit. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked how much money was presently in the account.  Mr. Dodgion replied approximately $400,000 which is committed for recycling project grants to various counties and to community services.  Mr. Marvel asked if there would be enough money to meet the needs Mr. Comeaux outlined.  Mr. Dodgion replied the funds would be taken out of the community services grant monies. 

 

Mr. Marvel inquired if they were asking for general funds.  Mr. Comeaux indicated they were not.  The way the bill is written, the first collections from FY94 would be the source for the transfer to the Department of Taxation trust fund.  He emphasized the current trust fund balance would not be affected by this legislation.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified $27,000 plus $32,081 would be needed for FY94 while only $16,176 would be required for FY95.  Mr. Comeaux reiterated this was correct.

 

Vice Chairman Spitler called for public testimony.

 

Mr. John Madole, manager of the Nevada Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (AGCA), introduced himself.  He stated AGCA, Nevada Chapter supports AB386, but indicated they recommended certain amendments (see EXHIBIT C).  He explained the recycling bill from the Sixty-sixth Session originally would have put the $1 recycling fee, effective March 15, 1993, into the Department of Transportation's account to encourage the recycling of asphalt and other materials in Nevada highways.  He noted this session, SB97 took the fee and continued to allocate it to the solid waste management program which AGCA had some discomfort with but had chose not to oppose it.

 

Mr. Madole explained the amendments to AB386 would increase the tire tax fee effective July 1, 1993, to $2 per tire with half the funds going to the Department of Transportation with the same purpose as was originally included in the recycling bill of the Sixty-sixth Session.  He explained this would allow the establishment of the Critical Natural Resource Recovery fund.  He noted a firm in Carson City, based on the original passage of the recycling bill, has developed some technology to recycle tires into barrier and sound walls.  Mr. Madole stressed once a recovery fund is established and there is a potential for recovery of materials in the future, the fund could be left in place.  He explained with the increased pressure on the gas tax and other funding mechanisms for highways, user fees will become a larger portion of future funding for highway projects.  He summarized the proposed amendments would restore the original recycling bill's purpose and provide an incentive to recycle tires back into Nevada's highways in various ways.

 

Chairman Arberry asked why AGCA had not included these amendments in SB97.  Mr. Madole responded there was an issue with quick passage of SB97 in order to meet some federal standards deadline.  He indicated if the funding was withdrawn, the solid waste people would be forced to go to higher federal standards rather than being allowed to continue at the state-level standards in effect at this time.  AGCA chose to back off of amending SB97 in order to meet the deadline and allow the state-level standards to remain in effect with the funding intact.  Mr. Madole remarked testimony on SB97 was given indicating AGCA's intent to amend the trailer bill AB386.

 

Chairman Arberry remarked the amendments had not been submitted previously.  Mr. Madole replied the amendments were discussed during SB97 hearings, but were not submitted pursuant to discussions with Assemblyman Freeman where she voiced concerns regarding the timetable passage of SB97 had to meet. 

 

Chairman Arberry emphasized concern that these amendments should have been included in SB97.  Mr. Marvel asked if the time limits have been waived or lifted and if there was a significant time factor difference between this hearing and the Senate hearing.  Mr. Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, replied the critical date had been March 15, 1993 for passage of SB97.  He explained since SB97 had been approved and signed by the Governor, the trailer bill, AB386, will clean up some of the technical provisions which could not be completed because of the March 15, 1993 deadline.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB386.

 

AB18        Creates committee on catastrophic leave and requires department of personnel to establish account for catastrophic leave.

 

Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), noted AB18 has already gone through the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee because of the fiscal note attached.

 

Mr. Gagnier provided a brief history.  He stated four years ago the Legislature passed legislation which created catastrophic leave, but because it was such a new concept for Nevada government, the Legislature put a sunset clause in the bill.  Therefore, he explained, effective July 1, 1993, catastrophic leave ceases to exist.  AB18 would allow catastrophic leave to continue. 

 

Mr. Gagnier indicated on passage of the catastrophic leave bill four years ago, SNEA had agreed to monitor the program and see what changes would be needed.  He said the program was originally setup agency-by-agency and although problems were anticipated, this was chosen as the optimum situation to start up the program.  He explained the goal would be to set the program up on a statewide basis which AB18 attempts to do.  The fiscal note addresses the costs associated with setting up the statewide program.

 

Mr. Gagnier explained SNEA is proposing to have catastrophic leave available statewide through the Department of Personnel which would create a committee to administer the fund.  He noted the principal cost in the fiscal note would be for data processing charges of $40,000.

 

Mr. Gagnier elaborated the reason for the change is because the current plan, agency-by-agency, discriminates against employees in smaller agencies.  Smaller agencies have fewer employees and the opportunity for them to receive catastrophic leave from coworkers is limited while larger agencies would not have the problem.

 

Mr. Gagnier pointed out if, because of the state's fiscal situation, the committee does not want to see the cost associated with AB18, at the very least amend the bill to take out the sunset clause.  He emphasized the program is doing very well. 

 

Chairman Arberry inquired how this bill would fall under the proposed reorganization.  Mr. Gagnier indicated it would be under the current Department of Personnel. 

 

Mrs. Williams remarked she had an inherent interest in this bill because the original bill had been hers and the original goal had been to have the catastrophic leave program available across all agencies in order to create a bigger pool to draw from.  She explained the agency-by-agency idea was a compromise to begin the program and see how successful it would be.  She stressed she has received numerous calls over the past few years from employees talking about how crucial this program was to them and their families and how it enabled them to continue productive lives and return to work without impacting social services.

 

Chairman Arberry called for public testimony.

 

Mr. Glenn Rock, Director of the Department of Personnel, explained, in regard to the proposed reorganization, if the catastrophic leave program was left at the administrator level it would fall under the Department of Personnel.  He stated the Department of Personnel is very much in favor of the bill.  He explained it has worked out quite well.  He noted the only calls he has received have been regarding employees' inability to donate across agency lines.  They would like to donate to some other employee they know in a catastrophic situation, but who is in another agency other than their own.

 

Mr. Rock stated the current bill sunsets effective July 1, 1993.  Due to the programming costs involved to go to the statewide concept, he proposed an implementation date for AB18 of January 1, 1994.  He explained this would give the data processing people time to program the concept, set up the committee and establish the applicable regulations.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB18.

 

AB260Makes appropriation for program of nutrition.

 

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, District 30, stated two years ago the committee had an identical measure, AB414 of the Sixty-sixth session, which allocated $300,000 in each year of the biennium to assist with the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program.  She also noted the genesis of that proposal came from a recommendation by the Interim Study Committee on Teen Pregnancy.  The WIC program, although it is for low-income persons, is not a welfare program.  It is a very old program which began in the 1950's and comes out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  She explained WIC's purpose is two-fold:  to provide food supplements and nutrition education.

 

Mrs. Evans emphasized AB414 of the Sixty-sixth session was passed, but never included in the budget itself.  This avoided the cuts when budget reductions occurred and the state was able to utilize the money during the last biennium.  She noted her surprise that there had been no recommendation in The Executive Budget because this biennium there is so much emphasis on prenatal care, immunizations for young children and an attempt to improve the general health of mothers and children in Nevada.  This is a major component of the welfare reform package currently proposed. 

 

Mrs. Evans emphasized one of the first things a doctor deals with with a pregnant woman is diet and nutrition.  Counseling also occurs when a child is born in regard to feeding and nutritional needs of the baby.  She explained it is, once again, left up to the Legislature to provide funding.  She emphasized the $600,000 does not provide services for all eligible people for the next biennium and constitutes only 50 percent of the need from the last biennium.  Mrs. Evans indicated Dr. Kwalick and Mr. Brown would provide facts and statistics on the current status of WIC.  She noted the program is now over the 50 percent served mark and they are hoping additional dollars will be coming from Washington D.C.

 

Mrs. Evans encouraged the committee to give careful consideration of the WIC program funding because nutrition and food is a basic element of good health and getting a healthy start in life.

 

Dr. Donald Kwalick, State Public Health Officer, stated he was present to speak for AB260 and answer any questions.  He emphasized WIC is one of the only programs, with immunization and STD control, which is truly preventive in nature. 

 

Mr. Martin Brown, Chief of Nutrition Services for WIC, explained the purpose of the WIC program is to serve as a adjunct to good health care during critical times of growth and development in order to prevent the occurrence of health problems and to improve health status.  He outlined WIC serves pregnant women, women who were recently pregnant in order to aid recovery, infants and children up to age five.  He noted this group receives a three-fold benefit:  nutrition education, supplemental foods, and referrals to other healthcare programs.  Mr. Brown emphasized WIC often acts as a gateway to the healthcare system for low-income people.

 

Mr. Brown indicated the question being asked is if the money is being well spent.  He explained the federal WIC program has mandated $5 million each year devoted to evaluations on a nationwide basis.  The latest report compared the Medicaid costs for women who were on WIC during pregnancy to those women who were not.  He said the report indicated for five different states, the savings in Medicaid through the first 60 days after birth ranged from $1.77 to $3.13 for every $1.00 spent in WIC on the women during their pregnancy.  Subsequent analysis showed that the prevalence of very low birthweight births among these women were approximately one-half the expected frequency.  This resulted in a savings of several million dollars in each state's Medicaid program.  He emphasized these infants are often the ones which wind up in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit).

 

Mr. Brown explained they also do analyses in the program of what good is being done.  He indicated the annual report was provided for committee members to review (see EXHIBIT D.)  He explained the participation growth has ranged from steady to steep over the last biennium and it is summarized in the graph included as EXHIBIT E.  He emphasized in the first year of the biennium the growth was fairly steady.  The major factor which influenced growth was the lack of food-cost inflation.  He elaborated WIC had projected inflation at 4 percent per year and food-cost actually deflated during that time by approximately one-half percent.  He noted WIC was able to maximize the use of the federal funds and increased participation.  The added state dollars also permitted WIC to increase participation. 

 

Mr. Brown explained there was a steep rate of growth for the second year of the biennium.  He stated three things influenced this rapid growth.  First, the USDA utilized the new census data which enabled Nevada to be eligible for growth money of approximately $750,000 in extra federal funds.  Secondly, Nevada negotiated new infant formula rebate contracts.  He explained since WIC purchases approximately 40 percent of all infant formula sold in the state, joining with a dozen other state agencies and Indian agencies in the West, WIC was able to negotiate contacts which provided rebates for every can of formula bought.  This rebate contract has been in effect for the past four years, but as a result of the increased purchasing power, over $1 million more in revenues have been added to the program.  Third, the state funding provided another boost.  He summarized over the biennium the planned caseload went from about 15,000 to almost 24,000 at the end of FY93.

 

Mr. Brown pointed out the state dollars specifically would have served about 12,000 to 13,000 participants or an average of 530 per month.  He pointed out the expanded caseload has been primarily in the urban areas because it is in these areas where the most growth has occurred.  He noted 20 percent of the caseload two years ago was in Washoe County and will be 22 percent by the end of FY93.  Clark County comprised 61 percent at the beginning of the biennium and 65 percent at the end.  He stated for the rural counties the percentage will have decreased from 19 percent to 13 percent.  He explained there was not a decrease in the caseload.  The absolute number of people served in the rural areas actually went up, but with the phenomenal rate of growth in Clark and Washoe Counties over the biennium the percentage in the rural areas went down.

 

Mr. Brown discussed the chart included as EXHIBIT F which shows when pregnant women enter the WIC program in different areas of the state. He stated entrance is early in the rural counties.  It is after the midway point for Washoe County and in the third trimester for Clark County.  He emphasized WIC would like to have all women into the program as early as possible because evaluations indicate the most benefit comes from early entry into the program.  Mr. Brown noted with the implementation of the "Baby Your Baby" program, more pregnant women will enter prenatal care and be referred to WIC earlier. 

 

Mr. Brown explained the state monies can be targeted into the areas, especially Clark County, to facilitate early entry into the program.  State dollars can also be used to maximize the use of federal dollars to increase spending flexibility.

 

Mr. Brown emphasized for the future, the Clinton administration has pledged to fully fund the WIC program by 1996.  He stated a number of bills have been introduced in Congress which would achieve this goal.  He reiterated his hope is further appropriation of state money for this program will be unnecessary after this biennium.

 

Chairman Arberry inquired what the outreach program consisted of and what mechanisms exist to let the general public know about WIC services.  He emphasized his discussion with young people indicate they do not know WIC exists.  Mr. Brown replied outreach is done at the local level and WIC believes strongly the community is the level where outreach and all coordination of activities must take place.  He stated WIC administration receives plans from each agency every year which details its objectives and goals, what the budget will be, and what types of outreach will occur.

 

Mr. Brown enumerated a number of outreach programs which occur at the local level.  One type is through prenatal providers.  He indicated if the best source of contacting pregnant women were known for specific areas, those would be targeted more heavily with outreach.

 

Chairman Arberry noted Mr. Brown receives the outlines from local agencies and asked if they report back to indicate their success rate.  He pointed out the current outreach programs are not working at the local level.  Mr. Brown replied agencies receive annual on-site management evaluations and this includes evaluating their outreach file for adequate documentation.  He reiterated there are areas where outreach does not occur and he needs to know where they are in order to rectify the situation.

 

Chairman Arberry mentioned the chart, "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" (see EXHIBIT E) which shows the WIC caseload took a dip in Las Vegas during the riots and asked why this occurred.  Mr. Brown responded one of the WIC clinics burned down as a result of the riots.  It was the Community Health Center Clinic on Owens.  He stated the discussions with the local providers after the riots, showed the no-show rate was quite high for several months.  Therefore, the caseload for Clark County was affected.  Chairman Arberry mentioned a temporary distribution area was supposedly established at Cashman Field.  Mr. Brown indicated he did not believe the WIC program was ever relocated to Cashman Field.  WIC needs the ability to write checks which are generated by computer connected through a dedicated phone line to the state mainframe.  The majority of the computers were lost and the phone line was inaccessible.  He reiterated this occurred during a time when the local agency was attempting to expand its caseload and the agency tried its best to continue to provide services during the riot.  Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Brown provide for the committee an evaluation of the results of the clinics, if they are achieving their goals, the types of outreach they are doing and if the outreach programs are successful.  He indicated the legislators could then provide a helping hand in reaching the areas that are currently not being informed or served.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the Caseload Chart (see EXHIBIT E) shows "Clark County Health District begins operations."  She inquired if they had been operating prior to the date or did they receive an additional grant.  Mr. Brown stated they had not been operating previously.  He remarked they had sent a proposal to WIC to put the WIC clinic in the area vacated by Clark County Social Services.  The new clinic opened at the beginning of March 1993.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked who provided the WIC services up to that point.  Mr. Brown replied two private, nonprofit agencies provided services:  Economic Opportunity Board and Community Health Centers of Southern Nevada. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what the 185 percent of income equated to in money.  Mr. Brown testified for a family of four it would be approximately $25,000.  It is gross income without any deductions.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked for teenagers would this amount include the parents' income or just the teenager's.  Mr. Brown stated it depends on the situation of the pregnant teen.  He explained if they were living with and totally dependent on the parents, the family income would be included.  He emphasized WIC looks at family units and if the teen is separated from the parents or paying rent and living expenses to the parents, the teen's income would be looked at separately. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked even though the teen may not necessarily be receiving anything through the family, because they are living there they would not be eligible for WIC or other nutritional services as a pregnant teen.  She asked if any discussion has occurred on changing this so perhaps schools have input or the ability to refer the young people to WIC.  She emphasized there was no coordination from the outreach clinics to school counselors or nurses for referral services.  The at-risk population of teens having babies needs to be addressed specifically.  Ms. Giunchigliani requested the report from Mr. Brown include in the outreach portion, an evaluation specifically on outreach to schools and the under-18 pregnant group and recommendations on alternatives to the economic unit scales to assure this group is served adequately.

 

 

 

Mr. Brown emphasized the pregnant teen group is a difficult area to evaluate.  He pointed out the clinics do have discretion in evaluating if the teen is totally dependent on or independent from the family.

 

Speaker Dini asked Mr. Brown to repeat the statistics for rural Nevada.  He stated they did not match with the information he has received from the rural school districts about the increase in poverty.  He indicated although rural growth has not been as significant as Clark County's, it did grow more than Washoe County.  He pointed out the minority growth in rural Nevada has been tremendous because of the Hispanics who have come to do farm labor.  Mr. Brown reiterated although the percentage of the caseloads decreased in the rural areas, the absolute numbers went up.  He elaborated the caseload grew from about 2,800 to 3,100 current participants.  He indicated the percentage discrepancy occurred because of the influx of money.  The clinics in the rural areas where WIC operates directly are actually directed to provide service to as many people as they can and they have no restrictions on their number of participants.  The increase has been 10 percent, approximately.  Speaker Dini requested a breakdown by county.

 

Chairman Arberry called for public testimony.

 

Ms. Marcia Turik, Coordinator of the Washoe County District Health Department's WIC program commented she had come before the committee two years ago to support the WIC appropriation.  She explained the 1991 appropriation had been the first time in 20 years the State of Nevada had supported the WIC program.  She indicated they were very grateful at that point for the committee's support.  The $600,000 appropriation was received and Ms. Turik indicated all the families which benefitted from the funds are grateful also.  Ms. Turik reiterated the funding has made a difference.  Although, at the time, it seemed like a drop in the bucket to serve the proposed 500 additional clients, the actual impact was much more than that.  She stated two years ago she came to the Legislature with a waiting list of over 1,400 children, toddlers and women who could not be served in Washoe County alone. 

 

Ms. Turik stressed 1991 was the turning point for WIC services in Washoe County in that the one decision by the Legislature to make a difference in people's lives by funding WIC, resulted in the end of a waiting list and the addition of clients on the program for Washoe County.  She pointed out another result was more federal funding and greater local support for WIC.  She reiterated Washoe County currently has no people on a waiting list or, to her knowledge, anywhere else in the state.  They are also able to serve the large number of people who are eligible for WIC. 

 

Ms. Turik remarked this is just the beginning.  She elaborated because of the information received from the 1990 census data, there are approximately 38,000 clients who are potentially eligible for WIC in Nevada.  She stated at the end of FY93, even with all the financial support, only about 21,000 to 24,000 clients will be actually served.  This leaves a large unmet need.  She commented the Clinton administration does support full funding of the WIC program, but the wheels of government turn very slowly.  By the time the funds are received at the state level, there will still be a number of children who go to bed hungry and families who cannot afford groceries to feed them.  She reiterated there is still a large unmet need, and although the state dollars make a big difference and will continue to make a difference, the need will remain until the federal dollars become reality to serve the total 38,000 Nevada families. 

 

Ms. Turik urged the committee to support the preventive health care nature of the WIC program.  She stressed research has shown WIC saves money and for every dollar spent on WIC at least three dollars are saved in medical care costs which are already spent.  WIC is a good investment for taxpayers.

 

Ms. Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters, voiced her support of the bill.  She stated many groups could not be here and they sent yellow cards to all legislators to show their support.  She indicated the groups are all concerned with poverty issues.  She pointed out AB260 will help a great deal to feed some of the babies which need to be fed.  She mentioned the long-term costs and savings have been discussed already and urged the committee to support AB260.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB260.

 

AB373Requires state welfare administrator to establish program to provide grants for supplemental food program.

 

Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, District 24, introduced herself and Ms. Cherie Louvat, Executive Director of the Food Bank of Northern Nevada (FBNN).  Mrs. Freeman indicated she is on the board of the food bank.  The food bank is a private, not-for-profit organization which dispenses food statewide.  She explained during her time as a board member for the United Way, the concept of the food bank arose nearly 20 years ago and this program was formed as a result of those discussions.  Ms. Freeman mentioned she had been approached by Ms. Louvat to introduce a bill to request funding for the food bank. 

 

Ms. Freeman testified she saw AB373 as a marriage of public/private use of money for addressing one of the social problems.  She expounded she found it interesting and a sign of the times that two bills being discussed this morning regarded hunger and poverty.  She indicated there will be another agency in opposition to the approach of AB373 and she stated it was her hope the various parties can work together to present a recommendation to help all hungry people in Nevada.

 

Ms. Louvat stated AB373, which has been introduced by the Health and Human Services committee, requests funding for the support of emergency food programs in the state of Nevada.  She pointed out similar legislation, called SNAP (Supplementary Nutritional  Allocation Program), is in place in several states including New York, Maryland, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.  SNAP legislation is presently being considered in Missouri and Texas.

 

Ms. Louvat testified supplementary nutrition legislation creates an effective public/private partnership between the state and not-for-profit emergency food providers such as food banks, emergency food pantries, hot meal programs and the like.  These providers help take up the slack between what the state and county are able to provide in assistance and what is really needed by low-income families to make it to the end of the month.

 

She commented statistics show that more than 70 percent of those families receiving emergency food assistance have children and more than 50 percent are children under the age of 18.  According to the 1991 Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CHIP) survey, 11.5 million children under the age of 12 are hungry or at-risk for hunger with extrapolated data indicating more than 70,000 are children in Nevada.  About 10 percent of those people receiving assistance are senior citizens.  Many are on fixed incomes, some work two jobs and still cannot earn enough to provide sufficient food for their families after fixed expenses.  She explained many receive food stamps, which are intended to supplement the family food budget not be the entire family food budget.  She indicated at approximately $2.70 per day, food stamps are clearly inadequate as a sole source of nutrition and applicants must wait from five to 45 days to receive food stamps and must have some assistance during that waiting period.

 

Ms. Louvat emphasized emergency food assistance is presently provided by up to 170 agencies which are serviced by two food banks in the state at this time.  Agencies include emergency food pantries, hot meal programs, formerly known as soup kitchens but now provide a more adequate diet than just soup, and shelters along with several other categories.  She reiterated the FBNN is working hard to establish emergency food programs in all the counties.  FBNN manages FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), emergency food and shelter funds for six counties, and presently is working with staff in Lyon, Storey and White Pine Counties, at their request, to create emergency food services in six small communities.

 

She elaborated, in the rural counties particularly, county and state welfare has done the job alone for many years.  With the help of an emergency pantry, which is created and run primarily by volunteers, meager funds stretch to serve about four times as many people and the burden is lifted off overworked government staff and shared by community members. 

 

Ms. Louvat reiterated people who need assistance receive an increased level of service and more food at less cost to the county.  Additionally, volunteers are trained to help connect clients with other federal food programs for which they are eligible.

 

She pointed out emergency food programs are very cost effective, run by volunteers, and often are housed in donated facilities.  She stated last year alone more than 2.3 million pounds of food valued at over $4 million was distributed by food banks and the emergency food pantries in Northern Nevada alone.  The majority of the food is donated, although some supplementary staple items are purchased primarily from FEMA funds, Title XX funding from the state and monies raised by the food banks through small foundations.

 

Ms. Louvat emphasized with the present fiscal constraint currently being addressed by the state government lends itself to the public/private partnerships which would be created through AB373.  These partnerships maximize small financial resources and have been clearly shown to support communities in helping their own in a very cost effective way.  In addition, food banks and emergency food programs have an excellent track record of collaboration with county, state and federal programs such as WIC, the Department of Education's child nutrition programs, and food stamps. 

 

 

Ms. Louvat indicated it has been clearly documented that poor nutrition is the cause of serious health and social problems, such as low birthweight babies, poor performance in school which leads to adults inadequately prepared to lead productive lives, and seniors requiring medical attention, all of which could be prevented by an adequate diet.

 

She pointed out government at any level cannot be expected to provide all the nutrition services desperately needed by the low income population.  Small private emergency food programs around the state already provide valuable and critical services to those people in need of assistance.  AB373 will give these programs the support they need in order to fill the gap.

 

Ms. Louvat stated on behalf of the thousands of clients who benefit from these programs, the FBNN request the committee's support of AB373 and the cost effective partnership it would create in service to some of the most defenseless members of the community.

 

Ms. Myla Florence, Administrator of Nevada State Welfare Division, stated she was testifying in support of AB373 which would direct the Welfare Administrator to establish a program to provide grants for supplemental food programs.  She stated the supplemental food program would operate as a trust fund from funding received from the "abandoned property trust fund" of up to $100,000 per year.  The money in the fund, less the cost of expenses incurred by the Welfare Division directly related to the administration of the program, would be allocated to food banks which would serve the needs of Nevada residents through a grant process.

 

Ms. Florence pointed out the Welfare Division prepared a fiscal note stating 10 percent of the money collected would be needed for administration (sending out RFPs, monitoring grants, providing financial/program oversight) and the balance would be allocated to food banks.  She indicated the division has experience in administering grant programs.  The most closely related programs are the Emergency Homeless Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, and the Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless Program (SAFAH).

 

Mrs. Florence commented the only reservation the division has in accepting this additional responsibility is the need for additional staffing.  The administration of these types of programs does not justify full-time positions.  They require portions of program, financial and management's time during a concentrated period.  Although the Division receives a reasonable amount of dollars to reimburse administration costs, the dollars are inadequate to fund new positions.  She stated the added responsibility must be absorbed by existing staff which are already spread thin therefore making it more and more difficult to absorb new programs.  She noted, however, if the bill is passed, the division is committed to providing the best services within available resources. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what currently exists for public/private partnerships.  Ms. Florence replied in regard to food programs, the Senior Nutrition Programs and School Lunch Programs are assisted through state purchasing.  She stated the lunch programs are statewide.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked what mechanisms are in place to track how food is delivered and what is the avenue for accountability of services.  Ms. Florence responded, as part of the grant process, the division requires monthly reporting of the expenditure of the funds and ensures it is directly tied to the objectives of the grant.  Ms. Giunchigliani commented too often the state is providing services which should actually be a county responsibility.  She noted while the program and concept is commendable, the lines are fuzzy as to what the state versus the local government should be providing.  She voiced the desire to agree on responsibilities before pushing it back onto the counties two years later.  She requested AB373 be discussed in subcommittee.

 

Mr. Spitler commented funds would come from the abandoned property trust fund and noted these funds currently lapse into the general fund, therefore $100,000 is essentially being requested from the general fund.   Ms. Florence indicated yes.  Mr. Spitler inquired as to how the Welfare Division wanted to set up the program.  He elaborated out of the $100,000 there could be an instance where only $50,000 in food is actually being provided to the people.  He pointed out based on how the administrative, distribution, and operational costs are enumerated on page 2, lines 32 through 45 of

AB373, 12.5 percent would defray transportation costs, 12.5 percent would defray food bank operations, and 25 percent would provide for special programs and projects.

 

Mr. Spitler voiced his concern where $100,000 is allocated not to provide food, but to set up "systems" while systems already exist to distribute food.  The need is to get food to the distribution centers, not set up more administration.  Ms. Florence emphasized Mr. Spitler was correct in his interpretation of the bill.  She indicated the Welfare Division did not participate in the language in the bill.  She stated, to her knowledge, Ms. Louvat and Assemblywoman Freeman were the bill originators.  Mr. Spitler interjected he was not adverse to the state helping where it can, but his concern was over "beefing up" on the administrative size when people still go hungry and the funds were allocated to help existing agencies get food distributed.

 

Ms. Florence reiterated this was a concern and perhaps the originators would be willing to negotiate the bill's language.

 

Chairman Arberry asked if Ms. Florence had any objection to the committee amending out the administrative portions of AB373.  Ms. Florence maintained as long as lines 27 and 28 of page two which provide some administrative funding to the division are included because the division could not absorb the notification, advertising and travel expenses for monitoring.  Chairman Arberry concurred with Vice Chairman Spitler's concerns that the money will not get to food for distribution.

 

Mr. Humke asked if this method of funding is the best way or should it be a straight appropriation.  He commented the statute states the funds are from unclaimed property.  He explained the summary states "utility deposits," but it is actually numerous sources such as insurance, bank accounts, various ways people leave money unclaimed and the monies are turned over to the state to be distributed.  He indicated if people come back for their funds after the state has taken them, it would be a charge against the general fund.  Mr. Humke remarked the general fund could pay into the food bank trust while still being liable to claimants which is not necessarily a clean source of funds.  Ms. Florence stated she understood his concern and indicated a clean appropriation would be optimal, but the intent is to identify a non-general fund source.  Mr. Humke reiterated AB373 clearly states the money is taken from abandoned property, placed in the general fund, and then an appropriation is made.  He stressed this avenue of payment source has pitfalls.

 

Ms. Louvat addressed Mr. Spitler's concerns over transportation.  She stated the food bank endeavors to obtain donated transportation by trucking companies and currently donated transportation is provided for approximately $50,000 to distribute nearly $4 million in food.  She pointed out the small transportation issues are to transport to the rural counties and to Las Vegas.  There is a desire to have a bill introduced into the Transportation Committee which would allow the donation of intrastate transportation to help mitigate those costs.

 

Mr. Michael McMann, Director of Churchill County Welfare Department, testified in support of AB373.  He stated this bill would provide a mechanism for assisting local pantries in meeting an increasing demand for their services.  He commented, as Assemblywoman Freeman indicated earlier, several years ago the United Way of Northern Nevada invested in the creation of a food bank network for Northern Nevada.  Within the creation of the food bank, it provided a mechanism to be a receptacle and central distribution point for food stuffs to local feeding programs through Northern Nevada.  Mr. McMann explained approximately two years ago, the Nevada Association of County Welfare Directors facilitated the acquisition of grant monies to allow the expansion of the food bank network to cover rural pantries.  Many of these pantries are small operations run by religious affiliations, community service organizations or civic clubs.  He elaborated the expansion of the network allowed rural pantries to more effectively utilize limited resources in the community and access to technical assistance available through the food bank.  Mr. McMann stated he believed the local pantries are an important thread in the human services safety net with their ability to move effectively to provide immediate food stuffs to people who are waiting for food stamps or families in crisis.  He encouraged the committee's support of AB373.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if this program would cover Northern Nevada and rural Nevada.  Mr. McMann replied this would be a statewide program.  He explained the expansion occurs primarily from the FBNN which concentrates in the north and western portions of the state.  The expansion two years ago allowed service to the eastern and central portions of the state as well, but AB373 would be a statewide service.  Mrs. Williams asked Ms. Louvat if FBNN has networked with the food programs in Southern Nevada.  Ms. Louvat stated they absolutely had and indicated Chairman Arberry would be receiving a letter of support from the Director of the Las Vegas Food Bank which represents another 80 to 90 agencies.  This legislation is for funds to support emergency food programs statewide, not to support the food banks.

 

Ms. Marcia Turik commented because of the nature of the WIC program being comprehensive healthcare, they have a long-term investment in their client's education and food supplementation.  She stated WIC calls on the food bank services for many WIC clients emergency and short-term needs and therefore work closely with the food bank and distributor agencies.  She indicated it would be beneficial for the committee to support this bill, because many WIC clients come in without enough money to buy food for the rest of the month even with the WIC program food and food stamps.  Additionally, there is a large emergency need while clients wait for food stamps or when they run out of food.

 

Ms. Pam Pittsford, Director of Community Emergency Services formerly Community Welfare, explained Community Emergency Food and Services is the largest food pantry serving the Reno/Sparks area.  She stated last year the pantry served 26,243 unduplicated persons with 75,000 instances of services and over 700,000 pounds of food distributed.

 

Ms. Pittsford commented she was struggling to understand AB373 because it came to her attention last Thursday and, prior to that time, she had no knowledge it was being drafted.  She indicated she was confused by a number of issues.   She pointed out a shared maintenance fee of 12 cents per pound is paid by all recipient agencies to the FBNN, regardless of whether they are homeless shelters, senior nutrition programs or emergency food pantries, for every pound of food received from the FBNN with the exception of commodities and bread.  Ms. Pittsford remarked she would like to see either the maintenance fee suspended for the food purchased with the funds appropriated by AB373 or the recipient agency be applicants for this money on an equal basis, not just the food banks.  She emphasized she hates to see the wording limiting availability to just food banks. 

 

Ms. Pittsford indicated she understood Ms. Louvat has stated it is for the programs, but the reading of bill is "...must be allocated to food banks which serve the needs of residents..." (page 2 lines 29 and 30 of AB373).  Ms. Pittsford emphasized the pantries and the nutrition programs are the ones which serve the needs of the residents while the food banks in Las Vegas and Reno serve the needs of the agencies which serve the needs of the residents. 

 

Ms. Pittsford reiterated the bill needs to be looked at a little closer and, as Mr. Spitler indicated, assure the food be placed in the hungry people's hands rather than on refrigeration and, furthermore, the funds be earmarked specifically to food not administration.  She stated she would be glad to serve on a redrafting committee for AB373.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated Ms. Pittsford articulated Ms. Giunchigliani's concerns quite well.  She clarified the current food bank process is bids are received and food is disseminated to agencies who want to apply such as pantries and nutrition centers, etc.  Ms. Pittsford indicated yes, the food commodities are passed through the food bank.  Ms. Giunchigliani outlined AB373 would create a new supplemental emergency food program for dissemination to people who want to apply for it.  Ms. Pittsford responded she sees the AB373 program as money which would be made available to the food bank for the food bank to decide how it is spent.  She emphasized whether it is spent on refrigeration, transportation, or to purchase food would be up to the food bank.  She indicated the agencies already pay 12 cents per pound for food received from the food bank. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated her confusion over this concept because she did not want to allocate funds to purchase equipment when the purpose is to provide emergency food.  Ms. Pittsford agreed and indicated the food pantries do not want to have additional shared maintenance costs. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the bills intent is to take the current state food bank structure and allocate additional revenue to the new program called supplemental food program.  Ms. Louvat replied it was not.  The purpose of AB373 is to provide additional funding for the programs which are listed in the bill.  She stated the capital equipment there is concern about would be relative to the start up of new small pantry programs in the rural counties.  She emphasized these small pantries may need refrigeration in order to deal with the food which they receive.  The funds would also allow for the purchase of refrigeration or small equipment for any emergency food programs including those in Washoe and Clark Counties who are unable to obtain the funding through any other source.  Ms. Louvat indicated there are many foundations who would be able to provide such funding.  She stated the purchase of capital equipment from AB373 revenues would be a last measure after all other resources are exhausted.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked how many current agencies are already providing food pantry services.  Ms. Louvat replied over 170 agencies exist.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked why should more be created or is the issue providing food to the existing agencies.  Ms. Louvat reiterated there are small communities which are presently unserved by any type of emergency food program.  She stated the food bank is presently working in Lyon County at the request of the County Manager and the United Way to help create a program.  She reiterated the food bank's purpose is to provide technical assistance to those programs, get them up and running and off the ground.  AB373 would assist in that particular function.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated either the state facilitates programs to distribute food directly to the needy or there should be some local responsibility for start-up costs to those pantries.  Set-up costs should not be the state's responsibility.  She stressed the state's responsibility should be the food purchase directly, not the equipment or transportation costs.  Ms. Louvat agreed this was not an inappropriate interpretation and it may indeed be the final result of this bill.

 

Mr. Humke stated Ms. Pittsford had indicated some frustration in seeing AB373 arise suddenly and was willing to serve on some subcommittee.  He asked if she was from Washoe.  Ms. Pittsford said she was.  Mr. Humke asked if there was some social services agency which had a group which deals with food-need issues.  She responded the recently formed Truckee Meadows Human Services Plan and a subcommittee called The Basic Needs Committee addresses food on an overall level.  She pointed out Ms. Louvat serves on that committee.  Ms. Pittsford indicated The Basic Needs Committee could be an appropriate committee to deal with AB373.  She reiterated her frustration was on receiving the bill so late and trying to contact the appropriate parties on Friday, to no avail.  She asserted she had no desire to speak against food getting to hungry people, but her purpose is to see it come in a way which benefits as many people as possible in a fair and equitable way.

 

Chairman Arberry assigned AB373 to subcommittee chaired by Assemblywoman Chowning with members Mr. Heller and Mrs. Williams.  

Mr. Monty Fast, Executive Director of Friends in Service Helping (FISH) of Carson City, introduced himself.  He explained FISH operates in Carson, Lyon, Douglas and Storey Counties and is the largest of the rural human services programs.  He stated FISH is not a member agency of the Food Bank of Northern Nevada and procures all food stuffs at the local level, thereby providing all its own food. 

 

Mr. Fast stated FISH does not support AB373 as it is currently written.  He pointed out FISH does work with the Nevada Food Distribution people and receives commodities through them very efficiently and very well.  He indicated the agency already exists which simply could provide more food for all the rurals, deliver it to them and provide adequate services. 

 

Mr. Fast noted his objections to AB373 have already been outlined by Chairman Arberry and Vice Chairman Spitler.  He maintained to simply delete lines 38 through 45 on page 2 of AB373 would strengthen the bill considerably.  He explained to direct the funding to the lowest level rather than a middleman operation would certainly make more food available to more needy people.  He reiterated, as Ms. Pittsford indicated, the food bank does charge a 12 cent per pound maintenance fee which in many cases is beyond the ability of the low-income rural food pantries to pay.  They simply do not have enough money to buy the food available now.  He pointed out if the rural food pantries could administer the funds to secure the food from whomever they choose, such as pay for shipping fees from state commodities program or purchase it wholesale from distributors, the result would be more food to those who need it. 

 

Mr. Fast explained if $100,000 is allocated, $10,000 has to go to the Welfare Division for administering the funds.  Fifty percent of the remaining $90,000, or $45,000 is left for food and in the current terms of the bill, the agency would have to pay an additional 12 cents per pound to receive the food.  This increases the administrative costs considerably for the food getting to the local, county level, if the counties can even afford the 12 cents per pound. 

 

He reiterated he is in complete support of providing more food for more people, but there is a more efficient and cost-effective way to getting it into people's hands.  There are hungry people right here in Carson City and FISH serves 50 families per day with over 200,000 meals provided in 1992.  He indicated the rate has not decreased in spite of the recession supposedly easing.  Mr. Fast stated it would be wise to have a committee of Human Services Directors, the hands-on community services people, to review the fine print of AB373 and rearrange the verbiage.

 

Mr. Ben Glenn stated he has lived in Nevada for a number of years, taught school in Churchill, Esmeralda, and Washoe Counties, and at Stewart Indian School, and has dealt with a number of people in the rural counties.  He remarked he gives to his local church and local nonprofit pantries such as Ms. Pittsford program, who are the people who actually give out the food to any people who ask.  He pointed out he gives a can of food for the food bank when he goes to roller skate and takes his children to the Easter Egg Hunt which supports the City of Sparks which then donates money to the local nonprofit agency to provide the food services.  He stated, "Either you are in line as one of the poor or you are helping with the program."

 

Mr. Glenn exclaimed he resents that the can he gives to the food bank FREE is then charged 12 cents before it is given back to the local distributor either in Austin or Carlin or other rural areas for the hungry, then transportation has to paid for and then the person bagging the food.  He emphasized there are a lot of fine volunteers including people who have been in trouble and the judge has assigned community service sentences so the people can work themselves in a noble way back into the community by helping others.  He indicated the programs from the University of Nevada also provide volunteers. 

 

Mr. Glenn pointed out there are no funds for the people's daily jobs.  He stated Ms. Pittsford failed to mention they had lost a position in Reno because some of their United Way monies had to be paid to the food bank (another United Way organization) to pay for food which was given to them free to provide to the public who are hungry. 

 

Mr. Glenn emphasized the money for the food and the food itself are being raised.  He exclaimed he gave a can of corn FREE, but Mr. Fast would have to buy it for 12 cents to give it to the hungry.  Mr. Glenn insisted his attitude of giving was his alms were given to meet another person's needs.  He stressed the money which has been given by taxpayers through the general fund is reduplicated through food bank costs on down the line.  The monies are shuffled and the food is shuffled to the point it is spoiled goods which must be passed to the pig farmer who does not give the pig to the poor.  Mr. Glenn pointed out, at that point the attitude of giving is lost in all the related garbage and this is the garbage which needs to be weeded out of the system so the food is bought or donated, then handed to the hungry people. 

 

Mr. Glenn reiterated if the money is going to be provided, tell the food bank not to charge everyone else down the line so the rural and small pantries can afford to feed their hungry people where the dollar in the church plate and other little donations originated.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB373.

 

AB377Makes supplemental appropriations to department of commerce for certain expenses.

 

Mr. Kevin Christensen, Director of the Office of Protection and Advocacy, stated he was testifying in support of AB377 which would appropriate $665.86 for a 5 percent salary differential in FY88-89 which was paid to the employee of the agency for supervision of other employees of the same classification.  He stated this is basically a housekeeping measure because money was borrowed from the stale claims fund to pay the cost and the stale claims fund is required to seek repayment.

 

Mr. Scott Walshaw, Financial Institute Division, indicated his support of AB377.  He stated his agency is affected by this bill in section two.  He explained this came about as a result of placing an employee on administrative leave.  According to a memo they received in 1991 from the Department of Personnel, the division was told exempt employees placed on administrative leave for less than a day between 1986 and 1991 must be compensated retroactively for those absences.  He stated they are requesting those funds be approved in order to reimburse the stale claims fund.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB377.

 

Chairman Arberry revised the subcommittee for reviewing AB373 and replaced Mrs. Williams with Mr. Perkins.

 

Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 9:42 a.m.

 

                                                RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                _________________________

                                                Kerin E. Putnam

                                                Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

March 29, 1993

Page 1