The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, May 31, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. There were no signatures on the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice-Chair (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) stated Assembly Bill (A.B.) 702 was introduced the previous evening. The bill revised compensation for legislative session employees.

Since the committee was able to identify dollars that would provide state employee increases in the second year of the biennium, a bill was introduced to provide the same level of increase for legislative session employees.

The bill provided a 2 percent raise in the second year of the upcoming biennium. Legislative session employees were not traditionally included in the Classified Pay Bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 702.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Stevens stated the committee had authority to introduce the bill. The purpose of the hearing was to request committee approval to get the bill to the Floor of the Assembly.

The bill was reviewed the previous day and contained various appropriations to be considered for funding.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 703.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND BEERS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND GIUNCHIGLIANI NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Dr. John Yacenda, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources testified the bill addressed a concern of many people. Public health access was something to benefit a number of people who did not have access to certain services.

The agency had also looked at health insurance plans for employers to offer health insurance to their employees as well as a way for private citizens to buy insurance.

The task force created by S.B. 556 looked at a deliberate challenge to review existing public health infrastructure issues and develop a means to ensure the greatest number of people had access to public health access services such as:

• Immunizations;
• Screenings for cancer; and
• Screenings for other types of conditions.

The intent was to create a system that would increase the number of access services, thereby decreasing the number of services that would normally be included in a private or employee insurance plan. The insurance industry was to be involved in the task force providing a broader range of health insurance policies to consumers, employees, and employers. At the same time infrastructure services through public health would be increased.

The bill would provide an opportunity for public health providers and the insurance industry to work together in finding solutions.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what, in Mr. Yacenda’s opinion, would happen to health insurance premiums. Would they go down or was there a possibility they would rise. Mr. Yacenda responded the intent was for premiums to be lowered.

Assemblyman Marvel asserted the plan would also aim at broader coverage. Mr. Yacenda agreed.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked why the Culinary Union in particular, was specified as having a seat on the task force. Mr. Yacenda stated in the past the issues were reviewed by a health committee and other task forces; but all the players who had a vested interest had never been brought together before.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked if a self-funded plan was currently being used. Mr. Yacenda responded there were currently many forms of insurance. The Culinary Union was largely involved in self-funded plans, but they had also expressed interest in working with the dental school to provide dental access for their employees.

It was hoped the task force would be an opportunity to look at all aspects of public health access. Mr. Yacenda referred committee members to section 3, subsection 3 that identified a full range of resources that would be reviewed.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 556.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND BEERS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND GIUNCHIGLIANI NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

*********

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND DO PASS S.B. 48.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Price to present S.B. 48 on the Floor of the Assembly. He also asked Mrs. de Braga to present S.B. 556 on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Mr. Stevens stated the bill had originated in the Senate Finance Committee. The bill included a $125,000 appropriation in sections 25 and 26. The funds would be allocated to the Division of Emergency Management.

Discussion ensued that the bill appeared to tighten up funding provided for emergency management activities. Reports would be required.

Senator Raymond Rawson, Senate District 3 testified the bill was prepared as a simple appropriation to fund some training exercises and computer programming for mass disasters. The bill was used as a vehicle to change some of the procedures concerning declaration of a mass disaster.

S.B. 193 allowed the director of the Division of Emergency Management to respond to a local entity if assistance was requested. A national declaration of disaster would not be needed. Nor would the Governor have to declare a disaster.

The bill specified if a local entity suffered a disaster such as flood damage, they were only eligible for 50 percent of the damage to be cared for through the bill. An entity that suffered damage must first apply for assistance to the appropriate city or county and if the city or county could not fund the request, they could apply to the state. In that fashion 100 percent could ultimately be recovered.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 193.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND BEERS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND GIUNCHIGLIANI NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Assemblyman Hettrick testified the bill created a revamped presidential primary without the appropriation and changed the effective date.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 548.

Speaker Dini stated he would have to oppose the bill. He credited Assemblyman Hettrick with his hard work on the legislation. Unfortunately there were some problems within the National Democratic Party and the State Democratic Party and his personal philosophy in reaching a consensus regarding the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 548.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH NAY VOTES BY ASSEMBLYMEN GOLDWATER, PRICE, PARKS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN DE BRAGA, AND CHOWNING. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS AND ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry called a recess of the meeting noting the committee would re-convene upon the call of the Chair.

The meeting was recessed at 10:00 a.m.

********

The meeting reconvened at 5:45 p.m. at the call of the Chair. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Evans were absent and excused.

Mark Stevens, LCB staff stated the bill was not yet in the Ways and Means Committee but it was anticipated shortly.

The bill was the Senate version of the Assembly bill that provided funding for a number of different areas.

Chairman Arberry stated the intent was that once the physical bill was received a meeting at the Bar of the Assembly Chambers would be called and the bill could be voted upon. He requested members to review copies of the bill during the intervening time frame.

********

Mark Stevens stated the bill made an appropriation to the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to conduct a feasibility study for improving access to highways in adjoining states. The bill appropriated $250,000 from the state General Fund to NDOT.

Section 1 provided for the appropriation and a feasibility study for improving roads and highways in adjoining states that provided access into Nevada. The study must include a review of the manner in which such highway funding was approved, constructed and maintained.

The appropriated money could only be used if matching money was provided by Clark County or from sources other than the appropriated funds. The appropriation expired on June 30, 2001.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked for clarification that the feasibility study regarded how such highways were constructed by Nevada as well as adjoining states.

Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1 testified the State of Nevada had a customer in the form of Laughlin, Nevada. That community generated about $500 million per year in gross gaming revenues. Of that $500 million, the state received about $35 million net in revenue.

The visitor count in Laughlin was down by almost 500,000 people in the past 5 years. Gaming revenues had also dropped in the past 5 years from about
$540 million in 1993 to $490 million in 1998.

Although Laughlin was specified in the bill, it was only one example of what could happen citywide. The expansion of Indian gaming throughout the Southwest and the Phoenix area where there were 13 Indian gaming casinos had impacted the Laughlin community and was a microcosm of the statewide impacts from Indian gaming.

Only one road went into Laughlin that was traveled by 80 percent of the tourists. That particular road was paved but it was a county highway in California. The road was not striped or lined. Approximately 15 traffic deaths per year occurred on that highway. The majority of deaths occurred to employees of Nevada casinos or customers coming into the state.

The problem was that San Bernardino County had no incentive except safety, which was critical, to maintain and upgrade the county highway because the road came into and benefited Nevada. There was no financial benefit to California.

Nevada had a serious situation in that 80 percent of Laughlin’s customers utilized that highway. Supporters of the bill had been negotiating with the State of California, Nevada Department of Transportation, and the County of San Bernardino for a means to repair 11.3 miles of roadway in California at a cost of approximately $30 million.

Earlier in the session Senator Porter stated he had introduced legislation asking for about one-third of that cost to be matched by California. In the latter days of the legislative session the best solution appeared to be to bring all the parties together and formalize an approach to solve the problem.

Senator Porter summarized a serious financial situation was occurring that impacted the entire state of Nevada. The situation was not only a district, region or county problem. Supporters were looking for a solution in partnership with Clark County and that was why match funding had been required.

Chairman Arberry asked if the study addressed in S.B. 558 would only address that particular road into Laughlin or whether it proposed a study of other roads connecting Nevada with other states. Senator Porter responded the language was written very broadly because I-15 was also a serious concern for the Las Vegas Valley.

The language was specific in requiring a Clark County match of funds if in fact the studies were done. Senator Porter stated his belief that the bill was a beginning to review all corridors into Nevada. He noted I-80, Highway 50, Highway 93, and Highway 95 all faced challenges. He compared the issue to having an airport with a terminal but no runways. If there were no runways for the planes to land, tourists would not arrive.

Senator Porter stated the Governor had promised to put together a task force with the County Commission in Clark County and he was meeting with Governor Grey Davis of California in August.

Chairman Arberry added there was sometimes a total gridlock coming into Las Vegas from Barstow. He had spoken to someone in Las Vegas within the last hour and they had told him traffic was backed up all the way from Tropicana Avenue out to Blue Diamond. He hoped the bill would also address that issue.

Senator Porter continued his testimony that precedent had already been set. Over $10 million in the state’s federal funds were to be used on the intersection of I-40/I-15 in Barstow, California. The Convention Authority of Las Vegas had also been allowed to provide funding to assist the Bullhead City, Arizona airport with air traffic control.

Speaker Dini stated the way the bill was worded was "--- appropriated for feasibility study of improving roads and highways of adjoining states that provide access into the state." The bill continued, "the money appropriated in section 1 may only be used if matching money was provided by Clark County or from sources other than the appropriation." Thus the bill would exclude any roads except those in Clark County. Senator Porter agreed, but added it was felt the bill was a good beginning.

Speaker Dini noted many corridor roads in Northern Nevada had problems as well. Highway 395 from Gardnerville/Minden to Bishop, California was a horrendous road to drive in the middle of summer because it was bumper to bumper traffic on a two-lane road. Senator Porter agreed.

Assemblyman Goldwater stated because of the Clark County match requirement in the bill it might take road money away from inner-city road projects to build highways for tourists. Senator Porter responded no funds from the highway dollars generated by the gas tax could be used on any roads outside Nevada. The particular road addressed by the bill was not a federal highway, but a county road. Only certain funds could be used for county roads outside the state of Nevada.

Senator Porter explained funding sources inside Las Vegas included the Regional Transportation Commission and funds through Proposition 10. Those were entirely different funds than what was sought under S.B. 558. Senator Porter assured the committee the state would be able to partner with the state of California, the resort corridor in Laughlin and Clark County. Internal road funding was in place, but the inherent problem in Clark County was getting roads built fast enough.

Assemblyman Goldwater confirmed the bill would appropriate new funding, not divert funds from another source. Senator Porter agreed and added that was why there had been discussion of the car rental agencies being a source of revenue.

Senator Porter concluded the $35 million in tax revenues generated by Laughlin could drop to $30, $25 or $20 million. That would have a major impact on Nevada schools, highways and everything statewide if the gaming revenue source were lost.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 558.

*********

Mark Stevens read the summary of the bill.

Chairman Arberry asked for if there was anyone to speak on behalf of the bill.

Denice Miller, from the Office of the Governor spoke to the bill for clarification. The bill was not about the qualifications for the Directors of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts. In past years Joan Kershner had occupied both rolls and was an eminently qualified person. Once Monte Hightower’s qualifications were better known Ms. Miller stated Ms. Hightower would also be considered well qualified as the new State Librarian.

Ms. Hightower came to this state from Mississippi with experience in
Los Angeles, California and took a pay cut to come to Nevada.

The bill was about the position for the Director of Museums, Library and Arts. In previous testimony it was revealed that only one other position in state government had a requirement for an advanced degree. That position was Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation.

The Governor’s Office’s opinion regarding the museum and library position was a need existed for a manager. They desired someone with experience and ability to work with communities, local and state organizations. The Governor wanted a person with organizational abilities. All of those attributes were present in the current candidate Dale Erquiaga.

The bill was requesting flexibility and consistency in the statutes.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 559.

********

Assemblywoman Chowning requested an amendment to S.B. 559 in section 1, subsection 5. She felt the door was being closed if the language, "--- in the field of museums, library or arts or a related agency" was deleted. She suggested instead of deleting that language, other language, "--- or in business administration" be added. That would leave the door open. She offered an opinion that closing the door made a statement that it was not important for the director of the department to have experience in the field of museums, libraries, arts, or a related field.

The current candidate would still qualify under the amendment.

Chairman Arberry expressed appreciation for the suggestion, but added any bill leaving the committee on the last day of the legislative session would preferably be voted either up or down.

Speaker Dini commented S.B. 559 would give the Governor the ability to obtain an administrator that was good at managing a big agency. He had originally spoken against the bill. The rewrite of the bill had improved the bill significantly.

Assemblyman Hettrick commented the language stated, "--- experience administering a major public agency or in business administration." That language would allow some flexibility.

Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting at 6:15 p.m.

Chairman Arberry reconvened the Assembly Ways and Means Committee at 8:45 p.m. He asked the committee to consider S.B. 558.

The Chair noted the bill made an appropriation to the Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study of improving access on highways in adjoining states and other matters.

Chairman Arberry stated he would accept a motion to do pass S.B. 558 with a letter of intent. The letter of intent would state that once the study was complete 65 percent would be considered for the highway between Barstow, California and Las Vegas and 35 percent on the Needles highway.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 558 WITH A LETTER OF INTENT.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the study would determine how the project would be done or whether it would include a rental car tax. Chairman Arberry replied the rental car tax language had been deleted.

Chairman Arberry added that the letter of intent would also include that the project should not impede anything NDOT was considering or make any appropriations from NDOT for the project. The intent of the 65 percent appropriation was for enhancement of the existing California county highway.

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated one question she and the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Transportation had discussed was whether NDOT would conduct the study or whether the study would be done under a contract.

Tom Skancke representing the Nevada Resort Association testified the study would be done within NDOT. Assemblywoman Cegavske clarified all appropriations would be used only for the study. Mr. Skancke responded the appropriation would be used strictly for the study.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTING NAY. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Chairman Arberry stated the bill revised the qualifications for the director of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 559.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Chairman Arberry explained the bill contained the following actions:

• Established a position for weed control;
• Provide the powers and duties of the weed control position;
• Advanced the effective date of certain previously enacted provisions concerning governmental regulations of the practice of dentistry;
• And other related matters.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 560.

Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

********

Chairman Arberry reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

Scott Scherer, Office of the Governor, testified S.B. 370 was a program that had been referred to as the "Nest Egg Protection Program." The bill offered an incentive to those who could not afford to purchase their own long-term care insurance to purchase such a long-term care insurance policy.

The bill required the purchasers would have to use benefits under the policy for 3 years and then they would not be required to spend down to the poverty level to qualify for Medicaid.

Several other states had tried the concept and those states had experienced declines or revenue-neutral situations in their Medicaid programs because people were actually staying out of Medicaid longer by purchasing their own long-term insurance policies.

The bill had no negative impact on the state. Instead it had a positive impact in providing peace of mind for those senior citizens who knew if they purchased the policies they would not be required to spend down their assets to receive Medicaid benefits.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the $200,000 eligibility was copied from other states or how that dollar amount was derived. Mr. Scherer replied Denice Miller had done the research for the bill, but he believed the amount had been copied from legislation in other states.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the state health care agencies were in concurrence with the proposed legislation. Mr. Scherer replied the agency had reviewed the bill previously and no concerns had been voiced to the Governor’s Office.

Chairman Arberry referred to S.B. 370 at line 11(b) that defined senior citizens and asked if the established age followed federal guidelines or whether the age of 55 was arbitrary. Mr. Scherer responded the age was picked because it offered a significant price-break when buying long-term care insurance. The intent was to encourage seniors to purchase insurance at an age when they could still afford it.

Mr. Scherer noted the maximum income level was set at $200,000 but would cover anyone with a lower income level as well.

Chairman Arberry noted there was no provision in the bill for how long Nevada residency was required to qualify under the bill. Mr. Scherer replied that for federal purposes in Medicaid eligibility a 30-day residence was required.

Assemblyman Goldwater disclosed as part of his profession as a financial planner he sold long-term health policies.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 370.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Scott Scherer, Office of the Governor noted the bill was "The Millennium Scholarship Bill." It had been the subject of protracted discussions to get the exact combination of language into the bill.

One of the major changes was the original 50 percent went to 40 percent going into the trust fund. Other than that new provisions were a combination of the provisions that were in A.B. 362 and in the original S.B. 496. The current version represented a compromise between the two bills.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 496.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

Chairman Arberry stated a copy of amendments had been provided to committee members for their review.

Mark Stevens explained section 3, page 2 allowed 50 percent of the allocation to be deposited to the fund for a healthy Nevada.

On page 3 began details of how the funds could be used. Section 4 set up a
9-member task force. The task force members had the responsibility of recommending how the funds would be used to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Section 5, page 6 outlined what the responsibilities of the task force were.

At the bottom of page 6, 30 percent of the remaining funds were reserved to pay for prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services for senior citizens.

Thirty percent was used for grants to existing and new programs to assist senior citizens with independent living. A number of programs for which the funds could be used were listed, but funding was not limited to those in the list.

Twenty percent would be used to treat the use of tobacco and its consequences.

Twenty percent would be used for programs to improve health services for children and persons with disabilities.

Mr. Stevens noted those accounted for 100 percent of the 50-percent of funds that would be coming to Nevada from the tobacco settlement or any future settlements.

Section 5 specified the task force would recommend certain uses of the funds to the IFC who would have ultimate approval authority for use of the funds.

Pages 9 and 10 outlined who would be eligible and in what amounts for the prescription drug subsidy.

On page 13 the trust fund for public health was created in section 18. A
10-percent allocation was made for that specific trust fund.

Mr. Stevens summarized 50 percent would be allocated to the fund for a healthy Nevada, 10 percent for the public health trust fund, and 40 percent allocated as reviewed under S.B. 496.

Only the interest earned in the 10 percent allocated to the public health trust fund could be used. A separate group was established to recommend funding use on page 15. That section created an 11-member board of trustees. Page 17 outlined the duties of that board.

Page 18, section 22 appropriated $2 million from the tobacco settlement to public broadcasting to carry out conversions to digital television.

Section 25 appropriated $5 million to the University of Nevada, School of Medicine for capital improvements required to establish a program in Las Vegas. That was designed to provide health care for persons for whom health care was not readily accessible in the state.

Section 26 appropriated $5 million to the Division of Rehabilitation for disbursement to Accessible Space for construction of accessible housing and a supportive services complex in Clark County for disabled persons.

Finally, section 27 appropriated $1 million to the Office of Rural Health at the University of Nevada, School of Medicine for emergency medical services provided to counties whose populations were less than 100,000.

The bottom of page 21 indicated that money would first be distributed from the 100 percent of the funds allocated from the tobacco settlement for section 22 and then section 25. The money received would provide $2 million for public broadcasting stations and $5 million for the School of Medicine for capital improvements in Las Vegas. Thereafter, the funding would be distributed on the 50/40 –10 percent ratio as specified in #B.

Page 22, section 28, subsection 2 was the 40 percent appropriation after the two other appropriations were taken off the top. It required the first payments to be made into provisions of sections 26 and 27. Thereafter, the task force would make recommendations on how to utilize the remaining funds to IFC.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani clarified regarding the portion that went to the Division of Aging. Funding would go to IFC for approval if it was a work program change recommendation. The language allowed for either a new program or if the task force chose to enhance an existing program.

Mr. Stevens stated his understanding was that if money was to come out of the trust fund for healthy Nevada or from the tobacco settlement, the task force would propose changes in funding. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reiterated some of the funding would go directly to agencies unless the funding involved work program budgets. Mr. Stevens stated he believed all task force decisions would be recommendations to IFC, but he would research it further.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted she had worked with Scott Scherer and Assemblywoman Buckley on the bill and the reason the public broadcasting funding was included was because of the 1:3 match. In addition to that there was a guarantee of public service announcement provisions that would be run for a 10-year period. The makers of the bill had thought for the cessation of alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse it was a good program.

Assemblyman Beers asked if the $7 million for public television was a one-time appropriation although the money was expected to continue for years. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded it was a one-shot appropriation.
Mr. Stevens added it was a one-time expense and would not be ongoing unless the task force recommended it be continued. The public broadcasting was to transfer the television arena to digital transmissions so that would not have to recur.

The $5 million was for a one-shot capital improvement project. The revenue resource was expected to carry on for a number of years. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed.

Assemblyman Price stated in S.B. 370, which had just been approved senior citizens were defined as persons who were 55 years old or older and domiciled in the state. In A.B. 474 a senior citizen was defined as a person who was domiciled in the state and was 62 years old or older. He stated it seemed to be more logical to have the ages be the same unless the change would result in a large fiscal cost. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded the age was set in S.B. 370 at 55 because those affected were purchasing their own private insurance. That insurance would be cheaper at age 55. The age of 62 in the health trust bill was specifically because it was working with the Division of Aging that already contained the definition of senior citizens and it would not be proper to marry the two in that instance.

SPEAKER DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 474.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

********

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 44.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani disclosed she, Chairman Arberry, Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblyman Parks were members of the Public Employees Retirement System and the bill would not affect them any differently than anyone else.

With no further business Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: