MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-First Session

May 1, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 1, 2001.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is 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.                     Lynn Hettrick

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     David Parks

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman  (Excused)

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.  (Excused)

Mr.                     David Goldwater  (Excused)

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins  (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary

 

Assembly Bill 3:  Makes appropriation to C.A.R.E. Chest of Sierra Nevada for             completion of new facility in Northern Nevada. (BDR S-960)

 

The Chair recognized Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District 32.  Mr. Gustavson stated that he was testifying in support of A.B. 3.  He noted that CARE Chest of Sierra Nevada (CARE Chest) was a nonprofit organization that provided free medically-related equipment, emergency prescriptions, and medical supplies to Nevadans that lacked adequate resources.  CARE Chest also collected, repaired, and maintained donated hospital items such as wheelchairs and shower benches that could be lent to needy Nevadans.  CARE Chest had recently constructed a $1.5 million facility that was completed with foundational grants and individual donations.  Mr. Gustavson stated that the bill was requesting $390,000 to pay off the remaining balance of the construction costs, so that continuing donations could be used to provide services.  He introduced Patti Meals, Executive Director, CARE Chest.

 

Ms. Meals explained that she had been the Executive Director of CARE Chest since 1992, and had brought a few clients and board members to testify in favor of the bill.  She noted that CARE Chest had begun in 1991 after a gap in the social services in northern Nevada had been identified.  The founders were experts in the field of public health and had the foresight to create the agency.  Ms. Meals said that rather than approach the legislature for funding, the founders had used alternative sources to create and operate CARE Chest.  CARE Chest had been offering services to Nevada seniors, children, families, and other agencies within the community.  The organization had been filling gaps for the last ten years, adding programs as needs were dictated by the community, with one grant from the state of Nevada for program expansion to rural communities approximately seven years ago.  The staff had grown from one to four full-time positions in ten years, while the client base had grown 800 percent.  Ms. Meals explained that the organization served more than 2,300 people in the last year and worked with more than 20 human service agencies to reduce duplication, increase effectiveness, and enhance quality of life for the clients.  The savings to taxpayers through the program with the medical equipment loans was estimated to be more than $2 million per year.  Ms. Meals said that all the services were provided free of charge regardless of health condition, disability, age, and clients qualified for services based on income and lack of alternate resources. 

 

The bill was a request for a one-time appropriation to pay for the building.  Ms. Meals stated that the facility had been built over the past year to house CARE Chest and other agencies that would enhance collaboration efforts, reduce expenses, and allow an increased access for clients.  She said that the value of the building was $1.5 million through cash, in-kind services and “sweat equity.”  The Board of Directors and community had supported the program and building project.  The bill was requesting $390,000, and the organization had received one grant to help reduce that amount since the bill was drafted.  The organization was now requesting $350,000. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if CARE Chest was a nonprofit organization, to which Ms. Meals answered in the affirmative.  Chairman Arberry asked for a breakdown of the proposed use of the funds.  Ms. Meals explained that the funds would be used to pay off the remaining debt of the building expenses.  The organization had a loan with a bank and one with an individual that equaled approximately $350,000.  The building was complete and the organization had moved in in late October, and completing the loan payments would allow the organization to focus on the programs rather than raising money for the cost of the building.

 

The Chair recognized Sharon Brown, a client of CARE Chest since August 1999.  She noted that in 1999, when she was 47 years old, she suffered a severe stroke, which left her physically, emotionally, and financially devastated.  CARE Chest had provided her with valuable services that she needed.  Ms. Brown noted that she had been provided with a power wheelchair, a walker, a potty‑chair, and shower chair.  Ms. Brown expressed her gratitude for the organization. 

 

Chairman Arberry recognized Jeff Odessky, a client of CARE Chest.  Mr. Odessky noted that in 1994 he had had a surgical procedure on his shoulder, and was unable to keep up with all the medical bills.  In that same year he was diagnosed with two forms of cancer.  In an eight-year period Mr. Odessky and his wife had 12 different surgical procedures.  At that point he was working full time and had insurance.  Mr. Odessky explained that he had been attempting to pay 26 different medical providers every month.  CARE Chest provided him with items that otherwise would have been unavailable, such as a wheelchair, and protein drinks.  Mr. Odessky said that he had begun volunteering when he was physically able, and had continued volunteering to repay CARE Chest for the services it had provided. 

 

Harry Chalekian, Board Member, CARE Chest, spoke in support of A.B. 3.  Mr. Chalekian explained that the bill was not a request to help run the agency with funds, but rather was a request for a gesture of partnership to reduce the debt of the construction of the building.  For ten years CARE Chest had been operating “quietly and alone” and the people who recognized and appreciated the organization were the clients.  In the last year the organization had grown larger than the space it occupied, and was serving a larger population.  Mr. Chalekian said that the organization had consolidated its activity and moved to one facility.  He reiterated that the bill was not a request for funding to cover operation costs.  He noted that the number of people served by CARE Chest had grown over 25 percent per year for ten years running.  Despite the increased client base, Mr. Chalekian opined that only a fraction of the people in need of medical equipment, prescriptions, and supplies were being served.  He explained that on average the board members had five years of experience, and the board had contributed approximately $500,000 and hundreds of hours of labor to the building project, which spoke highly of the commitment to the organization.  Mr. Chalekian reiterated that the request for $390,000 could be reduced to $350,000 because of a grant that had been received.  In recent years there had been discussion of government participation in private-sector partnerships.  Mr. Chalekian opined that there was no better chance for a government-public-sector partnership than to endorse and support the CARE Chest programs by contributing to the building. 

 

Mr. Chalekian read a letter into the record. 

 

To whom it may concern.  My name is Alice Jackson. . . . I have been blind since 1975 and also have Multiple Sclerosis and Lupus Disease.  These health problems require continuing medical attention as they progress.  I have been a client of CARE Chest for ten years.  Without their help I would not have received the medical equipment and supplies I’ve needed as a blind and physically disabled person.  They have always promptly responded to my needs ranging from emergency medicine, walkers, and shower benches, to wrist brace, wheelchairs, and foot exercise bikes.  All of the services and equipment I’ve received were at no charge; otherwise I never would have been able to afford them. . . .  My plea is simple.  It’s that we’ve reached a crossroads in the life of our agency and we would like you to join with us in the next chapter which starts with the new facility and our ability to serve Nevadans in the future.

 

Ms. Shelia Leslie asked if the new facility was located on North Virginia Street.  Mr. Chalekian answered in the affirmative.  Ms. Leslie inquired as to whether the organization would be satisfied with a smaller amount of money than what was requested due to their ability to fund-raise.  Mr. Chalekian stated that the agency would be pleased with any contribution the legislature would make. 

 

Ms. Meals explained that there were additional requests for funding pending, and reiterated the organization’s appreciation of any funds made available. 

 

The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 3 and opened the hearing on A.B. 525.

 

Assembly Bill 525:  Makes appropriation to Supreme Court of Nevada for             security system upgrades, system-wide website and communications             infrastructure, and new and replacement equipment. (BDR S-1359)

 

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, stated that A.B. 525 was a one-shot request.  She noted that the agency had a proposal for an amendment (Exhibit C).  The proposed amendment reduced the total biennium request from $511,598 to $457,184.  The reduction was the result of two factors, improved pricing from the vendors, and the recent delays in the construction of the regional justice center which had caused the division to defer certain related costs.  Ms. Kavanau had also provided an overview of the contents of the five decision units that comprised the one-shot request (Exhibit D).  She explained that the division had requested $50,000 for a security system upgrade, $30,200 for Web site computer equipment, $22,100 for technical infrastructure upgrades, and $188,790 in the FY2002 and $147,788 in FY2003 for replacement computer equipment.  She noted that the replacement equipment included PCs, and a new copier.  The final item in the request was $18,306 for replacement recording equipment to provide digital recording equipment.

 

Chairman Arberry requested a proposal outlining the request at a 10 to 15 percent reduction.  Ms. Kavanau stated that the agency was prepared to provide that. 

 

Mr. David Parks asked if the agency had provided a prioritized list of the items requested.  Ms. Kavanau responded in the negative.  She noted that there were items in every decision unit that could be sacrificed.  The first item that would likely be sacrificed would be the surveillance security equipment.  Mr. Parks asked the agency to prioritize the request. 

 

The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 525 and opened the hearing on A.B. 558. 

 

Assembly Bill 558:  Establishes for next biennium amount to be paid by this     state for group insurance for certain public employees, public officers and             retired public employees. (BDR S-1437)

 

Chairman Arberry recognized Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division.  He stated that the original bill had been a Budget Office request to set the rates for the group insurance for current employees and the group insurance premium for retired employees.  Mr. Hataway explained that the bill as amended had no changes in the FY2002-2003.  The FY2001-2002 rate as originally proposed was $357.50 versus the $368.75 in the amended bill before the committee.  The rate for the retired group was $202.34 in the original bill versus $208.92 in the amended bill.  The current bill reflected the current rates for the current fiscal year in FY2001-2002.  Mr. Hataway said there needed to be a bill passed so that collections could continue.  He noted that the additional approximate $18 per employee in the amended bill was not built into the budget.  For Central Payroll the result would be $280,000 not built into the budget.  Mr. Hataway opined that this was not a material issue.

 

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in favor of the bill as amended.  He reiterated that this bill or a similar bill was needed to ensure that the amount contributed toward state employees’ health insurance continued during the 2001-2003 biennium.  He explained that in its original form the bill proposed to reduce the amount the state contributed toward state employee health insurance during the first year of the biennium from $368.75 per month, the current amount, to $357.50 per month for active employees and from $208.92 to $202.34 per month for retirees.  Mr. Gagnier said when the bill was heard in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs the case had been made that instead of the amount dropping it should be increasing or, at the minimum, should stay at the current rate.  He stated that at the present time the state of Nevada paid $368.75 per month toward active employees’ health insurance.  According to a survey completed by the Department of Personnel in the previous July the average among 12 local governments in Nevada was $458 per month.  That was at a point when the state’s contribution rate was $327 per month before a July increase.  Mr. Gagnier gave examples of other agencies’ contribution rates; Washoe County Airport Authority paid $828 per month; the Las Vegas Water District paid $705.50; the City of Sparks paid $702.83; Clark County paid $626.50; Henderson paid $459; Las Vegas paid $450; Metro paid $404; North Las Vegas paid $426.  Mr. Gagnier acknowledged that there were agencies that had a lower contribution rate, but said that Elko County contributed at the same level as the state of Nevada.  The state was contributing approximately $90 less than the average of the public entities mentioned before.  Mr. Gagnier opined that it was not unreasonable to ask that the contribution rate not be reduced. 

 

Mr. Parks said the numbers that Mr. Gagnier quoted were higher than any numbers he was familiar with.  He asked if the information had been provided to the committee.  Mr. Gagnier stated he believed that the Department of Personnel had previously provided the information to the committee, but he would be willing to provide the information to the committee.  Mr. Parks requested the information be verified before it was distributed, and stated that he was involved in the Clark County program and was not paying the previously mentioned rate. 

 

The Chair recognized Martin Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Employees of Nevada.  Mr. Bibb urged the passage of A.B. 558, first reprint.  He stated the bill would preserve the current level of funding for both active and retired state employees in the group insurance plan.  The retired employees’ rate had been increased between 11 and 12 percent in the previous year, and Mr. Bibb said that in light of the increase it made sense to maintain the current funding level. 

 

Chairman Arberry recognized Gary Wolfe, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association.  Mr. Wolfe testified in support of the amended bill. 

 

Kathy Naumann, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, spoke in favor of A.B. 558, first reprint.  She stated that Teamsters Local 14 represented employees from the city of Mesquite, North Las Vegas, and Henderson.  All the contribution rates paid for these areas were $425 per month for a full family.  There had been no increase in the rates over the previous five years.  Ms. Naumann stated that she was in favor of the bill because the $368.75 per month was not what state employees were paying.  The employees were paying out-of-pocket in order to cover families. 

 

The Chair recognized James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance.  Mr. Richardson stated he had been present at the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs’ hearing on the bill.  He noted that he did not believe the bill had been referred to Government Affairs in previous years.  Mr. Richardson stated that a case had been made for the increase of amounts from the original bill to the reprinted bill, and he supported the amended bill.  He stated that the loss of state employees to local government was partially due to the need to improve the health plan.  He stated that there was a question about where the additional money would be found.  Mr. Richardson reiterated that he was in favor of increasing the amounts, but was concerned about where the money would be found.  He estimated the amount of additional money needed would be approximately $3.5 million dollars that would have to be found in the individual agencies. 

 

Mr. Hataway explained that the $280,000 he had mentioned was a monthly figure.  The $3.5 million Mr. Richardson had mentioned was a more accurate reflection of the fiscal impact of the bill. 

 

The hearing on A.B. 558 was closed and the hearing on A.B. 641 was opened. 

 

Assembly Bill 641:  Makes various changes to Multistate Highway             Transportation Agreement. (BDR 43-1330)

 

Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified on A.B. 641.  He noted the bill had been passed from the Assembly Committee on Transportation unanimously on the policy issue regarding membership in the Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement (MHTA).  Mr. Capurro noted that Nevada had joined the compact by legislation in 1975 and at one point all 11 western states within the continental United States had been members.  California had since stopped participating in the MHTA.  The alliance was formed to improve cooperation among western jurisdictions regarding commercial vehicle regulations.  The coalition was to be used as a forum where states could collaborate and encourage research on uniform truck size and weight standards and economical transportation by motor vehicle as well as to study safety issues and the ability of the states to adopt consistent laws.  Over the years one of the problems that arose was that the laws in the participating states were not consistent and the membership of the cooperating committee was not consistent.  Mr. Capurro noted that the representative on the committee for most states was a legislator.  Nevada had named the state director of the Department of Transportation (DOT) as their representative in the 1975 legislation.  Nevada had sporadic attendance at the MHTA meetings, as well as sporadic payment of the annual $5,000 dues.  Mr. Capurro stated he did not believe that the state of Nevada had paid the full $5,000 and at times had paid nothing.  One of the concerns that the Nevada Motor Transport Association had was to ensure that legislatures throughout the west were aware of the need for consistency in regulations concerning interstate commerce. 

 

Mr. Capurro appeared before the committee because of policy changes brought about by the MHTA approaching the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in 1999 and asking them to review the MHTA and make changes to the governing documents.  The NCSL had spent eight to ten months, hired a special consultant, and studied the issues requested by the MHTA.  The issues were embodied in an August 2000 publication.  There were changes recommended to the governance documents, to the bylaws, and to the laws that enacted the agreement in the participating states.  The bill before the committee was dealing with the policy question of enacting the recommendations.  Mr. Capurro stated that seven of the ten participating states had enacted language that was similar or the same as the language in A.B. 641.  The bill had not been introduced in the state of Washington, but would be in the next legislative session.  In Idaho the bill had been passed out of the Assembly, and did not emerge from the Senate before the end of the legislative session, but Idaho would be passing the legislation in the next session.  California was going to attempt to pass a similar bill relating to the MHTA in the next session.  Mr. Capurro stated the laws relating to the MHTA had been mainly unchanged since 1979, and the bill before the committee would bring the laws into conformance with the NCSL recommendations. 

 

Mr. Capurro stated the monetary issue in the bill could be found in Section 3 of Article 11.  Currently the DOT director was the designated representative, and the bill replaced that with the chairman of both the Senate Committee on Transportation and the Assembly Committee on Transportation, and provided a procedure for alternates.  The proposed budget for the bill for two fiscal years was a $15,000 appropriation from the Highway Fund, to fund the $5,000 annual dues and travel expenses for the two representatives to the compact.  Mr. Capurro stated it had been hard to gauge how much would be needed for travel because the DOT had paid for travel out of their travel budget.  He noted that a portion of the request had been spent to support the activities of the MHTA by the state of Nevada.  Montana, a state of similar size, allocated $10,000 per year for the MHTA activity.  The Budget Office had placed in the funding at $7,500 each fiscal year because the governance documents stated there would be at least one meeting per year.  Mr. Capurro noted that in the recent years the MHTA had been meeting twice a year.  He explained that although he was grateful the bill contained a $15,000 request, the request should probably be $20,000.  Mr. Capurro noted that the bill as it stood was workable for the next two years.  He said if the bill did not exist, Nevada would still be a party to the compact, but the language would not be consistent with the language that had been adopted in seven other states.  The issue would then become about funding the dues and the necessary legislator travel. 

 

Mrs. Vonne Chowning said she had discussed the MHTA with several representatives from western states, and all had said they felt the MHTA was helpful to their state because, although it was similar to the NCSL-type organizations, this one specifically dealt with transportation issues.  The issues were about vehicles, air pollution, and air quality.  Mrs. Chowning compared the MHTA to the Education Commission of the States, with in-depth discussions and a working body helping to develop model legislation that could be used by all states.  Mrs. Chowning reiterated that the MHTA was only for western states, and said that the benefit of organizations that dealt solely with western states was the collaboration efforts.  She confirmed that the bill made the chairmen of the Transportation Committees or the chairmen’s designee the representatives to the MHTA. 

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 641. 

 

Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, gave the committee an update on the actions of the Economic Forum.  The overall revenue projection that had been adopted by the Economic Forum, compared to the December 1 projection, resulted in a $34 million reduction in FY2001.  In the first year of the biennium, FY2002, there would be a $46.4 million reduction and in the FY2003 there would be a $40.3 million reduction.  Mr. Stevens said this did not include impact due to the sales tax Local School Support Tax portion in the Distributive School Account (DSA).  Those shortfalls would increase the deficit number.  The total shortfall was approximately $121 million not including the impact on the DSA.  Mr. Stevens estimated the DSA impact to be between $8 and $10 million for the biennium.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Andrea Carothers

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: