ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

Seventy-First Session

May 28, 2001

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:09 a.m. on Monday, May 28, 2001. Vice Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani 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:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

The Vice Chair opened the hearing on S.B. 247.

Senate Bill 247: Makes appropriations to Department of Human Resources. (BDR S-1257)

The Vice Chair recognized Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services. Mr. Shaw stated that S.B. 247 was a two-part bill, and contained a supplemental appropriation for the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and Mental Health and Developmental Services. The DCFS appropriation was $2,743,867. The work program containing the federal portion was approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on April 23. The budget shortfall in Budget Account 3229 was primarily in three areas, adoption subsidies, Medicaid, and children ineligible for Medicaid but for which the department paid for medical care with state funds.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the bill was to equalize payments or whether it was only for adoption shortfalls. Mr. Shaw stated that the bill was solely for adoption shortfalls because a higher number of adoptions were completed than was forecast. There was a 40 percent increase during the previous federal fiscal year in the number of adoptions. Some of the reasons for that included A.B. 158 of the Seventieth Session, which made various changes in statutory procedures for protection and placement of children. Mr. Shaw noted that the more adoptions that were completed resulted in a lower amount of case management and fewer staff. Also about 25 percent of the adoptions did not desire subsidy or Medicaid reimbursement, for a cost savings to the state.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that in Section 2 there was a $350,000 appropriation for repairs to the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, and asked if that had not been included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mike Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, said that the $350,000 was to bring the hospital up to a licensable state. There had been fire damper problems, and when those were being fixed numerous code violations had been found. The money was to retrofit the hospital so that it could be licensed. Mr. Torvinen noted there was a deadline of March 16, 2002, and if the repairs were not completed the hospital would not be licensed. The reason the allocation was in the bill was because the division had worked with the Budget Office to go through the Emergency Account, but it was easier to ask for a supplemental allocation. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked to check whether this issue had been taken care of during the CIP budgets.

The Vice Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 247 and opened the hearing on S.B. 307.

Senate Bill 307: Requires real estate division of department of business and industry to hire professional consultants to ensure compliance with certain provisions of federal law regarding appraisers of real estate and increases certain fees of real estate division. (BDR 54-1062)

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Appraisal Institute. Mr. Hillerby stated that the Appraisal Institute had asked Senator Schneider, District 8, to introduce the bill as the result of an audit that was performed by the Appraisal Subcommittee, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. Mr. Hillerby noted that in the past the institute had approached the legislature to request a process where appraisers were certified by the state. This was done to ensure that appraisers were in compliance with the federal law that said, if federal insured loans were granted, appraisers needed to be certified. In May 2000 the audit was conducted, and it was found that the appraisers were behind in the number of complaints that had been resolved. In response to that finding the institute was willing to raise the certification fees that were paid in order to add an additional staff person. During discussions with Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, and discussions with the Senate Committee on Finance, it was decided that there were better options. The option decided upon was to generate money for consultants to be hired to handle some of the complaints. Some of the complaints were complex, such as hotel/casinos and large golf courses. To hire one person to assist in the projects was not realistic for the salary that was being discussed. The fees could be raised to a lesser degree than what was originally discussed and the consultants could be hired. S.B. 307 required an additional certification fee of $30, which would generate an excess of almost $24,000 per year from which the appropriation of $22,000 in the bill would be derived. Mr. Hillerby urged the committee’s support.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why the $22,000 was still needed for the General Fund in regard to Title XI. Mr. Hillerby confirmed that the money was for the payback portion of the bill.

Mrs. Vonne Chowning asked if the fee would be assessed to all appraisers regardless of their completion of appraisals of federally backed loans. Mr. Hillerby answered in the affirmative and said it was hard for the institute to know who was completing residential, federal, or other types of appraisals. The institute’s members had agreed to pay the increased fees to protect the appraisals of federally backed loans. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that Mr. Hillerby was representing the Appraisal Institute, which was in support of the bill. Mr. Hillerby stated that he had a letter to the Governor that stated the industry supported the bill.

Ms. Buchanan offered to answer any questions that the committee might have.

The Vice Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 307 and opened the hearing on S.B. 481.

Senate Bill 481: Provides for reorganization of department of motor vehicles and public safety into two departments. (BDR 43-1107)

Ginny Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, explained that S.B. 481 was the enabling legislation necessary to enact the budgets to split the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety into two departments. The budgets had been closed by the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means with technical adjustments to The Executive Budget, which created a separate Department of Motor Vehicles and a separate Department of Public Safety. One of the recommendations made by the Governor in the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government Final Report to the Governor for 2000 was to split the DMV from Public Safety as a way to improve the efficiency of the agency. Some of the core reasons for the split were that the missions of the two branches were very different and hard to manage; the customers were different, and the core training needs for employees on both sides of the department were different. Ms. Lewis said that from the perspective of the citizens of Nevada, there were two agencies. The director currently must split his time between the demands and problems facing the DMV and Public Safety. Over the past six years the agency had grown significantly. There were currently over 2,400 employees, which made it very difficult to manage. In Ms. Lewis’ 20 years with the department there had been 6 directors, each with their own style, but all with a law enforcement background. Ms. Lewis explained that handling the DMV customer issues required a different approach than handling enforcement issues. Motor Vehicles would benefit from a director with the understanding of the challenges facing all DMVs throughout the country.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the large issue was the frustration that occurred during budget closings. This deconsolidation issue had been discussed sporadically for six years and there had been no plan. The plan was given to the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation on the day before the closing of the budget. This was inappropriate, and Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the committee members did not believe the split was a faulty idea but there had been no plan. She opined that this had been resolved as far as the closings were concerned.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed that the bill was needed to finalize the split of the department. Ms. Lewis noted that The Executive Budget reflected the split and the legislation was necessary to enact the budgets.

The Vice Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 481 and opened the hearing on A.B. 175.

Assembly Bill 175: Requires board of directors of department of transportation to relinquish portions of certain state highways to county or city under certain circumstances. (BDR 35-820)

Tom Stephens, Director, Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Stephens noted that he had heard an amendment was going to be presented, and stated he would not belabor his testimony. He explained that his testimony had been presented to the committee (Exhibit C). Mr. Stephens read from his testimony, and noted that the bill in its present form would likely result in local governments taking over selected portions of state highways and be given significant state highway funds to do so. The state would lose control of the state highway system and state Highway Fund, resulting in a crippling of the state highway program.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that the bill would allow local governments to request their allocated portion of the state highway system. Mr. Stephens explained that the local governments could request to have the state highway turned over to the local government, and then request Highway Funds to maintain the highway. The department would lose control over which part of the system they controlled and how much money was spent on repairs.

Mr. Stephens noted that the department had developed a method to work with local governments to transfer portions of state highway. He presented a map of Clark County (Exhibit C), and said that the original proponents of the bill were Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. Both of those proponents had withdrawn their support and had informed the Governor that they were not in favor of the bill.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani recalled that in southern Nevada at one time the city desired a portion of the road. Mr. Stephens commented that the division was willing to transfer any road in southern Nevada and he explained the pink and orange portion of the map represented the roads the department possessed. The department did not have a problem transferring the roads, but did not want to provide millions of dollars to maintain the roads. He explained that there were problems with certain roads and noted that Sahara Avenue was half in the City of Las Vegas and half in Clark County. If that avenue was transferred it needed to be transferred in its entirety, so the city and county would have to work together. The department had a few roads it wanted to keep because of interconnectivity to the region, such as Lake Mead Boulevard. The department wanted to keep interregional roads. Mr. Stephens said the department was working with Public Works officials on this matter. Roads were being transferred, and Mr. Stephens noted that at the previous Transportation Board meeting a portion of Flamingo Road had been transferred to the county. The department was “happy to transfer” roads because the state system would assume responsibility for the beltway. Mr. Stephens reiterated that the department was opposed to the bill and there were other options for the transfer of state highways.

Robert Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke in opposition to the bill. He noted that the City of Las Vegas had withdrawn its support of the bill and had reached an agreement with the department for the transfer of the roads. The City of Las Vegas had no interest in the processing of the bill as it was currently drafted.

Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County, explained that there had been work completed with the Department of Transportation in the previous months, and Clark County had withdrawn its support for the bill.

Ms. Sandra Tiffany asked who owned and maintained the I-215 beltway. Mr. Stephens noted that the beltway was broken into sections and the division was assuming responsibility for various sections as an agreement was reached. Clark County was retaining ownership and the department would be maintaining the highway. Mr. Stephens explained that the highway was built with local money. Nevada was one of the few states in the country that allowed local entities to have a significant gas tax. Clark County had a significant gas tax, and Las Vegas taxed its population more than any community in the United States. Mr. Stephens listed some of the taxes that Las Vegas had, and explained that that money was being used to build the beltway around the city. An interstate highway was being built with local funds. As agreements were being worked out, the department was taking over maintenance over portions of the highway, but only on the controlled access portions of the highway. The southern portion was nearing completion of the controlled access portion of the highway, used to connect from Stephanie Street to the I-515 in Henderson. That project was a joint department and county project. The portion that was not controlled access would be controlled by the county until a freeway was built in the middle. Mr. Stephens noted that the transfers were not simple and would take time. He assumed the road transfers would be completed over the next ten years.

Ms. Tiffany confirmed that the highway was broken up into segments. Mr. Stephens explained that the department desired to control the controlled access portions of the freeway in the next year, and the rest would be maintained by the county. He noted that the county had a separate agreement with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department regarding Highway Patrol.

Ms. Tiffany explained that she had been confused because she had tried to call to suggest that a portion of the road be named Bruce Woodberry Parkway. She had called the state and the county and had not received an answer other than the county could name certain segments, and the state could name certain segments. Ms. Tiffany said that when Mr. Stephens had discussed having half of Sahara Avenue being owned by the county and half by the state she was wondering what was new about the idea. Mr. Stephens explained that the division did not mind splitting roads by sections, but did mind splitting a road down the middle of the road. Ms. Tiffany suggested that a portion of the highway be named the Bruce Woodberry Parkway. Mr. Stephens noted that in recent years highways had not been named after living people. The Martin Luther King Highway in Reno, as well as the Freedom Road, and the Extraterrestrial Highway had been named in the last five years. He suggested that if Ms. Tiffany desired to name a portion of the highway after Bruce Woodberry, the place to begin would be a resolution to the County Commission, which would be forwarded to the department for concurrence. Mr. Stephens explained that the department would not generally complete a highway naming without a resolution from the local officials. Ms. Tiffany confirmed that a person currently alive did have a portion of a highway named after them. Mr. Stephens explained that in the last 10 or 15 years highways had not been named after living individuals.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that she believed this was a policy decision that had been discussed when dealing with the naming of state office buildings. The state generally had the position that unless someone was deceased, a building would not be named after the person.

Mr. Stephens said that the answer to Ms. Tiffany’s question was that she should begin with the County Commission and if they were in favor the State Transportation Board would give the naming serious consideration.

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, stated that the amendment that would be presented was acceptable to him. Mr. Bache explained that one reason for the bill was because there had been a large amount of time spent in negotiations trying to transfer urban roads to Clark County or the City of Las Vegas, and the transfers had not occurred. Mr. Bache stated he believed that at the April 6, 2001, Transportation Board meeting there would have been action taken on the transfer, but to his knowledge there had been no movement of the transfer of some of the roads.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani reiterated that the local governments had withdrawn their support and were negotiating with the department. The issue was how much money would be provided by NDOT as roads were transferred.

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, representing Comarco Wireless Technologies, stated that the amendment before the committee replaced Sections 1 through 4 with language that would erect emergency call boxes between the California border and Lake Mead Drive (Exhibit D). Mr. Alonso noted that the bill was similar to Assemblyman Arberry’s bill that had been passed two sessions previously. The appropriation had been pared down significantly. Mr. Alonso explained that the purpose of the bill was to place call boxes every two miles in the area previously mentioned. The call boxes were not typical, but were smart call boxes. Many people had cell phones, so people believed that call boxes were unnecessary, but the smart call boxes would allow those without cell phones and tourists with car trouble to be able to call for assistance. The smart call boxes also gathered information via video with respect to traffic counts. The smart call boxes could be updated and retrofitted as technology improved. The smart call boxes would allow tourists and people to call in emergencies, and would set up a system that might help the state and local entities with issues like traffic counts.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $500,000 appropriation was intended to be from the Highway Funds, to which Mr. Alonso answered in the affirmative. She asked if there were any call boxes currently. Mr. Alonso answered that he believed there were two in the Lake Tahoe area, but that was all. Mr. Alonso indicated that the bill was, in essence, Mr. Arberry’s previous bill.

Mr. Stephens stated that since the appropriation was not in The Executive Budget, the administration would take an opposing point of view. He noted that call boxes were a complex issue, and several studies had been completed on the issue. Mr. Stephens’ personal view was that call boxes were a good idea whose time had passed, due to the availability of cell phones. With each accident there was almost immediately a dozen cell phone calls from others on the highway. Mr. Stephens noted that this did not cover flat tires, or break downs, but did cover life-threatening issues. One of the biggest challenges with the call box issue was not putting the call box on the post, but rather building the turnout that had to be acceptable according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This was an expensive proposition to complete each mile on the road, and it had to be completed on both sides of the highway. Mr. Stephens stated that he believed the proposition was more expensive than the $500,000 appropriation would indicate, but he did not have the most recent studies.

Mr. Alonso said that the study that Mr. Stephens had referred to was completed two sessions previous, and the fiscal note at that time was $800,000. Again the reason for paring the appropriation down was that the technology had allowed companies, like the one Mr. Alonso lobbied for, to make the smart call boxes at a reduced cost. Mr. Alonso believed that the appropriation was appropriate, and understood the limitations of the issue. He noted that there were no call boxes beyond the California border, and although many people had cell phones, one out of two people did not have a cell phone when they entered Nevada. Mr. Alonso explained that flat tires and other issues could be life threatening if a person was in a remote area. He stated this was a start, and the rural areas should also be looked at because in those areas there might be a lack of cell phones and cell phone sites.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $500,000 was for technology and not for the turnouts that Mr. Stephens had addressed. Mr. Stephens explained that he did not have the study to refer to but, in recent years, the department had become increasingly concerned with the requirements of the ADA. Mr. Stephens noted that it was expensive to meet ADA requirements. He explained that there were a number of accidents on I-15, but that there were also a great number of cell phones.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether it might be appropriate to focus the call boxes on Highway 50. Mr. Alonso stated that the rural areas were an important aspect of the bill, but the corridor in the bill had been chosen because it was the most populated and received the most traffic. It was seen as the first and most important step to aid tourists. The rural areas had been looked at as another important issue, and Mr. Alonso deferred to the committee.

The Vice Chair asked for a copy of the study. She noted that the amendment had the language, “This act becomes effective upon passage and approval,” and asked if there was flexibility about the language. Mr. Alonso stated that the effective date of the bill could be changed.

Mrs. Chowning stated that she believed the original bill regarding this matter was proposed in either 1993 or 1995 by Mr. Arberry. She noted that since that point there had continued to be accidents, and not every person currently had a cell phone, or the cell phone was not operable. Mrs. Chowning believed that from Pioche to Las Vegas there were no cell phone connections, so that was a life-threatening issue. Mrs. Chowning asked whom a person was connected with when they picked up a call box phone. Mr. Alonso stated that the call boxes would be hooked up to the closest emergency facilities. One of the arguments for the rurals was the question of who to call. The logic was that even if a person was calling someone a fair distance away, at least the person was still calling someone rather than being stuck. Mrs. Chowning asked if the call boxes were automatically connected to one particular agency. Mr. Alonso explained that the Department of Transportation would determine to whom the call boxes would be connected.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the durability of call boxes had improved. Mr. Alonso stated that the durability had improved, and there had been call boxes that had been in operation for 10 or 15 years with no problems. He noted that there were a number of things that could be added to the boxes, such as traffic counts. The highways could be monitored through the systems. The technology was available to make call boxes more worthwhile than they previously were.

Mr. Stephens shared Mrs. Chowning’s concerns about the lack of contact in rural areas. He noted that it was unaffordable to place call boxes on all 5,000 miles of roads in Nevada, but maybe there could be an incentive offered to cell phone companies to place cell sites in rural areas so that more of the state was connected. Mr. Stephens stated that the division had never studied this idea. It was disconcerting that in rural Nevada it was possible to have no contact with the “outside world.”

The Vice Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 175.

Assembly Bill 505: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for replacement equipment for Division of State Parks. (BDR S-1390)

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the bill was an appropriation to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in the amount of $537,085. Staff was recommending an appropriation of $329,107.

MR. HETTRICK MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 505 ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 506: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for maintenance projects at state parks. (BDR S- 1391)

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained that the appropriation in the bill was $593,928 and staff was recommending an appropriation of $593,928.

MR. HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS A.B. 506 ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 510: Makes appropriation to Division of Forestry of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for equipment for suppression of forest fires. (BDR S-1397)

The Vice Chair stated the appropriation amount in the bill was recommended by staff to be revised to $36,975.

MR. DINI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 510 ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 515: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for assistance in operation of HIV/AIDS clinics in Reno and Las Vegas. (BDR S-1411)

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained that the appropriation in the bill was recommended to be reduced to $1 million upon the request of the Department of Human Resources.

MS. LESLIE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 515 ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 516: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for Medicaid Management Information System. (BDR S-1412)

MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 516.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 519: Makes appropriation to Department of Taxation for implementation of Phase II of Business Process Re-Engineering Project. (BDR S-1429)

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, stated that A.B. 519 was the one-shot appropriation in The Executive Budget for $1.3 million for Phase II of the Business Process Re-Engineering Project, which was delayed during the current biennium. In addition, the Governor had sent a revised request for an additional $800,000 that would develop a document scanning and imaging system and provide for Internet registration and tax return filing. That had been reviewed in subcommittee. Mr. Stevens stated that the Governor had requested that the additional funding be added to the one-shot. In addition S.B. 125, which madevarious changes to provisions relating to financial reporting of local government, had passed. There were some data processing changes that needed to be made to the system utilized to report the information and the estimated cost was $75,000. Staff recommended that that amount be added to the bill.

MR. DINI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 519 ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 522: Makes appropriation to Buildings and Grounds Division of Department of Administration for moving expenses of various agencies to and from Grant Sawyer State Office Building. (BDR S-1356)

Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 522 was the Governor’s one-shot that would provide $220,400 for the moving expenses and remodeling costs for the Grant Sawyer Office Building. Staff noted that the contingency amount in the account was 13 percent, whereas the normal contingency amount in CIPs was 10 percent. If that was changed there would be a savings of approximately $2,000 to $3,000. If the contingency amount was reduced to 10 percent the appropriation amount would be $216,758.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that there were many amendments to be processed and recommended a do pass motion on the bill.

Mr. Joe Dini noted that the building was questionable, and there were liable to be problems in the remodeling.

MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 522.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 588: Makes appropriation to restore balance in emergency account. (BDR S-1510)

Mr. Stevens commented that the bill restored the balance in the Emergency Fund. During conversations between Assembly leadership and the Governor, dealing with the revenue projection shortfall, the bill was recommended to be reduced from $400,000 to $160,000.

MR. MARVEL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 588 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 612: Creates revolving loan account in state general fund to provide assistance to certain rural health programs. (BDR 31-1421)

Mr. Stevens stated that when Assembly leadership and the Governor had discussed the shortfall, it had been recommended to reduce the appropriation in the bill to $500,000.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 612 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 658: Makes appropriations to Budget Division of Department of Administration for continuation of development and roll out of Integrated Financial System. (BDR S-1355)

Mr. Stevens explained that in the one-shot appropriation there were items for the committee’s consideration. The Budget Division had indicated that as the Integrated Financial Systems (IFS) was rolled out, the agency had personal computers that needed to be replaced. The dollars in the one-shot to replace the computers had been decreased. There had originally been 60 personal computers and printers that had been cut down to 15 personal computers and printers. Mr. Stevens noted there would also be a reduction in the amount of consulting activity in the account by $170,000. If the committee agreed with the recommendations the appropriation could be reduced from $12,303,000 to $11,820,380.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 658 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

The Vice Chair called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:03 a.m.

Assembly Bill 516: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for Medicaid Management Information System. (BDR S-1412)

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the committee to consider adding a Letter of Intent to the previous motion regarding A.B. 516.

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, stated that staff was requesting a Letter of Intent to have the division report to the IFC on a minimum of a quarterly basis and, in addition, if there were major changes with the implementation plan of the Medicaid Management Information System, either in the cost component or design philosophy, to report those to the IFC prior to moving forward with the project.

MS. LESLIE MOVED TO ADD A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION ON A.B. 516.

MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 209: Makes appropriation to Welfare Division of Department of Human Resources to increase temporarily population which is eligible to qualify for assistance from Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (BDR S-979)

The Vice Chair stated that the recommendation from conversations with Assembly leadership and the Governor was to reduce the appropriation from $5 million to $4 million. In testimony it was discovered that there were people at the 150 percent or less of the federally designated level signifying poverty that were not accessing the assistance, and to increase to the 200 percent level in the bill would deplete the funds in a rapid manner. It appeared to be logical to have the 150 percent level to assist individuals not currently receiving assistance.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 209, WITH THE APPROPRIATION REDUCTION TO $4 MILLION AND TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO READ 150 PERCENT OR LESS OF THE FEDERALLY DESIGNATED LEVEL SIGNIFYING POVERTY.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Arberry, Mrs. de Braga, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)

********

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani recessed the meeting at 9:07 a.m. upon call of the Chair and due to time constraints the meeting was not reconvened.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Andrea Carothers

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

______

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

DATE: