MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
May 31, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:05 a.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2001. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman, 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
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:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry indicated the committee would commence with the hearing on S.B. 277.
Senate Bill 277: Requires posting of sign in certain food establishments in which alcoholic beverages are sold that warns of dangers of drinking such beverages during pregnancy. (BDR 40-24)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District Three, stated she would seek the committee’s support for S.B. 277, which would require the posting of health warning signs in food establishments where alcoholic beverages were sold. Senator Wiener referenced Exhibit C, a simulated sign depicting the health warning that consumption of alcohol during pregnancy could cause birth defects; the sign contained the message in both English and Spanish.
According to Senator Wiener, during the 1999 session of the legislature, a substantial bill was passed to address the problem of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), and S.B. 277 would further the efforts to address that preventable birth defect by requiring the posting of signs in women’s restrooms in food establishments where alcohol was sold for consumption on the premises.
Senator Wiener called the committee’s attention to Section 2, Number 1, of the bill, which contained a description of the size requirements and the verbiage of the sign as follows:
HEALTH WARNING: DRINKING WINE, BEER AND OTHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DURING PREGNANCY CAN CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS.
ALERTA DE SALUD: EL BEBER DE VINO, CERVEZA Y OTRAS BEBIDAS ALCOHOLICAS DURANTE EL EMBARAZO PUEDEN CAUSAR DEFECTOS DE NACIMIENTO.
Senator Wiener advised that she had prepared a technical amendment to Section 2 of S.B. 277. She explained that when the bill was originally drafted, it contained the requirement that the letters on the sign be 1 inch tall, and the sign itself be 10 inches by 10 inches. After passage of the bill by the Senate, an attempt was made to print a sign in compliance with those specifications; however, it was not found to be feasible. Senator Wiener stated the amendment would make the heading, “HEALTH WARNING” at least 40-point type, and the letters of the message would be at least 30-point type, with the overall size of the sign being 11.5 inches by 8 inches so it could be easily framed.
Section 2, Number 3, of the bill would allow the Health Division to solicit and accept donations of signs to satisfy the requirements of subsection 1. Senator Wiener noted that the March of Dimes had generously offered to accept responsibility for creation of a coalition of organizations whose sole purpose would be to cover the costs associated with the production and distribution of the signage mandated by the language of S.B. 277, Exhibit D. It was estimated that approximately 9,000 signs would be required, however, the plan was to print 15,000 signs.
Senator Wiener stated that Section 3 of the bill addressed violations via a civil penalty of $500 for each violation, and local health authorities would enforce that requirement. The bill did allow for local health authorities to retain the amount of their actual costs for enforcing the civil penalty, and any monies left over would be deposited with the State Treasurer. Per Senator Wiener, the administrator of the Health Division would administer that money specifically to carry out the duties of the Advisory Subcommittee on FAS of the Advisory Board on Maternal and Child Health. Senator Wiener introduced Judith Wright, Chief of the Bureau of Family Health Services, Health Division, who would provide further explanations and testimony in support of the bill.
According to Senator Wiener, the effective date for the sign requirement would be upon passage and approval of the bill, however, in fairness, a grace period would be provided for compliance with the new requirements, and all other provisions of the bill would become effective on October 1, 2001.
Senator Wiener explained that FAS was a health issue that carried a substantial price tag for all citizens. Certainly the cost to FAS children and their families, in emotional or financial costs, could not be measured. The price tag supported by taxpayers was conservatively estimated at $4 million additional dollars for each FAS child. That figure did not include juvenile justice or adult incarceration costs. Senator Wiener stated experts estimated that between 50 to 60 percent of the children in the juvenile justice system were FAS children. The astounding thing about FAS was that it was a 100 percent preventable birth defect, and once the child was affected and the mother continued to consume alcohol during pregnancy, it only became worse. Senator Wiener explained there were five progressive levels of FAS, and reiterated it was 100 percent preventable if the mother simply did not drink during pregnancy, which was why the proposed signs were so important. For those very important reasons, along with the support of the March of Dimes, and the work being done by the Advisory Subcommittee on FAS to educate the public and perhaps alert a mother who was unaware that she could cause a birth defect in her unborn child, Senator Wiener urged support for S.B. 277.
Mrs. Chowning indicated that she recognized the importance of educating pregnant women regarding the dangers of FAS, and felt that a simple sign would do much good. She inquired about the Spanish message, and asked whether that was being done because the Hispanic population constituted the major minority population in Nevada, or because the statistics regarding FAS indicated there were more cases among the Hispanic population. Senator Wiener reported that the message in Spanish was being done because that population was the fastest growing minority population in Nevada, as well as being the major minority population nationwide. One of the highest rates of teen pregnancy was within the Hispanic population, and Nevada had one of the highest rates for chronic or “binge” drinking.
Ms. Giunchigliani referenced Section 4 of the bill regarding the description of “alcoholic beverage,” and asked whether that was in accordance with the federal description. Senator Wiener noted that the description repeated the language contained in federal law. Ms. Giunchigliani then inquired whether the civil penalty was currently in existence or would be initiated upon passage of the bill. Senator Wiener replied that the penalty would be new, and all indications were that Clark County would totally support the penalty, especially since the counties could recover the cost of enforcing the requirements.
Testifying next was Ms. Wright, who explained that the Advisory Subcommittee on FAS had been quite busy working with the School of Medicine at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) to identify a screening instrument that would be the most appropriate for health care professionals to utilize in screening pregnant women for alcohol abuse. An instrument had been identified, and the Health Division was developing a curriculum to implement that screening. The division would commence with training for providers associated with the Great Basin Primary Care Association early in the upcoming biennium. Ms. Wright stated the subcommittee had reviewed and worked with the March of Dimes regarding the distribution of the FAS “quiz show,” developed by the March of Dimes and currently being shown in the Clark County School District. The program was used to alert adolescents about the dangers of drinking and the consequences of drinking while pregnant.
Ms. Wright went on to explain that the Advisory Subcommittee on FAS had worked with the Prenatal Substance Abuse Subcommittee to establish a Web site under the auspices of the Health Division Web page, so those persons who were seeking information regarding the effects of alcohol or other drug usage during pregnancy could easily locate such information. The Web site also included referrals to available services for treatment, and Ms. Wright stated the subcommittee continued to explore grant opportunities to promote treatment and prevention services against alcohol abuse. According to Ms. Wright, one of the most important things accomplished by the subcommittee was to act as a forum to bring all the “players” within the state together to discuss how to deal with the FAS issue, and begin implementation of initiatives to address it.
Mrs. Cegavske stated that more and more women entered prison because of drug and alcohol abuse. She asked whether a program would be available within the prison system to educate the female population regarding FAS. Mrs. Cegavske also asked whether signs would be placed in locations such as convenience stores.
Senator Wiener stated that the original version of the bill contained language which addressed the placement of signs at the point of sale, however, that language was ultimately removed, and the program would begin with placement of signs in women’s restrooms of establishments where alcohol was sold for consumption on the premises, which would reach approximately 9,000 locations. Regarding the prison population, Senator Wiener stated that was an issue which could be explored by the subcommittee.
Testifying next before the committee via videoconference from Las Vegas was Vickie Huckmala, Director of Program Services for the March of Dimes, who read the following letter from R. Dale Andreason, State Director, Nevada Chapter, March of Dimes, Exhibit D, into the record:
In accordance with the March of Dimes policy to work to help prevent alcohol-related birth defects such as FAS through public health education programs, professional seminars, and advocacy for appropriate warning labels for alcoholic beverages and for substance abuse prevention, and treatment programs for women, the March of Dimes Foundation recommends the passage of S.B. 277 as a means of public education concerning the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation recommends that pregnant women do not drink any alcohol - including beer, wine, wine coolers and hard liquor - throughout their pregnancy and/or while nursing. In addition, since women often do not know they are pregnant for several months, women who are attempting to become pregnant should abstain from alcoholic beverages.
The March of Dimes appreciates the financial burden on the state of Nevada to implement this legislation. However, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a serious condition and the only preventable birth defect.
In an effort to promote its mission of preventing birth defects, the March of Dimes Foundation, through its Nevada Chapter is proud to be able to assist in the passage of this important legislation. We will accept the responsibility of creating a coalition of organizations whose sole purpose will be to cover the costs associated with the production and distribution of the signage mandated in the language of S.B. 277. The March of Dimes will pay the costs associated with the printing of the signage.
Ms. Huckmala concluded her testimony with the statement that she would be happy to answer any questions from the committee, and hearing none, Chairman Arberry called for further testimony regarding S.B. 277.
Bobbie Gang, speaking on behalf of the Nevada Women’s Lobby, read the following statement from the “Women’s Agenda” booklet into the record:
According to the University of Nevada, Reno Centers for Applied Research, Nevada has the highest percentage of women reporting chronic alcohol abuse, the second highest percentage of women reporting binge drinking, and the highest teen pregnancy rate. Both the 1997 Gallup study of women of childbearing age, and the 1997 household telephone survey, concluded that substance abuse among women of childbearing age in this state is significant.
Continuing, Ms. Gang commented that, as committee members were aware from past reelection campaigns, it took a certain number of times for a name and message to appear before voters actually got the message, and the signs proposed by S.B. 277 would be a way to deliver the message regarding prenatal substance abuse to the public and women of childbearing age. Ms. Gang opined that if the signs saved just one baby, the legislation was worth the effort.
With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 277 closed, and open the hearing on S.B. 321.
Senate Bill 321: Requires state controller to transfer certain amount of money from intergovernmental transfer account in general fund to fund for institutional care of medically indigent. (BDR S-313)
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated that S.B. 321 would simply put into law the transfer from the intergovernmental transfer account of $500,000 to the institutional care fund, which was utilized by counties that could not meet the county match payment. Mr. Abba pointed out that similar legislation was processed every biennium, and was in conjunction with action taken by the Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 321, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. The next order of business for the committee was S.B. 427.
Senate Bill 427: Makes appropriations for educational technology, textbooks and signing bonuses for teachers. (BDR S-1349)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, stated the bill, in its original form, would have implemented the Governor’s recommended allocation of funds to school districts for technology, training, and textbooks. Per Mr. Hataway, in the amended format, there were three basic elements to the proposal, the first of which was a recommendation to allocate $9,950,000 to the State Commission on Educational Technology to grant money to local school districts. A total of $1,250,000 per year would be provided for the districts to acquire the minimum level of education technology that was necessary to provide a networked database for each classroom. Mr. Hataway explained that the state had a master plan for education technology, and the goal was to at least bring every classroom up to a minimum standard.
An allocation of $2,500,000 per year was also proposed to the local school districts for the repair, replacement, or upgrade of computer hardware and software. Mr. Hataway noted that, obviously, once the system was in place, it would eventually require repair and/or replacement. Mr. Hataway indicated a grant in the amount of $625,000 per year was proposed for hardware, software, and contracting services to provide or enhance technical support to the school districts, and $150,000 per year for pilot programs that demonstrated best practices for the use of educational technology to improve the achievement of pupils. Mr. Hataway explained that the bill also proposed an allocation to KLVX Distance Learning Satellite Service in the amount of $400,000, and a $500,000 allocation to the Division of State Library and Archives of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts for licenses to allow school libraries access to research databases, and other on-line resources appropriate for pupils. Mr. Hataway reiterated that the aforementioned amounts were recommended to be available in both years of the biennium, and there was a standard reversion clause at the end of the biennium, June 30, 2003.
Continuing, Mr. Hataway stated that Section 2 of the bill outlined the process for the application, the accounting, and the use of the funds, which were the same standards used by the Commission on Educational Technology in the past for the receipt of applications from the school districts. Section 3 proposed an allocation of $50,000 to the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation to hire a qualified independent consultant to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of educational technology in improving the achievement of pupils, to identify issues relating to the implementation of educational technology, and to identify best practices relating to the use of educational technology to improve the achievement of pupils.
According to Mr. Hataway, Section 4 was a major addition to S.B. 427, and recommended the sum of $10 million to be used for signing bonuses for teachers. There were specific standards recommended in the section, one of which was that a newly hired teacher would not receive a signing bonus until that teacher had taught in the district for at least 30 days. Mr. Hataway stated if a person signed a contract and then failed to fulfill it, the end result would be a breach in contract, and the school district could attempt to retrieve the monies. Should that occur, Mr. Hataway felt the state would ultimately receive the signing bonus back. However, in order to eliminate that issue, a time period of 30 days was added to the bill, which would allow the school district to certify to the state the number of eligible teachers by approximately October 1 of each year.
The bill also stipulated that a teacher could not receive more than one signing bonus pursuant to Section 4, and Mr. Hataway noted that it was not inconceivable that a teacher would sign a contract with one district in the first year of the biennium, and sign a contract in the second year with another school district, thereby receiving two bonuses.
Mr. Hataway stated that subsection 3 stipulated that for FY2002, the bonus could not exceed $2,000, and for FY2003, it could not exceed $3,500. The reason for that language was because it was not known how many teachers would be signed under the bonus program. The dollar values were determined via the Distributive School Account (DSA), utilizing both regular enrollment growth, and class size reduction growth, which indicated there would be approximately 980 new teachers budgeted, and by doubling that number based on retirements and teachers who left the district and would need to be replaced, the number of new teachers was approximated at 2,000. Mr. Hataway pointed out that should the districts sign 2,500 teachers, the funds would then be prorated.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that she did not favor the idea of a signing bonus, and felt bonuses for teachers should be built into the salary structure. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there was a standard regarding how long a teacher would be required to teach within the district after receipt of the bonus. Mr. Hataway stated that issue was not addressed in the bill, and teacher turnover was recognized, however, he was unsure of the statistics. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she thought the turnover rate was extremely high at approximately 48 percent turnover within the first three years of teaching. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked whether there had been any discussion regarding the fact that the bonus would be offered to probationary teachers, who could ultimately be terminated or their contracts not renewed. Mr. Hataway pointed out that the legislation did not propose to change the hiring practices and procedures of the districts. The bill recognized the problems that had already been addressed by other states, and established bonuses to assist the local districts in signing teachers that, hopefully, would remain with the districts for a period of time. Mr. Hataway noted that, whether it was during or after the probationary period, statistics indicated turnover definitely occurred.
Ms. Giunchigliani then asked whether teachers were recruited from the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). Mr. Hataway explained that the bonus would be offered to all teachers who signed new contracts, regardless of whether they were from the state system or from out of state. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked whether the term “recruit” in the bill was a misnomer. Mr. Hataway stated he was unsure if all graduates from the UCCSN ended up in the state of Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that graduates did tend to remain in Nevada at the present time, and explained the procedures utilized by the school districts to fill teacher slots. Mr. Hataway indicated there was no discrimination in S.B. 427 regarding the location where a teacher had been educated.
Ms. Giunchigliani then asked how school districts would justify the signing bonus with its current teaching staff, as she felt it was a “slap in the face” for those teachers who had been working with very few salary increases over the last few years. Mr. Hataway indicated there were other elements of the education package that would address salaries for teachers, and if the teaching slots were not filled, the class size for the existing teachers would increase. There was a benefit to the existing teaching core in making sure that all the authorized classrooms were staffed with teachers. Mr. Hataway noted that during the probationary period, the district would make the determination of whether a teacher was qualified. He felt the entire system would benefit by a full complement of teaching staff.
The $9 million fiscal note would be the equivalent to .50 percent in salary, and Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the health insurance issue, and whether the .50 percent could be utilized to pay those costs. Mr. Hataway emphasized that the bonus allocation would be one-shot dollars. Ms. Giunchigliani asked about textbook funding, which appeared to be the issue of most importance to the public, rather than technology. Mr. Hataway stated the elements contained in the bill were considered to be higher priority items by the authors of the total package for education increases in the state. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would argue that textbooks were an issue that should be dealt with, especially at the high school level, where students in required courses should have access to textbooks; Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would argue that textbooks should be included in S.B. 427.
Ms. Tiffany referenced a statewide audit that focused on textbooks rather than technology, and she wondered who had set the priorities. She asked whether the bonus would apply to all 17 school districts, or was there a percentage split between the districts. Mr. Hataway stated funding was based upon the applications received from the districts, and the bill included language that indicated the Education Technology Commission would be required to consider the wealth of the local district when allocating funds. The primary allocation to the districts for technology occurred in 1997, however, it was not a uniform allocation based on a per capita ratio, but rather was based on the district’s justified need. Mr. Hataway pointed out that some districts had progressed further in meeting the minimum standards of the state master plan than others, and all those factors would be taken into consideration.
Ms. Tiffany asked for clarification regarding the KLVX Distance Learning Satellite Service allocation of $400,000. Mr. Hataway stated that funding had been provided to that entity for the past two biennia, initially to convert the downlinks from analog to digital. The state had been assisting that station because it provided services, not just to Clark County School District, but also to other districts around the state. Testimony had been received in the past which indicated there was benefit realized from the service provided by KLVX. Ms. Tiffany asked what the service provided, and whether the $50,000 allocation for a qualified, independent consultant to conduct an evaluation would encompass all 17 districts. Mr. Hataway explained that the evaluation would include the technology in place within all 17 school districts.
Mrs. Cegavske stated she would support the signing bonus, and referenced the issue of technology versus textbooks. According to Mrs. Cegavske, A.B. 450 would provide funding for textbooks, which was a concern of parents. The bill was well written and Mrs. Cegavske felt it delineated the items and areas of concern; her request would be that funding be split between technology and textbooks. Mrs. Cegavske noted that textbook legislation also included software items. Mrs. Cegavske stated she was not convinced that the state knew exactly what was being done in technology, and was concerned about the amount of money being allocated to technology without appropriate solutions for updating or upgrading. Mrs. Cegavske felt those issues were of concern to taxpayers and legislators alike, and requested a plan regarding exactly how the funding would be distributed, if at all possible.
Mr. Hataway stated he would be happy to contact the state office for the Commission on Education Technology and request information regarding the master plan and standards utilized to allocate funds. In lieu of allocating money directly to the districts, the Governor stipulated that the commission, which had developed the master plan, should be in charge of decisions regarding the allocation of funds. Mr. Hataway indicated that additional funding would be added to the DSA for “vital programs” for local districts, which would include textbooks. Ms. Tiffany stated she would like to know the dollar amount that was included for textbooks. Mr. Hataway indicated the allocation was approximately $14.5 million.
Mr. Hataway asked that the committee consider an unrelated item, and explained that the Budget Division would like to add a section to the pay bill for classified salaries for state employees that would address the salary range for youth parole counselors. The issue had not been discussed during the initial budget process; however, the division had discovered that the salary structure for both youth parole counselors and adult parole officers were tied together. The turnover and retention recruitment difficulties regarding youth parole counselors was approximately the same as that experienced at the adult officer level. Mr. Hataway advised that the Budget Division would request the addition of a one grade increase for youth parole counselors, which would include approximately 25 positions, including supervisory positions. Mr. Hataway stated the dollar amount for FY2002 would be $68,624, and $72,920 for FY2003. Those figures would be included in the allocation to the Board of Examiners to be disbursed at the end of each fiscal year.
Testifying next before the committee was Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District, who stated the district wanted to go on record in support of the bonuses outlined by S.B. 427, as well as any enhancements that could be gained with respect to technology.
Clark “Danny” Lee, Legislative Consultant, Nevada Library Association, indicated he would support the bill in its entirety, however, would propose amendments to Section 1(f), page 2, lines 15 and 16, Exhibit E. Mr. Lee explained that the legislative intent of the bill was to provide databases to school and public libraries, and to the general public. His suggested amendment to Section 1(f) would add, “. . .to allow school and public libraries. . . ,” and “. . .on-line resources appropriate for pupils,library patrons and Nevadacitizens.” Mr. Lee stated those amendments would satisfy legislative intent.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Hataway to comment on the proposed language that had been omitted from the bill. Mr. Hataway stated he was not aware of that particular issue, and advised he would investigate the matter. Mr. Lee stated that the same allocation had been made by the 1999 session for technology regarding the databases as recommended by the proposed amendment.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether an allocation of $500,000 was made last session to the Division of State Library and Archives of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts. Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative. Ms. Giunchigliani then inquired what had been accomplished with those funds. Mr. Lee referenced Exhibit E, which included a presentation entitled, “LSTA (Library Services & Technology Act) and the State of Nevada provide a winning information team for Nevada Public and School Libraries,” which explained that the database project encompassed 400 school libraries, 84 public libraries, and was available to the general public via home computer. The exhibit also explained what was included in the database, i.e., EBSCO Information Services, Grolier Online, and the SIRS Knowledge Source. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired why the State Museum and Library was involved in the database program. Mr. Lee explained the Department of Museums, Library and Arts acted as the “handling” agent for distribution of the money to the appropriate recipients.
Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the $500,000 allocation was for a licensing fee to access certain applications. Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative. Ms. Tiffany then asked whether it was appropriate for one-shot monies to be utilized for a licensing fee, which was an ongoing cost. Mr. Lee explained it was a two‑year licensing fee. Ms. Tiffany did not feel it was appropriate to allocate funds for a licensing fee from one-shot monies. Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Hataway to explain the duties of the Department of Cultural Affairs. Mr. Hataway stated the legislature had recently approved a name change for the Department of Museums, Library and Arts to the Department of Cultural Affairs. Ms. Tiffany requested clarification regarding the licensing fee users. Mr. Lee stated the license encompassed all 17 counties in the state.
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, explained that the reason for the involvement of the department and the Division of State Library and Archives was because the cost of the database was actually greater than the requested $500,000 allocation. Federal funds from the public library system were combined with money from the school districts in order to provide a better database. The amendment for S.B. 427 would simply make the allocation available to the department, in order to facilitate the database. Ms. Tiffany asked for an example of an application of the database within the school districts.
Sara Jones, State Librarian, Division Administrator, Division of State Library and Archives, stated the aforementioned applications referenced by Mr. Lee included the SIRS Knowledge Source, a curriculum-based resource which had been curtailed to Nevada standards. That application provided much valuable information to students because of its research capabilities. Ms. Jones explained that the EBSCO Information Service was a general database that included many different magazines and curriculum resources for students from kindergarten through college. The Grolier Online was an on-line encyclopedia service that included three levels, and a Spanish language encyclopedia. Ms. Jones stated that the database encompassed all information normally available in a school library, and made that information available to every computer in schools and public libraries, and via home computers. Ms. Jones remarked that it would be more desirable to acquire permanent funding for the database; however, one-shot funding appeared to be all that was available.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 427, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed. The next bill for committee consideration was S.B. 174.
Senate Bill 174: Requires cooperative efforts to make available through existing state programs community-based services to provide minimum essential personal assistance to certain persons with disabilities. (BDR 38-190)
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District 6, remarked that S.B. 174 was his highest priority during the current session, and he would explain the general purpose of the bill to the committee. The majority of people with disabilities who could not eat, bathe, or use toilet facilities by themselves would most likely end up in institutions unless there was some type of personal assistance available. Senator Rawson noted that the state had partially addressed that issue for persons who earned less than $8,400 per year, and were eligible for Medicaid for personal assistance under the state plan. Persons with an income level greater than $8,400, but less than $18,000 per year, would qualify for the Medicaid Disability Waiver, commonly referred to as the Community Home-Based Initiatives Program (CHIP). Within the CHIP scenario, services would depend on the number of slots available, which created a waiting list. Senator Rawson commented that the only other option would be nursing home care or institutionalization. Persons with an income level above $18,000 per year were required to pay for their own personal assistance needs, or utilize temporary services such as those provided by the Personal Assistance Services (PAS) Program. That program was created by the 1985 legislature because of what was deemed to be a desperate need for people with severe disabilities. Senator Rawson explained that the PAS Program charged a co-pay, based on the individual’s ability to pay, and was an extremely effective program which cost approximately $15,000 per year, per person.
Among the people on current waiting lists were those who could not perform the most basic functions of life, and Senator Rawson explained that S.B. 174 categorized those three essential functions as; (1) eating, (2) bathing, and (3) toileting. Persons who could not perform those functions would require some type of personal assistance, and those were the persons addressed by the bill. According to Senator Rawson, the bill would formally recognize and plan for such persons for the first time in Nevada’s history. Senator Rawson stated that S.B. 174 would ascertain the scope of the problem, i.e., how many persons there were who needed such services, and how long were waiting lists. The legislature recognized that there were many disabled people who needed assistance, and the legislature had worked diligently to meet those needs, however, Senator Rawson noted that quite often the needs were greater than could be met by the state. He suggested that the people who required help with the aforementioned three basic functions, which were necessary for survival, be included in the discussions that would eventually decide the priorities within the state.
Senator Rawson stated it was important to note that Section 5 of the bill read as follows: “’Reasonably adequate state funding’ means the amount of state funding that can reasonably be accommodated within state budgetary limitations, as determined by the governor and the legislature for each biennial session of the legislature.” Senator Rawson noted that waiting lists would still exist, however, for the first time, the state would actually be aware of how many people were on those lists, so needs could be prioritized and dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Per Senator Rawson, some committee members might voice concern regarding the appropriation contained in S.B. 174, which was $5,000 for each fiscal year of the upcoming biennium. Senator Rawson realized that it was late in the session for amending bills, however, if the committee felt the appropriation should be stripped from the bill, he requested additional language that would allow the acceptance of gifts and grants. The state was challenged by the threat of litigation brought against it because of the Olmstead Decision. Senator Rawson stated the legislature was attempting to send the message that: (1) it was involved; (2) it would make a determination regarding the needs; and (3) it would involve the disabled community in that process, which was vital. Personal assistance was one of the services listed as necessary in the Olmstead Decision. Senator Rawson stated he was unsure how to put sufficient emphasis on the importance of addressing the issue of personal assistance.
Mr. Marvel stated in 1985, the year the legislature initiated the PAS Program, it was recognized that the program would ultimately save the state of Nevada millions of dollars. He felt one of the best investments the state could make was keeping persons in their homes by providing personal assistance, because once a person was placed in an institution, it was at great expense to the state. Mr. Marvel voiced strong support for S.B. 174.
Ms. Leslie also voiced support for S.B. 174 and asked Senator Rawson to comment regarding the written testimony of Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator for the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (HCF&P), DHR, which had been submitted to the committee, Exhibit F. The written testimony stated the bill would create obstacles to assisting clients, would put the state in violation of federal law, and would limit program flexibility. Senator Rawson commented that, with all due respect, the state of Nevada was on the cusp of a crisis, one that existed because issues such as personal assistance had not been dealt with in the past. The disabled community had come forward to advise it had lost patience and hope, and felt the state should address the issues. Senator Rawson also noted that the Governor had currently placed more resources at the disposal of the disabled community than ever before, however, simply adding resources was not enough, and a coordinated plan for study was needed, with the help of that community. Senator Rawson felt the session should not end without a firm resolve to address the personal assistance issue, and the legislature should step up to its responsibilities, along with the Executive Branch of government.
Mrs. Cegavske inquired whether the term “severe functional disabilities” would include a person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Senator Rawson stated he was not sure, but felt that a person who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease could enter a phase where they could be declared disabled and eligible for Medicaid and/or other programs. Mrs. Cegavske then asked how disabilities would be defined, and how “severe functional disabilities” would be determined. Senator Rawson noted that S.B. 174 clearly stipulated that a person who could not feed, bathe, or use toilet facilities without assistance would be deemed functionally disabled. Mrs. Cegavske then asked about the number of Nevadans who would require such assistance. Senator Rawson stated there were under 150 persons on the waiting list, and perhaps there were that many more who had not asked for assistance, however, the exact number was not known.
Barbara Buckley, Assemblywoman, District 8, testified as a co-sponsor of S.B. 174, and advised the committee that she had worked with individuals with disabilities for many years, and at the end of 1995, her sister became paralyzed because of spinal cord cancer. According to Ms. Buckley, it was quite an education, because one day her sister was fine and the next day, she was paralyzed and facing a major change in her lifestyle. For the past several years, Ms. Buckley stated she had served on interim health committees, and the Task Force for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada, which distributed tobacco settlement monies, and had heard much testimony from individuals with disabilities. The testimony usually addressed the difficulties of day-to-day living, often experienced by persons with disabilities, and it had been determined that the best way to address those difficulties was with personal care assistance. Ms. Buckley noted that such assistance would allow disabled persons to remain in their homes, claim what they could of their lives again, and remain independent. In order to ascertain the best program and make it work, the disabled community should be consulted. The parameters of a program would be easy to design with input from persons with disabilities, however, without that input such programs might create hurdles and obstacles. According to Ms. Buckley, S.B. 174 would create an advisory committee to review the rules and regulations, not in abstract, but with the input of individuals who knew about the challenges facing the disabled community.
During the interim, Ms. Buckley indicated testimony had been heard from individuals who addressed such issues as the difficulty of attaining workers’ compensation insurance for a personal care assistant. The system had managed to put many hurdles in front of individuals with disabilities who were simply trying to receive assistance to bathe, eat, and remain in their homes. Ms. Buckley testified that the system was not attentive to the needs of the disabled, or how to make programs work. That would be accomplished by passage of S.B. 174, which would give the disabled community an opportunity to provide input.
Ms. Buckley indicated she was stunned to hear that Mr. Duarte had provided written testimony in opposition to the bill (Exhibit F) because, as she read the bill, it would accomplish just the opposite. It would create a forum to design the best program possible, and ensure that there was an accurate account of the true budgetary needs for disabled programs. The bill would also ensure that the amount of funding needed for personal care assistance was included in the appropriate budgetary requests, which would not guarantee that the full amount would be allocated, but the legislature would be aware of the needs and could make sound decisions. Ms. Buckley urged the committee to support S.B. 174.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was a co-sponsor of the legislation, and felt the issue had been the lack of a voice from the disabled community. The purpose of the proposed advisory committee would be to ascertain the need, who the potential clients would be, and to ensure that the disabled community was no longer ignored. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that legislation was recently heard by the committee that would conduct studies on cases which might fall under the Olmstead Decision, and cases of persons with autism. According to Ms. Giunchigliani, a Letter of Intent would be directed to the DHR instructing that all stakeholders be included in any approved studies, and asked whether that legislation would complement S.B. 174. Ms. Buckley stated that it would, and as the state considered overall compliance with the Olmstead Decision and the needs of individuals with disabilities, S.B. 174 would provide one piece of what was needed. Ms. Giunchigliani wondered whether the advisory committee should be ongoing, or whether it should be placed under a sunset stipulation.
Senator Rawson stated that designing legislation with an emphasis toward removal of the threat of Olmstead litigation was critical, and he hoped the state would never again close the door on the disabled community, as that was a voice which he felt had to be heard.
Paul Gowins stated he represented the disabled forum and the community from which the bill was generated. Mr. Gowins noted that at each legislative session since 1985, he had approached the legislature in an effort to identify the disabled, and to request allocation of sufficient funds for programs, which were usually not included in the budget process. According to Mr. Gowins, whether programs were considered during a particular session depended upon the state of the budget. Mr. Gowins felt that a great deal of thought had gone into the drafting of S.B. 174, and the three basic functions it identified. He encouraged support for the bill, and emphasized that the voices which represented the disabled community were not being heard. Mr. Gowins encouraged passage of S.B. 174.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the state had a fund for assistance with rehabilitation or modification of homes or apartments in an effort to assist individuals with remaining at home. Mr. Gowins referenced S.B. 477, which the committee would be considering at a later date, and noted it included one-shot monies to provide assistance with such modifications. The amount was approximately $500,000, and would support such modifications as the installation of ramps and remodeling of bathrooms, et cetera.
Michael Goodwin indicated he was the Program Manager for the In-Home Care Program for Accessible Space, Inc., and had been in that position for the past 11 years. He advised the committee that he would speak in support of S.B. 174, which was desperately needed. Mr. Goodwin reported that he worked in the “trenches” and received the telephone calls from disabled persons seeking assistance. He knew firsthand that there were a number of individuals residing in their homes without any in-home care service, simply because they had not been identified. Once those individuals were identified, Accessible Space, Inc. could provide limited assistance because of funding constraints. Mr. Goodwin stated there were persons being admitted to nursing homes unnecessarily, and Accessible Space, Inc., had worked with Medicaid regarding the waiting list problem. Mr. Goodwin referenced letters included in Exhibit G, and read the following letter from the HCF&P, Disabled Waiver Program, into the record:
Per our telephone conversation today I am writing this letter to request assistance from your agency in providing personal care assistance to persons on the Physical Disabled Waiver waiting list. I understand Accessible Space, Inc. has limited funding and must establish criterion for their program. However, and unfortunately, this criterion prevents those persons waiting for an open slot on the waiver program from receiving in home care services from ASI. It can take from one to two years for a person on the waiver waiting list to receive an open slot and Medicaid eligibility. In the meantime, they go without assistance and many times end up in an acute facility or skilled nursing facility.
I would like to request a reevaluation of your current system so that, hopefully additional funding can be obtained to assist these persons. Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Goodwin stated the letter indicated there was a need to identify disabled people in need of services by agencies such as Accessible Space, Inc. because Medicaid was experiencing problems with its waiting list for open slots. For that reason alone, Mr. Goodwin stated he felt the legislature should consider S.B. 174 very carefully, because everyone was just an accident away from a spinal cord injury that would prove the validity of the proposed legislation.
Rose Corley, Office Manager, Accessible Space, Inc., testified that she received the phone calls from persons requesting services, and heard the heart wrenching stories from those who were not able to bathe, wash their hair, or feed themselves without assistance. Ms. Corley emphasized that S.B. 174 was really necessary for persons who required assistance and had no other resources available. Some persons were unaware of the available services, or they remained on the waiting list because there was no availability of services. Ms. Corley stated those persons either ended up in institutions, or they simply died. Over the past two years, Ms. Corley noted that via her database, from 2 percent to 5 percent of persons seeking assistance were lost either via death or nursing home placement because of the lack of available services. She urged the committee to support S.B. 174.
Bev Clinghesse, Disability Rights Advocate, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living (NNCIL), stated she would not address the financial impact of the bill, but rather would address the human impact. Ms. Clinghesse testified that she and Mr. Gowins had a client in common, a 38-year-old quadriplegic woman who had been in one nursing home or another since her injury two years ago. According to Ms. Clinghesse, she had developed a “client mentality,” i.e., she felt she could not eat unassisted, could not toilet unassisted, and could not bathe unassisted. Because she had been in an institution, she felt she could no longer do anything unassisted, which Ms. Clinghesse stated was more of a psychological trauma than a physical trauma, and often occurred when a person had been institutionalized. Ms. Clinghesse reported that over the past eight months that client, who was in her 30s, had had 3 roommates who were between 80 and 90 years of age, and who had all died in the home while she was present, which had also affected her psychologically. Ms. Clinghesse reported that she and Mr. Gowins had been able to secure a Section 8 Voucher for their client, so she could continue living on her own with supportive assistance, with the exception of personal care assistance. That client was number two on the Medicaid list, but she would not get a slot until someone died or moved off the list. Ms. Clinghesse emphasized that a coordinated, planned, organized approach to personal care assistance was needed, along with an accurate count of the people who would require such personal care services. That information was not readily available, and when persons were told there were 150 people on the waiting list, they simply did not apply. The disabled community wanted a voice, and was becoming angry, as it had been asking for a voice for several years. Ms. Clinghesse urged support of S.B. 174.
Michael Goesch, Home Modification and Independent Living Specialist for the NNCIL, noted that when a person requested services and he went to their home, nine times out of ten that person also needed personal care assistance. The potential for injury and/or death was high, and Mr. Goesch stated that a typical home assessment would often reveal that the disabled person was not taking care of himself, the food supply was minimal at best, and access to services was poor. Mr. Goesch stated he could use his case as an example, and explained that he suffered a spinal cord injury as a result of a broken neck in 1988 because of a drunk driver, and two years later he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). According to Mr. Goesch, the Medicaid services provided to him were very minimal and dehumanizing. It was difficult to acquire services and persons in similar situations were also suffering from identical problems. Mr. Goesch voiced support for S.B. 174, and begged the committee to also support the bill. The bill would provide a few more tools for the disabled to work with, and would aid persons in becoming independent. Overall, the disabled community would benefit greatly from passage of the bill.
Jon Sasser, Washoe Legal Services, voiced concern regarding the aforementioned testimony from Charles Duarte, HCF&P (Exhibit F), and felt that perhaps issues had been raised regarding the legality of such planning and its effect on federal funding. The bill stated that the program would be done, “. . .within the limitations of any conditions upon the receipt of state or federal funding. . . ,” and also included, “. . .to the extent authorized by state and federal law, the provision of services in accordance with NRS 629.091. . . .” Mr. Sasser felt the language of the bill was very clear that no agency would be asked to violate any state or federal law, or jeopardize federal funding. According to Mr. Sasser, there would be an open regulatory process surrounding the new regulations regarding personal care assistance. What had not been done was an assessment of the overall need which included input from the disabled community, and inclusion of proposed funding within the budgetary process as called for by the bill. Mr. Sasser urged support of S.B. 174.
Testifying next before the committee was Donny Loux, who read the following statement into the record:
For fifteen years I have, as the Chief of the Office of Community Based Services, listened to the stories of families seeking personal assistance….for a sister or a mother….a son or husband….someone in their family who has been newly injured….who’s just been diagnosed with ALS or whose MS or diabetes has progressed to the point that they can no longer take care of even their basic functions.
For these same 15 years, I’ve listened to their tears when I tell them we can put them on the waiting list but it will probably be a year to two years before we can help them.
But I’m not here today as a State employee. Today I’m going to tell you about my family.
Two years ago my sister-in-law called to ask for help for her sister Mary. Mary was at that time a single mom with a 14-year-old. My sister-in-law was doing the best she could to take care of Mary but she has her own family with two teenagers….she works and was also helping her dad care for her mom who was going through cancer treatments.
We put Mary on our waiting list but they knew it would be at least a year before she could get services. Mary got worse and the family couldn’t hold out.
Mary’s insurance ran out, she used what money she had to pay for help as long as she could. She sold her car and, eventually, the property she had intended to leave to her son. With everything gone and still not close to the top of our waiting list, Mary went on Medicaid and now gets personal assistance and all of her health care from the state.
My sister-in-law, Sally, doesn’t think this would have been necessary if Mary could have gotten even four hours of personal assistance some other way.
Last November, as the result of an automobile accident, my grandson was hospitalized with massive head injuries. Dr. Dawson and Dr. Watson agreed that the “Bear,” if he lived, would never again feed or bathe or move himself. Chances that he would live at all, they said, were very, very slim.
So we sat through the hours and the days waiting, not believing, praying, crying, and watching. And we tried to think about what to think about. What would we do, when he came home, who would do what and when?
My son, Brett, is a single dad with sole custody of the Bear and my other grandson, little Tony. Tony just turned 13 last week. He plays the viola, Pop Warner football, basketball at Pine Middle School, and baseball for Washoe Little League. He was a Washoe All Star last year. His dad takes him to all his practices and his games and his concerts. Brett is a lineman for Sierra Power, goes to work at six, and is home by four, so it’s a good schedule for being a busy dad.
But now what’s going to happen, I wondered, as we sat there waiting for the doctors to tell us anything new. They won’t qualify for Medicaid, our State PAS program has a two-year wait, they’re going to have enormous medical bills, Brett will never be able to afford the $20,000 a year to have someone come in for even four hours a day.
Finally, we knew I would have to quit work and go to Reno every weekday to take care of the Bear. But then who would take little Tony to practice after I went home to Dayton? What about weekend practice? Away from home games? Could I even lift the Bear by myself? What would we do when Brett got called out in the middle of the night for a power emergency?
The voices of all those families I’ve talked to over the years flashed through my mind. I thought how few of them even had the slim options we had. I wondered if they were still together, I wondered if we could keep us together. I knew we must never send our gentle, poetic, beautiful Bear away to live with strangers.
But then Dr. Watson came, with his sad eyes, and before he spoke I knew. The Bear wouldn’t be coming home. Now I’m back at work still listening to families cry everyday. It’s different now. I still hear their tears through the phone, but now I feel them on my skin and in my heart.
This bill is my hope for those families and for you and for your families….in case you, like me, become one of them.
Thank you.
Testifying next from Las Vegas via videoconference was Tina Schafer, a client of Accessible Space, Inc., who offered her support for S.B. 174 and stated it would be of assistance to her. Ms. Schafer reported that she could not accomplish two of the aforementioned three required functions for successful independent living, and could only feed herself. Ms. Schafer explained that she required assistance in getting out of bed, dressing, toileting, and bathing, which was provided by Accessible Space, Inc., and she noted that, quite frankly, she did not know how she would function without that service. Ms. Schafer reported that her son, who lived with her, was also disabled and wheelchair- bound, as was she, and because of the service provided for them in their home, they had become a family that enjoyed a high quality of life. The psychological implications of being in group homes or nursing homes was referenced in earlier testimony, and Ms. Schafer indicated she and her son would be impacted negatively both mentally and psychologically without the support and help they received. As an individual, Ms. Schafer reported that she had often felt invisible, and her voice had not been heard. It was very hard to advocate for yourself when every time you turned around there was a new form to be filled out, and more questions to be answered. It was extremely difficult to live as a disabled person in an able-bodied world, but Ms. Schafer stated they managed with assistance.
Bob Hogan, testifying from Las Vegas via videoconference, indicated he was a provider of personal assistance services in Nevada, and also sat on the Board of Directors of the Southern Nevada Head Injury Association. He reported that his organization served both Medicaid and Nevada PAS consumers. For every story that had been shared with the committee regarding the needs in northern Nevada, Mr. Hogan indicated there were at least three more to tell regarding the needs in southern Nevada. The names were many and the stories were sad, i.e., people living alone and facing institutionalization, couples who could no longer care for each other, or parents now to old and frail to care for their son or daughter. Mr. Hogan reported that it broke his heart to tell those persons that they were still far down on the waiting list, and it further broke his heart to call a potential consumer whose name had finally come up on the list, only to find that they had already been placed in a nursing home.
Mr. Hogan stated S.B. 174 would open the possibility that basic assistance in eating, bathing, and toileting would be made available to persons in their homes. Currently, neither the legislature nor the Governor saw funding for disabled assistance in any agency budget, so unless the disabled community sought help through the legislature, it was not afforded the opportunity to decide whether the state could assist. With S.B. 174, agencies would be asked, in the budget process, to pass the needs of the disabled to elected officials. Mr. Hogan pointed out that the people elected officials to make the tough decisions and then trusted those officials to make the best possible decisions. Without passage of S.B. 174, disabled persons and their needs would remain on a list, and in the dark. If the state was not able to fund full waiver services, then at least the legislature and the Governor had the chance to provide minimal services to the disabled from the PAS Program; just those basic services that would keep a disabled person at home rather than in an institution. Mr. Hogan asked the committee to be mindful that no one was seeking to “break the bank,” and the people trusted elected officials to make good decisions based upon what the state could afford. Per Mr. Hogan, each person learned that they were safe and cared for in a very simple way at the beginning of life, i.e., when they were hungry they were fed, when they were soiled they were bathed, and when they needed to eliminate waste, someone was there for them as well. As persons got older, life became more complicated, but for some who could not do for themselves, provision of those three basic services could increase the chances that they may remain safe, cared for, and at home.
Reggie Bennett, testifying from Las Vegas via videoconference, stated he operated the Independent Living Program for southern Nevada, however, was not testifying on behalf of that program, but rather as a disabled individual. Mr. Bennett stated he strongly supported S.B. 174, even though he was fortunate enough not to utilize the program or personal care assistance at the current time. Mr. Bennett explained that he had a ten-year-old daughter, and there might be a time in his life when he would need personal assistance, so that his daughter and wife would not have to worry about his care. Mr. Bennett felt the program should be funded and individuals on the waiting list should be provided the services they needed.
Mary Wherry, Deputy Administrator, HCF&P, DHR, read into the record the aforementioned written testimony of Charles Duarte, Administrator, HCF&P, DHR (Exhibit F), as follows:
I am here today to provide testimony on behalf of the agency regarding SB 174 because the bill would negatively impact Medicaid’s ability to fund and control community based services to the disabled.
Currently, Nevada Medicaid offers services to the disabled through its state plan services and its waivers for persons with a physical disability, person’s with mental retardation or related conditions and the frail elderly. These programs have defined eligibility and service needs criteria. We provide services based on medical necessity using functional assessments. The funding for the program is currently in the Division’s budget. Currently, the Department of Human Resources is the single state Medicaid Agency and the Division is responsible for Medicaid’s administration.
SB 174’s plan to implement the above goals creates obstacles to the goal of assisting clients in a community setting. It appears the intent of the bill is to have this program govern the provision of minimum essential personal assistance. One of these activities would be to ensure the director of the Department of Human Resources coordinate with the director of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation to develop the budget requests for personal care service programs funding for the state. To have another department involved in the administration of Medicaid services would be inefficient; requiring extra coordination among staff and the duplication of processes in policy development and service provision. And, as stated before, HCFA requires waiver programs to be administered by the state Medicaid agency.
The bill addresses the provision of services in accordance with NRS 629.091. After extensive interaction and review with the Federal Health Care Financing Administration, Medicaid has been informed this law violates the Federal Health Care Financing Administration’s regulations. This violation is due to the fact the law limits the self-direction of care to cognitively intact physically disabled over the age of 18. This limitation precludes the Medicaid flow of Federal matching funds, except in the physical disability waiver program.
SB 174 calls for the establishment of minimum provider qualifications and training qualifications. Based on the different populations served, not all programs currently have, nor may want the same minimum requirements. The development of set standards has the potential to limit program flexibility and recipient choice.
The Attorney General’s office has advised the division SB 174 appears to have an advisory citizen committee oversee and direct executive branch programs. It also appears that all the requirements assigned to the Department in Section 10 are already performed by the agencies that administer those programs.
The bill may also create legal liability as it may be construed as creating an entitlement in this population to at least those services specified. In addition to these concerns, the clauses at the beginning of SB 174 may create liability in the State unwittingly by espousing findings that have not been established.
In summary, this bill will impact Medicaid DHCFP. The bill removes the flexibility that is now available in programs and service provision by defining limits and standards that will be applied to all programs. These limits and standards do not appear to benefit all recipients listed under the Nevada Statutes identified. These regulations will require policy changes in the waivers and the State Plan that must be coordinated with HCFA. Consequently, the Division cannot support SB 174 and its intentions as currently written.
Ms. Wherry added that Section 10 of the bill essentially captured many of the improvements the division had made to Chapter 35 of its “Medicaid Services Manual,” over the past year. The division made those improvements in extensive collaboration with the advocacy groups, and their voices were heard. Ms. Wherry noted that the Ticket to Work Grant also demanded that the division evaluate the personal care aid needs of individuals in an effort to support them in returning to work. According to Ms. Wherry, S.B. 174 was duplicative of A.B. 513, which the committee had already passed, and which developed a service delivery plan for people with disabilities; it also identified funding mechanisms. Ms. Wherry remarked that the division would not overlook the essential services in that plan. Per Ms. Wherry, the committee had also supported the budget request to increase waiver slots, which would further provide personal care aid services to people with disabilities.
Mr. Marvel inquired whether the Senate Finance Committee had been afforded the opportunity to hear the same testimony. Ms. Wherry replied in the affirmative, and explained that Mr. Duarte had provided the testimony to that committee.
Mr. Gowins advised the committee that the same testimony was not provided at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, and he indicated the division had adopted the same attitude regarding every disability issue, utilizing every obstacle imaginable. Mr. Gowins opined that at least half of the testimony presented to the committee was untrue, and that was one of the reasons the disabled community had requested legislative action regarding the personal assistance issue.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 174, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed. The next order of business before the committee would be S.B. 431.
Senate Bill 431: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for grants for library collections and equipment requirements. (BDR S-1362)
Mr. Sisco referenced Exhibit H, a booklet entitled, “Collection Development Grant Program - 2000-2001 Report,” and Exhibit I entitled, “Department of Cultural Affairs,” which defined the two items in S.B. 431. Mr. Sisco noted that the requested items were part of The Executive Budget and included:
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 431, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing for S.B. 435.
Senate Bill 435: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, maintenance, and new and replacement computer hardware and software. (BDR S-1367)
Mike Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, explained that S.B. 435, S.B. 436, S.B. 439, S.B. 440, and S.B. 441 were related to the division, and reflected the price adjustments for computers. According to Mr. Torvinen, S.B. 435 addressed the Nevada Mental Health Institute, and contained an appropriation for new and replacement computer equipment, along with hardware and software, and maintenance items. Also included was carpet replacement, laundry equipment, and office furniture.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 435 as there was no further testimony, and opened the hearing on S.B. 436.
Senate Bill 436: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, operating expenses and new and replacement computer hardware and software for Rural Regional Center of Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1369)
Mr. Torvinen stated the bill was for new and replacement equipment, computer hardware and software, and a significant allocation for replacement of office furniture and two fax machines for the Rural Regional Center of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services.
With no further testimony forthcoming, the hearing on S.B. 436 was closed, and Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on S.B. 439.
Senate Bill 439: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Desert Regional Center. (BDR S-1374)
Mr. Torvinen explained the bill would address equipment needs for the division’s Desert Regional Center, which was the southern Nevada Developmental Services Program of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. Included in the bill was a significant allocation for residential furnishings and vehicles to transport clients. Mr. Torvinen noted there was a small allocation for computer hardware and software.
The hearing was closed by Chairman Arberry as no further testimony was offered regarding S.B. 439. The next item for consideration was S.B. 440.
Senate Bill 440: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Sierra Regional Center. (BDR S-1375)
Mr. Torvinen stated the allocation was for the Sierra Regional Center, the northern Nevada Developmental Services Program of the Division of Mental Health and Development Services, and would encompass residential furnishings, replacement vehicles for client transport, and computer hardware and software.
With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 440, and opened the hearing on S.B. 441.
Senate Bill 441: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Rural Clinics. (BDR S-1377)
Mr. Torvinen explained the allocation was for the Rural Clinics Mental Health Program to address new and replacement equipment, computer hardware, software, and printers. A significant portion of the allocation would be utilized for replacement of office furniture, purchase of replacement vehicles, a phone system in some of the clinics, and various other small items for the 17 clinics throughout the state.
The hearing on S.B. 441 was closed by Chairman Arberry, as no further testimony was offered. The next item for consideration by the committee was A.B. 669.
Assembly Bill 669: Revises provisions governing liquor. (BDR 32-1550)
Morgan Baumgartner, representing the Nevada Resort Association, offered amendments to A.B. 669 as depicted by Exhibit J, and reviewed the bill as if the amendments were already incorporated. Ms. Baumgartner explained that the bill basically contained two parts, the first would be an appropriation and the second was a policy issue concerning the transfer of liquor between resort properties. In essence, the bill would allow affiliated properties that held non-restrictive gaming licenses to transfer liquor only, which would not include beer, the amended version, from one property to another in the same marketing franchise area.
Ms. Baumgartner explained that would allow casinos to transfer liquor to each other within the stated franchise area, i.e., Clark County. Under current law, such transfer was prohibited, and it was stipulated that a retail licensee must purchase from a wholesaler. The bill would allow the wholesaler to sell the initial package of liquor to one casino, and in the event of an overstock or incorrect order, that casino could transfer the liquor to another affiliated property. Much of the language would clarify technical sections that required amendment and would allow the retailer to not be categorized as a wholesaler during such a transaction.
According to Ms. Baumgartner, there were provisions in the amendments to A.B. 669 that would require the Department of Taxation to enforce the provisions of the bill only, rather than enforcement of the entire NRS chapter, as stated in the original bill. The enforcement of the entire NRS chapter was the origin of the fiscal impact of $20,000 for the biennium. Ms. Baumgartner reported that without consulting the department, it had been determined that a certain dollar amount would be needed to enforce the entire NRS chapter, however, after negotiations, it was determined that the department should only have enforcement capabilities over the new provision as contained in A.B. 669.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the “transfer” would be within each county and not across county lines. Ms. Baumgartner stated it was not necessarily delineated by county, but rather within the marketing area of the franchisee. It would be entirely dependent upon what the franchise agreement was for that particular wholesaler. Ms. Baumgartner indicated that, typically, in the rural areas, it would be multi-county because the agreements covered larger areas. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether “marketing area” was defined. Ms. Baumgartner explained that “marketing area” was defined in NRS 597.126, depending upon the wording of the franchise agreement.
Ms. Giunchigliani then asked why there was a need for such liquor transfers. Ms. Baumgartner remarked that casinos were already allowed to central purchase, but in a particular overstock situation where one casino purchased more liquor than it needed, that casino could transfer the overstock to another casino within the franchise area. With the consolidation of the gaming industry, Ms. Baumgartner stated there should be more flexibility in the ability to transfer inventory from property to property. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked whether there would be a negative impact on the wholesale business. Ms. Baumgartner reported that there should not be a negative impact on the wholesaler because the casinos would still be buying the same amount, and would still be required to buy directly from the wholesaler, i.e., the initial purchase must be from the wholesaler.
Ms. Giunchigliani wondered whether there was a suggested cap on the transfers, in order to avoid situations where casinos intentionally overstocked just to circumvent the requirement that the initial purchase had to be direct from the wholesaler. Ms. Baumgartner reported that there was no cap, and she could not speak to the volume issue specifically, however, did not believe that situation would arise. The bill was to facilitate inventory control and systems within the casinos to provide more flexibility. Ms. Giunchigliani then inquired how “affiliate” was defined. Ms. Baumgartner pointed out that “affiliate” was defined within the gaming laws in NRS 463.0133, and as stated in Section 1, subsection 4(a) of A.B. 669.
Mr. Dini asked whether the bill would allow large corporations to purchase in large quantities, and negotiate with the wholesaler. Ms. Baumgartner testified that the casinos already had that ability via central purchase, but it had to be distributed by the wholesaler to the different properties.
Mrs. Cegavske asked whether the proposed legislation would affect the convenience store industry. Ms. Baumgartner replied that it would not; the bill addressed the retail stores, however, limited the ability to transfer to those entities that were non-restricted gaming licensees.
Mary Lau, Executive Director of the Retail Association of Nevada, stated that, while she had not seen the amendments, she had reviewed the language with Ms. Baumgartner and the association would voice no opposition to the bill. The major concern regarding the original bill was that the association felt it was inappropriate and poor public policy to have the Department of Taxation in the middle of possible contract disputes, agreements between parties, and/or negotiations. Ms. Lau noted that as the bill was amended, it would be captive to the resort properties and would not allow a retailer in a certain area to transfer to its other areas, i.e., Ben’s Liquor stores. Ms. Lau indicated that the association was neutral regarding the bill.
David Pursell, Executive Director, Department of Taxation, indicated that the language of A.B. 669, as amended, would allow the department to administer the retail-to-retail transfer to the non-restricted licensees in the state. Mr. Marvel asked about the department’s original objections to the bill. Mr. Pursell stated that it revolved around the possibility of contract disputes or problems between wholesalers and retailers, which the department had not been involved in to date.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 669, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed. The committee would consider the following bills with a view toward possible action.
Senate Bill 139: Makes various changes to financial administration of courts. (BDR 14-515)
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), explained that S.B. 139 would slightly amend the provisions for administrative assessments and would require that 51 percent of the monies go to the courts. Should actual collections exceed revenue projections, more funds would be allocated to the court system, and the difference between the revenue projection and the actual collections would be reserved in General Fund and reverted. Mr. Stevens indicated that the bill had no General Fund impact.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 139.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 306: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (BDR 18-1231)
Mr. Stevens explained that passage of the bill would move the Office of Emergency Management from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to the Governor’s Office.
MRS. CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 306.
MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that was the same division mentioned in the proposed legislation to split the DMV&PS. Mr. Stevens indicated the office was currently contained within the DMV&PS. Mr. Dini explained that in the case of an emergency, personnel would be dispatched from the Office of Emergency Management to handle the situation, and since the Governor was the Chief Executive, he could immediately authorize the proper response. Ms. Giunchigliani felt the committee should move cautiously in the relocation of agencies.
THE MOTION FAILED WITH MRS. CHOWNING, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MR. GOLDWATER, MS. LESLIE, AND MR. PARKS VOTING NO. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
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)
Mr. Stevens stated the bill involved the Real Estate Division and a slight increase in fees, which would be deposited directly to the General Fund. There was a General Fund appropriation of $22,000 in each year of the biennium, which would be offset based on the fee increase.
MR. DINI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 307.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 500: Revises various provisions of University Securities Law. (BDR 34-915
Mr. Stevens explained the committee had heard testimony on the bill at its May 30, 2001, meeting.
MR. DINI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 500.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 321: Requires state controller to transfer certain amount of money from intergovernmental transfer account in general fund to fund for institutional care of medically indigent. (BDR S-313)
Mr. Stevens indicated the bill would transfer $500,000 from the Intergovernmental Transfer Account, and involved the county match program in the Medicaid budget for long-term care.
MRS. CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 321.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 174: Authorizes juvenile court to establish program of visitation to office of county coroner and to order child adjudicated delinquent to participate in such program. (BDR 5-103)
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the committee amend the bill and make it enabling for all counties rather than mandatory, so that the courts could establish the program if they so chose. According to Ms. Giunchigliani, Dennis Nolan, Assemblyman, District 13, and sponsor of A.B. 174, had suggested that language be included which would give consideration and preference for participation in the program to juveniles charged with acts of violence against themselves or others, or acts of demonstrated disregard for safety and well being. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that such language would not prevent other juveniles from participating, but would channel the focus for the judges. Mr. Nolan had also suggested that the fee amount be increased from $35 to $45, but Ms. Giunchigliani felt language should also be included to ensure that the fee would be based on the ability to pay. The committee could also consider a sunset provision of two or four years for the program, at which time a report could be submitted for consideration by the legislature.
MRS. CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 174.
MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 340: Requires allocation of money from account for low-income housing for model demonstration project to provide assisted living center for senior citizens in Clark County. (BDR S-1143)
Mr. Stevens stated the bill, in its current form, would provide a $6 million General Fund appropriation for a model demonstration project to provide an assisted living center for senior citizens in Clark County. The sponsor had requested that the committee consider removal of the General Fund appropriation, and Mr. Stevens noted there were monies within the Low Income Housing Trust Fund that would be available for that type of project in the amount of $400,000 to $450,000. Mr. Stevens indicated the proposed amendment would provide those dollars in each year of the biennium for the project.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 340.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 175: Requires department of transportation to establish along certain highways system of communication for members of general public to report emergencies and receive information concerning conditions for driving on those highways. (BDR 35-820)
Mrs. Chowning explained that the bill would be stripped and the amended language would establish the system of call boxes on highways on a limited basis in only one part of the state. The cost would be approximately $500,000 from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). According to Mrs. Chowning, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County had withdrawn support for the bill as written, and the amendment would replace the language regarding call boxes with language which referenced “smart” call boxes.
Chairman Arberry announced that the committee would refrain from taking action on the bill until the amendment had been drafted.
********
Assembly Bill 300: Creates revolving fund for construction and repair of school buildings and facilities and authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-1003)
Ms. Giunchigliani advised the committee that A.B. 300 was one of the four bills recommended by the interim State Planning Commission for the New Construction, Design, Maintenance and Repair of School Facilities, and was the key funding mechanism that would eliminate the need to address each session of the legislature regarding the issue of school construction and assistance, particularly for the rural counties. A.B. 300 would create a revolving fund that would make appropriations, via either loans or grants for the construction, repair, and renovation of schools. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that any funding remaining from the issuance of bonds, approved by the 1999 legislature, would revert to the proposed fund, along with the requested $5 million allocation from one-shot monies. The bill would basically affect and aid the rural counties, however, it contained a phase-in clause to remove the population cap after five years, which would allow other counties to participate. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the bill would attempt to codify and establish the criteria based on population changes in the rural counties, and property value assessments.
According to Ms. Giunchigliani, the first two pages of the proposed amendments (Exhibit K) contained the summary, and also referenced a federal program that would provide approximately $5.8 million for the fund, however, would require matching funds. Ms. Giunchigliani felt that the proposed fund would be an appropriate place to receive the dollars, in order to allow the principal to generate enough interest to fund the emergency projects. The fund would allow loans and/or grants, so that small projects could be facilitated via a grant, rather than a loan.
Mrs. Cegavske referenced page 5 of Exhibit K, Section 6, subsection 2(a), which stated, “Sue and be sued. . . ,” and asked for clarification regarding that language. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that was existing language in the NRS; Mrs. Cegavske requested further clarification. Electing to respond was Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, who explained that the language would provide a “comfort level” regarding the issuance of bonds, that should a problem arise, the state could not claim sovereign immunity. Ms. Vilardo reiterated that such language was present in all provisions that involved the state in the sale of bonds.
Ms. Giunchigliani added that the legislation would address the issue on a statewide basis, but would address the absolute need in the rural counties, because assessments, property taxes, and sales taxes in those counties did not raise enough money to address the needed short-term projects for schools. Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized that no matter what dollar amount the committee ultimately considered for approval, she hoped it would be enough to at least establish both the fund and the policy.
Ms. Tiffany understood that ultimately all school districts could utilize the fund, however, requested clarification of Section 11 of the bill (Exhibit K), which stated, “Effective January 2003, the controller shall remit 10% of any surplus remaining in the distributive school account at the close of the biennium to the revolving loan fund. . . .” Ms. Tiffany stated if there was a 10 percent set-aside being realized from Clark County, it would prove to be a substantial amount of money; she inquired whether that was inequitable, or a tax shift from Clark County to the rural counties. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the bill would create a loan program, which eventually could be utilized by Clark County, should the county meet the stipulations regarding a loss of assessed value or population decrease. Ms. Tiffany opined that Clark County would never qualify under those stipulations; however, the 10 percent set-aside from Clark County would be utilized by counties that could qualify, which she felt was tax shifting. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the committee felt that the legislature should not be approached each session with a request for a large amount of money for school construction, repair, and/or renovation. The committee also felt that an effort should be made to build principal within the proposed fund, and the 10 percent set-aside was viewed as a reasonable approach to accomplish that end.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the committee to review Exhibit K with a view to possible action at a later date, and to establish the dollar amount it felt was appropriate.
With no further action to come before the committee, the hearing was recessed at the call of the Chair, and adjourned on June 1, 2001.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: