MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
March 27, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:36 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning (Excused)
Mr. Lynn Hettrick (Excused)
Ms. Sheila Leslie (Excused)
Ms. Sandra Tiffany (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry asked for testimony for A. B. 31.
Assembly Bill 31: Requires department of human resources to include presumptive eligibility for certain persons in state plan for Medicaid and children’s health insurance program. (BDR 38-221)
In support of A. B. 31, Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Assembly District 14, Las Vegas, spoke on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Health Care. She said she had chaired the committee during the 1999-2000 interim. Ms. Koivisto explained the measure had been adopted by the committee at its June 6, 2000, meeting
Ms. Koivisto said the bill had two components. The first component was the requirement of representatives of the Department of Human Resources (DHR) to include presumptive eligibility in the state plan for Medicaid for pregnant women, and for children who were less than 19 years of age. The second component required representatives of the Department of Human Resources to include presumptive eligibility for children who were less than 19 years of age for the Nevada Check Up program, which was the children's health insurance program in the state.
Ms. Koivisto said using estimates provided by the DHR staff the committee had originally included an appropriation in the measure of over $31 million to implement presumptive eligibility for both the Medicaid and Nevada Check Up programs. After receipt of a revised estimate, the bill had been amended by the Assembly Committee of Health and Human Services to include a total appropriation of $5.4 million for FY2001-02 and $6.2 million FY2002-03. Ms. Koivisto said the committee was aware the Governor had proposed an alternative to presumptive eligibility that was called expedited eligibility. She said the committee supported any effort that allowed women and children to receive services in an accelerated manner, and believed it was important for the legislature to establish a firm policy that placed in statute the policy preference that had been adopted by the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services and the members on the Legislative Committee on Health Care.
In support of A.B. 31, Jon Sasser, Legal Services, Statewide Advocacy Coordinator, said he was representing the Nevada Legal Services programs and also was the state co-chairman of the Covering Kids Coalition. He explained that A.B. 31 would provide presumptive eligibility for both Medicaid and Nevada Check Up for children applying for the Nevada Check Up program, children applying for Medicaid, and for pregnant women applying for Medicaid.
Mr. Sasser explained the Covering Kids Coalition considered the bill to be a very important piece of legislation. He referred the committee to the last page of his handout (Exhibit C), which listed the Coalition's legislative priorities for the Seventy-First Legislative Session. Mr. Sasser said since 1988 Congress had authorized presumptive eligibility for pregnant women, and in 1997, had authorized presumptive eligibility for Check Up and Medicaid children. He explained the reason for presumptive eligibility for pregnant women was to provide access to early prenatal care. He said Mary Guinan, M.D., Ph.D., State Health Officer, testified during the interim of the importance of giving prenatal care in the first trimester. Mr. Sasser said the way the system was currently set up in Nevada, giving prenatal care in the first trimester was basically impossible. He informed the committee that it took four to six weeks for a woman to find out she was pregnant, and then it would take another four to six weeks after applying for Medicaid to get a Medicaid card, and by that time, the first trimester would be over. He explained that presumptive eligibility would allow a woman who was pregnant to visit a medical provider, and after giving some preliminary information, would have an immediate determination that they were "apparently" eligible for Medicaid. At that time the provider would feel safe in providing services to the woman, knowing they would ultimately be paid, whether the woman was approved for Medicaid, or not.
Mr. Sasser said the option had been available federally for pregnant women since 1988, and it was needed in particular for Nevada because a recent national study showed Nevada ranked 48 among the 50 states in terms of women having late, or no prenatal care, and A. B. 31 would help to turn things around.
Mr. Sasser continued and said presumptive eligibility was also needed for children because the need was to "capture" kids while they were ill. He said when children went to a physician's office, an attempt would be made to sign them up for the Nevada Check Up program. Mr. Sasser said Nevada had been behind in Check Up signups since the program had been developed, and therefore the state had to return unused federal funds to the federal government. Congress had returned some of the money to Nevada as a result of action taken last fall. He explained one reason the money had not been used by the state was when children were ill and at a physician's office, the time when parents were most likely thinking about health care and insurance, there had not been a program like presumptive eligibility available to sign children up.
Mr. Sasser pointed out the fiscal impact of the bill had originally been estimated at $31 million per year, but state funds had been reduced to $2.5 million in FY2001-02 and $3 million in FY2002-03. He noted that the Governor had looked at the issue and made some proposals in his budget, which included expedited eligibility for pregnant women, but did not include children. The expedited eligibility plan would allow for additional staff to be hired in order to process applications within seven days. Another part of the Governor's plan was included in A.B. 196, which provided for the elimination for the assets test for the Children's Health Assurance Program (CHAP). Mr. Sasser explained the final item included within the Governor's budget was an interactive Web-based application, in order to speed up the application process. He said presumptive eligibility recognized a very important problem and asked the committee to fund A.B. 31, and if not, to fund the measures recommended by the Governor.
In support of A.B. 31, Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), said the PLAN was in support of the Governor's recommendation of expedited eligibility, but felt the presumptive eligibility was a better plan. She noted the Nevada Check Up program initially had a lot of people who did not sign up for the program, and the PLAN felt if the presumptive eligibility program was in place, people would see the need to sign up. She said this was an insurance program and a lot of people did not have the money to put into insurance, even if there was only a small premium. She explained the presumptive eligibility program would give people a reason to sign up, and it was an excellent plan for children and for pregnant women, and urged the committee to support the plan.
In support of A.B. 31, Louise Bayard-de-Volo, representing the Nevada Women's Lobby, said she had testified in favor of presumptive eligibility for women for many years because it offered an opportunity for improving pregnancy outcomes. She said if presumptive eligibility was available for children, there would be an opportunity to improve Nevada's health care.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo advised the committee that it was clear that early care was critical for pregnant women and for children. She said when people did not have the opportunity for early care, they would delay care, forego care completely, or were seen in emergency rooms. That was not only unhealthy for Nevadans, but also very costly to the state. She explained that it was hard to measure the costs because A.B. 31 showed the costs of providing the care, but what could not be seen was the savings to Nevada, from costs that would not occur if the bill was passed. Savings would occur in such areas as uncompensated hospital care, the ongoing costs of low birth weight babies, and for untreated health conditions for children. Presumptive eligibility provided a solution to address those problems because it allowed for quick treatment, and served as an outreach tool. The state had trouble reaching people who qualified for Nevada Check Up and Medicaid programs, and presumptive eligibility could help with that issue because it allowed providers to promote the service. She said providers, and agencies, when referring a person for the care, would be able to be more positive and helpful because they would know the providers would be paid for their services.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo referred the committee to the Nevada Women's Agenda booklet, provided to the committee at an earlier date, that addressed several of the problems discussed. Sections in the booklet included Children's Health, Perinatal Care, Health Insurance for Low-Income Children.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo, specifically in reference to the presumptive eligibility for pregnant women, said the program was a simple program involving finite costs because it only covered prenatal care. She said the program could be offered alone or along with presumptive eligibility for children. Ms. Bayard-de-Volo informed the committee 29 states had adopted presumptive eligibility for pregnant women and the program worked well in other states.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo said Nevada had made progress regarding the issue of prenatal care, as the Baby Your Baby program, and other programs had increased the number of women who were receiving early prenatal care but more needed to be done in this area. In 1998, 23 percent of Nevada women had not received prenatal care in their first trimester. The first trimester was a critical period where screening could be completed to find health conditions in the mother that needed treatment and counseling could be given in regard to nutrition, tobacco, alcohol, and other areas, in order to improve the outcome of the pregnancy.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo explained other states that had implemented presumptive eligibility for pregnant women had found the best outcome for increasing the number of women who had early prenatal care was to remove the assets test in addition to adopting presumptive eligibility. Nevada had the opportunity to do both of these things during the session this year.
Ms. Bayard-de-Volo said reducing the time required to process applications that had been proposed in the Governor's budget would be a wonderful improvement and could help, but did not address the delays that had occurred before the application had been submitted. The delays had been considerable, due to the process of acquiring the information, finding out that care could be received even if a person had no money, filling out the application, getting application attachments, getting the application filled out correctly. This all took a long time to be completed and with presumptive eligibility, a person could get all those things taken care of at one stop and get help with the application process from a person, whether in an agency or a doctor's office, who knew they could receive care. She said with presumptive eligibility pregnant women who were needy could get the necessary care, as quickly as women who did not need subsidies. She urged the committee to pass A.B. 31.
Mr. Marvel asked if there might be some abuse of the program by people who were not eligible. Ms. Bayard-de-Volo answered there would be an initial screening, which would look at basic facts about a person's income and then an assessment would be made to determine if the person was eligible. She informed the committee in other states, including Colorado, abuse had not been a problem because the state required the providers to have a certain amount of accuracy in the screening. The states had kept track of the percentage people who were not found eligible and the percentage was very small.
Mr. Marvel asked how long it took to determine eligibility. Ms. Bayard-de-Volo said it took weeks currently, but under presumptive eligibility, eligibility was determined immediately. Mr. Marvel asked if there was an asset test, and Ms. Bayard-de-Volo said yes, under Medicaid, and the asset test would cause a delay in the eligibility determination. She said the presumptive eligibility screening also allowed the provider to test for assets. Mr. Marvel asked if all of this could be done at the first visit to a physician, and Ms. Bayard-de-Volo said yes, under presumptive eligibility.
Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, said the Governor's budget had not included funding for the implementation of presumptive eligibility. He said he had been given the option to present recommendations to improve access to prenatal care and access to care for children. The option the division strongly recommended, and had been included in the budget, was the elimination of the asset test. There was a $10 million appropriation to implement this recommendation included in the budget. In addition, the division had requested funding for seven units of eligibility workers to be dispersed throughout the state to work on prompt eligibility for pregnant women. Mr. Duarte said the third part of the Governor's plan was the electronic application process.
Mr. Duarte said the biggest issue he had with presumptive eligibility was if someone was presumed to be eligible they would still have to go through the assets test and the assets test had been the most significant barrier to Medicaid eligibility and was the predominate reason there was a 60 percent non-compliance rate for applicants in the CHAP program. He said the division strongly supported expedited eligibility, the electronic application process, and the elimination of the CHAP assets test.
Being no further comments, the hearing on A.B. 31 was closed with no action.
Chairman Arberry asked for testimony on A.B. 177.
Assembly Bill 177: Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to carry out Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S- 701)
In support of A.B. 177, Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District 37, introduced the bill, saying the bill had come out of the interim committee he had chaired, which related to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the legislature's oversight of the TRPA. He referred the committee to Exhibit D, titled "Continued Review of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1999-2000)" and said one of the recommendations in the report was to pass A.B. 177. He said the bill related to and followed A.B. 285 of the Seventieth Session, which established a program to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin. He explained that A.B. 177 was related to the environmental program established in 1997, pursuant to an agreement by the state of Nevada and various other parties interested in the Tahoe Basin, relative to environmental programs to be carried out in the Basin. The state of Nevada's share of the cost of the programs was approximately $82 million in a ten-year period during which the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) would be carried out. Reading a portion of A.B. 285, Mr. Brower said ". . . money to carry out the program, in an amount not to exceed $53.2 million, must be provided for the period between the fiscal year, beginning on July 1, 2001, and the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2007, by the issuance by the State Board of Finance of general obligation bonds of the state of Nevada in a total face amount of not more than $53.2 million. With the prior approval of the legislature or the Interim Finance Committee the bonds may be issued from time to time pursuant to a schedule established by the administrator of the Division of State Lands . . . ." Mr. Brower said the first installment of bonds had been issued and it was up to the current legislature to approve the second installment of the issuance of bonds, and A.B. 177 would provide for the second installment.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, introduced herself and said A.B. 177 was a continuation of A.B. 285 from the Seventieth Session. She said the bill would enable Nevada to continue its commitment to environmental improvements at Lake Tahoe. She said the division was asking for $16.2 million in bonds for projects. She explained this was an interagency effort, with a number of state agencies involved. Ms. Wilcox said the Division of State Lands was the coordinator of the program.
Jim Lawrence, Tahoe Program Coordinator, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, explained the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) through a PowerPoint presentation. He said Lake Tahoe had lost about one foot of clarity in the last 30 years. The scientific community had informed the state that if action was not taken, the trend would continue and the opportunities to reverse the damage would be lost.
Mr. Lawrence said one of the environmental problems that the state was facing was urban runoff coming down off the subdivision streets and in development areas resulting in sediments and nutrients going into the lake creating turbidity and algae growth. He said other problems included erosion of the cut slopes and loss of stream zones, which had historically been important for filtering out nutrients and sediments, loss of wildlife habitats, and poor forest health conditions.
Mr. Lawrence explained during the 1997 Presidential Forum the federal government and the states of California and Nevada offered their support to the EIP, which included a $908 million capital program to take care of the environmental problems. Nevada's share was $82 million and at the current time, all partners had been coming through with their share of the funding committed.
Mr. Lawrence referred to a funding map that had been developed to show how the division was approaching the funding of Nevada's $82 million commitment.
Mr. Lawrence said the large share of revenue had gone toward water quality projects and for stream environment zone restoration.
Mr. Lawrence said in order to get the projects completed an interagency team had been established in 2000, consisting of members from the Division of State Lands, Division of State Parks, Division of Forestry, and Division of Wildlife. The idea had been to coordinate each division's efforts to make sure the maximum environmental benefits were obtained for all projects. In addition to the Nevada Tahoe Resource Team, the division was working on a daily basis to coordinate projects with various state partners, California partners, the federal government, as well as the research community. The partnership was facilitated through a collaboration project in which there were various working groups set up for each of the environmental problems.
Mr. Lawrence explained when reviewing water quality projects the division looked for an estimate on how much sediment would be prevented from entering the lake. Engineer estimates predicted the projects that had been completed would prevent ten million pounds of sediment from entering Lake Tahoe each year.
Mr. Lawrence showed the committee PowerPoint pictures that identified some of the visible problems Lake Tahoe had faced. The first picture was of a roadside ditch and showed where erosion went into the ditch and included sediment and algae growth that would eventually end up in the lake. He showed a second picture of conditions along another roadside. He explained when roads were put into a subdivision it resulted in cut slopes, and with no curbs or gutters or water conveyance and no treatment, during storms or other types of events, sediments would come down the slope and enter the lake untreated.
Mr. Lawrence referred to another PowerPoint picture and said, as a solution, a project in Kingsbury Village included a stabilization structure at the toe of the slope, and curbing and gutters to carry the water to a quality treatment area that was like a sediment basin. A second picture showed another slope stabilization and revegetation that had been installed. He showed a picture of a project at Lake Shore that reflected erosion within about 100 feet from the lake. At the top of the slope a collection device had been put in to capture the sediment and the result was that the erosion problem had been taken care of. He showed an example of a stream restoration project that was in a stream zone, an important area to capture the sediment and nutrients before they entered the lake. Mr. Lawrence continued to show examples of restoration results, including projects that were financed with $3.2 million appropriated during the Seventieth Session through the Division of State Parks. One of the projects was the Hidden Beach Erosion Project. He explained that Hidden Beach was a highly used recreation area, and there had been no trail system or erosion control, causing people to park on the highway and make their own trails to have access to the beach. The erosion project included the installation of fencing and revegetation resulting in controlled erosion and restoration of disturbed areas.
Mr. Lawrence advised the committee that another large problem was the forest health issue. He showed pictures of before and after treatment of a forest area, and the after treatment photograph showed improvement. He said when trees had been cut down in treatment areas, the public had been allowed to purchase the wood. Any money derived from the wood sale went back into the nursery funds so that seedlings could be purchased and used for revegetation.
Mr. Lawrence referred to the PowerPoint presentation and showed a picture of a meadow and said a future project was to restore the meadow back to a natural condition. He said all the projects were completed on an interdisciplinary team basis to make sure there would be a maximum environmental benefit.
Mr. Lawrence showed a series of maps that indicated the division's strategy, including projects that were completed, in progress, or to be implemented in the future.
Mr. Lawrence said the division's request for the next biennium was $9.3 million to continue the road project grants for local government and projects for the NDOT. He explained currently the roadside projects had the greatest environmental benefit because that was where most of the sediments and nutrients had come into the lake. Other requests included $1.4 million to continue the forest restoration project and $2 million for land coverage restoration to restore disturbed areas and high priority water sheds. All the projects were being completed to benefit Lake Tahoe.
Ms. Wilcox informed the committee the division had worked on the program closely with the Governor's office and the Budget Office. She said the $16.2 million in bonds was included in the Governor's Bond recommendations. She explained that the committee had been given two handouts, a pamphlet (Exhibit E) that was given to visitors to the Lake Tahoe Nevada State Parks, so the visitor would be able to see the projects that were under way, and a letter (Exhibit F) from the Transportation and Water Quality Coalition. None of the members of the coalition had been able to be present at the current hearing, as there were two important meetings going on at Lake Tahoe at the same time, but sent the letter which stated their support of Nevada's continued funding for projects identified as part of Lake Tahoe's EIP.
In support of A.B. 177, Juan Palma, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, said the PowerPoint presentation had shown all the improvements that Nevada Division of State Lands had done for Lake Tahoe. He commended Jim Lawrence and Pam Wilcox and said they were outstanding role models for those living at Lake Tahoe. He said the state of California was borrowing the model of the division's team approach to resolve its issues, which was a great compliment to the state of Nevada. He said the division had been a good partner to all the activities that had gone on at Lake Tahoe, but also the employees in the Division of State Lands and other state of Nevada agencies had been great participants in many other activities at Lake Tahoe. For those reasons and because the money was going to the right issues, Mr. Palma said he wanted to publicly support A.B. 177 because it would help everyone at Lake Tahoe move forward and enable them to do what was needed in the next decade.
Being no further comments Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 177 closed.
Assembly Bill 350: Makes appropriation for partial support of Federally Qualified Community Health Centers that provide primary health care to uninsured residents of Nevada. (BDR S-1203)
The hearing on A.B. 350 was postponed for a later date.
Assembly Bill 511: Makes appropriation to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for threshold research. (BDR S-1398)
Chairman Arberry asked for testimony on A.B. 511.
Juan Palma introduced Carl Hasty, Deputy Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and two other associates, Pam Drum and Kevin Hill. Mr. Palma said the current 20-year Lake Tahoe Regional Plan had been adopted in 1987 and would be due for renewal in 2007. The existing plan had been adopted after seven years of costly litigation and difficult negotiations. He said the agency was determined to do it better this time. To have a seamless transition into the next 20 years for Lake Tahoe, the process had to begin in the current biennium. He explained that there was a need to reexamine the assumptions in the existing plan and update them with the best available scientific information. Mr. Palma said much of the information was currently available, but some information was not available. Therefore the agency had asked the Governor for $200,000 in one-shot funds each year of the biennium for scientific examination of high environmental and socio-economic conditions that had changed over the last two decades at Lake Tahoe. The funds would also be used to begin the development of new assumptions upon which a new regional plan could be based in 2007. The agency was asking, in A.B. 511, for funding to continue to research and to monitor Lake Tahoe.
Carl Hasty said the agency had gone through a rigorous process to bring the current issues before the subcommittee. He said many people had been involved with the process in the Lake Tahoe area, including the academic community and the management agencies. He said what had been requested in A.B. 511 had gone through a "sifting and sorting" process in order to determine the greatest needs, in terms of knowledge, for the Lake Tahoe Basin. He said beside the need to examine the assumptions in order to make a new plan, the agency needed to be assured that the EIP was effective. Each assumption being examined for the new plan had to meet the following criteria:
Mr. Hasty said the agency had partnered with the state of California, and various agencies, to accomplish the agency's goals. He said the TRPA was the only agency that was able to address all of the thresholds.
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said there was a $400,000 one-shot appropriation, as well as funding that was built into the TRPA budget on an ongoing basis, through interest earned on the EIP bonds. One purpose of the bonds was to fund threshold research. He said the Governor had submitted a budget revision that indicated his recommendation was to pass the one-shot appropriation of $400,000, which was included in A.B. 511. The committee would have the option to pass the one-shot appropriation, not pass the one-shot and leave it in the budget and use the interest on the EIP bonds, or choose to use a combination of the two, in order to finance the threshold research.
Ms. Giunchigliani, for clarification purposes, asked Mr. Stevens if the Budget Division had revised the appropriation from the General Fund or the EIP bonds. Mr. Stevens replied that the amount was recommended in two places. He said the first place had been in the TRPA budget through EIP bonds so the $400,000, over the biennium, was built into the budget. The second place was a one-shot appropriation contained within A.B. 511. He explained the amount only needed to be funded once and the Governor had submitted his recommendation to the committee and the recommendation was to fund the $400,000 out of A.B. 511, not through the interest earned from the EIP bonds. Mr. Stevens reiterated that the committee could choose either method, or a combination of the two methods, to reach the $400,000. Ms. Giunchigliani said the justification from the Budget Division was because the money was available through the one-shot appropriation it should be taken from that. However, Ms. Giunchigliani remarked since it appeared the committee needed to cut $30 million from the budget, it did not seem to be a proper justification any longer, and maybe the issue needed to be dealt with as a policy matter under the bonding part of the budget.
Mike Nolan, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said the concern, and one of the reasons the threshold research had been requested to be funded out of the one-shot appropriations, was because the division had not been sure if enough funds would be available with the initial selling of the bonds in order to initiate the contracts in the first year. He said a lot of the research had to be completed in the summer and fall, when the weather was good, and the TRPA would need to get the contracts in place in order to move timely.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the research funding had already been requested in the budget with the plan to use the interest from the EIP bonds. Mr. Nolan replied that the budget had started out that way, and then the division had changed its mind. He explained there had been a glitch in the NEBS system, which caused the necessity of recopying the agency's requests into the Governor's recommendations. The division had attempted to make the appropriate corrections, but this item had been overlooked. When Mr. Nolan found the oversight, the tape with the Governor's budget had already been submitted, but the intent had been to request a one-shot appropriation for this item. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if part of the problem could be rectified if the committee approved the upstart money pending the issuance of the bonds. Mr. Stevens said Mr. Nolan had a good point in regard to whether or not there would be enough initial interest on the EIP bonds to be able to finance the research this upcoming summer season. He said the Fiscal Division could look at that issue if the committee desired. He said after the first season, the likelihood was higher that the interest would be earned for the next season. The committee could approve a one-shot appropriation for the first year of the biennium and allow the interest on the EIP bonds to fund the second year of the biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the committee could receive a breakout, with the assistance of the Budget Division, to assist the committee in making a decision, and Mr. Stevens answered yes.
Being no further discussion, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 511.
As there was no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 4:42 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cindy Clampitt,
Recording Secretary
______________________________
Kathryn Fosnaugh,
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: