MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

 

Seventy-First Session

May 14, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Acting Chairman Mark Amodei, at 2:48 p.m., on Monday, May 14, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman (Excused)

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman (Excused)

Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Clark County Assembly District No.12

Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Humboldt, Pershing, parts of Elko, Eureka and             Lander Counties, Assembly District No. 34

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko (part) County, Assembly District No. 33

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst

Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. John Gwaltney, State Board of Education and State Board of Occupational             Education, Department of Education

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors

Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Republic Industries

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of America

Jim Goubles, Vice President, Corporate Services, Regional Emergency Medical             Services Authority

 

Acting Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 444, and introduced Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 444:  Makes various changes regarding preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 40-906)

 

Assemblywoman Freeman testified A.B. 444 concerns the preservation of    older neighborhoods.  She explained many of the older homes are being             rented as transitional care homes for drug and alcohol rehabilitation.         Assemblywoman Freeman said there is a detrimental impact on the older neighborhoods because of the for-profit groups.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman noted lines 3 through 12, and 22 through 32, on page 2 of A.B. 444, address the issue of revoking the certification of this type of homes for various violations.  She stated A.B. 444 also covers the appropriate placement of child care facilities in neighborhoods. 

 

Dr. John Gwaltney, State Board of Education and State Board of Occupational Education, Department of Education, representing Washoe Vista Homeowners Association, testified in favor of A.B. 444, and encouraged the committee to vote for the bill.

 

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors, referring to lines         16 through 23, on page 6 of A.B. 444, explained the language as presented would hold any person having a permit to engage in property management liable, in some cases.  He said the amended language (Exhibit C), holds the party liable, but the problems must be resolved through the landlord. 

 

Senator Mathews opined the local government should address this issue.  Assemblywoman Freeman agreed, but stated there was no other option but to address this issue at the state level.  Assemblywoman Freeman urged the committee’s support of A.B. 444.

 

Acting Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on A.B. 444, and opened the hearing on A.B. 442. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 442:  Increases maximum penalty for dumping sewage or garbage unlawfully. (BDR 40-252)

 

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Clark County Assembly District No. 12, testified A.B. 442 addresses the issue of unlawful dumping of trash, sewage, and other toxic materials.  She explained the offenders do not view the dumping of unwanted materials as a criminal activity.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall expressed concern for the citizens in those areas where this illegal dumping occurs, because of the hazards involved.  She expounded on the need of       A.B. 442 to prevent this form of illegal activity by bringing attention to the penalties involved, and increasing the maximum amount of community service.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall urged passage of A.B. 442 to put up a “bright red light“ telling the community this activity would not be tolerated.

 

Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District, voiced support of Assembly Bill 442.            

 

Acting Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on A.B. 442, and opened the hearing on A.B. 402.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 402:  Authorizes adoption of ordinances in certain counties for designation of family cemeteries and authorizes cemetery authorities to order disinterment and removal of human remains. (BDR 40-1192)

 

Assemblywoman Freeman said A.B. 402 concerns “family cemeteries.”   She requested a postponement of her testimony on the first part of A.B. 402 until Wednesday, May 18, 2001.  Assemblywoman Freeman introduced Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Humboldt, Pershing, parts of Elko, Eureka and Lander Counties, Assembly District No. 34, and Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko (part) County, Assembly District No. 33, to speak on the second part of A.B. 402.

Assemblyman Marvel explained the genesis of the second part of A.B. 402 resulted from a request by a family living in Paradise Valley since 1870.  He said there is an area on the ranch used as a private cemetery.  Assemblyman Marvel stated A.B. 402 would permit an ordinance to be adopted by the county commissioners, of a county population of 20,000 or less, to allow private cemeteries. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter requested to have the population cap of A.B. 402 raised from 20,000 to 50,000 to include counties such as Elko County.  He told the committee there has been two ranch sales recently where private family cemeteries existed, and the area needed to be parceled, to reserve the cemetery.  Assemblyman Carpenter encouraged the passage of A.B. 402. 

 

Senator Mathews requested clarity on raising the population cap.    Assemblyman Carpenter remarked the present population of Elko County is approximately 45,000; therefore, raising the cap to 50,000 population would cover most rural counties. 

 

Acting Chairman Amodei reopened the hearing and invited testimony on       A.B. 442. 

 

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, stressed waste dumping on the countryside has been a serious concern for the Sierra Club, and stated the Sierra Club supports A.B. 442.

 

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Republic Industries, claimed waste dumping in southern Nevada is a serious problem.  He emphasized “truckloads” of debris are being dumped in the desert, and A.B. 442 would curtail that activity.  Senator Wiener asked the difference between A.B. 442, and other proposed legislation.  Mr. Pappageorge explained A.B. 442 increases the penalty of community service from 10 hours to a maximum of 200 hours. 

 

Senator Mathews queried whether this should not be a county issue.            Mr. Pappageorge responded this issue falls under the health district’s regulations and ordinances.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stressed A.B. 442 emphasizes community service.  She claimed “It is easy to write a check, but, not easy to go out and sweat.”

Acting Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on A.B. 442, and opened               Assembly Bill (A.B.) 488.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 488:  Revises provisions relating to transportation by fire-fighting agencies of sick or injured persons to medical facilities.    (BDR 40-181)

 

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified counties operate differently than cities in respect to authority.  He said when a statute is “silent” on an issue, then, the county does not have the authority.  Mr. Spinello stated       A.B. 488 applies to counties of over 400,000 population in the state of Nevada.  He remarked A.B. 488 would enable a county of over 400,000 to propose ambulance service within the county’s incorporated jurisdiction.  Mr. Spinello pointed out the City of Las Vegas, and the City of Henderson provide ambulance service through the fire department.  He said in Henderson, all 911 calls are handled by the fire department.  Mr. Spinello noted all traffic accidents in the city of Las Vegas are handled by the fire department, and other emergency services are responded to by a franchisee. 

 

Mr. Spinello said Clark County has two franchises, which are price- and service- regulated by ordinances.  Continuing, he told the committee there are “standby” agreements in the event a provider ceases operation for any reason the county will lease from them the equipment, vehicles, and facilities to continue service.  Mr. Spinello noted the county can provide, but cannot charge the community for ambulance service.  He noted the providers must post a $1 million bond, which is drawn against, and the county would pay lease payments for the vehicles, equipment, and facilities.  Mr. Spinello stated, built into the franchise agreements is the assumption it would be “net-of-revenue,” “there would be a continued cash-flow stream, and the $1 million would be there to help absorb any costs, so the expenses would not be passed on to the taxpayers.” 

 

Mr. Spinello stated the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) rules regarding the amount of payments permitted are so stringent private franchises would no longer be able to operate.  He said A.B. 488 would allow the county to provide the service to the community under certain circumstances.           Mr. Spinello commented another scenario would be for the county to enter into the ambulance service business.

 

Mr. Spinello called attention to lines 13 through 17, on page 1, and lines 1 through 3, on page 2, of A.B. 488, which give the definition of an ambulance.  He remarked the term ”without limitation” on page 3, line 3, of A.B. 488, has caused some concern, but the language does not extend the meaning of an ambulance.  Mr. Spinello elucidated any transport vehicle, or staff must be properly licensed, and have a permit through the Clark County Health District. 

 

Mr. Spinello referred to a document (Exhibit D), explaining it was taken from the Clark County ordinances, and contained the ambulance service rates, protocol, and response-time standards.  He said the ordinance would need to be revised if the county considered entering into the ambulance service business.              Mr. Spinello noted the county’s prices for providing ambulance service to the public would be “cost-based.”

 

Mr. Spinello pointed out to the committee; the “divert” issue in southern Nevada is serious, because of the additional time necessary. 

 

Senator Wiener expressed concern the patient’s condition could change due to the additional time taken by “diverting“ the patient.  Mr. Spinello acknowledged it is the “lower level” of injury or illness that are “diverted,“ and wait the longest.  He told Senator Wiener he would contact the companies and get specific data. 

 

Senator Amodei asked if the present companies have performance bonds.     Mr. Spinello answered in the affirmative.  Senator Amodei questioned whether the county can draw upon the posted bond if the company does not fulfill the agreement.  Mr. Spinello responded in the affirmative.  Senator Amodei questioned whether A.B. 488 requires a default on behalf of the county.       Mr. Spinello said there is no default for the county.  Continuing, Mr. Spinello clarified the county would only enter into the ambulance service business after declaring an “emergency.” 

 

Mr. Spinello stated for the record, “Clark County would first, declare there was an extraordinary, or emergency situation before the county would actually enter into the ambulance service,” and he continued, “the county would commit their intent in writing.” 

 

Senator Wiener questioned whether there were timelines for vacating the service once the county has entered the service on an “emergency” basis.      Mr. Spinello replied it may be difficult to withdraw the services, and the future is difficult to predict.  He noted there are many jurisdictions across the country where there are no private ambulance providers for 911 calls, only services provided by the fire department. 

 

Senator Amodei queried whether the existing contracts were exclusive, and whether there was language in A.B. 488 which would enable the county to enter into the ambulance service.  Mr. Spinello asserted the county could compete against the existing companies, and provide 911 ambulance service very effectively, because there would be no charge.  Senator Amodei said he doubted whether the people of Clark County would not be charged for ambulance service.  Mr. Spinello stated for the record, and offered to put into writing, “unless there is a declaration of emergency, Clark County would not enter into the ambulance service business.”

 

Senator Wiener asked whether the existing ambulance providers are on the same contract timeline.  Mr. Spinello answered in the affirmative.            Senator Wiener questioned due to the same timeline, whether there could be the possibility of no ambulance service, therefore, creating an emergency situation.  Mr. Spinello opined the county commissioners would not let that happen.  Senator Wiener voiced concern about the same contract expiration.              Mr. Spinello explained there was a dispute with the first company about time extensions to their contract, so, when the second company proposed a 5-year contract, the county decided to have both companies on the same timeline.    Mr. Spinello declared a responsible county commission would not allow the ambulance service to fail, and in addition, the start-up investment for the county would be very costly. 

 

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of America, voiced support of A.B. 488.  Senator Mathews questioned the present response procedure of a firefighter to an emergency.  Mr. McAllister replied in southern Nevada there is a dual response system.  He explained a fire department vehicle, and a private ambulance vehicle would respond to a 911 call.      Senator Mathews opined previous testimony alluded to providing free service.  Mr. McAllister said the county fire department does not transport people, but the private companies transport persons in Clark County, and North Las Vegas.  Senator Mathews questioned whether Las Vegas was part of Clark County.    Mr. McAllister replied the City of Las Vegas has a separate fire department.  Continuing, Mr. McAllister explained the city of Henderson residents voted to have the fire department transport individuals.  He said the private ambulance service responds only if the other entities are busy.  Mr. McAllister pointed out the City of Las Vegas responded to all automobile accidents with an engine company and a rescue, therefore, freeing the private companies from responding.  Senator Mathews questioned whether the City of Las Vegas bills for that service.  Mr. McAllister answered in the affirmative. 

 

Senator Mathews expressed her continued confusion over the billing process.  Senator Wiener responded to Senator Mathews’ query, by explaining the “cities” can bill for services, but the counties, and the unincorporated areas cannot bill residents.  Mr. McAllister stated the counties must obtain approval of the legislature, whereas the “cities” have “home rule.” 

 

Senator Mathews and Mr. McAllister continued the discussion concerning southern Nevada’s response procedure and methods of financial off-set. 

 

Mr. Spinello clarified in southern Nevada there are occasions when a response is not made by a transport-capable vehicle. 

 

Jim Goubles, Vice President, Corporate Services, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (REMSA), stated A.B. 488 does not impact Washoe County, but he noted REMSA had three concerns that would affect patient care.  He said two concerns have been addressed in the Assembly, and one remains.    Mr. Goubles pointed out the language “without limitation” on line 3, page 2, of   A.B. 488 is still a concern. 

 

Ms. Gamble stated, previously the Clark County Health District had the same concern with A.B. 488, but was assured there is sufficient description of ambulance vehicles on lines 14 through 16, page 1, of A.B. 488, to identify the type of vehicle required to transport a patient, to satisfy that concern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acting Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on A.B. 488, and adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Patricia Vardakis,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mark Amodei, Acting Chairman

 

DATE: