MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 28, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Friday, February 28, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 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. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District No. 25
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada
Robert Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mary C. Walker, CPA, President, Walker & Associates
Patrick McInnis, Chief Engineer, Building & Grounds Division, Department of Administration, State of Nevada
Lawrence E. Jacobsen, former Senator, Nevada State Legislature and Chairman of the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee, 1969-2002
Chairman Manendo entertained motions to vote on Committee introductions for the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):
· BDR 23-495 – Makes changes regarding state personnel system. (A.B. 217).
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-495.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
· BDR 31-491 – Revises manner in which certain claims against state are audited. (A.B. 216).
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-491.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Assembly Bill 164: Abolishes Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee. (BDR 27-1025)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 164.
Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said he came to present “perhaps the strangest testimony you will receive all session.” He said he would try to explain the bill but could not urge its passage.
In 2001, Senate Bill 570 of the 71st Legislative Session was passed and Section 18 required the Legislative Commission to review each legislative committee created by statute to determine whether there was a need to continue the committee.
During the interim, the Legislative Commission heard presentations from each statutory committee and made recommendations to the Legislature. Mr. Malkiewich handed out a report entitled “Sunset Review” Report to the Legislative Commission by the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee (Exhibit D). He said that report was the same document presented to the Legislative Commission when it took interim testimony on this matter. The Legislative Commission recommended eliminating the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee that was the subject of A.B. 164.
Mr. Malkiewich said that S.B. 216(Exhibit C) would create an interim legislative committee to review Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and to oversee the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and other government entities. He pointed out that the existence of S.B. 216 demonstrated that the intention of the Legislative Committee was not just to sunset the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee in order to eliminate oversight, but that they wished to combine oversight of Marlette Lake Water System with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).
Mr. Malkiewich said that in every session over the last few years the Legislature had passed resolutions to create an interim committee to study the TRPA. Although the interim committee was not a statutory committee, the intent of the Legislative Commission was that the interim committee would eventually become a full-time committee with authority over the TRPA, the Colorado River System, and the Marlette Lake Water System. S.B. 216 would create the “Legislative Committee for the Review and Oversight of Interstate and Interregional Compacts and Entities” for those purposes. SB 216, Section 5, subsection 5, would authorize that committee to make recommendations to the Legislative Commission and to various other entities concerning matters related to the Marlette Lake Water System.
Mr. Malkiewich said that the thinking of the Legislative Commission was that the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee was a relatively small committee and that its duties could easily be assumed by an extension of the TRPA oversight committee.
Mr. Malkiewich introduced Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and staff person for the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee, who would remain to answer questions, since Mr. Malkiewich had to leave the hearing.
Chairman Manendo asked how deep the lake was and how many gallons it contained. Mr. Erickson did not know. The Chairman called Mary Walker to the witness table.
Mary Walker, CPA, President, Walker & Associates, representing Carson City, said that the Marlette Lake Water System had been a very important source of water for Carson City and for the state government complex. She said that most of Carson City’s water came from Marlette Lake, and that the water was of the highest quality: the best water in the state of Nevada. Ms. Walker said she had talked with Senator Amodei and they both supported the bill because they believed it was important to have a committee of legislators oversee the water system. They would continue to work closely with state staff on many different issues including the state government complex in Carson City.
Mr. Goicoechea asked what would happen if S.B. 216 did not pass. Ms. Walker said that since it had already passed the Legislative Commission they were hoping that S.B. 216 would pass. Ms. Walker said that if S.B. 216 did not pass they would not support A.B. 164 because it was important to have some kind of legislative oversight of the Marlette Lake Water System.
Mr. Goicoechea said he was concerned about language in S.B. 216 which would include the Colorado River System. He said that it could get “sticky” or “even ugly.” Ms. Walker agreed.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked how far through the process S.B. 216 was, or if it was out of committee. Ms. Walker replied the bill had not been scheduled yet. Ms. Pierce said she was concerned that S.B. 216 might not pass mainly because of the Colorado River connection that could be a sticking point.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if Marlette Lake was one reason that Carson City had some of the lowest water rates in the area. Ms. Walker said that was probably correct because there was little infrastructure and the water ran downhill.
Mr. Collins asked if it was possible to amend A.B. 164 so that it could only be enacted if S.B. 216 became law. Chairman Manendo replied that the Committee could move the bill or hold it, and that there were many options.
Chairman Manendo asked how often the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee met. Mr. Erickson volunteered that they met about 3 times per interim.
Chairman Manendo asked again how many gallons of water were contained in Marlette Lake. Mr. Erickson replied that the lake held approximately 3.4 billion gallons.
The Chairman commented that the water in Carson City tasted wonderful.
Patrick McInnis, Chief Engineer for the agency that operated the Marlette Lake Water System, the State Building and Grounds Department, said he was testifying as a neutral party with the same concerns others had expressed: Namely, if A.B. 164 passed and S.B. 216 did not pass, he thought that the Marlette Lake Water System would lose legislative visibility.
Mr. McInnis also said that, in addition to providing water for Carson City, the Marlette Lake Water System was the sole supply of water for Virginia City, Gold Hill, and the Comstock region, and that it was the only source of water for that area. He said that the Marlette Lake Water System was operated as a combination water system and conservation area that included bicycle paths, hiking, camping, and other recreational activities.
Former Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, a Nevada legislator for over 40 years, came to the witness table to testify against A.B. 164. He said that he was the closest thing to an expert on Marlette Lake. Mr. Jacobsen said that he had been working on Marlette Lake issues since the start of his legislative career in the 1960s.
During the time when Paul Laxalt was governor, Marlette Lake became a political issue because Southwest Gas and Sierra Pacific Power Company wanted to buy the entire system. Mr. Jacobsen said he felt that it would have been improper to sell Marlette Lake because it was such a great asset to Nevada. He introduced legislation that killed the sale, started the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee, and served as its chairman from 1969 through last year. He recalled:
When former Speaker Joe Dini, Jr., and Senator Mark Amodei were on the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee, they felt I was not giving enough consideration to Storey County, which is at the end of the Marlette Lake Water System. So, they tried to vote me out as Chairman. I think I survived by one vote, but then came reapportionment, and I’m no longer involved.
Mr. Jacobsen said that the intent “from day one” was to preserve Marlette Lake as a water source for Virginia City, Silver City, Gold Hill, Lakeview, and Carson City. He became involved because, along with Keith Ashworth of Las Vegas, they cosponsored legislation to construct the Legislative Building in Carson City and he wanted the state government complex to always have an adequate supply of water. He said that he had spent a great deal of time on oversight of the Marlette Lake Water System over the years.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that Jack Derringer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had asked for his help in establishing a fishery at Marlette Lake. They promoted and developed a fishery there that had become a great asset to the state.
Every year they took as many as 3.5 million eggs per day from trout there. He said that each female trout could produce about 1,000 eggs, and that the largest fish caught to date was about 21 inches long. The fish were released back into the lake after the eggs were taken.
Mr. Jacobsen said that for a long time there were only cutthroat trout at Marlette Lake, and that sources for cutthroat trout were rare. The only other sources were on a couple of Indian reservations. He said that they used to purchase cutthroat trout eggs from Alpine County, California, near Markleeville, and recently sold eggs back to Alpine County to repay the favor.
Mr. Jacobsen urged the Committee to visit Marlette Lake, saying, “You have to see it to appreciate it.” He offered to take the Committee on a tour of Marlette Lake this spring, and suggested that the Committee would also enjoy a visit to the brand new fish hatchery in Yerington. In his opinion, it was one of the “best in the west,” and produced fish eggs for hatcheries all over Nevada.
Mr. Jacobsen said he was in complete opposition to A.B. 164 because:
Marlette Lake is a little nest egg all of its own. It’s currently under our control and should stay that way. I think the only thing you’re going to do by including it with some other agency or department is to muddy the water. And I say that right up front.
Mr. Jacobsen said the area surrounding Marlette Lake had been improved over the years. Money was always a factor, but currently what Marlette Lake needed was some “hands on activity” in the form of maintenance. The Tahoe Rim Trail passed Marlette Lake now, which attracted more hikers and fishermen, and had caused more maintenance problems, as well as other problems. Mr. Jacobsen still had great interest in working on Marlette Lake projects, but working there now was prohibitive because there was no insurance coverage.
Mr. Jacobsen and Russ McDonald, former Director of the LCB, co-authored a report titled The Marlette Lake Water System: A Report on the Feasibility and Desirability of its Retention, by the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee LCB Bulletin No. 70, February 1969 (Exhibit E) which recommended a study on Marlette Lake. When the study was completed, the final report was titled Continued Review of the Marlette Lake Water System, LCB Bulletin No. 01-20, January 2001 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Jacobsen said that an expert on the Marlette Lake WaterSystem, Hugh A. Shamberger, “an old engineer who lived in Virginia City,” wrote part of the 1969 report on Marlette Lake (Exhibit E) andproposed solutions to some of the lake’s problems. In the preface of a report titled Story of the Water Supply for the Comstock, October 1969, by the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Mr. Shamberger stated that he had worked close to 34 years for the state of Nevada. His credentials included serving as the State Engineer, 1935-1957, as the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1957-1965, and for 2.5 years as the Director of the Center for Water Resources Research at the Desert Research Institute. In 1969, Mr. Shamberger was a Research Hydrologist for the USGS. A copy of the report is available at the Nevada State Library and Archives.
Mr. Jacobsen encouraged the Committee to read the reports and to protect Nevada’s heritage in any way they could. He said that the best way to understand Marlette Lake was to read those old reports because they were just about the only written record available. He said if he were still a legislator, he would vote to continue the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee. He felt that the Marlette Lake Water System should remain under the control of the Nevada Legislature.
Mr. Jacobsen added that, in the beginning, when the Legislative Commission first appointed a subcommittee to study Marlette Lake Water System, they included representatives of the relevant law enforcement agencies. This was convenient because the means for taking enforcement actions was embedded within the makeup of the committee. He said that there had been up to 250 arrests for fishing in a closed area, and that even some of his friends had been caught.
Mr. Jacobsen proposed that instead of abolishing the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee, the Legislature should give the committee some assets of its own. He suggested that a permanent inmate crew be stationed at Marlette Lake and dedicated to maintaining the area. This would be a cost-effective and viable alternative to more government.
Mr. Jacobsen warned the Committee, “If you want to ensure Carson City, Storey County, and especially the state government complex in Carson City an adequate supply of water, you better keep your hands on Marlette because that was the original intent many years ago.”
Mr. Jacobsen stated that ten years ago they anticipated building an interpretive center at Lakeview, partly because there were artifacts there, and because the place was so beautiful. This had never happened because money was always a problem.
Today water bills for residents of Storey County average about $100 per month, just for drinking, washing, and personal use. Mr. Jacobsen said that the Marlette Lake Water System was very important for Virginia City, Gold Hill, and Silver City because it was the only source of water. He said that some had discussed running a water line down Highway 50, or running a line up from Dayton, but that most of the water in that area was contaminated from mining. He said that bringing water from Marlette and Hobart to Storey County was an ideal set up. Most of the water came out of Hobart Lake, with Marlette Lake as a back up. When water was in short supply, they pumped it from Marlette Lake into Hobart, but there were some problems doing that.
He said that it was also important to protect the fishery in Marlette Lake. Bears raided the fishery ponds regularly, and there were problems with people on the Tahoe Rim Trail. He showed a picture of Marlette Lake sitting high above Lake Tahoe, and urged the Committee to become informed about the Marlette Lake Water System. He invited Committee members to walk up the flume line from Carson or from Incline to experience Marlette Lake individually.
Mr. Jacobsen said that almost everyone who had been involved with Marlette Lake was no longer around. Of the original committee members, there were only a couple left. There was so much history that he said he could not cover it all that morning.
Mr. Jacobsen began to list the original members appointed to the first Marlette Lake subcommittee and the agencies they represented. Members of the subcommittee were:
Assemblyman Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Chairman)
Minden, Nevada
Senator M. J. Christensen
Las Vegas, Nevada
Eric Chronkhite, Administrator
Division of State Parks
State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Carson City, Nevada
George Gottschalk
Carson City, Nevada
Frank Groves
Director of Fish and Game
Reno, Nevada
Walter G. Reid, Engineer
Virginia City, Nevada
Francis Slade
Carson City, Nevada
Assemblyman Robert H. Smith
Henderson, Nevada
Assemblyman Roy L. Torvinen
Reno, Nevada
Roland Westergard
State Engineer
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Carson City, Nevada
The Marlette property was purchased by the State of Nevada for $1.6 million. Mr. Jacobsen said that they should have hired a historian to document that the transaction. The Lake area did not need more government, he said, just some maintenance work. With the help of just a truck, inmate crews from the Stewart Prison could handle all the maintenance, including fighting fire, which was the biggest threat to the area.
Mr. Jacobsen concluded his testimony with the following words:
Ladies and Gentlemen, it would be a real mistake to eliminate the Advisory Committee and try to combine it with something else. I think I speak from experience, since I’ve chaired the Lake Tahoe Advisory Committee for the last two years, so I know something about that area. Of course, that’s also where I was born and raised.
I don’t think we need to get involved with another compact, the ones we have now are bad enough. I don’t know how many of you attended the hearing yesterday on the water systems down south. It’s been a can of worms since it started. Not only that, the most important thing is it’s an expensive one. I had Bob Erickson look this up for me: The Marlette Lake Advisory Committee in 2001-2002 spent $1,000. Now there’s no way you can get by for that amount of money if you start something else.
Water is one of our greatest assets. The way to protect this water is to make sure you maintain it, not to put more government on it because then it gets so convoluted that it’s hard to know what’s going on and it’s hard to accomplish anything.
Marlette Lake water is a real asset for this state. Don’t destroy it.
Chairman thanked Mr. Jacobsen for his testimony. Mr. Jacobsen said he was sorry his testimony was so lengthy and that he was sure everyone could tell it was one of his favorite projects.
Assemblyman Collins asked why Sierra Pacific wanted to buy the property. Were they looking to re-sell the water? Or to generate electricity? Mr. Jacobsen said he could not speak for Southwest Gas or for Sierra Pacific Power, but he believed that they wanted to develop the area. He speculated that if the utility companies had bought the Marlette Lake land, a great portion of it would have been developed for “high-class living.”
Mr. Jacobsen emphasized that the main thing was to set priorities and to maintain the system.
Mr. Jacobsen continued with some personal stories and memories of the area, and added that Hobart was now open for catch-and-release fishing. Several years ago, legislators told him there were no fish in Hobart Reservoir. “So Russ McDonald and his secretary and her husband, who got us a permit, went to fish there. We caught fish there without any bait on the hook.”
Mr. Jacobsen recalled that Red House was a main control point where the water was collected from Tahoe and Incline and moved to the eastern side of the Sierras. There was an antique crank telephone in the Red House that the Nevada State Department of Buildings and Grounds crew later presented to him. “I have it at home and it works. It’s kind of a keepsake,” he said.
There is so much history there that you have to see it to believe it, and there’s no prettier area anywhere in the state. It’s accessible now. Doesn’t take a 4-wheel drive. You can drive up there with a conventional vehicle.
Mr. Jacobsen added that Frank List, son of the former Governor, owned a ranch up the canyon. His wife was a historian of that area. Timber from Lake Tahoe supplied all the lumber for Virginia City in the 1800s. Logs were floated from Tahoe down the flume into the Carson River, and then hauled up to Virginia City by wagon to be used for building construction and to shore up the mines.
Assemblyman Knecht thanked Mr. Jacobsen for his many years of service to both houses, and especially for his stewardship of the Marlette Lake project. Mr. Knecht asked if they still had some maintenance problems with the siphon to Virginia City. He also asked if maintenance of the siphon was one of the things that might get lost if they combined the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee with other oversight operations.
Mr. Jacobsen said that the siphon did not need more fractures. It already had enough. He said that every deer season the main line running to Virginia City was shot full of holes, and the pressure at some points could reach as high as 1200 pounds. He explained that the siphon operated on natural water pressure and emptied into 5-mile Reservoir on the west side of Virginia City. He said that there was a meter to measure the water used in Virginia City, and that the current rate for water consumption was 16 cents per 1,000 gallons.
Mr. Jacobsen reiterated that most people acknowledged that the Marlette Lake Water System was a marvel from years past but nobody paid much attention to it.
The siphon built in the 1800s that crosses under Highway 395 and up over the hill to Virginia City: You have to see the system to believe what’s there. It’s quite a feat. If you travel the system to see where they went with the pipe, you realize that it was built many years ago by hand. The pipe is riveted in all different sizes.
For those reasons, Mr. Jacobsen believed that a State park with an interpretive center at Lakeview would be the best use for that portion of the land. Mr. Jacobsen described his vision of the interpretive center as a place where people could learn about the Marlette Lake Water System and the many aspects of the area. Such a center might include information about the fishery, the animals, the land, the history, the siphon system, the Lake’s importance to Virginia City and to the Comstock’s gold and silver mines, and the dedication of those who have worked to preserve Nevada’s heritage. It is hard to comprehend all the different kinds of assets that comprise the system, he said. A state park and interpretive center would bring together and showcase a large part of Nevada’s history and heritage.
Assemblywoman Pierce said her secretary, Ellen Nelson, brought her a copy of the 1969 report and it was in her office if anyone wanted to see it. Mr. Jacobsen said he thought it was one of the nicest reports ever put together by the LCB. He reminded the Committee that all the land belongs to the state, which meant that any part of it could become a state park.
Chairman Manendo reported that because the Legislature honored former Senator Lawrence Jacobsen and former Speaker Emeritus Joe Dini, Jr. yesterday for being the longest serving legislators in Nevada, a picture of the honors presentation was displayed on the Legislative Web page today.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Walker if Marlette Lake could be added to the Committee’s Carson City tour on March 15.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 164 and called a 5-minute recess at 9:03 a.m. The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 9:22 a.m., changed the meeting to a work session, and opened the hearing on A.B. 137.
Assembly Bill 137: Revises reporting requirements of Bureau for Hospital Patients within Office for Consumer Health Assistance. (BDR 18-474)
Ms. Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, summarized A.B. 137. She stated that the bill would reduce the reporting requirements of the Bureau of Hospital Patients from a quarterly report to an annual report. The bill would also redirect the filing of that report to the director of the LCB, who would then distribute it to the appropriate committee. The bill was heard by the Committee on February 21, 2003, there were no proposed amendments, no one testified in opposition and no fiscal notes were attached.
In discussion, Assemblywoman Koivisto said that she had served on the Legislative Committee for Health and Human Services for several years, and she had never seen this report.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said there did not seem to be a lot of activity in that department. He said he would support an annual report, but also hoped that they would continue to look at the whole operation and establish that need.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 137.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chairman assigned the bill to Assemblywoman Weber to defend on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 3: Requires paid leave of absence of certain duration for public officers and employees who donate bone marrow or certain organs. (BDR 23-147)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 3, and asked Ms. Scholley to describe the proposed legislation. Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 3 was heard by the Committee on February 5, 2003, and its sponsor was Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons. The bill proposed to give public employees up to seven days paid leave to donate bone marrow or up to 30 days paid leave for an organ donation. Assemblywoman Gibbons had proposed an amendment during her testimony that would delete local government employees from the bill, thereby limiting the bill to state workers. Ms. Scholley said that the amendments had been worked out and had the support of the sponsor. She indicated to the Committee that the new language was underlined in green in the work session document (Exhibit G) provided.
Ms. Scholley stated that there had been some opposition to the bill by Assemblyman Williams, who expressed concern about the possible need for additional leave due to medical complications or medical malpractice. Ms. Scholley said that she had attached the appropriate fiscal notes, including those from the State Department of Personnel, the University System, and the local governments.
Ms. Scholley then summarized the proposed amendments starting on page 1 of the work session document (Exhibit G):
· Page 1, lines 4 and 5, would delete the mandatory reference to local government employees.
· Top of page 2, lines 1-4, would add back in an elective option for local governments to participate in the program.
· The creation of a new subsection c, page 2, lines 33-35, was suggested to address concerns regarding confidentiality compliance with federal law. Ms. Scholley clarified that, although the compliance language was part of the proposed amendment, Legal Counsel had recommended that this section be excluded because compliance with federal law was assumed. Ms. Scholley recommended additional research on the confidentiality issue. If it was referred back to the Legal Department as a proposed amendment, they would determine if additional confidentiality provisions need to be included, and whether there are any issues with federal law that need to be specifically addressed.
· The new subsection 6, bottom of page 2, lines 42-45, and continuing on to page 3, lines 10-12, would create a pool of donated leave to be used by employees who suffer complications from an organ or a bone marrow donation. Ms. Scholley said that there was a similar pool in state law under the name of “Catastrophic Leave Pool.” Although this amendment does not specify who would administer the new pool or how it would be run, the Legal Department recommended that this pool could be rolled into the Catastrophic Leave Pool at the state level for purposes of oversight and administration.
· Page 3, lines 16-19, would address Mr. Williams’ concerns regarding the potential for medical malpractice and complications. That amendment proposed that any employee with an untoward medical incident would have all the legal rights and protections of existing law, which was a given. Ms. Scholley said that the Legal Department concurred that this language was unnecessary and might even complicate other issues.
Ms. Scholley asked if there were any questions on the proposed amendments.
Assemblyman Williams asked Ms. O’Grady, Committee Legal Counsel, whether there was any remote possibility that the state could be liable if there were to be medical complications.
Ms. O’Grady answered in the negative. She stated that even if local government employees exercised the option to participate in this program, they would be responsible for their program. Mr. Williams asked the question again, but clarified he was referring to just state employees. Ms. O’Grady indicated that she did not see any liability exposure regarding a medical malpractice or similar situation.
Ms. Scholley said she neglected to mention one other issue that might arise in redrafting A.B. 3. If the local entities opted into this concept, Ms. Scholley said that there was currently no catastrophic leave pool for local government employees. The problems of administration and oversight would need to be addressed if a local government wished to utilize the provisions of this bill. She said there was no clear answer at this point, but one solution might be to leave it up to local government. There were some cities and counties that did have catastrophic leave pools, and so they might have an easier time implementing the proposed legislation.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that reading page 2, lines 1-4, it did not sound like a complete political subdivision would be included, but that it would be handled by the local jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. He asked if this was the correct interpretation.
Ms. O’Grady said that each local jurisdiction would decide for itself. Ms. Scholley clarified that the intent was that the local government would set up the policy that would make all employees eligible to utilize the program.
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons testified in favor of the amended bill, A.B. 3. She stated that she had read all the amendments, and that the amendments Assemblyman Williams proposed had made it a better bill.
After Assemblywoman Koivisto motioned to DO PASS A.B. 3, Assemblyman Williams said he would like to amend the motion to AMEND, DO PASS and RE-REFER to the Ways and Means Committee because of the fiscal notes. There was a brief discussion about whether the bill should be amended. Chairman Manendo did not think it was necessary because the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee would probably take the bill from the Floor anyway. Mr. Williams said he would alert Assemblyman Arberry, Chairman of Ways and Means Committee.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked for clarification of the motion. Chairman Manendo said that it was to AMEND and DO PASS, and called on Ms. Scholley.
Ms. Scholley asked if Mrs. Koivisto would clarify whether her motion included:
· Direction to Legal Department to address the local pool issue.
· Direction to drop the reference to HIPAA, and instead add additional language regarding confidentiality as deemed necessary.
· Direction to drop language on page 3, line 16-19.
· Direction to roll the proposed state pool into the state’s existing Catastrophic Leave Pool.
· Direction that the rewritten amendments should be reviewed by the Committee before the amended bill goes to the Floor.
Assemblywoman Koivisto responded affirmatively.
Assemblyman Williams commended Assemblywoman Gibbons for the intent of the proposed legislation but said he felt that local governments should be included in the program. He understood that the recovery time for donors was usually longer than the recovery time for recipients. Mr. Williams said he was still uncomfortable with those aspects of the legislation. Nevertheless, he did not want to see the bill held up because of his concerns, so he stated that he would abstain from the vote.
Assemblyman Collins urged the Committee to let the amendment go to the floor because the Committee seemed about to approve the concept, and the Legal Department would clean up the language. Chairman Manendo said that the Committee would have a chance to review the final language of the amendments before it went to the Floor of the Assembly and that the motion at this time was not to RE-REFER.
Assemblyman Grady stated that if local government employees were included in the bill he did not want to see the fiscal note kill the bill, but neither did he want the bill to send local governments any unfunded mandates. He wanted to strongly urge local governments to participate but not mandate their participation. Chairman Manendo agreed, and said another option would be to make the bill apply only to counties with populations of over 100,000.
Assemblyman McCleary said he would support the bill as is but would not support it if it mandated the participation of local governments. He said that the current amendments were acceptable.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was any more discussion. Mrs. Koivisto said she wanted to amend the motion to include the clarifications listed by Ms. Scholley. Mr. Manendo said he understood that was the original intent of her motion. The Chairman then called for the vote.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 3.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams abstained from the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 153: Revises provisions regarding petty cash accounts of state agencies and Emergency Account in State General Fund. (BDR 31-509)
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Scholley to describe A.B. 153. Ms. Scholley said that the bill was heard by the Committee on February 26, 2003, and that the bill proposed to eliminate the $250 cap on petty cash accounts for state agencies, and would allow the limit to be set by the Board of Examiners or its clerk. The bill also allowed the Board of Examiners or its clerk to determine when an emergency existed, and to approve expenditures from the emergency fund. The Chairman had proposed an amendment to A.B. 153 which, in lieu of deleting the cap, would change the cap for petty cash accounts for state agencies from $250 to $500, page 1, line 5, of the proposed bill. Ms. Scholley said there was no testimony in opposition to this bill and there was no fiscal impact.
Chairman Manendo explained that in order to support the bill, he would not be comfortable without some kind of cap and implied that the amount was negotiable.
Assemblyman Collins said that the chief witness in support of the bill had not named a single cash box in the state that needed money. He said he could not support the bill.
Assemblyman Grady stated that he agreed with Mr. Collins that the bill was unnecessary, and that he would not support it.
Chairman Manendo suggested that with the language on page 2, they could go back to the $250 cap, or change the cap to $500, or use the suggested language on page 2. He asked if Mr. Collins or Mr. Grady wished to respond, since they had the most objections to the bill. The Chairman said he did not wish to kill the entire bill. Mr. Collins said, regarding the revolving $250 versus having a revolving $500:
If someone gets in a bind for money, they can go get it anyway. Isn’t this a process which they are already proceeding with and you want to just enable this in the language? Is that what you’re saying for this part?
Eileen O’Grady clarified that Section 2 was an emergency account in the General Fund, which was different from the petty cash account. According to the agency, this change was requested because last session there was a bill where the authority was delegated to the clerk to do various things, and they felt that this function had been overlooked.
Assemblyman Grady asked if Legal Counsel could explain the difference between Section 2, subsection 3, and Section 2, subsection 4. Ms. O’Grady said that number 4 was the delegation of the authority to the clerk from the State Board of Examiners, so that when an emergency exists, the clerk could spend money from the appropriate account.
Assemblyman Hardy said he had the impression in earlier testimony that the witness could not remember, and perhaps it was not right to assume that there were no instances of need. He thought perhaps it was just that that person could not remember the information, and Mr. Hardy remembered something was said about the Department of Motor Vehicles having a need. He stated he could not decide if it was a case of the witness not remembering, or a case that the need did not exist. Mr. Hardy said he did not know if the Committee had heard enough to make that determination, as far as the petty cash issue was concerned.
Assemblyman Knecht said that he shared the concerns of Mr. Collins and Mr. Grady, and that he felt no good argument had been provided to justify a key provision of the bill. He suggested that the bill could be amended to kill the change in the petty cash limit and leave it at $250, in order to let the emergency fund provision go forward. Then, when the bill reached the Senate, Senators could reinstate the $500 cap, or even grant unlimited access, when the case was made.
Assemblyman McCleary said his personal experience with petty cash funds caused him to be comfortable with the $500 limit, but he did think that there should be a limit.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 3 WITH A $500 DOLLAR CAP ON PETTY CASH ACCOUNTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE 9 TO 4. (Mr. Collins, Mr. Grady, Mr. Knecht, and Mr. Williams voted no.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. McCleary to defend on the Floor of the Assembly and adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: