MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Health and Human Services
Seventy-Second Session
February 26, 2003
The Committee on Health and Human Serviceswas called to order at 1:36 p.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 2003. Chairwoman Ellen Koivisto presided in Room 3138 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:
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Chairwoman
Ms. Kathy McClain, Vice Chairwoman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. William Horne
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Garn Mabey
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marla McDade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob King, Acting Executive Director, State Dairy Commission, Department of Business and Industry
Anna Vickrey, Environmental Health Specialist, State Dairy Commission, Department of Business and Industry
Chairwoman Koivisto, stating she had not previously heard any legislation concerning the Dairy Commission, opened the hearing by requesting that the Dairy Commission representatives give the Committee an overview of what they did and how they were funded.
Bob King, Acting Executive Director, State Dairy Commission, presented their mission statement: To ensure that the people of the state of Nevada were able to reap the benefits of a viable dairy industry by ensuring that there was an adequate and healthful supply of dairy products available to the consumer; that dairy products were reasonably priced; and that unfair trade practices that might threaten the existence of a strong domestic dairy industry were controlled or eliminated.
Mr. King explained that the Dairy Commission survived on assessments of dairy products sold within Nevada. He mentioned that there were a few licensing fees, but the primary source of revenue was assessments.
Chairwoman Koivisto repeated that the Dairy Commission was not funded by General Fund dollars.
Mr. King agreed that she was correct.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked Mr. King to explain A.B. 111.
Assembly Bill 111: Makes various changes related to processing and sale of dairy products. (BDR 51-539)
Mr. King explained that the State Dairy Commission, Department of Business and Industry, sought to make technical changes by amending Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 584 to review and implement S.B. 505 of the 2001 Legislative Session. The amendment would also require disclosure of governmental actions taken against distributor licenses, where such disclosures were not currently required. Mr. King then took the Committee through the bill, explaining the changes being proposed.
Assemblywoman McClain, noting the Dairy Commission’s fees were currently being collected through regulation, inquired why they wanted them in statute.
Mr. King responded that the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division had suggested it.
Assemblywoman McClain observed that anytime the Commission wanted to revise its fees, it would have to come to the Legislature.
Chairwoman Koivisto questioned how many times the fees had been changed.
Anna Vickrey, Environmental Health Specialist, State Dairy Commission, explained that the fee schedule had been transferred from the Health Division two years previously. From her knowledge, she believed they had been in existence for about five years without any changes.
Assemblyman Mabey asked if the licensees were already paying the existing fees.
Mr. King replied that they were.
Assemblyman Mabey inquired whether there was any opposition to A.B. 111.
Mr. King said there had been two hearings on the bill and no one had opposed it.
Assemblyman Hardy, referencing page 4, line 4, concerning the “Babcock test or any other testing equipment or procedures,” asked what those tests were, guessing that they were to determine fat content.
Ms. Vickrey agreed with Mr. Hardy. She explained that the Babcock test had been used for many years, but was very outdated. Ms. Vickrey stated that there was more sophisticated equipment now and the Commission would look at that equipment, upon request, and approve it.
Mr. Hardy asked whether the dairies would be forced to buy new equipment, increasing their costs as a result.
Ms. Vickrey replied that the only lab doing any testing was the University of Nevada, Reno lab that tested the Commission’s samples. The University, she noted, had requested they be able to use another method.
Mr. Hardy queried whether the University had the equipment in place, or whether they would ask for additional funding to purchase it.
Ms. Vickrey replied that she did not believe the University had the new equipment in place. However, she noted that the Dairy Commission paid the University an annual fee to run their tests.
Mr. Hardy inquired if the Babcock method was a turbidity method.
Ms. Vickrey responded that chemicals and a centrifuge were used for a measurement on glass bottles. She added that it was a very cumbersome test and pointed out that there were many inexpensive and very good methods of testing currently available.
Mr. Hardy, referencing page 4, lines 42-45, and page 5, lines 1-3, asked what sort of disclosure would be entailed by that language.
Mr. King explained that if a potential licensee were to send a license application to the Commission, there was nothing in current law requiring them to disclose anything of an unethical nature in their past.
Assemblyman Hardy opined that previously the Commission could not request disclosure, but if the prospective licensee voluntarily told the Commission, it would not license them.
Assemblywoman Weber, referencing Section 9 concerning records-keeping, asked why the change was being requested from two months of records retention to six. She questioned how long records were retained after the six-month period and inquired if they were kept indefinitely. Ms. Weber also wanted to know where the records were kept and whether they needed to be kept on-site, for instance, in the event of an outbreak of illness.
Ms. Vickrey explained that the Dairy Commission certified for the Interstate Milk Shippers program, so the dairies must meet the requirements of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance that stated the dairies’ records must be kept for a minimum of six months. She observed that most dairies kept their records indefinitely and added that if there were some sort of outbreak, the Commission would hear about it quite quickly, so six months of records would be sufficient.
Assemblywoman Angle asked how many dairies were in Nevada.
Ms. Vickrey responded that there were 35 dairies, of which 2 were goat dairies.
Mrs. Angle queried how many of the 35 dairies fell within the various categories mentioned in Section 5 of A.B. 111.
Ms. Vickrey replied that there were approximately 7 dairies producing less than 1,000 gallons of milk per day, about 8 or 9 producing more than 3,000 gallons of milk per day, and the remaining dairies fell in between the two.
Mrs. Angle asked how many dairies fell within category (c).
Ms. Vickrey explained that the dairies fell within category (a), which were then broken down into amount of milk produced per day.
Mrs. Angle expressed concern about her local dairy, Model Dairy, and inquired which category it fell into.
Ms. Vickrey explained that Model Dairy would fall into category (b), “milk plant,” and that they would be number (3), “producing more than 10,000 gallons per day.”
Assemblyman Hardy inquired how many milk plants there were in Nevada.
Ms. Vickrey responded that there were two.
Mr. Hardy assumed they must be Anderson Dairy and Model Dairy.
Ms. Vickrey agreed.
Assemblywoman McClain pointed out that there were dairies, milk plants, and dairy food manufacturing plants, and asked what the difference between a milk plant and a dairy food manufacturing plant was.
Ms. Vickrey explained that a “milk plant” produced fluid milk products, which included yogurt and sour cream, and a “dairy foods manufacturing plant” would produce ice cream and cheese. She noted that there was no production of butter within Nevada.
Ms. McClain asked what a “single service plant” was.
Ms. Vickrey replied that a single service plant was one that would be listed in the Interstate Milk Shippers list. Model Dairy and Anderson Dairy would have to use the packaging from those facilities to put their products in; i.e., gallon jugs, half-gallon jugs, and little packages of creamer.
Assemblywoman Angle asked how the fees collected by the Commission were utilized.
Ms. Vickrey noted that the Dairy Commission followed the guidelines of the Interstate Milk Shippers listing that was a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) program. The requirements of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance must be met, which included minimum requirements for inspections of all facilities. As an example, Ms. Vickrey said a dairy farm must be inspected every six months, but in addition, their investigators went monthly to the dairy farms and took samples from the milk and cheese plants and sent those in for analysis. She also pointed out that personnel needed to be trained, and that the Commission’s testing equipment was very expensive. It was used to test plant pasteurization systems and other plant equipment, and all were tested quarterly, she added.
Chairwoman Koivisto concluded that the fees collected paid for the operation of the State Dairy Commission.
Ms. Vickrey agreed with Chairwoman Koivisto.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked if there was further testimony on A.B. 111.
Assemblyman Horne commented that the word “shall” had been replaced throughout the bill with the word “must,” except on page 4, line 19. He said that the language still read, “the applicant shall furnish the Commission,” and wondered if it was a mistake.
Chairwoman Koivisto decided to ask the bill drafter for clarification and closed the hearing on A.B. 111.
Assembly Bill 25: Makes various changes concerning provision of public services for children. (BDR 38-690)
Chairwoman Koivisto reminded Committee members that when the bill had originally been heard in Committee, Judge Hardcastle had suggested a change to page 2, line 21, to mirror the child support statutes. Chairwoman Koivisto said there was some concern that making the recommended change would result in the statute being more restrictive. She noted if the language were left as it was, “18 years of age or older and attending high school,” it would encompass the ages the Committee was concerned with.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 25.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 51: Revises provisions regarding anatomical gifts. (BDR 40-121)
Chairwoman Koivisto reminded Committee members about the concern the Clark County Coroner’s office had about the bill and suggested the Committee’s Policy Analyst, Marla McDade Williams, explain the results of her research.
Ms. McDade Williams explained that within NRS 451.585 there was a provision stating “the provisions of NRS 451.500 to 451.590, inclusive, are subject to the laws of this state governing autopsies.” She added that because A.B. 51 proposed to amend NRS 451.555, it would be included in the provision and, as a result, passage of the bill would not prohibit a coroner from doing his job.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 51.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Koivisto briefly recessed the Committee to wait for clarification from bill drafting about A.B. 111.
Ms. McDade Williams received a reply from Kim Morgan in bill drafting that indicated the term “must” was used at times when something was not really a duty. In the first part of the bill, the term was being used about a person who was choosing to apply for a license, but by line 19, page 4, the person had chosen to apply for the license, and now he had a duty to submit the evidence of his integrity. Ms. McDade Williams also noted that the preliminary chapter in the NRS at 0.025 described usage of the terms “must” and “shall.”
Chairwoman Koivisto inquired whether Assemblyman Horne was satisfied with the explanation. He was.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 111.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Hardy expressed some reservations about passing the bill because there had been no opposition or funding requests. He wanted to state those reservations for the record.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
With no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Terry Horgan
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Chairwoman
DATE: