MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
May 20, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 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. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
Senator Randolph Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4
Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Senate Bill 301 (1st Reprint): Creates Nevada Mental Health Plan Implementation Commission. (BDR S-969)
Senator Randolph Townsend, District No. 4, presented S.B. 301 and explained that the bill was a result of Senator Townsend’s appointment to President George W. Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Senator Townsend indicated that the work of the Commission had been completed, and the final version of the report was currently in draft form.
Senator Townsend said it was important to create a mechanism to help the state agencies and the Legislature work together to determine which portion of the plan should be implemented in Nevada. In order to do that, Section 1 of the bill created the Nevada Mental Health Plan Implementation Commission comprised of three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, the Administrator of the Division of Mental Health, the Chief of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, the Administrator of the Division of Health Care Financing, and the Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services. The members would serve on the Commission for a period of six months beginning the day that the report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health was made public.
Senator Townsend noted that it had originally been assumed that the report would be released immediately; however, the release was at the discretion of the President and no specific date had been set.
Senator Townsend directed the Committee’s attention to Section 4 of the bill and said the Nevada Mental Health Plan Implementation Commission was charged with determining how Nevada would implement the Commission’s recommendations to enable adults with serious mental illness and children with severe emotional disturbance to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani opined that the Commission had “excellent merit,” and, noting that there had been concern regarding the number of standing committees, she asked if the institution of the Commission would enable the elimination of some standing committees. Senator Townsend said the goal of the bill was to gather a group of individuals to focus on one issue and the Commission would only be in place for six months. The Committee could choose different ways to implement recommendations—the standing Committee on Health Care could be charged with that task or the Interim Finance Committee could be involved in some way. Senator Townsend emphasized that the goal was to ensure that Nevada would be able to evaluate the recommendations from the President’s Commission and implement them as needed. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed and said concerns regarding the number of committees should be allayed by the six-month limit on the proposed commission.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how other states were responding. Senator Townsend said he had received e-mail correspondence from contacts in other states that indicated Nevada was the first state to take the initiative and work on the implementation of a report that had not yet been released. He commented that many of the larger states had not responded because those states had full-time legislators who had staff to handle those issues and did not have the same sense of urgency that a part-time Legislature had. Senator Townsend opined that passage of the bill would send a message to other states and those states would be more likely to begin work on the implementation.
Mr. Marvel asked who was the head of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and Senator Townsend indicated that the chairman was Dr. Michael Hogan. Dr. Hogan had been appointed by the President and was the director of the mental health program in Ohio. The doctor also had a sister who suffered from schizophrenia, which made him very aware of mental health issues. Senator Townsend praised Dr. Hogan’s efforts and commented that it had been a difficult process as there were only two members of the Commission who were not psychologists or psychiatrists, but Senator Townsend felt the Commission had done a remarkable job.
Tom Murtha, Chief Executive Officer of Bristlecone Family Resources, said he was representing the Nevada Alliance of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Service Providers (AADAPTS), which was a private nonprofit organization that served approximately 20,000 individuals per year in Nevada. Mr. Murtha indicated that AADAPTS believed that one member of the implementation commission should be from AADAPTS and he asked the Committee to consider amending the bill to add a member to represent the providers of mental health services.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions or comments, there being none, he declared the hearing on S.B. 301 closed.
Senate Bill 164 (1st Reprint): Creates the Office of Disability Services within Department of Human Resources to coordinate and administer certain services and programs for persons with disabilities. (BDR 38-701)
Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, indicated he had provided a copy of his testimony to the Committee (Exhibit C) and introduced Todd Butterworth, the acting Chief of the Office of Community Based Services.
Mr. Willden said he and Mr. Butterworth were present to support S.B. 164, which would create the Office of Disability Services within the Department of Human Resources and move the Office of Community Based Services (OCBS) from the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) to the Department of Human Resources (DHR). Mr. Willden said the transition had been discussed during the budget building process and had been included in The Executive Budget.
Mr. Willden added that the Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities, authorized by Assembly Bill 513 of the 71st Legislature, had recommended that an Office of Disability Services be established. The Office would operate as the state‑level coordinating body among agencies of state government providing services to people with disabilities and serve as the focal point within state government for the interests of people with disabilities and their families. Persons with disabilities and members of the public would be consulted prior to establishing policies or making decisions that would affect the lives of persons with disabilities.
Mr. Willden directed the Committee’s attention to page 2 of Exhibit C, which listed several programs that would be transferred from the OCBS to the Office of Disability Services. He addressed the funding mechanisms in S.B. 164 and said that creating the Office of Disability Services would not require any new funds; the transfer would merely allow for better coordination.
Mr. Willden noted that S.B. 164 clarified that the telephone surcharge for relay services applied to wireless telephone lines in addition to traditional “land lines.” He emphasized that it was not a new tax as wireless users were mandated by federal law to have access to relay services and, under Nevada regulations, were required to share in the cost. The Public Utilities Commission was already collecting the fee from wireless phone users and the language in S.B. 164 simply made Nevada statutes consistent with federal law and state regulations.
Mr. Willden noted that the reason S.B. 164 had a two-thirds majority requirement was because it transferred funding for the existing Deaf Resource Centers from the General Fund to the relay surcharge. The transfer would save approximately $110,000 annually in General Fund dollars. He pointed out that theoretically the transfer could cause the relay surcharge rate to increase in the future.
Mr. Willden said it was important to note that the Public Utilities Commission and the Rehabilitation Division agreed that the current surcharge rate was sufficient to fund the Deaf Resource Centers for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Willden summarized S.B. 164 and said the bill transferred the Office of Community Based Services (OCBS) from the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), to the Department of Human Resources (DHR), allowed for continuity in planning across the divisions and within the Department, formalized a task force on deaf resources, and clarified several statutes within the regulations.
Mr. Willden added that he was very pleased to present the legislation, and he felt it was important to move all disability resources into one area.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked where the Governor’s Committee to Hire the Handicapped would be placed. Mr. Willden said as the focus of that Committee was employment, it was placed in the DETR. He pointed out that the OCBS had a human services rather than employment focus. Ms. Giunchigliani opined that those issues should be consolidated.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the fiscal impact of S.B. 164. Mr. Willden said there was not a fiscal impact. Additional legislation related to the interim study and recommending additional disability-related services could be proposed at a later time, but S.B. 164 did not have a fiscal note.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification of the interim study. Mr. Willden explained that he was referring to the Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities, and he said the planning process would continue through the next biennium. Mr. Willden commented that the strategic plan had developed numerous recommendations and several of those recommendations had been implemented, but not all, and that would be a continuing effort. Ms. Giunchigliani said those recommendations could have a fiscal impact and would have to be brought before the Legislature next session. Mr. Willden agreed and said there were ongoing efforts that might have a fiscal impact at some later time, but S.B. 164 did not.
Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that page 4 of the bill referred to several federal programs, and she asked whether those federal programs had a funding mechanism or if those programs would require state funding in the future.
Todd Butterworth, Long Term Services Coordinator, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained that the programs to which Ms. Giunchigliani had referred were existing federal programs and would merely be transferred into the Office of Disability Services.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if independent living services could include employment services, and Mr. Butterworth indicated that independent living services meant personal attendant services, respite care, and home modifications, but did not generally refer to employment.
Mr. Marvel asked how many clients would be served. Mr. Willden replied that each of the programs had a service list as well as a waiting list, and he indicated he would provide that information.
Mr. Butterworth said there were a variety of programs including the telecommunications program for the deaf, which had relayed over 40,000 telephone calls the previous month. He noted that the relay program was only one of several programs and served thousands of people, while the in-home care program served approximately 80 people per year. Mr. Butterworth pointed out there was a wide range of programs, which served several thousand people. Mr. Marvel commented that the Office would be busy, and Mr. Butterworth agreed.
Mary Bryant, Vice Chairwoman, Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities, spoke in support of S.B. 164. She read a statement (Exhibit D) regarding her two daughters, one of whom had Down syndrome, and said she supported the creation of the Office of Disability Services.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that using the word “new” to describe the office was a misnomer as it was a matter of transferring an existing program rather than creating a new program that would cost additional funds.
Robert Desruisseaux, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living, spoke in support of S.B. 164. He indicated that he had been a member of the task force on disabilities, which had developed the strategic plan for people with disabilities. One of the major issues had been the fragmentation of services, and he felt that moving the office into the Department of Human Resources was a good way to solve that problem. Mr. Desruisseaux urged the Committee to support S.B. 164.
David Daviton, President, Nevada Association of the Deaf, signed the following testimony and submitted a written copy for the record (Exhibit E):
I am here today to thank you for your hard work in this current session. I also am here to ask you to support S.B. 164 as amended. My family and I have lived here for 25 years and this is perhaps one of the most important bills I have seen that will help the Deaf and Hard of Hearing people. This bill is important to the future of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Nevadans as well as to other people with different disabilities. The bill will create greater communication among us. After all the Relay Services is intended for you, me, and all other hearing folks in Nevada. Without good communications there will always be a poor representative government. We, Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, want to be involved in the process of determining our own way of life, too. So, please support S.B. 164 so we can work together to make it happen. Thank you for your time.
Assemblywoman Leslie said she wanted to thank those who had been involved in the process of developing S.B. 164. She said there had been greater cooperation than there had ever been before, and she was pleased that the bill had been processed thus far and the budget had been closed appropriately. Ms. Leslie opined that the development of S.B. 164 showed what could be accomplished if people worked together. She said that the disabled community had presented their needs and worked with the Department of Human Resources through Mr. Willden to bring forward a good bill.
Assemblywoman Chowning said she had been privileged to serve on the interim study committee and was able to observe the good work that was accomplished in a spirit of unity and dedication. She said it was an excellent bill that would eliminate the aforementioned fragmentation problem so that those in need of services would not be forced to go from office to office to receive answers. Mrs. Chowning noted that the bill included an appropriation not included in The Executive Budget, and she asked where that appropriation was clarified in the bill.
Mr. Willden said the original bill had contained an appropriation for an ombudsman process, but the first reprint of the bill did not contain an appropriation. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani interjected that Section 6 had per diem costs for the advisory committee. Mr. Willden explained that the per diem costs would be handled through the OCBS budgets and the Department budget and the appropriation was not necessary.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there would still be an advisory committee. Mr. Willden indicated that was correct and noted that the committee had been decreased by one member. He reemphasized that an appropriation was not needed.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Butterworth would act as the liaison between state governmental agencies and the items listed on page 3. Mr. Willden indicated that was correct and the Office of Disability Services would assume those duties.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that she did not remember any discussion regarding the Office of Disability Services during subcommittee meetings on the budget. Mr. Willden reiterated that there was not a fiscal need.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why the bill required a two-thirds majority. Mr. Willden explained that there was an $0.08 per line surcharge on telecommunications and S.B. 164 would expand the use of those dollars. While there was no change to that $0.08 surcharge currently there might be a change in the future, which necessitated the two-thirds majority vote to pass.
Mrs. Chowning said she appreciated the clarification.
Gary Olsen, Director and Advocate for the Nevada Association of the Deaf, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy Resource Center in Carson City, testified in support of S.B. 146. He signed the following testimony and provided a written copy for the record (Exhibit F):
I want to thank you for your hard work during this tough session and hope you will be able to resolve most of the financial matters. On behalf of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Nevadans, I am here because we want to ask you to fully support S.B. 164 as amended. This bill will be a landmark, should you all support it, to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as well as to other people with disabilities in Nevada. This bill recognizes the needs of the people with communication disabilities, provides an opportunity to succeed in life through service programs, and above all enable us to break down the communication barriers that exist in this state. For too long programs designed to serve the needs of the communicative disabled have always been first to go when it comes to budget cuts. This bill will change that. Yet, this bill does not cost the state any money, in fact, it will save the state up to $110,000 annually to be used for other needs. Please support this bill and help make a difference in the lives of the people with disabilities. Thank you very much.
Jon Sasser, Washoe Legal Services, spoke in support of S.B. 164 and noted that he, too, had been a member of the task force that had developed the strategic plan. He urged the Committee to support S.B. 164.
Chairman Arberry disclosed that his younger sister was hearing impaired but would not be affected any more or less than anyone else if the bill were passed.
Mr. Marvel noted that there was a program in the elementary schools for the hearing impaired, and he asked if that would be included in S.B. 164. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that the elementary school program belonged to the Department of Education and was not currently included; however, she opined that if there was further consolidation that might become part of the Office of Disability Services.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions or comments, as there were not, he closed the hearing on S.B. 164 and opened the hearing on S.B. 216.
Senate Bill 216 (2nd Reprint): Creates interim legislative committee to review Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and oversee Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Colorado River Commission of Nevada. (BDR 17-175)
Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, presented S.B. 216 and explained that as one of the few remaining members of the interim committee on Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) oversight, the bill had become his responsibility. Senator Amodei indicated that in the course of the bill being drafted, the chairman of the TRPA oversight commission had questioned the need for two committees—a statutory committee to oversee the Marlette Lake operations and the continuing resolution committee for the TRPA oversight. Thus, S.B. 216 had originally been conceived as a bill to combine the Marlette Lake oversight function and the TRPA oversight function into one statutory committee.
Senator Amodei said that several things had changed over time with regard to the Marlette Lake function, as the state did not have a direct water pipeline into the Capital Complex. The water came through Carson City’s treatment plant, and, as a result of water treatment issues over the last ten years, it had not made sense for the state to build its own water treatment plant and maintain a separate water system within Carson City.
Senator Amodei explained that some legislators had expressed a desire to have the same type of relationship for information purposes with the Colorado River Commission (CRC) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). He suggested that, since the TRPA committee was already handling a multi-state compact oversight role related to resource management and multiple local governments, that the TRPA committee would be the appropriate committee to develop that relationship.
Senator Amodei indicated that S.B. 216 had passed through the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations with Marlette Lake and TRPA combined in the statutory format as well as the added responsibility of oversight of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and the Colorado River Commission (CRC). The Committee had amended the bill and removed the oversight of the CRC, the SNWA, and Marlette Lake.
Senator Amodei said that, at that point, Senator Titus had approached him and indicated that the amendment would be reconsidered and on the Senate Floor the bill was returned to its original state with an amendment to place the CRC and the SNWA back into the bill with a vote of 15 to 5. The next day, however, another amendment was proposed to remove the SNWA. The vote on the amendment was split 10 votes to 10 so the Lieutenant Governor cast the deciding vote to remove the SNWA from the bill. The bill was then passed out of the Senate and sent to the Assembly.
Senator Amodei said there had been concerns voiced by the TRPA regarding the additional responsibilities, which no longer included Marlette Lake or the SNWA. He said the TRPA was concerned about some subpoena provisions in the bill, but the subpoena provisions were standard for statutory committees. The concern was that those provisions would conflict with some of the provisions in the bi-state compact; Senator Amodei suggested that language be placed in the bill to give the compact priority if there was a conflict.
Senator Amodei directed the Committee’s attention to the bill and said he would be discussing specific portions of the bill. On page 2, line 11, of S.B. 216, it said that 85 percent of southern Nevada’s water supply came from the Colorado River. Senator Amodei pointed out that 70 percent of the state’s population lived in southern Nevada and water was extremely important to the state. On page 3, line 37, of the bill, it said the committee established in the bill would “provide appropriate review and oversight.” Senator Amodei said that particular phrase was very aggressive and proposed “appropriate review and oversight” of an entity which was involved with 85 percent of the water supply for the state’s largest urban area.
Senator Amodei reminded the Committee that when the TRPA was first established there had been much argument and controversy; however, the imposition of the oversight committee and the establishment of formal dialogue during the interim had eliminated much of the controversy surrounding the TRPA. He opined that the TRPA had been a constructive tool to help with understanding what was occurring in the basin, facilitating a report that had been part of a presidential summit under then President Clinton. Senator Amodei noted that the Committee would hear a bill later in the day related to a bond provision which would allow the TRPA to carry out the mandates of that presidential summit.
Senator Amodei continued and said that oversight in the context of the TRPA had been a success, and S.B. 216 merely sought to extend that to allow oversight of the most important resource entity in southern Nevada. He emphasized that oversight was not to be considered as a way to “get someone,” but rather as a way to provide the necessary oversight and information that was needed for policy decisions made by the Legislature, particularly with the 120-day legislative sessions which necessitated ready access to information.
Senator Amodei conceded that there was a fiscal note attached to the bill, and he explained that the fiscal note assumed that the oversight committee would meet six times during the biennium and projected a total cost of approximately $8,900. He pointed out that the Tahoe oversight committee had traditionally met four times during each biennium, and the budget for the past biennium had been $9,520. The actual cost had been $6,580, even with an additional meeting. Senator Amodei acknowledged that there were members of the Committee who did not like statutory interim committees, but he felt that it was a responsible way to “keep the Legislature’s finger on the pulse” of significant multi-state resource issues and to maintain a formal dialogue between the various entities.
Senator Amodei concluded his remarks with a quote from the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding oversight, which said, “Legislators often look to policymaking, constituent relations, and budget decisions as being the critical areas of their work, but oversight is highly important to making the Legislature a co-equal branch of government.” Senator Amodei opined that the Legislature tended to emphasize oversight only when there was a major crisis, but constituents demanded accountability, and oversight work ensured that accountability. He commented that having three meetings during the interim devoted to water issues in southern Nevada should not be considered a threat to any entity.
Mr. Marvel questioned whether S.B. 216 would create additional work for the legislative staff. Senator Amodei did not think it would and pointed out that the research staff already staffed the TRPA committee. Mr. Marvel asked if expanding the oversight would require additional positions. Senator Amodei said the fiscal note provided by staff had indicated that it would not require additional positions.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the issues surrounding the subpoena power. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained that the legal counsel for the TRPA had approached her regarding the subpoena power and whether or not it would violate the compact. Ms. Erdoes said she agreed that there was ample case law establishing that neither Nevada nor California could unilaterally add a power to the TRPA; however, she disagreed with the TRPA’s legal counsel that the subpoena power would be a violation of the agreement. She pointed out that the compact already said that “every record of the agency whether public or not shall be open for examination to the Legislature in control of the state of California and the Legislative Auditor of the state of Nevada.” Ms. Erdoes opined that the records were already open, and the subpoena power merely facilitated that concept. In addition, there had been many TRPA studies, and, during that time, the legislative commission subpoena power had applied because those studies had been done through the legislative commission. Ms. Erdoes reiterated that S.B. 216 was not adding a new power.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if S.B. 216 would eliminate the Marlette Lake committee and place that responsibility into the oversight committee. Senator Amodei pointed out that S.B. 216 did not include the Marlette Lake provision as that had been removed during the amendment process. The Marlette Lake committee was the existing statutory committee with three legislators and four members of the executive branch, and if the Committee wished to change that another amendment would need to be added. Ms. Giunchigliani thanked Senator Amodei for clarifying and commented she felt many of the statutory committees were unnecessary or had “outlived their usefulness.”
Assemblywoman Leslie expressed her concern regarding rural water issues and asked if there had been any discussion regarding those issues when the bill was proposed. Senator Amodei replied that in its original form the SNWA had been included in the bill as a means to address those water issues, as it was inevitable that rural Nevada water would be brought into the Las Vegas valley, and it was hoped that it could be done in such a way as to provide the necessary water to the urban areas without harming the rural areas. He opined that it was appropriate to include the SNWA in the bill in order to address those issues, particularly as water law in the state was not a local matter; water was a state resource that was appropriated through the Division of Water Resources.
Ms. Leslie asked what was actually included in the bill if the SNWA had been removed. Senator Amodei indicated the water issues were addressed to the extent that the CRC was involved, but he reaffirmed that the SNWA had been removed. He suggested that the SNWA be amended back in if the Committee wished to have oversight of water policy in southern Nevada.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked if other states with similar water issues had an oversight committee. Senator Amodei said he was not aware of any other oversight committees; however, the legislatures of the other states on the Colorado River did not meet for a 120-day legislative session every other year. The reason for a formalized oversight committee was to ensure that the issues were not neglected the other 20 months of the biennium.
Senator Amodei added that he had been approached at one point about placing the oversight responsibility in the Public Lands interim committee, which was an option. He said his concern was that members of the Legislature be assured an active part in policy-making as there was nothing in statute that required formalized dialogue between the various entities. Senator Amodei emphasized that the intent of S.B. 216 was to provide a vehicle for formalized dialogue to occur. He commented that it had been an “educational experience” to have public entities approach him and say that legislative oversight was not needed.
Assemblywoman McClain noted that Senator Amodei stated there had been problems when the TRPA was formed. She questioned the need for oversight and asked if there had been similar problems with the CRC and the SNWA. Senator Amodei said responsible water resource management was needed and legislators, as statewide representatives, should be aware of what was occurring with that management. He pointed out that the decision was similar to the Legislature’s decision to monitor the programs at Lake Tahoe.
Ms. McClain remarked that she hated to see layers of government added unnecessarily unless there were problems. Senator Amodei pointed out that the Nevada Legislature had been involved with the Colorado River since the compact had been instituted in 1922. Over the years, the Legislature had passed many laws, including that which created the Colorado River Commission (CRC), and the Legislature had always been involved. He conceded that there were individuals who believed that an oversight committee would essentially be a vote of “no confidence,” but he did not view it as such. Senator Amodei opined that it was appropriate for the Legislature to provide oversight, particularly given the importance of water resources in southern Nevada.
David Schumann, Vice Chairman, The Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, spoke in support of S.B. 216. He said he had been a former property owner at Lake Tahoe and said the operations of the TRPA were still contentious and oversight was badly needed in order to ensure the citizens of Nevada had the right to due process. Mr. Schumann suggested that “the availability of the right of due process to Nevada residents of Lake Tahoe” be added to Section 5, line 40, of the bill.
Mr. Schumann related an incident of conflict with the TRPA. He said he had been on the Board of Directors of the Tahoe Tavern Property Owners Association and the conflict had risen over the Association’s right to maintain a pier at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Schumann said the Association had hired a lawyer and the problem had been resolved, but he felt it was an example of the TRPA abusing its power. He stated that the TRPA needed oversight and the interim committee needed to be made aware of the complaints from property owners at Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Schumann concluded his statement with a quote by James Madison, which he felt described the TRPA and said, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
John Marshall, General Counsel, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), addressed the Committee. He thanked Senator Amodei and said he agreed that oversight had a positive effect and the TRPA was appreciative of the Legislature’s commitment to oversee implementation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. He indicated that the TRPA had advocated for similar oversight by the California Legislature, but the California Legislature had not chosen to dedicate the necessary resources. Mr. Marshall said the TRPA was present to advocate for continued oversight; however, the TRPA was concerned about the manner in which the oversight occurred.
Mr. Marshall stated that the TRPA believed the oversight committee provided a valuable tool for facilitating communication between the TRPA, the Legislature, and the public. There were some issues in S.B. 216 that Mr. Marshall wanted to address, and he indicated that he had distributed two handouts to the Committee (Exhibit G and Exhibit H).
Mr. Marshall said that one of the major concerns was that combining the southern Nevada water and power issues with the mission of the TRPA would mean that the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact would not receive the attention it deserved. He indicated that Exhibit H outlined proposed amendments that would address two issues: the amendments would amend the bill to mirror the language used in the past concurrent resolutions and would also reflect that oversight would be provided for implementation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and all the federal, state, and local entities involved.
Mr. Marshall acknowledged that there was a disagreement regarding the subpoena provision, but he did not think it was a significant issue. He said it was not a matter of whether the subpoena power should exist, but rather how it should be administered. The amendments in Exhibit H had been written in an effort to avoid issues that might arise from that difference of opinion as to whether or not there was an additional imposition of obligation on TRPA that was inappropriate.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Marshall said the TRPA desired the continued oversight by the Nevada Legislature, but the TRPA preferred that the oversight occur in the concurrent resolution format. He said he understood the need for oversight of southern Nevada issues, and if the Committee chose to process S.B. 216, he would urge them to adopt the amendments he had proposed.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the amendments would change the oversight responsibility to the compact rather than the agency. Mr. Marshall explained that he had tried to copy the language of the continuing resolutions that had been used to oversee implementation of the compact through various agencies. He pointed out that there was a critical review function of implementation of the TRPA compact and the achievement of the goals of the compact that involved a large number of entities. Ms. Giunchigliani said the compact was not the issue that required oversight, rather, the TRPA itself was in need of oversight to determine if the agency was administering the provisions of the compact correctly. She asked Mr. Marshall if he had proposed the same amendments in the Senate. Mr. Marshall said the issues had been discussed, but he had not offered specific language at that time.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, said she would like to provide the Committee with testimony from the perspective of a state agency that had worked with the Tahoe oversight committee for several years. Under the language that had been carried in continuing resolutions over the years, the oversight committee had the authority to oversee the TRPA as well as state agencies with programs in the Tahoe Basin. Ms. Wilcox said there had been controversy when the oversight committee was first established; however, that oversight had allowed the Legislature to be more comfortable with the role of the state in supporting the TRPA and other programs in the Tahoe Basin, which had been very constructive.
Ms. Wilcox indicated that the Division of State Lands welcomed the continuation of the oversight of the Division’s programs and would continue to work with the oversight committee. She said the Division had derived great benefits from the oversight, which was evidenced by S.B. 46, a bond bill that had been sponsored by the oversight committee.
George Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, addressed the Committee. Mr. Caan stated that the CRC was not opposed to oversight, as having an outside source examine the issues and ask questions helped the CRC fulfill its mission in the most effective way possible. However, oversight already existed and provided guidance to the CRC and informed the public regarding issues with the CRC. Mr. Caan opined that it was unnecessary to add another layer of oversight and indicated that he had given the Committee a handout (Exhibit I) detailing the current oversight if there were questions.
Mr. Caan commented that the CRC had worked with the Legislature, and he felt the relationship had been constructive. He pointed out that the CRC’s budget was approved by the Legislature, and the CRC often worked with the Legislature on issues affecting the Colorado River and the Commission itself. Mr. Caan emphasized that the Legislature had authority over the CRC and the CRC made every effort to provide information to the Legislature.
Mr. Caan concluded his remarks by stating that the CRC was a fairly small agency with approximately 30 staff members and a seven-member board appointed by the Governor through locally elected officials. He said the CRC had a close working relationship with the SNWA, local governments, and the other states in the Basin. Mr. Caan reiterated that the existing oversight was sufficient and an additional layer was unnecessary.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the other states in the CRC had similar oversight committees. Mr. Caan said he was not aware of whether or not the other states had standing committees to handle Colorado River issues, but he knew that each state had set up its own type of organization for oversight, and some were centrally located while others were interdisciplinary. He pointed out that California had several agencies, both local and state, to handle Colorado River issues. Mr. Caan opined that having only two agencies had been advantageous to Nevada.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood that there was existing oversight, but she pointed out that additional oversight might be positive for the CRC. She commented that sometimes “perception was reality” and if the public had concerns regarding water rights and abuses and the function of the CRC, the additional oversight might allay those concerns.
Mr. Caan said he had spoken to several legislators regarding S.B. 216 as it seemed to indicate there was a problem with the CRC, but he had been unable to find any confirmation that there was a problem. He said he preferred to address any issues immediately; however, no one had indicated that there was a problem. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that perhaps additional oversight was needed as the CRC was an example of how such organizations should be run, and the oversight would allow the Legislature to observe the CRC and use what it learned to help similar organizations. She said Mr. Caan should not consider the oversight as a negative comment on his work.
Mr. Caan said he did not assume that it was negative; however, the bill seemed to imply that additional oversight was necessary as there were problems. However, those individuals he had spoken with had indicated that there were not any specific problems. Mr. Caan repeated that he thought the existing oversight was a positive thing for the CRC and provided valuable feedback with regard to the work of the CRC, but he did not see the need for additional oversight.
Ms. Leslie referred to her earlier comments regarding rural water rights issues and asked Mr. Caan what his opinion was of those issues and how they related to the CRC and S.B. 216. Mr. Caan explained that the statutes regulating the CRC were very specific and only granted authority to negotiate with other states with respect to the Colorado River. Thus, the CRC handled hydroelectricity and water issues of the Colorado River; the rural areas of Nevada would be outside the jurisdiction of the CRC.
Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Caan if he felt rural water rights were an issue worth discussing and, if so, if the CRC would want to be involved in the discussion. Mr. Caan stated that the CRC was interested in water-related issues; however, it did not have the authority to address rural water rights issues. Those issues tended to be the interest of the commissioners and staff as a part of their public and professional lives, but the statutes did not allow the CRC to interfere. He reiterated that there was interest, and he had been following those issues in the current legislative session, but the CRC was not directly involved. Ms. Leslie conceded that the CRC did not have authority, but she commented that she would like to have a mechanism to discuss those water rights issues in a public forum and she felt the CRC should be a part of that process.
Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, spoke in support of S.B. 216 and said the bill in its current state included the TRPA and the CRC; however, as water was such an important issue to the state of Nevada, he felt that the bill should be returned to its original form in which several other entities were included. He noted that there were other entities that might benefit from oversight such as the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). There were other issues related to the SNWA, such as the correlation and relationship between the SNWA and the CRC, the purchase of hydropower, the purchase of utilities, and how the entities conducted themselves within those compacts.
Senator Washington opined that S.B. 216 provided for legislative oversight that was necessary and important. He noted that while the Legislature had budgetary oversight over the CRC, there were policy issues with which the Legislature should be involved to ensure fiscal responsibility. He reiterated that he felt the bill should be returned to its original state as there were relationships, mingling of board members, and issues that pertained to the entities collectively that needed to be addressed.
In conclusion, Senator Washington stated emphatically that it was the Legislature’s prerogative and responsibility to oversee important state issues, such as water, which would become even more important as the state continued to grow, and he urged the Committee to support S.B. 216.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the Senator’s mention of the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) and asked if there had been discussion regarding oversight of the TMWA. Senator Washington indicated that he had introduced another bill that included the TMWA; however, that bill had died in committee. He added that when proposing the bill, he had been unaware of the many “players” that would be involved, and it had been an “eye opening” experience; however, he felt it was important to have legislative oversight of the water authorities. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that Senator Washington supported S.B. 216 as drafted but was suggesting other entities be added to the bill. Senator Washington indicated that was correct.
Lawrence Jacobsen, former Nevada State Senator, representing Carson, Douglas, and Lyon Counties, addressed the Committee. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that he had served on the Marlette Lake Water System Advisory Committee and the oversight committee for the TRPA for several years. He said that Marlette Lake was unrelated to any other entity in Nevada or California. It was a unique system and provided a great benefit to the state in regard to the fish hatcheries.
Mr. Jacobsen concluded by stating that the Marlette Lake system should be kept separate from the CRC and the TRPA as their missions were completely unrelated.
Steve Teshara, Executive Director of the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, and Cochairman of the Lake Tahoe Transportation & Water Quality Coalition, submitted written testimony to be included in the record (Exhibit J).
As there were no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 216 closed and opened the hearing on S.B. 46.
Senate Bill 46: Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to carry out Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S-174)
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented S.B. 46 and indicated that he had served as staff to the Tahoe oversight committee. He provided a brief history of the bill and said that in 1997, a presidential forum had been convened in the Tahoe Basin. One of the products of that forum was a new partnership approach to compiling an environmental improvement program in the Basin. The participants in that program would be the federal government, the states of California and Nevada, the local governments in the Basin, and representatives from private enterprise in the Basin. In 1999 the Legislature enacted legislation to provide for the periodic issuance of up to $53.2 million in bonds to implement the Environmental Improvement Program in the Basin between 2001 and 2007. Senate Bill 46 was a recommendation from the Legislature’s oversight committee and would provide a $9.87 million installment for the upcoming biennium. Mr. Welden indicated there were other individuals present who would address the specific details of the bill.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, spoke in favor of S.B. 46 and indicated that she had coordinated Nevada’s Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) and S.B. 46 authorized the continuation of authority for bonds to continue that program. Ms. Wilcox referred to page 3 of the bill, which said, “The general obligation bonds . . . may only be issued with the prior approval of the Legislature or the Interim Finance Committee and pursuant to a schedule established by the Administrator of the Division of State Lands.” Ms. Wilcox explained that every two years she came to the Legislature with a summary of the completed projects as well as a request and a schedule of projects for the following two years.
Ms. Wilcox indicated that she had given the Committee a handout (Exhibit K) detailing the history of the EIP and the efforts that had been made in that program. She also supplied the Committee with a report (Exhibit L) that summarized the projects. The second page of Exhibit L outlined the status of the projects approved during the 1999 Legislative Session, the third page outlined the projects approved during the 2001 Legislative Session, and the fourth page outlined the projects requested for funding in the current session.
Ms. Wilcox explained that the projects currently requested consisted of $1 million for the shorezone and stream restoration projects; $700,000 for the continuation of the forest restoration project; $400,000 for the Sand Harbor Visitor Center project; and $7.3 million for the continuation of the water quality, erosion control, and stream restoration and enhancement projects carried out pursuant to grants and project agreements. The final three pages of Exhibit L listed completed projects and future projects.
Ms. Wilcox pointed out that 30 projects had been completed; 9 projects were scheduled for completion in 2003; 13 projects were currently in the design phase and were scheduled for completion in 2004; 12 projects were ongoing; and 17 projects were scheduled to start at a later time but would be completed before the conclusion of the program.
Ms. Wilcox opined that Lake Tahoe had greatly benefited from the EIP and the close cooperation of the Division of State Lands, the Division of State Parks, the Division of Forestry, the Division of Wildlife, and the Department of Transportation.
James Lawrence, Lake Tahoe Program Coordinator, Division of State Lands, addressed the Committee and said that he had served as the team leader for the Nevada Tahoe Resource Team, which had been formed in 1999 to implement the EIP projects. Mr. Lawrence indicated that one of the greatest challenges in completing the projects was the short construction season allowed by weather at Lake Tahoe. The short season meant that while projects were being scheduled for construction, other projects were being planned in order to take advantage of as much time as possible. Mr. Lawrence reported that the current year would be the most ambitious construction schedule to date with a stream restoration project, three erosion control projects, the continuing work on the forest restoration project, and the highway repairs being done by the Nevada Department of Transportation. S.B. 46 would allow that work to continue, and Mr. Lawrence urged passage of the bill.
Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, and Vice Chairman, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, spoke in support of S.B. 46. He requested the support of the Committee for S.B. 46 and explained that the Division of State Parks managed more than 7,000 acres in the Tahoe Basin and resource management was extremely important. Mr. Perock commented on the health of the forest in previous years and said there had been much improvement, which was also important to the water quality of Lake Tahoe. He pointed out that the Division was involved in projects that supported recreational activities as well, including the Sand Harbor Visitor Center project, which had been deemed high priority by the Division. Mr. Perock said he was honored to be a part of the TRPA governing board and said the TRPA strongly supported S.B. 46, which would allow the EIP projects to continue.
Steve Teshara, Executive Director of the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, and Cochairman of the Lake Tahoe Transportation & Water Quality Coalition, submitted two letters to be included in the record (Exhibit M and Exhibit N).
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any other further questions or comments, there being none, he indicated the Committee would take action on the bill.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, interjected that the Committee needed to make a decision regarding some changes made during the budget closings for the Division of State Parks, the Division of Forestry, and the TRPA. The Division of State Parks and the Division of Forestry had added positions that would be supported by the interest earnings from the EIP project bonds. Through a budget amendment, there had been a proposal to finance those positions in the upcoming biennium with Lake Tahoe license plate revenues. The Subcommittee had not approved that option but had approved utilizing the interest earnings from 1996 Tahoe bonds. Mr. Stevens informed the Committee that decision would require a statutory change. In addition, it had been suggested that the interest revenues from the 1996 Tahoe bonds be used within the TRPA budget for threshold research, which would also require a statutory change.
Mr. Stevens requested that the Committee decide whether to process a new bill with the necessary changes or amend the current bill to allow interest revenue from 1996 Tahoe bonds to be utilized per the budget closings in the Division of State Parks, the Division of Forestry, and the TRPA.
Chairman Arberry contemplated the time frame and indicated that the best option might be to amend S.B. 46. Mr. Stevens interjected that to implement the budget closings, legislation would have to be passed or the additional positions would not have a funding source. He repeated that the Committee should decide whether to amend S.B. 46 to allow for that interest revenue to be used or process a new bill.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the Senate would concur with the amendments to S.B. 46. Mr. Stevens indicated that the Senate had closed the budgets in the same fashion, necessitating the amendment to S.B. 46.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 46.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Goldwater, Mrs. Gibbons, Mr. Parks, and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 173: Exempts certain licensing boards from State Budget Act and certain provisions governing financial administration. (BDR 31-506)
Andrew Clinger, Deputy Director, Budget Division, explained that S.B. 173 would exempt certain licensing boards from the State Budget Act and certain other provisions. In the 2001 Legislative Session, the Legislature had approved the removal of vocational boards, such as the State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, from the requirements of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353.005 and 353A.020 of the State Budget Act. Instead, the boards were required to engage a certified public accountant (CPA) to audit their financial records and submit an audit report to the Legislative Auditor and the Chief of the Budget Division.
Mr. Clinger indicated that two vocational boards had inadvertently been left out of the bill. S.B. 173 corrected that error by proposing to add the Board for the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and the Board of Private Investigators to the aforementioned exclusions and requirements.
Mr. Clinger briefly outlined the bill and said that Section 1 would exclude those boards from the State Budget Act; Section 2 would exclude them from the requirements to develop written procedures to carry out a system of internal accounting and administrative controls; Section 3 would exclude them from the requirements to submit reports on their system of internal controls; Section 4 would exclude them from review by the Executive Branch internal auditors; and Section 5 would require the aforementioned CPA audit and subsequent report.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions or comments, there being none, he declared the hearing on S.B. 173 closed. He indicated that Mr. Stevens would explain a handout (Exhibit O) being given to the Committee regarding potential General Fund actions.
Mr. Stevens said that Exhibit O showed the status of the General Fund with respect to the decisions made by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The current fiscal year was presented on the first page, while FY2004 and FY2005 were detailed on the second page (Exhibit O).
Mr. Stevens began with an explanation of the first page and said the top of the first page showed the estimated resources for the General Fund, including the Governor’s recommended revenue enhancements and potential Ways and Means revenue actions. There had been a transfer from the Rainy Day Fund to the General Fund of $100 million, the bill had originally requested a transfer of $135 million, but the Committee had chosen to leave $35 million in the fund. The Committee had also eliminated the revenue enhancements as that legislation had not been passed in the 2003 Legislative Session. Additionally, the Budget Division had estimated that their one-time 3 percent budget cuts would be $10.8 million less than originally projected.
Mr. Stevens noted that the lower portion of the page listed expenses. The first section under expenses showed the Governor’s recommended budget costs and the rest of the items were additional costs. The fiscal impact of the bills passed as of May 17, 2003, was a General Fund savings of $2.7 million. Mr. Stevens indicated that much of that savings was due to the change in the effective date of the contingency fund appropriation restoration. The effective date had been changed from FY2003 to FY2004, and the impact of that decision was shown on the second page.
Mr. Stevens noted that there were additional expenses, such as a $3.1 million shortfall in the Distributive School Account (DSA), an additional $1 million for the cost of the 2003 Legislative Session, and a few smaller items. Mr. Stevens said with the projected revenues and expenses, the General Fund balance would be approximately $99 million, which was slightly below the 5 percent ending fund balance requirement of $100.9 million.
Continuing to the second page of Exhibit O, Mr. Stevens indicated that the revenues and expenses were outlined for FY2004 and FY2005. The top portion listed the revenues, including the Governor’s recommended revenue enhancements, and the potential Ways and Means revenue actions. He pointed out that the legislation regarding vital statistics had been passed, which would create additional revenue for the state General Fund. Mr. Stevens indicated that the Governor’s revenue enhancements had been eliminated on the handout (Exhibit O) in order to allow the Committee to ascertain the amount of additional revenue that would be needed if the Governor’s revenue package was not passed.
Mr. Stevens continued his explanation and noted that the Committee had transferred funds from the University System estate tax revenue to the General Fund and then provided a General Fund appropriation for that purpose to the University System. Legislation had been passed to make the Division of Financial Institutions self-funded, and approximately $2 million had been removed from the General Fund in each year of the biennium as that money, which had been projected to go into the General Fund, would be used to fund the Division itself.
The bottom of the page outlined expenses, and Mr. Stevens indicated that the first section was the Governor’s recommended budget, while the second section was the budget actions taken by the Legislature. The fiscal impact of the bills passed was $8.2 million the first year and $111,000 the second year. He said that approximately $8 million of that $8.2 million was the contingency fund appropriation restoration he had referred to earlier. The budget closings had been less than the Governor’s recommendation by approximately $32.6 million in the first year and $31.7 million in the second year of the biennium; however, that did not include the University System budget closing or the DSA closing.
Mr. Stevens said an additional $46.3 million in the first year and $42.7 million in the second year had been added in the University System budget closing. He indicated those additional funds would be offset by revenue that would be deposited to the General Fund in the approximate amounts of $45.8 million in the first year and $43.4 million in the second year. Overall, the University System closing was approximately $200,000 less than the Governor’s recommended budget. Approximately $47 million in the first year and $128 million in the second year had been added to the DSA budget during the closing. Mr. Stevens indicated there were a few other items: the Committee had added approximately $1.7 million per year to the retired employees group insurance, an additional $2.8 million per year had been necessary for the commingling of the state and non-state employees group insurance.
Mr. Stevens pointed out that the next item on the handout (Exhibit O) was the Department of Information Service closing, which generated a savings of approximately $932,000 the first year and $1.2 million the second year of the biennium. The budget closings for the Department of Corrections had not included the transitional housing, but it was estimated the transitional housing would be added by the Interim Finance Committee in the amount of $2.1 million the second year of the biennium. The $2 million yearly transfer to the disaster relief fund had been eliminated.
Mr. Stevens directed the Committee’s attention to the bottom line of Exhibit O and said the $459,379,483 shown in the first year and the $1,059,802,893 shown in the second year of the biennium was the amount of money that would have to be raised to balance the budget and provide for the minimum 5 percent fund balance. Mr. Stevens pointed out that the figure for the 5 percent minimum fund balance would increase slightly as the closings done by the Committee had added money to the Governor’s recommended budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that if the Legislature chose not to transfer $50 million to the Rainy Day Fund the amount in the second year of the biennium would be approximately $1.09 billion rather than $1.59 billion. Mr. Stevens agreed and commented that there was one other item to consider, which was S.B. 191, an educational bill that had not yet been heard in the Assembly. The fiscal note attached to that bill was approximately $13 million and that had not been reflected in Exhibit O.
Assemblyman Griffin clarified that S.B. 191 was the bill with the largest possible impact and questioned whether there were other bills or other budget closings that could affect the numbers. Mr. Stevens indicated that the Committee had closed every budget with the exception of the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget, which was built into The Executive Budget. He said if there were any changes due to that budget, they would be slight and would not affect the amounts stated, although passage of S.B. 191 and the removal of the Rainy Day Fund repayment would affect those amounts.
As Mr. Steven’s presentation was completed, Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would discuss the next item of business, A.B. 264.
Assembly Bill 264 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-62)
Ms. Giunchigliani reminded the Committee that A.B. 264 had been discussed previously. She suggested that the bill be amended to comply with the decision made by the Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources regarding the replacement of stipends with a one-fifth retirement credit. She pointed out that the credit would actually save money. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that a pool of $9 million from the stipend funding would be used for bargaining a skills-based salary schedule. She added that the extra school days would be removed from the bill, while language from S.B. 393 regarding probation officers and their right to inspect would be added, as well as language from S.B. 457. Ms. Giunchigliani said those changes would remove the fiscal note.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 264 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
· REMOVAL OF SECTIONS 12, 18, AND 70.
· ADDITION OF THE ONE-FIFTH RETIREMENT CREDIT.
· ADDITION OF LANGUAGE TO ALLOW SKILLS-BASED SALARY SCHEDULE NEGOTIATIONS.
· ADDITION OF LANGUAGE FROM S.B. 393 AND S.B. 457.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. ANDONOV VOTING NO. (Mr. Goldwater and Mrs. Gibbons were not present for the vote.)
As there was no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:09 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Susan Cherpeski
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: