MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
April 30, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
Assemblyman Jason D. Geddes, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Julie Walker, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation
Rick Bennett, Lobbyist, University of Nevada Las Vegas
The Honorable Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
The Honorable Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Eighth Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada
The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Second Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada
William A. S. Magrath II, Lobbyist, Washoe County Access to Justice Foundation
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
David Smith
Shari O’Donnell, Lobbyist, Plaster Development Co., Inc. dba Signature Homes
Anne Gerken
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Corrective Actions, Federal Facilities and Waste Management Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Dr. Roger Sholl, Laboratory Director, Alpha Analytical, Inc.
John Kobza, Laboratory Director, Sierra Environmental Monitoring, Inc.
Rober Bremner, Administrator, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry
Tom Czehowski, Chief Administrative Officer, Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN)
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Nevada COPS, Las Vegas Police Protective Association
Julie Bertuleit, Senior Executive, Vaccine Account Manager, GlaxoSmithKline
Pat Coward, Lobbyist, GlaxoSmithKline
Ron W. Sparks II, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, University and Community College System of Nevada
The meeting will come to order at 8:09 a.m. Please give us a status report.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I have distributed a progress report (Exhibit C) to the committee. As of April 28 the subcommittees, committee, and staff have reviewed 408 budgets in the Executive Budget. Prior to beginning closings this week the subcommittees and full committee had closed 209 of the 408 budgets, or 51.2 percent of the budgets. There were 113 capital improvements recommended by the Governor of which 104 have been reviewed by the subcommittee. Additional information has been distributed concerning Senate Bill (S.B.) 51, forwarded by Senator Rhoads, which extends the date in which the State is committed to issue bonds for the project in Elko County. Follow-up information has also been provided for S.B. 242 on the interstate compact on juveniles. The fiscal note for that legislation is $82,000 per year.
SENATE BILL 51: Extends date by which certain prerequisites must be satisfied for State Board of Finance to issue general obligation bonds to assist in construction of California Immigrant Trail Interpretive Center in Elko County (BDR S-674)
SENATE BILL 242: Makes changes pertaining to Interstate Compact on Juveniles. (BDR 5-1198)
SENATE BILL 314: Requires Department of Taxation to collect and report data concerning electronic commerce that is conducted in this state. (BDR 32‑36)
Senator Raggio:
I want to clarify that this is a one-time study to determine what can be anticipated insofar as electronic commerce is concerned. I think the fiscal note envisioned this as having an effect on future biennia.
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation:
If this is a one-time study, the fiscal note will have to be amended to reduce it to a one-time $25,000 cost to have the state work with the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) to conduct the study.
Senator Raggio:
Yes, that will allow us to process the bill. Mr. Bennett, has the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) conducted such a study?
Rick Bennett, Lobbyist, University of Nevada Las Vegas:
A study was completed last year entitled “Measuring Factors that Influence the Success of Internet Commerce” by the faculty of the College of Business at UNLV. Based on the language in S.B. 314, I do not believe this is going to answer the questions that you are asking in that bill, although UNR and UNLV should both be considered resources to the Department of Taxation in gathering data.
Senator Raggio:
I will take a motion to do pass S.B. 314 with the amendment to indicate it is a one-time study.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AS A ONE-TIME STUDY NOTING THE REVISED FISCAL IMPACT OF $25,000 AND DO PASS S.B. 314.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 106 (1st Reprint): Provides for imposition of certain fees in certain actions and proceedings filed in courts of this state. (BDR 2-614)
Senator Raggio:
This bill was referred to this committee having been recommended for do pass by the Committee on Judiciary.
The Honorable Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court:
This bill does not increase filing fees for the first plaintiff in an action; however, it does add a $30 filing fee in multi-party cases for each additional plaintiff named beyond the first plaintiff to the lawsuit as well as jointly-answering defendants. The filing fee remains the same for a defendant answering individually. The bill allows the recovery of these fees as costs to the prevailing party at the conclusion of a case. The funds would be disbursed as follows: $8 to the district court; $7 to Legal Services, broken down as $5 for the care of indigent persons in representation and $2 for senior citizens; $10 to the State Court Administrator to address the state technology needs; and $5 for senior judges.
Senator Raggio:
Are the present fees for filing being augmented, or are these just for the additional party?
Justice Agosti:
These are only for additional parties.
Senator Raggio:
What happens when you name John Does I through XXX?
Justice Agosti:
There is no charge because these are fictitious names, but as parties are brought in the fee would be due and can be assessed in favor of the prevailing party at the conclusion of the lawsuit.
Senator Raggio:
Does this apply in both district court and the Supreme Court?
Justice Agosti
It is a $50 filing fee for appeals and rehearing requests in the Supreme Court.
Senator Raggio:
Is that an increase in the present filing fee for the Supreme Court?
Justice Agosti:
Yes, it is.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts:
I have given you a handout Exhibit D which is a summary of S.B. 106. I have given you a copy of a proposed amendment as well, section 2, subsection 1(c) (Exhibit E). The fees are distributed as outlined by Chief Justice Agosti. Section 3 adds a $50 filing fee for technology for the Supreme Court, and section 4 is the effective date. There is an expectation that this fee will raise approximately $1 million. Approximately $250,000 would stay in the local courts, and, depending on the size, legal aid would get approximately $200,000; statewide technology purposes would be allocated $300,000; and the retired justices and judges duty fund would get about $150,000.
Senator Raggio:
What is the shortfall in that fund for senior judges?
Mr. Titus:
That shortfall is approximately $41,000 for fiscal year (FY) 2003. The shortfall over the biennium would be $60,000.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court:
On the senior judge issue, we have had Judge Brennan handling the Venetian trial since the summer of 2002. It was previously assigned to me, but with the magnitude of that case and the multiple parties involved, it would have shut down the entire department and I would not have been able to do criminal cases. That case has absorbed our resources, and it is the reason for the shortfall.
Senator Cegavske:
How much more work will the added fee produce, or is the technology going to absorb the labor?
Justice Gibbons:
I have discussed that with Shirley Parraguirre, the Clark County Clerk, and to a very small extent, technology would absorb it. We have already discussed some mechanism that could be put in place if the Legislature passes this bill to simplify it for the clerk’s office. When the number of parties and previous fees paid are identified, there is a calculation formula there to accept the filing fees.
Senator Cegavske:
We received a letter from Elizabeth Gonzalez (Exhibit F). She is concerned about the indigent population who do not have the money for the filing fees. What happens if someone cannot pay?
Justice Gibbons:
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 12.015 allows parties who are indigent to have their fees waived by the court.
Senator Tiffany:
Would any of these funds be available to offset the General Fund?
Mr. Titus:
All of these funds are over and above the request in our budget. Assembly Bill (A.B.) 29 raises a significant amount of funds for the Supreme Court, enough to offset the requests in our budgets.
ASSEMBLY BILL 29 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning administrative assessments and forfeiture of bail. (BDR 14-130)
Senator Tiffany:
Mr. Ghiggeri, can you tell me how much General Fund was requested out of the Supreme Court budget?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The Governor’s recommendation for the 2003-2005 biennium General Fund just for the Supreme Court budget is approximately $6.7 million each year. There is also $3.7 million per year in court administration assessments.
Justice Gibbons:
A. B. 29 would increase those assessments by about $1.5 million.
The Honorable Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Supreme Court:
The senior judge program is the best bargain the judiciary will ever bring to you. A senor judge gets paid only for the time he or she is in court. No extra buildings are needed because the courtrooms available are used, and usually the present staff is able to accommodate the senior judge. The cost for one senior judge to work part-time is $40,000 or $50,000, while the cost would be $350,000 or $400,000 without them. In the past, we had several thousand dollars available for the senior program. Two things have changed. First, we used to have two and three seniors available to assist us. Now we have seven. In addition to that, the demand for seniors is very significant. This program will provide around $150,000, which will give us a lot more than you would realize. We have also found that seniors are uniquely suited and very effective for special needs cases, such as construction defect programs in Las Vegas. We have hundreds of these major cases, and senior judges meet the needs of handling the cases without disrupting and backlogging the regular judges’ calendars.
The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada:
Without the assistance of the senior judges in the Eighth Judicial District Court, we will be unable to function in the future. We carry between a 2,000 and 3,000 caseload. We also have cases that come before us that represent both the safety and health of members of our community in the construction defect cases that take months of trial time from a judge. If we are not able to rely upon senior judges, we will not meet the needs of either those individuals involved in the construction defect cases or the individuals with cases on the everyday calendars.
Senator Raggio:
I believe we are satisfied that the senior judge program is a valuable program. What is the reaction of the members of the bar as to the fee increases?
Judge Siatta:
I can speak for the construction defect division where we will be getting significant dollars because of the number of participants. The participants are so relieved that their cases can get through the court that they are not at all affected nor concerned about the increased filing fees.
The Honorable James W. hardesty, Second Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada:
We ran this issue by our Bench Bar Committee, Family Bench Bar, and Washoe County Bar Association, and they all support the program.
Senator Raggio:
We have S.B. 209 that would add $225,000 for salaries for senior judges in the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts. If we pass this, do we still need S.B. 209?
SENATE BILL 209: Makes appropriation to Retired Justice Duty Fund for salaries for senior judges to increase coverage in Second and Eighth Judicial Districts and for emergency requests in smaller counties of Nevada. (BDR S-616)
Justice Rose:
It would depend on how much money you wanted to provide to the senior program. The minimum we see is $400,000 to $500,000.
Judge Hardesty:
I would like to comment on the Second Judicial District. Their use of senior judge money over the past 2 years has been diminutive. We have only used $1,000 of $30,000 each of the last 2 years of the allocated funds for the senior judge money. In the last report, the Second Judicial District’s caseload went up 23 percent in 1 year. We are expecting a 21-percent increase this year. There is no way we can continue to operate our district without senior judge support, and we have had almost none the last 2 years. We must have this assistance. The Second Judicial District is not adequately funded for senior judge programs.
Senator Raggio:
I will ask our staff to work with Mr. Titus to reach an accommodation on this. We may look at these two bills to determine the total amount needed to be considered for this purpose. We recognize the value of the program. What is your explanation for the fact that it has not been utilized in the Second Judicial District; is that because of lack of dollars?
Chief Judge Hardesty:
The Second Judicial District realized the Eighth Judicial District was in trouble, so we passed it to them; however, we can no longer continue to operate on that basis.
William A. S. Magrath II, lobbyist, Washoe County Access To Justice Foundation:
I am here today as the President of the Washoe County Access to Justice Foundation. This is an organization created under the Supreme Court guidance and under their rules. It is designated to serve the unmet needs of thousands of Nevadans who cannot afford a lawyer. I am here to focus on the $7 portion of this that allocates $5 to indigent and $2 to senior causes. Our courts are flooded with “pro per” litigants; those are people representing themselves without an attorney. The judge must then try to explain the system to them.
I am not sure how many people in this room can afford to pay $250 or $300 per hour for a lawyer, much less those below the poverty level. The result is the litigants in many cases who cannot handle their own cases are bitter when they leave the courtroom. We are creating a class of people who have lost respect for the judicial system. Some lawyers are volunteering for pro bono work, but not enough. It is a growing need. I would like to see funding provided to judges for indigent parties so the system can work faster. This would make the system more efficient, because what takes a lawyer 5 minutes to handle in the courtroom takes the judge 20 minutes to explain to a confused litigant. With respect to senior judges, justice delayed is justice denied. We need our experienced senior judges funded to come back. Another issue that this bill would address is the technology needed to better inform the people using the legal system. At the conclusion of a legal matter, the loser pays this expense, which funds these worthwhile programs.
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services:
I am speaking on behalf of the legal aid programs that would benefit from the sections of the bill providing for $7 of the filing fee, including $5 for the indigent and $2 for seniors. The beneficiaries of this filing fee will be Clark County Legal Services in Clark County and the Senior Law Project in Clark County. In Washoe County, it will be Washoe Legal Services and the Senior Law Project in Washoe County. In the 15 rural counties of the state, it will be Nevada Legal Services. I am speaking as the director of an organization that is not going to receive the bulk of these funds at all, but speaking on behalf of all of us who have committed our legal careers to legal services for the indigent and senior and access to justice. This bill is essential for our life and ability to bring justice to the indigent and seniors of the state. These fees will additionally assist self-help centers in all the counties.
Andrew list, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties:
Counties pay for all district court costs, including technological upgrades, except for judges salaries. The Nevada Association of Counties supports this bill. The district courts would receive $8 of the increased fees for technological upgrades.
Senator Raggio:
I believe someone was going to address how the filing fees compare with other states, and also how the trial court filing fees compare with other states.
Mr. Titus:
I do not have the information on the trial courts. In the area of other supreme courts, the range is from $50 to $300 or $400. There are a dozen states that have fees between $200 and $250 for Supreme Court filings.
Senator Raggio:
Please make that information available to the staff, and see whether you can get information as to how proposed filing fees would compare with the other western states.
Mr. Titus:
I will do that.
Senator Raggio:
The hearing is closed on S.B. 106. I did indicate that staff will work with you on some accommodation on the two bills we are talking about to see whether adjustments can be made.
SENATE BILL 100 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing common-interest communities. (BDR 10-29)
Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11:
This bill unanimously passed out of the Committee on Commerce and Labor and the reason I am here today is for review of the fiscal note. The bill creates a commission for homeowner associations. The Governor would appoint five members to a commission. The commission would react and hear problems between those living in the association and the boards governing the association. It would sit in the capacity of arbitrator or judge.
The industry, homeowners, property managers, and realtors are here today in support. Two years ago another similar bill was passed; the money was there at the time, and we have even more money there now. Each unit of a homeowner’s association pays $3 per year into the ombudsman’s account. That is the money used to fund this commission. The ombudsman’s office has been effective in the past, but the ombudsman has no authority and cannot make a resolution to problems in homeowner’s associations, so this commission will have the power to come in and remove board members and discipline people in homeowner’s associations. That is how the money will be used.
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry:
We are very supportive of the bill. We have not been able to assist and resolve complaints within the constraints of the ombudsman’s office. With the passage of S.B. 100, that will change. The commission for common-interest communities will assist greatly in an objective party hearing disputes regarding aspects of NRS 116 compliance in following those requirements.
Senator Raggio:
You provided a brief history and also a revised agency fiscal note. Apparently, in 1997 the office of the ombudsman was created and that required additional staff, a full-time ombudsman, and a half-time administrative assistant. In 1999, the duties of the ombudsman were revised and there were additional responsibilities. Then 2.5 staff members were added at that time to the office. Is that correct?
Ms. Anderson:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
This bill creates the commission as Senator Schneider referenced, and you now have a fiscal note here. Would you review that for the record? Why do you need some additional staff when staff has been added to deal with the problems?
Ms. Anderson:
The addition of the commission involves staffing to run the commission as far as scheduling and making all arrangements and taking care of legal requirements for the open meeting law, both pre- and post-aspects, described in the position of administrative assistant III at the bottom of the first page of the revised fiscal note. In addition, S.B. 100 gives the office of the ombudsman additional authority to assist in resolving complaints, and now the ombudsman is the person who answers all questions and phone calls dealing with problems. There is a program officer I who is in charge of the alternative dispute resolution and mediation program. He answers questions and tries to mediate informally.
The additional staff in this fiscal note are program field officers who will be available and assigned as requested. They will visit homeowner association meetings to review records and be proactive in the community. We cannot meet the current requests for help. There is support staff existing now, but they are not people who can answer questions and listen to the kinds of problems and issues encountered. In the fiscal note on page 1, there is an administrative assistant II position, necessary to handle the additional workload for the claims that will be created in dealing with the subsidization of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that is proposed in S. B. 100, and that will be further defined by a regulation adopted if this becomes law.
Senator Raggio:
You estimated in the fiscal note some 300 claims can be assumed to occur, and there is a cap of $500 on these claims. What kind of claims are these?
Ms. Anderson:
These are disagreements, disputes, often between a homeowner and a board, on how something is being handled or not handled. Those generally are the claims that we will try to get the parties together, through the ombudsman office or talk separately to each side and reach some resolution and compromise. Sometimes that does not happen. In NRS 116, before someone can go to a civil lawsuit, they must go through an alternative dispute or mediation process, and that is part of trying to avoid a court situation lawsuit.
Senator Raggio:
Senator Schneider, what would be an example of some kinds of claims that would be filed against a homeowner’s association that would be mediated in this manner?
Senator Schneider:
One example might be a leaky pipe in your condominium unit in which the internal pipes are the responsibility of the condominium association. Many times the board members will say they will not pay for that. People begin fighting over that, and it runs into thousands of dollars. Another example: people leave their garage doors open beyond the accepted time and they get fined, or they leave their garbage cans out. Those seem like minor problems, but they evolve into great battles in these homeowner’s associations. In Las Vegas in particular, almost every home built is in an association. The people moving in from out‑of‑state do not understand homeowner’s associations. They do not understand that you cannot paint your house a certain color, you must keep the lawn cut, or you could be sued or fined if there is a brown spot in your yard. We are trying to alleviate the craziness.
Senator Raggio:
What is the $500 payment? What does that compensate for?
Ms. Anderson:
There is a filing fee and the arbitrators charge an hourly fee. There is a proposed cap per claimant in the fiscal note, and that would be adopted by regulation.
Senator Raggio:
How many positions are necessary?
Ms. Anderson:
There are six positions in the fiscal note, two administrative assistants, two program officers, a compliance audit investigator, and an accounting assistant.
Senator Cegavske:
The concerns of some of the homeowner’s associations who contacted me indicate that there are just a few delegates who cast votes for hundreds of members. They claim that limits the power of voting. I would like an explanation of that.
Senator Schneider:
What you speak of is delegate voting. In large associations, delegates are elected to represent smaller homeowner associations. There is a problem with delegate voting in the eyes of many homeowners. In many cases a delegate is never even voted on by the homeowners. Sometimes delegates are appointed by the board, which then appears they are under the power of the board, and this delegate voting is not for board of directors nor secret written ballots, but for voting on budgets, expense items, and policy items in associations. Many times homeowners feel left out of the mix because of the delegate voting system.
Senator Cegavske:
Is that in the present bill?
Senator Schneider:
That is correct, and I think the chairman is hoping that this commission will help some of the problems go away and we will look at it over the interim.
Senator Raggio:
In your fiscal note, Ms. Anderson, there is a required cost from the Attorney General’s office that is also covered by fees. All of these are covered by the fees, is that correct?
Ms. Anderson:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
None of this budget is General Fund money. This all comes from the fees that were referenced.
Ms. Anderson:
That is correct.
David Smith:
I am on a homeowner’s board and have been involved in construction defect litigation and arbitration. I support this bill.
Shari O’Donnell, Lobbyist, Plaster Development Co., Inc., dba Signature Homes:
Our company builds both multi-family and single-family homes. My position is to maintain a relationship with the homeowners’ associations for up to 10 years after completion of the homes. The bill would ensure that the assessment is set correctly and adequately funded for the bigger expenses. We are obligated under NRS 116 to turn over important documents about the association that are helpful to the association and its future management. The reason I bring these things up is before getting a commission if I, as a developer, failed to pay my assessments, and that came out in an audit, litigation would have to take place to recover. This bill will address two things: one, it will help educate the public and raise the level of our performance; and, two, it will resolve the issues quickly.
Senator Raggio:
This committee is primarily interested in the fiscal note on this, but we appreciate the input.
Mr. Magrath:
I am the past president of the Caughlin Ranch Homeowner’s Association in Reno. I am in full support of S.B. 100.
Anne Gerken, Homeowner and member of the Elk Point Community Association, Lake Tahoe:
I am in full support of S.B. 100 and would willingly pay the $3 or even more. Because of several problems, one having a lien put on my residence, another not being able to view records, I have experienced the ADR process. Though settlement agreements have been reached, there are breaches of the agreements, and now I am pursuing my concerns by contacting the office of the ombudsman. That is why I support S.B. 100, because it would give the ombudsman the authority needed to terminate these problems.
Senator Cegavske:
To clarify my understanding, this is not General Fund money. Is this fiscal note what it will cost them?
Senator Raggio:
This is the new fiscal note as to the new positions that will be required as a result of creating the commission, and staff assures me that we are not dealing with General Fund money. This is all funded by fees, and there is a reserve in the existing budget that should be adequate.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 100 (1st REPRINT).
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 58 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to hazardous materials. (BDR 40-943)
Senator Raggio:
This bill was heard previously in the Committee on Natural Resources and it is here because of a fiscal note.
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Corrective Actions, Federal Facilities and Waste Management Programs, Division of Environmental Protection:
The purpose of S.B. 58 is twofold: Sections 1 through 13 authorize the State Environmental Commission to adopt regulations requiring laboratories, which conduct analysis for hazardous waste and for hazardous waste and regulated substances contaminating soil and water, to be certified. Certification assists the division in assuring that hazardous waste is managed in an appropriate facility and assures that environmental clean-ups are complete. In sections 14, 15, and 16, the commission is authorized to adopt regulations governing above‑ground and over-water petroleum storage tank systems used to supply fuel at a marina. Presently there are no design, construction, or maintenance requirements for above-ground tank systems. Implementation of such requirements is expected to reduce the costs of environmental clean-ups and expenditures from the state petroleum fund. The fiscal note submitted, which is to be supported by fees assessed against the laboratories, is for the cost. There is no General Fund impact, nor fiscal impact on the regulation of the above‑ground tank systems. We encourage your support.
Dr. Roger Sholl, Laboratory Director, Alpha Analytical, Inc.:
We are strongly in support of S.B. 58, including the amendments. There will be no financial impact on the General Fund. The program is currently, and will continue to be, entirely fee-supported.
John Kobza, Laboratory Director, Sierra Environmental Monitoring Inc.:
We are strongly in support of this bill. Currently, a lot of our fees go out‑of‑state to California for certification. We feel the money would be better spent if we retain our fees this state and help our certification program become more well-rounded. This is an important measure that will help us be better as an industry and protect the environment as well.
Senator Raggio:
Will this be consistent with other states?
Mr. Kobza:
Yes. This will bring us more in line with both the other states and the national accreditation program.
Assemblyman Jason D. Geddes, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24
I have worked for several years in the environmental testing and laboratory field in several laboratories. I think this bill will ensure the quality of data that is generated in looking at hazardous waste, and the money we pay for certifications annually will stay in Nevada. This is a good bill with the amendments and I would encourage you to pass it, especially noting that the industry that is being regulated by this is willing to step forward and pay the cost of being regulated.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 58.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 58 (1ST REPRINT).
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will open S.B. 132 (1st Reprint).
SENATE BILL 132 (1st Reprint): Requires licensure of persons engaged in certain activities relating to control of mold. (BDR 53-235)
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial, District No. 10:
The purpose of the bill as initially introduced was to address the problem of our constituents and their homes. This is primarily because, as of April 30, there will be no insurance coverage anywhere in Nevada for mold damage in any residence, unless it is caused by a sudden spread of water that is timely discovered in order to prevent the formation of mold.
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor held extensive hearings on this bill and faced the problems of how to fund the costs of containing mold. I speak from personal experience of having mold in my home, which my insurance company declined to fund costs of repairs, and then cancelled my insurance.
This bill is here today because of a large fiscal note. I realized the Division of Industrial Relations would end up being involved with the bill because it had been determined it is the agency that can best handle the problem. We cannot prevent mold except through diligence by home owners. Mold damage is now uninsurable, so we are all on our own. There must now be a greater awareness by the public of the risk they bear.
Consequently, an industry is starting to burgeon that is somewhat akin to the asbestos fix-it-for-you industry, which was a real money maker for a lot of quacks. The information provided to me indicates a study is needed, a determination of how severe the mold issue is, and people who remediate mold damage must come in to do that. I secured bids from 6 people who held themselves out as being capable of remediating mold. Not one single bid was the same despite my drafting a bid proposal exactly as the protocols outlined by the insurance company. The range in price was enormous. The solutions offered varied greatly. No advanced diplomas, training, or scientific background are required. An individual can just go out and begin to work. It is possible to correctly perform mold remediation without a higher education, but it does take some overarching organization to tell our residents a group of people who the State says passed a standard of training. I am not sure I agree with the fiscal note, but I want it to be presented.
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5:
I understand there has been a fiscal note put on the bill. I was told that the fiscal note is reduced considerably if the Division of industrial Relations can do the work without hiring of new people.
Roger Bremner, Administrator, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry:
The fiscal note submitted on February 7, 2003, was based upon the fact we would be using the existing staff of the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) to perform some of these functions. I have prepared an amended fiscal note, Exhibit G. The bill is amended, if I may read: “The cost of carrying out the provisions of Sections 2 through 28, inclusive, of this act, must be paid from assessments payable by each insurer based upon expected annual expenditures for claims involving damage caused by water intrusion.” That means we must set up an entirely separate assessment on a new set of insurers based on their paid losses for water intrusion. If that is true, then we cannot use any existing staff, funded by an assessment on workers’ compensation insurers. The reason for this is because it anticipates we will be doing a great deal of work in the private sector, an area where we currently do not work at all. We are involved with workplace safety. We are not involved in home-oriented problems. It would require a separate fund on a new set of insurers. We have no start-up funds to do this.
Senator O’Connell:
May I ask what the fiscal note is?
Senator Raggio:
The fiscal note that we have at this time is $437,217 for FY 2004, and $347,776 for FY 2005, with a continuing cost over future biennia of just under $700,000.
Mr. Bremner:
Actually, more than that would be required because we cannot use the resources that are paid for by a different assessment. If we cannot use the worker’s compensation resource, we will require additional resources to perform this function.
Senator Raggio:
What would be the funding source?
Mr. Bremner:
It would come from the new assessment.
Senator Raggio:
When is this required? Are you saying some General Fund would be required?
Mr. Brenmer:
If we cannot use the existing source of funds, the funds would be required from some other source.
Senator Coffin:
I do not recall hearing opposing testimony to the bill, or clarification as to the price of the project in the general hearing or the subcommittee hearings. I do not recall when the fiscal note was put in the book. In January or February, Mr. Bremner said his agency did not want to do this work. We then assumed the contractor’s board would do it. Now it appears that Mr. Bremner is back, although it is not a General Fund cost, the funding would be fee-based.
Senator O’Connell:
The information Senator Coffin has shared with you is correct. Mr. Bremner was not present at the subcommittee hearing. His agency came to mind, however, because of asbestos management, and that is the reason he became involved with the bill. Across the country, there does not seem to be any one agency with information that could be tracked regarding this problem.
L. Tom Czehowski, Chief Administrative Officer, Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry:
The Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section provides safety and industrial hygienist specialists to inspect facilities to enforce safety laws and regulations. In addition, they investigate complaints, referrals, catastrophic situations, fatalities, and discrimination hearings. We have neither the staff nor the money to initiate a program dealing with mold certification.
Senator Raggio:
How many positions would be required?
Mr. Czehowski:
In the fiscal note the positions would include one administrative assistant, one industrial hygienist, and two positions in the Reno District Office. In the Las Vegas-Henderson Office, one administrative assistant and two industrial hygienists are requested.
Senator Raggio:
Is there a revised fiscal note?
Mr. Czehowski:
Mr. Bremner and I were talking about a revised fiscal note. When we originally looked at this fiscal impact for the bill, we were looking at it as being funded by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) assessment, which has since changed. This fiscal note was developed for my staff to fund, and to staff my organization to carry this forward.
Senator Raggio:
We need a revised fiscal note as soon as possible. Please work together on a new fiscal note.
Mr. Bremner:
We will get a new fiscal note as soon as possible, by this Friday.
Senator Coffin:
I think there is a communication breakdown with the result that a situation exists where industry is required to fund the residential problem. Perhaps the agency is under the impression that it has to do the scientific work to determine what threshold levels of exposure are required to make the workplace unsafe. We just wanted to find an agency that would have enough knowledge and experience. The contractor’s board was brought up as competent for residential work. The contractor’s board did not want the responsibility, and I am embarrassed by their position. So the industrial relations agency ended up with it. I hope this will help you to know how your fiscal note should be drawn, and who should be charged. We need to look at the assessment process.
Senator Cegavske:
We need to look at helping the people of Nevada, not just those who have the homes, but also the state. We are paying a lot of money for mold restoration. We must make sure we are helping the people of Nevada by ensuring the people involved in mold remediation are legitimately licensed.
Senator Raggio:
Please work together to bring in a fiscal note as soon as possible. We will close the hearing on S.B. 132 and open the hearing on S.B. 184.
SENATE BILL 184 (1st Reprint): Revises certain provisions governing occupational diseases contracted by police officers. (BDR 53-851)
Senator Mathews:
We will speak to the fiscal note on this bill. I have spoken to Mr. Ghiggeri about a revised fiscal note, and we will talk about that after the testimony. The fire and emergency medical personnel are already included in the bill, and we are asking that police be included to be tested for hepatitis at the beginning of employment.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN):
We ask for support for S.B. 184 in its amended form. This bill provides the same benefits to certain peace officers as A.B. No. 313 of the 71st Legislative Session provided to firemen and police officers. It would provide benefits for hepatitis, a conclusive presumption that hepatitis is an occupational disease for certain firemen and emergency medical attendants. A.B. No. 313 of the 71st Legislative Session established requirements for eligibility for the statutory presumption and required testing of such employees. S.B. 184 provides those same benefits for certain professional peace officers as described under chapters 616 and 617 of NRS. We request this committee incorporate the testimony provided by Senator Nolan and Assemblyman Oceguera in this forum. Police officers are exposed to a variety of situations on a daily basis. According to one survey, approximately 40 percent of the individuals entering the California penal system for the first time tested positive for hepatitis C. That figure may be higher for repeat offenders. This information was obtained from a press release from the Hepatitis Information Network dated October 12, 2000. The fiscal note on the current bill has not been amended to take into consideration the deleted portions of the original bill.
Senator Raggio:
Section 2 of the original bill, which included game wardens and investigators, has been deleted in this reprint.
Mr. Dreher:
That is correct. The original bill also included a proposed amendment to incorporate capital police and others.
Senator Raggio:
Do we have a revised fiscal note from either the Department of Corrections or the Risk Management Division?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
No, we do not.
Mr. Dreher:
Those covered now include police officers and those people meeting the requirement under NRS 617.135. Section 2 requires that the newly hired officers submit to a blood test to screen for hepatitis A and B. It requires them to submit to a blood test for hepatitis C and requires yearly testing for hepatitis C thereafter. Hepatitis types A and B would no longer be screened on a yearly test basis after the initial series of hepatitis B testing is given to the officers. Section 3 allows for the initial testing of hepatitis C to take place between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2004, during the officers’ annual physical examination. It places the responsibility of taking the initial test on the officer. If the officer fails to undergo the preliminary test during the period of time listed in the bill, and subsequently is diagnosed with hepatitis C, the presumption would be rebuttable and not conclusive. We ask for your support in providing this needed legislation to peace officers.
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Nevada COPS, Las Vegas Police Protective Association:
We support this issue. With the amendments that have been made, it reduces the cost factor with regard to the continual testing for A and B. The purpose of the bill is not to add coverage for hepatitis, which is already in place in the statutes. What we are trying to accomplish is the conclusive presumptive, meaning people often do not know when they are exposed and actually contract hepatitis A, B, or C during their employment in law enforcement.
Pat Coward, Lobbyist, GlaxoSmithKline:
We offer an amendment to the bill that was considered and passed in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. On page 3, section 2, subsection 2(b), the current law addresses the issue for paramedics and firefighters to submit to testing every year for hepatitis C, B, and A. Currently, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends no additional testing for persons vaccinated for hepatitis B and A. This proposed amendment offers an option to be vaccinated for hepatitis A and B. If that option is accepted, no further testing is required for hepatitis B and A. It does not change the yearly requirement for testing for hepatitis C.
Senator Raggio:
Are you saying there is another amendment necessary, or are you speaking to the amendment in the bill?
Mr. Coward:
I am speaking to the amendment in the bill.
Julie Bertuleit, Senior Executive, Vaccine Account Manager, GlaxoSmithKline:
The first page of the cost-saving proposal we put together is self-explanatory. I received this data (Exhibit H) from the Las Vegas Fire Department. It is the current cost charged to them by Quest Diagnostics. They are paying $66.54 annually for each of their firefighters tested for A, B, and C. The proposed testing changes indicate a reduction in the first year, and in the second year and thereafter, if they only test for hepatitis C, there is a $45.14 per person savings per year.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 184. We will review Closing List #8 (Exhibit I. The Original is on file in the Research Library.).
W.I.C.H.E Loan & Stipend, Budget Page WICHE-1 (Volume I)
Budget Account 614-2681
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Budget account 2681 provides State General Fund for the cost of professional student slots under the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) program. The first issue of this account concerns the proposed dental federal matching program. The Governor recommends a pilot program for the purpose of obtaining new matching federal funds for dental slots under the Health Care Access Program (HCAP). This program would utilize state funding for two dental slots, and these funds would be matched through funds received through a federal grant administered by the (UNR) Medical School. The funds, both state and federal, would be utilized to reimburse the education costs of selected dental school licensed graduates in exchange for a 2-year practice obligation to serve the medically underserved. Because this program targets licensed graduates, the risks of failure to obtain licensure are minimized. The underserved communities would benefit immediately by the services of the recipients of the program.
During the first hearing of this budget account, the committee requested confirmation from the university medical school that they were in agreement that this program, proposed by the agency, meets the federal grant guidelines. Staff has received that documentation from the university. If the committee approves implementation of this program, staff recommends that the two federal dental slots be taken out of the out-of-state program, but at the cost of the in-state rate of $13,500 each. You can see on page 33 there is a recommendation for the distribution of these slots. If this pilot program is approved, the committee may wish to issue a Letter of Intent to the agency requesting that this pilot program not be built into its 2007 base budget, and require the agency to submit documentation to the 2005 Legislature showing the effectiveness of the program during the upcoming interim.
The second closing issue for this account concerns the Governor’s recommendation to eliminate one student slot in each of the fields of optometry, physical therapy, and veterinary medicine. Staff concurs with the recommendation. The remaining items contain some technical adjustments made by staff to correct the Executive Budget. These were noted during the first hearing for this account, and have been made to match the state funding to the Governor-recommended professional slots. If approved, a savings to the State General Fund of $8,101 in 2004 and $32,851 in 2005 would be realized.
Senator Cegavske:
My concern is there are not enough nursing positions, and there are no nursing teacher instructors. I would rather see something taken away from one of the other areas. Could you tell me what is referred to by the position in mental health?
Ron W. Sparks II, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, University and Community College System of Nevada:
We have the funds appropriated at the in-state program. Our intention is to put together a program that will get us more teaching faculty, potentially moving away from staff nurses and all of this funding going towards that program. The other thing on the regional level, WICHE is putting together a program called the Nevada Education Online Network (NEON) program, which will be bringing programs into the state for higher education degrees in nursing. Our plan is to implement a program that will start working with the nursing faculty situation.
Senator Cegavske:
We have had several discussions about this. I was under the impression that the positions for the instructors would be done this session. What happened?
Mr. Sparks:
We never had any funding for nursing faculty. That was not the plan. The plan was to have staff nurses. However, as we have worked through the process, we have realized that to implement and be more effective, we will look into the nursing faculty situation. We came to the Legislature last year with a program that included faculty nursing. The decision was made that our needs made it more effective for us to go toward the staff nursing. In the interim we have been working with the university system to resolve this situation, and we will be doing some kind of nursing faculty with these funds. If the program works with the dental matching program, we are looking toward bringing in funding for the nursing faculty program as well. Even though it is being done as a pilot program for dental only at this time, there should still be money available through the university system to match up some more money.
Senator Cegavske:
We have no slots at all for teachers, another item that we looked at and talked about. I am extremely disappointed that those are excluded again.
Senator Raggio:
The question is whether that is appropriate for a WICHE program or not.
Senator Cegavske:
In the nursing program we stressed the need for instructors. That is what we are lacking.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the rationale for reducing the veterinary slots by one?
Mr. Sparks:
In order to fit within the guidelines of the budget, we had to cut a slot. Our decision was to cut the slot in the veterinarian area as a result of the HCAP need for dental and nursing community services to the underserved. The veterinary medicine program slot was lower in priority because it does not provide community services. We already have four slots, so the decision was made to reduce the number by one.
Senator Rhoads:
You can get medicine and dentistry in Nevada, but veterinary medicine must be had by going outside the state.
Mr. Sparks:
The program has changed. The dental and nursing positions now have requirements to provide service to the underserved. It is our decision that would be the best place to put our funds because we have such a great need for dental services. Our veterinarians are not required to see the underserved, they are not required to come back and be a part of the HCAP. They are only required to come back and work in the state.
Senator Rawson:
Should we be looking at the pharmacy program? Also, what would be the cost of another veterinary slot?
Mr. Sparks:
It would cost $23,500 in the first year and $48,800 in the second. It continues on with a 4 to 5 percent increase. On the pharmacy question, there is a non‑accredited program, and we are talking to the owners of the program about the potential of working with that program instead of sending students outside the state. The pharmacy slots are designated as healthcare access slots. They are required to go to and be part of the underserved program.
Senator Raggio:
The concern this biennium is a substantial increase in General Fund over previous budgets. It is $875,000 in 2004 and $827,000 in 2005, is that correct?
Ms. Braun:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Before that we had some balance forward. We do not have that now. Every time we add something, it is that much more burden on General Fund.
Senator Rawson:
We were concerned last session that the reserve was taken away to balance the budget; it should be here now, and it is not here. We have two slots in the 3-year program in dentistry. Do you have a recommendation on whether or not we should try to restore the veterinary slot? That program is out-of-state and it is a more expensive program.
Mr. Sparks:
The only way students are getting into the dental program is through the out‑of‑state WICHE program. The same applies for the veterinary program. They are both in group A fields, and there is a requirement and access issue. However, the students who come back through the 3-year program will be required to see the underserved. The veterinarians are not required to see the underserved. The Legislature has commended us on bringing people back to the state, but has denounced us for not putting people in places of need and where there are underserved. That is why we came up with HCAP.
Senator Raggio:
Since we approved the funding for the increased number of dental students at this dental school, what was the final number?
Senator Rawson:
They accept 75 each year, and we just approved those for the next 2 years.
Senator Raggio:
Do we still need all of these slots in the dentistry program?
Ms. Braun:
There are 5 in-state slots recommended each year.
Senator Rawson:
The in-state allotment is part of a program we developed to try to get dentists into Yerington and the other rural areas.
Mr. Sparks:
The HCAP is designed to put people in the underserved areas of need. Whether they go to UNLV or the University of the Pacific, the goal is to meet the needs of the underserved. In response to the out-of-state situation, we are part of the regional compact, and we share resources among the different states. That would be my only concern.
Senator Raggio:
There is a decision to make on the dental federal matching program. Staff indicates if committee approves that program, the five in-state slots remain and two federal dental slots will be taken out of the out-of-state program. Are the costs for the slots remaining in the in-state program $13,500 each?
Ms. Braun:
That is correct, and it is reflected on page 33.
Senator Raggio:
If we adopt the pilot program, there should be a Letter of Intent that it not be built into the base budget for the next biennium, and a report should show the effectiveness of the program. There is a recommendation by the Governor to reduce one slot each in optometry, physical therapy, and veterinary medicine. What kind of interest is there in the veterinary slot?
Mr. Sparks:
It is a high interest area. For the four slots available, we average approximately 20-25 applicants, and we are able to satisfy only 3.
SENATOR RAWSON MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 614-2681 WITH GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATIONS, TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS BY STAFF, AND TO ADD BACK THE VETERINARY SLOT PREVIOUSLY REMOVED, AND IN LIEU OF THAT, TO REMOVE ONE OF THE OUT-OF-STATE DENTAL SLOTS, TO BE DETERMINED BY THE STAFF.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TIFFANY AND CEGAVSKE VOTED NO.)
*****
W.I.C.H.E. Administration, Budget Page WICHE-4 (Volume I)
Budget Account 101-2995
Ms. Braun:
There are no closing issues for this account. The Governor recommends $5823 in each fiscal year for in-state travel. This represents a 35 percent increase over the actual amount spent during FY 2002, and a 54 percent increase over the current work program amount of $3772. During the hearing for this budget account, the committee requested the agency to work with staff to determine any potential cost savings for out-of-state travel. In working with the agency, staff recommends that in-state travel be reduced by $873 in each fiscal year to accurately reflect in-state travel needs for the agency in each year of the biennium. The reduction would provide a total of $4950 for in-state travel for each fiscal year.
SENATOR RAWSON MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-2995 WITH A RECOMMENDED CHANGE IN THE IN-STATE TRAVEL.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
This meeting is adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Julie Walker,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: