MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
March 26, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4406, Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry called the Committee to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 256.
Assembly Bill 256: Makes supplemental appropriation to Consumer Affairs Division of Department of Business and Industry for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
(BDR S-237)
Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, introduced Lorraine Newlon, Management Analyst III. Ms. Jarman-Manning advised the Committee that A.B. 256 addressed the shortfall suffered by the Division in FY2002 and FY2003, based on the removal of the Bureau for Hospital Patients from the Consumer Affairs Division. That action effectively removed $12,498 from the Division’s budget in FY2002, which created a shortfall of $13,004 in FY2003. Ms. Jarman-Manning explained that for FY2002, the Division had approximately $9,000 remaining in unpaid bills, which was the reason A.B. 256 had been requested.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), advised the Committee that backup information had been requested from the Budget Division regarding each of the supplemental appropriations that were recommended in The Executive Budget, and Exhibit C had been received in support of A.B. 256. Mr. Stevens stated the request was for $9,238 as delineated in the exhibit.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there were further questions from the Committee, or further testimony regarding the bill. Hearing none, the Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 256, and opened the hearing on A.B. 91.
Assembly Bill 91: Revises provisions governing regulation of pesticides. (BDR 51-568)
Robert Gronowski, Administrator, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, stated that Section 3 of A.B. 91 would amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 586.200 to require the registration of pesticides by their brand name rather than by their formulation. The bill would also eliminate the exemption that currently existed in the law for the registration of pesticides with the same formulation. Mr. Gronowski explained that the reason for the requested changes was that it would eliminate the many hours expended by Division staff in an attempt to compare labels line-by-line to determine whether pesticides actually met the letter of the law regarding the exemptions; he noted that only about 2 percent of the registered pesticides claimed the same formulation. Mr. Gronowski emphasized that the proposed legislation would simplify the process, would reduce costs, and would probably eliminate future fee increases, as it would eliminate the time currently spent by staff comparing labels.
According to Mr. Gronowski, the Division’s budget was based on fee collection, and the amount of the increase anticipated by the requested change would be approximately $10,000 annually; the funds would be placed into an equipment reserve fund maintained by the Division and used to purchase new pesticide analyzing equipment. Mr. Gronowski explained that new equipment was needed every three to six years in order to analyze the new pesticide formulas that were developed by manufacturers.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Gronowski addressed the changes in Section 6(2) of A.B. 91, which would amend the NRS to allow the excess funds from fee collection to be placed in an account for the disposal of pesticides; that account would be used to offset the costs of the ground water monitoring program. Mr. Gronowski referenced Exhibit D, a report from the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, entitled, “Monitoring for Pesticides in Ground Water in Nevada,” which depicted Nevada’s continuing ground water monitoring program through which the Division monitored ground water throughout the state. If the Division observed any residue buildup in the wells tested, Mr. Gronowski explained that the appropriate restrictions would be put into place or the Division would eliminate the products that were percolating down into the ground water. He reported that no additional revenue would be generated under that section of the bill. Basically, stated Mr. Gronowski, those were the facts regarding what the Division would attempt to accomplish through A.B. 91.
Chairman Arberry stated that the major concern for the Committee was contained in Section 6(2), and he asked for clarification regarding the “separate account” referenced in that section. The Committee wanted to ensure that excess money would revert back to the General Fund rather than remaining in a separate account. Mr. Gronowski explained that the Division maintained a contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and that Agency had advised the Division to encourage school districts to adopt integrated pest management practices to reduce the need for use of pesticides on school grounds. That reduction would lower the amount of pesticides used on those grounds, which would then lower the risk of exposure for the children who utilized the grounds. Mr. Gronowski stated that the separate account referenced in the bill would allow for such programs.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Gronowski to work with LCB staff in the creation of an amendment to A.B. 91 because the Committee would not approve the creation of a separate account by the director of the Division unless excess funds would revert back to the General Fund. Mr. Gronowski replied in the affirmative.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked about the restriction regarding use of pesticides in schools. She noted that in the past, Clark County schools had suffered from ant and mice infestations, and the school district had not been able to spray to control those pests. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the Division advised the school districts regarding pest control. Mr. Gronowski stated the advice to school districts would be to use integrated pest management techniques, which would help reduce the pests without the use of excessive amounts of pesticides. He reported there were techniques that could be used which were less toxic and would not harm the environment while lowering the number of pests on school grounds. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the Division offered advice regarding prevention as well. Mr. Gronowski replied in the affirmative, and noted that the Division promoted use of alternatives such as methods to prevent infestations and use of chemicals that were not toxic. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that during construction it appeared that pests were more prevalent.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there were further questions from the Committee or further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 91. Hearing none, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 130.
Assembly Bill 130: Makes various changes relating to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR 50-569)
Mr. Gronowski said that Section 1 of the bill would amend NRS 561.153 to allow the Department to adopt fees by regulation to cover the costs of any service, product, or publication provided by the Department. The cost of services and products that benefited businesses rather than the general public should be paid by those businesses. Mr. Gronowski explained that currently the Department simply provided the necessary services and products, however, felt that a fee should be collected for that service.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked whether the State Printing Office printed the publications referenced in A.B. 130. Mr. Gronowski replied that most publications were printed through the State Printing Office, and the Department did sustain a cost for that printing. Necessary forms included animal health certificates, which were obtained from the Department and completed by veterinarians in other states and returned to the Department. Further, explained Mr. Gronowski, other services were also provided by the Department, such as businesses that required certification for sales in foreign countries.
Mrs. Chowning asked that LCB staff clarify the publication matter, as it was somewhat confusing regarding which forms were a normal part of the Department’s business, and which forms or publications truly should be paid for by the businesses regulated by the Department.
Mr. Stevens referenced Section 3 of A.B. 130, and explained that change in the law would allow the pesticide fees to be deposited to a non-General Fund budget. Currently, the revenue was deposited to the budget for the Division of Plant Industry, which Mr. Stevens noted was a General Fund budget. There were significant discussions during the 2001 Legislature regarding whether the fees should balance forward, or whether they should be handled in the same manner as other non-General Fund revenues within the Department of Agriculture and other budgets, where General Fund dollars were spent last. Mr. Stevens stated if the fees were placed into a non-General Fund budget account that issue would be moot because they would balance forward.
According to Mr. Stevens, it was important for the Committee to understand exactly how much money was received from pest control fees or registrations, which accounts those fees were placed in, and how much the General Fund was paying for that particular activity versus what was being paid in fees. His recommendation to the Committee was that LCB staff work with the Department of Agriculture in order to address those concerns. If it were the decision of the Committee to process A.B. 130 along with A.B. 91, the Committee would have a complete understanding of the impacts, what would be balanced forward, and what fees versus General Fund would pay for the pest control activities. Chairman Arberry requested that Mr. Gronowski work with LCB staff to review the language of the bill; he stated he would comply with that request.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there were further questions from the Committee or further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 130, and there being none, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 130 closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 183.
Assembly Bill 183: Makes appropriation to Clark County for provision of mental health services in Laughlin. (BDR S-1075)
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, advised the Committee that A.B. 183 would provide an appropriation from the General Fund for a community-based response to address the lack of mental health services in Laughlin, Nevada. Mr. Musgrove stated that John Haldeman, the Executive Director of the Laughlin Family Resource Center (FRC) Coalition, would present testimony to the Committee from Las Vegas.
Mr. Haldeman informed the Committee that Laughlin was an approximately two hour drive south of the Las Vegas valley, and was one of the outlying areas that bordered three states and an Indian reservation. He testified that FRCs were created several years ago by the Legislature, at which time it was mandated that a community-building concept be considered to address the needs of the community. Mr. Haldeman commented that one of the first things the community noted was that there was no day care, no child care, no Head Start Program, or other intervention programs available until a child reached kindergarten. According to Mr. Haldeman, the second and more profound discovery was that the Laughlin area had no mental health services, and had asked the state to consider a rural mental health clinic in Laughlin. Unfortunately, stated Mr. Haldeman, that request had been made a part of The Executive Budget for the past five sessions without success. He believed the cost was prohibitive, and consequently, the state had not established a rural mental health clinic in Laughlin.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Haldeman stated that the community was “not looking for the Calvary to charge across the mountains and save it,” and had garnished public and private funding, along with benefactors to place the first “bandage” on mental health. Mr. Haldeman indicated that Ronald TenBarge, the Executive Director of the American Legacy Foundation, would also address the Committee. He explained that the first bandage consisted of 17 weeks of counseling service, however, that service did not provide for a psychiatrist. Mr. Haldeman remarked that Laughlin was asking the state to be a partner and let the community model a mental health program that would prove to be very cost-effective, based on what had been offered by the community, along with what was being asked of the state. The community had the support of its major industry, the support of Clark County, and with the assistance of the American Legacy Foundation, the community had been able to initiate the process. At the present time, stated Mr. Haldeman, the licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) was seeing approximately 35 people within a period of one week, which was simply the “tip of the iceberg,” and only the most critical cases were being addressed.
Mr. Haldeman indicated that the appropriation requested from the state via A.B. 183 would add a psychiatrist to the mix, and also increase the time spent in the community by the psychologist. That would eliminate the use of primary care physicians in a field in which they were not comfortable, and Mr. Haldeman stated that all medication management was currently being handled by the primary care physician and the LCSW. According to Mr. Haldeman, the community had researched the most cost-effective strategic model plan for mental health, to which the private sector and public employees had contributed. Mr. Haldeman asked Ronald TenBarge, Executive Director of the American Legacy Foundation, to address the Committee.
Mr. TenBarge stated he was with the Department of Health and Human Services, American Legacy Foundation, which was actually an Arizona corporation that serviced the communities of Bullhead City, Arizona, Laughlin, Nevada, and the surrounding regions. Mr. TenBarge indicated that the purpose of the Foundation was to attempt to address the health and social issues of a community, identifying the needs, and collaborating with organizations or services to either establish a program or enhance an existing program that was viewed as necessary to the community. He explained that in a review of the needs assessment of the communities in the Laughlin area, mental health services were found to be either non-existent or very poor. Mr. TenBarge noted that in initial discussions with Mr. Haldeman, the Family Resource Coalition, and the community of Laughlin, the Legacy Board decided to fund a start-up project in Laughlin that would provide mental health services. The American Legacy Foundation had funded the first year’s operation with part-time counseling services.
According to Mr. TenBarge, the Foundation believed that the program would grow and better fulfill the needs of the community, as would be identified for the Committee by other persons who would present testimony. The Foundation recognized the need, and Mr. TenBarge believed that the method to address the need would be a major challenge; he noted that standard treatment programs did not always work for every community. The program in Laughlin had been modified to best fit the community, and the Foundation was in support of the program financially, however, explained Mr. TenBarge, the Foundation did not offer multiyear grants. The Foundation would certainly observe the program in subsequent years to ascertain how the program was functioning and whether it had achieved the intended needs.
Testifying next before the Committee was Gladys Laughlin, principal of the William G. Bennett Elementary School and an advocate for children and families in Laughlin. In addition, Ms. Laughlin stated she had worked with Mr. Haldeman as a member of the Family Resource Center (FRC) Board, and was a board member for United Way of the Colorado River Region. According to Ms. Laughlin, visitors to the Laughlin area were required to travel there via automobile because that was the most accessible method to access the community. The first community visible would be the large residential population of Bullhead City, Arizona, and interestingly enough, it was very difficult to see the community of Laughlin when visitors arrived to spend time in the city’s casinos.
Ms. Laughlin reported that the casino and hotel industry, and Laughlin’s entertainment and gaming resources, provided a considerable amount of money to the coffers of the county and the state. It was her understanding that the amount of money provided to the state and county in the dollar figure by the Laughlin community was second only to the community of Las Vegas. Ms. Laughlin noted that the other side of the coin dealt with the resources available in the community, and she would like to discuss resources versus need with the Committee.
Ms. Laughlin commented that public education servers in the state of Nevada provided the Legislature with an accountability report each year, which was based on the prior year’s information. Her discussion would initially address the need based on the accountability report submitted for the 2000-2001 school year, which was the most recent accountability report submitted. Ms. Laughlin said she would direct her discussion to the section that dealt with student suspension, expulsions, and referrals, because students were greatly affected by the lack of mental health support. Per Ms. Laughlin, students attended school because they were mandated to do so, and they often came from families that did not have many resources available, such as families that consisted of a single parent, or families where the “breadwinners” were addicted to gambling, drugs, or alcohol, and did not provide the best possible parenting for their children.
Ms. Laughlin disclosed that during the 2000-2001 school year, data showed that the William G. Bennett Elementary School, with a population of just over 400 students, had experienced four incidents of violence toward school staff. She pointed out that within all of the elementary schools in the Laughlin area there were 39 incidents of violence, and in the Clark County School District itself there were 283 incidents of violence. Per Ms. Laughlin, the incidents in Laughlin represented approximately 10 percent of the elementary school violence toward staff incidents within Clark County, and yet the school population represented only .0015 percent of the total population of the Clark County School District. Ms. Laughlin believed that was an inordinately disproportionate amount of violent behavior on the part of the students in the Laughlin area.
Ms. Laughlin added that violence toward other students within the Laughlin elementary school consisted of 15 incidents, with 100 incidents occurring within all the elementary schools, and 5,489 in the Clark County School District overall. The Clark County School District described weapons as being guns and knives, which included penknives, or any other item that could possibly cause violence or harm to a child. Ms. Laughlin reported that there had been 6 incidents of weapons at the Laughlin elementary school, and the overall figure for the entire district was 49 incidents. The 6 Laughlin incidents represented 8.2 percent of the incidents within the entire district, and Ms. Laughlin reminded the Committee that Laughlin represented .0015 percent of the Clark County School District population.
Ms. Laughlin advised the Committee that Dr. Dick Edwards, Laughlin High School principal, would address the situation at the high school. She would focus her discussion on the aforementioned data, which was the information that had been available and had provided the impetus to inspire the Laughlin Family Resource Center (FRC) to seek support via the resources of the American Legacy Grant Foundation. Ms. Laughlin noted that the assistance of the licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) for 17 weeks per year was certainly not adequate in meeting the needs of the Laughlin community.
During the current school year, Ms. Laughlin explained that she had required parent conferences surrounding 39 incidents, had suspended 14 students, and noted that over 40 bus citations had been issued to students for misbehavior, primarily to those students who lived in subsidized public housing. The distance those students traveled to school on the bus was seven-tenths of a mile.
Ms. Laughlin remarked that it was often asked why those children received bus service when the Clark County School District’s policy was that any student who lived within two miles of the school would not be eligible for transportation by the district. She explained that the community had rallied because parents were concerned about the safety of their children walking along the “Needles” highway, where the speed limit was 45 miles per hour. Ms. Laughlin explained that the route contained an uphill incline that was dangerous in the summer months because of the heat, and the community had rallied to provide support, to which the Clark County School District had responded. Ms. Laughlin believed that the Clark County School District would attempt to support the needs of the community within the framework of available services.
Ms. Laughlin reiterated that, as previously pointed out by Mr. Haldeman, there was no preschool or day care available in the Laughlin area, with the exception of two licensed day care providers; in many instances, child care was provided in less than wholesome settings.
Chairman Arberry thanked Ms. Laughlin for the information she had provided, but explained that the Ways and Means Committee was primarily interested in the monetary aspect of the proposed legislation. Ms. Laughlin voiced her appreciation to the Committee, and summarized her testimony by stating that the data she had presented depicted a level of need that was only being addressed by available community resources.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked whether FRCs were state‑funded, and if so, was that funding part of the budget for the Laughlin FRC. Mr. Haldeman explained that FRCs statewide had been created by legislative mandate, and the Laughlin FRC was actually a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and as such, would perform approximately $380,000 in social work within the Laughlin area. He noted that the Center had been created by state legislation, but was an independent nonprofit organization.
Mr. Haldeman further explained that at the present time, the FRC was supported by grants attained through the Aging Services Division of the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and through FRC initiatives. The original legislation stipulated that the community would bring its assets forward, and Mr. Haldeman reported that the community of Laughlin had put many of its assets “on the table” and was now asking that the state appropriate an additional small amount. He emphasized that the Laughlin FRC would abandon A.B. 183 if it thought that The Executive Budget would allocate the many hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary for an initiative that would actually result in a rural mental health clinic being located in Laughlin. Mr. Haldeman pointed out that the FRC had been disappointed for the past five sessions and was hoping not to be disappointed a sixth time. Mr. Haldeman explained that if the state would place a rural mental health clinic in Laughlin similar to the clinic located in Mesquite the problem would be solved, however, the community was afraid that simply would not occur.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked, based on Mr. Haldeman’s testimony, whether a budget request had been submitted to the Budget Division regarding a rural health clinic in the Laughlin area. Mr. Haldeman believed that Dr. Carlos Brandenburg had included the rural health clinic as an item within the budget request for the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services for approximately six sessions, however, the clinic simply never made the “cut.” Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that she did not recall any testimony in budget hearings regarding the clinic and believed that would be the more appropriate avenue for funding. According to Ms. Giunchigliani, the Subcommittee could at least address the concept and review the population figures for Mesquite versus those for the Laughlin area. Ms. Giunchigliani opined that Family Resource Centers (FRCs) were absolutely necessary and funding for those Centers was included in The Executive Budget. However, if an appropriation was created that would allow an out-of-state mental health component to come into Nevada and actually provide services at the Laughlin FRC, which might be utilized by the schools, it would become somewhat convoluted and she was fearful that it would set a precedent for other communities. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would rather review the issue of the mental health clinic independently.
Mr. Haldeman stressed that the proposed provider of the contracted psychiatric and mental health care services was licensed in Nevada, and the FRC would not look out of state for such services. He indicated that the community was outsourcing in lieu of utilizing a state mental health person, and in the dollars and cents scheme, the DHR’s “cookie cutter” model was so expensive that clinics could not be placed in all the rural areas where mental health services were needed. Mr. Haldeman explained that the Laughlin community had attempted to present the option for the Legislature to outsource for mental health care and let the community provide a model that would be cost-effective to the state and, more importantly, to the taxpayers.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she appreciated that attempt, however, believed that the more appropriate venue for dealing with the mental health clinic would be within Subcommittee budget hearings.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there were further questions from the Committee or further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 183.
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14, explained that the reason she had sponsored the bill was because the citizens of Laughlin had worked very hard to secure funding to put a mental health component in place, and had also worked very hard to provide services through grants and other sources of funding, but help was needed from the state. Ms. Koivisto stated it was a model that could be used in other rural areas where the state would not be required to fund the entire mental health component, and the people using the services and providing the programs would secure grant funding to assist with the programs.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony regarding A.B. 183.
Dr. Dick Edwards, Principal, Laughlin High School, advised the Committee that he had been the principal of the high school for nine years and resided locally in the Laughlin community. He explained that he would like to illustrate instances that had occurred with students and outline the need that would justify the requested dollars. Dr. Edwards pointed out that in the middle school and high school there were 385 students, however, in spite of that small number, 65 of those students required special education. Dr. Edwards noted that the Committee was attuned to the national and state statistics, and knew that number approached double the normal amount of identified special education children. The explanation for that was the lack of psychiatric and counseling services to serve those students and families. Dr. Edwards informed the Committee that he would briefly illustrate three instances:
Dr. Edwards explained to the Committee that the school had an obligation to deal with all of its students, however, was unable to access the services locally that were needed by some of the children. In essence, stated Dr. Edwards, that completed his testimony. He was aware that the Committee was interested in monetary issues, and pointed out that the dollars were being requested to provide much needed mental health services for the children in the Laughlin area.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thanked Dr. Edwards for his testimony and stated that, having been a special education teacher for 23 years, she could appreciate the circumstances he had described. What was bothersome to her was the fact that the special education student’s Individualized Assessment Plan (IAP) had apparently not been filed, and there were no behavior interventions being conducted. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that it appeared the student would have qualified for Medicaid, which the school district had the opportunity to provide for those students. Unfortunately, schools that were located in outlying areas did not always have access to such programs. Ms. Giunchigliani believed it was time that clinics for mental health were established on school campuses, through co-location agreements between local governments or other groups, on a contractual basis. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that Dr. Edwards had touched on an existing need that the Committee was well aware of, and she opined that a mental health component should be included throughout the school system. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that many children who were classified as emotionally disturbed actually were not, but rather were mentally ill; the symptoms were not being treated and those children were simply being labeled without receiving the needed resources. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the issue of mental health clinics was scheduled for Subcommittee review in the near future, and perhaps the concept of a rural clinic in the Laughlin area could be included in the agenda for review and discussion.
Dr. Edwards remarked that he was well aware of the Medicaid situation, however, the high school was unable to access local services since there was no clinic available, which meant that Medicaid would be unable to bill for such services.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there was any further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 183, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 257.
Assembly Bill 257: Makes appropriations to restore balance in Contingency Fund. (BDR S-1235)
Andrew Clinger, Deputy Director, Budget Division, testified that the purpose of A.B. 257 was to restore the balance of the Contingency Fund utilized by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). The bill would appropriate $8,092,456, which would bring the General Fund portion of the Contingency Fund to slightly over $12 million. Mr. Clinger believed that the beginning balance for the last biennium had been approximately $11.7 million.
According to Mr. Clinger, the bill would also appropriate $1,889,536 of Highway Fund money, which would bring the balance of the Highway Fund to approximately $2 million. That would be the same balance that had been available at the beginning of the last biennium.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 257, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 271.
Assembly Bill 271: Makes appropriation to Governor for support of Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. (BDR S-1206)
Assemblywoman Koivisto informed the Committee that the bill requested support for the AmeriCorps program, and she introduced Ms. Parnell, who would provide additional testimony regarding the program.
Bonnie Parnell advised that she was testifying before the Committee as a member of the Board of Directors of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), which was how she had become acquainted with Ms. Ayres and discovered the good work being done by volunteers in Nevada, including both senior and young volunteers. Ms. Parnell thanked Assemblywoman Koivisto for her sponsorship of A.B. 271.
Ms. Parnell stated that A.B. 271 presented an absolute “win-win” opportunity for the state. Rather than incurring the cost of $150,000 per year to maintain three youths in a juvenile detention facility, the state could spend $150,000 a year to allow 200 AmeriCorps volunteers to serve the vulnerable and fragile needs of the state. Also, explained Ms. Parnell, for the state’s $300,000 investment over the biennium, $3.5 million in federal funding could be secured. Ms. Parnell voiced her strong support for A.B. 271 and encouraged the Committee to also support the bill. She believed it would be a very positive way to expend monies, should funding be available. Ms. Parnell advised that Ms. Ayres would present testimony, along with AmeriCorps volunteers, who would like to share their stories with the Committee.
Janice Ayres, Legislative Committee Chair and member of the Governor’s Commission for National and Community Service, thanked the Committee for hearing testimony in support of A.B 271, and also thanked Ms. Koivisto for sponsoring the bill during such trying times, which in itself took a great deal of courage. Ms. Ayres believed it was an important issue for consideration by the Legislature because if the matching funds were not available, the $3.1 million in federal funding would be lost along with the volunteer programs. Ms. Ayres testified that it made sense to allocate the money to positive programs that had done much for the state.
As an example, Ms. Ayres stated that over the past year, volunteers had:
Ms. Ayres believed that was an impressive record for the investment made by the state. At the allowed rate of $16.05 per volunteer that translated to over $223,000 used to benefit Nevadans, and Ms. Ayres believed that the AmeriCorps program had more than paid for itself.
Ms. Ayres referenced Exhibit E, which consisted of a pamphlet entitled, “We are AmeriCorps and More,” and Exhibit F, “Testimony of Janice Ayres, AB 271, March 26, 2003,” which had been provided for the Committee’s perusal; she believed the AmeriCorps program spoke for itself. Ms. Ayres asked those members of the AmeriCorps program in the audience to raise their hands and be recognized by the Committee. She explained that members were also concerned about funding, because they wanted to remain with the program.
Ms. Ayres advised that there were AmeriCorps volunteers present who would like to provide testimony to the Committee regarding their accomplishments. She introduced Robyn Clayton, Chair of the Governor’s Commission for National and Community Service, and Shawn Lecker Pomaville, the Executive Director, who were available should there be questions from the Committee. Ms. Ayres then introduced Ronnie Fuller and Joe Huerta, who were present in Las Vegas, and Andrew Heilman, the Youth Engaged in Service (YES) Ambassador, who was present in Carson City.
The first person to present testimony was Ronnie Fuller, who informed the Committee that he was a volunteer serving for AmeriCorps through the U.S. Veteran’s Initiative Program in Las Vegas, which was a program that assisted homeless veterans with reintegration back into society. Mr. Fuller stated it had truly been a learning experience for him; when he came to AmeriCorps, he had exhausted all employment opportunities because of a history of substance abuse. At that time, stated Mr. Fuller, he had just completed a treatment program and needed to get back on his feet when he was told about the AmeriCorps program and subsequently applied.
Mr. Fuller commented that the only thing he had been interested in from the program initially was the educational award, however, the program had opened a new door of opportunity for him. Mr. Fuller testified that not only had the program accepted him, but had also given him the opportunity to grow, and at the end of his term, the opportunity to continue his education. Mr. Fuller said as an intake specialist, he processed men and women into the program who had “lost their way” and needed a new start. Mr. Fuller explained that he gathered the personal information needed by case managers to assist those people in regaining their self-respect, going back to work, and becoming self-sufficient.
Since he began his position six months ago, Mr. Fuller reported that the program had taken over 300 individuals off the streets and had offered new opportunities, which assisted them in regaining their lives. Since the program began, Mr. Fuller stated it had assisted over 800 veterans; he believed the program was making a difference. Mr. Fuller reported that personally, his work with AmeriCorps had given him a new respect for life, and compassion for his fellowman. The feeling of bringing someone into the program, often a person beaten up by life and homeless, and then watch that person leave the program with employment and a place of their own, was truly remarkable.
Mr. Fuller stated the program dealt with the homeless veteran population, which entailed lack of work, alcoholism, drug addiction, and medical and mental health issues. AmeriCorps members had helped to make the U.S. Veterans Initiative Program the success it was today. According to Mr. Fuller, members served in every area of the program, such as, case management, career development, outreach support, and through a community service program to help veterans establish themselves in their own community. Mr. Fuller explained that the program had entered into a partnership with WestCare for a detoxification and substance abuse program to assist those who suffered from addiction, which also contributed to their homelessness.
As an AmeriCorps member, Mr. Fuller stated he was also involved with service projects within the community, along with workers from other AmeriCorps programs in such projects as: Assisting with the remodeling of a teen center; providing support services for mentally challenged adults; and assisting disabled veterans at the Veteran’s Day parade. Mr. Fuller indicated that volunteers were also preparing for future projects for the Las Vegas community. He stated, “We are making a difference.” Mr. Fuller announced that personally, as an AmeriCorps member, the program had made a difference in his life, and it had also made a difference in the Las Vegas community. According to Mr. Fuller, those who worked for the Veterans Initiative Program were committed to making a difference, and he thanked the Committee for allowing him to share his experience in the program.
The Chair recognized Joe Huerta, who introduced himself and advised that he was an AmeriCorps member. Initially, stated Mr. Huerta, he did not know anything about the program, but he had contacted AmeriCorps with the intention of helping out his community. Mr. Huerta indicated that he knew from the start that AmeriCorps would assist him in fulfilling his intentions. He was now placed with the BEST Coalition for violence prevention and anti-substance abuse programs. Mr. Huerta explained that the Coalition disseminated anti-drug information in collaboration with the Partnership for a Drug Free America. According to Mr. Huerta, his service with the BEST Coalition afforded him the opportunity to play an active role in the Las Vegas community, and an opportunity to meet new challenges, which allowed him to grow as an individual.
Continuing his testimony, Mr. Huerta reported that AmeriCorps was not just beneficial to those who received services; AmeriCorps benefited everybody, for example, the individuals who provided the services and those who received the services. Mr. Huerta stated he was currently attending the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), in pursuit of a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. As a student himself, Mr. Huerta could assure the Committee that AmeriCorps provided a great opportunity for students. Mr. Huerta commented that a student’s life was different every semester, but with AmeriCorps he could fulfill his service and meet new challenges that would help him excel as an individual and acquire the skills he would need as a professional.
Mr. Huerta testified that education was vital to society as an educated society reduced crime and delinquency, improved work skills and productivity, and provided better health. The education award was a great incentive for those who gave service as AmeriCorps members. Mr. Huerta indicated that he had observed many difficulties faced by certain students in an attempt to receive financial aid because they did not demonstrate financial need. He stated he was one of those students, as his parents earned slightly more than the cap to qualify for financial aid, but not enough to support his education. Mr. Huerta explained that the AmeriCorps education award helped him support his college education, which was one reason why he believed AmeriCorps was beneficial for the community. In all aspects, stated Mr. Huerta, everyone benefited from the wonderful program, the giver, the receiver, and the community as a whole.
Mr. Huerta testified that AmeriCorps allowed a person to make a difference in the community, especially in the community where that person resided. His placement allowed him to become aware of the drug issues that were present, not just in Las Vegas, but also around the nation. The fight against drugs was a big challenge, and Mr. Huerta stated that his service with the BEST Coalition had affected him greatly. While his role might be small, he believed it had a positive impact on the community. Mr. Huerta testified that his service helped to decrease the demand for drugs in his community, thus his service with AmeriCorps was well worth the effort. Mr. Huerta stated he had expressed his experience as an AmeriCorps member to the Committee, and was present to also express its importance to him as an individual and its benefit to the state of Nevada.
Mr. Huerta stated he was an AmeriCorps member, and many others before him had also reaped the benefits. He asked the Committee to please consider the future and let those that came after him also receive those benefits, not just the members of AmeriCorps, but the community as well. Mr. Huerta thanked the Committee for hearing his testimony.
Testifying next before the Committee was Andrew Heilman, who stated he was a resident of Reno and currently served as the Youth Engaged in Service (YES) Ambassador for the Points of Light Foundation. Mr. Heilman indicated that the YES Ambassador was a statewide position, created through partnership with the Points of Light Foundation, the Nevada Service Learning Partnership, and the Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. His role as the YES Ambassador was to encourage service learning through organizational partnerships in an effort to create opportunities for youth to become involved in their community through service and volunteerism.
Mr. Heilman reported that the largest undertaking during his first year of service was to organize Nevada’s very first statewide youth summit. Five statewide organizations partnered together to create the 2003 Nevada Youth Summit, “Youth Leading the Way,” a theme that was chosen by youth members of the steering committee. Mr. Heilman stated that in its first year, the 2003 Youth Summit was able to host 140 high school youths and 40 adults from 14 of the 17 Nevada counties, as well as teams from both Truckee and South Lake Tahoe, California.
According to Mr. Heilman, the Youth Summit was held on March 14, 15, and 16, 2003, at North Valley High School in Reno and the Quality Inn in Sparks. Mr. Heilman commented that the largest teams were from places as far away as Elko and Las Vegas, as well as teams from Pahrump, Eureka, Wellington, Carson City, and many others. He emphasized that it was truly a statewide event, and summit delegates had the opportunity to hear from speakers such as Miss Nevada 2002, Teresa Benitez, and various state legislators. Mr. Heilman explained that delegates attended sessions on topics such as: (1) Working With the Media; (2) Youth Adult Partnerships; and (3) Leadership Development. Delegates received up-to-date information from the KIDS COUNT Data Book and other statistics on youth issues, and also received training on action planning.
Mr. Heilman reported that teams at the Youth Summit had been organized by communities, and each community team initiated the process whereby youth would identify a need in their community and begin to address that need through their services. In upcoming months, Mr. Heilman stated that youths of Nevada had made plans to begin programs such as:
· After-school tutoring and mentoring
· Classes educating teen mothers on how to care for their newborn babies
· Drug and alcohol free alternative activities
· Educational programs, both in and out of school, to address issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, and teen suicide.
Per Mr. Heilman, those were all programs that would be led by students. Those that had the opportunity to be part of the event saw 140 of Nevada’s high school students make the decision to become engaged citizens and change their communities through service and volunteerism. Mr. Heilman stated it was the hope and desire that the number in attendance could reach more than 300 youths for the next scheduled Nevada Youth Summit.
Mr. Heilman informed the Committee that the mission of the Nevada Commission for National and Community Service was to engage all of Nevada’s youths as active citizens and improve their communities through volunteerism.
The Chair recognized Gale Thomssen, Health Advocate Program Director, Great Basin Primary Care Association, who advised the Committee that her AmeriCorps title was “Mom.” She explained that there were clinic sites in Carson City, Washoe, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, Mineral, Churchill, and Clark Counties, which varied from tribal and rural health clinics to dental clinics, and offered a variety of social services throughout the state. Ms. Thomssen stated she was very proud of the contributions of the AmeriCorps volunteers and the service they provided to the communities, the state, and the country. She testified that volunteers had chosen to give a year of their lives to help others, one life at a time. Ms. Thomssen wanted to relate a few stories to the Committee that she hoped would present a variety of the type of services performed by AmeriCorps members at the 15 sites throughout the state:
1. “Carol” was with the South Bend Tribal Health Clinic in Elko, and last Christmas she had the privilege to deliver a Christmas package to one of the tribal elders who lived quite far out on the reservation. She was the only person the elder saw for the entire Christmas season, and she was so impressed by the elder that she spent three hours listening to stories of the elder’s earlier days and memories.
2. “Donna” in Dayton worked at the Friends in Service Helping (FISH) site, and one of her main responsibilities was to sign families up with the Nevada Check Up program. One family came to FISH at Thanksgiving and she thought it was to receive the Thanksgiving basket, but after talking with the father, she understood that the family of seven had absolutely no health insurance. Donna talked to the father about the information she needed to sign up the children for the program. The father returned the next morning and signed the family up with the program; the five-year-old child had never visited the dentist, and was in dire need of those services. The child would not smile in public, and after receiving dental care, now smiled.
3. “Tammy” worked with foster children in the Carson City and Reno area who were about to leave the system at age 18. Her responsibilities were to help those youth prepare for a life on their own, whether it was continuing education, securing a job, how to act during interviews, how to fill out checks, how to take care of themselves, or how to shop. She had an extensive caseload.
4. “Irma” in Las Vegas told the story of John, who had been left out of the system over the years. Irma worked with the Las Vegas Metro Help Team and Clark County Social Services Outreach Team, and had met John when his homeless shelter on a vacant lot was being torn down. John had never followed through with the system long enough to secure the help necessary to get out of the system. Irma was able to help John get back into the system on a regular basis, made appointments with mental health centers, and provided help with finding a job and a place to live. John was certainly one of the success stories.
Ms. Thomssen emphasized that AmeriCorps members were “getting things done” for their community, the state, and the country, and she was extremely proud of them.
Assemblywoman McClain disclosed that she had two AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America) workers in her Las Vegas office for the Clark County Senior Advocate Program. Ms. McClain informed the Committee that the volunteers did wonderful work, and she had been afforded the opportunity to attend a pre-service orientation, which was great; she noted that the volunteers were very dedicated and gave up a year of their lives for the program. According to Ms. McClain, volunteers were actually sworn in, and were of all ages, both young and old; she noted that the workers in her office were older and dealt with seniors on a regular basis. Ms. McClain stated she simply wanted to put in her “plug” that AmeriCorps was a wonderful program, and she believed that the Committee should take action to help them.
Ms. Thomssen informed the Committee that the age of workers went from people in their early 20s to people in their 60s.
Chairman Arberry asked whether there was further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 271, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed.
With no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 9:22 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: