MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
April 9, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:07 a.m., on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Speaker Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Thomas Grady, Assembly District No. 38
Mr. Joseph Hardy, Assembly District No. 20
Mrs. Kathryn McClain, Assembly District No. 15
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 186.
Assembly Bill 186: Makes appropriation to Board of Regents of University of Nevada for establishment of Nevada Educational Support Program. (BDR S-909)
Dr. Tracy Cotton, Deputy Executive Director, Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, introduced himself for the record and introduced Assembly Bill 186. He said the Assembly Committee on Education had heard the bill the previous month. A.B. 186 established a program for the state of Nevada that was similar to the very successful educational opportunity programs in California and New York. A.B. 186 was based on the philosophies and operating methods of the TRIO Programs, 16 of which were operating in the state of Nevada. Dr. Cotton testified that the TRIO Programs were funded under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and had been extremely instrumental in helping millions of low income and first generation Americans attain baccalaureate, graduate, and other degrees (Exhibit C).
Dr. Cotton testified that currently there were over 2,000 TRIO Programs in the United States that served more than 850,000 individuals and operated on 1,200 college and university campuses across the country. He said they were seeking to expand the Nevada TRIO Programs because they had reached maximum capacity. The TRIO Programs at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), were funded to serve 400 students and the need was for more than 7,500 students. Dr. Cotton said the benefits of these educational support programs were vast. Statistically their students in the Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search programs at UNLV and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), were more than four times as likely as students in the general student population to earn undergraduate degrees and to raise themselves and their families out of cycles of poverty. Students in the UNR and UNLV student support services programs were more than twice as likely to remain in college and earn a college degree than those who did not participate in the programs, and more than six times as likely as students from similar backgrounds.
Dr. Cotton said there were currently 16 TRIO Programs in the state of Nevada and 11 of those programs were housed in the UNLV Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach of which he was the Executive Director. Three of the programs operated out of the University of Nevada, Reno, one at Truckee Meadows College, and one at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). At UNLV 82 percent of students who participated in the TRIO Programs graduated on a five-year calendar compared to the 39 percent of the general student population that graduated on a six-year calendar. In Washoe and Clark Counties, 99 percent of high school students in the Upward Bound Program and 94 percent in the Educational Talent Search Program graduated. He said that replicating those programs and services would allow 15,000 more students per year to benefit, and college entrance rates would improve as well as baccalaureate attainment rates.
The Nevada Educational Support Program would provide outreach to the K through 12 systems, and offer a summer bridge program to assist students from low-income, first generation, and at-risk families who were transitioning from their senior year of high school to their freshman year of college by offering free tutoring services and intrusive academic advising. Dr. Cotton noted that intrusive academic advising was different from traditional high school advising. Typical high school advising did not incorporate issues of the whole family. He said that when working with at-risk students it was crucial to address family issues and special barriers to improve the possibilities for academic success and achievement. Dr. Cotton said that they also performed academic progress checks for all students who were a part of the Nevada Educational Support Program, and coordinated a recognition program for the students.
Dr. Cotton testified that the program expanded services that were delivered through federal resources. Currently the Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach programs had 15 grants that supported the Center’s objectives, but they served less than 6 percent of the eligible population in southern Nevada; Washoe County counterparts served less than 3 percent of the eligible population. He said the services resulted in academic success.
Dr. Cotton asked the Committee to consider funding the program. He said they were proposing a pilot program to operate at the four largest institutions within the University and Community College System of Nevada. He said at a future date it could be beneficial to expand the programs to all institutions within the system. Dr. Cotton concluded his testimony and asked for questions.
The Committee had no questions and there was no further testimony for or against A.B. 186. Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 186 closed.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 57-962. (A.B. 543)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins, Assemblyman Goldwater and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 283: Provides subsidies from Fund for a Healthy Nevada for coverage of limited-scope dental and vision benefits to certain senior citizens. (BDR 40-152)
Assemblywoman Kathryn (Kathy) McClain, Clark County District No. 15, introduced Assembly Bill 283. She said the bill provided some financial relief to senior citizens for vision and dental coverage. The Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services passed A.B. 283 unanimously on March 19. Ms. McClain noted that she was an advocate with the Clark County Senior Advocacy Program that provided outreach to seniors. She said a survey that was completed by senior participants asked them to identify their greatest needs. Prescription drugs were consistently rated highest. However, affordable housing and transportation issues were not rated next in priority. Rather, seniors identified dental and vision coverage as the next two largest needs. Assemblywoman McClain said their concerns were related to the safety and nutritional areas associated with vision and dental health issues that Medicare did not cover. She said that the genesis of the bill were health issues that occurred with aging. The intent of A.B. 283 was to provide vision and dental coverage through a Medicaid waiver.
Assemblywoman McClain explained that there was still a need to craft some of the bill’s language. She turned the presentation over to Mike Willden, Director of the Department of Human Resources, to clarify the fiscal notes.
Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, introduced himself for the record. He testified that when the Department of Human Resources first analyzed A.B. 283 they prepared a fiscal note that showed about $4.8 million for the vision and dental coverage in FY2004, and $5.7 million in FY2005 (Exhibit D). Those figures were derived from Section 2, subsections 1 through 5 of the bill, that required the Department to develop an insured model for the vision and dental components by surveying private insurance rates similar to what had been done for the senior pharmacy program. Mr. Willden said that the Division of Insurance gave them the $4.8 million and the $5.7 million as estimated costs to purchase insurance for vision and dental. The Division of Insurance indicated that the per member per month cost for visual and dental coverage was almost $42, $30 of which was for dental and $11 of which was for vision. That cost was for the basic policy as described in the fiscal note.
Mr. Willden said that members of the Committee on Health and Human Services had noted that the proposed benefit policy could be construed as a richer limited benefit than they might want to offer. An inquiry with Delta Dental discovered a significantly less expensive dental option. Delta Dental offered a $19 per member per month premium compared with the Division of Insurance premium of $30 per member per month. He said that finding could significantly reduce the fiscal note. Mr. Willden said the intent of subsection 6 of A.B. 283 was to obtain the Pharmacy Plus waiver from the federal government and to stretch those funds by matching them with state tobacco settlement funds.
Mr. Willden said they had just received data to evaluate running the program on Medicaid and a quick analysis was shown on Exhibit E. He said using that model, the potential low-end cost would be between $1.9 million in FY2004 and $2.2 million in FY2005 for dental, and $145,000 for FY2004 and $170,000 for FY2005 for vision. The total low-end cost for dental and vision for FY2004 would be $4.1 million compared to $4.8 million using the insured model.
Mr. Willden said the cost differences were due to the significant differences in the policy benefit packages. The insured model in the fiscal note provided for an annual vision check and a wider scope of services for frames and eyeglasses. The Medicaid package provided for eye checkups and frames every two years with some prior authorization requirements. There were additional restrictions that new corrective lenses were provided only when a change in vision required them. The Medicare dental package primarily provided for emergency and palliative care, with some limited repair or placement for dentures. Mr. Willden said the scope of the Medicare dental plan was very limited but was the same as that offered by Medicaid. Mr. Willden said there was a range of from $2 million to $4 or $5 million per year that depended on whether they ran the insured model as required in subsection 1 through 5, or the waiver model that was allowed in subsection 6.
Mr. Willden said the Department did not support adding vision and dental coverage to the Senior Rx program if that would cause a decrease in senior enrollees. He concluded that if they could not get a waiver and expand their funding, and they had the limited pool of tobacco dollars, they would not want to move forward with that kind of legislation because it would limit the number of seniors in the Senior Rx program. Mr. Willden asked for questions.
Chairman Arberry asked if they could involve the dental school in providing dental services to seniors. Mr. Willden responded that he assumed they could. He said Medicaid used the dental school and he would get more specific information on that subject. Assemblywoman Leslie noted that the dental school did not provide free services. Mr. Willden said that Medicaid paid the dental schools for their services.
Ms. Leslie said that Mr. Willden had done “some good work” in significantly lowering the costs.
Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Willden, “Where are we in the process of the Pharmacy Plus waiver, and is this going to be included in it without the bill? Do we need to pass the bill in order to get that included in the application?”
Mr. Willden responded and said that they were researching how other states structured their waivers. He said they had met with South Carolina as that state had one of the more successful waivers. He said they were also having preliminary discussions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), formerly known as the Health Care Financing and Administration (HCFA). Mr. Willden said they had not submitted an application for the waiver. He said that negotiations with the federal government were outlined in the Pharmacy Plus waiver request and to his knowledge no other state had included vision and dental coverage in their Pharmacy Plus waiver request. He said that Nevada would be the first state to do that.
Mr. Willden explained that the federal government required that a successful waiver applicant show cost neutrality over a certain period of time. The Pharmacy Plus waiver had a five-year time frame within which to demonstrate cost neutrality. The waiver must show that expended funds were saved elsewhere, for instance in the form of long-term hospitalization and other more expensive care. He said the Department was a few months away from being able to submit the Pharmacy Plus waiver. At that time the federal government would evaluate the request and the earliest implementation on the final waiver would be January of 2004.
Ms. Leslie asked whether or not a bill was needed to enter a waiver request.
Mr. Willden said he could not answer the question until they had finished developing the cost-effectiveness component of the waiver request.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for A.B. 283. He asked if there was anyone in opposition. As there was no further testimony Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 283 closed.
Assembly Bill 290: Increases amount of financial assistance that Commission for Cultural Affairs may grant from proceeds of general obligation bonds for certain projects. (BDR 18-1181)
Assemblyman Thomas Grady, District No. 38, introduced himself for the record, and introduced Assemblyman Joseph Hardy and Mr. Ronald James, who would provide technical answers with regard to A.B. 290. Mr. Grady testified that Dr. Larry Moses, a constituent and good friend in southern Nevada, had requested A.B. 290. He said that the state of Nevada established the Commission for Cultural Affairs in 1991 and the grant proposals for the Fund for the Commission of Historic Preservation began in 1993 (Exhibit F). To date the Commission had supported the restoration of 60 significant buildings. Twenty-nine of the projects were complete and functioning as community centers, 15 of the ongoing projects were partially open to the public and in the last 12 months over a half million people had visited those facilities. Mr. Grady testified that between 1993 and 2002, 60 buildings benefited from Commission funding. Since 1993, 44 projects had opened to the public and 556,802 people had visited Commission-supported facilities in the last year. Over $40 million, including matching funds, had been spent on construction projects. He said that the Commission projects had indirectly contributed an estimated $103 million to Nevada’s economy and contributed $19 million annually to the state tourism economy. Mr. Grady said the Commission’s projects and funding had clearly benefited rural and urban Nevada.
Assemblyman Joseph Hardy, District No. 20, introduced himself for the record. He said he was a native Nevadan, and stated that he had visited many parts of Nevada and he was deeply impressed with Nevada’s history and heritage, which were resources to be retained and remembered for Nevada’s children and for the tourists that visited the state. He said in his district the old Logandale schoolhouse was a model for a community center. Mr. Hardy noted that the Commission for Cultural Affairs was established in 1991. One of the Commission’s criteria for financial support was whether a project could sustain itself when the Commission’s support ended.
Mr. Hardy said that a total $40 million was spent on Commission-supported construction projects. Half of that came from the state and the other half from private sources and grants funds, and that doubled the state’s funds. He said that the economic contribution to the state was notable. Revenues generated by visitors to the historic sites actually tripled the state’s contribution to support the Commission’s projects. He said there were significant long-term opportunities to commit to preserving the state’s heritage and to develop rural funding. The historic sites drew tourism into rural areas to utilize services as well as to experience Nevada’s history and heritage.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Marvel asked for clarification on the difference in the tax rate required to service the existing $2 million limit compared to the $5 million limit as proposed in A.B. 290.
Ronald James, State Historic Preservation Officer, introduced himself for the record. He said he thought the cost to service $1 million worth of bonds at retirement was $80,000 per year.
Mr. Marvel asked what would be the cost to service $2 million in bonds.
Mr. James took the opportunity to thank the Committee and Mr. Marvel for their support for the program. He said that in 1991 the Nevada Legislature passed an approach to bonding for the program but subsequently the Bond Counsel determined the approach to be inadequate. In 1993 the Legislature revisited the issue for a one-shot funding of $2.5 million. In 1995, language was adopted in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 233C.225 that allowed for the sale of bonds in ten-year cycles at $2 million a year for a total of $20 million for each ten-year cycle. The law that was adopted spoke of ten-year cycles and stated that those bonds were to be sold in sequences of $2 million per year for any ten-year cycle. He said that the first ten-year cycle would retire in 2004, and would be the last year of the first ten-year cycle.
Mr. James testified that they had reviewed the legislation to determine if reauthorization for a subsequent ten-year cycle was needed. He said the law seemed to indicate that the authority to sell bonds went in subsequent ten-year cycles. He said if that was an incorrect interpretation they would need to be informed to determine how to request reauthorization for a new ten-year cycle. Mr. James explained that A.B. 290 proposed to increase the total value of bond offerings from $2 million to $5 million. He said the request was constituency-based because they received applications averaging $9 million a year and had $2 million to distribute. He noted there was value in not having the full $9 million to distribute because it forced many applicants to become very creative in procuring matching funds. He said there was nothing like partial funding to get additional support “out of the woodwork.” Mr. James reaffirmed that they could meet their needs even with partial funding. In conclusion he said that he did not know what the tax rate would be to service the retirement of $5 million of bonds.
Mr. Marvel said he was concerned about increasing the tax rate and wanted to know the fiscal impact. He said they knew where they were with $2 million but did not know the additional cost with $5 million. He asked if there was anyone there from the Treasurer’s Office.
Mrs. Chowning complimented Mr. Marvel and Mr. Hardy’s predecessor, Gene Segerblom, for championing the historic preservation efforts. She applauded them because the results were phenomenal. She said that matching the funds had been a challenge but lent more credibility to the projects. She asked the Commission to provide the Committee with a list of its projects. She was particularly interested in the Kiel Ranch project. She thanked them for their efforts and hoped the ten-year cycles would continue.
Tom Grady said they had the information requested by Mr. Marvel and would distribute the eight-page handout for the record to be entered into the minutes (Exhibit F and Exhibit G).
Robin Reedy, Deputy of Debt Management, Office of the State Treasurer, introduced herself for the record. She testified that increasing the bond limit from $2 million to $5 million would necessitate an increase in the tax rate. She said she did not have a specific figure for that hearing but generally for every dollar of increase that they would issue in Cultural Affair bonds it would require removing a dollar from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or from another area that was currently in the budget. She said the Treasurer’s Office had not figured any increase in their capacity report and had maxed the bonds out at $2 million a year going out ten years. She said any dollar amount above the $2 million a year and $20 million in ten years would have to be removed from something else.
Mr. Marvel reaffirmed that the Treasurer’s Office had factored in the $2 million. Ms. Reedy confirmed Mr. Marvel’s statement. Mr. Marvel said he appreciated the need for $5 million and asked if the Commission could manage with the $2 million.
Mr. James responded and said they were very grateful for the $2 million and everyone could be very proud of the grant recipients who had made a success story of what was available. He said they looked forward to a long future of distributing $2 million a year if that was what was available. Their constituency would look forward to more if that were available.
Mr. James then answered Mrs. Chowning’s question regarding the Commission’s projects. He said Exhibit G showed the dollars that had been distributed from 1993 to 2002, and the most recent distributions that occurred less than a month ago when the Commission for Cultural Affairs met in March 2003. He noted that there had been an increasing presence of southern Nevada applications but that the urban centers of the state had been slow to respond. On the other hand, the rural areas had begun to recognize their status as a “dry sponge” and had jumped on the program. He said the Committee could be very pleased with the tourism alternatives that were now scattered throughout the state as a result of the rural interest. He said they were also very pleased to see that southern Nevada was becoming involved, as was Truckee Meadows. He said they were receiving more and more applications from those regions.
Mr. James then responded to Mrs. Chowning’s question regarding the status of the Kiel Ranch project. He said they had entertained a number of applications and provided grants specifically for Kiel Ranch. He added that Kiel Ranch was on a “slippery slope” that began shortly after federal funds were used to purchase that facility in 1976 through the Las Vegas Bicentennial Committee. He said at that time the city sold off the acreage to warehousing and light industry with the assumption that the proceeds would be used to develop a park. Eventually the remaining acreage and the environment surrounding the proposed park were no longer acceptable. He said in 1991, when they awarded a proposed grant, the main mansion at the Kiel Ranch was almost immediately burned through arson. He said that was a tragic and permanent loss. He added that he hoped the grant award had not inspired the fire. The remaining adobe structure was of particular significance and was very likely the oldest building in Nevada. It was the recipient of a number of grants through the Commission for Cultural Affairs. Mr. James said the project was “fighting gravity on that site.” The last grant awarded to Kiel Ranch was ultimately rejected by the City of North Las Vegas in consultation with himself. As they tried to find the best approach for that resource, they concluded that adding more money to that facility at that site was not in the public’s best interest. Mr. James commended that choice because in so doing money was freed up for other projects. One of the plans currently under consideration was to move that structure to the Big Springs facility as that would give it a realistic venue to serve a broader constituency.
Mr. James distributed colored handouts of selected project sites for the record (Exhibit H).
Chairman Arberry asked for further testimony for or against Assembly Bill 290. There was no further testimony and Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on Assembly Bill 290 closed.
Assembly Bill 377: Makes appropriation to Classroom on Wheels for purchase of two buses to provide mobile school services for homeless children in Clark County. (BDR S-1187)
Assemblyman David Parks, District No. 41, introduced himself for the record. He introduced Assembly Bill 377 and said Classroom on Wheels was well‑known for the wonderful work that they performed in the state and had been operational for over a decade. A.B. 377 requested $100,000 for the purchase of two buses to provide mobile school services for homeless children in Clark County. He said that the homeless situation in southern Nevada was serious and that a large number of homeless families had very young children. A.B. 377 proposed to acquire two buses that would act as an adjunct to Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School and C. P. Squires Elementary School, two public schools that served the largest number of homeless children in southern Nevada. He said there were several individuals in southern Nevada who had come to testify by teleconference on behalf of A.B. 377.
Assemblywoman Chowning noted that she had been privileged to participate in a kindergarten graduation ceremony through the Classroom on Wheels and that the program was impressive. She asked for clarification as to whether or not the bill intended to provide service for pre-school, kindergarten, or all grades.
Mr. Parks said that representatives from Classroom on Wheels in Las Vegas would respond to her question. He added that the program targeted the youngest of the homeless population.
Lillian Englund introduced herself for the record and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of homeless children in Clark County. She said she was a board member for Classroom on Wheels and owned Imprints Day School, a private preschool/elementary school in Las Vegas. She addressed Mrs. Chowning’s question and said that A.B. 377 proposed to service Clark County’s Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School and the adjacent C. P. Squires Elementary School, both of which had a large homeless population. She noted that about 20 percent of the children who attended those schools were homeless and that one of the schools had upwards of 175 homeless children. She said that services to homeless children were generally available in Las Vegas but were not central to the schools attended by most homeless children, making access to homeless services difficult.
Ms. Englund said she was a college graduate, homeowner, and business owner of five years, all of which were standard measures of success. She testified that her community’s dedication to her education had enabled her to achieve that level of success. Ms. Englund explained that both of her parents left school in seventh grade and provided for six children by holding menial waged jobs, and accessing surplus food and handouts. Her family was homeless at the time of her birth but was fortunate to move to a community that placed high value on education. She said that because she attended the same elementary school continuously her teachers knew her and were able to make decisions about her education based on personal knowledge of her circumstances and that had helped her to succeed.
Ms. Englund testified that when she completed eighth grade she was at the top of her class and ready for the rigors of high school, which allowed her to go on to college. She said homeless children in Clark County were less fortunate. They changed schools several times a year on average. Anecdotally a teacher reported to her that she numbered her classroom “cubbies” and desks instead of using children’s names, and that one of those desks and cubbies turned over 39 times in the same school year. Ms. Englund said in those circumstances, teachers could not know the children or their individual needs. They attended school hungry, were poorly clothed, were often ill, and suffered from poor dental health. She said that their social relationships were poor and the academic demands of school could not be supported in their living environments. The single consistent factor in their ever-changing lives was their school. Even if a child was homeless and changed living arrangements frequently if that child remained in the same school with the same adults and services, his or her chances for academic success were greatly improved.
Ms. Englund said that was the area in which the Committee could help. Research had shown that if a child remained in the same school with continued services that child’s test scores were more likely to improve regardless of race, being a non-native speaker of English, and almost any other factor. She said that allocating funds to support the services to homeless students in their home school would give children the only consistency they might experience in their lives. She said that the Committee had the opportunity to help children grow into educated, successful citizens capable of supporting their communities instead of asking their communities to support them. (written testimony, Exhibit I)
Ms. Englund thanked the Committee for providing mobile services so that homeless children could depend on their school for success and she thanked them for listening to her testimony.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee. There were none. He thanked Ms. Englund for her testimony.
Louise Helton, Chairwoman of the Board of Classroom on Wheels (COW), introduced herself for the record. She said that Ms. Englund had shared good background information about the types of people COW served and how the project helped create constructive, wonderful, and productive citizens.
Ms. Helton testified that the project was a public-private partnership between the Clark County School District (CCSD), Classroom on Wheels, Inc., and the Clark County Health District (CCHD). She explained that the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth started Classroom on Wheels, Inc. Kathleen Boutin, Honorary Chair and Founder of the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, had arranged trips to Phoenix for several interested individuals to visit Thomas Pappas Elementary School that was dedicated to providing services for homeless children. The school was a stand-alone in which all 600 of the students were homeless. Services were provided right on the campus. Along with a number of interested community individuals who attended the visit were Senator Sandra Tiffany, Assemblymen Marcus Conklin, Mark Manendo, and David Parks, Judge Dianne Steel, Ken Lange, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, Clark County School District, and Stan Olsen, Clark County School District.
Ms. Helton said that the group was very impressed with the Thomas Pappas Elementary School. Children with severe needs missed large segments of their education because their families were in crisis. Mothers, many single heads of households, scrambled to provide the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter for their children, as well as dealing with domestic violence issues. All of those family services were scattered throughout the community and were the parent’s overarching goal to receive. Education fell far down the list. As a consequence, children did not go to school. The important lesson from the Thomas Pappas Elementary School was that by providing a school with all the services under one roof, parents made it their highest priority to get their children to school. Once the child was in school the parents knew that everything else would fall into place.
Ms. Helton said that Nevada could not create a stand-alone school for homeless children because it would not be eligible for federal funding. Viewed as an educational institution, one group of children would be segregated as homeless. She said that they had developed a compromise where services would be delivered to the campus that had a high homeless enrollment. She noted an informational handout showing how the plan would work (Exhibit J). She said they had been working on a strategic plan for the public-private partnership project since August. The Clark County School District provided them information that identified 2,700 homeless children just in the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area and a large concentration of that population was located primarily in the area surrounding Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School and C. P. Squires next door. Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School was located very close to the homeless corridor. By adopting that one elementary school as their model project they would be able to serve a large number of homeless children.
Ms. Helton said they planned to create a project on the Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School campus. She explained that they had planned to use modular buildings, but Syntex Homes offered to build a building for them. She said Syntex Homes was in the design phase and expected to complete the building in January 2004. The building would provide children a place to receive medical and dental care, and would have a clothing and food bank. People could come to the site for social services rather than going into the community. She said desks would be available for service providers to come to the campus on a scheduled basis. Ms. Helton said they had juvenile court services so that parole and probation could be carried out on campus along with other social services.
Ms. Helton went on to say that by bringing direct services to the campus they could take care of special treatments for children who were in a chronic transient situation such as dealing with head lice, severe dehydration, and malnutrition. She said with their direct dental services they could provide limited exams and other direct medical services offered by physicians and licensed professionals.
Ms. Helton said that A.B. 377 would enhance the capabilities and outreach of the main service center. The building would be a fixed site located at Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School. She said that they had identified many homeless children in other schools and their intention was to take those services on a program basis to satellite schools that had high homeless populations. By using a mobile program they could reach a number of homeless children and give them the same opportunities as with a fixed site while avoiding segregation.
Ms. Helton concluded her testimony. She noted that Exhibit J outlined their full strategic plan and explained the implementation plan with time lines, personnel, and a thumbnail budget that should provide the Committee with information about how the funds would be used.
She thanked the Committee and asked for questions.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions and for further testimony on Assembly Bill 377.
Gloria Dopf, Assistant Deputy Superintendent for the Nevada Department of Education, introduced herself for the record. She testified that the Department of Education was the entity that administered the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act referred to in Exhibit K. She said they were pleased that another entity such as COW was interested in a partnership to expand services to homeless youngsters. She said she wanted to point out that under the federal law there were regulations about providing educational services to homeless youngsters. If A.B. 377 passed, they would ensure that the program would meet federal law regarding educational services.
Ms. Dopf said that the first federal requirement was new to the reauthorization of the Act. Since January 2002 the federal law prohibited segregation for educational purposes. The program in Phoenix existed before the reauthorization and a segregated educational facility was grandfathered in. She said she wanted to underscore that any of the services provided in the proposed program for Nevada would not be interpreted as a segregated environment that would be a violation of the federal law. The second point Ms. Dopf made was that parents of homeless youngsters had the right to have their youngsters educated in the school of origin. The school of origin was defined as the school that they attended or were zoned for prior to becoming homeless. The parents would therefore always have the right to have their youngsters educated in the school of origin and not at a central facility that was not the school of origin.
Ms. Dopf underscored that the Clark County School District was the educational institute responsible for educating homeless youngsters. They were the entity that provided the primary services and had a homeless educational program with an advocate at each school site. She noted that they received a small amount of funding in the amount of $63,000 specific to that population through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. They monitored that program and worked hand-in-hand with the other federal programs such as the Title I No Child Left Behind program.
Ms. Dopf concluded her testimony and stated again that the program served the school aged population and worked with the Clark County School District Educational Program and the Program for Homeless, and that the partnership was a way to extend the services and meet federal law requirements. She asked for questions.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if the Title I No Child Left Behind Act affected homeschooling.
Ms. Dopf said that from her knowledge of the various titles under No Child Left Behind no requirements applied to youngsters who were homeschooled. The requirements for homeschooling lay with state law.
Assemblyman Parks said in closing that the Clark County School District was very familiar with the program and seemed very eager to have the services provided.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak on behalf of A.B. 377; he asked if there was anyone in opposition to A.B. 377. There were none and Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 377 closed.
Assembly Bill 383: Makes appropriation to University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for allocation to Women’s Research Institute of Nevada for support of National Education for Women’s Leadership Program. (BDR S-1193)
Assemblywoman Kathryn McClain, District No. 15, introduced Assembly Bill 383. She said it was a small appropriation bill. She noted the impressive list of sponsors of the bill, which included all the women in the Assembly, and the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She said that Commissioner Myrna Williams, Clark County, would have signed on as a sponsor had she been able to do so.
Ms. McClain testified that the appropriation was for matching funds since National Education for Women’s Leadership, or NEW Leadership Nevada, had done fund-raising for the program. In A.B. 383 they were requesting $75,000; $35,000 for FY2003 and $40,000 in FY2004, to be used as matching funds for the program.
Venicia Considine, Program Manager for NEW Leadership Nevada, Women’s Research Institute of Nevada at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, introduced herself for the record and said she was there to talk about NEW Leadership Nevada. By way of background, she testified that in 1990 the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, New Jersey, began the program to address the historic under-representation of women in public leadership. NEW Leadership began as a nationwide summer institute and during its first two years, Jean Ford, from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), took students to the NEW Leadership program in New Jersey. She noted that one of the workshops was based on Jean Ford’s courses. After the first two years it was decided that a nationwide program was too scattered, and in the last eight years the program focused on activities in New Jersey. In 2001 Dr. Joanne Goodwin, Director of the Women’s Research Institute, and Ms. Considine were selected to participate in and observe the New Jersey program to determine if it would apply in Nevada. Ms. Considine said she believed the program would be very applicable in Nevada.
Ms. Considine testified that Nevada ranked in the top 5 in the nation of number of female legislators that were in the state legislature, but ranked 47th in the number of women who were eligible to vote but actually voted. She noted that that was a huge discrepancy that the program attempted to address in part. UNLV had given the NEW Leadership Program a three-year commitment to hold the program on-site and it was the only program in the southwest region to be hosted. The other colleges, besides Rutgers University, that had the program were Washington State, the University of Washington, the University of Oklahoma, Ohio State, Chatham College, Pennsylvania, and the American University in Washington D.C.
Ms. Considine explained that the program was a six-day residential institute for 25 college women from across the state. The women would spend six days at UNLV dorms while they met with women who were leaders in business, education, and the public. She noted her handout (Exhibit L) listed the goals of the program and that included teaching the diversity of women’s historical and contemporary participation in politics and policymaking. She said they intended to connect the students with women leaders who made a difference in the public sphere. The institute would help students explore the demands of leadership in a diverse society, cultivate their leadership skills through workshops, and enable them to practice leadership through action. None of the students would pay to attend, and the program would pay the transportation for those students who came from the northern part of the state. She noted that they also paid for the dormitory facilities, meals, and for all the program supplies to ensure economic diversity along with cultural, geographic, and ethnic diversity. Diversity was one of the goals of the program.
Ms. Considine said that Exhibit L included a draft agenda showing the women who had committed to the program. She added that the speakers and panelists were donating their time and expertise and that she could not put a price on that. She explained that the students would meet with women leaders in informal settings and have the opportunity to ask questions. The students would share meals, and resident faculty that stayed in the dorms with the students would provide them with close modeling experiences. She said that they had a saying that “we are trying to demystify politics and humanize politicians.” Meeting and talking with those women helped students see themselves as those women, and realize that leadership was not disconnected or separate.
Ms. Considine said the two primary reasons women gave for attaining success were having mentors and having networks of relationships with other women. NEW Leadership intended to provide those opportunities to the participants. She said that Nevada had incredible women who were willing to mentor the next generation of women leaders in Nevada. The NEW Leadership program gave the women tools and opportunities to realize their goals.
Ms. Considine said that at the end of the six-day program the students would have the opportunity to apply for small seed grants to start projects in their own communities or on their campuses. She explained that the seed money was included in the budget. She concluded and said that there were some women from Las Vegas who would testify. She asked for questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Beers noted that in the Assembly Elections Procedures and Ethics Committee they heard recent testimony from the Secretary of State that voting participation rates had increased markedly in the recent past, suggesting that their statistics needed updating.
Ms. Considine noted that they began the NEW Leadership project in June of 2001, that she was the only paid staff member working part-time, and had been tasked with identifying speakers, students, and fund-raising. She said that she used the statistics from the Center for American Women in Politics and the Eagleton Institute of Politics, and they were probably not as current as 2002.
Mr. Beers said the gains were very recent and the news was delightful.
Barbara Agonia, Chairwoman, Community Advisory Board, Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, introduced herself for the record. She said she represented the Soroptomist International of Greater Las Vegas, an organization of executive and professional women in Las Vegas. The Greater Las Vegas Club began its support of the women’s leadership program by funding the full participation of one young woman for the first year. In addition, they provided early seed money as start-up funding for the program. Ms. Agonia testified that the Soroptomists encouraged the Committee to pass A.B. 383 as a wise investment from which they would see profitable returns. She testified that she also spoke as Chair of the Community Advisory Board for the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada. As advisors to and supporters of the Institute they enthusiastically endorsed the NEW Leadership program and were deeply appreciative of the quality of the preparation for their first session. She said the project was something Nevada would forever cherish. The Institute urged the Committee to pass A.B. 383 for the development of informed and influential citizens. She said Nevada needed the women, their political parties needed them, non‑partisan issues needed them, and their economy needed them. She said that the Committee could help make that happen. It would not cost very much at all. Ms. Agonia thanked the Committee.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions.
Florence McClure, a 35-year resident of Clark County, introduced herself for the record. She noted that this was not the first time she had appeared before the Committee, but that she extended back to 1969 when Jean Ford took members of the League of Women Voters to the capitol to see the state legislature in session. She noted that when Ms. Ford wanted to run for the Assembly she took the office of state president for the League of Women Voters. She said that today the Assembly had Kathryn McClain, who sponsored A.B. 383. Ms. McClure said she totally approved of the concept of the bill and that it was badly needed. She testified that the country needed more active women who were educated and understood politics. She said she saw on television what was happening around the world. She said she was in the “twilight of my years,” and went back to 1921 when women got the vote. She had been a strong supporter with women’s groups in the area and was in favor of A.B. 383 because they needed to get people to understand politics. Politics affected everyone’s lives. What the Legislature did in Carson City affected everybody there. She noted that many people did not seem to have the time to absorb a lot of things they needed to know. She said more leadership was needed and the NEW Leadership program could help greatly. She noted that she was sending a formal copy of her statements relative to A.B. 383 (Exhibit M). She thanked the Committee.
Chairman Arberry thanked Ms. McClure for her testimony and recognized the next speaker.
Carol Dziedziak, the Assistant Director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, introduced herself for the record. She said she supported A.B. 383 and wanted to address the question raised by Mr. Beers. She said while there might be a slight increase in the number of eligible women who were voting, and she would be interested in seeing the recent numbers, she needed to underscore that while the women’s voting record in the state may have moved from 47th to perhaps 46th or even 45th in the country, Nevada still lagged far behind. She said they had a better vision for Nevada’s capabilities.
Ms. Dziedziak said she would testify specifically about the mentoring structure and the job placement opportunities of the NEW Leadership Program. She said that student internships were available within the program itself as well as with many of their speakers and donors, providing the opportunity for students to work directly with and learn from experienced business and community leaders. Additionally, the 13-year history of the program first started at Rutgers University showed significant job placement opportunities derived directly from participation in the program. NEW Leadership provided critical support for young women moving from academics to career placement. Ms. Dziedziak noted that the program was not a Band-Aid approach to rectifying the lack of young women’s civic involvement. It was a program with a clear vision and long-term commitment. She said they were asking for the Committee’s support of the vision. She thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee.
Jennifer Merideth introduced herself for the record. She said she was a political science major at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. She said she was testifying in support of A.B. 383 and encouraged the Committee to allocate the matching funds for the NEW Leadership Nevada Program. She said the program would provide much needed support for leadership training for Nevadan women.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions from the Committee.
Joanne Goodwin, Associate Professor of History and Director of the Women’s Research Institute, UNLV, introduced herself and said she was there to testify in favor of A.B. 383. She noted that the other speakers addressed the value of the program and its importance to the citizens of the state, and she wanted to testify about the program’s funding and why they had come to the state legislature. Ms. Goodwin explained that since the Board of Regents approved the Women’s Research Institute in 1999 the University System included the Institute in its budget request for statewide programs but both legislative sessions cut statewide enhancements from the budget. During its existence the program operated on gifts and contracts and grants, and that was how they funded their involvement with NEW Leadership. Ms. Goodwin noted that the Program Manager, Venicia Considine, had done a fabulous job getting support from state corporations, individuals, and organizations but they had met about half of the budget. She said that because they were a statewide program and served all Nevadans through their research and educational programs on women in the state, they came to the Legislature with a fair and reasonable request for matching funds. She concluded that in addition to the educational value of their program, they believed they had a track record of responsible expenditures. She said they appreciated the Committee’s civic support for Assembly Bill 383 and said she would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Arberry thanked Ms. Goodwin for her testimony and asked if there were questions from the Committee.
Assemblywoman McClain said that Nevada needed to involve young women in politics because the median age of women in Nevada civic organizations was around 50. She concluded by saying that the program was nonpartisan and that it was very appropriate that the Legislature show support for the program through that appropriation.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak on behalf of or against A.B. 383. There was no further testimony and Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 383 closed. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 468.
Assembly Bill 468: Makes supplemental appropriations to Welfare Division of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfalls in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 for Electronic Transfer Program and State’s share of caseload requirements and cost allocation of Division. (BDR S-1228)
Nancy Ford, Administrator of the Welfare Division, introduced Assembly Bill 468. With her were Roger Mowbray, Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services, and her Administrative Services Officer. She said they were there to request the supplemental appropriation contained in A.B. 468. She explained that the request for a supplemental appropriation was to rectify General Fund shortfalls in two Welfare Division budget accounts. The first shortfall of $122,437 was in the Welfare Administration budget account and was associated with the transition from food stamp coupons to the Electronic Benefits Transfer program (EBT) that put food stamps on swipe cards. The shortfall was driven by the dramatic difference between the legislatively approved projections and the actual caseload. Ms. Ford said that the first chart attached to Exhibit N showed what was budgeted for the food stamp program versus what actually happened to the caseload and the food stamp program. She noted that in the last 18 months the food stamp caseload had grown by 31,800 recipients, which was an increase of over 42 percent. She said that the total shortfall was projected at $180,000, but $57,563 would be met through the restoration of the General Fund allocation that reverted earlier in the fiscal year to meet the Governor’s 3 percent budget cut.
Ms. Ford said that the larger shortfall was $2,761,305 in the Field Services budget account and resulted from the Welfare Division’s caseload mix that affected the results of the Division’s cost allocation plan. The total shortfall was projected at $3,061,345, $480,291 of which would be met with the restoration of the General Fund allocation that was reverted earlier that fiscal year to meet the 3 percent budget cuts.
Ms. Ford said that in accordance with federal rules and regulations, and an approved federal plan, the Welfare Division used the cost allocation plan to apportion expenses among the various programs for which the Division determined eligibility and managed ongoing cases. After direct costs were identified expenses were allocated based on the results of a Random Moment Survey (RMS) that identified the types of cases randomly selected employees were working on at randomly selected points in time. Those surveys were used to calculate the percentage of indirect costs that were attributable to each program, mainly TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid. The results of the Random Moment Survey for each quarter were a reflection of the caseload for each of the programs administered by the Welfare Division in that particular quarter.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Ford if the figures were in The Executive Budget.
Ms. Ford said that they were in The Executive Budget.
Chairman Arberry asked for questions. Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak for or against Assembly Bill 468. There was no one who wanted to speak and Chairman Arberry said they would move the bill on Friday. As there was no further testimony, he declared the hearing on A.B. 468 closed.
Assembly Bill 69: Expands exemption from requirement that State Public Works Board furnish engineering and architectural services for buildings constructed on state property or with legislative appropriation to certain improvements made by Division of Wildlife of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 28-521)
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, introduced Assembly Bill 69 and said it had been heard about six weeks earlier. He said that it involved the Division of Wildlife. Currently, the Division of State Parks had the authority to provide architectural design services for non-residential building units with more than 1,000 square feet and not use the State Public Works Board. That would expand the authority to the Division of Wildlife.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had originally had some concerns about the expansion but the authority had already been delegated and there was an engineer on staff with the Public Works Board that would review the Division of Wildlife’s work. She added that as they dealt with privatization issues they might need to revisit some of the smaller agencies authorized under the provision in A.B. 69.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 69.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Gibbons and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 91: Revises provisions governing regulation of pesticides. (BDR 51-568)
Mark Stevens introduced Assembly Bill 91. He said there were two Department of Agriculture bills that would be reviewed. He said that the main intent of A.B. 91 was to make provisions for companies to register pesticide brands rather than individual pesticides. He noted that in Section 6 of the bill the Department of Agriculture recommended some amendments, and subsection 2 of Section 6 would read “The Director shall, for each annual registration fee he collects, deposit in a separate account the amount established for that purpose by regulation of the Director. The money deposited in the account must be used for the disposal of pesticides and to monitor pesticides and protect ground water and surface water from contamination by pesticides.”
Mr. Stevens explained that subsection 2 of Section 6 removed language involving the money balancing forward because the account was a non-General Fund account and would balance forward anyway. He said that was the only amendment that was requested in that particular bill.
Chairman Arberry asked for further explanation regarding the movement of money within the accounts.
Mr. Stevens said in A.B. 91 the money was deposited in a non-General Fund account and would always balance forward. In the next bill, Assembly Bill 130, the Department of Agriculture was suggesting that they be authorized to move non-General Fund revenues that were deposited to a General Fund account to a non-General Fund account. Mr. Stevens said that would affect reversions and was a subject that was discussed at some length in the 71st Session. He said A.B. 130 was trying to put into law an accounting method whereby the money would be in a non-reverting account so that the Department could keep it.
Chairman Arberry said that by amending A.B. 91 they would clear up the language and make it a better bill.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved to amend and do pass ASSEMBLY BILL 91.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani seconded the motion.
The MotiON CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Gibbons, Speaker Perkins and Assemblyman Goldwater were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 130: Makes various changes relating to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR 50-569)
Mr. Stevens explained that he had just discussed Assembly Bill 130. He said that Section 1 allowed the Director of the State Department of Agriculture to set fees for publications. He said fiscal staff had written the Department of Agriculture and asked for clarification of the bill. Based on the information they received from the Department, Section 1 provided for those instances where companies wanted an increased turnaround time for identifying certain pests in nursery stock coming into the state. The companies wanted a quick turnaround time to get the product to the nursery for sale and the companies were willing to pay additional money for timely analyses.
Mr. Stevens said that staff would recommend that Sections 2 and 3 be deleted. He explained that in Section 3, subsection 2(a), pursuant to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 555.310 and 555.320, the fees collected were currently deposited in the Plant Industry Account that was a General Fund account. The Pest Control Program in Plant Industry was a combination of federal funds and state General Fund, and fees. Mr. Stevens said that the money committees had traditionally held that General Fund dollars were spent last, and if there were remaining funds they reverted to the General Fund at the close of the fiscal period. Section 3, subsection 2(a) of A.B. 130, would take the non-General Fund portion of what was supported in the Pest Control Program and deposit the funds to a non-General Fund account. The reversionary question would be moot because the funds would be in a non-General Fund account that would balance forward. He said that staff recommended that Sections 2 and 3 be deleted to retain those fees in the Plant Industry Account where remaining funds would be subject to reversion at the end of the fiscal period. Mr. Stevens said that was a policy question for the Committee to make.
Mr. Stevens said that Section 5 of A.B. 130, pages 3 and 4, would allow fines collected by the Department of Agriculture to be deposited to the state General Fund versus the county school district. He said that section would also add a new subsection that would allow the Director of the Department of Agriculture to negotiate with the board of trustees of a school district to use those fine revenues for educational purposes.
Chairman Arberry asked for clarification of what the Committee needed to delete with regard to Sections 2 and 3.
Mr. Stevens said once they deleted the bold language in those sections there would be no need for Sections 2 and 3. Mr. Stevens said that Section 4 dealt with the livestock inspection program. He said that fiscal staff found no concern with Section 4 or Section 5. He said the choice the Committee had to make had to do with policy. The Committee could either have the fines deposited in the state General Fund or they could allow the Department to negotiate with school districts to use the fine revenue for educational purposes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she questioned whether using the funds in that manner was an appropriate use for the fines. She noted that that would take more money away from the Distributive School Account (DSA) since currently fines were required to go into the DSA or into the General Fund.
Mr. Stevens said that usually fines were deposited to the state General Fund. He said the Committee could change the language in subsection 1 that currently designated the fines be deposited to a county school district and designate the fines be deposited to the state General Fund. He said in subsection 3 that the language would allow the Director of the Department of Agriculture to negotiate the use of those fines with school districts for educational purposes.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not think it was appropriate to use the fines for pest management educational purposes. She said the language should continue directing the fines as it had been and deal with pest management education in the budget.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 130 BY DELETING SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 5 AND THE NEW LANGUAGE, AND REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL BILL LANGUAGE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 445: Makes various changes related to Medicaid. (BDR 38-482)
Mr. Stevens said the Committee had heard A.B. 445 on April 7, 2003. He said the bill provided for transferring certain duties from the Welfare Division to the Medicaid Program. The transfer was built into The Executive Budget. He said A.B. 445 also deleted one section of NRS, NRS 422.2725, which involved the Medicaid program that the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy could not implement. The federal government disallowed the section that protected assets if one or the other of a married couple was placed in a nursing home. The agency had requested deletion of that section. Mr. Stevens said those were the only changes in that particular legislation. Mr. Stevens said the Committee needed to decide if it wanted to pass the bill and then if it wanted to delete Section 7 as requested by the agency.
Assemblyman Hettrick moved to amend Assembly bill 445 to delete Section 7 and do pass.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 454: Directs Legislative Auditor to conduct performance audit of Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR S-1315)
Mr. Stevens said that A.B. 454 was also heard on Monday, April 7, 2003. He said it provided for a performance audit of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program. He said there had been discussions that some language might or might not need to be changed. He explained that either the legislative auditor could include that proposal within the language that was included in the bill, or the bill could be amended. Mr. Stevens added that the other note on the bill was to change the reporting date to October or November so the recommendations could be reviewed during the budget building process in the fall of 2004.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the change of date to November was a good idea. She said in discussions with Paul Townsend in the Audit Division they had concluded that language regarding reviewing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and contracts that had been let should be inserted in order to give a focus on savings to the audit.
Assemblywoman McClain noted that there was an appetite to have an interim study on the whole Public Employees’ Benefits area. She asked if it would be advantageous to have the audit in time for an interim study committee to review.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she had brought that up in discussions with Mr. Townsend. She said the Audit Division had to conduct five major audits and Mr. Townsend felt they would not be able to handle more. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that they could get the information as it moved forward but she said that the interim study might not be fully accomplished over the next biennium. She said it might take two years depending on negotiated agreements. Changing the report date to November would give them a basis as they considered the recommendations from the interim study. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would recommend an amend and do pass for A.B. 454 with those two changes and then meet with Mr. Townsend to see if they could move their audits forward.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 454.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens said there was not enough time to do budget closings and the Committee would have to continue with them on Friday, April 11. He said they also needed to pass more bills on April 11 because that was a deadline date for exempt bills.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stevens what was on the schedule for Thursday.
Mr. Stevens said that Thursday was Public Safety Subcommittee and Higher Education.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was anything else before the Committee that morning.
Assembly Bill 543: Repeals credit against general tax on insurance premiums for certain assessments paid by insurers providing industrial insurance. (BDR 57-962)
Assembly Bill 543 was not heard at this meeting.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:41 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Catherine Caldwell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: