MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
April 14, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:13 a.m., on Monday, April 14, 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
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 259: Creates Advisory Committee on Homelessness. (BDR 38-752)
Assemblyman David Parks, District No. 41, introduced himself. He said approximately one and one-half years before he had been requested by the Governor’s Office to participate in a program that was the result of a grant that had been written and approved at the federal level. Mr. Parks said there were only 8 states selected out of 30 states that had requested to participate. Mr. Parks said a policy academy program was created where different states would get together and work to develop procedures and methods that would assist with the homeless issue. Mr. Parks said that homelessness was a multifaceted issue and most agencies ended up studying the issue individually within their own narrow scope of their responsibilities. Mr. Parks said the result had been that the policy academy had continued to function well past the time it was initially established and, as a result, A.B. 259 had been prepared. He said the bill had been passed by the Committee on Health and Human Services and had been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means strictly because there was a fiscal note of $10,000 attached.
Mr. Parks continued by saying the fiscal note of $10,000 was a modest amount for the program, which was being done as inexpensively as possible to create the organization and keep it working. He said the payoff on the program was many fold more than what any expense would be. He said that already there had been significant gains. Mr. Parks said that he had found that throughout the state there had been many agencies of the state, as well as local government agencies and nonprofit organizations, that were working hard to solve some of the homelessness issues. Unfortunately, the homelessness issue was a large multifaceted problem and Mr. Parks said the bill would allow for the continuation of the work that had already been started.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many members were on the Advisory Committee on Homelessness.
Mr. Parks responded that there were 19 members on the Committee and the Governor was authorized to appoint additional members as necessary. Mr. Parks said many individuals and agencies that dealt with a specific area, such as veterans and youth, wanted to also be given a seat on the Committee. Mr. Parks said that currently there were approximately 25 individuals who participated in every meeting. He said there was a great deal of interest and he would like to have the Committee formalized so that the work could continue.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what funding was being provided by local governments.
Mr. Parks stated that at the present time they were providing the funding for their own efforts. He said the bill provided no money for per diem, no money for daily salaries for anyone, and the $10,000 request was to be used to assist in helping the Committee stay alive and create a documented effort of its activities.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that Section 7 of the bill said participants would serve without compensation unless funding was available and then they could receive a per diem allowance and travel expenses. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the intent was for the grants to pay for salaries or to put a program together.
Mr. Parks said the bill was worded in such a manner to allow the Committee to receive money and to use that money for specific programs. It was not intended to pay salaries. He said that most of the individuals who would be participating in the program were already drawing salaries from their regular employment except the legislative members.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there was an anticipated sunset date for the Committee.
Mr. Parks said that had not been put into the bill but he would be open to adding a five-, six-, or ten-year sunset provision into the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what the appropriation would be used for. She wanted to be sure the appropriation would be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Mr. Parks said the language in the bill would allow the Committee to receive funds from a private foundation that might want to donate funds. Mr. Parks said there was no intent to compete with other agencies or governments for major grants. The intent was that if funds were available the Committee would have a way to account for the funds.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Committee should be permitted to take all of the monies that local governments and various other entities had for homelessness, bring it into one account, and then disseminate it instead of having the funds used individually.
Mr. Parks said he would leave that question to be answered by others who would testify. He said that at the state level it was difficult to know what monies were received at the local levels.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed it was time to coordinate the receipt of grant monies.
Assemblyman Parks said that was what the policy academy had been doing and he believed the academy had done some outstanding work toward trying to get everyone working in the same direction and everyone trying to understand the full scope of the problem. Mr. Parks said he was sure the participants understood the scope of the problems as they worked with them every day, however, many times the participants had specific responsibilities that had to be taken care of. He said, for instance, when a homeless person came to a housing agency the agency was only concerned with finding housing for that individual, whereas that individual might have many other problems.
Ms. Anne Cory, President and Chief Professional Officer, United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra, introduced herself. She said she was the Vice Chair of the Governor’s policy academy team. She said the Advisory Committee on Homelessness had been meeting routinely for the prior year and a half. The policy academy team had been set up not to duplicate efforts that were taking place on the local level by service providers but to provide policy direction at the state level to help coordinate the activities of local service providers around Nevada. She said she had worked quite closely with the continuum of care for the homeless groups in northern, southern, and rural Nevada in order to attempt to coordinate what was done and to leverage their efforts.
Ms. Cory said the Advisory Committee had created a state action plan to move the group forward. She said Assemblyman Parks had brought the bill forward because a number of state agency directors participated on the policy academy team and they were very valuable for setting direction and getting things done in the group. The Advisory Committee was concerned that with an ad hoc type of committee they would not be able to continue to receive the time that the state administrators had provided. Ms. Cory said there had been discussions by the policy academy team about doing a public awareness campaign on homelessness around the state. She said that some money would be required to do that and the Advisory Committee would like to be able to do fundraising among foundations or corporations to gather money to produce public service announcements and printed advertisements. Ms. Cory said that currently the policy academy did not have the authority to raise funds and under an Advisory Committee she hoped they would have the authority to raise funds to participate in such activities. Ms. Cory said the group had not created a long-range plan on the use of funds but they did have plans for a public information campaign.
Ms. Cory said she believed it was important to delineate between the policy level activities of the policy academy team and the direct service provision by local service providers. She said there was no attempt to supplant local service by the policy academy, it was instead to leverage their efforts and to enhance statewide coordination of such activities.
Assemblywoman Leslie stated that she supported the bill and was concerned about the fiscal impact. She said she believed the Committee could work with Mr. Parks when it was determined what funds were available. Assemblywoman Leslie said she did not want to see the bill fail because of the funding requested. She asked if local governments had been asked to match funds provided by the state. Assemblywoman Leslie said she was familiar with the efforts in Washoe County and the County Commissioners had provided funds to support those types of efforts in the past. She said she knew the homeless problem in Las Vegas was a large problem and she thought perhaps some local funding might be provided.
Ms. Cory said the Committee did not anticipate the need for a great deal of money. She said the Committee had been acting for one and a half years with virtually no funds. Ms. Cory said she created the agendas and disseminated them on e-mail, used the telephone, and through the generosity of the state they had been able to videoconference the meetings so that there were no travel costs involved. Ms. Cory said her sense was that there was not a great deal of money needed outside of the public information campaign but, on the other hand, it would be nice to be able to print a report without having to rely on the participants to donate those copies. She said each of the agencies involved had tight budgets and when a member of the policy academy team was asked to print copies the cost very often came out of a state agency budget.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the bill should be passed even if it could not be funded.
Assemblyman Parks said he wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact there was an article in the April 10, 2003, Sun, which said “Vegas ranked as second most dangerous city for homeless.” He said that was an interesting article that underscored the fact that there was a huge problem that needed to be addressed.
Ms. Nancy Ford, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, submitted Exhibit C and said she was there on behalf of the Department of Human Resources. She said the Department was in favor of the bill as the Committee was essential in helping to coordinate the very fragmented services that were available to the homeless in Nevada.
Assemblywoman Chowning said that law enforcement was a very important part of addressing homeless issues and she asked if law enforcement representatives would be a part of the group.
Ms. Ford said that law enforcement, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department of Las Vegas, in particular, had been involved with the policy academy and she anticipated that they would continue to be involved. Ms. Ford said the Committee wanted to coordinate efforts to eliminate duplication of all the services that were available. She said the dollars available should be used in the most effective way possible on the homeless issue.
Ms. Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, introduced herself. Ms. Dempsey said the City had been actively working with various homeless groups as well as the mental health groups in Las Vegas. She said she believed there was a direct nexus between some of the homeless challenges and those of the mentally ill.
Ms. Dempsey said that with the overcrowded hospitals in southern Nevada, local governments got together and decided that they would reallocate some of their financial resources because those were funds that had been allocated to other areas but homelessness was identified as a higher priority. Ms. Dempsey said the City had contracted with WestCare to provide a “one stop shop.” Ms. Dempsey said that all ambulance, fire, rescue, or Metro police officers could take someone who was mentally ill or homeless, who was not in a life‑threatening situation or needed to go to the emergency room, to WestCare, where some services and support would be provided.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the City of Las Vegas would be willing to allocate funds to the coordination of the statewide advisory team or a coordinated public relations campaign.
Ms. Dempsey stated that conceptually she could consider allocating funds.
Assemblywoman Leslie said she would like to see a partnership between the state and local governments. She said she believed the two urban areas should participate financially in the project.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Regional Planning Commission was concerned with the homeless issue.
Ms. Dempsey responded that there was a Regional Planning Coalition Homelessness Task Force. She said the Task Force was operated out of an office of the City of Las Vegas with neighborhood services. Ms. Dempsey said the Task Force had adopted certain goals and procedures to maintain those goals. She said many of the goals of the Task Force went along with some of the other programs and advisory boards in existence.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the key was coordination in developing a “one stop shop” for assisting families. She asked if all the grants and funding streams from local governments could be pooled to assist the homeless.
Ms. Dempsey said she had no knowledge of that type of effort taking place although she thought Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had made an excellent recommendation. She said there might be some initial concerns with the cost of grant writing and reallocating the resource base in certain areas but she thought it was a good idea.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed an ultimate goal of the policy committee might be to review areas where the funds had not been capitalized. She said the City did a better job of writing grants than the state. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said families should not become more fragmented as they went through their struggles on the streets.
There being no further testimony on A.B. 259, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 259 and opened the hearing on A.B. 7.
Assembly Bill 7 (1st Reprint): Reduces concentration of alcohol that may be present in blood or breath of person while operating vehicle or vessel. (BDR 43-17)
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18, introduced himself and said it was his fourth time introducing the legislation. He said that 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had passed legislation similar to A.B. 7. Mr. Manendo said that over the years the fiscal note on the bill had been in the multimillions of dollars but currently it was approximately $80,000. With Nevada doubling in population over the last 14 years he was surprised that the fiscal note was as low as it was. He said it would be interesting to hear from the Department of Corrections to see how the fiscal impact had been determined.
Assemblyman Manendo said that he hoped that representatives from the Department of Corrections and the Department of Transportation would provide information on the fiscal impact of the bill. Mr. Manendo stated that he had received information that Nevada would lose $2.8 million by October 1, 2003, if the legislation were not enacted because Congress and the President of the United States in 2000 established a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as the national standard. Mr. Manendo said he was aware that people had philosophical differences on federal mandates but he preferred to see Nevada pass the bill on its own merits rather than have the federal government tell Nevada what had to be done. He said the bill reflected the national law and Nevada would have to comply or pay the consequences. Mr. Manendo said that by 2007, Nevada could lose approximately $29 million. Mr. Manendo said if Nevada lost the funds due to noncompliance he wondered where the funds to make up the loss would come from.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there were two issues involved. The first issue was the policy of whether or not the 0.08 BAC limit was a responsible way to go. The second issue was the federal government mandate to do something and withholding funding. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said part of her concern was that by going to the lower level Nevada risked “capturing social drinkers” without having to make a determination regarding impairment. She said she believed the Committee should have some discussion regarding adding “rebuttable presumption” into the statutes. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that people would now be stopped at “0.06, 0.07, not just at 0.08.” She said the law presumed a person to be guilty until proven innocent and she believed that the policy should be reviewed.
Assemblyman Manendo said that he had participated in a drinking demonstration at the University Medical Center in southern Nevada. He said he started at approximately 10 a.m. and drank for a couple of hours. He had five drinks in a two-hour period with pretzels and chips. Assemblyman Manendo said he passed the field sobriety test and he was at 0.05 on the breath test.
Assemblyman Manendo said there were Section 163 incentive grant funds for the states that passed the 0.08 law and it had been estimated that Nevada would receive between $250,000 and $500,000 if the legislation was passed. Mr. Manendo believed that over the past four to five years Nevada had lost millions of dollars by not passing the law. He said the federal money could be used for anti-drunk driving safety programs.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated that he had the same concerns that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had and he balked at the federal government “forcing this down our throats.” Mr. Hettrick said he completed the same drinking test that Mr. Manendo had done and he had six drinks in one hour, he passed the field sobriety test, and no breath test or blood test was done. He said he did not feel that he should have been driving but he did pass the test.
Assemblyman Hettrick said he was concerned because he was under the impression that one of the founders of one of the drunk driving organizations had come out with a statement that going to 0.08 was not really the answer because social drinkers would be identified when the penalties on people with 0.12 or above, who had been caught for the third and fourth times, should be raised. Mr. Hettrick said those were the real offenders and he hoped Nevada’s laws would start identifying them but he was not sure how to do that when the “feds blackmailed us into doing this kind of thing.”
Assemblyman Manendo said he agreed that social drinkers should not be penalized. He said that six drinks in one hour was not social drinking. He said there was a bill that had passed out of Judiciary the past two sessions that dealt with repeat offenders on their fourth time and above and he agreed with that bill.
Mr. Bruce Nelson, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, Nevada, introduced himself. He said he was not going to talk about the federal monies because even without the federal monies from a fiscal standpoint the bill made sense. Mr. Nelson referred to Exhibit D, statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2000 Report of Impaired Driving in Nevada. Mr. Nelson said the state of Nevada lost $1.1 billion every year from drunk drivers. He said that other studies had found that when 0.08 was enacted there was a decline in the drunk driving rate of anywhere from 7 to 16 percent. Taking 7 percent of $1.1 billion meant that the state would save $77 million per year. Mr. Nelson said that savings was obviously far in excess of any fiscal impact that had ever been found for the 0.08 bill. Mr. Nelson said even without considering the federal monies, the $2.8 million, the bill made financial sense, sense for Nevada’s citizens, and for the state.
Mr. Nelson said there had been some concern regarding social drinkers. He said he had participated in the same test that Mr. Manendo and Mr. Hettrick had done. He said he had eight vodka tonics in one and a half hours and reached 0.09. Mr. Nelson said a person had to consume an enormous amount of alcohol to reach 0.08 and he did not believe a social drinker would drink as much as he had done in the test. Mr. Nelson said the bill would not capture social drinkers, instead, it would be people who drank a large amount of alcohol and chose to drive who would be captured. Mr. Nelson said that the Legislature obviously wanted to keep those people off the road to save lives but the state should also want to save the money that those drunk drivers cost the state every year. Mr. Nelson closed by saying that the bill stood on its own even without the federal monies.
Chairman Arberry said the Legislature had listened to testimony on bills similar to A.B. 7 for many years and he hoped enacting the bill did not turn into a “witch hunt” for police officers on the street to stop people coming out of local bars. Chairman Arberry said there were serious repercussions of people being jailed for 0.08 that would affect them and their families.
Mr. Nelson responded that the state average was 0.18 and that meant there were not a large number of people at 0.08. Also, it was not illegal to walk out of a bar, or get in the car and drive a car, and no police officer could lawfully stop someone for that. Mr. Nelson said a driver would have to commit some driving infraction or be involved in a collision before the officer had the reasonable suspicion necessary to pull a person over. Mr. Nelson said he did not believe the police would be staking out bars in order to pull people over. He said that legally the police could not do that and would be facing a lawsuit if nothing else.
Speaker Perkins said he disagreed with Mr. Nelson because a traffic violation or some other traffic problem was not required for the police to stop someone. He said that if a person exiting a bar exhibited a lack of motor control, whether it was staggering to the car, or trying to put a key in the lock, that would enter into the realm of reasonable suspicion. Speaker Perkins said that having arrested over 300 drunk drivers in his law enforcement career, he had seen some that were 0.07 or 0.08 and were absolutely “a mess” and some people that were 0.12 or 0.13 that were, in his opinion, not impaired. Speaker Perkins said he had always believed that the 0.10 threshold was a good threshold but given the situation that Nevada was in he acquiesced to the 0.08 threshold because of what the federal government had suggested. Speaker Perkins said there were a number of things that rose to the level of reasonable suspicion when law enforcement took that into consideration, and the level of reasonable suspicion would be somewhat less than it was before because of the lower level of impairment.
Ms. Kristin L. Erickson, representing the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office and the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, introduced herself. She said she wanted to echo the sentiments of Mr. Manendo and Mr. Nelson. From a financial standpoint, both state and federally, the bill made sense.
Mr. John R. Johansen, Highway Safety Representative, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, introduced himself. He said that his position was a federally funded, state position and that he would remain neutral on the bill. Mr. Johansen referred the Committee to Exhibit E, a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, dated April 8, 2003, to Assemblyman Manendo, and Exhibit F, “Data and Information Relative to Reducing the Legal BAC Level to 0.08 from 0.10.” Mr. Johansen said there was a legal opinion on the Act signed into law in 2000 that established the penalties with the highway construction funds that would comply with Section 163 of the federal code and Nevada would be in compliance. He said the question of rebuttable presumption might make the law noncompliant. Mr. Johansen said Nevada would have to get a legal opinion but the state of Rhode Island had a 0.08 law that was not in compliance because it did not meet all six criteria specified in Section 163.
Mr. Johansen referred the Committee to page 3 of Exhibit F, a map of the states that had a 0.08 law as of July, 2002. He said that page 5 of Exhibit F showed a chart of the penalties to Nevada from the Highway Fund. Over the next four years the penalty would total $28.4 million. Mr. Johansen said that in 1998, when 0.08 was a Presidential initiative and had not yet become the law, an incentive fund was set up for states with 0.08, and as more states joined the 0.08 law they participated in the funding. It was estimated that Nevada would probably receive between $300,000 and $500,000. Mr. Johansen said it would have been $1 million a couple of years ago but more states had joined and were now sharing in the same fund of monies.
Mr. Johansen said the chart on page 7 of Exhibit F showed the total traffic fatalities in Nevada and the number associated with alcohol. He said that since 1988 an excellent job had been done in Nevada to reduce total traffic fatalities in Nevada and alcohol fatalities. In 2002, unfortunately, that trend had been reversed. Mr. Johansen said page 8 of Exhibit F contained a chart that showed the average BAC content of those drivers tested who tested positive for alcohol. Mr. Johansen said that 0.08 and 0.09 were relatively low, Nevada’s major problem was in the 0.18 and above. Mr. Johansen said the Department of Corrections used the information to calculate their fiscal notes. He said the Department of Corrections was interested in how many additional arrests or how many incarcerations there would be. Mr. Johansen continued his presentation by reviewing the remaining pages in Exhibit F. He said alcohol was responsible for 10 percent of the serious injury-only crashes and 35 percent of the fatal crashes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Johansen had stated that Nevada’s problems tended to be at 0.18.
Mr. Johansen responded affirmatively. He referred to Exhibit F for the figures.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that testing positive did not necessarily mean someone was impaired. She said that was part of the policy decision that was still before the Legislature.
Speaker Perkins asked if Mr. Johansen had said that 10 percent of the crashes were injury-only crashes and 35 percent were fatal crashes where alcohol was responsible. Speaker Perkins asked what Mr. Johansen meant when he referred to crashes that alcohol was responsible for.
Mr. Johansen said “responsible” might not be the correct term. He said he meant that alcohol was a component of the crash. He said accidents with any amount of alcohol involved were counted.
Speaker Perkins asked if the data broke out whether someone was impaired or simply whether there was alcohol in their system.
Mr. Johansen answered that the charts in Exhibit F did show the levels of impairment currently and at 0.08 and 0.09.
Speaker Perkins asked if there was a reason why impairment levels were not tracked.
Mr. Johansen said that for each fatal crash there could be up to five causative effects recorded and alcohol might be one of those. He said the most common other causative effects were speeding, failure to yield, and inattention.
Speaker Perkins said it was also possible that a person not at fault in an accident could have been the person killed and the person with alcohol in their blood.
Mr. Johansen agreed with Speaker Perkins. He said the data in Exhibit F made no assumptions as to who was the survivor and who was the non-survivor although that data was available.
Ms. Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Department of Transportation (DOT), introduced herself. She said the Department of Transportation supported the bill in the interest of public safety. She said that if it could help save lives the Department was in support. Ms. Martinovich said that in October 2000, as part of the 2001 DOT Appropriation Act, Congress passed and the President of the United States signed a provision making 0.08 alcohol concentration the national standard for impaired driving. She said that meant that states that did not adopt the 0.08 BAC laws by FY2004, which would start October 1, 2003, would have highway construction funds withheld. That would mean that for the current year and FY2004, approximately 2 percent, or $2.8 million, would be withheld and the amount would increase by 2 percent each year until 2007. At the 8 percent level it would be approximately $11.4 million per year withheld and then that 8 percent amount would be withheld the following years. Ms. Martinovich said that meant that over the next four years it would mean $28.4 million in lost highway construction funds. The penalties could be greater with the proposed new increase in federal funding under the next Highway Reauthorization bill. Ms. Martinovich emphasized that the sanctions were mandatory sanctions and not permissive or discretionary sanctions.
Ms. Martinovich said that as a side note, the bill also applied to vessels and while that was something to consider, the federal sanctions were not applicable to that part of it.
Mr. Jonathan Andrews, Special Assistant, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, introduced himself. Mr. Andrews said he was representing Attorney General Brian Sandoval and the Attorney General asked him to express his support of A.B. 7 and to encourage the Committee to approve it.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, introduced herself. She said the founder of MADD was no longer involved with MADD and had not been since the mid-1980s. Ms. Stadler said all of the scientific studies had indicated that 0.08 was the point where virtually all drivers were impaired. Ms. Stadler said she believed that was the standard that should be set for our country and had been set for many countries throughout the world.
Ms. Stadler said she had heard about the funds that Nevada would lose if the 0.08 was not implemented. She said she had been at the Legislature session after session supporting 0.08 for the saving lives issue and the studies also indicated that there would be many lives saved and the 0.08 would serve as a general deterrent. Ms. Stadler said the 0.08 would bring down crash rates at all BAC levels and the passing of the 0.08 legislation would send a message to all Nevadans that impaired driving would not be tolerated.
Ms. Stadler said that Attorney General Brian Sandoval worked very hard when he was in the Legislature to get the boating under the influence laws on a par with the driving under the influence legislation. Ms. Stadler said she hoped the Committee would keep that portion of A.B. 7 in the bill as it had been written.
Ms. Stadler said that MADD had supported the 0.08 legislation for over ten years and she believed that now was the time to pass the law. Ms. Stadler said that “funny money” and the lives that would be saved and the costs that would be reduced had been discussed in the past but now there were real federal dollars involved. With all of the discussion in Nevada regarding the budget she hoped that the Committee would pass A.B. 7 to keep the federal dollars in place and to save lives in Nevada.
Mr. Jim Holmes, Chairman, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, introduced himself. He said the Task Force was a nonprofit organization that was responsible for conducting the Victim Impact Panel for Washoe County. He said the membership was composed of the Washoe County School District Police, Nevada Highway Patrol, University of Nevada Police Department, Washoe County Sheriff’s Department, Parole and Probation, Office of Traffic Safety, Wittenberg Juvenile Facility, Children’s Cabinet, and the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Holmes said he supported the bill and had been trying for four sessions of the Legislature to have the bill passed. He said the bill would save lives and would save money for the state of Nevada. Mr. Holmes said the social drinker continued to be a question and he could not understand how someone could consider four to five drinks per hour as social drinking. Mr. Holmes said impairment started with the first drink, whether it was social or otherwise, because the judgment started to go. Mr. Holmes said that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the probability of a crash tripled from 0.08 to 0.10. Mr. Holmes said the Committee had heard all the money issues and he supported those. He said the state of California in the early 1990s put in the 0.08 limit and prior to that time California experienced 2,200 alcohol related crash deaths per year. That had been reduced to 1,100 in the ensuing years. Mr. Holmes urged the Committee to pass A.B. 7.
Chairman Arberry commented that his understanding was that after California passed the 0.08 law it had to build a new prison.
Mr. Holmes said that information could be true but 1,100 lives per year had been saved. In addition, there was a large sum of money that could be saved with the adoption of 0.08.
Mr. Rex Reed, Administrator, Offender Management Division, Department of Corrections, introduced himself. He said the Department had produced over 65 fiscal notes and this was the only one where a legislator had requested that someone from the Department be present to answer questions.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked Mr. Reed to explain the fiscal note.
Mr. Reed said in the past it had been difficult to get data to estimate fiscal impact. There was far more data currently available and Mr. Reed said his staff had met with staff from the Office of Traffic Safety and talked to people in Washington, D.C. Mr. Reed said that after looking at all the data, they chose the numbers given to them by the Office of Traffic Safety, which were to expect three people per year to be convicted under the provisions in the bill. Mr. Reed said it was assumed that many people would not be caught if they were just driving. The ones that would be caught were the ones who were involved in an accident, taken to a hospital, their blood would be drawn and tested, and it came in above the 0.08.
Assemblywoman Leslie said she believed that the fiscal notes in the past had been grossly exaggerated but the current fiscal note seemed like it might be too low to her.
Mr. Reed said the fiscal note was the Department’s best estimate based on the data available. He reiterated that better data was available now than had been in the past.
Chairman Arberry asked for further testimony on A.B. 7 and there being none, he closed A.B. 7 and opened the hearing on A.B. 227.
Assembly Bill 227: Requires increased salaries for certain school psychologists. (BDR 34-719)
Assemblywoman Leslie, District No. 27, said she introduced A.B. 227 at the request of former Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, who was present and would speak in support of the bill. Assemblywoman Leslie said the bill would increase the salaries by 5 percent of school psychologists who received their national board certification, similar to what had been done in the last session of the Legislature for teachers.
Ms. Bonnie Parnell said she was speaking in support of A.B. 227 on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Psychologists. She said A.B. 227 reflected the continuing effort to set high standards within our schools and to recognize, promote, and financially reward those who had achieved an advanced level of excellence in their field. Ms. Parnell said the bill was modeled after legislation that had been introduced by Senator Raggio in the 1999 Session. Ms. Parnell said S.B. 46 of the 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature provided an additional 5 percent on the salary scale for those who received their national board certification. That bill was passed by a vote of 40 to 1 in the Assembly and 19 to 0 in the Senate.
Ms. Parnell said Section 2, subsection 3 of A.B. 227 would grant a 5 percent salary increase to school psychologists. She said school psychologists were currently on the salary schedule of teachers except for one school district that paid their school psychologists on the administrative scale. A.B. 227 would only pertain to those school psychologists who were currently being paid on the teacher’s salary scale and who received their national board certification. Ms. Parnell said that in Section 2, subsection 7, the Commission on Professional Standards would set forth the requisite national board standard.
Ms. Parnell said the recruitment of school psychologists was so difficult that it was referenced in The Executive Budget as part of the Distributive School Account’s high impact positions. Ms. Parnell said only math, science, English as a second language, and school psychologists were noted as needing incentives for placement and retention.
Ms. Parnell said that A.B. 227 would currently affect approximately 43 school psychologists. That meant that only 43 people would be eligible for the additional 5 percent. Ms. Parnell said that hopefully the bill would encourage others to receive their national certification as well.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, introduced himself. He said the State Board of Education supported the concept of the bill and included $285,000 in Budget Account 2699 of the Department of Education. The difference between that request was that it was for school counselors and school psychologists and it would take effect in FY2005.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that Clark County had said the fiscal impact would be $350,000, then $400,000, and then $900,000 in future biennia. She asked where Clark County had gotten their figures.
Dr. Rheault said he did not know how they had projected their numbers but his numbers were the same numbers as those used by Ms. Parnell. Dr. Rheault said the $285,000 projected would pay for approximately 93 individuals using an average salary of the state’s school psychologists.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what was budgeted for the school counselors’ portion.
Dr. Rheault said his estimate of cost had included school psychologists and school counselor positions. He said he knew there were more school psychologists that already had the national certification. For school counselors, the national school counselor endorsement would be required as well as a sub‑endorsement. Dr. Rheault said he had anticipated that it would take some time to include the counselors so he only planned on approximately 40 school counselors qualifying the first year.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked when the bill would take effect.
Dr. Rheault said the bill would take effect in the current fiscal year and be retroactive from November 1 instead of September 15 after the first year.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Commission on Professional Standards had adopted the national certification for school counselors.
Dr. Rheault responded that they had not specifically adopted the national certification for the 5 percent bonus but they had adopted it for recognition for licensing purposes, and if the holder had national board certification the Commission would recognize all the credits needed to maintain that license for renewal purposes of their Nevada license.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the sponsors would be willing to delay the implementation of the bill.
Assemblywoman Leslie responded that she would like implementation to be made as soon as possible but implementation in FY2005 would be acceptable.
Dr. Tony del Vecchio, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Association of School Psychologists, introduced himself. He said he had been a practicing school psychologist for the Carson City School District for the past 22 years. He stated that on behalf of school psychologists in the state of Nevada he requested the Committee’s support of A.B. 227. He said the rationale for such a position was that the requirements for school psychologists’ national certification matched, and to some degree exceeded, the national certification requirements for teachers. Dr. del Vecchio said that would, in effect, grant parity to the school psychologists who had attained national certification.
Dr. del Vecchio said that school psychologists had the highest entry level requirements of any educational personnel in the state; they must have a master’s degree plus 30 hours, for a total of 60 graduate hours, and a full-year internship. Those were minimum requirements for employment as a school psychologist in Nevada. Dr. del Vecchio said that in comparison, teachers could enter the teaching profession at a bachelor’s degree level with no graduate training. To be nationally certified as a school psychologist documentation of 60 graduate hours, appropriate training, and proficiency on a rigorous national examination was required. National recertification was required every three years with documentation of continuing education. He said that Nevada recognized school psychologists’ national certification for entry-level employment and accepted it for renewal of state certification. Dr. del Vecchio said that despite the required high standards, most school psychologists in the state of Nevada were on the same pay scale as teachers. School psychologists provided critical services to general and special education students, parents, and teachers. He said there was currently a shortage of school psychologists nationally and within Nevada positions went unfilled every year. Dr. del Vecchio said that including school psychologists in A.B. 227 would greatly assist in the attraction of quality school psychologists to Nevada.
Dr. Keith Croskery, President, Nevada Association of School Psychologists, introduced himself. He said that the Department of Education had provided information that there were 186 school psychologists in the state and of those 141 were members of the Nevada Association of School Psychologists (NASP). He said that 35 school psychologists in Clark County were nationally certified school psychologists and the rest of Nevada had 8 nationally certified school psychologists. Dr. Croskery said he hoped that the passage of A.B. 227 would attract additional qualified school psychologists to the rural areas of Nevada.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District, introduced himself. He said the superintendents and boards of trustees in the state were in support of the bill. Dr. Kadlub said there was a shortage of staff in Clark County and the fiscal note would be reduced to approximately $120,000 per year based on the numbers that had been presented.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was any additional testimony on A.B. 227 and there being none, she closed the hearing on A.B. 227 and opened the hearing on A.B. 268.
Assembly Bill 268: Requires increased salaries for certain speech pathologists employed by school districts. (BDR 34-660)
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District No. 25, introduced herself and referred to Exhibit G, which was information on A.B. 268. Mrs. Gibbons said that A.B. 268 would require increased salaries to nationally board certified speech‑language pathologists, who were holders of the Certificate of Clinical Competence. Assemblywoman Gibbons said those individuals were employed as teachers of pupils who had speech and language impairment in the Nevada school districts.
Ms. Katherine L. Ross, a speech-language pathologist working in the school setting in Washoe County, introduced herself. She said that additionally she served as the State Education Advocacy Leader for the Nevada State Speech‑Language-Hearing Association. Ms. Ross said she supported A.B. 268, which would recognize and reward the high level of training and excellence in speech-language pathologists who met the criteria set forth in A.B. 268 and were working as teachers of speech and language impaired students in Nevada’s public schools.
Ms. Ross said she wanted the Committee to know what speech-language pathologists did and she also had some concerns about how Nevada would be able to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in the future. She said school-based speech-language pathologists worked directly with speech or language impaired children using an educational model. In that educational model pupils’ individualized goals and objectives would be developed specifically to support each pupil’s educational success. School‑based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) used the Nevada State Standards as a guideline for developing those individualized goals and objectives. The Nevada State Standards were developed as a result of passage of S.B. 482 in 1997 and the standards were a set of common curriculum expectations that defined what pupils should know and be able to do in particular subject areas at particular times in their schooling. Ms. Ross said the standards were used by all regular and special educators for the purpose of curriculum and lesson planning. She said the standards held all Nevada teachers, including school-based speech-language pathologists, accountable for teaching certain subjects and skills.
Ms. Ross said to contrast what regular education teachers and SLP teachers did, regular education teachers would typically interact with parents, administrators, and a few other teachers teaching the same grade level. The SLP teacher would typically interact and collaborate with parents, administrators, such as school principals, all the regular education staff in a school, all special educators in a school, nurses, psychologists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Ms. Ross said the SLP’s collaboration would focus on informing the team members about the impact that language deficits had upon a student’s educational success and on implementing appropriate strategies to address those deficits.
Ms. Ross said an SLP’s caseload would consist of 50 or more pupils who had speech and language impairments and other special needs. The language impairments could be due to language disorders, to mental retardation, developmental delay, autism, hearing impairment, learning disabilities, fluency disorders, traumatic brain injury, certain syndromes, attention disorders, or behavior disorders.
Ms. Ross said that using the state curriculum standards to create goals and objectives for such a diverse group of students was demanding and required a high level of training and creativity. The education interventions provided would affect a student’s ability to improve his/her performance on statewide assessments and supported improvements in classroom performance.
Ms. Ross said that currently there was a shortage of speech-language pathologists. She said she believed it was imperative that Nevada recognize and reward speech-language pathologists that met the criteria of A.B. 268 in order to retain them. Ms. Ross said that Nevada’s salaries should be competitive in order to attract more speech pathologists to Nevada.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many SLPs were employed in Nevada.
Ms. Nancy Kuhles, a speech pathologist and secretary for the Nevada Speech-Language and Hearing Association (NSHA) introduced herself and submitted Exhibit H. She said that there were approximately 400 school-based SLPs in the state of Nevada.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many of those SLPs would qualify for recognition under A.B. 268.
Ms. Kuhles said those that would have their Certificates of Clinical Competence had been estimated to be 187.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Certificate of Clinical Competence was comparable to the concept of the national certification for school psychologists and teachers. She also asked if the fiscal note reflected 400 SLPs or 187 SLPs.
Ms. Kuhles said she believed the fiscal note was based on 400 SLPs. Ms. Kuhles said that currently school districts throughout Nevada were paying $42 to $60 per hour to private contractors for speech and language services at a daily rate of $294 to $420. She said the school districts throughout Nevada paid their employed, highly trained and qualified speech pathologists between $35 per hour for a first-year employee to $59 per hour for a 25-year employee, which resulted in a daily rate of $247 to $416. Ms. Kuhles said that amount included the benefits paid by the district. Ms. Kuhles said a 183-day private contract would cost a school district between $54,000 to $77,000 per speech pathologist. She stressed that was money that came out of the General Fund. Ms. Kuhles said a 183-day contract for district-employed speech pathologists would cost the district between $45,000 for a first-year employee to $76,000 for a 25-year employee.
Ms. Kuhles stated that the NSHA had heard from special education administrators that they were paying more for privately contracted services and received less satisfactory services. For example, contracts were typically with travel or rehab agencies. She said a young, first-year graduate would be sent to a rural or urban district, stay a few months, and would decide he\she did not like Nevada and leave. Ms. Kuhles said in one year a district would have to deal with inconsistent service and multiple speech-language pathologists. She said there were periods where school districts might have no service at all from first‑year graduates with little or no school experience. She said the contractors were earning between $42 to $60 per hour currently and might earn more in the future.
Ms. Kuhles said the Carson City School District currently had 4 unfilled positions, Clark County had between 15 to 20 unfilled positions, Churchill County had 2 vacant positions, Washoe County had 2 unfilled positions, Douglas County had 1 unfilled position, Lyon County had 3 vacant positions, and Nye County had 2 vacant positions. Ms. Kuhles said there would be only 12 Nevada university graduates in the area of speech pathology in 2003.
Ms. Kuhles said passage of A.B. 268 would cost the school district between $2,500 extra for a third-year employee. She said there were four points of the criteria that had to be met. The first was a Certificate of Clinical Competence, the second was licensing by the Board of Examiners, the third was that they would have to be a third-year full-time employee of the school district, and the fourth point would require three years of a satisfactory performance on their teacher evaluation. Ms. Kuhles said the cost would be $2,500 extra per year for a three-year employee to a maximum of $3,800 extra per year for a 25-year employee. Ms. Kuhles said passage of A.B. 268 would save districts between $1,700 to $25,000 per year for highly qualified and trained three-year employed speech pathologists. Ms. Kuhles asked the Committee to pass A.B. 268 as it would aid in the recruitment and retention of speech pathologists, who directly affected the learning of Nevada’s school children.
Ms. Lindsey Nunn, University of Nevada, Reno, student and intern for Assemblywoman Gibbons, introduced herself. She said she was present to testify on behalf of A.B. 268. She said that throughout her schooling she had received speech therapy from a speech pathologist as well as teachers for the hearing impaired. Ms. Nunn said that if it had not been for the speech therapy she received she might not have been able to testify before the Committee. Ms. Nunn said such dedication and hard work had enabled her to lead a normal life.
Ms. Nunn said that in order to receive a degree in speech pathology, a person must receive a master’s degree. Speech therapists put in many hours working with students with speech problems as well as with hearing impaired students. Ms. Nunn said it was imperative that the therapists be paid a commensurate salary with speech therapists in private practice to ensure there would be speech therapists in the schools. Ms. Nunn said that if there were no speech therapists in the schools the real losers would be the students like herself who needed the valuable services provided. Ms. Nunn asked the Committee for the support of the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thanked the speakers and said that Ms. Nunn’s presentation was proof positive that the program worked.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if there were any youngsters being treated out of state under the NRS 395 program.
Ms. Cheryl Clark, a retired Speech-Language Pathologist from the Washoe County School District, introduced herself. Ms. Clark said she was also a retired administrator from the Washoe County School District, who was responsible for hiring speech pathologists in the district. Ms. Clark said she was unsure how many students were out of state on NRS 395 placements. She said there might be a few that required speech and language services but she did not have those specific numbers.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed any NRS 395 placements would have been made for a multidiscipline issue rather than solely for a speech and language disorder.
Ms. Clark said that during the time she was hiring speech-language pathologists for the Washoe County School District the critical shortage was very evident and finding highly qualified applicants was very difficult due to the pay scale. Ms. Clark said that once a speech pathologist was hired by a school district they tended to like the job. Ms. Clark said now that she was retired she was providing consultation services throughout the state in the areas of compliance with federal and state statutes regarding special education law. She said that she was finding an increasing number of due process hearings against districts for the inappropriate services being given to students in the areas of special education. Ms. Clark said the cost of the due process hearings affected the general budget in school districts because the cost of a due process hearing could be as much as $1,000 per hour by the time attorneys had been paid and outside services had been provided based on the decision of a hearing officer.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District, said the district was in support of A.B. 268.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for further testimony on A.B. 268 and there being none, she closed the hearing on A.B. 268 and opened the hearing on A.B. 418.
Assembly Bill 418: Privatizes construction management duties of State Public Works Board. (BDR 28-1189)
Speaker Perkins, Assembly District 23, introduced himself. He stated that A.B. 418 specified that once a public works contract was awarded the Public Works Board would solicit bids for a contract for a person or business to supervise and inspect the renovation or construction activities related to the project. Speaker Perkins said the measure also declared that the contract for independent project supervision should be awarded and executed as soon as possible after the public works contract was awarded. Speaker Perkins said that in short, A.B. 418 proposed the privatization of construction management duties of the Public Works Board. Speaker Perkins said the discussion of the privatization of public works functions was not new. While A.B. 418 only addressed project management, several states had utilized outsourcing, privatization, and public-private partnerships in many other areas of their public works functions. Speaker Perkins said that numerous articles, studies, and surveys had been conducted to review those activities. Those articles highlighted outsourcing and public-private partnering efforts by state governments in numerous areas. Speaker Perkins said that as the state lawmakers were functioning in unsettled economic times, the Legislature must set its goals toward best value techniques in public works contracting. The benefits of A.B. 418 were many. If the bill was approved it would speed project delivery and help to better meet project deadlines, allow the Public Works Board to gain access to expertise that it might not currently have access to, improve efficiency, spur innovative solutions to infrastructure delivery and construction management, better manage the risks by shifting those risks to the contractors, and cut long-term costs.
Speaker Perkins stated that during the 2001-2002 interim, the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee studied competition between local governments and private enterprises and examined the privatization issue related to numerous government projects. He said that at several of the Subcommittee’s meetings the members engaged in discussions regarding contract and project management procedures set forth in state law and the challenges associated with bringing public works and related construction projects to fruition. Speaker Perkins said that it had become evident during those discussions that some local public works projects might be ideally suited for supervision by independent project managers. Speaker Perkins said several examples had been offered during the Subcommittee’s discussions indicating that independent project management was a very popular administrative tool used by some local governments to monitor construction projects and ensure those projects consistently met or exceeded quality standards and economic specifications.
Speaker Perkins said the provisions of A.B. 418 were consistent with laws in other states and the findings of the interim study of privatization. Speaker Perkins said he believed the bill had merit and should be enacted into Nevada law. He said that many of the Committee members had been frustrated in past years with the updates they had received on some of the public works projects that had been completed in the state. Most notably were the southern Nevada Veterans’ Home and the Lied Library. Speaker Perkins said that some of the issues had been directly related to the management of those particular projects. He said A.B. 418 was brought forward in an effort to see if there was a way to better shift the burden to a contractor or management company that could be held accountable to the state and more efficiently construct those projects that were important to the taxpayers of the state of Nevada at a lesser cost.
Assemblyman Parks said he noticed that the bill said “After contract is let, shall solicit bids.” He asked if Speaker Perkins envisioned that all major projects would have construction supervision through a private contract.
Speaker Perkins responded that based on the way the bill was written all projects would have supervision. He said “shall” was the old language. It previously read “Shall supervise and inspect.” Now with the insertion of “Solicit bids for a contract” that would mean that all future projects would be handled by private construction management. Speaker Perkins said there were some amendments that were going to be offered and he was not adverse to taking some “baby steps” into the area and perhaps starting with a few pilot projects so that a comparison could be made between how the work currently occurred in state government and how it would be done with private construction management. Speaker Perkins said the two could be compared to determine which was best for the taxpayers.
Mr. Renny Ashleman introduced himself. He said he was representing the Public Works Board, which had not taken a formal vote on the proposal although he had discussed it with some of the members of the Board. Mr. Ashleman proposed an amendment to A.B. 418 that was designed to test the effectiveness of the proposals contained in the bill (Exhibit I). Mr. Ashleman said some agencies of the state had very good success with hiring private managers and others had not had good success. Mr. Ashleman said he hoped it could be done in a way that the contracts with private managers could be successful. He said the private contracts ordinarily worked best with large projects. He said hiring private managers would add net costs to the projects and based on the beliefs held at the Public Works Board level, were not necessary for all projects. Unfortunately, there were only a few large, new projects planned over the next two biennia. He said that two of the projects were at the university and the university had already hired a project manager specifically for that purpose for one of the projects. He said the Public Works Board had assigned one of their project managers to that project in an effort to avoid what had occurred on the Lied Library. Mr. Ashleman said that meant there were two full-time project managers working on the project.
Mr. Ashleman said the other situation involved the mental hospital, which was, to a large extent, a copy of one done in Reno and probably not the best use of a project manager. Mr. Ashleman said he provided the amendment as a way to get dialog going and his suggestion was that the “Public Works Board would, over the next two biennia where practical, select no fewer than two appropriate projects to be supervised by a private construction manager. Said construction manager shall be selected on a qualified basis.” Mr. Ashleman said that language would assure that the low bidder need not be selected. He said that had happened to some of the entities and it was most important to focus on getting the best manager possible. Mr. Ashleman said that the requirement to select the manager during the design and contract development process would involve the project manager a little earlier than had been envisioned by Speaker Perkins. Mr. Ashleman said much of the value of a manager was in helping to design the construction documents and process and said that hiring the manager earlier in the process would be a cost saver. He said that the university was very interested in doing some independent management and the Public Works Board was trying to work out an agreement to allow it so that would also involve utilizing expertise outside of the Public Works Board.
Mr. Ashleman said the Public Works Board was also interested in experimenting with constructability review where an outside contractor would be hired to view the designs and bids to see if they were as practical as they should be. Mr. Ashleman said the Associated General Contractors (AGC) was very supportive of that usage and the legal authority to do it already existed. Mr. Ashleman said the Board was interested in innovation and new approaches.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many projects were done over the biennium.
Mr. Ashleman responded that many projects were done but many of them were simply maintenance or repair projects and minor remodeling projects. He said there would be approximately only four major projects in the next biennium.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how one could determine what size project would require a project manager.
Mr. Ashleman said that it was partly based on complexity and would generally be projects valued at $5 to $10 million or more. Smaller projects could be readily supervised by the existing managers. He said those projects were done fairly routinely with relatively few problems; it was the highly technical or unusual ones that were the best place to start using a project manager as that would provide the most success.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the projects utilizing a project manager could be designated by the Committee when it approved Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).
Mr. Ashleman said the Public Works Board was intent on using project managers for some projects and wanted to use its best judgment to select projects that would work well.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested that as more meetings were held to approve capital improvement projects, Mr. Ashleman could start pointing out which projects could be considered.
Mr. Ashleman said he would be pleased to do so.
Mr. Dan O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, introduced himself. He said Mr. Ashleman had covered the important parts of the bill and he only wanted to add that it was important to enact the bill on a trial basis so that a comparison could be made to see how effective it was. Mr. O’Brien said he supported the amendment and would appreciate its approval.
Mr. John Pappageorge, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada, introduced himself. He said that tentatively he agreed with the amendment proposed by Mr. Ashleman. His approval was tentative because Chancellor Nichols had not had an opportunity to review the amendment. Mr. Pappageorge said he believed Chancellor Nichols would agree with the amendment and he saw no problems in it.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was any further testimony on A.B. 418 and there being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 418 and opened the hearing on A.B. 473.
Assembly Bill 473: Transfers authority to administer certain accounts that provide financial assistance to public water systems from Health Division of Department of Human Resources to Division of Environmental Protection of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 40-1252)
Mr. Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, introduced himself, Mr. Leo Drozdoff, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, and Mr. Alex Hartz, Department of Human Resources, Health Division. Mr. Biaggi said that the Nevada Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) provided low interest loans to certain types of public water systems. Specifically, those funds were made available to publicly and privately owned and nonprofit non-community water systems. He said that loans made under the program had low interest rates and provided a critical source of infrastructure financing. Mr. Biaggi said the program placed an emphasis on small and disadvantaged communities and was an important component in ensuring safe drinking water for all citizens and visitors. He said the program was capitalized through grants from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. No General Funds were used.
Mr. Biaggi said that historically the state Health Division had administered the DWSRF. The Division of Environmental Protection operated a similar loan program designed to address surface water pollution through the financing of wastewater treatment and collection infrastructure as well as operating a state funded drinking water grant program. Mr. Biaggi said that for over two decades the state had contemplated merging those two programs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had strongly urged states to consolidate those two programs to the extent possible. The reason was simple; clean water and safe drinking water went hand in hand (Exhibit J).
Chairman Arberry asked if the bill made any changes in The Executive Budget and Mr. Biaggi responded that it did not.
Mr. Biaggi said there was one minor technical correction needed in Section 3, page 2, item 3, lines 35 and 36. He said the word “Board” should remain in place as it referred to the Board for Financing Water Projects and not the State Board of Health.
Mr. Hartz stated that the Health Division was in support of A.B. 473.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was any further testimony on A.B. 473 and there being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 473 and opened the hearing on S.B. 417.
Senate Bill 417(1st Reprint): Creates Election Fund to receive money pursuant to Help America Vote Act of 2002. (BDR 24-1265)
Ms. Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, introduced herself. She said S.B. 417 would establish a fund to receive $5 million from the federal General Services Administration (GSA) under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Ms. Parker said no matching funds were required for Nevada to receive the funds but the fund needed to be approved by the Legislature no later than April 17, 2003, in order to go through the process of registration and providing electronic fund transfer information as the GSA Web site would close down on April 29, 2003, and the registration process would take approximately seven to nine days.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the word “Act” in the bill referred to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Ms. Parker answered affirmatively.
Chairman Arberry asked how soon the Committee needed to pass the bill out of Committee. Ms. Parker responded that the GSA Web site would close down on April 29, 2003, and it had been indicated that there was a 48-hour turnaround for registration. She said that 48 hours after a user identification and login was received the electronic fund transfer information would have to be provided. Ms. Parker said that given the four-day process and assuming any potential delays, she anticipated that the bill would need to be voted on by the Legislature later in the week in order to complete the process and ensure that the site did not close down before Nevada could receive the funds.
Chairman Arberry said that S.B. 417 called for all funds deposited to the fund be appropriated to the Secretary of State. He asked if the appropriation should be to the General Fund.
Ms. Parker said the bill gave the Secretary of State’s Office the authority to expend or disburse the funds because the Help America Vote Act called for the Chief State Election Officer to expend and disburse the funds under the Act. Ms. Parker said the funds could not go into the General Fund, the deposit had to be made to the Special Election Fund set up in the State Treasury pursuant to the Act.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the bill could be amended to appropriate the funds to the General Fund for disbursement to the Secretary of State for election purposes as deemed necessary by the Legislature.
Ms. Parker expressed concern in getting the bill back from the Senate in a timely manner if it was amended. She said the Fiscal Division had reviewed the language and there was an amendment in the Senate that the Fiscal Division suggested to take care of any reversion of state matching funds if the federal funds were not used. She said the language had been changed so that the balance remaining under the Act would not revert because the Act did not allow funds to revert but any state matching funds that were not used might be able to revert.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH A CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE ON LINES 10 AND 11. THE FUNDS WOULD BE APPROPRIATED TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR ALLOCATION TO THE SPECIAL FUND.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: