ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

Seventy-Second Session

April 21, 2003

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Monday, April 21, 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. Josh Griffin

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. David Goldwater (excused)

Mr. Lynn Hettrick (excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Assembly Bill 13 (1st Reprint): Eliminates panel of judges in certain penalty hearings in which death penalty is sought and requires district attorneys to report certain information concerning certain homicides to Supreme Court. (BDR 14-197)

Assemblywoman Leslie addressed the Committee and presented A.B. 13. She explained that she had chaired an interim committee that had studied the death penalty in the state of Nevada, and several pieces of legislation had been drafted as a result of that study, including A.B. 13, which would eliminate the three-judge panel. Ms. Leslie informed the Committee that the United States Supreme Court had recently issued an opinion that the three-judge panel was unconstitutional. The interim committee had already made a similar determination and had decided to sponsor legislation to eliminate that panel. Ms. Leslie explained that there had been a fiscal note attached to the original bill because there had been a provision that required the Nevada Supreme Court to collect and analyze data from the district attorneys. Ms. Leslie indicated that she had brought Nancy Hart, a representative from the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, to explain the amendments that had been made to the bill, including a change made by the Committee on Judiciary that eliminated that fiscal note.

Ms. Hart identified herself for the record and said she was President of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and a representative of the local chapter of Amnesty International, but she was testifying before the Committee as a private citizen. She also stated for the record that she was a Deputy Attorney General, but she was not appearing in that capacity.

Ms. Hart said that A.B. 13 originally provided for two things: the elimination of the three‑judge panels and the gathering of data. The data gathering had been the cause of financial concerns, and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had removed that from the bill. Ms. Hart said she had spoken with the Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the Court, and the Clerk’s Office and had confirmed that the fiscal concerns had been alleviated. There was not a formal process to remove the fiscal note, but she assured the Committee that the fiscal note no longer applied, and she had e-mail communication if the Committee wanted confirmation.

Kristin Erickson, Nevada District Attorneys Association and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, addressed the Committee and said she was neutral in regard to A.B. 13. She recognized the value and importance of statistical data, but the concern was the impact A.B. 13 would have in regard to staff time, given the increase in the population of Clark and Washoe Counties and the lack of an increase in the number of deputy district attorneys. She reiterated her neutral stance and offered to answer any questions the Committee might have.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if Ms. Erickson had had an opportunity to determine the future cost of data gathering. Ms. Erickson indicated there had not been any studies to determine that cost. Mr. Marvel asked if A.B. 13 could be regarded as an unfunded mandate, and Ms. Erickson reiterated that the cost had not been determined, and she was not prepared to say how much time or effort would be required for the data gathering. Mr. Marvel requested that Ms. Erickson provide more information regarding the cost, and Ms. Erickson agreed.

Chairman Arberry asked if there were additional comments or questions. There being none, he declared the hearing on A.B. 13 closed and indicated the Committee would hear A.B. 16.

Assembly Bill 16 (1st Reprint): Provides for genetic marker analysis of certain evidence related to conviction of certain offenders sentenced to death. (BDR 14-200)

Ms. Leslie said that A.B. 16 was also a result of the interim study on the death penalty, and it pertained to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing as it related to post-conviction relief. She indicated that research had been done to determine the number of people the legislation would affect as DNA testing was performed more routinely now than it had been in the past and was usually done as part of the trial process. A.B. 16 would affect only those cases where the prisoner was already on death row and there was access to evidence for DNA testing.

Ms. Leslie said she and Ms. Hart had reviewed the cases that were on death row and had determined that there would be approximately zero to one case per year that the bill would affect. She observed that it was a policy matter rather than a practical matter as so few cases would be affected and so few prisoners would require DNA testing. Ms. Leslie opined that the money in the prison budget would be adequate to cover the DNA testing, and she indicated that Ms. Hart would address that issue in more detail.

Ms. Hart spoke to the Committee and said she had worked with Michael Pescetta, an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Las Vegas, who worked exclusively on death penalty cases and death row appeals. Based on conversations with him, it was his estimate that it would be zero to one case per year taking advantage of the specific new statutory remedy. Part of the reason for that low number was that there were existing remedies available, DNA testing could be requested during the trial, and it could be requested in habeas corpus proceedings after conviction. A.B. 16 would simply provide an additional remedy, and while there were not many people who would take advantage of that, it was important to make it available for those few who chose to pursue that course.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired whether A.B. 16 would require that DNA evidence be used in every case. Ms. Hart said that was not a requirement and not every person would automatically be subjected to a test. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if A.B. 16 would require DNA testing of all individuals on death row, and Ms. Hart explained that it was by request only.

Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further comments, there being none, he declared the hearing on A.B. 16 closed and indicated the Committee would hear A.B. 41.

Assembly Bill 41 (1st Reprint): Converts Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources into Department of Wildlife. (BDR 45-14)

Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, spoke in favor of A.B. 41. He introduced Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, and indicated two other members of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, David McNinch and Chris MacKenzie, were present.

Mr. Bradley explained that A.B. 41 was a comprehensive effort to return the Division of Wildlife to department status. For the past year, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners had been working very hard with the sportsmen of the state, and there had been support for seeking the conversion to benefit the wildlife of the state. Mr. Bradley pointed out A.B. 41 would do two things: change “division” to “department” and address the budget issues. In the past, the Board had a role in reviewing the budget but had not been allowed to comment or express an opinion regarding the budget. A.B. 41 would allow the Board to review the budget and make a recommendation.

Mr. Crawforth addressed the Committee and said there had been two pieces of legislation addressing that conversion, A.B. 72 and A.B. 41. He commented that the Committee was interested in the fiscal impact of the change, but he did not believe there would be a fiscal impact. The Division of Wildlife had formerly been the Department of Wildlife and had maintained many of the activities and responsibilities of a department, including the Division’s own fiscal personnel, radio communications, air operations, and other similar activities. There would be other changes that would need to be made, such as reprinting letterhead and stationery. Mr. Crawforth said there was a fiscal note that indicated there would be a small fiscal impact, and he believed that had been resolved by sharing Internet equipment with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Based on a number of proposed pieces of legislation, the new Department of Wildlife would have to return to the Interim Finance Committee in order to adjust the budget, but those adjustments were not related to the conversion from a division to a department. Mr. Crawforth reiterated that the change would not have a significant fiscal impact.

Chairman Arberry pointed out that the Department of Wildlife had been converted to the Division of Wildlife several years earlier, and he questioned the benefits of changing again.

Mr. Crawforth said, in terms of the natural resources of the state, there had been significant benefits to the Division of Wildlife being part of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as it had established communication between the two, and he expected that to continue if the Division became its own Department. He did not think the change would affect the function of the agency.

Chairman Arberry asked if The Executive Budget reflected that change and if the Governor’s Office had approved the change. Mr. Crawforth said the Governor’s Office did approve, and he explained that A.B. 72, which was similar to A.B. 41, had been submitted through the Budget Office and the Governor’s Office, which then sent the bill for legislative review.

Assemblyman Marvel inquired whether it was a consensus of the sportsmen to return to Department status, and Mr. Bradley explained that he had been elected to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to represent sportsmen, and there had been near unanimous support for the conversion.

Mr. Bradley addressed Chairman Arberry’s earlier question regarding the benefit of the conversion and said that the importance of wildlife in the state of Nevada was significant enough that it merited a cabinet-level position. He pointed out the agency was funded primarily by fees, and he felt strongly that the agency did one of the largest public functions in the state by managing the wildlife. In addition, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners had submitted a bill, S.B. 420, which would allow for a significant fee increase, and the sportsmen had expressed a willingness to fund the fee increases, but the sportsmen wanted the Division to be converted to a Department.

Mr. Marvel inquired as to the status of S.B. 420. Mr. Bradley indicated the bill would be heard in the Senate Committee on Finance on April 23, 2003. He said he was optimistic and emphasized that the Board had worked very hard to get the support of the sportsmen in regard to the fees. Mr. Marvel asked if the budget had been constructed with the assumption there would be fee increases, and Mr. Bradley indicated that was correct. He pointed out that the Senate Committee on Natural Resources had passed S.B. 420 with a few recommended amendments. Mr. Marvel asked if the Division had enough money in reserve to pay for the required stationery and letterhead changes. Mr. Bradley said there was enough money, and he commented that some of the facilities and paperwork still said Department of Wildlife.

Larry Johnson, Chairman, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife, submitted a letter in support of A.B. 41 (Exhibit C) and asked that it be included for the record.

Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions, there were none, and he declared the hearing on A.B. 41 closed.

Assembly Bill 333: Makes appropriations to University of Nevada School of Medicine to conduct study to determine whether there is sufficient demand for heart transplant facility in Southern Nevada. (BDR S-44)

Chairman Arberry presented A.B. 333 to the Committee and read a prepared statement:

Assembly Bill 333 appropriates roughly $250,000 to fund a study to determine whether or not there is a sufficient demand to warrant the establishment of a heart transplant facility in southern Nevada. Although we are in a tight fiscal year, statistics are overwhelming related to the impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the opportunity a heart transplant provides certain patients with complications resulting from this disease.

According to the Center for Disease Control, CVD, principally heart disease and stroke, are among the nation’s leading killers for both men and women among all racial and ethnic groups. More than 61 million Americans have some form of CVD, including high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, and other conditions. In addition, more than 2,600 Americans die each day of CVD. That is an average of one death every 33 seconds.

As you know, heart disease occasionally becomes so severe that medications or conventional surgical procedures cannot correct the problem. Thirty years ago, a failing heart meant sure death. That is not the case today. Surgeons can replace a damaged heart with a healthy one taken from a deceased donor.

There were 2,202 heart transplants performed in the United States in the year 2000 and 2,184 in 1999. Heart transplant patients have an 86 percent chance to live another year, and a 70 percent chance to live five years. Most heart transplant recipients go on to live normal lives.

When a transplant is needed, several hurdles must be crossed. Among the demands of having such a procedure are:

· Assessing the health of the recipient

· Meeting the financial demands of such a procedure

· Finding a suitable donor heart

· Finding an accessible transplant center

According to statistics from the American Heart Association for the year 2000, only 132 heart transplant centers are available in the United States to meet the demands of the more than 4,000 people waiting for a donor heart.

I wish that I were able to provide you with statistics on the number of people in Nevada that are awaiting such a procedure. Unfortunately, this information is not available. Gathering this information, in addition to other items, is an integral part of conducting the study proposed in A.B. 333. This is an opportunity to collect critical data as the state considers the feasibility of developing a heart transplant center.

I certainly encourage everyone to adopt a healthy lifestyle, which in turn leads to a much healthier heart. However, through this process, I have learned that many factors affect CVD diagnosis and subsequent heart damage. It is my sincere hope that as Nevadans require this procedure, they will be able to access care in the most practicable setting. This study will help determine whether that setting is right here in Nevada.

I have several others lined up to testify on this measure. However, I wish to thank the Committee for your indulgence and for allowing me to make my remarks a part of the record of this proceeding.

Chairman Arberry added that upon his retirement from the City of Las Vegas, he had to undergo a stress test, which was a new experience. That stress test and the conversation with the doctor had inspired A.B. 333. The doctor had informed Chairman Arberry that he was healthy, but if he had a heart problem necessitating a transplant, he would need to be placed on a list and go to Utah or California for the necessary treatment. Chairman Arberry said the doctor had also indicated that there were citizens of Nevada waiting for heart transplants, and they had been placed lower on the transplant list because they were from Nevada. Chairman Arberry felt that with the growing population of Nevada, the study would show the need for the facility and building the facility would allow cardiology to become a part of the curriculum of the medical school, which would increase the prestige of the school. Chairman Arberry offered to answer any questions from the Committee.

Mr. Marvel questioned the $19 million cost mentioned in Section 2 of A.B. 333. Chairman Arberry explained that the original intent of the bill had been to build a center in Clark County, and that $19 million had been an estimate of the cost to build that facility and staff it. Chairman Arberry indicated that should have been removed from the bill and placed in a separate piece of legislation.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that the intent of A.B. 333 was to conduct a study, not to appropriate $19 million for actual construction, and Chairman Arberry confirmed that was the intent.

Mr. Marvel asked why the cost of the study was estimated at $250,000. Chairman Arberry explained that figure was an estimate, but the medical school would actually determine the cost. He pointed out that if a portion was not used, it reverted back to the General Fund.

Assemblyman Andonov asked why a Nevada heart patient would be placed at the bottom of the transplant list. Chairman Arberry said he was told that by his doctor, but he did not have further information.

Assemblywoman Gibbons thanked Chairman Arberry for sponsoring A.B. 333 and said it was a critical issue in Nevada. She responded to Mr. Andonov’s question and explained that Nevadans were at the bottom of the list because there was not a transplant center in Nevada. Southern Nevadans were placed with citizens of southern California and Arizona on a list; northern Nevada was grouped with the transplant center in northern California. The large population in California meant that there might be 3,000 Californians on the list compared to 30 Nevadans, statistically lowering the chances for the Nevadans. Mrs. Gibbons indicated that those who were in need of a transplant were often told it would be to their advantage to move to another state, and she felt that was not good for Nevada.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that Eileen Brookman, who had served in the Nevada State Assembly many years before, had a son who was one of the first Nevadans to receive a heart transplant, although he had to travel to Utah for the procedure. She indicated that the representatives from the medical school would address the fiscal note.

Stephen McFarlane, Ph.D., Dean, University of Nevada School of Medicine, introduced Philip Lisagor, M.D., who had recently joined the University of Nevada School of Medicine as Assistant Dean. He noted that Dr. Lisagor was a cardiac surgeon and performed many heart surgeries, but was unable to perform transplants in Nevada as there was not a transplant center.

Dr. McFarlane said he was in favor of A.B. 333 for several reasons. He pointed out that the population of Nevada was growing very rapidly, primarily in the southern part of the state, and, if shown to be feasible, a transplant center would provide many advantages to Nevada. He explained that there were many aspects of developing a heart transplant program, which would improve the overall cardiac care in Nevada. Increasing the number of cardiologists and pulmonologists would be a primary component; a sufficient number of doctors was critical to treatment after many different kinds of heart surgeries, not just transplants. The transplant center would also improve research in other areas, such as immunology.

Dr. McFarlane commented that the center would be a part of the southern Nevada campus of the medical school, and he said the school was currently undergoing planning and development of a southern academic medical center at the School of Medicine in Las Vegas. He explained that would require donations and passing A.B. 333 would demonstrate a commitment to potential donors. Dr. McFarlane noted that several people were interested in making a donation, but had expressed some skepticism as to whether or not the school would follow through with its plan for a medical center. He concluded his statement by saying a heart transplant center would be an important part of the academic medical center and would improve care and access of care for the citizens of Nevada. He indicated that Dr. Lisagor, who had been involved in the development of a heart transplant program in New Jersey, would address the Committee.

Dr. Lisagor said he had left the U.S. Army two years before where he had worked at a cardiothoracic and heart transplant center at the Brooke Army Medical Center. That was a small program set up by the Department of Defense (DOD) to facilitate heart transplants for DOD employees who otherwise were left out of the network due to frequent relocation. After leaving the Army, he had worked at the Jersey City Medical Center in Jersey City and had been affiliated with the Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. Approximately 40 heart transplants had been performed each year at the Jersey City Medical Center. Dr. Lisagor commented that it was difficult to determine the number of Nevadans who were in need of a heart transplant, but he estimated the number was between 20 and 30. He emphasized that the center would be important to the study of cardiology, not merely surgery, and added that an improved heart care program would benefit thousands of Nevadans.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani questioned the specifics of the fiscal note and asked what was needed to do the study. Dr. Lisagor said it would be interesting to look at the demographic data and to perform a detailed analysis of Medicare records to see how many people in Nevada suffered from advanced heart failure and how many of those people were receiving heart transplants in other parts of the United States. He said the data was available, but he was not sure of the exact cost.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a medical student could be assigned that type of research as part of his curriculum. Dr. Lisagor said he felt it would require a higher level of professionalism. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that the process of gathering would not require that, although the analysis would. Dr. Lisagor replied that the person would need advanced computer skills to sift through the Medicare data bank. He added that he did not think the study would cost $250,000 as the fiscal note said. In his opinion, hiring the necessary people and preparing the report would cost approximately $125,000.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that additional personnel would have to be hired to conduct the study, and Dr. McFarlane interjected that he wished to comment. He agreed with Dr. Lisagor that the study would cost approximately $125,000, and he said the reason was that there were not any full-time epidemiologists in the school to direct the study, and there were costs in terms of obtaining and copying medical records and death certificates. He indicated there were many different areas that would need to be studied and would require a team to conduct that study and do the research in a timely manner. Dr. McFarlane repeated that the fiscal note would in actuality be much lower than $250,000.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many epidemiologists were licensed in the state of Nevada, and Dr. McFarlane said he was not sure how many were licensed in Nevada, but the University of Nevada School of Medicine did not have any on staff. He added that there might be a role in the research process for medical students, but the students were extremely busy. He indicated that during the accreditation inspection process he had been informed that the students were involved in more hours of actual instruction than many other medical schools.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Section 1, subsection 2(e) of A.B. 333, which stated the study would determine the costs involved in establishing and operating a heart transplant facility for the first two years, and she asked Dr. Lisagor how much it had cost to establish the New Jersey facility. Dr. Lisagor said the program in New Jersey had used existing facilities. He said a better example would be the Galichia Heart Institute in Kansas, which had been set up as a “boutique” hospital dedicated to the care of heart patients, which included surgery and cardiology, and that had cost approximately $26 million. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if that cost included construction, staffing, and equipment, and Dr. Lisagor indicated that was correct.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani questioned the two-year time period in subsection 2(e) and asked if that was a reasonable time period. Dr. Lisagor opined that two years was reasonable and the appropriation in A.B. 333 would provide the opportunity to study a possible joint venture with existing facilities in the state of Nevada.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested that a budget for the study be submitted outlining necessary resources and personnel. Dr. McFarlane indicated he would provide that to the Committee.

Chairman Arberry asked if the transplant center would allow medical students to conduct research into other areas besides transplantation. Dr. McFarlane said there would be research in several areas. Any time there was a program at a school of medicine, a part of that program would be basic science research, such as research to improve medications and study reaction of the body to tissue transplants and medications. He noted that if the transplant center were built, it would be the beginning of basic science research in Las Vegas, along with the science research at the cancer center. Dr. McFarlane added that there was a doctor at the medical school who was involved with the cancer center to develop a program for cancer research and that, along with cardiac research, would benefit Nevada.

Chairman Arberry asked if mechanical hearts would be a part of the research, and Dr. Lisagor indicated that was an integral part of heart transplantation as a temporary bridge or even as a permanent solution to a failing heart. Without an active transplant program, that treatment was not available to any of the patients. Chairman Arberry noted that there had been an amount mentioned in the bill as the cost of building the heart transplant facility, and he asked Dr. Lisagor to estimate that cost. Dr. Lisagor said that would cost approximately $26 million. Chairman Arberry questioned the possibility of federal grants and private donations, and Dr. Lisagor said that was a possibility.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that the Cleveland Clinic was the clinic with which the mayor of Las Vegas had been discussing a possible downtown location. She pointed out that would not be located on campus. Dr. McFarlane said the discussed location was approximately 1.25 miles from the campus, but he noted that the medical school already had several programs located at various hospitals.

In response to Mr. Marvel’s question regarding heart transplants, Dr. McFarlane said he did not have the actual figures of Nevadans waiting for transplants, but he would attempt to provide that information. Mrs. Gibbons interjected that the Nevada Organ and Tissue Donation Task Force and the Attorney General’s Office had attempted to gather that information from Nevada hospitals and transplant centers outside of Nevada, but had been unsuccessful.

Dr. McFarlane said that Nevada needed to do something in order to be able to provide more health services of higher quality and easier access in the state, and he hoped the study would facilitate that and eventually Nevadans would be able to get the necessary medical care without traveling to another state.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked the doctors for their testimony and repeated her request for a budget. She asked if there were any additional comments or questions, there were none, and she declared the hearing on A.B. 333 closed. She then relinquished the Chair to Chairman Arberry, and he indicated the Committee would hear A.B. 386.

Assembly Bill 386: Makes various changes relating to product safety for children. (BDR 38-53)

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14, presented A.B. 386, which concerned products that were not safe for children. It established a system to track unsafe products, and prohibited the use of those products by child care facilities.

Ms. Koivisto referred to the fiscal note and said the cost for information gathering seemed excessive. The information needed to track those products was available on the Consumer Product Safety Commission Web site, which was updated on a regular basis. She pointed out that most child care facilities had access to the Internet, so the information would be readily available. In addition, it was possible to request that the information be e-mailed on a regular basis. Thus, in her opinion, the fiscal note of $200,000 was erroneous.

Ms. Koivisto explained that Sections 2 through 6 of A.B. 386 were definitions. Section 8 required the State Board of Health to create, maintain, and update a comprehensive list of children’s products that it determined to be unsafe, and set forth criteria the Board might use to determine that a child’s product was unsafe. Section 9 established criteria for retrofitting if that was possible. Section 10 specified sanctions for a commercial user in violation of Section 8. Section 11 added a new section to Chapter 432A of the Nevada Revised Statutes that prohibited a child care facility from having on its premises a children’s product that had been determined to be unsafe by the State Board of Health. That section required the Division of Child and Family Services in the Department of Human Resources to notify child care facilities. She reiterated that the notification process could be very simple as one could sign up to receive updated information by e-mail.

Ms. Koivisto said that in 2002, 90 children’s products were recalled. Children’s products were recalled at a rate of almost two per week, and she pointed out that most people were unaware of those recalls unless a child was injured or killed as a result of using one of those products. In Nevada, there were many families where both parents worked and the children were in child care. Ms. Koivisto opined that it was incumbent upon the Legislature to ensure the safety of those children, which was the purpose of A.B. 386.

Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Ms. Koivisto that the fiscal note was “ridiculous” because it said it required the State Board of Health to determine if the child’s product was unsafe. Ms. McClain pointed out that the products had already been determined as unsafe, and it was a matter of notification. The list of unsafe products was available on the Web. Additionally, the fiscal note said that two people were needed as were funds for out-of-state travel and in-state travel and operating costs including rent, telephone, postage, and other operating costs. She repeated that the fiscal note was not applicable.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that the intent was not to supersede the federal laws, but she wanted to know the purpose of placing regulations in statute regarding crib measurements and other standards. Ms. Koivisto said the intent was to model federal law while creating a system specific to Nevada. She said the Child Product Safety Act had been passed in several states as a result of a child dying because of a defective crib that had been recalled, and the child care facility had not had that recall information. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the process could be simplified by making it part of the licensing provisions for child care facilities. For example, upon application for licensing, the applicant would be given a list of products he was not permitted to have. If those products were found during an inspection, the facility could be shut down.

Ms. Koivisto agreed that would simplify the process, but additional information would need to be provided later as the list was updated and products were added. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that might be an avenue to explore in order to reduce the fiscal impact. She clarified that the intent of A.B. 386 was that the State Board of Health would add child product safety to its responsibilities by regulation then establish certain procedures to ensure those regulations were being followed.

Judith Wright, Chief, Bureau of Family Health Services, addressed the Committee and said the State Health Division recognized and supported the need for the public to have access to timely information concerning unsafe children’s products. She explained that currently the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, along with the manufacturers through the Toy Industry Association, Inc., had the responsibility of alerting the public about unsafe products. A.B. 386 would require the Health Division to put a similar system in place. Ms. Wright indicated that the Health Division was willing to work with interested parties to ensure the public was aware of unsafe children’s products; however, the Division did not have the necessary resources to implement A.B. 386 as currently written.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a change in the fiscal note and a simplification of the process would allay her concerns. Ms. Wright said if it was merely a matter of disseminating information that would be much less expensive than setting up a system.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to a letter (Exhibit D) regarding Illinois’ Children’s Product Safety Act, which stated that the only opposition to a similar law had been from the Illinois Retailer’s Association, which had not wanted the state to supersede any federal criteria relative to children’s product safety. After assurance that that was not the intent, the Retailer’s Association withdrew their opposition. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Koivisto if the intent of the bill was to have parallel federal standards and Nevada standards, and Ms. Koivisto nodded her assent.

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments, there were none, and she declared the hearing on A.B. 386 closed. Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would hear A.B. 476.

Assembly Bill 476: Requires public employers to ensure that employees comply with laws governing registration of motor vehicles and obtaining drivers’ licenses. (BDR 23-1316)

Ms. Giunchigliani presented A.B. 476 and said it was a result of a joint subcommittee discussion regarding the budgets from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). She said that many public employees were not complying with the current laws regarding driver’s licenses and registration. There had been concerns expressed earlier, and she assured the Committee the intent of the bill had not been the termination of employees who were not in compliance, rather the intent was to recognize there was a problem and then take steps to address that problem.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that, if the Committee wished to pursue the bill, the phrase “as a condition of continued employment” in line 8 of page 1 should be deleted, the phrase “all motor vehicles” in line 10 of page 1 should be altered to reflect that it was the vehicle the employee was using to drive to work, and the phrase “the employment of an employee who does not provide the evidence required by this subsection within the prescribed time must be terminated” in lines 2 and 3 of page 2 should be deleted. Ms. Giunchigliani said A.B. 476 applied to public employees, and she felt that public employees had an obligation to be responsive to state law, and it might provide additional revenue as well as being a policy statement.

Ms. McClain asked why Section 2 of the bill was not in italics as it was new language, and she pointed out it also contained the termination clause. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that she did not know why it was not italicized, but the termination clause should be deleted if the Committee wished to process the bill.

Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Washoe County School District, addressed the Committee. She said she was pleased to hear some of the suggestions to eliminate the provision for terminating employees because that was the main concern for the school district. The Washoe County School District hired approximately 1,000 new employees per year and the record keeping and the verification process of checking their driver’s licenses and registration as required in A.B. 476 would most likely require an additional staff position to manage that paperwork. Ms. Dancer said the main concern was that the school district would be forced into the position of terminating those employees who did not meet the requirements. She explained that while many of the new employees came from out of state, it was expected that those new employees would follow the laws of Nevada. However, many of those positions did not require driving, and she felt that terminating an employee from a position that did not require driving was outside the scope of the school district.

Ms. Dancer noted that with the changes recommended by the Committee, there was only one other concern, which was the fiscal impact. She said there would be a cost for the addition of one technician for record keeping. She concluded by saying the Washoe County School District would not have strong objections to A.B. 476 if passed as amended.

Speaker Perkins asked if the school district had a policy that required employees to follow the law. Ms. Dancer replied that she did not believe there was an overall policy, but there were policies regarding specific laws. She pointed out that a policy that employees follow the law was a general employment practice but not necessarily a stated policy. Speaker Perkins said that making it a stated policy was the purpose of A.B. 476, and he suggested that the individual employee’s immediate supervisor could verify that the employee was in line with state laws regarding driver’s licenses and registration.

Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, said he applauded the efforts of the Legislature in attempting to find those people who were not following the law, but he felt public employers were being asked to take on a unique role in their employees’ lives. He noted that the I-9 form, the employment eligibility verification form, did not require driver’s license information. By law, an employer could only ask whether or not the potential employee was eligible to work in the United States. If that individual had a passport, or some other form of identification that proved employment eligibility, a driver’s license would not be needed and the employer would not necessarily have the ability to require a driver’s license, particularly since not all employees were required to drive vehicles. Mr. Musgrove commented that public employers were being asked to serve as enforcers of the law, which was a role with which he was uncomfortable. As long as employees were eligible to work in the United States and were not endangering themselves or other workers, Mr. Musgrove did not feel that public employers had the ability to assume an enforcement role. He remarked that Mrs. Chowning, chairwoman of the Committee on Transportation, had said that in the early 1990s the Highway Patrol had been asked to start monitoring parking lots to make sure vehicles were registered, and he felt public employers were being placed in a similar position, and he objected.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that she believed driver’s license information was requested on the application for employment, and Ms. McClain agreed. Mr. Musgrove interjected that he did not object to the portion of A.B. 476 that related to driver’s licenses, rather it was the requirement that employers monitor vehicle registration that he did not like. Ms. McClain remarked that another bill, A.B. 30, had been proposed in order to deal with similar issues, and Mr. Musgrove indicated that he was more comfortable with that bill. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the registration issue be looked at separately from the driver’s license issue.

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), spoke to the Committee and said that with the amendments that had been suggested, the NSEA would be more comfortable with A.B. 476, but there were still some concerns. In Clark County, many newly hired teachers from out of state arrived the week that they began their employment. While all employees should comply with the laws and register their cars and get their Nevada driver’s licenses, it was an added burden for the new teachers with that time constraint. She pointed out that the vehicle registration information would need to be updated annually, which would place a burden on both the employer and employee. Ms. Cahill commented that, if the termination provisions were removed and it was made a policy statement and the Legislature was interested in ensuring that everyone was in compliance with state law, it should apply to private employers and employees as well.

Karyn Wright, Clark County School District, addressed the Committee and said she had been asked to speak in opposition to A.B. 476. She noted that she approved of the proposed amendments, but there were other concerns. She said the Clark County School District felt A.B. 476 would create a new basis to set forth the rules regarding the discipline of licensed employees and created an administrative burden that appeared to be unfunded.

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether employees who were required to drive a vehicle as part of their duties had to show proof of registration. Ms. Wright indicated that was correct. She explained that she was involved with the new teacher induction program in the Clark County School District, and she said that new teachers were encouraged to obtain their Nevada driver’s licenses and vehicle registration as soon as possible. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that every campus parking lot in the state had vehicles that had not been registered in the state of Nevada, despite having been there for years. She suggested that the current method was not working and perhaps a different approach was needed.

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators and Clark County Association of School Administrators, spoke in opposition to A.B. 476 as it appeared to be an unfunded mandate to local school districts as additional personnel might be needed in order to do the record keeping. Mr. Brusa said it would be easier to agree with the bill as amended, but he agreed with Ms. Cahill that the requirement should be extended to the private sector as well.

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), said that Section 1, subsection 3, which said “the Department of Motor Vehicles shall, upon request, assist a public employer in confirming that its employees have complied with the requirements of this section” meant the DMV would be providing record information as required by the employers. Ms. Mathiesen said that in testimony before the Committee on Transportation, Ms. Giunchigliani had indicated that meant the DMV would be providing services to those agencies that would be verifying employment in order to assist them in registering and licensing people. Ms. Mathiesen stated that if that was the intent of A.B. 476 there would be an additional fiscal note, including staffing, equipment, and additional vehicles.

Ms. Giunchigliani said in 1993 a law had been passed that stated the DMV would be required to provide travel teams upon request of employers so the state would be more service-oriented. She indicated that, in conversations with school districts and other groups that hired large numbers of individuals, it made more sense to have a travel team from the DMV go to them than to have all the individuals go to the nearest DMV office, which would increase the lines. She asked what the effect would be of narrowing the scope to include only driver’s license transactions rather than driver’s license and registration transactions.

Ms. Mathiesen explained that the DMV had attempted to provide driver’s licensing services to a casino approximately seven years earlier, but had discontinued that practice because the impact on the offices was an increased waiting time because the staff was out of the office providing travel services. She did not believe that the volume justified the cost for travel. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that providing services to 1,200 newly hired teachers in Clark County should ease the impact on the waiting time in lines at the DMV offices. Ms. Mathiesen pointed out that there was less staff to handle transactions in the offices as staff was used to accommodate groups outside the offices. Ms. Giunchigliani said the DMV had been given additional employees to staff travel teams, and she asked what duties those employees performed currently. Ms. Mathiesen said the rapid growth of Nevada had “buried” the staff and all the employees were extremely busy.

Speaker Perkins expressed his concern at the tone of the objections to A.B. 476. He commented that the objections seemed to be coming from those agencies that benefited the most from the governmental services tax, which was part of the reason for A.B. 476. He also felt that it was important to find a better way for various levels of government, whether state, local, or federal, to work together and “think out of the box” in order to serve constituents. Speaker Perkins conceded that changes needed to be made to A.B. 476, but he agreed with the concept of the bill.

Assemblywoman Chowning added that various entities and organizations had been asked if they would be willing to modify employment handbooks to encourage employees to comply with laws, and the entities had indicated they would be willing to be more proactive in ensuring that employees registered their vehicles and obtained Nevada driver’s licenses. Ms. Chowning said the main concern had been timing, and situations where the new employee had not registered his vehicle yet but intended to, or the employee’s spouse was still living in another state and the vehicle was not currently in Nevada but would be, made the process difficult. Employers had also expressed concern about how often the registration would need to be rechecked. Mrs. Chowning opined that the benefit of introducing A.B. 476 was that employers had been made aware of problems and had indicated they would be willing to address the issues in employment manuals.

Mrs. Chowning added that a law had been passed stating that the Highway Patrol would be able to go into parking lots and issue citations. She indicated that when the law first passed, many citations had been issued, but that had tapered off and she felt more enforcement was needed.

Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions or comments. There were none, and he closed the hearing on A.B. 476. Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would be voting on several bills.

Assembly Bill 518 (1st Reprint): Temporarily prohibits increase in number of limousines in operation and directs legislative study of issues relating to allocation of limousines. (BDR S-1102)

The first bill considered was A.B. 518, and Chairman Arberry indicated it was a bill for a study regarding limousines and testimony had been provided that there was not a fiscal note.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was concerned that it required an interim committee, but the interim committees had not been decided. She commented that if the study were conducted by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) that might not affect the list of interim committees that would be formed and it might be a simpler way to conduct the study.

Chairman Arberry agreed that the TSA should conduct the study. Mrs. Chowning pointed out that the bill had not been proposed by the TSA; it had been proposed by the industry. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that language could be added to the bill stating that the study must include certain members of the industry, meaning owners of limousines. Mrs. Chowning suggested that a board could be created that would have a sunset in two years, but the board would have to be balanced. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated A.B. 518 could be moved out of Committee as amend and do pass with the addition of language stating that the Legislative Commission would appoint a committee comprised of TSA representatives and industry individuals to study the issue regarding limousines and then report findings to the Legislature. Mrs. Chowning repeated the need for a sunset date because the prohibition on limousines was through July 1, 2005, and the board would no longer be needed at that point.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 518 TO HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO BE FROM THE TSA WITH AT LEAST TWO VOTING MEMBERS FROM THE INDUSTRY TO PERFORM THE STUDY, THE COMMITTEE WOULD SUNSET IN TWO YEARS, AND A REPORT WOULD BE MADE IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would hear discussion of the motion. Mrs. Chowning said the members of the study were set out, and Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that she was suggesting changing Section 2. There could be three members from the TSA and two voting members from the industry. Mrs. Chowning asked if the chairman of the TSA would be a voting member as well, giving the committee three voting members. Ms. Giunchigliani said there should be three voting members from the TSA and two voting members from the industry. Mrs. Chowning pointed out that gave the industry fewer votes. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that it might be better to hold the motion until those details could be refined. Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would not vote on the motion.

Assembly Bill 25: Authorizes employee of agency which provides child welfare services to provide maintenance and special services to certain children under certain circumstances. (BDR 38-690)

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained that A.B. 25 had a significant fiscal note attached to it, and the proposal was to eliminate the fiscal portions of the bill and keep the other portions. In Section 3 there was language that would allow employees of the Division of Child and Family Services to be able to provide maintenance and special services to a child, which was not currently allowed. A.B. 25 would change that in certain instances, and the client could not be part of that child welfare worker’s caseload, but A.B. 25 would expand the number of people that would be able to provide maintenance and care for children that were removed from their homes. Mr. Stevens said the proposal was to amend out all sections of the bill except Section 3 and the effective date.

Ms. Leslie further clarified that A.B. 25 allowed employees of the Division of Child and Family Services to be foster parents.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 25.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Hettrick were not present for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 254: Makes supplemental appropriations to Department of Motor Vehicles for certain unanticipated shortfalls in money for Fiscal Year 2002-03. (BDR S-1232)

Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 254 made a supplemental appropriation to the Department of Motor Vehicles. He indicated that staff had worked with the DMV and had revised some of the figures in the bill, and he outlined those changes to Section 1 of A.B. 254.

Subsection 1: the amount would be changed from $667,590 to $156,500.
Subsection 2: the amount would be changed from $308,400 to $146,800, and through a separate work program the agency would transfer approximately $161,000 from the reserve category.
Subsection 3: the amount would be changed from $44,200 to $15,000.
Subsection 5: the amount would change from $66,000 to $51,880.
Subsection 6: the amount would change from $49,096 to $26,000.

Mr. Stevens added that, in addition to those changes, a new subsection would be added relating to the Motor Carrier Section. The Department had indicated there was a shortfall in the salary category so $34,000 would be added to A.B. 254 in the new Subsection 8.

Mr. Marvel requested the total cost of A.B. 254, and Mr. Stevens indicated the total cost would be $586,524, instead of $1,291,630.

In response to Mr. Griffin’s question regarding the reason for the shortfall, Mr. Stevens explained that each subsection had been evaluated separately and there had been different reasons for the shortfall, including shortfalls in salaries. More specifically, Subsection 1 included the cost of an upgrade and expansion of a toll-free telephone system; Subsection 2 included the cost of facility charges from the Department of Information Technology; Subsection 4 had expenses relating to Qmatic warranties; Subsection 5 was the cost of non-state-owned building rent; Subsection 6 was from the Division of Compliance Enforcement for fingerprinting services; Subsection 7 was in the management services budget as salaries for security guards. He indicated he could provide more details if needed.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 254.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Hettrick were not present for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 341: Effectuates specific and limited waiver of immunity of State under Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution with regard to certain federal laws regulating employment practices. (BDR 3-356)

Ms. Giunchigliani commented that there had been a question regarding the Attorney General’s fiscal note, which had been attached to A.B. 341. She said the Attorney General’s Office had previously hired two individuals to handle those issues of compliance addressed in A.B. 341. If those two individuals had assumed other duties, that situation would have to be corrected by the agency. Ms. Giunchigliani concluded by saying that, if managers were trained well and treating people appropriately, there should be no cases and no cost to the Attorney General’s Office.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 341.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS VOTING NO. (Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Hettrick were not present for the vote.)

Chairman Arberry indicated the Committee would discuss A.B. 518 again.

Assembly Bill 518 (1st Reprint): Temporarily prohibits increase in number of limousines in operation and directs legislative study of issues relating to allocation of limousines. (BDR S-1102)

Mrs. Chowning said she had spoken to members of the industry and they had agreed to an even number, three TSA members and three industry members, on the proposed committee to be appointed by the Legislative Commission. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that all six members would be voting members.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 518.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.