MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session February 20, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Monday, February 20, 1995, Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Jeannine Stroth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst S.B. 122 Repeals requirement for prepayment of insurance premium tax. A.B. 114 Delays first prepayment of insurance premium tax and requires one quarterly payment. Assemblywoman Jeannine Stroth, co-chairman of the Committee on Taxation, presented written information to the committee (Exhibit C) and stated she would be speaking in favor of S.B. 122 and A.B. 114, which would delay the first prepayment of the insurance premium tax. She remarked it was wise to have a thorough evaluation before repealing any law dealing with revenue, but she wanted to bring to the committee members' attention what the actual effect on the overall biennium budget would be if, in fact, revenue projections were reduced by the prepayment of $35,470,000. She expressed concern, after listening to the Senate and the Taxation presentation, with the appropriation figure used for the ending fund balance of $1.4 billion. After doing research, Assemblywoman Stroth found the figure to be inaccurate, because the ending fund balance was determined by the operating appropriations, not total appropriations. There were discussions about bringing the stabilization fund up to $100 million. She was interested in seeing to what amount the stabilization fund could be increased if the prepayment was removed. Referring to Exhibit C, Assemblywoman Stroth pointed out spreadsheet one depicts the rainy day expenditures under appropriations and spreadsheet two depicts the rainy day expenditures after the reserve balance and surplus had been established. Note was made that the 5% to 10% required for the ending fund reserve balance was calculated on operating appropriations, not total appropriations. The Governor recommended bringing the stabilization or rainy day fund to its maximum level in FY 1994-95 by appropriating approximately $81 million. That seemed incongruous on two points: 1) The rainy day fund was to be determined after the amount in surplus was identified; and 2) It did not seem prudent to fund a stabilization fund with borrowed money, that is, the $35 million prepayment which would also cost $1,750,000 in total interest. The approximate amount of $2 million would be paid on money which was already owed to the state in order to acquire the money early. Assemblywoman Stroth stated she hoped the committee members would give consideration to Exhibit C, which depicted three scenarios deducting the prepayment from anticipated revenues with the rainy day balance ranging from $75 million to $86 million. She also showed the end fund balance for each fiscal year exceeding the minimum of 5% by $20 million; although she had been informed it was the Governor's intention to have the $20 million in excess of the minimum at the end of the biennium, not necessarily the fiscal year. Assemblywoman Stroth indicated, according to the legislative advisor for the Taxation Committee, the cumulative figures through December reflected sales tax exceeded the projected estimates by 3.6% and gaming percentage fees by 2.9%. She felt there was every indication the state's position would be fiscally solid even if prepayment of the insurance premium tax was repealed. Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayers Association introduced Howard Barrett, also with the association. Ms. Vilardo stated S.B. 122 came out of the interim committee to study revenue and taxation in Nevada. The committee was not a revenue-generating committee but rather looked at policy issues and where revenue could be raised if needed. The Nevada Taxpayers Association opposed the prepayment of the insurance premium tax during the 1993-95 legislative session and now supports the repeal of the prepayment tax on insurance premiums. Ms. Vilardo stated in view of the surplus, the rainy day fund, the budget stabilization fund and the surplus in a biennium should not be used to fund ongoing operational expenses, the association felt the excess revenue should be used to eliminate bad tax policy. The prepayment of the insurance premium tax was not different from the prepayment of the net proceeds in mine tax or instituting prepayment of sales tax by individuals. If sufficient taxes were not collected in advance, penalties would be assessed. Ms. Vilardo remarked the prepayment of the insurance premium tax was a one-time measure to balance the budget during the 1993-95 biennium. If the repeal is passed, it should be done before the first collection is made so taxpayers are not faced with finding a way to get the tax back. She reiterated the surplus revenue should be used to eliminate the prepayment of the insurance premium tax and urged the committee members' support in the repeal of the tax. Ms. Tiffany stated Ms. Vilardo had made compelling arguments during conversations in the past and asked why it would be important to wait until May to see the new projections if the projections had nothing to do with where the money was being taken from. Ms. Vilardo responded there were politics involved and a number of new legislators wanted a comfort level, as did other legislators, for planned capital projects which were not coming from one-shot appropriations. The Nevada Taxpayers Association wanted to see the bill go through immediately to beat the first deadline date. If it meant processing A.B. 114 to delay the payment for everybody to bring their comfort level up with where the surplus is, the association had no problem with that. The association would not testify on A.B. 114. Mr. Dini pointed out the reason he introduced A.B. 114 was to see what the economic forum predicted in revenue projections. He stated as a result of budget hearings, the committees would be faced with budget problems for prisons and education, and he felt it was too soon to repeal the prepayment of insurance premium tax. Mr. Dini remarked insurance companies had not contacted him to repeal the prepayment, but there should be a delay of the first prepayment until the revenue projections were made. Mr. Marvel agreed with Ms. Vilardo that this was poor tax policy and commented he had a bill, along with the committee, to try to phase out the prepayment of the net proceeds tax; but having gone through budget hearings on prisons and numerous other budgets, he felt it was premature to eliminate the revenue until the committee knew what the ending fund balances would be. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed this was bad policy, and stated she was concerned with the apparent political game playing. She had hoped the Senate would have been smart enough to come up with a concept like Mr. Dini had, which would at least delay the prepayment while the issue of policy was debated. If policy was to be dealt with, all areas must be reviewed; and if prepay is bad, it is bad for all. If a budget must be reworked, the committee needed to review what would be passed on to the consumer. If prisons needed additional funding, there was the question of where would the revenue come from. She expressed hope that when the other bill was considered, the committee would look at three things: 1) The May forecast; 2) In the second year of the biennium the budget would be below the recommended hold if the $35 million was removed; and 3) The whole concept of policy would be taken up at one time instead of a piecemeal approach. Ms. Vilardo stated everyone wanted to see a comfort level, and the Nevada Taxpayers Association had no problem with that. There was a concern of making payments and then trying to get credits returned. She stated there would be no problem processing Mr. Dini's bill by the committee because it was seen as a policy issue, the committee did not agree with the prepayment of taxes, and it would take a couple of years to achieve consistency. Ms. Giunchigliani commented legislative sessions tended to ramrod legislation through with no real testimony, rather than looking at other alternatives. Legislators needed to be responsible for that and take a more reasoned approach dealing with legislation. She expressed concern with how quickly S.B. 122 came through the legislative process with no proper debate and no public input. Chairman Arberry requested David Hall, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Insurance, to explain S.B. 122 and A.B. 114. Mr. Hall stated he was somewhat new to the Division of Insurance and suggested Chairman Arberry refer his request to Jeanne Botts. She had monitored the issues for a number of years, and Mr. Hall felt she had a better understanding of the issues involved. Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Fiscal Division, distributed copies of a chart entitled Comparison of Estimated Collections of Insurance Premium Tax Under Various Bills to the committee (Exhibit D). As pointed out by Mrs. Stroth, the 5% to 10% ending fund balance should be on operating appropriations, not all appropriations. Ms. Botts explained, as a member of the Fiscal Division, she neither supported nor opposed S.B. 122 or A.B. 114, but was asked to provide information. S.B. 122 repeals the requirement for prepayment of insurance premium tax which was mandated by A.B. 778 of the 1993 legislative session. A.B. 778 of 1993 became effective January 1, 1995. It required insurers to pay premium taxes estimated to be due for business transacted in calendar year 1995 in two equal installments, one due March 1, 1995, and the second due June 15, 1995. The law has the effect of bringing into FY 1994-95 two additional quarters of premium tax collections for the quarters ending September 30, 1995, and December 31, 1995. In other words the state would collect six quarters of premium tax within the state fiscal year instead of four. The one-time revenue gain was estimated at $35.5 million. Ms. Botts explained that before A.B. 778 became effective, insurers who owed at least $2,000 of premium tax were required to make quarterly payments equal to 25% of the tax paid in the prior year. On March 1 of each year, when filing the annual statement on business written in the prior calendar year, an additional payment called an Annual Reconciliation was made to cover the difference between the actual tax owed to the state for the prior year's business and any quarterly payments made or credits due. For the larger insurers there were five tax payment dates, those being the last day of each of the four calendar quarters, March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, and the annual reconciliation for the previous calendar year's business on March 1. Insurers who paid less than $2,000 in premium tax during the prior year made one annual tax payment on March 1 when filing their annual report and forms. S.B. 122 contemplates the return to the payment schedule which has been in place from 1983 until February 1995. The two installment annual prepayments would be replaced with the pre-existing four quarterly payments and one annual reconciliation payment. A.B. 114 delays the prepayment to the June 15 date. Mr. Dini asked if the unappropriated balance of $89,639,918 for July 1, 1995, as depicted on page 3 of Exhibit D, included the prepayment of the insurance premium tax. Ms. Botts replied affirmatively. Mr. Dini inquired if $35 million were taken from the $89 million figure, would the ending fund balance be $54 million. Ms. Botts responded yes. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the current insurance premium tax was prepaid during four quarters. Ms. Botts explained there was a tax due on the last day of the calendar quarter equal to 25% of what was paid the previous year, which would be an estimate and would be reconciled on March 1. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Fiscal Division, noted there were questions as to whether the 5% minimum fund balance would be achieved at the end of fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997. If S.B. 122 was passed, assuming every appropriation recommended by the Governor was approved by the legislature and the $35.5 million was eliminated from the insurance premium tax repayment, the minimum 5% fund balance in the second year of the biennium would be short by $16.4 million and would have to made up through savings from the appropriations recommended by the Governor. Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 122 or A.B. 114. Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1864, read from prepared testimony which was submitted to the committee and is attached as Exhibit E. Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on behalf or in opposition to S.B. 122 or A.B. 114. Debbie Cahill of the Nevada State Education Association stated the association did not have a policy statement regarding the prepayment of taxes. The association was seeking the comfort level referenced by Ms. Vilardo and had an understanding of the $16 million shortfall. Pending in the Executive Budget is $25 million for technology in schools. The association tried to determine from the Senate Taxation Committee where they would suggest cutting $16 million, but no strong indication was given. Therefore, the association is concerned about the loss of revenue and supports A.B. 114. John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, informed the committee the Department of Administration opposed S.B. 122 and supported A.B. 114. The one-time revenues of $35 million provided by the prepayment was included in the Governor's recommended budget and a great deal was included in the Governor's spending plans. In addition to those recommendations, as pointed out by Mr. Dini, there were potential problems with the prison system. A number of bills had been introduced during the 1995-97 legislative session which contained at least $8 million worth of appropriations not included in the Governor's budget. As a result, the Department of Administration supported A.B. 114 which provided the necessary time for a careful review of the Governor's budget, the potential problems with the prison system, and other bills introduced which contained appropriations. Mr. Marvel noted there were a number of crime bills before the legislature which would create a fiscal impact and stated the repeal should be delayed so a full assessment could be made to determine the fiscal impact of the crime bills. Mr. Comeaux agreed with Mr. Marvel. The Governor's Capital Improvement Program included design and construction of 500 additional beds at the Lovelock Correctional Center. If some of the measures were passed regarding enhanced sentences or eliminated paroles, it might be necessary for the legislature to provide funding for construction of more than 500 beds. The 500-bed addition to the Lovelock Correctional Center would cost approximately $25 million, which included the design for additional beds, but another addition of 500 beds would have a fairly sizable price tag. He stated the repeal should be delayed until there was a clear understanding of the fiscal impact by crime bills. Mr. Dini asked if consideration had been given to phasing out the prepayment of the insurance tax over three or four years. Mr. Comeaux stated the Department of Administration had considered that proposal, but the downside was the administrative difficulty. Mr. Dini requested Mr. Comeaux develop a four-year schedule to phase out the prepayment of the insurance tax. Ms. Giunchigliani noted one of the recommendations from SCR 43 was to look at phasing out the prepayment and suggested properly debating phasing out all prepayment of taxes to determine the impact on the budget and how the phase-out could be accomplished rather than doing the repeal. Mr. Dini stated he introduced A.B. 114 to slow the process down in order to determine the state's fiscal condition. A rosy picture had been painted because of improved gaming and sales taxes, but needs also become apparent. The passage of A.B. 114 would put the state in a much stronger position after the May 1 prediction by the Economic Forum. The Economic Forum was the new predictor for the state of Nevada and should be given an opportunity to work. He commented he was worried about the ending fund balances and did not want to be in the position of raising taxes in the next biennium. Chairman Arberry called for public testimony for or in opposition to S.B. 122 or A.B. 114. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 122 and A.B. 114 and opened the hearing on A.B. 29. A.B. 29 Establishes fee for endorsement added after issuance of original commercial driver's license for which driving skills test is required. Bruce Glover, Chief, Department of Motor Vehicles Driver's License Division, noted A.B. 29 established a fee for endorsements to commercial drivers' licenses. When the Commercial Driver's License Act was passed and included in Nevada law, there was a section which allowed for a charge on endorsements to a driver's license. Since the endorsement was new to the state of Nevada, a charge of $14 was made for the written test and a charge of $30 was made for the skills test. Federal law requires a passenger endorsement be given during the actual skills test. The passenger endorsement was charged at $14 while the test took 2.5 to 3 hours to administer. Of the 2,500 people who were given passenger endorsements to their commercial licenses in 1994, there was no breakdown of how many specifically requested the endorsement. The division was requesting compensation for this time-consuming testing service. When Mr. Marvel asked if the funds from A.B. 29 were included in the Executive Budget, Mr. Glover responded they were not. Mr. Marvel inquired if the bill was passed, would the Executive Budget need to be amended. Mr. Glover stated he believed the revenues would go directly to the highway fund. Mark Stevens indicated the funds were not included in the highway fund projected revenues in the Executive Budget. If the bill were to pass, the revenue projections for the highway fund would need to be modified, but it would not impact any of the budget accounts within the Executive Budget. Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 71. A.B. 71 Increases balance in motor vehicle revolving account. William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained A.B. 71 would increase the department's revolving fund authority from $20,000 to $50,000. The last increase was in 1987. Since that time the population had increased 40%, total revenues had increased 132%, highway revenue fund had increased 102%, and nine facilities had opened since 1987, making a total of 21 facilities. He explained there was not a large enough revolving fund available to make change over the counters. Mr. Marvel asked if the expenses associated with A.B. 71 were included in the Executive Budget. Mr. Gosnell responded A.B. 71 would decrease the amount of revenue going into the highway fund by $30,000 for a one-time adjustment. Chairman Arberry inquired if there was further testimony for or in opposition to A.B. 29 or A.B. 71. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearings on A.B. 29 and A.B. 71, and opened the hearing on A.B. 31. A.B. 31 Repeals state forester firewarden's revolving account. Roy Trenoweth, State Forester Firewarden, explained A.B. 31 eliminated NRS 472.045, the state forester firewarden's revolving account. As the state had become more effective and efficient in disbursing payments, the necessity for an outside bank account to pay bills had diminished. Mr. Trenoweth commented he had eliminated the checking account in 1994. Mr. Marvel asked the rationale for setting up the original bank account. Mr. Trenoweth indicated the intent of the bank account was to pay bills. Mr. Dini commented A.B. 31 was in line with the recommendations from most of the audits that all outside bank accounts be closed. Chairman Arberry inquired if there was further testimony for or in opposition to A.B. 31. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 31 and opened the hearing on A.B. 77. A.B. 77 Exempts purchase by local government from industry program in correctional institution in this state from local government purchasing act. Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director, Prison Industries, explained A.B. 77 would authorize local units of government the same access to Prison Industries as the state currently has. The bill was permissive in allowing counties and other units of local government to buy from Prison Industries without going out to bid, if desired. Many states had similar laws. The bill came about as a result of meetings with purchasing agents who had a desire to purchase specialty items directly from Prison Industries but could not do so without a bid. Mr. Marvel stated, as chairman of the Prison Industries Advisory Board, he was very much in favor of A.B. 77, and he supported expanding the use of Prison Industries. Mrs. Evans commented she shared the same sentiments as Mr. Marvel. She inquired if Prison Industries was able to turn orders around in a timely fashion. Mr. Skolnik stated the turnaround on orders had improved, and Prison Industries was the only supplier of office equipment for the new state office building which had everything in on time. Ms. Tiffany remarked she applauded Prison Industries, but remarked Prison Industries did have some problems at the Supreme Court building with work which was not complete and quality control issues. Ms. Tiffany indicated she would like to see Prison Industries expand and have as many contracts as possible, but she would also like to have contracts met and quality control issues responded to. She asked if there would be a problem were A.B. 77 passed. Mr. Skolnik stated he did not believe there would be a problem. He remarked many of the problems at the Supreme Court building were either as a result of the actual construction of the building or the architect design did not complete the specifications to Prison Industries. Once those issues were resolved, Prison Industries was able to deliver. The current return rate for the furniture line is under 2%. Mrs. Brower requested a list of items provided by Prison Industries. Mr. Skolnik replied the primary items would be office furniture, draperies, jail mattresses, some printing which was governed by the printing laws, bookbinding, metal products, metal beds, security furniture, auto restoration, stained and beveled glass, and license plates. Chairman Arberry inquired if there was further testimony for or in opposition to A.B. 77. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 77 and opened the hearing on A.B. 32. A.B. 32 Makes appropriation to legislative counsel bureau for reproduction of older Nevada Reports. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained A.B. 32 makes an appropriation of $45,000 to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for the reproduction of older Nevada Reports. The Nevada Supreme Court sells and distributes the advance sheets to attorneys who buy them. When the bound compilation of the decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court come out, the Legislative Counsel Bureau sells them. The A.B. 32 appropriation, pursuant to NRS 345.025, allows for the replacement of out-of-print volumes of the Nevada Reports. Mr. Spitler recalled a conversation from the 1993-95 legislative session that the funds would be included in the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget. Mr. Stevens explained the appropriation was included in the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget during the 1993-95 legislative session and is included as a one-shot appropriation in the 1995-97 Executive Budget. Mr. Malkiewich stated traditionally it had been handled as a one-shot appropriation. Mr. Spitler commented it would seem like the appropriation should be heard in the budget as opposed to having a one-shot appropriation come before the committee each biennium. Mr. Allard asked if the amount from the sale of each copy of the Nevada Reports was enough to cover the cost of reproduction. Mr. Malkiewich believed the costs were covered in the selling price. There were different prices based upon when the volumes were printed since the newer volumes cost more than the older ones, and a price adjustment was made in approximately 1993. The sales price was designed to cover the printing. Mr. Allard inquired if the appropriation was providing funding until the stock was depleted. Mr. Malkiewich indicated the appropriation would allow for stock which might be ordered. If an order was made for an entire set of Nevada Reports, volume 13 might be missing from 1878, and this appropriation would allow all orders to be filled. Mr. Close concurred the funds should be part of the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget and also be shown routinely as an income factor. Mr. Malkiewich replied that suggestion could be accommodated. If a $45,000 authorized revenue item were put in the budget from sales of the Nevada Reports and a $45,000 expenditure for purchasing out-of-date volumes, it would have the same effect as approving a one-shot appropriation. Mr. Close commented it would be easier to track and would record the transactions for the bureau. Mr. Close stated he would support A.B. 32 but encouraged the Legislative Counsel Bureau to include the funds in their budget. Chairman Arberry commented the agenda board was outdated and asked what it would cost for an electronic reader board. Mr. Malkiewich said he would provide the information to the committee. Mr. Price asked if $1,500 were added to the budget, could an ice machine be provided for the Legislature. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony for or in opposition to A.B. 32. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 32 and opened the hearing on A.B. 34. A.B. 34 Makes appropriation to budget division of department of administration to reimburse legal division of legislative counsel bureau for expenses involved in preparing bill drafts requested by state agencies. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained A.B. 34 was an appropriation of $125,000 from the General Fund to the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for the costs of preparing measures requested by state agencies, pursuant to NRS 218.248. In the period up to September 1 of the year preceding each session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau receives approximately 200 to 300 requests for bill drafts from state agencies. The Legal Division records the amount of time spent on the requests, and during the Legislative session a one-shot appropriation is presented to recoup the cost of preparing bill drafts. The total number of hours is divided into the amount of the appropriation, and the amount is allocated to the various agencies requesting bill drafts. The amount allocated is approximately $25 per hour, which does not cover all the costs but approximates some of the out-of-pocket expense for drafting bills for the Executive Branch of government. Mr. Close inquired if the appropriation was requested every session. Mr. Malkiewich responded this was another traditional one-shot appropriation and it certainly could be handled in the same manner as A.B. 32. Mr. Close made the recommendation funds be included in the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget. He inquired if the bill to reduce the number of bill draft requests were to pass, would the $125,000 appropriation decrease. Mr. Malkiewich responded the amount did not recover the total costs of preparing measures but was intended to be somewhat of a disincentive for agencies not to request too many bill drafts. Mr. Close requested the costs be recovered best as possible. Mr. Spitler asked if A.B. 34 referred to General Fund agencies. Mr. Malkiewich responded he thought Mr. Spitler was referring to the provision adopted during the 1993-95 legislative session for administrative regulations, which was built into the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget. When administrative regulations were reviewed for state agencies not funded 100% from the General Fund, a fee set by the Legislative Commission was charged at approximately $6 per hour. The $6 fee was different from those addressed in A.B. 34. Mr. Spitler asked if the fee would apply to the Department of Transportation for highway fund dollars. Mr. Malkiewich stated he would have to provide the information to the committee. He believed the budget included a much larger amount of authorized expenditures for the Legal Division for the fee charged to state agencies. During the 1993-95 legislative session a small fee was charged to state agencies. During the 1995-97 legislative session the fee would be higher but was built into the agency's budget and the Legal Division's budget. Mr. Spitler inquired how non-General Fund agencies were billed for bill drafting. Mr. Malkiewich stated he believed A.B. 34 applied to all state agencies. Mr. Spitler commented the committee needed to review that issue. He stated the Department of Transportation should be paying full price for bill drafting. Mr. Malkiewich remarked the bill draft request payments came from the appropriation. Money was appropriated to the Department of Administration Budget Division, and a bill was submitted by the Legal Division broken down by agency, which was paid from the appropriation. The payment did not come out of the Department of Transportation General Fund but came from the one-shot appropriation. Mr. Spitler commented the cost for bill drafting should be recovered from highway fund appropriations and other agencies that have the money. Mr. Dini pointed out the legislature's budget had increased more slowly than the Administration Division budget. He advised caution if the one-shot appropriations were added to the budget because the legislative budget would be inflated. Chairman Arberry called for further testimony for or in opposition to A.B. 34. There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 34 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 122 and A.B. 114. Chairman Arberry suggested to the committee that A.B. 114 be amended into S.B. 122. * * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 122, THE AMENDMENT BEING TO REMOVE THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN S.B. 122 AND SUBSTITUTE THE CONTENTS OF A.B. 114. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stevens to explain why the amendment to S.B. 122 was requested. Mr. Stevens explained the amend and do pass motion would eliminate the language of S.B. 122 and amend the language of A.B. 114 into S.B. 122. This would potentially allow for the bill to be processed in a more expeditious fashion. The amended bill would go to the Senate, which would be a concur/not concur situation. If the Senate concurred, the bill would move more quickly. The first payment on the acceleration of the insurance premium tax would be due March 1. If the payment was going to be delayed and pushed to June 15th, the bill would have to be acted upon very quickly. If payments were received, a repayment or credit would have to be given. Chairman Arberry pointed out the committee did not have time to process A.B. 114 out of committee, send it to the floor, vote on it, and send it to the Senate to be heard. He stated this was the best recommendation to the committee and requested the committee's support. Chairman Arberry asked if there were further questions, comments or discussion regarding the motion. Ms. Tiffany stated for the record she intended to vote to repeal the tax with the intention of killing the bill completely. Mr. Close stated he was in favor of repealing the tax. He recognized the committee had a difficult time during the 1993-95 session in balancing the budget, and the bill was a realistic alternative at that time. However, things had changed with the unanticipated income from taxes and fees and the budget surplus. Mr. Close remarked voters wanted the legislature to prioritize where money would be spent and to know what the hard dollars were up front. He felt the legislature should have firm dollars in reference to the surplus and wished to speak against the motion. Mr. Allard stated the bill was bad tax policy. He remarked he did not mind waiting and moving in a more expeditious fashion and would like to see the tax repealed. Chairman Arberry asked if there were any further questions, comments or discussion. There being none, he called for a vote on the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Arberry requested a committee introduction of BDR S-1466 which makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for support of health service corps. * * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1466 WHICH MAKES APPROPRIATION TO UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA FOR SUPPORT OF HEALTH SERVICE CORPS. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Arberry requested an introduction of BDR S-1725 which makes appropriation to division of water resources of state department of conservation and natural resources for certain costs of litigation involving stream systems of Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers. * * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1725 WHICH MAKES APPROPRIATION TO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF LITIGATION INVOLVING STREAM SYSTEMS OF TRUCKEE, CARSON AND WALKER RIVERS. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Arberry requested an introduction of BDR S-1444 which makes a supplemental appropriation to supreme court for anticipated shortfall in revenue from administrative assessments. * * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1444 WHICH MAKES SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO SUPREME COURT FOR ANTICIPATED SHORTFALL IN REVENUE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Arberry requested an introduction of BDR S-492 which authorizes issuance of revenue bonds for construction of building for applied technology center at Truckee Meadows Community College. * * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-492 WHICH AUTHORIZES ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY CENTER AT TRUCKEE MEADOWS COMMUNITY COLLEGE. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 9:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________________ Jonnie Sue Hansen, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means February 20, 1995 Page